|
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:42 PM EST |
QUESTION:
What is the projected End-User Linux License Revenue going to be the next
quarter?
The reason for this question is that I d not believe it has an answer, so it
will be fun to watch (listen) the side-step-dancing...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fjaffe on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:47 PM EST |
Precisely what license rights did Microsoft and Sun obtain for their
multi-million dollar fees, and does SCO have any proof that these license
transactions were not shams merely to provide SCO funding to pursue its lawsuit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rand on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:47 PM EST |
How far along are you in producing the documents required by the court order of
December 12th?
or better
Has your legal team produced any of the documents required by the December 12th
court order, and if not, when do they plan to start producing them?
---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first
to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fjaffe on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:49 PM EST |
Since SCO has recently claimed plans to sue end-users, why should we believe
that there is no "controversy" to form the basis of the Red Hat
lawsuit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: koa on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:52 PM EST |
QUESTION:
At what point do they expect David Boies to enter a statement to the public or
the court? Will we be expecting Kevin McBride to be doing all the talking and
David doing all the paperwork?
---
...move along...nothing to see here...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:53 PM EST |
What is the status of the Caldera IPO Shareholder suit?
Any ongoing legal expenses associated with it?
Any settlement options being discussed?
Which legal firm handles this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:02 PM EST |
Question:
What is the total number of shares of SCO stock today?
If needed, can SCO simply create more shares and issue them?
How do the current stockholders feel about their owned stock
being diluted in that fashion?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it."
-- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: penfold on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:03 PM EST |
Is there any open source code in your properitery Unix products? Considering the
company's history of developing both open source and properitary products, what
measures do you have in place to ensure code from one doesn't contaminate the
other?
I am interested in this because I remember reading some people were suspicious
of thei LKP module, and as far as I know, SCO never acknowledged the allegation,
much less answered yes or no.
We have heard (long before the lawsuit) about the measures IBM has in place, and
after reading the article about SCO open source development I would like to hear
about SCO's measures.
---
I'm not kidding, that boy's head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at
parts! He'll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:03 PM EST |
How does the rest of the SCO Board of Directors feel about how the SCO vs IBM
lawsuit has been handled so far?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee,
"Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:12 PM EST |
QUESTION:
<sarcasm>
Who is your current CTO ?
</sarcasm>
<serious>
Assuming that SCO still intends to be a player in the OS market (with upcoming
OpenServer version and new push into Web Services), what should a prospective
investor or customer make of the fact that SCO's developments staff is
currently is only {$insert_figure_here} percent of the company, and the company
currently lacks a CTO (and this for $months months now) ?
</serious>
l0t3k[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:13 PM EST |
Unfortunately all the questions I can think of to ask sound like obvious trolls
("What's wrong with you guys?"). Ideally there would be some
questions that would make the analysts listening in start thinking that maybe
there are things SCO and their friends in the media aren't telling us.
Here's one possibility: "You were ordered by Magistrate Justice Wells to
identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that you are claiming
form the basis of your action against IBM. How many such lines of code have you
identified so far, and based on this preliminary number how many do you expect
to submit by the 11th of January?"
First off, this should plant in peoples' minds that SCO was being ordered to do
this, and it wasn't just a coin toss. Second, if they do any weasel wording at
all, it's going to look bad. I find it inconceivable that in a case like this,
the CEO of the company would not want a status report every single morning on
how the code discovery was going -- unless, of course, there was nothing to
discover, and he knew it.
And third, maybe, just maybe, any kind of non-specific response would help
mitigate any boost the stock price might get from any good spin^Wnews given at
the conference call. (It was down over 1% again today, I notice. A good start.)
---
The clock is ticking, SCO. January 11th. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DH on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:16 PM EST |
What is your schedule for the introduction of Wireless LAN, especially in the
POS sector?
Will you offer Open Server and Unix Ware for AMD64 Servers, and if so when will
they full support AMD's 64 Bit features?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Lev on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:17 PM EST |
Should you succeed in invalidating the GPL in courts, do you plan to remove GPL
software, such as Samba, from your products? If yes, what is the projected
effect on your revenue in that scenario?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- mod up! - Authored by: jiri on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:15 PM EST
- mod up! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:22 PM EST
- What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday? - Authored by: myklgrant on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:57 PM EST
- Almost perfect, but... - Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:47 AM EST
- Almost perfect, but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:31 AM EST
- Nice. - Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:54 AM EST
- Nice. - Authored by: k12linux on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:38 AM EST
- Almost perfect, but... - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Almost perfect, but... - Authored by: sphealey on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:43 PM EST
- Nice... some further thoughts. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:53 PM EST
- SCOs answer to this - Authored by: minkwe on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Almost perfect, but... - Authored by: Sten on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:15 PM EST
- What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:44 AM EST
- What Would You Like to Ask SCO on Monday? - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:11 AM EST
- Missing the point! SCO sez GPL==PD! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 06:39 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:18 PM EST |
Hi, Darl. You're brother Kevin recently represented SCO at the discovery
hearing with IBM on Dec. 5. Is he on contingency also, and, if so, what is the
arrangement for that? If not, what payment arrangement does SCO have with Kevin?
It seems unusual, to say the least, for a company with David Boies as its lawyer
to instead send the CEO's brother to a hearing against IBM. Would you care to
comment on that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fcw on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:18 PM EST |
When will you be filing the additional suit against IBM that Mr McBride
announced to the court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:33 PM EST |
Do you intend to comply with the recent cort order to provide IBM a detailed
list of infringing source code?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST |
| "Just what do you think you're doing, Darl...?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST |
Stonewalling has hurt you in court. It has villianized you before the Open
Source comunity and more and more the general public. It will also eviscerate
any claim for damages should you prove infringement in Court. Why are you doing
it?
---
webster
Recent Windows refugee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rweiler on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:37 PM EST |
Given that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of research papers on SMP,
NUMA, and RCU, how do you expect to show that these technologies were secret?
How do expect to show that Linux developers could not have added these features
without IBM's help?
Does SCO hold any patents on SMP, NUMA, or RCU technologies?
When is the next non-blackout period during which SCO insiders will be allowed
to sell their shares?
Do you expect any future licensing revenue from Microsoft and Sun, and if so,
when, how much, and under what circumstances?
Given that the value of the Linux franchise has been dwindling rapidly over
time, and that licenses for a large prercentage of expected future earnings had
been sold by Novell long before Caldera acquired SCO, how did you arrive at a
valuation of 1 billion for the rights you hold today?
Given that it has been shown that SCO's noncompete clause with Novell expired
upon change of ownership, have you reconsidered your intent to sue Novell for
violating that clause?
---
Sometimes the measured use of force is the only thing that keeps the world from
being ruled by force. -- G. W. Bush
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linux Franchise? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:36 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: snorpus on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:42 PM EST |
| Mr. McBride,
I have two questions, sir:
1) Since you have become
CEO of SCO, you have concentrated on "monetizing" SCO's Intellectual Property
(patents, copyrights, and trade secrets). Why did you choose that course,
instead of turning that IP into marketable products?
2) At one time,
the predecessor companies to SCO made significant contributions to Linux, and
were regarded as respected memmbers of the F/OSS community. In less than a year,
you have managed to turn the remnants of 'old SCO" into a joke in the *nix
community.How do you intend, long term, to regain the trust of the *nix
community, or are you pinning your long term hopes on the "Linux licenses",
which become value-less once you afford the Linux community the opportunity to
"mitigate the damages".
---
73/88 de KQ3T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: D. on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:45 PM EST |
1) In FY2003 what percentage of SCOsource revenue came from Unix licesencing? Is
this revenue one time or recurring?
2) What is the legal specialty of (a)David Boies, (b) Mark Heisse, (c) Kevin
McBride, (d) Mr. Hatch.
3) In FY2003 what percentage of continuing operations revenues came from
OpenServer, UnixWare, all other software products?
4) Have you started rolling production of all documents ordered by Judge Wells?
5) How many software developers does the SCO Group, employ? How many are charged
with continuing development of (a) OpenServer? (b)UnixWare?, (c)All other
software products?
6) Does the SCO Group outsource software development? If so, where is this
outsourced development performed?
D.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:46 PM EST |
You keep saying that you are about to start suing Linux users. When are you
going to actually file such a suit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:48 PM EST |
1. At the November 19 Teleconference, the word contigency was used more than a
dozen times to describe the agreements between SCO and it's Legal team.
Then, on December 8, 2003 SCO filed an 8-K with the SEC, that more accurately
describes how the legal team will be paid.
In hindsight, would you still refer to the agreement, which was signed after the
November 19 teleconference, as a contingency plan?
2. Can you please elaborate on the veto granted to the RBC and Baystar
Investors as defined in the December 8, 2003 8-k SEC Filings?
Can this veto power prevent SCO from filing and new lawsuits, or is it limited
to approving any fees paid to the legal teams?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:57 PM EST |
You have claimed that the GPL is unconstitutional. Given that the constitution
grants copyright protection to authors to control distribution of their works,
how can you justify your view?
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there" - Will Rogers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:00 PM EST |
What happens to a GPL'd work once the underlying copyright expires? (I know, it
never will at the rate we are going.)
Like any other work, it becomes public domain, no?
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there" - Will Rogers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pyrite on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:01 PM EST |
Have you ever considered open sourcing the System V code? If not, why not? Do
you forsee any point in the distant, or not so distant future, where this might
be a possibility?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Are you crazy? - Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:10 AM EST
- Open Source - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:20 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:04 PM EST |
That's it! We get it through Darl McBride's thick skull that copyright
extensions are evil because they perpetuate the anti-American GPL's force. Then
we refocus his evil energy on the politicos to get the copyright extensions
rolled back, so he can get his mits on Samba in 40 rather than 75 years! Ya
think?
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit
there" - Will Rogers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hamjudo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:05 PM EST |
| Let's avoid questions that are easy to avoid or have easy information
free
answers. We can also list possible excuses here.
If the press can say "as
predicted on Groklaw, they used excuses
14, 23 and 47", then they are less
likely to use them.
On the other hand, some excuses are
probably justified.
So, this isn't the right venue to ask those questions.
Excuses, please add
more, or reword for better effect.
- We have no more questions.
-
Sorry, bad connection.
- We ran out of time.
- The phone system is being
attacked.
- We can't answer that, attorney/client privilege.
- We can't
comment on an ongoing court case.
- We don't have the data with us.
- The
answer would take too long.
- Our new CTO will answer that, once we hire
one.
- We'd like to plead the fifth
- Executive compensation plans are
competive, but the actual details are private
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:12 PM EST |
It has been well documented that several key contributions to the Linux kernel
involving SMP technologies, which among others you claim is a function
improperly added to Linux, were done so by a former SCO employee, Tigran
Aivazian, with the full knowledge and support of his superiors while at SCO.
Would you care to either acknowledge or repudiate that his contributions of this
functionality were done so with the approval of SCO management?
---
LINUX - Visibly superior![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:14 PM EST |
Why give them wiggle room at all? Be direct.
Why did SCO lie about their intentions to coutersue Red
Hat in a press release?
Why did SCO lie about their intentions and rights to audit
AIX users?
Why did SCO settle against LinuxTag if they had proof that
code was copied from Unix into Linux?
Why won't SCO sell linux licenses even when they have
people willing to pay for them since this is revenue and
instead do a PIPE deal with Baystar?
If you give them any room to make statements about how
they "feel" something is going, they are just going to lie
about it. Ask them directly about their actions
contradicting their statements. If you don't pin them
down, they'll just ooze out of your grip. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:20 PM EST |
Ask the directly why they are continuing to use Open Source code in their
products and why they are blatantly violating the GPL license? How is it that
they feel it is completely ethical and legal to use software such as Apache,
Samba and others while challenging the legality of that same exact GPL license.
---
Bill Catz -
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to ten, with more
expected." -- UNIX Programmers Manual, 2nd Ed. June, 1972[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pbarritt on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:22 PM EST |
Many of the issues in the lawsuit seem to come from the
work done by the members of Project Monterey. Since several
of the contracts, agreements and side letters pertaining to
ownership of the UNIX code base have been entered as exhibits,
do you plan to enter any of the Project Monterey agreements
as exhibits and if so, when will that occur?
Can you tell us the current status of Project Monterey and
name the current participating members?
---
bash: fortune: unexpected end of life...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nathan Hand on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:23 PM EST |
Q: SCO has asserted that the General Public License, as used by the Linux
kernel, is preempted by federal copyright law. Under what license is SCO
distributing the Samba software product?
Q: SCO owns no patents, trademarks
or trade secrets related to Linux or UNIX. Which intellectual property laws does
SCO intend to enforce against end-users so as to charge them licensing
fees?
Q: The Linux copyright owners (eg, Linus Torvalds) have repeatedly
stated that they want disputed code removed from Linux so it can remain as a
free software product. What steps will SCO be taking to effect the speedy and
complete removal of the disputed code from Linux?
Q: SCO has accused Linux
developers of not respecting SCO's intellectual property. How does SCO respond
to claims that SCO is not respecting the intellectual property of Linux
developers such as Linus Torvalds?
Q: The General Public License, as used by
the Linux kernel, is incompatible with the licensing arrangement that SCO has
created; the GPL does not permit binary-only licensing. How does SCO intend to
resolve this licensing conflict?
Q: SCO has accused Linux developers of
"stealing" UNIX methods such as RCU. How does SCO respond to observations by
industry analysts that none of SCO's products actually use the RCU method? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:25 PM EST |
Do you intend on remaining commited to the UnitedLinux consortium, especially in
view of Novell's planned purchase of SuSe?
Scott
---
LINUX - Visibly superior![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Boring? - Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:19 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: trox on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:30 PM EST |
| Since a valid answer to anything case related is not going to happen, I would
like to ask how much they like PJ right about now.
Don't worry PJ
likes/loves come and go but respect lasts forever! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:31 PM EST |
What I would "like" to ask:
How would you feel if you developed part of the Linux kernel and a Utah claim
jumper showed up and demanded payment for your hard work, somnething they did
not own.
What I would ask:
Is there any chance SCO will drop this claim of Linux and rejoin the open source
movement.
(Turn away from the dark side)
Why did your finance dept quit?
(Got a little SEC audit?)
Does SCO intend to indemnify users of SCO software products against lawsuits
from IBM patent violations?
Ok, so, I cannot come up with any valid questions.
I am not sure I would really want to speak to SCO at all.
We all have seen the way SCO twists any statement to satisfy their own warped
view of the world, Why ask SCO anything.
I just needed to rant.
I guess we should all pray for SCO to see the error of their ways, or barring
that pray for their souls.
(This IS Christmas after all)
As Tiny Tim said:"God Bless us, every one"
ps: PJ you ROCK!
---
Norman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:35 PM EST |
| I have a question concerning copyright infringements.
Darl McBride, on
2003-07-21, stated that
"Although it started off as a contracts problem,
as we've gone in and done our full analysis of the code base, it is very clear
that we have a copyright problem with the code that's in Linux
today."
If we fast forward to Dec 5, Kevin McBride stated to Judge
Wells:
"Your Honor, I will proffer to the Court
that we are filing a
second amended complaint that has copyright
infringement claims, and will be
filed within the coming few days or no less
than a week"
Have you filed
an amended complaint to include copyright infringement?
Why has it taken
so long for SCO to address copyright claims in the IBM case? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: miss_cleo_psy4u on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:35 PM EST |
We haven't heard anything more on SGI since fall.
Are the issues SCO had with SGI all settled now?
Has SCO stopped pursing the revocation of SGI's Unix license?
Followup:
We understand that SGI did a massive code review and only
found a small set of code which might have a potential to be
interpreted as infringing, but they removed them anyway.
If SGI was cleared, does this mean Red Hat can assume SCO
has no controversy with them and that SCO has no reason to
pursue litigation agains them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: p0ssum on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:41 PM EST |
Recent developments in Florida have found David Boies the target of ethics
charges leveled by a judge. Does this at all shake your confidence in the lawyer
you have chosen to lead your IP infringment claims?
---
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and
those that do not.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:43 PM EST |
Since SCO has stated their intent to attempt to extort monies from owners of
Linux based on decades-old claims of IP infringement, and since SCO continues to
distribute copies of the software that they say infringes, will SCO be willing
to indemnify SCO's customers from similar actions from other companies that may
discover similar properties?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jtsteward on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:45 PM EST |
A couple serious, a couple sarcastic
1. What where you thinking?
2. Did you ever think about reducing the price of Unixware/OpenServer to
compete? The street price of UnixWare and OpenServer are about 4 times the price
as Solaris X86.
3. Assuming you are in business when all litagation is complete, do you intend
to distribute Linux in the future?
4. Did you ever consider a 1 price license structure for Unixware/OpenServer? I
checked pricing and building a system with all the proper options was difficult
at best.
5. Why did the web site change so much during the rumored DDOS attack?
6. Why did the Linux source disapear from the FTP site during same rumored
attack?
7. Why do you still distribute Skunkware and other F/OSS software?
8. Can you show the source for the LKP, please?
9 If you want your day in court why are you ducking RedHat?
10. What where you thinking?
11. Did Sun and MS rollover when you said pay us 25 mil or we will sue? I assume
the answer is yes. Did you try the same thing with IBM, thinking they would pay
you 25 mil also? When they balked did you threaten AIX thinking they would not
chance losing the customer base using AIX? Did you poop your pants when they did
not settle when you filed suit, and countersued on top of that?
11a. Do you have nightmares of IBM lawyers darkening the sky over Utah?
ALSO, the SCOX board on yahoo mentioned that they got Groklawed!
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=73614&thr=73592&cur=73592&dir
=d
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:45 PM EST |
SCO has named JFS as one of the technologies that IBM contributed improperly to
Linux. Since the Linux version of JFS was originally developed for OS/2, does
SCO regard OS/2 as a derivative of Unix? If so, how will SCO monetize that
claim?
Scott McKellar
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:03 PM EST |
| Me??
"Given that all your Vice Presidents -- all company "insiders -- have been
selling off there SCO holdings as well as cashing in their stock options do
you, your Vice Presidents, your Board of Directors, or anyone associated with
either SCO Group or Canapy know of any ongoing SEC investigation concerning
illegal Insider Stock Trading? YES or NO" And if his tone was too
strident oe questioning I'd then follow it up with, "So you are denying
that you have NO knowledge that the SEC is conducting an
investigation in SCO's insider trading actions?"
This question is designed to
try and shake the tree so to speak to see if there is indeed an ongoing SEC
investigation that is going on. The way this question gets answered would indeed
be a clue.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Insider Trading - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:24 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:08 PM EST |
Analyists and users of SCO operating systems have noted the apparent shift from
software development towards litigation. SCO has given decision making powers
to parties outside the software business as a result of all this legal
activity.
Will SCO's Unix products continue to be developed? Has SCO experienced any
decline in 3rd party relationships with other companies? What about SCO today
should make SCO Unix customers decline to prepair a three year exit strategy
from SCO as has been recommended by analyists. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ask SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:20 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:08 PM EST |
When do you plan on initiating lawsuits against end users of Linux, and how does
this fit in with the provisions of the GPL?
---
-What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: roxyb on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:20 PM EST |
- Could you please clarify the relationship your
different Law
firms have to each other regarding roles,
subordination and payment of fees
from SCO as well as who
is representing whom in what litigation?
- Is the dispute with Novell (regarding copyrghts,
patents and ownership)
settled so that both parties have
an agreement?
- What percentage
of revenues do you forecast will be
based on SCOSource licensing in the next
three year
period?
- Do you consider Services as a way forward for
SCO?
- Does it exist a contingency plan in the event that the
current lawsuits are lost? If yes, could we have a three
year forecast for
such a scenario?
Roland Buresund ---
--
I'm Still Standing...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blang on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:34 PM EST |
Remember that almost all of these analysts are financial types.
They don't care much about the intricacies of the lawsuit, or if Darl is good
or evil or if SCO is going to kill linux or not.
I would focus on the amandments to the 50 million loan agreements, and the
surrounding accounting, some of the insider trading. Especially it would be nice
to bring to the light the contradicting information about when the insiders knew
what, regarding these options grants, and litigation plans.
Why did they need 2 extra weeks figure out the booking of the PIPE and the Boies
"contigency"? Isn't a PIPE more like a loan (with dividend). Did
RBC agree that such a placement could be consider a stock sale? Did RBC object
to Boies receiving a 20% of every dollar coming into SCO related to IP rights?
Why did they early on state that Boies had the case on contigency, but it later
turned out that Boies & Co were billing at a 33% discounted rate. Why was
this not announced on the press conference where that expanded
"partnership" was announced?
Is RBC and Boies really in agreement about the new rules? Refer to Boies
response to the changes, which were far from assertive.
Did RBC & Co know about the nature of these contigencies before offering the
PIPE financing?
Then have a round about insider sales.
Especially regarding the generous grants of options just before SCO started the
ball rolling. And also the timing.
When did insiders know that there was ging to be litigation?
When did SCO first contact Boies & co to talk about this IP litigation.
A press release earlier this year stated that executives were selling options to
offset tax expenses. Exactly how much taxes is mr Bench owing?
Has there been ANY (as much as one) serious request from companies to sign on
with SCOS new linux licencing scheme?
Will legal expenses incurred during the SCOsource program also be billed at the
33% discounted rate?
What is the currently hourly rate being billed by Boies & Co, and how many
hours does SCO expect to use for going after SCOsource licenses? What is the
current run rate of the non-IBM related legal expenses?
BS stated recently in the press that SCOG had been granted confidentiality in
court regarding the infringing linux code. Were these statements based on a
recent contact/agreement with the magistrate court, or was he just referring to
the standard agreements that were drawn up before discovery started?
How is discovery going?
Does SCO feel confident that they will be able to provide discovery within those
30 days according to the motions that IBM were granted, or is SCO going to
present documentation on why they can't comply?
Then to Darl's compensation:
There are rewards to be granted McBride in case of 4 subsequent profitable
quarters. Do you expect this to happen soon? And specifically, are we talking
about operating profit (excluding one time items such as the MS license) ,
proforma earnings, or GAAP ernings?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:37 PM EST |
Quite simple, actually.
Please identify one line of code, by file and line number, in Linux that
undeniably, inescapably, absolutely belongs to SCO and was provably put in
Linux without SCO's permission in a traceable manner.
You've said there are millions. You said you're confident you're going to win
billions in damages. It'll cost you so very little, and you will gain so much
positive PR to counteract the negative vibes you've been spewing everywhere.
You can't buy better advertising than that for ten times the money.
Just one line.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: aaron on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:39 PM EST |
Question:
SCO claims that the GPL is invalid. The GPL is a grant which functions as
a lessening of the strictures of copyright. If the GPL is invalid, under
whose authority is SCO distributing code, e.g. Samba, for which they
nether own the copyright nor are otherwise licensed to reproduce or
distribute?
-aaron[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: John on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:41 PM EST |
If SCO is so confident that it can demonstrate that its IP has been stolen by
IBM and the Linux community, why is it that all its insider trading since June
has been only sales totalling about $3.8 millions.
According to http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX
Reginald Charles Broughton, Senior Vice President
18 transactions about $1,431,200
Michael P. Olson, Vice President
11 transactions about $924,734
Larry Gasparro, Vice President
3 transactions about $484,659
Robert K Bench, chief financial officer
5 transactions about $448,180
Jeff F. Hunsaker, Vice president
6 transactions about $350,000
Michael Sean Wilson
4 transactions about $136,920
In all, 57 insider transactions since June, every one a divestiture. This looks
suspicious, do you know something we don't? Are you expecting the share price
to crash soon?
---
JJJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jtsteward on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:00 PM EST |
You have indicated that 20% of the code is owned by SCO
That means that $139.80 of a $699 license is yours.
What do you plan to do with the other $559.20?
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:02 PM EST |
Question: Why won't you be open and honest with the Linux kernel and open
source community in outlining each and every supposéd IP infringement? We
don't want your code (if it is in there as you suggest).
Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:06 PM EST |
| Here is a question:
"Inasmuch as LINUX is a PUBIC operating system;
and inasmuch as you have publicly threatened to sue an enduser; and inasmuch
that the end user has a right to DEFEND him/her/it-self; and inasmuch
that anyone has acces the sourcecode; and inasmuch as anyone can recompile the
kernal so as to remove any questionable files that you alledge contains your
"valuable" IP so as to produce a CUSTOM kernel that contains NONE
of your IP; and inasmuch part of you complaint against IBM is based on tort
law which requires that YOU provide the person or organization advanced
notification to allow them a chance to REMOVE the infringing code
in question; and inasmuch as you have FAILED to provide the PUBLIC
the chance to remove to offending code so that they can AVIOD costly
litigation; and inasmuch as you willing and knowingly distributed LINUX under
the GPL, and still do as well as other GPLed software to which the PUBLIC has
code access; and inasmuch as you have made available to analysts -- some who did
not sign your draconian NDA -- and thus the PUBLIC press; PLEASE
EXPLAIN YOUR RATIONAL FOR NOT ALLOWING THE PUBLIC ACCESS WITH SPECIFICTY TO THE
FILES AND LINES OF CODE IN QUESTION SO THAT THEY AS WELL AS YOU CAN AVIOD COSTLY
LITIGATION?" WHY ARE YOU INSISTING ON BARING THE PUBLIC TO THE HEARING ON A HIGH
PROFILE CASE IN WHICH THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE AND VESTED INTEREST BY REQUESTING
THAT THE CODE AND ALL MATTERS IN REGARDS TO THE CODE, BE PLACED UNDER A
PROTECTIVE ORDER? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:06 PM EST |
Question:
If,as you say the GPL is unconstitional, why is SCO still offering Linux and
open source products under a GPL license? If you contend that the GPL is
unconstitutional and bad for proprietary business and you are absolutely certain
that you are legally right, then why not put your money where your mouth is and
distribute all of the open sourced GPL software that SCO currently sells to the
public and businesses with the GPL copyright stripped?
Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mflaster on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:14 PM EST |
I think that coming up with a question that an analyst might actually ask is
pretty difficult. Nothing confrontational will work. ("Why is everything
that comes out of your mouth a lie?" :-) ) Also, anything
attacking/questioning the case won't work. ("That's in the hands of our
lawyers. I'm very confident in our position. I can't further comment on it
now.")
The thing I can think of that might be the most enjoyable to explore would be
the idea that SCO is presenting, that they've gotten a bunch of SCOsource
revenue, and they expect the amount to continue to grow in a predictable
fashion.
1. What percentage of your SCOsource revenue to date has been from Sun and
Microsoft?
Even though we all know the answer to this, and it seems obvious, getting them
to answer this at the conference might be the most damaging thing we can get
them to say...
2. (Some question to point out that the Sun/Microsoft money has nothing to do
with Linux.) Was the Sun and Microsoft revenue related to their Linux
installations? If so, what percent?
3. Going forward, do you expect increasing revenues from Sun/Microsoft,
decreasing revenues, or none?
4. Can you give us some guidance on SCOsource revenue for Q1?
I think just generally getting them to talk about SCOsource is a good idea.
It's very important to financial analysts. After all, it's being presented as
a major portion of SCO's revenue going forward. So I think it's very
reasonable for analysts to ask about it. And I think that SCO can't put a good
spin on it...
Mike
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BrianW on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:16 PM EST |
By what legal theory, other than that you simply feel entitled, do you claim to
be able to charge Linux users a license fee without first having proved
infringement of your IP in a court of law?
Followup: By what legal theory, other than that you just want to “monetize”
Linux, do you claim to be able to compel Linux users to continue to use your
misappropriated IP in exchange for a license fee without first giving them the
opportunity to remove any misappropriated SCO code?
Second Followup (in case Darl wanders in answering the followup question): In
other words, how do you expect a judge to allow damages – or license fees - to
be paid when absolutely no mitigation on your part has taken place?
---
//Brian
#define IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:22 PM EST |
Let's assume SCO by some miracl WINS its case against IBM. Given that part of
your case is based on tort law, which requires that you give the infringer a
chance via specific notification of the infringment a chance to remedy or remove
the infringing material in question which you have not done so, WHY do you
expect the court is going to award you vast sums of money when you yourself are
violating the law which REQUIRES YOU to help mitigate the damage?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jeanph01 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:32 PM EST |
What will happen with SCO and its employees if you lose in court against IBM ?
Have you been offered jobs elsewere ?
Is Kevin always that bad ? ;^p[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:36 PM EST |
Q: Given that Microsoft’s researchers have gone on record saying that they are
studying Linux’s “development methods”. What do you believe would be an
adequate intellectual property license price per unit that SCO will receive when
Microsoft ships its next operating system in 2005?
It’s just like honey for a CEO...hmm I wonder what the financial press would
make of this one and it’s answer?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jkondis on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:41 PM EST |
In reverse order, like a top-ten list...
5) Have you been approached by any large companies with buyout offers?
4) Are you planning on invoicing/suing government agencies, non-profit
orgainizations, libraries, universities and orphanages who have deployed Linux?
3) Are you planning on showing your evidence of IBM's infringement of SCO IP to
your shareholders so they can better evaluate SCOX's position in their
portfolio?
2) Since you plan on "revisiting" the BSD/AT&T settlement, are
you also planning on invoicing/suing distributors and users of BSD and its
derivatives, including Apple and their customers? Have you double-checked that
Apple hasn't inserted "millions of lines" of SCO IP into OSX?
And, finally,
1) Has the SEC, FTC, FBI, or any other government agency initiated contact with
SCO or told you that SCO is being investigated?
...J[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:42 PM EST |
"Given your stated contempt for the GPL, how can you assure the open
source developers you are not infringing their code by cherry picking certain
choice bits to include in your 'hidden source' offerings?"
"Is this a primary reason you go to somewhat hysterical lengths to deny
access to this dated so-called secret IP?"
"If you find lots of lines of similar code linux and your product, could
it not also mean that there is linux code IN YOUR product? See, look at all the
exact matches!"
The Prophet Lactus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pbarritt on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:47 PM EST |
According to this press release:
LINDON, Utah, Aug 11, 2003 --
The SCO® Group (SCO)(Nasdaq: SCOX) today nnounced the signing of its first
Intellectual Property Compliance License for SCO UNIX® Rights. This announcement
comes less than a week after the commencement of the SCO IP License for Linux
program. Terms of the deal and the Fortune 500 company name were not disclosed
based on confidentiality provisions of the agreement, but a license was
purchased for each of the Linux servers running their
business.
SCO has signed at least one company for an IP license
for
Linux.
Were the confidentiality conditions of the agreement
requested by you or the licensee? Can you explain the
reasons for the
confidentiality?
---
bash: fortune: unexpected end of life... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:05 PM EST |
QUESTION:
Once the lawsuit is over and SCO has collected it's licensing
fees from end users, what will be the development focus of the firm for future
growth?
Mike A.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:07 PM EST |
Do you offer indemnification protecting your customers from SCO lawsuits?
Would it be prudent for your shareholders to sell their SCO stock and invest in
Boise's lawfirm instead?
Exactly where did your para-legal find that Novel contract amendment and do you
protect your IP with the same care as your contracts?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:12 PM EST |
SCO continues to allow downloads of Linux from its web site, long after actions
that some claim caused SCO to forfeit its rights under the GPL. Does SCO claim
that those actions did not breach the GPL and forfeit SCOs rights under the GPL?
If not, does SCO claim that the copyrights of thousands of Linux developers are
all unenforceable? If not, where did SCO get permission from the copyright
owners to distribute Linux?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DaveF on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:14 PM EST |
a) In the earnings statement for this last quarter, what portion of revenues and
expenditures are associated with the Linux licensing plan on how many units?
b) What's the growth forecast in this area for the coming FY and how does this
growth compare to that in the Unix sector?
---
Imbibio, ergo sum[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jeanph01 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:23 PM EST |
Did you expected your case to have that much press cover in the start ? Did you
noticed that this has helped people know about linux and the GPL like never
before ? Why are you using PR so often ? Why not try to be has low profile as
possible ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: a_loon on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:33 PM EST |
| Here's what I would like to ask. (Maybe someone can put the setup more
succinctly.)
* UnixWare is SCO's only significant software offering, and
thus its only potential revenue stream other than IP licensing.
*
Substantial portions of the code SCO alleges IBM to have misappropriated must be
in UnixWare; otherwise, SCO could claim no damages from IBM for distributing
different code.
* SCO has provided reams of source code as
discovery, whether the relevant portions have been identified with specificity
or not. Presumably IBM can isolate any sections of SCO code which are identical
with or derived from code that has been released under the General Public
License.
* A ruling that any substantial section of UnixWare code has
been GPL'd by anyone, including SCO itself, renders UnixWare in its entirety
vulnerable to demands by any copyright holders of GPL code in UnixWare
(including IBM) that SCO either cease distributing UnixWare or release it under
the GPL.
* It would not be necessary for the court to first order that
the source code be opened. The fact of combination itself is sufficient to
trigger the GPL summarily.
* Such a ruling would not be subject to
appeal, since it would be a finding of fact rather than a question of law. SCO
would immediately have to make a living providing legitimate services to
satisfied customers as a GPL provider.
Question: what steps has SCO taken
to preserve shareholder value under this scenario?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:36 PM EST |
It has been widely reported that SCO distributes GPL
software, such as Samba, with its proprietary offerings.
How many GPL-licensed products are distributed with your
Unix products?
You have publically asserted on numerous occasions that
IBM should offer indemnification for Linux. Are you
offering indemnification for Samba and the other GPL
products that you distribute?
If not, how do you reconcile this apparent discrepancy,
particularly in view of the fact that IBM does not even
sell or distribute Linux?
Do you intend to remove all GPL software from future
versions of your products?
What measures are you currently taking to mitigate the
accrual of damages caused by the presence of your alleged
IP in the Linux kernel? (Indeed, what is the nature of
this IP: copyrights or patents?) Have you contacted
kernel developers in an effort to have any infringing code
removed from future kernels?
Many people believe that the reason behind your refusal to
publicly reveal the allegedly violating lines of Linux
kernel code is that you believe your code cannot compete
on its own technical merits, but must remain merged with
the work of others, against the wishes of those others, in
order for you to have a viable, revenue-generating product
(by charging license fees for Linux). It would seem that
if this alleged IP is truly worth 3 billion USD, its
removal from Linux would give your proprietary OS enough
of a competitive advantage to overcome the price
difference between UNIX and Linux in the minds of
enterprise customers, thus leading to increased UNIX sales
without the stigma associated with lawsuits. Can you
comment on this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:38 PM EST |
I wish I could attribute this little
gem, but the original Linux Journal poster posted anonymously.
Enjoy.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: echodots on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:39 PM EST |
Did the DoS attack affect SCO on proving it's claims about IBM and Linux
infringing on their IP? If so, how, and if not, when do you plan on handing over
some information to the judge?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Paul Johnson on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:46 PM EST |
The last time you exhibited a sample of Linux code that you claimed was
illegally copied from SCO, it was rapidly shown that it was derived from a
public source. This has led many to speculate that you have no real evidence.
To counter such speculation, could you give us another sample of copying that
supports your case? It only needs to be a few dozen lines out of the millions
you claim have been copied.
---
These ideas and others like them can be had for $0.02 each from your friendly
local idealist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:49 PM EST |
I didn't see any bsd questions..
kaycee77025[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:13 AM EST |
| With regards to the recent DDoS attacks allegedly plaguing
SCO's network,
please comment on the following:
1) Are you any closer to finding the
perpetrators?
2) Given that SCO is a company that sells
operating
systems specifically for network servers and other high-end, security-intensive
needs, do you believe that SCO has done an adequate job defending against these
attacks?
3) Also given the above, do you not expect the recent
attacks
to affect your revenue projections for operating system sales? After all, as a
recent article on InternetNews
(http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3289321)
states:
What has confused security experts is the fact the
technology to combat a SYN flood attack has been available
for years, and is
a basic component for any network security
program. It's uncertain why a
publicly-traded company -- one
beholden to shareholder scrutiny -- that has
suffered two
high-profile DDoS attacks already this year doesn't have
tools
in place to repel the attacks.
Colleen Shannon, a senior security researcher
at the
Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA),
said that
despite SCO's claims to the contrary, the attack
wasn't a particularly
sophisticated one.
"SCO called this a highly sophisticated attack," she
said.
"Without any special configuration, which SCO obviously
doesn't have
because they were affected by it a lot, it is a
hard attack to defend. But
it's really nothing new and there
is technology to defend against
it."
4) If you do not believe these facts will adversely
affect
your revenues, what basis do you have for these projections? How can you
expect other organizations to come to you with their network security needs
when, according to a well-respected network security organization, you can not
defend against even a basic and well-known attack? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:17 AM EST |
Have you been investigated by the SEC or state attorneys
general for stock fraud yet? How would that affect your
earnings report?
Are Darl McBride, Chris Sontag, and so forth, indemnified
by SCO in case they are personally liable for the false,
slanderous statements they've made about Linux and the
Linux community? How would that affect your earnings
report?
You have claimed that any release of SCO intellectual
property under the GPL was accidental and unauthorized.
You have claimed that there is SCO intellectual property
in Linux, which is released under the GPL. Why, then, are
you *still* releasing Linux freely, under the GPL (on your
FTP site) months after claiming that any release was
accidental? Doesn't this undermine your claim to have
released "only accidentally" a lot? When are you planning
to stop distributing it yourself?
How will it affect your earnings report when all the open
legal cases are decided with prejudice against you? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:22 AM EST |
You have repeatedly claimed that you would sue Linux
users, Linux distributors, etc.
How,then, do you justify your claim in the Red Hat case
that you *aren't* threatening to sue them or their
customers?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Newsome on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:45 AM EST |
Anyone up for some Buzz-Word Bingo? It might make it less frustrating when SCO
doesn't actually answer any questions, and continues to spew FUD.
For Buzz-Word Bingo, we list all the weasel-words, phrases, and excuses that the
SCO execs have used in past calls. Then, everyone chooses 25 and puts them
randomly into a 5x5 grid. You win by getting 5 in a row first.
This bingo game can also help out during long graduation speeches, etc. In our
case, though, with the amount of FUD we expect from SCO, we may need to require
the winner to get all 25 boxes.
---
Frank Sorenson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:48 AM EST |
I love tone of some of the offerings posted here. It's like:
[setting: investor conference call with SCOG on Monday the 22nd]
"After you are arrested and sent to jail for fraud, conspiracy to commit
fraud, insider trading, racketeering, and uh, oh did I say fraud? yeah, after
you're rotting in jail you lying filthy pigs for all these crimes, does The SCO
Group have any plans for further equity sales?"
Of course, I'm not suggesting this, but surely has the flavor of the questions
on some people's minds and some of the offered questions almost sound like
this...
...J[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rjamestaylor on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:49 AM EST |
| Recalling public
statements that Linux kernel 2.6.x was clean of IP issues, now that 2.6.0 is
here does this not make your complaint vis-a-vis Linux users moot?
How do you
reconcile strong and repeated pulic claims millions of lines of copied code in
Linux with your statements in court that SCO does not know what code in Linux
infringes SCO's IP?
As Novell enters the Linux distribution market with its
Nterprise Linux Server and its purchase of SuSE, do you regret dumping your
Linux business for the course you have chosen?
Your media campaign which was
on fire through the summer seems to have petered out -- is this due to lack of
operating capital?
You recently disclosed that Boies has an equity stake in
SCO; with such a marquee legal talent on its side, what was the deciding factor
that lead to Kevin McBride, an attorney not known for IP expertise who happens
to be Darl's brother, respresenting SCO in court earlier this month?
What
happened to the copyright amendment SCO declared it would file within a week of
the court appearance earlier this month?
SCO's tatics have made it a pariah
in the technology sector; assuming SCO prevails in court against IBM and RedHat,
how will it ever gain the confidence of the industry? Is there any precedent for
such a recovery of the tech sector's trust once it has been lost?
Do you
regret making threats against Linux end users? ["No..."] Then, as a follow-up,
why have you not followed through? ["Good response so far..."] How many
individual entities have purchased Linux Binary licenses since they were
announced? [...] Are you just making this up as you go along?
---
SCO
delenda est! Salt their fields! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:56 AM EST |
Of course, they are only questions, but I think inquiring minds might want to
know:
1) How many of your current employees worked for other Canopy companies in the
Linux sector? What was the nature and extent of all of their collective Linux
contributions?
2) SCO agents assert the GPL distribution was "inadvertent", yet SCO
asserted in the past that it has "experts" in Linux and Unix,
including contributors to both, and expert managers and legal reps. Obviously,
both can't be true: are you lying now, or were your predecessors, in all areas
of the company from execs to shipping, lying, incompetent bunglers? Did Yarro
and Canopy invest in Linux companies? Did Linux source code ever pass between
companies, such as between Lineo and Caldera?
3) When will you start lawsuits against former and current employees for
releasing code under GPL. Do you feel you've purged enough incriminating
evidence from your website to make the charges stick? Do you have, today, any
proof at all that Unix source code has been improperly used by IBM or any member
of the OSS community other than your employees, or are you hoping for a
favorable outcome in the attempt to redefine copyright law before making an
announcement?
4) In the past month alone, insiders sold nearly $1 million in stock that they
acquired for a tiny fraction of that amount. Based on valuation at the time the
suit was filed, and a $50 Billion target as quoted in the local paper on many
occasions, their stock is worth roughly 3,000 times what the insiders received.
Does this mean that you feel there is a less than 1-in-3000 chance of winning
the case? Wouldn't it make sense to hold the stock for just 1 year, if you
honestly thought you had a chance to literally buy Fort Knox (current reserves:
approx. $50B)? If one of your employees ripped up a $3,000 check in return for
a $1 bill would you consider firing them for incompetence? Since you
distributed code, and exposed the alleged secrets, and have refused to let the
open source community help you mitigate damages, how much do you actually expect
you might win?
5) If you win the case for $50 billion, how much of that will be given in
tithing to the Mormon Church? Is the Mormon Church investing in or backing SCO,
Canopy, or any Canopy company? How many Canopy board members are Mormon?
6) A large proportion of your execs are members of the Mormon Church, as is the
state Attorney General. Is there any connection between that and that he lives
a short distance from your location, and that no action has been taken by his
office to investigate allegations of fraud, racketeering, stock manipulation,
etc? Would you consider asking him to start an investigation to clear your
name?
7) Is the head of the local SEC office a Mormon with close ties to the church
and some executives at Canopy? Have you or any SCO representatives discussed
the suit with former Governor Leavitt, now head of the EPA but who was governor
when your suit was filed, even if just to ask jokingly if he will clean up the
toxic spill resulting from a SCO meltdown? Is the former governor Mormon, and
doesn't he also live not far from SCO headquarters? Would you ask either of
them to launch an investigation in order to help clear your name?
8) What are the names of the "MIT experts" who conducted your code
review? How many of them were undergraduates, or untrained in computer science?
If you can't name them, can you at least mention by name any
"harmonic" projects they might have been involved with?
9) In a recent Forbes article, Canopy CEO Ralph Yarro hinted that it was in fact
he who engineered the suit, as he had done with the DR-DOS suit against
Microsoft, and also filed through Caldera. Why aren't SCO execs trusted to
make decisions on lawsuits based on their own investigations, instead of acting
as the mouthpiece for Canopy? Or do you feel that Yarro was lying? Along those
lines, you recently distributed an open letter making some truly bizarre claims
about the Constitution, Copyright Law, and other points. It seems that it may
have been penned by your brother acting as your mouthpiece, but if not, could
you tell us the extent of your legal training in these areas? Could you tell us
about Kevin's training?
10) How often do you meet with Yarro and other Canopy board members, and are you
a member of the Canopy board? Has Canopy secured rights to Unix if you fail, so
they can sell the package to somebody else, and if so, do you know who they have
in mind? Aren't members of the Canopy board also investors or former investors
in other Linux companies such as Trolltech, LinuxNetworx, and Lineo? Wasn't
the sale of Lineo, including a multi-million dollar asset transfer that included
Linux source to Metrowerks, finished just a few days before you filed suit? How
many Linux source-code BSPs were included with the Lineo assets? Was Metrowerks
given indemnification? Was IBM case discussed with Matt Harris, former Lineo
CEO, an attorney, possible participant in the Lineo GPL Indemnification plan,
and now with Metrowerks? Wasn't Lineo sued by MontaVista, and recently settled
with MontaVista, over copyright violations including removal of header copyright
statements, and aren't some of those same people known to have worked for
Caldera, SCO, or other Canopy companies? Was Yarro involved in the MontaVista
settlement? If not, why wasn't indemnification given to Metrowerks?
11) Why don't you offer indemnification to your customers?
12) Did Lineo, a Canopy company, use the services of Ryan Tibbits, an attorney
on your case, during the sale of Lineo to Metrowerks, or during creation of the
"GPL Compliance Toolkit and Indemnfication Plan" from Lineo? What
other Canopy companies have offered GPL indemnification, and has Caldera a.k.a.
SCO Group considered offering indemnification for either Linux, or Unix patent
infringement?
13) Why did you continue to distribute allegedly-offending Linux source code via
your website for almost 6 months after you filed suit? Who at SCO ordered
removal or destruction of potential evidence and other items that could embarass
you or damage your case?
14) Do you feel you have any competent managers, engineers, spokespeople, or
other employees now or since acquiring SCO? If they are incompetent, why
haven't they been fired and sued? And if they are competent, how do you
account for the release of code under the GPL for so many years? Was there any
Due Diligence done on the SCO acquisition, and did you detect evidence of
wrongdoing then? Would you care to offer an opinion on how any but the most
incompetent people could have missed "millions" of lines of code?
15) Wasn't the name change to "SCO Group" an attempt to confuse the
court in the IBM case, or is it to confuse potential customers about your
lineage? Didn't SCO change it's name to Tarentella, and isn't your company
directly derived from Canopy and Caldera? Are any of the financial reportings
that you are providing today wrapped in equally confusing or purposely
misleading machinations?
16) How many Linux companies has Canopy been involved with over the past 7
years? What is the total Linux-related income for Canopy? For Caldera? For
SCO?
17) Does your church teach that there is an ultimate penalty for lying, for
stealing from volunteers, or for making false claims and statements against your
neighbors? Of all of the statements that you've made over the past year, which
of them do you wish you could retract? Which of Blake's do you wish he hadn't
said?
18) As a returned Mormon missionary, do you feel it is your obligation to assist
the church in funding good works by making massive tithings in the event of a
victory, even if many innocent volunteers will be damaged or destroyed?
19) As a former missionary with foreign language skills and contacts in other
countries, have you picked a country where you could flee to wait out statutes
of limitation? Could other employees such as Yarro or Stowell or Sonntag join
you? Will the church provide a "calling" for any of you, if you get
into trouble during the case or with regulatory agencies? Have you discussed
the suit with your bishop, or anybody else who might be in a position to pass
information to members of various regulatory bodies who are also church
members?
20) If you find that any of your employees have lied about the nature or extent
of alleged violations in Linux, what action will you take against them? Will
you consider suing their insurance companies if you cannot recover money from
the employees themselves? Have you ever sued or threatened to sue an insurance
company?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:01 AM EST |
It's really hard to have relevant questions after following the SCO clowns for
awhile. They are not going to truthfully answer anything.
I would ask Darl how a lying numbnut attains such a high position, but I would
be answering my own question.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- question/answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:53 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:09 AM EST |
I'd like to ask why SCO claim they have rights over SMP tech, when IBM is
already paying royalties to Computer Associates for use of THEIR SMP
tech, in AIX.
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38235.htm
It appears SMP, as implemented in AIX is owned by Computer Associates
and used by IBM. SCO Claim the SMP as put into linux came from Dynix,
Sequent's UNIX.
So there's AIX with Computer Associate's SMP
and Dynix with SCO's SMP
And IBM has done work on SMP in Linux. Does this leave CA as having a
claim to IBM coding up SMP stuff for linux, or weaken SCO's case, or
weaken IBM vs *two* people with claims to SMP tech.
Or are CA the good guys, and anti-SCO enough to say "yeah IBM is ok
with putting SMP into linux, go for it", leaving SCO with one less card in
its shrinking deck?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:38 AM EST |
It is not easy/popular being the bad guy. But for the purpose of discussion, let
me offer a diverse view.
I see a lot of good questions out there in the discussion forum. Some are good,
some are awful, some will provoke the 'CEO dance' where they poke the body of
the question with a stick and then artfully dodge it, and some are just square
between the eyes deadly.
But this really just seems to be an academic exercise if nobody is delivering
these questions. Remember the last SCO conference call? "We have no more
questions." Those who they don't want to hear questions from are simply
ignored. Chances of them accepting a question from, say, a typical Linux
publication? Groklaw itself? Near zero.
Or should I really believe that a major analyst is going to read this forum and
pick up on some of these questions? Or somehow, someone on Team Groklaw is going
to break through the filter and hammer out a question?
The questions are good. But who's going to deliver?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OPPOSING VIEW - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:29 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:48 AM EST |
Can you tell us the dollar amounts that Directors or Senior management have made
from stock sales within the last year? What are the project sales over the next
year?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:52 AM EST |
I think the #1 tip that I can share is to absolutely not to leave any vaugeness
or wiggle room in the possible answers. Use exact terms. And keep the question
very short. The CEO's position will not be to answer the question which you
MEAN to ask. It will be to appear to answer it while at the same time giving a
very favorable appearance.
Reading through the previous transcript(s) with Q&A sessions is helpful.
My experience with executives lying (while telling the truth) is that they'll
give a literal answer to a question which bypasses the meaning and the intent of
the question. This is usually done in a forum where a follow-up would be
difficult, or embarassing.
There is also the super-specific answer. Q: "Will this have any effect on
revenue?" A: "This will have no impact on Q4 revenues."
Meaning, Q4 revenues only.
Someone really should write a book or a paper on the methods used by executives
to deceive. But I'm willing to bet that we'll see a few come monday?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bobn on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:01 AM EST |
| Since your allegation is that your code (or methods or secrets) are in the Linux
kernel code, and since the linux kernel is already available to anyone on
the internet, how can you continue to maintain that indicating with specificity
which lines of kernel are allegedly infringing would disclose any
secrets?
If you refuse to name the code in order to "keep the clock ticking"
on infringements for later licensing fees or lawsuits, don't you expect your
complete failure to mitigate damages, as required under law, to undermine your
case? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:49 AM EST |
It's pointless generating questions, as the questions will go to the
"name" people.
Why do you think the questions are always asked by stock analysts, journalists,
etc., when there must be awful lot of Joe Linuxes pressing # or * or whatever?
I am willing to bet the questions will come from one of more of: David Politis,
the Decatur Jones guy who got cut off last time (I forget his name), Brian Skiba
of DBC, CNet, Rob Enderle, Laura DiDio, etc.
Do you think it's a coincidence that Bill of Aberdeen group, was allowed to ask
questions before he became a skeptic, but no longer appears in the question
rosta?
Likewise the WSJ guy, Todd Weiss (sp?)?
Frankly I'm not interested in SCO answers, except to the extent that they
undermine their court case (hence a transcript is worth doing and making
available ASAP), and the only questions/answers that I'm really interested in
are those that will be asked on January 23 by Judge Wells.
P.S.
Somebody already posted a link to Stowell saying SCO have an announcement
probably pre-market on Monday. Any guesses? My guess, is they acquire another
Canopy company using some of that RBC $50m. It convienently (for Canopy) puts
the money into their hands, and out of reach of IBM's countersuit and RedHat's
suit. Alternatively, they might also put some of whatever software they
consider valuable into another Canopy company's hands and license it back for
resale - they did this already with Volution (check previous SEC filings)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Jack Hughes on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:13 AM EST |
| Given that this is a meeting to answer stockholders concerns, issues, etc., I
would focus questions in that area. A bit of roleplaying: let's imagine that I
am a long term shareholder..
SCO still claims to be a technology company.
I'm worried that all this money that is coming in is going straight out on
lawsuits etc. But what is being spent on real product development..
so
How much are you spending on R&D?
This new business model
is all about getting more from existing partners, potential customers etc. i.e.
it is all "tax" without actually giving any body anything in return - not a
single customer problem is solved. This worries me - nobody will want to be a
co-developer, nobody will want to be a reseller, nobody will want to be a
customer of SCO. So..
Your new business model can be likened to one of
"taxing" organisations and individuals, without providing them with any
additional product or service. There is no "value proposition" for any of your
"customers". How will this strategy affect the SCO brand? How will you attract
and maintain customers? How you will maintain this strategy into the medium
term?
In the past, SCO has shipped mainly O/S products. These have
traditionally been used by Value Added Resellers to form the basis of various
"turn key" systems. Assuming that R&D is low, and SCO has aquired other
organisations which seemed to be aimed at "web services" whatever those are, how
can they continue to support the existing customers - to keep the resellers, and
customers that use the SCO platform. so
You are moving away from your
traditional products, with no new operating system developments except for
adding some more free/open source software into the mix. How do you intended to
keep supporting your existing customer and reseller base? With the withdrawal of
your Linux product line how can existing SCO customers continue to use SCO
operating systems when upgrading and maintaining their application
platforms? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dodger on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:15 AM EST |
Publically, you have chosen a very unpopular direction to steer your company.
You have bolstered the company's direction as a litigation company by taking on
David Boies, as a significant shareholder. Publically, you have destroyed your
name as a software developer and you have destroyed your brand name Unixware.
The resultant press has belittled the value of your 'intellectual property'
with comments about its being oldfashioned and out of step with the times.
Privately, you must have woken up one day and found that your back was against a
wall and felt that you had no choice but to take the route you have taken.
The community (once your community) was STUNG by your public actions; since your
'new' direction has required you to trample on those developers and
specialists that had brought so much value to you and others. United Linux and
SCO is dead. SCO Linux is dead. Linux/IBM is now poised over you like a tidal
wave - the perfect storm.
So what do you ask a company who is fighting a life and death struggle and will
do ANYTHING to survive:
1. Have you been contacted yet by the SEC for illegal stock manipulation?
2. Have you been less than open to your backers about your assets and rights
concerning Unix SYS 5? All your press statements say that you 'own Unix'? This
is false. Can you admit publically that the Trademark UNIX belongs to the Open
Group. Have you told your backers that you own 'A' unix license and not
'THE' unix license.
3. Do your backers realize that IBM will stop at nothing to find out all
information regarding what was discussed as regards what SCO does and does not
own? Do they realize that you haved dragged them into this fight and that their
dealings with you will be publicized and open to scrutiny, and that their
investors, such as shareholders of the Royal Canadian Bank or Royce Associates
will be asking why did these companies in which I relied to make sound business
judgements get involved with this mess?
4. Did you realize when you dug yourselves this hole, that you can't get out?
Perhaps not a problem for the management and lawyers, but the hole contains some
hardworking people who only wanted to do their job; you have tangled them up
with your deeds and they will go down with you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:17 AM EST |
Everybody is generating good skeptic questions.
The problem, I see is that they can get filtered out or dodged. They also,
don't help on January 23
I'd like to propose an alternative strategy:
Encourage Darl to speak his mind. Let him really let rip.
We know IBM reads GROKLAW, so let's do this, and present them with a transcript
that they can use on Jan 23.
This also has the advantage, that (1) we know Darl just loves to speak whatever
is on his mind, so you can bet he will respond in the way that I expect, and (2)
these questions, because not overtly skeptical, can't be filtered out.
Then, when IBM turn up on January 23, they can tell the court whether SCO's
most recent public statements match up with what SCO produced in response to
discovery.
Here's some ideas:
1. The court has asked SCO to provide the details of evidence of IBM's
infringements. What infringements will you be able to show? Will it include
direct Copying from System V? What about direct copying from Unixware? Or is it
just all derivative works?
2. How many lines of SCO code are IBM infringing?
3. Part of the definition of a trade secret, is that the owner must take
reasonable measures to protect the secret. What measures did SCO take to
protect its trade secrets? Does SCO have records of the all people who had
access to the SCO trade secrets?
4. SCO have sort of pointed the finger at IBM and SGI as the sources of
infringing code. So if somebody simply removed all IBM's and SGI's
contributions from Linux, you'd end up with a version of Linux, which SCO had
no rights over?
5. Sometime ago, you said you had three independent analyses done on Linux to
find the infringing code. Can you tell us a little more about the process
involved, when this was done, what was found, and what sort of data you got from
the analysis.
Please feel free to add more.
IANAL IA Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jkondis on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:26 AM EST |
IMO the probability very high that SCO personnel will be reviewing the questions
we're posting here *before* the conference call. Is everyone posting these
questions with this understanding, or are people generally expecting the SCO
people *won't* use this forum to prepare for the conference call?
Just curious. Of course, many of the really good questions will be difficult to
prepare for.
...J[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Captain on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 04:27 AM EST |
Could you explain the apparent contradiction between your press releases, in
which you claim that SCO has identified thousants of lines of infringing code,
and your brother's statement in court, saying "IBM clearly did contribute
a lot of the Unix-related information into Linux. We just don't know what it
is."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:12 AM EST |
Sco have revoked IBM's AIX license. Is SCO seeking legal action against IBM,
because they still use/sell/support AIX?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:34 AM EST |
Not really, the stated that they found infringements. Did they every said they
know that IBM did it?
Maybe we should ask:
You identified direct or obfuscate copieng of SysV code?
Did u identify who contributed code?
if no,because who contributed what on linux is publicly available,wasn't that
possible?
Jer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Beekster on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:36 AM EST |
Your submitted list of Linux files that alledgedly contain SCO code/IP were
found to most likely come from the 2.5.68 or 2.5.69 trees.
Given that most current Linux users are using a 2.4 series kernel, are you
searching in the next series of the kernel as it is the only Linux related code
that you have not yourselves released or distributed under the GPL?
What specific claims do you have towards the 2.4 series that you yourselves did
contribute to and distribute under the GPL that would lead you to threaten
current Linux users to either pay up or migrate back to 2.2?
Now that 2.6.0 has now been released, have you found any specific examples of
SCO code in its source tree? Please specify one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:29 AM EST
- 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 10:19 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:58 AM EST |
How come that your statements in media differ from what is
said in the courthouse?
For examble you claim that you know about and have found
millions of lines of infringing code in your public
statements and you are looking forward to show it in court
but in the courthouse your lawyer says that you don't know
what code is infringing. Explain please.
-Skuggi. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:58 AM EST |
Can you please hook me up with your dealer?
Whatever it is that you are smoking is obviously much better than what I can get
my hands on....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST |
If we agree that the GPL licence does not apply to your Company in
relation to Linux (because you don’t abide by its terms or don’t believe it to
be valid).
Then can you tell us when you gained permission from
the individual copyright holders to use their IP and how much this has cost
you.
(Just let him try to pick the bones out of that
one!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: LALore on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:36 AM EST |
SCO and IBM have both made significant contributions to the advancemnet of the
Linux Kernel. Who was the intial person who identified that IBM were acting
illegally in its contributions to Linux? How was this determined and what steps
did SCO take with IBM to resolve the issuses when it first became aware of the
problem? Was there any communications on the Linux mailing list between the IBM
and SCO developers on this subject?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ra on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:44 AM EST |
Question and follow up:
You've claimed that IBM and SGI added over a million lines of code that those
companies own in violation of their contracts with you. Those companies have, of
course, denied that there was any contract violation.
Do you agree that any contract violations where you admit you do not own the
code are matters between SCO and IBM or between SCO and SGI and that you cannot
sue third parties such as Linux users for IBM or SGI's contract violations?
Besides the contract violations, about how many lines of code in Linux do you
believe SCO owns the copyright to outright?
Another question:
SGI publicly announced in May 1999 that it intended to contribute the XFS file
system to Linux. IBM publicly contributed its first Linux port of JFS in January
2000. SCO and Caldera were both heavily involved in Linux by that time. Why was
nothing said then about the supposed contract violations?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lpletch on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:03 AM EST |
Has SCO previously advertised SMP or JFS as features of their Linux
Distribution?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pyrite on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:32 AM EST |
Where do you see SCO 50 years from now?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:43 AM EST |
| SCO Group contends that because various Linux developers have put SCO Group
copyrighted and trade secret code into the Linux kernel that end users of Linux
now owe licensing fees to SCO Group. Would you please name any other cases in
the history of U.S. jurisprudence where a copyright or trade secret violation
resulted in third party payments to the plaintiff?)
-stop
there-
because how I want to follow up looks like
this, and may just be too rude for a polite teleconference:
(I thought not.
So as a follow up then, you are just pulling the whole notion of licensing fees
out of your^h^h^h^h thin air? And, how then, does that, since you have talked
about that [faniciful] revenue stream to your investors, differ from lying? And
how do you believe the SEC will view that defense?
TFL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:56 AM EST |
| Mr. McBride, you contend, both in public and in the text of SCO Group's
complaint against IBM, that a number of technologies, (JFS, SMP, RCU, NUMA,
specifically), are the property of SCO Group. Can you point us to the
copyrights and patents that SCO Group holds for those technologies? And when
did SCO Group invent those? And who, specifically, were the developers of those?
(By that I mean to ask
: which programmers?)
--Stop there--
because I am about to go right over the top, again
And you believe
that will hold up in a court of Law? Really? Why?
I worry
some about tipping my hand too soon, surely Mr. McBride and his friends now read
Groklaw, (I mean it is an award winning site, and all), so I
don't really want to give him a lot of time to prepare for these questions.
Then again, I suppose there's no worry, I don't think there are any good answers
to these questions.
TFL
-- A fancy teleconference like this, you'd think
they could keep the penguins off the phone line. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:36 AM EST |
Q. In the event that SCO were to lose their case to IBM, and/or lose on IBM's
countersit, and/or Red hat's lawsuit, to what degree will SCO's bottom line be
impacted?
Q. What percentage of SCO's financial resources or being spent on the
litigation process and what percent is being spent upon product development?
Q. The Trillian Project started in May 1999 with the purpose of creating a LINUX
port -- a UNIX-like clone -- to Intel's IA64, and which Pre-dates Project
Monterey. How does the Trillian Project impact SCO's claim against IBM?
Doesn't the existance of the Trillian Project negate SCO's claim about
bringing the one who brought Unix on the Intel Enterprise Platform. (Someone
needs to re-phrase the question: Its a KILLER!!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:39 AM EST |
1 - What projected revenue will SCO make on it's core business
(OS licenses) 1st quarter 2004?
2 - How has the law suit affected the sales of non-LINUX SCO
licenses?
3 - How has the law suit affected the trade mark value of
"SCO"
4 - How have the growth of sales for UNIX-ware licenses
developed since 1st quarter 2003?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:00 AM EST |
| Mr. McBride, since Linux kernel development in performed in public, can you tell
us why SCO Group did not act at the time that infringing code was being placed
in the Linux kernel?
Blake Stowell has stated publicly that removing
infringing code from the Linux source tree would not remedy the problem.
(Something about the bank robber throwing the money back, as I recall.) Can you
explain why that would not be a remedy in this case? Can you
name other copyright, trade secret or patent infringement cases where the cure
involved something other than the removal of the infringing
material?
TFL
And, as a follow on, has an independent lab tested your
blood or urine, or that of any of the officers of SCO Group, for the presence of
any opiate derivates? And, if so, what were the results of the testing?
I'm
sorry, forget that last questoin, sorry. Sorry. It just slipped out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:12 AM EST |
http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3291171
Under "Other News"
"SCO has won assurances that any source code it's required to show in
court during the course of its lawsuit against IBM will be kept secret: Only
attorneys, the judge, and jury will be privy to it. SCO's problems with a
distributed denial of service attack finally seemed to end early this
week."
Have this really been confirmed? I thought this was only SCO-FUD not approved by
court??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:30 AM EST |
</de-lurk>
Just as a thought, and likely many smarter people out here can find a better
wording, but...
Have you had any of your developers looking at the Linux codebase to identify
infringements, and if so what measures have you put in place to avoid any
'tainted hands' issues for their future development projects?
<goes back to lurking>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 09:51 AM EST |
Hey JP some advise would be appreciated!
What’s your
take on this?
e.g. should we be framing TWO questions of no more
than 60sec. each?
Q: How Many Questions?
A: I’m assuming
(noting previous conference calls)… say we will get TWO questions
Max
Q: How long for each question?
A: I’m assuming (noting
previous conference calls)…1-2 min.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:18 AM EST |
Mr. McBride, since SCO Group claims to own a wide variety of technologies, for
example, JFS, NUMA, SMP, and RCU, can you explain why your business model,
heretofore, has been to permit other companies to implement those technologies
first, and only now seeks to assert your ownership rights to those technologies?
Hasn't SCO Group given itself a considerable marketing liabilty with this
approach?
And, in regard to IBM's counter suit, are you concerned, at all, that IBM may
assert rights to the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt marketing technique, (that many
believe IBM invented), and that they may seek licesing fees and/or royalties
from the SCO Group for your continued use of that technology? Do you see any
risk to SCO Group's investors from such an action on IBM's part?
TFL
Honey! The penguin has made a mess all over my good law suit, again! Geez,
what have you been feeding him? Yuck![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:34 AM EST |
Mr. McBride, Should SCO Groups claims be turned down by the courts, however
unlikely that may be, what will SCO Group be focusing on, going forward, in
order to return value to the stockholders?
How would you respond to the charge, if it were made, that SCO Group has lost
its leadership role in technology, or that it never had such a role?
Is SCO Group's partnership with David Boies's law firm an indication that Mr.
Boies's firm intends to begin writing software? Or that SCO Group will become
focused solely on litigation?
<read in an angry voice; emphasis on the next-to-last word>
Are we DONE now?
TFL
P.S. My aplogies, but geez, once I started asking questions, there seemed no
logical place to stop.... I'm gonna quit now, really I am, but try not to bump
me, my self-control is rather tenuous just at the moment; anything might set off
another fit of interogatives... TFL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:57 AM EST |
| Not questions exactly, but a while back I wrote this article on SCO'sprospects.
There are some points here that don't come up just fromlooking at just the legal
arguments, which analysts might be interestedin.
SCO's prospects Summary: Even if SCO wins its suit against IBM, its
prospects are not rosy. Buying SCOX is essentially a bet on SCO winning its
suit against IBM. Thisarticle examines the sources of income SCO would have if
it won. These are: - income from licensing IP used in linux
-
damages from IBM.
I will examine each in turn.
Licensing income This article is my opinion. It is not financial or legal
advice. In its suit, SCO claims that two categories of IP have been
incorporatedinto linux unlawfully. These are - Unix System V code ,
owned by SCO, directly incorporated into linux
- Code from IBM's AIX and
(formerly Sequent's) Dynix
The value of Unix System V code is small,
since the code is very old andhas depreciated. It alone would not be worth the
cost of collecting. Thevalue of AIX and Dynix code is larger, but SCO is very
unlikely to beable to claim the full value of it. Here's why: SCO claims that
IBM's incorporation of AIX and Dynix code into linux wasunlawful for the
following reasons: - because IBM had contracted not to do so
-
because AIX and Dynix are derived from UNIX System V
The first reason does
not of itself give SCO ownership rights to theincorporated code. Only the second
reason would allow SCO to claim feesdirectly from linux customers.According
to the second argument, SCO has ownership rights to any codefrom AIX or DYNIX
which IBM contributed to linux. Only a small proportionof the value of AIX and
DYNIX comes from the original UNIX code, so SCOwould only have the right to that
proportion of the value of IBM'scontributions to linux. Even then, IBM may yet
succeed in arguing thatSCO has no right to code IBM itself wrote, even if it has
also been usedin AIX and DYNIX. SCO also claims that IBM has misappropriated
trade secrets it learnedduring their 'Monterey' collaboration. To those it would
have full rights.But none of the specific code it has cited in its court filings
fall intothis category. So SCO is most unlikely to be able to claim the
$699 per CPU fee whichit has set out to, even from existing linux customers.
But it has furtherproblems generating a continuing revenue stream. Most linux
customersare very price sensitive. The demand for linux is therefore
inelastic.Even at much smaller fees than $699, SCO would have few ongoing
customers. Damages [not being a lawyer, I'm much
less confident of this section] In civil proceedings, damages are usually
awarded based on the injuryto the plaintiff due to the unlawful acts. IE, the
difference betweenthe plaintiffs wealth now and what it would have been without
theunlawful acts. The main problem SCO has is that even if IBM wasbound not to
contribute the code it did to linux, it neverthelesshad the right to do lots of
other things with it. SCO will find ithard to claim that its business would be
much better if IBM had chosenthose actions instead. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: mac586 on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 11:28 AM EST |
Mr McBride, in your Open Letter On Copyrights you blasted the economic model of
the Free Software movement. However, the market apparently disagrees with your
statements.
On November 17, Sun Microsystems signed a deal with the Chinese Government to
supply and support 200 million Linux Desktops. At $50 per desktop for a tailored
SUSE Linux, and the additional hardware cost, this one deal clearly eclipses any
financial gain SCO would expect from your litigation and licensing schemes.
Do you regret following your litigation strategy in light of Sun's contract
with China?
Do you ever expect to compete once again in the Operating System market?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 11:35 AM EST |
| The difference is that SCO has never claimed they are doing what they do in the
name of their religion. Unless you believe, as I do, that they have forsaken all
other gods for the worship of Mammon.
The magnitude of the devastation of
9/11 combined with the fallout that continues to this day makes the comparison
especially offensive. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:22 PM EST |
I would like to see a question framed that attempts to identify the companies
who allegedly purchased SCO's licenses. One of the ploys extensively used
during the dot.com bubble was companies doing business with each other to make
their sales picture brighter than it actually was. Enron and AOL come to mind.
What guarantees do SCO's stock holders (assuming there are any who don't work
for SCO) have that the purchasers of SCO's licenses widely reported in the
press were actually valid sales as opposed to friends shifting money around to
prop up the bottom line? I'm surprised the SEC even allows anonymous
customers after enron. Any ideas for a short, concise question?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 12:36 PM EST |
Some Possible Questions :
1) How many of the Fortune 500 companies that were approached regarding licenses
for linux have taken up the offer and purchased them?
2) How many Fortune 500 companies have provisionally agreed to the licensing but
have not yet purchased licenses?
3) How much revenue (both Gross & Net) has so far been generated by
approaching the Fortune 500 companies for licenses?
4) How much projected revenue will the licenses from the Fortune 500 companies
generate in the next full financial year?
5) How many Licenses (in total from all Fortune 500 companies) have been
purchased?
6) What is the largest number of licenses granted to, and paid for, by a Fortune
500 company?
7) What percentage of the administration costs for the licenses paid for by the
Fortune 500 companies are associated with legal fees (either as a direct charge
or as part of a contingency fee)?
Sorry, best I can come up with at the moment.
Regards
Faluzeer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:06 PM EST |
++++++++++ 1
Tips on asking CEO questions
Authored by: Nathan Hand on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:49 AM EST
/snip
Q: SCO has stated that the GPL is invalid. Which license does SCO distribute
Samba under?
A: Uhh... umm...
/snip
++++++++++ 2
Contingency Fees and the RBC/Baystar Veto
Authored by: mac586 on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:48 PM EST
1. At the November 19 Teleconference, the word contigency was used more than a
dozen times to describe the agreements between SCO and it's Legal team.
Then, on December 8, 2003 SCO filed an 8-K with the SEC, that more accurately
describes how the legal team will be paid.
In hindsight, would you still refer to the agreement, which was signed after
the
November 19 teleconference, as a contingency plan?
/snip
++++++++++ 3
Focus on copyrights
Authored by: rsmith on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 05:29 AM EST
You have publicly claimed that the Linux kernel infringes on your copyrights.
Yet you have taken no actions to get the alledgedly infinging code removed.
How can this not mininize the damages you can collect for the alleged
infringement?
/snip
++++++++++ 4
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:17 AM EST
Everybody is generating good skeptic questions.
The problem, I see is that they can get filtered out or dodged. They also,
don't help on January 23
I'd like to propose an alternative strategy:
Encourage Darl to speak his mind. Let him really let rip.
/snip
4. SCO have sort of pointed the finger at IBM and SGI as the sources of
infringing code. So if somebody simply removed all IBM's and SGI's
contributions from Linux, you'd end up with a version of Linux, which SCO had
no rights over?
5. Sometime ago, you said you had three independent analyses done on Linux to
find the infringing code. Can you tell us a little more about the process
involved, when this was done, what was found, and what sort of data you got
from
the analysis.
/snip
++++++++++ 5
The next ones mine - I have NO shame -
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 06:34 AM EST
If we agree that the GPL licence does not apply to your Company in relation to
Linux (because you don’t abide by its terms or don’t believe it to be valid).
Then can you tell us when you gained permission from the individual copyright
holders to use their IP and how much this has cost you.
(Just let him try to pick the bones out of that one!)
++++++++++ 6
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:05 AM EST
Or how about:
You (SCO) have made statements on several occasions to the effect that you do
not need a license to distribute the Linux kernel, since it allegedly contains
your own IP. Since you do not claim that the entirety of the Linux kernel
source is the property of SCO, under what license are you continuing to
distribute the IP of the other contributors to the Linux kernel?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jmccorm on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:08 PM EST |
See the following Yahoo! posts as reference:<BR>
<a
href="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&board=1600684464&am
p;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&action=m&mid=69630">#69630</A&
gt;
<BR>
<a
href="http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=
1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=69635">#69635</A&
gt;<P>
This question can be readily understood and tweaked by a financial analyst.
Basic idea: "Can you show us SCO's financial plan as a going concern
until an eventual payout from IBM?"
Side questions: "Any additional investment? Reliance on licensing
efforts?"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:36 PM EST |
The announcement Monday is probably designed to be a distraction. Don't take
the bait. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 01:58 PM EST |
The questions already posted are pretty good, so I have an post- Litigation
Business Model blowup *answer* for DMcB and BS:
''Yes, I would like fries with that''
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 02:46 PM EST |
The Unanswerable Question :
What legally valid license
gives you the right to distribute Samba, which is not copyrighted by you ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: colin.saxton on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:02 PM EST |
Q1. Did the recent attacks on your website effect the work being done to provide
IBM with the details ordered by Judge Wells?
Q2.
If yes:
You have been quoted as having all the questions to specific lines of code
already...so you are saying that you do not have that information anymore?
***give various examples posted on groklaw***
If no: Do you dis-agree with the findings on groklaw that you have been involved
yourselves in adding code to the linux kernel fully aware, at the time the code
was added, that you where under the obligation of the GPL. For example some of
your key ex-developers have already given evidence to this effect on the groklaw
website...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jrc on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:07 PM EST |
Over the past seven weeks, SCO has advertised two open positions in investor
relations and two financial audit positions focused on compliance with SEC/GAAP
regulations and the Sarbanne-Oxley Act, all four reporting to CFO Robert Bench.
Two of these positions are for senior, director-level posts. Did the incumbents
resign from these positions over ethical concerns with the company's activities
or were they let go for insubordination? If the incumbents left for other
reasons, why is there such high turnover in the areas in which the company is
supposed to be building trust and solid relationships with its investors and
with regulators?
If these are new positions, why did you feel the need to expand in audit and
investor relations when you are in a long-haul legal fight and are watching your
burn rate? How may people now work in investor relations, audit, and SEC/GAAP
reporting?
Subtext: Did some of the incumbents have ethical objections to the manner in
which the company is reporting financials to investors? Did they have other
ethical objections?
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RichMan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:15 PM EST |
Question: Failure is a possibility,
I believe we could call AT&T's attempt to assert property rights over the
BSD code a complete failure back in the 1990's. Well not a complete failure it
created the process that lead to SCO's acquisition of UNIX code rights.
AT&T never had UNIX as a core product, SCO does. Failure will affect SCO's
core operations. A year ago SCO was operating without asserting any UNIX rights.
As an outside contingency case where will SCO be in terms of product revenue,
development, expenditures, customer goodwill etc. should SCO's attempt to
assert property rights on Linux and UNIX fail totally? Will SCO be right back
where it was a year ago?
1) provides information on previous failed attempt to claim open code
2) asks a buisness case contingency question on key buisness issues
3) implies a $1 stock price Darl would not want
Probably a little wordy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: crythias on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 03:50 PM EST |
1) Novell claims that it is the copyright holder of UNIX, as
well as holder of several patents on UNIX, which Novell says did NOT transfer
with the sale of UNIX to SCO. Under what basis does the SCO Group make its claim
of copyright?
To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing
SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated
copyrights. We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any
ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights.
Further
Reference, Undisputable: Go here and search for
Unix.
Item 3 OF 10 V3502 P793 (COHD)
Date Recorded:
10Oct03
Date Executed: 2Oct03
Assignor: Novell, Inc.
Note:
Declaration regarding ownership of US copyright registration number TXu
510-028.
Document Location: (V3502 D793 P1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 4 OF 10 V3502 P793 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating
system & systems software. TXu 510-028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 5 OF 10 V3502 P794 (COHD)
Date Recorded: 10Oct03
Date Executed: 2Oct03
Assignor: Novell, Inc.
Note:
Declaration regarding ownership of U.S. copyright registration number T
Document Location: (V3502 D794 P1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 6 OF 10 V3502 P794 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating
system & systems software. TXu 511-236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 7 OF 10 V3502 P795 (COHD)
Date Recorded: 10Oct03
Date Executed: 2Oct03
Assignor: Novell, Inc.
Note:
Declaration regarding ownership of U.S. copyright registration number T
Document Location: (V3502 D795 P1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 8 OF 10 V3502 P795 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating
system & systems software. TXu 516-704.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 9 OF 10 V3502 P796 (COHD)
Date Recorded: 10Oct03
Date Executed: 2Oct03
Assignor: Novell, Inc.
Note:
Declaration regarding ownership of U.S. copyright registration number T
Document Location: (V3502 D796 P1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Item 10 OF 10 V3502 P796 (COHD)TITLE: UNIX; computer operating
system & systems software. TXu 516-705.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:23 PM EST |
Do you have any plans to shut down Groklaw and seek damages for being
unconstitutional and prempting the legal process.?
Have you personally viewed the mountain of Anti-SCO feeling online, such as
Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pooky on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST |
I would ask:
How does your recent ammended agreement with investors and holders of your
class-a preferred stock affect your contractual obligations to Boies, Schiller,
and Flexner LLP? The ammended language grants the investors power over decisions
that will trigger contingent payments to your lawyers, however the acceptance
letter of your lawyers states that BSF expects the original intent of the
agreement to be honored. This would appear to have created a potential conflict
between the two parties.
Does SCOG have any alternate plans for legal repreentation should an
irreconsilable disagreement erupt between the new investors and BSF? How would
alternate representation affect the potential outcome of your litigation with
IBM?
-pooky
---
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 08:54 PM EST |
(If not readily apparent in any documentation they hand out, ask:)
How much are you putting into research and development and what percentage of
your budget does that comprise?
What new products are you bringing to market, other than the possibility of
Linux licenses?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pajamian on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:22 PM EST |
Long drawn out question, but needed to prevent same-old tired out answers from
Darl:
You have repeatedly refused to show the Linux community what lines of source
code in the Linux kernel are allegedly infringing on your intellectual property
except for a select portion of that to those individuals who are willing to sign
an extremely restrictive non-disclosure agreement which would legally prevent
them from being able to make any usefull changes to the code to mitigate
damages. While you claim that this is to prevent the Linux community from
removing all the infringing material from the the Linux kernel you cannot
legally prevent any current or potential defendant from mitigating damages by
refusing to specify what is causing the damages. Essentially what you are doing
is enabling the Linux community to continue to damage your business model
without having to pay for those damages later.
Wouldn't it be better for you financially and otherwise to give the Linux
community the information it needs to allow them to mitigate damages now rather
than later? If not, how does SCO stand to gain financially by refusing to
release this information?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, December 20 2003 @ 10:57 PM EST |
I don't think they will last until next summer but I would be very surprised if
Mr McBride says something along those lines...
It would be fun to hear what they have to say about their great PR success for
UNIX Ware and how sales is going.
Wouldn't surprise me if they replace the software-people with an expanded legal
department!
Just another obsolete OS, and they know it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tce on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 01:22 AM EST |
SCO, In keeping with your continued use of open source software in your
proprietary products, what line of open source / creative commons licensed
research would you like PJ and the Groklow community to pursue as an aid to your
other line of business?
(OK, this one was really for us :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 04:11 AM EST |
| Probably this question has already been presented, but here goes: On December
5, 2003, your lawyer stated, in court, that The SCO group would be filing an
amended complaint which includes copyright violations. This hasn't been done
yet. Why? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 06:06 AM EST |
Your company, when it was known as Caldera, raised hundreds of millions of
dollars on the promise of it's Linux product offerings.
Since you claim that the licensing of these products violates the U.S
constitution, and that these products contain code illegally introduced and
distributed that have resulted in a multi-billion-dollar damges claim, would you
agree that Caldera's IPO dollars were the spoils of massive fraud against it's
investors?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Caldera and Fraud - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 03:24 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 10:36 AM EST |
1. For SCO to generate revenue from Linux users, there has to be a credible
threat. Hasn't SCO's crediblity been irreparably damaged by SCO's constantly
changing position on Linux licensing? First you said that invoices would be
sent out, then you said that the 'voluntary response was adequate', then you
said that invoices would be sent out by Oct 15 at the latest, then that deadline
expires and new threats are voiced. Why do you expect anybody to believe you
now? [ok, it's a long question!]
2. Does SCO's contract with Sun entitle SCO to any royalty from Sun's deal for
millions of Linux workstations in China?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 11:42 AM EST |
In the likely case that the GPL is considered a valid and enforcable licence,
have you prepared for several if not a lot of lawsuits agianst your firm from
OSS companies and independent developers who's work you still offer trough your
website and bundled products since you clearly do NOT accept the terms stated in
the GPL.
SCO still offers features in there products provided by Samba and apache for
example.
Retep Vosnul
Netherlands.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 01:12 PM EST |
I have several questions:
(1) Darl McBride stated earlier that he would be surprised if the SCO Group did
not sue an end user by the end of December. Then your man Blake Stowell states
that no lawsuit will be announced at this earnings conference. What's going on,
and why?
(2) If I understand correctly: Your new investors, Baystar and RBC, pushed
through some changes which require the SCO Group's top management to seek
clearance from the Board of Directors, before they take any legal action. Are
there strings attached to their investments, and what are those strings?
(3) Your SEC filings show a far more sober view of your business than your
public pronouncements. What's going on?
(4) The SCO Group website is advertising for a number of key positions related
to financial reporting. What's going on?
(5) You delayed your earnings conference by two weeks and a half. Would you tell
us why?
(6) A number of your high executives have sold most if not all of their SCO
Group stock holdings. What is your interpretation of that? Another huge tax bill
to pay up?
(7) Do you believe that your stock price is valued just right, overvalued or
undervalued? If you believe that your stock is either rightly valued or
undervalued, then would you mind telling us what are in your opinion the
business fundamentals that justify the stock price?
(8) Your external legal team seems to be paid no matter what. Does this happy
state of affairs for them have something to do with how you define
"contigency"?
Recommendation:
In general, because it is an earnings conference, the financial experts at
groklaw would be the best ones to suggest the questions, which should be
financial anyway. Those questions should look beyond the SCO Group's numbers
and probe the fundamental soundness of the SCO Group's business both as an
ongoing concern and as an investment: let's remember that Enron claimed
profitability right down to the last quarter of its existence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: stdsoft on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:38 PM EST |
The following are suggested analyst questions regarding revenue and cash. The
liberty has been taken to rephrase some of these to promote clarity.
Q: European operations have historically been important to SCO, comprising 40%
of product and services revenue. European revenues have trended lower the past
two years, and earlier this year you decided to wind up the operations of your
European Headquarters in the UK. What steps are you taking to shore up the
European revenue stream?
Q: Did you attract any large new customers in your heritage product and
services business lines during Q4?
Q: On the prior earnings call you mentioned that inside of SCOsource you have
multiple accounts. The two dominant accounts appear to be OEM licensing of UNIX
source and your Linux program for end user licensing. Will you please describe
how SCOSource revenue this quarter aligns with those two accounts?
Q: On the prior earnings call you indicated that you were “going to see how
[your Linux program for end user licensing] plays out over a quarter before
[you] start giving guidance…” Is the opportunity pipeline now sufficiently
stable that you can provide Q1 guidance for this particular revenue stream?
Q: Mr. Bench previously described the OEM licensing of UNIX source as “big
blocks coming in that you would get multiple quarter coverage out of,” but that
this revenue stream “isn't something that goes on forever.” You felt you would
see a significant run-up over time coming from Linux end-user licensing that
would offset the fall-off in OEM licensing of UNIX source. Do you sense that
this ramp-up will happen quickly enough to offset the loss of OEM license
revenue without seeing a revenue gap?
Q: Will SCO provide cash refunds (ie, not credits to buy other products) for
Linux end-user licensees in the event that the courts determine there is no
infringement?
Q: The IBM lawsuit and prospective jury award is expected to take years,
particularly considering the appellate process. If revenue from Linux end-user
licensing does not replace the fall-off from OEM licensing of UNIX, it appears
that cash might become an issue while the IBM litigation is in process. What
steps might management take to improve the balance sheet and ensure
survivability during the IBM matter?
Q: You indicate in your filings that you are concerned your case against IBM
could adversely affect your heritage business. Have you seen any degradation of
those respective sales pipelines as a result of this ongoing litigation matter?
Q: It now appears the improving economy is touching the technology sector as
many North American technology companies are reporting an uptick in sales
compared to last year. Do you believe that the heritage product and services
revenue streams will benefit from this economic improvement in the tech sector?
Q: The heritage product and services business lines have been in steady decline
since the first quarter of 2001. Your Web Services initiative is one program
you are undertaking to reverse that trend. This is a multi-part question; what
is the status of the Web Services initiative? Has the Web Services initiative
played a direct role yet in securing new sales? Do you have plans for other
similar initiatives?
Q: You have publicly indicated that the Linux kernel infringes on your
copyrights, yet you have taken no actions to remove the allegedly infringing
code. Are you concerned that this inaction will minimize any damages you might
collect for the alleged infringement?
Q: All of the Linux end user licenses being sold are perpetual, meaning that
they are all one-time collections. Are you concerned that for each customer you
are able to convince to purchase a license, that revenue is non-recurring?
Q: If you lose your case against IBM and the courts rule against your IP claims
regarding Linux, will you be able to operate a viable business?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: stdsoft on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:40 PM EST |
The following are suggested analyst questions regarding Expenses and Cost
Management. The liberty has been taken to rephrase some of these to promote
clarity.
Q: You have created a group dedicated to development of the SCOSource
initiative and recognize costs in the SCOSource COGS account. You are also
placing legal expenses in this account. Do you plan to provide any additional
transparency relative to legal expenses?
Q: You previously mentioned that the expected run rate for legal fees would be
about $1MM per quarter. Given the experience you have now with the costs of
ongoing litigation, do you see any reason to revise that estimate?
Q: During discussion regarding use of proceeds from recent financing, you
mentioned the opportunity to elevate R&D efforts. What sort of increased
R&D expense might be expected in Q1 and 2004?
Q: How many software developers do you employ? Do you expect the overall
number of developers to change much in Q1 and 2004? Approximately how do these
distribute across product lines such as (a) OpenServer? (b) UnixWare?, (c) All
other software products?
Q: What is the status of the shareholder lawsuit? Are there ongoing expenses,
charges related to that or upcoming settlements or write-offs?
Q: Have any cost estimates been developed for defense against IBM's 4 patent
violation claims?
Q: Assuming that SCO still intends to be a player in the OS market (with
upcoming OpenServer version and new push into Web Services), are you planning to
hire a CTO to replace Bawa?
Q: At the November 19 teleconference, the term contingency was repeatedly used
to describe the agreements between SCO and it's Legal team. In retrospect,
would you still describe it as a contingency arrangement?
Q: It appears the $1.6MM remuneration paid to Boies derives from the 20%
contingency arrangement and applies to the second Microsoft license agreement.
That Microsoft deal is described as pertaining to licensing of enhanced UNIX
rights. The engagement letter does not appear to provide for contingencies to
be paid for these sorts of OEM UNIX license deals. Will you please explain?
Q: You have explained that many insider trades concern the need to cover tax
liabilities triggered upon vesting events. Many other recent trades, though,
exceed the tax burden incurred from vesting events. Will you kindly describe
other circumstances that might cause these sales?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: stdsoft on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:42 PM EST |
The following are suggested analyst questions regarding Litigation. The liberty
has been taken to rephrase some of these to promote clarity.
Q: In the prior earnings call, you mentioned having rock solid evidence that
your IP was transferred Unix into Linux. A court in Germany issued an order
this summer that prevents you from making claims that you have intellectual
property rights on the Linux kernel. Then in September the German court levied
a fine. Given the size of the German market and the importance of your European
revenue stream, why didn’t you leverage your evidence in Germany?
Q: Regarding your ongoing litigation against IBM, do you feel that the
involvement of SCO employees in enterprise Linux development efforts might
possibly compromise the strength of your evidence in that case?
Q: Do recent charges brought against David Boies in Florida have any bearing on
your continued use of the services of David or his firm?
Q: During the 12/5 hearing, your counsel indicated that you would be adding a
copyright complaint to the IBM suit. Can you provide an update, and any details
about that complaint?
Q: Did you set up your stock sales plans before or after you hired David
Boies?
Q: Recent SEC filings relating to the private placement indicate that
Baystar/RBC has the right to
veto over moves SCO can make. What exactly does that cover? Do they have final
say only on questions of buyouts, equity financing, etc., or do they also have
veto power over any new lawsuits that SCO management might contemplate filing?
Q: How and how quickly will common shareholders be advised of information
preferred shareholders are given about a proposed course of action? Will SCO
commit to quick disclosure if a veto is exercised?
Q: During the discovery phase of the IBM matter, you provided IBM with files
that included little more than comments like "Does not work with
SMP." This has led many to speculate that your code profiling and
analysis techniques are not terribly sophisticated? Would you like to comment
on this?
Q: Your agreement with the firm of well-known attorney David Boies indicates
that he will make himself personally available 'to handle critical hearings and
depositions and, if applicable, at trial.' Do you consider the upcoming hearing
on 1/23/04 to be critical and do you expect David or another member of his firm
to represent SCO on the matters before The Court that day?
Q: Considering the special appearances of David Boies as a separate matter,
many investors were anticipating that a member of the lead firm in the IBM case,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, would represent the company at most if not all
hearings. My question is: should we expect that the other two firms involved in
this case will continue to take the lead when arguing at select hearings?
Q: Has SCO retained sufficient patent legal expertise to defend against IBM's
four patent violation claims? Are you planning to offer your customers
indemnification for products and customers that allegedly infringe IBM patents?
Have you sought or been offered any IBM cross-licensing options?
Q: Is SCO actively pursuing settlement offers with IBM or Red Hat? Are IBM and
Red Hat pursuing SCO with settlement offers?
Q: What is your position as to IBM’s rights to publish JFS as provided by
Amendment X of the Novell Asset Transfer Agreement?
Q: In prior conference calls you mentioned the intent to countersue Red Hat.
Are you simply waiting on the outcome of the motion to dismiss before proceeding
with a countersuit?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 02:48 PM EST |
Darl
Is there any independent analysis, by legally
competent analysts, that regards your claims as having more credence than a
monty Python sketch? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 07:00 PM EST |
1) Could you please clarify the legal relationship between the original
Santa Cruz Operation company and the current SCO Group, as it relates
to the intellectual property at issue in the IBM and RedHat lawsuits?
2) When will the SCO Group imdemnify its users against lawsuits
regarding intellectual property, specifically but not limited to IBM
patents, Linux, SAMBA and other GPL software copyrights, and origin of
LKP code.
3) Of the "millions" of lines of code the SCO Group has stated are
at
issue, what percentage are related to the IBM contract dispute? What
percent are present in the Linux code base that are not covered by the
BSD/AT&T suit? What percent are in Linux because of contributions by
SCO employees explictly contributed with management blessing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 21 2003 @ 07:30 PM EST |
There was a book published by Melbourne House entitled
something like "The Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly" by Dr
Ian Logan & Dr Frank O'Hara (C) 1983 and had discussions and
comments added to the code .
Bruce S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 02:03 AM EST |
Q1: SCO is to be commended for calling the software industry to account for the
longstanding failure to warrant and indemnify their customers and users. While
HP leads the industry in providing indemnities to their users, can we expect SCO
to follow suit, and indemnify users of the next release of OpenServer, in
contrast to previous end user licenses, and will such indemnification extend to
cover the various open source products you plan to distribute with the next
version of OpenServer, such as Apache and Samba?
Q2: Back in May, CEO
Darl McBride acknowledged that the Linux developer community has great respect
for IP, and would gladly remove any misappropriated code long before it became
necessary to move things into a courtroom(*). Is it this opinion that gave SCO
the confidence to bundle various open source products, such as Samba and Apache,
with the next version of OpenServer?
Q3 (corrollary to Q2, above): Back
in May, CEO Darl McBride acknowledged that the Linux developer community has
great respect for IP, and would gladly remove any misappropriated code if given
the opportunity(*). How is it in the best interests of SCO, the company, and the
shareholders of SCOX, to allow the alleged IP infringement to continue for the
year and a half it's going to take to move the case to the
courtroom?
*: What Darl actually said:
"We feel very
good about the evidence that is going to show up in court. We will be happy to
show the evidence we have at the appropriate time in a court setting," McBride
said. "The Linux community would have me publish it now, (so they can have it)
laundered by the time we can get to a court hearing. That's not the way we're
going to go."-- Darl McBride, 2003-05-01
It's all about the spin,
baby!
But we're missing a great opportunity for a betting pool
here:
a) How many of these Groklaw questions will be asked
tomorrow.
b) How many of these questions will be asked before the conference
call is cut off.
and of course, individual bets on just which questions
will be asked.
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 07:45 AM EST |
| Are there any companies that'll employ you lot after SCO's gone tits up? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: doomy on Monday, December 22 2003 @ 11:01 AM EST |
In case that you win....(not probably)
Will you support the kernel,NUMA, RCU, SMP development of future releases?. What
kind of licensing? Will you contract Linus Todorvals?.
Considering the number of linux users (some millons) how will be your strategy
for the increment of new customers, or just have strategy for law court.How many
people works actually in your support dept? and in your development dept?
What kind of support/licensing will have the companies that actually produce
software for linux, they can write good code 'cause their deep knowledge of the
Kernel code. will they be able to review/get the code source for their
development.
Will you continue the development of GPL software that you use actually?
(apache)
---
keep your head on the way
and your hands on steering wheel[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
