|
|
| New SCO 8K Documents and Minutes from Friday - Updated |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:00 PM EST
|
There are new documents filed with the SEC by SCO, which you can get from EdgarOnline. The SEC doesn't have it up yet, last I checked, or get the highlights here. [Update: Yahoo's link no longer resolves, but the SEC has it up now.] On that page, there is a link to SCO's SEC filings, and if you click on the full report for the most recent filing, you get a choice to sign up free in order to read it. Or just wait until the SEC gets it up on the public page. I will be writing about it in detail later today, but there is no reason for you to wait for that if you want to get started. The filing includes the following exhibits, which are simply eye-opening and answer the question as to why Boies was not at the hearing Friday:
* Exhibit 99.1 - Engagement Agreement dated February 26, 2003 among SCO, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Angelo, Barry & Boldt, P.A. and Berger Singerman
* Exhibit 99.2 - Letter Amending Engagement Agreement dated November 17, 2003 from Darl C. McBride, President and Chief Executive Officer of SCO, to David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
* Exhibit 99.3 - Letter Agreement dated December 8, 2003 among SCO, BayStar Capital II, L.P., Royal Bank of Canada and acknowledged by Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP The biggest surprise, to me, is that the arrangement with Boies was never a straight contingency arrangement, as I thought. It is set up that Boies gets paid no matter what. BayStar has recently hemmed Boies in just a bit, as you will see. And Darl's brother was in on the arrangment from day one. More later.
Meanwhile, the brief minutes from Friday's court hearing are also available here or just read it on Pacer. The meat of it is this: Court GRANTS motion. Plaintiff is to provide responses/affidavits within 30 days of the entry of this order. All other discovery is to be postponed until the order has been complied with. An order reflecting this ruling is to be prepared by counsel for defendant. A motion hearing is scheduled for 1/23/04 at 10:00 a.m. Court is adjourned. granting [68-1] motion to compel discovery, Motion hearing set for 10:00 1/23/04 for [66-1] motion to Compel Discovery, set for 10:00 1/23/04 for [73-1] motion strike the 5th, 15th, and 19th affirmative defenses asserted by the SCO Grp in its Answers to IBM' Amended Counterclaims, set for 10:00 1/23/04 for [83-1] motion to extend time for pla to respond to dft IBM's third set of interrogatories and third request for production of documents. This clarifies that the 30-day clock starts ticking not from Friday but from when the order is presented to the judge by IBM, which they are supposed to do tomorrow, signed by her, and entered. That's what I expected, as you'll recall, but now we know for sure.
Update: Here's SCO's press release:
SCO Finalizes Agreements With Investors and Law Firms
Lays Foundation for Shared Interest in Company's Success
LINDON, Utah, Dec 09, 2003 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced that it has finalized an agreement with institutional investors BayStar Capital Partners, II, L.P. and Royal Bank of Canada, and as previously announced, finalized its amended agreement with Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, and associated law firms, to further align the parties' interests and to maximize value for all stockholders. SCO's agreement with its institutional investors provides them a right of consent to certain company actions that would entitle the law firms to receive a contingency fee. The agreements were included as exhibits to Form 8-K that SCO filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission today.
"Our strengthened relationship and alignment of interests with Boies Schiller & Flexner will ensure that our intellectual property rights are respected while we pursue every opportunity to grow SCO's business of providing innovative UNIX-based products and services," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group.
"We look forward to continuing our work to help SCO maximize the value of its important and valuable intellectual property assets, and ensure SCO's rights are defended," said David Boies, managing partner, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP.
"We are all very pleased with the finalization of these agreements as they align the interests of SCO and all of its shareholders while adequately incenting the Company's legal firms to continue to zealously pursue the monetization of SCO's intellectual property rights," said Lawrence Goldfarb, managing partner of BayStar Capital.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements relating to SCO's efforts to protect its intellectual property rights, further align its interests with the interests of its stockholders and the law firms engaged to represent it, grow its core business and maximize value for its stockholders. These forward-looking statements are subject to the risks and uncertainties related to SCO's business as described in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
About SCO
The SCO Group, Inc.(Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com .
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJP on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:27 PM EST |
| Schedule B has an interesting phrase:
This clause, however, does not
apply to the current effort to enter into license agreements with Microsoft or
Sun Microsystems
This implies that the agreements with MS and Sun
are not yet complete, but didn't SCO book revenue from these deals? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:29 PM EST |
Motion to strike affirmative defences doesn't have anything to do with
discovery, does it? Why would the same judge hear it?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LinkJunkie on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:37 PM EST |
Wish I had more time...
I found an interesting article and I thought I
should post it before time gets away from me.
It may have been posted
before and I apologize if it has.
It can be found here at PC
Pro.
In it, Stowell discusses financial arrangements and a strange (to me
anyways) agreement where investors give green lights to lawsuits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MyPersonalOpinio on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:38 PM EST |
SEC website
-
Engagement Agreement dated February 26, 2003 among SCO,
Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Angelo, Barry & Boldt, P.A. and
Berger
Singerman
-
Letter Amending Engagement Agreement dated November 17, 2003
from
Darl C. McBride, President and Chief Executive Officer of SCO, to David
Boies of
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
-
Letter Agreement dated December 8, 2003 among SCO, BayStar
Capital
II, L.P., Royal Bank of Canada and acknowledged by Boies, Schiller &
Flexner
LLP
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 03:46 PM EST |
Not only does this
article at E-Commerce Times mention Groklaw, it almost sounds like it is
using Groklaw comments as expert opinions:
"Legal observers said it
is possible that SCO could appeal the ruling, although a more likely scenario
would be for the company to make some attempt at compliance. IBM then might ask
the court to dismiss the charges if SCO's response is not detailed
enough."
Sounds like what many people here said in the
comments!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brice on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 04:11 PM EST |
No matter what we all think of him, Darl is no fool.
We don't know the details of his golden parachute options, but Darl most
certainly has thought through the possibility of losing that chute.
Who better than a brother to catch some gold for him?
Someone in this morning's thread mentioned that not even Enron execs assigned
options to family members. I'm sure the scheme - if it is such - is highly
illegal, but if I were Darl I'd want to make sure I got my piece of the pie one
way or another. Many here are speculating that current audits will force a
restating of past profits. Darl knew this was a possibility all along. He knows
he may fail to meet his contractual obligations as CEO. I doubt he would walk
such a high wire without some sort of net. Who better than a brother to catch
him if he falls?
As far as his brother's courtly ineptness, that could either be a sign of
disarray - as we all want to see happen - or it could be a planned gambit for
unobvious reasons. Another poster days ago pointed out that Boies was trained at
Cravath et al. Then Boies, like an ungrateful son, turned his back on what many
consider the pinnacle of law firms and struck out on his own. The poster saw
Boies perhaps taking SCO's case as a way of playing lawyer's chess with his
old masters. I can see plenty of human logic in this idea. In rearefied circles
there must be only so many interesting fights to fight. Father-son is a classic.
If we for a moment look at the Boies vs. Cravath angle, is there a use for an
inept stooge like Kevin showing up as he did? The first one that comes to my
ianal mind is sowing overconfidence in the defence and or opensource community.
In any case, I doubt Kevin's appearance was unplanned. The chess players in
this game are all too highly ranked - although even Kasparov makes mistakes
sometimes.
This is such a fascinating chess game! Who is really in control at any given
moment?
P.S. PJ, thank you!
-brice[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blhseawa on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 04:50 PM EST |
As a result of SCO SEC filings, I think we are beginning to see that this is a
case of utter incompentence by quite a few characters.
The interesting thing about this drama is how many people may end up behind bars
when it is all said and done.
I respect PJ's opinion, but I've warned here before that I thought David Boies
was incompetent. I said so before and I say so again. We now have hard
evidence in these Sec filings, and in his own words that he is nothing more than
a marquee name.
I have always thought his handling the Microsoft anti-trust case was very poor,
primarily because he does not understand the technology. It has hampered him
before and it will again.
What I don't understand is why he would commit public succide by admiting that
lawsuit discussion occured *BEFORE* the filing of the SCO excutive compensation
plan. Further, to take a 20% of the investor infusion during litigation has
openned him to several potential bar investigations.
We may well be witnessing the end of David Boeis career!
I hope Kevin McBride doesn't represent his brother for his brother's sake,
when Darl McBride faces criminal charges that our now closer than ever before.
Lastly, you heard right, SCO is going to try and retry the USL/BSDI debacle all
over again. Some people never learn.
Anyway, just my HO, hats off to PJ. Great job, great site.
Thanks.
Regards,
blhseawa[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:06 PM EST |
| I normally just lurk, and this is a little off topic, but it is just so ironic
that SCO's web site continues to be hosted on
Linux/Apache.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dave Lozier on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:07 PM EST |
| PJ,
There's a story on /. involving spam being sent via Apache and I guess it's
related to geeklog?
Related
Link
Not sure what your hosting solution is here but figured I'd give a
head's up. ---
~Dave [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:13 PM EST |
http://www.globetechnology.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031209.gtscodec9/BNStory/Te
chnology/
Not sure if this was posted already or not[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:14 PM EST |
| It seems to me (IANAL, of course) that SCO will face an interesting dilemma as
it identifies the code in Linux that
allegedly infringes on SCO's code. Do they
mark it as confidential under the protective order, or not?
If they don't
mark it as confidential, it becomes public knowledge and the Linux community
will establish its provenance within days or weeks. I assume that most, if
not
all, will be found to be legitimately included in Linux, by persons who are
willing to swear in court that they wrote the code or obtained it under a valid
license. Bad news for SCO; their case goes Poof! even before the trial
starts.
If they do mark it as confidential, then they will be effectively
estopped from claiming damages on that infringement. "Well, it's like this,
Your Honor. We can't
tell the infringers what they've infringed because they'll
change it. But we want $1 billion in damages anyway." Somehow, I don't
think that will fly.
My guess is that they'll mark it as confidential, since
that postpones the day of reckoning, which is all they can hope for at this
point. But we can hope that IBM appeals the confidentiality and the judge
agrees with them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: txflamingo on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:20 PM EST |
As PJ noted, these docs are quite eye-popping. Here's what the docs tell us:
1. 3 law firms are involved, each bills their attys at 2/3s their normal billing
rates (paralegals bill at normal billing rates).
2. SCO put up a $1M retainer in Feb. Was deemed completely earned as of 10/31
(unclear whether they had to replenish it btw Feb and Oct).
3. The firms were/are entitled to 20% contingency (any billed fees or
contingency pmts would be credited against it) of:
a. any financing obtained during pendancy of litigation--the 20% is calculated
as the gross above SCO's mkt cap of $17.9M on Feb 26;
b. any dmg awards or settlement fees as a result of the litigation;
c. any licensing fees (except those related to any new products--as if there
were any);
d. the split among the firms for any $$ received under the contingency fee
arrangement is 80(Boise)/10/10.
4. When SCO closed the financing w/Baystar and the RBoC, they owed the law firms
almost $6.5M under the fee arrangement (Brother Kevin's firm *only* got $642k).
SCO "paid" the amount by issuing the firms 400k of SCO stock.
5. The law firms get to bill their attys at 100% of their normal billing rates
for any work related to the Red Hat suit or IBM's counterclaims. It is unclear
whether any of this billed time gets credited against contingency fees.
We have to assume that the firms have also received their 20% of the
"licenses" from MSFT and SUN
My take, Baystar and the RBoC are VERY unhappy. The fee arrangement specifically
calls for the lawyers to be paid in cash, but instead they accepted stock for
the fees due them as a result of the financing. I think the investors cried BS
and insisted that the firms take their "due" in stock--altho since
the stock is unrestricted, they can all cash out immediately.
Anyway, the investors now get to approve or veto ANY action (other than licenses
in the ordinary course) that could result in more contingency fees being
"earned". This means the investors have just taken control of any
and all settlement negotiations . . .[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 05:23 PM EST |
I think there may be something to learn by looking more closely at the agreement
between Boies and SCO that warrants further investigation. If I remember this
correctly (and I may be wrong) I thought that Boies was originally hired on a
contingency basis where he did not get paid unless they won the case - at least
that is the way it was portrayed in the media and armchair analysts thought that
gave great credence to their case. The thought was, if Boise would take this
case without promise of payment, then SCO must have a very strong case.
If someone here knows the answer, or can research the answer, to the following
questions:
1) Who (if anyone) originally stated that Boies was hired on a contingency
basis?
2) Are we sure that this is no longer the nature of their agreement?
If this contingency agreement is no longer the only form of payment, then it
would appear that either a)their contract has changed or b) someone lied about
the orginal agreement. While I don't think option 'b' is very likely, either
one could mean that something is very amiss.
If we dismiss the idea that anyone lied about the agreement between Boies and
SCO, that leaves the possibility that Boies (presumably) changed his contract
with SCO to include payment regardless of the outcome of the case. If that is
true, then why? Here are some possibilities:
1) Boies felt that, now that they are in the thick of things, could ask for
whatever he wanted from SCO, knowing full well that they would/could never fire
him at this point.
2) Boies felt that, even though they have a very stong case, it was going to be
much more work than he originally thought, and wanted more compensation.
3) Boies felt that their case wasn't as strong as he originally
thought/believed, and was worried that he might not get paid at all.
While it is a matter of opinion, I find it difficult to believe options 1 &
2, especially in light of the fact that he stands to inherit 20% of a company
that is supposedly poised to make billions of dollars in the next few years.
Is there anyone here that can answer the above questions with certainty or link
to news article about their agreement?
I think this says a lot about their case.
Mike A.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:00 PM EST |
Please excuse my stupidity. I read the article, the exhibits, and the comments
above, but I still do not get it. Why exactly did SCO promise 20% of $3bn to
"The Firms" (lawyers)? All that they get in return, if I am not
mistaken, is a 1/3 rate reduction for lawyers (excluding the defense side).
Everything else is paid in full (but credited against the 20%). So what did SCO
get for that 20%? Is that "business as usual" to pawn 20% of your
company to a lawyer in return for ... nothing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JAB on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 06:17 PM EST |
Has there been any thing happening on the Redhat front? I don't remember
seeing anything for quite a while.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 07:34 PM EST |
| Already submitted to Groklaw...
Who is Terry Lambert?
In his own words: FROM: Terry Lambert
DATE: 08/04/1999
13:27:52
SUBJECT: RE: Just who is Terry Lambert? > If i don`t
have my history all screwed up again. Terry Lambert was one
> of the people
behind the patchkit stuff..
>
> If I am wrong PLEASE set me straight.
I
wrote the first 386BSD FAQ.
I made the first 386BSD 0.1 kernel patch (for HP
Vectra and AT&T WGS/E boxes).
I handed the FAQ off (to David Burgess).
I
wrote the 386BSD patchkit software.
I assembled the first comprehensive set of
patches, using that
software, and hand-applying the patches.
I handed the
patchkit off (to Nate, Rod, and Jordan).
But I`d call Jordan "the fater of
FreeBSD", if you had to single
anyone out...
Terry Lambert
---
Any
opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous
employers.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in
the body of the message
Terry Lambert also worked
for Novell, as a senior employee with stock, before during and after
Novell's purchase of the UNIX code base from USL. In January 2001 Terry posted
two emails to the NETBSD-advocacy mailing list in reply to a thread on why
NetBSD and FreeBSD diverged. Both emails include details and references to
Novell's purchase Unix from USL and USL's lawsuit against UCB...
Subject: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD
diverge?
To: None
From: Terry Lambert
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 01/18/2001
09:46:13
> >> AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion
dollars in the middle
> >> of this and in reallity it was Novell that
settled. BTW, this
> >> $1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
>
>
> > Novell bought USL for $80M, which is only 8% of the
figure
> > you quote. This is the same price they charged Sun to get
>
> out of royalty payments, and the later sale of USL to SCO was
> >
nothing but gravy for them: very good ROI, in fact.
>
> The figure I'm
quoting was one I was given.
> If it is incorrect, then I need to get the
correcting
> reference. Both John and I are working on a History of BSD.
>
As such, the correct nature of facts becomes us.
>
> If you can please
Terry, and reference information, rather
> that word of mouth, would assist
us greatly.
I got "uncooked" numbers, as a senior employee with stock, so
it's
not exactly "word of mouth". 8-).
Not only that, Novell almost made 100% ROI
in one year.
> > The $1B purchase made at around the same time was
the purchase
> > of Word Perfect. Along with AppWare (another company
started
> Terry, I've forwarded this information to John as a
> possible
error in our notes.
See:
http://www.secinfo.com/dr6
nd.b43.htm#191stPage
The $268.7 includes a $9.4M debt assumption,
does not include
the $80.5M Sun paid, does not include net sales by USL,
and
the value of the Novell stock at the time the transaction
actually went
through.
I guess you could subtract out the earlier "investment in USL",
which
was actually a stock swap so that both companies had
some skin in the game over
Univel, so I think it shouldn't
count as anything but a $17M paper
cost.
See also pg193 for income figures (you have to multiply the
missing
percentage, but it's simple algebra):
http://www.secinfo.com/dr6
nd.b43.htm#193rdPage
Not including the overvaluation, the cost was
$178.8M. If
you include what Word Perfect did to the Novell stock, the
cost
drops to about $87.3M; I guess it depends on how you
want to cook the
books...
For more more fun, look at the 1992 numbers for the VAX/VMS
deal; I
was one of 3 engineers responsible for that nice $15M
number. Robert
Withrow, also a FreeBSD person, was on the
DEC side of that deal, as their
primary (IMO) engineering
contribution...
I figure that I personally paid for
almost 6% of the USL
purchase with around one year of work, and between the 3
of
us, it was over 17%.
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any
opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous
employers.
Also
Subject: Re: Why did
NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge?
To: None
From: Terry
Lambert
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 01/18/2001
07:28:13
More corrections...
> When NetBSD broke off it was considered
militant. The was partly
> because Chris Demitrious did not get along with
people. Other people
> were upset becuase their patches (submissions to the
patchkit effort)
> were not accept. There was much ill feelings. Chris is now
a different
> person, I think he learned things. Those other peoples are
now
> the core team at NetBSD.
There were some patches released in patchkit
format (reverse
engineered) that ignored the need to serialize operations.
I
think that after the people who did this had "Makefile"s
explained to them,
and were offered the real patchkit tools,
the conflict problems went away.
NetBSD was (per my other
posting) mostly people who were tired of waiting, and
thought
progress was too slow, and weren't willing to leave it in what
they
percieved as "too slow" hands. Let's be honest: it's
still "too slow" for some
of us... no matter what camp we are
currently in.
> AT&T also added
pressure at the time by claiming Unix was a
> National (treasure??) and
therefore should be consider un-exportable.
AT&T (USL) tried to claim trade
secret status for UNIX; BSD
Net/2 contained the components they were complaining
about,
but following disclosure, they had no trade secret status.
UCB was not
accountable anyway, since the code derived from
code licensed without
non-disclosure clauses, under the old
Western Electric license. UCB EECS in
fact did not renew
their UNIX license when the Western Electric license
changed
to prohibit disclosure, so the cat was already out of the bag,
even if
one ignores the Lions book, published by the University
of New South Wales,
under the same Western Electric license,
lacking a non-disclosure
requirement.
AT&T was, in fact, under a consent decree based on an
antitrust
action under the Sherman Antitrust act, preceeding the breakup
(the
"Judge Green Decision"), prohibited from making money on
software, or of
obtaining any intellectual property protection
for UNIX,
whatsoever.
Technically, then, the "harm", even if provably real,
wasn't
monetarily recoverable; a circuit court judge basically said
that, when
he admonished USL about their attempt at a restraining
order. The part that got
the press, though was when he called
their claims frivolous on trade secret
grounds.
I never heard the export issue, but I would think that if it
were an
issue, it would be a National Security issue, not an
issue of national
propriety, since UNIX was used in most of
the digital telephone switches
manufactured, particularly
those from Northern Telecom and AT&T. These
switches were
sold outside the US at the time, anyway.
Mostly, USL continued
the suit out of a risk-reward calculation
(IMO), and it escalated to places
other than BSDI because of
early briefs filing for summary dismissal on the
basis of
"failure to exercise due dilligence" (basically, some people
who I
believe are long gone from BSDI "hid behind" UCB when the
bully came out to beat
them up [an overreaction to the "yo mama"
of the "1-800-ITS-UNIX" phone
number])
> AT&T sold Unix to Novell for $1 Billion dollars in the
middle
> of this and in reallity it was Novell that settled. BTW, this
>
$1B almost bankrupted(sp?) Novell.
Novell bought USL for $80M, which is
only 8% of the figure
you quote. This is the same price they charged Sun to
get
out of royalty payments, and the later sale of USL to SCO was
nothing but
gravy for them: very good ROI, in fact.
Novell settled because it was a P.R.
nightmare, and many of
the "Novell USG - UNIX Systems Group" and now dissociated
Bell
Labs people, including Dennis Ritchie, threatened to testify or
file Amicus
Curie briefs on behalf of UCB, totally undermining
USL's legal case.
The
$1B purchase made at around the same time was the purchase
of Word Perfect.
Along with AppWare (another company started
with finding from the Noorda Family
Trust, and later purchased
by Novell), which provided Novell with "COM" and
"DCOM"-like
technology, any the purchase of spreadsheet software from
Borland,
this was Novell's entry into competition with Microsoft. The
AppWare
purchase triggered the others, since Novell found out
that third party companies
would not voluntarily commoditize
their software into invisible non-logo'ed
component-ware, unless
you bought them and forced them to do it (or you were
able to
wield monopolistic power in the marketplace to force them to do
it, as
Microsoft later did with COM).
The reason the purchase was such a bone-head
move was that it was
the first time that a company had used the well-known
Novell
company valuation benchmark (PPE - Profit Per Employee) to
inflate their
apparent value to astronomical heights. In order
to do this, Word Perfect
cancelled free support, cancelled all
forward looking products, all pen-based
products, all marginal
products (like post 4.2 for UNIX and VMS), etc., and then
let
those employees go. Cutting your workforce nearly in half at
the end of a
corporate fiscal year does wonders for PPE (if
you can't change the numerator,
change the denominator). Don't
think that Novell didn't learn from this: big
does not necessarily
equal stupid.
Novell was (and still is) a pretty shrewd
company; any company
that sticks around for any real length of time, and
outlives
the initial cult-of-personality that started it by a
management
generation plus one, is probably in it for the long haul.
It's
definitely on my "hold" list, and I'm likely to upgrade it, if
the price
continues to stay low with the current P/E ratio for
much longer (and I can get
it for the price of a fractional long
term capital gains cash-out of some other
investments ;-))...
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any
opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous
employers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sam on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 08:24 PM EST |
The filing says he works at Angelo, Barry & Boldt.
A google search turns up http://www.angelo-law.com/terms.php
The home page is called Angelo, Barry & Banta in Florida.
NWfusion also says, "Kevin McBride, the brother of SCO CEO Darl McBride
and a lawyer with the law firm Angelo Barry & Banta PC."
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1205scoibm.html?fsrc=netflash-rss
There is no Mcbride on the roster.
E-week says "Kevin McBride, according to West Legal Directory, has a
private practice in nearby Park City, Utah, where he specializes in litigation
and appeals, not corporate-contract or intellectual-property law."
http://www.eweek.com/print_article/0,3048,a=114023,00.asp
There is no office of Angelo Barry anything in SLC nor is there a Kevin Mcbride
in the Phone Book and can't find him in online directories.
There's a Kevin McBride listed with the Utah Bar in downtown Salt Lake City:
KEVIN P MCBRIDE
299 S MAIN ST STE 1700
SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84111
Voice Telephone: (801) 534-4424
FAX: -not listed-
Email: mcbride@bellsouth.net
Membership Information
Bar ID 04494
Status Active
Date Admitted 05/03/1985
Ethics CLE 0
http://www.utahbar.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi
If this is the same, why did Brent Hatch have to sit at the table with him?
When you call the number above, you get a recording (it's after hours)
"The Law Office of Kevin McBride" and sounds like it's a private
practice.
Was he fired? Are the partners of Angelo Barry smarter than Boies? Did he quit
to follow his brother's pie-in-the-sky?
I guess tomorrow I'll just call the two phone numbers and see. They're closed
now.
Just food for thought.
With these guys you have to check everything. Even the press doesn't have the
facts straight.
I'd kinda like to know his actual legal background....just for laughs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 09:11 PM EST |
So, perhaps SCO will notify the court it is represented by new counsel. And ask
the court for a stay in the proceedings until the new counsel gets up to
speed?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mmunoz on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 10:32 PM EST |
I followed this legal battle for a while, and I think I have learned a lot about
the US legal system.
As I understand, SCO is trying to get money of the end users of linux because
their IP was "stolen". Acording to many people that has made
comments here on groklaw, this is nonsense because the end user can not be held
responsible for this.
On the other hand IBM has filed a counter suit against SCO on the basis of
violation of patents. If IBM win this demand, will end users of SCO be forced
to pay IBM royalties for the use of their patents?
I´m not a native english speaker, so please forgive me if I wrote something in a
wrong way.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 09 2003 @ 11:17 PM EST |
It's sad to see Darl still bluffing, while in deep shit. I feel sorry for him
... poor guy![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Wednesday, December 10 2003 @ 07:04 PM EST |
A hedge consists of 2 contrary positions. You are out of risk until you finalize
one side of the position.
http://www.rbcfunds.com/information/fund_profiles.html
Royal Bank of Canada RBC holds portfolios in Microsoft in the following funds
mentioned below, where the percentage of Microsoft Corp. equity makes it to the
list of the top 10 held equities for that fund:
RBC Top 10 holdings in Funds below include Microsoft:
RBC U.S. Equity Fund
RBC U.S. Index Fund
RBC U.S. RSP Index Fund
RBC Life Sciences and Technology Fund
If I were Microsoft, and I considered Linux a thorn in my side, I would find out
who my biggest investors are and get them to invest in SCO. I would argue that
if SCO/UNIX does well in the world, this would hedge the Microsoft equity
position, since UNIX and Microsoft are contrary positions. If the one does well,
the other would do poorly. I would also argue that at the same time as this
could be considered a 'hedge', if SCO defeats the Linux crowd, this would be a
'win' for Microsoft and the Microsoft holdings would increase in value.
I don't know of anything about this that is illegal. However, the danger is
clear that a convicted monopoly that has numerous shareholders can exert an
enormous amount of market pressure on the 'competition' by what could be
called 'back-door investing'. Microsoft knows its shareholders; they are
registered. It simply contacts them and discusses the 'risks' of a Microsoft
investment and how these 'risks' could be minimized.
Remember too that Royce Associates has invested in SCO and may own as much as
10%. This would be another logical place to look for Microsoft influence.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
