|
|
| SCO Files Revised Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories |
 |
|
Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:43 AM EST
|
If you check Pacer or the US District Court's docket, you will see that SCO apparently filed some kind of supplemental answers to IBM's interrogatories. It's out of order, so look a bit higher than than the end and you will see is at item 99. Thank you to Frank for alerting me. It says simply this: "99-1
Filed: 01/20/04
Entered: 01/26/04
Certificate of service
certif svc -/-/- - -
blk
1450077
"Docket Text: Certificate of service by SCO Grp re: pla's revised supplemental response to dft's first and second set of interrogatories." So they have coughed up something to IBM and have filed proof of having served IBM with it. Now it's up to IBM and then the judge to decide if it is enough. We won't get to see it unless one of the parties attaches it as an exhibit to some court filing. Like, oh, a motion for dismissal, for example.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 03:02 AM EST |
IANAL, but wouldn't a dismissal be less beneficial to Linux then a ruling?
I mean, if the judge dismisses the case SCO can continue with it's PR campaign
and continue to go after Linux users with it's lies. But, if a judge rules in
favor of IBM -- SCO will be destroyed.
Thinking purely from PR here....
If this case is dismissed, SCO will proclaim that it couldn't state it's case
because IBM wouldn't produce the source for AIX, right?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 03:04 AM EST |
| a motion for dismissal, for example.
We can all live in
hope.
02:43 AM
PJ, I am starting to worry about your health. Maybe
time for you to hit the sack?
RSC
---
----
An Australian
who IS interested. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:04 AM EST |
Off Topic:
SCO files a new SEC 10K filing yesterday. It makes for interesting reading. It
can be found here:
http://www.edgar-online.com/bin/cobrand/?doc=A-1102542-0001047469-04-002142&
nav=1&src=Yahoo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jobsagoodun on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:28 AM EST |
| Heimdal31 spotted this
letter from Morgan Keegan which throws a new light on
the MS and SUN SCOsource revenues - were they revenues at all or was the MS sale
really a secured loan? Its hard to tell - they payed the commission MK charged
for a loan, but put it down as revenue. The Yahoo thread is here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MathFox on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 06:01 AM EST |
We've allready seen the Tibbitts declaration ("Sorry Christmas holidays
were in our ways") but with this new supplemental filing SCO seems to
admit that its answers of Jan 13th are incomplete.
I am wondering how IBM is going to play this deficiency and whether it is
important enough for Judge Wells to be offended.
---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's actions.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 06:13 AM EST |
I sound like the witches in Macbeth when I laugh at them.
Wait, thats not so bad!
Heh,heh, heh!!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 08:38 AM EST |
IANAL, etc... blah blah...
Submitting it to IBM in such a way that it isn't readily available to the
public falls right in line with the protective order that's intended to keep
trade secrets in this case from becoming part of the case's public record.
That's being said, it's a bummer that what was submitted to IBM can't be
examined with the "many eyes" approach that's made Groklaw such an
excellent resource for those who wish to follow the case.
--Flak[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wllacer on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 08:52 AM EST |
Have a look to documents 9 to 11 from the 10-K document:
9 - Warrant for option on 200.000 shares of TSG to SUN at $1.83 dated March
10 - Warrant for option on 12.500 shares of TSG to SUN at $1.83 dated August
11 - Warrant for option on 12.500 shares of TSG to SUN at $1.83 dated
October
Doesn't look as if they're executed, but you can bet that they will be very
soon.
Funny is also clause 18. Why ?
<quote>
Confidentiality; No Public Disclosure. The terms and conditions of this Warrant
are confidential. The Holder shall not make any public disclosure concerning the
terms and conditions of this Warrant without the prior written consent of the
Company.
</quote>
I'm not american. Is it usual there to pay for a licence and
get back some 3M $ as gift ???? Put your tin hats on ... Who is financing
SCOundrels ?
BTW. Morgan Keegan has also an option on 200.000 shares,( at $0,01) and it
seems to have been exercised.
There are two curious documents more
12- A contract with some S2 Strategic Consulting LLC for consulting services
regarding IP
13- Another option for 25.000 shares at $8.50 to them
Wonder if S2 is a Canopy Company.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- s2systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST
- s2systems - Authored by: wllacer on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST
- s2systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 10:21 AM EST
- s2systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:16 AM EST
- s2systems - Authored by: dhs13 on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:33 PM EST
- s2systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:07 AM EST
- s2systems - Authored by: KentWA on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:03 PM EST
- 10K supplements - Authored by: Thomas Downing on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST
- 10K supplementsS2 / IC - Authored by: dhs13 on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Kevin McB: "Your Honor, what I have here proves that we have won this suit
already, based on proof which exists and which is held by the US Government. We
move for a delay until the US Gov't releases to us our proof, at which time we
will ask for dismissal..."
Judge Wells: "Bring it forward."
McBride shuffles forward, hands Judge what appears to be a 8"x10"
photo. Judge puts on glasses, looks at photo for a moment, and says:
"Mr. McBride, this is a picture of the Library of Congress?"
Kevin M: "Yes, ma'am. We know that our proof is in there. We ask that all
decisions in this matter be delayed until the US Gov't releases to us the
entire Library of Congress, declaring with specificity where inside of it are
the facts we need to prove that we have won this case already..."
:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST |
The news "analysts" and others are finally starting to wake up.
It's refreshing to see newer articles questioning SCO's alternate reality.
Between the news reports and the filings, it seems that the market is finally
starting to realize what's going on. SCO stock right now is at 14.67, it's
lowest in over a month.
Darl may need some new drivel, maybe even a new lawsuit, to keep it from
dropping any lower.
Frankly, I'm hoping for a new lawsuit. It would help to use up SCO's limited
cash reserves and put it out of business that much sooner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST |
From their 10k:
Subsequently, we began contacting Linux end users
about their use of Linux, and in December 2003, we began sending additional
letters to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users specifically asserting that
using the Linux operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights
under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, because certain copyrighted application binary interfaces, or
"ABI Code," have been copied from our copyrighted UNIX code base and derivative
works and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without
copyright attribution.[emphesis added]
Now, that
doesn't sound like "millions of lines" to me.
I think this is
significant.
To the press, they are willing to lie becuase they think there
aren't any consequences.
However, in court, and in SEC fillings, lieing can
land them in jail.
Now, we don't know what they said to IBM (in the 60
pages they turned over), so we don't know what they've claimed "in
court."
However, we can see from this SEC filling that the only thing they
are claiming is copyrighted code in Linux is the "UNIX ABI".
Maybe that's
all they are really going to claim in the IBM case.
And, as we've already
heard from Linus, that claim is without merit.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST |
Looking at SCOX (off 6%) today makes me wonder what exactly is in this
supplemental response and if whatever's in it has leaked.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:32 AM EST |
From the new 10K, various points:
"announced that we expect in the near term to commence our first legal
action against an end user violation our intellectual property **or contractual
rights**."
IMHO if this was about linux, there would be no need for that 'or' statement
[AFAIK you can't violate contract rights without having a contract?]. This
looks to be a lawsuit against someone that has a contract with SCO for
"something else" [SYS V? unixware? unix libraries? who knows..]
----
Under risks:
- informal complaints from Austria and Poland similar to those that occured in
Germany.
Misleading:
- "the slowdown [snip] together with the alleged unauthorized use of our
UNIX code, has resulted in decreased sales etc.". [page 48 "impact
of domestic and global conditions"]
Consider this split into 2 parts:
[A] We allege that people are using our code in an unauthorized way.
[B] This usage was a factor in our decreased sales.
Statements A & B are inconsistent. Either both are alleged, or neither are.
For consistency, it could read:
"We allege that our decreased sales was, in part, caused by the
unauthorized use of our code."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jadeclaw on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST |
I think, it's time to watch the quotes again...
Normally, whenever Comical
Darl starts badmouthing others, the quotes take a hike upwards, but this time,
it took a real dive.
Just take a Look at Yahoo's chart.
It started at ten AM and
since then, it goes down, down, down - despite heavy trading.
And
tenthousand is heavy for SCO...
---
---------------------------
include('IANAL.php');
---------------------------
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kurt555gs on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:53 AM EST |
I just hit my link to Yahoo finance to see what SCOX was doing this
morning.
After weeks of watching it stay in the $15 -> $16 range, al ove a sudden
this morning it is at $14.20
I have no idea why it hasnt gone to $0 or has stayed up at $15ish
considering all the negative info there is before.
All I can think of is some sort of manipulation and lack of action of the
SEC (Prolly cause SCO is represented by a ralative of a big whig in
Washinton)
But .... today it is going down, down down ... I hope the folks at Baystar
are watching.
One thing about this whole fiasco is that I lost ANY type of trust in the
stock market. I see no regulation, nothing from the SEC on an obvious
scam, and manipulation by insiders to keep a worthless stock up when
there is no reason.
I wonder if the whole stock market is really the same type of shell game.
But, the good news is SCOX is headed for a crash landing........ not on
Mars, but on the floor of the stock exchange (where it apears to be less
likelly of finding intelegent life)
Cheers, and please PJ , get some sleep ( I have seen posts in the middle
of the night)
---
* Kurt *
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 11:58 AM EST |
It's way to premature to speculate about dismissal. We have no idea what SCO
presented to IBM as followup, it could simply be the rest of the documents that
IBM requested concerning those board members from whom SCOG couldn't get the
requested documentation in time to comply. It could be anything.
There's no point in speculating as to what will happen in the hearing on the
6th, I'm sure IBM isn't going to say anything in the press lest they be
accused of doing something with the intent to harm SCOG publicly. :-D
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sa on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:04 PM EST |
Right now, SCO is quoted at 14.21, down 7%.
Volume is reasonably high as well - over 100,000 shares.
First time below $15 since end of November.
Isn't 14.21 below the forced redemption level for PIPE investors?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST |
| There are at least two posts on Yahoo Financial SCO,
that are aimed at the SCOX investors, and summarize the SCO case brilliantly.
See the threads "About SCO ..." Please do a story, and consider trying to get
permission to quote the posts in full.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I am responding, with links to Groklaw. Suggestions for links? - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
- Link to AT&T trial? - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
- PJ, story please, on Yahoo Financial thread - Authored by: stanmuffin on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST
- PJ, story please, on Yahoo Financial thread - Authored by: leeway00 on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 03:15 PM EST
- I can't find Love's statement to McBride on suing Linux users. Anyone? - Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:55 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 12:31 PM EST |
Somebody tell this guy ....
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32719.html
...about the OpenGroup.
UNIX is whatever they say it is.
AFAIK, they don't say Linux is UNUIX[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I did - Authored by: SkArcher on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST
- I did - Authored by: SkArcher on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:01 PM EST |
I agree with that. My point was simply that anything bad from that hearing
would have to show up on this 10K filing...probably not too good for their
overall showing. Now that information will be included on the next. Or maybe
I'm wrong about his and they will be required to go back and amend the previous
one...I don't really know the rules regarding that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST |
Just read a note in a newspaper, that Mike Tyson plans to go into the ring again
and box a man named Kevin McBride. Those McBride people are everywhere.....
I am now starting to wonder if Don King is involved in SCO too. That would
surely explain a lot of things.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST |
does anyone know who these guys are?
don't understand the context they're
mentioned in - maybe someone else does?:
"VSpring Capital
(SCO)
Vector Capital (SCO)
IDG Ventures (Broadmark)
Group Atlantic
Partners, LLC (Broadmark)
Paladin Capital Group (Broadmark)
Pequot
Capital (Broadmark)
Technology Crossover Ventures (Broadmark)
Ram
Capital Resources, LLC (Impact Capital)
Crestview Capital Fund (Impact
Capital)"
(listed in Appendix A) in this doc:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000104746904002142/
a2127332zex-10_8.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Comic strip here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST |
I found the latest column by Frank Hayes on Computerworld's web site to be
pretty interesting:
http://www.computerworld.com/
governmenttopics/govern
ment/legalissues/
story/0,10801,89342,00.html
Interesting quote from
the column regarding SCO's slander of title lawsuit:
``Yes,
that's a weird way to approach what's really a contract dispute over software
copyrights. And that's telling, because there's only one reason why lawyers
choose an oddball way of pursuing a suit. They do that when it looks like the
straightforward approach won't work.
Judges like straightforward
approaches. Juries do, too. And it's a judge and jury that will eventually have
to decide what that 1995 contract said and who should own the Unix
copyrights.
If SCO's lawyers could make a good case with a contract
lawsuit, they would. Apparently, they can't.''
Heh, heh,
heh. Another columnist is on to SCO's game. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:49 PM EST |
Okay, maybe this is why the stock is going down in flames today. Look at the
numbers in the 10K and take out SCOSource revenue and expenses (how the company
would be doing without their IP licensing business).
Gross $53,408
Costs $10,759
Margin $42,649
Expenses $46,940
Income ($4,291)
Net ($2,300)
Instead of a $5 million dollar profit, they are losing about $2.3 million for
the year.
Product revenue dropped by $7.9 million, Services revenue dropped by nearly $2.9
million, while costs reduced as well.
The bottom line is that without SCOSource revenue, that line of income that SCO
says they cannot make future predictions on, they are still losing lots of
money, although not quite as much as before. Worse, analyzed with the new
numbers, they are losing significant amounts of business. It doesn't look like
the SCOSource revenue changed much in Q4'03 and they said it is expected to be
flat for Q1'04.
My read is that this company is on it's last leg without SCOSource revenue, if
their regular products and services income continue to trend downward, they will
most likely take a wider loss. Outlook not so good without the SCOSOurce numbers
included.
So, if SCOSOurce revenue is a total uncertainty, that would tell me the company
could easily, and it looks like they are on track for this in Q1, slip back into
deep losses again. Tack on that without revenue from SCOSource guaranteed, but
with legal fees GUARANTEED, they are likely to take a considerable loss in
Q1'04.
maybe that is why the stock is spiraling downward.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: linuxbikr on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 05:11 PM EST |
| Found this on Linux Today. An
error page we can all agree with! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 06:47 PM EST |
I love this part of the description of the Novell
suite:
The injunction would require Novell to assign to
us all copyrights that we believe Novell has wrongfully registered, prevent
Novell from representing any ownership interest in those copyrights, and require
Novell to retract or withdraw all representations it has made regarding its
purported ownership of those copyrights.
I find it
interesting that they are asking for Novell to sign over copyrights that SCO
claims to already own. If SCO owns them then why do they need to have Novell
assign them the copyrights? Shouldn't they be able to just provide the
documentation that transfered them the copyrights to begin with?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ihawk on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 07:04 PM EST |
| Linux Today has published an article about why
the stolen SCO code in linux cannot be displayed. Interesting.
..ihawk.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST |
From a few days ago, this article
from
SearchEnterpriseLinux has an interview with
Microsoft's "platform
strategist" Martin Taylor. Here's a
couple of notable items:
"Microsoft Corp.'s platform strategist Martin Taylor
came to LinuxWorld Conference & Expo with a mission -- and
a flak
jacket. Taylor jokingly wore the bulletproof vest
during the first few
minutes of an hourlong public
question-and-answer session [..] Taylor
faced the
open-source enemy head-on and answered audience-submitted
questions and winked at a heckler or two."
"Q: Some of the
research cited in 'Get the Facts' has been
funded by Microsoft. Why use
that research? Doesn't that
taint your campaign?
Taylor: I've told every single analyst firm, IDC, Gartner,
Meta, if you
guys did this on your own, I would not fund
it. I want this data.
Customers want to see this
information. The fact remains is that they
can't always
fund it themselves. That's why [Microsoft] does it."
First of all, you have to admire a guy for having a sense
of humor. I hope he gets paid well, that's all I have to
say.
And regarding the last "boldfaced" line. I find it
special of Microsoft to provide us all with such
reliable and
un-biased information. With our
busy lives and all, Lord knows we
have so little time to
do all that pricy, complicated and
confusingresearch.
Then they offer us free tools
for UNIX. Their generosity
knows zero bounds, my friends. I'm beginning
to sense
some real changes coming from Microsoft. In fact,
I'm going straight to their web site right now to
get
all the facts. God love that noble man, Bill
Gates. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbardhan on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 09:23 PM EST |
hey all--
just saw this posted in a hall at MIT--Darl is apparently speaking somewhere in
Boston, sponsored by Harvard, Monday at 6:30 pm. anyone have more details? or
can go heck^H^Hridic^H^Hask the tough questions?
jay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 30 2004 @ 01:59 AM EST |
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,590039062,00.html
"Our company has had to fight for our intellectual property rights
the last 10 months or so in the industry. We've tried to assert our
intellectual property rights, and we've tried to do it in a legal and
forthright way. In response, we receive these types of activities by individuals
who have no desire to keep their activities within the bounds of the law,"
Stowell said.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
