|
SCO's 10Q - Oops! |
![](http://www.groklaw.net/images/speck.gif) |
Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:42 PM EDT
|
SCO's 10Q for the third quarter is now filed, and there appears to have been some kind of unfortunate miscommunication between SCO Legal (litigation) and SCO Legal (corporate), and they need to hurry and get on the same page quick, before Judge Kimball notices. Here's hoping Judge Kimball doesn't read Groklaw. Or the SEC, for that matter. I'd send an email to SCO to warn them, but I worry that then they'd try to trace my whereabouts and do heaven-knows-what next. Not that character assassination isn't fascinating. Anyhow, I know *SCO* reads Groklaw, so they can take this as their heads up. You'll remember that in SCO's Answer to Novell's Counterclaims, SCO denied Novell's claim that the Sun and Microsoft licenses were part of their SCOsource program and claimed that "SCO announced that initiative in January 2003 but did not enter into a SCOsource agreement until August 2003".1 Oh, really? What did SCO tell the SEC in their 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003? Our fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 was the first full year we were profitable in our operating history. Our profitability in fiscal year 2003 resulted primarily from our SCOsource licensing initiatives. . . .
We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in fiscal year 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements. This effort resulted in the execution of two significant vendor license agreements during fiscal year 2003 and generated $25,846,000 in revenue. . . .
The SCOsource revenue generated in the third quarter and first three quarters of fiscal year 2003 was from two contracts executed with Sun Microsystems (“Sun”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”). In its latest 10Q, SCO says this:
The Company’s SCOsource revenue to date has been primarily generated from agreements to utilize the Company’s UNIX source code as well as from intellectual property compliance agreements. . . .
In an effort to protect our UNIX intellectual property, we initiated our SCOsource business. The initiatives of this business include seeking to enter into license agreements with UNIX vendors and offering SCOsource IP agreements to Linux and other end users allowing them to continue to use our UNIX source code and derivative works found in Linux. . . .
Our year ended October 31, 2003 was the first full year we were profitable in our operating history. Our profitability for the year ended October 31, 2003 resulted primarily from our SCOsource initiatives. . . .
Our future SCOsource licensing revenue is uncertain.
We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in the year ended October 31, 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements. This effort resulted in the execution of two significant vendor license agreements and generated $25,846,000 in revenue.
In their 10-Q for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2005, they said this:
We initiated the SCOsource licensing effort in the year ended October 31, 2003 to review the status of UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements. This effort resulted in the execution of two significant vendor license agreements and generated $25,846,000 in revenue. And here's what they said in their 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2004: To offset the decline in our UNIX business and review the status of our UNIX licensing and sublicensing agreements, we initiated our SCOsource licensing initiatives in January 2003. These initiatives now include, among others, seeking to enter into license agreements with UNIX vendors and implementing a worldwide program offering SCOsource intellectual property (“IP”) licenses to Linux end users allowing them to continue to use our UNIX source code and derivative works found in Linux. Our SCOsource efforts resulted in the execution of two significant vendor license agreements during fiscal year 2003. As you can see, they are telling the SEC that the millions they took in from Sun and Microsoft was "SCOsource revenue". (Memo to SCO: August isn't in the first two quarters of the year.) Oh dear. Poor SCO. What to do? What to do? Here's an idea. Let's all just tell the truth. My mom always told me that was the best policy, because then you don't have to keep track of things, like what you said two years ago to the SEC, because when you tell the truth, all you have to do is remember the way it really was. Here's what SCO told the SEC in its 10-Q for the quarter ending April 30, 2003:
During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, the Company recognized its first licensing revenue from its intellectual property initiative, SCOsource. . . . And that's not all they wrote.
Here's the rest about SCOsource from the 2003 10Q:
Warrant Agreement
During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, the Company issued a warrant to a SCOsource licensee. The warrant allows the licensee to acquire 210,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $1.83 per share for a term of five years from the date of grant. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration to the SCOsource licensee, the Company has recorded the fair value of the warrant of $500,000, as determined using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, as a warrant outstanding during the quarter ended April 30, 2003 and reduced license revenue accordingly. Assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate fair value were the following: estimated fair value of common stock of $2.40 per share; risk-free interest rate of three percent; expected dividend yield of 0 percent; volatility of 236 percent; and term of 5 years. . . .
Recent Developments
During recent quarters, we have experienced a decline in our product and services revenue primarily attributed to the worldwide economic slowdown, lower information technology spending and increased competition in the operating system market. However, we have implemented cost reduction measures to decrease personnel and excess facilities and have significantly reduced our overall operating expenses. These measures, combined with the revenue from our SCOsource licensing initiative, have resulted in the first profitable quarter in our history.
Over 95 percent of our revenue has been derived from UNIX related products and services. During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, we recognized $8,250,000, or 39 percent of our quarterly revenue, from our intellectual property licensing initiative, SCOsource, launched in January 2003.
One of the assets we acquired from Tarantella was the intellectual property rights to UNIX. These rights had initially been developed by AT&T Bell Labs and over 30,000 licensing and sublicensing agreements have been entered into with approximately 6,000 entities. These licenses led to the development of several proprietary UNIX-based operating systems, including our own SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, Sun’s Solaris, IBM’s AIX, SGI’s IRIX, HP’s UX, Fujitsu’s ICL DRS/NX, Siemens’ SINIX, Data General’s DG-UX, and Sequent’s DYNIX/Ptx. We believe these operating systems are all derivatives of the original UNIX source code owned by us.
We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a “clean-up” license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and covers Microsoft’s UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and provide for an aggregate of an additional $5,000,000 to be paid to us over the next three quarters. These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised. In connection with the execution of the first license agreement, we granted a warrant to the licensee to purchase up to 210,000 shares of our common stock, for a period of five years, at a price of $1.83 per share. This warrant has been valued, using the Black-Scholes valuation method, at $500,000. Because the warrant was issued for no consideration, $500,000 of the license proceeds have been recorded as warrant outstanding and the license revenue reduced accordingly. SCO needs better paralegals, I think. Someone who can keep track of all the pukey details, like remembering that SCO called Sun a "SCOsource licensee" and when SCOsource licenses were first entered into. Nope. Thanks, loads. But I'm waaaay too busy helping SCO from afar. So, how is a girl supposed to know which story is true? Here's how I figure: if you tell the SEC something that turns out not to be true, you can get in big trouble. Doing the same thing to a court doesn't seem to have immediate consequences, so I am guessing what they told the SEC is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Oh, wait. That expression is for when you are testifying in a court of law. Sheesh. You're supposed to tell the truth there too. Now what can SCO do? Just throw themselves on the mercy of the court, I guess. Nah. That's for criminal cases. This is still just civil. Well, I don't know what SCO can do, but I doubt fancy schmancy legal wordsmithing can resolve this problem. Unless I am missing plenty, there is no way you can match up the two writings, and for the life of me, I don't see how both can be true.
1See Groklaw's side-by-side chart of Novell's Counterclaims and SCO's Answers: Novell: 37. As part of Caldera's rebranding efforts and shift in business strategy, Caldera purportedly initiated a review of its intellectual property rights. This effort culminated in the launching of a licensing initiative, which it called SCOsource, in January 2003. SCOsource, as described in further detail below, was an effort by Caldera to expand the revenue base of a company that had never before been profitable.SCO: 37. Admits that SCO launched the SCOsource initiative to review, enforce, and defend SCO's ownership of its UNIX intellectual property (including copyrights); admits that SCO announced that initiative in January 2003 but did not enter into a SCOsource agreement until August 2003; and denies each and every other allegation of ¶37. . . .
Novell: 50: As part of the SCOsource program, SCO entered into at least two license agreements. These licenses related to the use of UNIX technology by the licensees. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"). The second license was with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") and purportedly covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products. On information and belief, through these licenses SCO broadened the rights of Sun and Microsoft to use SVRX code.
SCO: 50. Admits that SCO, through its SCOsource division, entered into agreements related to UNIX and Unixware with Sun Microsystems, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (in that order) and that the Microsoft agreement covered UNIX compatibility products; but denies each and every other allegation of ¶50, including the allegation that the Sun and Microsoft agreements were part of the SCOsource licensing program.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
The only thing that comes to mind is "What a surprise -NOT" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
I wonder if Novell reads Grolkaw!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pmk on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
Does SCO's fiscal year start January 1, or is it skewed? It's possible that
August is in their second fiscal quarter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- calendars - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Fogey on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: capt.Hij on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 05:40 AM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Trepalium on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:24 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:02 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:19 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Chani on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Paulus on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: ralevin on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Chani on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Paulus on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- calendars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 04:20 AM EDT
|
Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
A bit late...
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MathFox on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:06 PM EDT |
OOPS, no off-topic thread was started...
Please make HTML links and give us a few words about where the link is pointing
to.
---
When people start to comment on the form of a message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM's reply to SCO's latest discovery request? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- Anagrams on "Me, Inc." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:32 PM EDT
- SEMICON - Authored by: pogson on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- Anagrams on "Me, Inc." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Anagrams on "Me, Inc." - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- SCOs Me, Inc (R) ----> CRIMeS, (cOns) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:24 AM EDT
- Anagrams on "Me, Inc." - Authored by: ff5166 on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 06:50 AM EDT
- SCO Group Successes - "Document Not Found" - Authored by: aardvarq on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- Substandard Policy - Authored by: cab15625 on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:22 PM EDT
- Sub-note to Microsoft's Three-Way-Split Announcement - Authored by: ansak on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- "The Future of the IT Organisation - Can I see your licence, sir?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 06:53 PM EDT
- "Windows Beat Unix, But It Won't Beat Linux" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- "IBM's potential MS-Office killer to roll out by year's end" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- Authors sue Google over book plan - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 02:50 AM EDT
- Off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 05:35 AM EDT
- OT - Reminds me of somebody ... - Authored by: emmenjay on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- Pork Busters - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- USPTO overwhelmed by applications - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:27 PM EDT
- Merkey punts!! PJ off hook. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:56 PM EDT
- CAGW Criticizes Open Source Mandate in Massachusetts - Authored by: gumnos on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Boies: All in the Family - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- Has old Caldera doc been posted before: "Unifying Unix with Linux for Business" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Paging Weeble - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 05:24 PM EDT
- "CIO Jury: Microsoft licensing slammed by UK IT chiefs" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- Off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- 2.5 terabytes of 'Able Danger' data destroyed - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- Small Businesses - You don't need an IT Dept. to swap to Linux if these people can manage it. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 07:06 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
Stop please stop - my side is hurting from laughing please stop. sco your
killing me
lol lol lol!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- A question - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Sun - Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- Thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 05:57 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Pop69 on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
"These contracts do not provide for any payments beyond 2003, except that
Microsoft was granted the option to acquire expanded licensing rights, at its
election, that would result in additional payments to us if exercised."
Interesting point, I suppose that this is a vehicle for Microsoft to feed more
money to SCO when they start getting low on funds.
If they're going to feed more money into SCO I would expect to see it in the
next quarter or 2, possibly even as early as their next quarterly results
conference as a wookie.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:30 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
I think it is actually not illegal for SCO to deny each of the counterclaims of
Novell, even those that are correct, including those that are very obviously
correct. I assume there must be some disadvantage when you do that, or SCO would
have denied everything. Obviously you would deny things that speak against you,
when you believe that the other side cannot prove it.
I would expect that what happens would be this: Novell claimed that Sun is in
SCOsource licensee. SCO denied this, so Novell has to bring proof. Novell prints
a copy of SCO's statements for the SEC, gives the printout to the judge, and
that's the proof.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
Amazing. :-D
Well done Pamela, great reading.
They always did say a liar needs a good memory - not that
SCO are liars, of course.
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mecha on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:12 PM EDT |
NOVELL 78. SCO has not remitted any royalties from its new SVRX Licenses with
Sun or Microsoft.
SCO 78. Admits that SCO has not remitted royalties from its licenses with Sun
and Microsoft; denies each and every other allegation of ¶78, including the
allegation that SCO entered into "SVRX Licenses" with Sun or
Microsoft; and to the extent ¶78 purports to state a legal conclusion, states
that no response is required.
SCO Denies that the licenses were SVRX Licenses. So according to their 10Q
Filing, they must have been IP licensing. I think this is the first filing that
actually says that SCOsource is for SRVX licensing and for IP licensing revenue.
---
************************************************************
I am not clever enough to write a good signature. So this will have to do.
*****************[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
way to go PJ.
This is the first 100% lie we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or is it the
first?). They are sure to earn brownie points with the judge on this.
Keep up the good work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- the first lie .????? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- lie? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
It's pretty clear how SCO plans to try and explain it away:Admits
that SCO, through its SCOsource division, entered into agreements related to
UNIX and Unixware with Sun Microsystems, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation (in
that order) and that the Microsoft agreement covered UNIX compatibility
products; but denies each and every other allegation of ¶50, including the
allegation that the Sun and Microsoft agreements were part of the SCOsource
licensing program. They're going to try and make a distinction
between the SCOsource division which handles licensing and the SCOsource
licenses themselves. They will say these weren't "real" SCOsource
licenses, but another thing, but only the SCOsource division was set up to
handle the payments. Of course, that just moves the question back another step.
If they weren't SCOsource licenses and they weren't UNIX licenses, what were
they?--- ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
(Memo to SCO: August isn't in the first two quarters of the
year.)
To be explicit and avoid confusion, SCO's first
two quarters for fiscal 2003 extended from November 1, 2002 to April 30,
2003.
At first I thought this may have anulled PJ's argument, but naw, it
holds even more. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
Will the court actually care that SCO is lying in its filings? No seriously.
PJ's prior article went to great lengths to say that SCO's attempts to use
admissions to introduce new facts would be ignored by the court. So now they are
proven to be lying in those admissions. Will the court take notice, or will it
ignore the issue because the bogus 'admissions' were worthless from the start?
Judges rarely volunteer to take in new issues, but will instead decide the bare
minimum of facts needed to get a case moving. For the judge(s) to react to these
lies would cause more work for them in the long run, and the admissions were
going to be ignored anyway.
The only way I could see the judges caring about this is if Novell or IBM
referenced their filings in motions or arguments later in the case.
TZak, not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
... it's possibly much simpler.
If I understand correctly, the litigation team can get away with bending the
truth, on the basis that there's an opportunity for the real truth to come out
at trial (or by a decision from the judge); ie they just lose on that point with
nothing much else said.
But if the accountants knowingly bend the truth then the SEC response will feel
like a brick wall fell on them (and their career).
So this could be a case of the accountants saying to the litigation team:
"You say what you like in court, but don't drag us into it!".
That's what I'd do in their place.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Another scrivener's error, no doubt...
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Oh yeah! go pj go! :)
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
Its been passed to someone else.
Tufty
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT |
If I worked for IBM, I think I might be tempted to try and rent up some of the
billboards around SCO's offices for the next few months.
And then run a whole series of Job Recruitment posters.
You can picture the wording now, right?
"Do you have skills in Linux or Unix(R)? If so, you should be talking to
us. In the last 2 years IBM have invested billions of dollars in Linux and
related technologies. We'd like you to join us."
And then, in tiny letters at the bottom of the poster,
"Unix is a registered trademark which may or may not belong to The SCO
Group, Inc. Case pending."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
for anyone to care.
Unless Darl pays someone double-time overtime to go through everything and make
sure it looks good.
SCOG just does not have enough goodwill (even (especially?) from current
employees) for them to make an extra effort on SCOG's behalf.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
>So, how is a girl supposed to know which story is true?
A girl can use one of the oldest programmers laws -
If the code and the comments don't agree with each other
then you can be pretty sure that *both* of them are wrong.
(My guess is that *both* stories are not "the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.")[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rharvey46 on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
I wonder if their idea is the following.
SCO admits / claims that Sun and Microsoft are licensees for SCOsource.
SCO denies that Sun and Microsoft spent 8+ Million $ on SCOsource licensing.
Both statements can still be true. Sun and Microsoft spent (say) 30,000 $ on
SCOsource licensing. The rest of the 8+ Million $ were on (unspecified)
Intelectual Property and/or property.
Since Sun and Microsoft were both already SCOsource licensees, SCO decided to
have the 8+ Million $ also be processed thru the SCOsource division, even though
it was not (as such) for SCOsource licenses. Other companies do similar things.
For example, buy product X, and the support for product X is handled by the same
division. If product Y is purchased from the same company, it may also be
through the same division, simply because it is easier to use the same account.
I can not figure out, however, if this would make the statements SCO made in the
10-Q / court documents true or false. ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Aside from annoying the Judge, this is an excellent example of why you
never include 'advocacy' comments in a legal response to
complaint.
SCO: 37. Admits that SCO launched the SCOsource
initiative to review, enforce, and defend SCO's ownership of its
UNIX intellectual property (including copyrights); admits that SCO
announced that initiative in January 2003 but did not enter into a SCOsource
agreement until August 2003; and denies each and every other allegation
of ¶37. . .
Highlighted by me. The highlighted parts have nothing
to do with Novell's paragraph 37.
All they did by adding this
inapropriate advocacy language was make a statement in a legal forum which
explicitly contradicts their required filings with the SEC.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
that says you can't claim something in one court while claming the opposite in
another court.
I wonder if that rule can be extended to cover non-court, but nevertheless
official, statements like income tax returns and SEC filings?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: El_Heffe on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
Oh PJ ... poor girl. you really need to get out more often. You know .... get
a life. There's no denying that SCO is a bunch of scumbags, but your rabid
anti-SCO zealotry is really starting to cloud your basic common sense.
"Memo to SCO: August isn't in the first two quarters of the year"
Fact: Many companies, due to bizaare incomprehensible accounting practices, do
not run their fiscal year from Jan 1 to Dec 31. So it is entirely possible
that August falls in the second quarter of SCO's fiscal year.
"SCO needs better paralegals, I think. Someone who can keep track of all
the pukey details".
Agreed. There's no question that SCO has some real problems with their dates
and keeping track of what happened when. However, never attribute malice to
something that can be explained by mere incomptence.
---
My dog! It's full of rats! - 2001 a Dyslexic Odyssey.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dear El Heffe - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- malice - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: rm6990 on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: jimbudler on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- That's all you find wrong with an otherwise very interesting article? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 09:01 PM EDT
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Which begs the question... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:54 PM EDT
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 03:23 AM EDT
- Get out more? No! Stay in more!! - Authored by: Saturn on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 06:37 AM EDT
- SCO's 10Q - Oops! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 09:39 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:34 PM EDT |
As I understand it this evidence has been presented to Judge Kimball to
enable him to come to a decision about whether some SCOG money should be held in
trust whilst the main court cases are decided.
Is there any more evidence to
be presented by either side before Judge Kimball makes his decision on the
funds? I assume a relatively quick decision on this is required.
If Judge
Kimball decides he needs clarification on some point will he ask the party to
explain in more detail?
Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
Interesting to see how the SCO lawyers dance around this one!!!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stats_for_all on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 08:45 PM EDT |
The Halloween email, later amplified in Anderer's 'Wired' interview, identified
Rich Emerson, Sr. VP Corporate Development (acquisitions) as the key MSFT
contact for MSFT>>SCOX payments.
Rich Emerson was hired by MSFT in
November, 2000, leaving a Lazard Freres
telecommunications position. He hired
his old deputy, Brian Roberts in
January 2001.
Emerson reported to COO
Rick Belluzo until Belluzo left in April, 2002. After
Belluzo'sdeparture,
Emerson was one of 16 divisions reporting directly to
Steve Ballmer.
In
September, 2002, MSFT revealed in a 10-Q filing that Emerson had been
given a
non-recourse personal loan of $12MM as signing bonus. The loans
were now
prohibited as part of the strenghten oversight of Sar-Ox in the
post-Enron
environment.
In early April, 2003 Emerson paid off the loan + interest by
surrendering
1.3MM vested options. The options were priced underwater at
$28.45, but a
Black-Sholes pricing model supported a future valuation equal
to the loan.
The MSFT license was confirmed in a Sunday night, May 18, 2003
press
release, following a leak to the Wall Street Journal. The press release
is no
longer on the MSFT presspass site, but news accounts quote the MSFT
Corporate Counsel Brad Smith on the IP license.
Rich Emerson's August 31
departure from MSFT was announced in news
accounts dated Sept 12, 2003. Brian
Roberts, the deputy, was promoted from
to a VP role, but the Senior VP position
was temporarily abolished, and the
chain of command transfered from Ballmer to
office of the CFO John Connor.
The 'Halloween' 2003 email still discusses
"Rich" in present tense without
showing awareness that he left the mothership a
month and a half prior.
Post-Microsoft Emerson has kept a low profile. A
very small stock position in
Niku Corp shows up in a 2004 SEC filing, but no
other web scraps can be
found. Emerson's Form 4 filings show he owned only 3000
shares of MSFT in
July 2003. The residual portion of his options (1.8MM shares
underwater) may
of expired when he left MSFT.
I believe it is significant
that in the critical July 2002 --August 2003 period,
Rich Emerson, the
identified SCOX-MS gobetween, was a direct subordinate
of Steve Ballme .
In
November 2004, loyal employee Brian Roberts was promoted to a Senior VP
position in a reconstituted autononmous Corp Development division.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skuggi on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
We initiated the SCOsource effort... This effort resulted in the execution of
two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter.... The first of these
licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code... The second
license was to Microsoft Corporation...
-----And to compare----
admits that SCO announced that initiative in January 2003 but did not enter into
a SCOsource agreement until August 2003...
denies each and every other allegation of ¶50, including the allegation that the
Sun and Microsoft agreements were part of the SCOsource licensing program.
---
---
-Skuggi.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
This fiaSCO has attracted a lot of attention not only on SCO and its attorneys,
but also on the Court and the legal system. The exposed parties must feel this
scrutiny is unfair since few cases in the justice system are reviewed so
rigorously. The industry, the internet, this site, and PJ shine numerous
spotlights on every aspect of the case. It has embarassed SCO, parties and
attorneys, and continues to shine a suspicious eye on the legal system that,
heretofore, fails to react to apparently outrageous conduct. Does the court
ever reach a point where it feels it is being abused and manipulated? Of course
it does; but that is what courts are for - a place for disputants to find
closure - a decision that ends their dispute. After all most cases end in a
settlement that includes terms and sums that embody the outrageous conduct, the
fear of an adverse or extreme decision, the costs of enduring, depth of pockets,
etc. etc. forget and forgive, next case.
But one hopes that someday one case might present a compelling example, that due
to public awareness and extreme conduct, can't be ignored. The Court might feel
constrained to act lest it be seen before the world as an ignominious
participant in a misprision and farce.
PJ presents here a particularly egregious example of outrageious SCO conduct.
This is why they are blasted away as a fat sitting duck when anything
substantive comes up.
Novell: Mr. SCO, you refer to SCOsource and M$ and SUN 47 times. In seven you
deny they participated in SCOsource, in the rest you boast that they did. Do
you agree they can not both be true? Which version is the truth? And which
version is a lie?
Mr. SCO: You have taken them out of context. They are all true!
Contradictions are easy. SCO has also stonewalled on the disclosure of
evidence. They have misconstrued the interpretations of the Orders of the
Court. The have misconstrued the other side's position. Indeed the truth and
everything about this Novell case seems to be quite a stretch. Judg Kimball has
already let them know he is nobody's fool. Add Daimler-Chryselr and Autozone to
this peculiar pile. If ever there was a case to make an example of litigation
abuses, this would be a prime candidate.
Since we operate in an adversary setting, almost everything that happens is
instigated upon the motion of a party. Judges seldom do things sua sponte lest
they be accused of bias. No doubt when the truth or lack thereof is finally
resolved, the aggrieved Linusians will ask the Court for the world. The Judge
may feel constrained to give it and pile on more of his own for good measure.
Parties and lawyers may be fair game. The deep pockets behind the SCO scheme
are going to attract some hot spotlights.
---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
Q: How do you like your SCO ?
A: Toasted, on both sides, please.
thanks PJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
Everyone should email enforcement@sec.gov and point out the issues raised here.
Here's my email.
To: enforcement@sec.gov
Subject: The Sco group, inc 's 10Q statements not matching up with their court
filings
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:08:07 -0500
This warrants immediate investigation as the whole situation with SCO's ip
claims and associated lawsuits bears the smell of a scam. They have either lied
to the court in their lawsuits or they lied to the SEC in their corporate
filings. both are illegal acts by a corporation. Taking public action on this
would be a good corporate governance issue and politically good press for the
SEC.
Please reference the story at the below url for some background information as
to this specific issue. Once you know where to look finding the evidence
shouldn't be that hard.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050920114259771[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 20 2005 @ 11:26 PM EDT |
You GO Girl!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
I am not posting this to spread FUD, and I am posting a test command below which
you can use to verify this. It has been reported on mozillazine already.
Until Firefox 1.0.7 is released, don't click on links from external programs to
launch firefox, as they can execute arbitrary commands on a users Linux/*nix PC.
For instance, open a terminal and try this command:
firefox http://www.google.`mkdir $HOME/testthisflaw`.com/
Believe it or not, it will create a directory called testthisflaw in the users
home directory, while still launching the browser and going to the correct page.
I verified this myself.
Anything contained in between the ` symbols (right above tab key) actually
launches that command due to a vulnerability in the shell scripts used to launch
mozilla suite and firefox. The vuln has gotten the highest rating by Secunia and
some other company whose name slips my mind. You can even string an unlimited
number of commands into a URL by using the && functionality of bash or
by having multiple commands enclosed with the ` symbol in the URL.
Just thought I would warn everyone. :) Mozilla should get this patch out the
door ASAP, since even I, whom has never coded in my life, can exploit it (not
that I would ever want to of course, I'm not like that)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:32 AM EDT |
No PJ, they are telling the truth in both cases.
The money they got from Sun and M$ wasn't for licenses, they were funds to help
SCO to go on with the scosource scheme.
As such, they could be called scosource revenue, but in fact it was a
(SUN/M$/SCO) joint-venture. Until the halloween letters leaked out.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mrcreosote on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:36 AM EDT |
Maybe SCOG need to add 'E&OE" to all their filings, both with the
courts and the SEC.
---
----------
mrcreosote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
I posted a couple of comments up about a Firefox bug, more detail is available
at these URLs.
http://secunia.com/advisories/16869/
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=307185
Mozilla rushed out a fix for the bug. Firefox 1.0.7 has been released, just to
let everyone know.
And everyone doubted me by saying you could not launch commands by clicking a
link from another program, which Secunia says is not the case. I must be some
U8ER 733T hacker then considering I managed to delete files by emailing myself a
link in Evolution :) Yes, it is affected by other GUI applications, and as seen
in the second URL above, the Mozilla devs have fixed the startup scripts.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 02:42 AM EDT |
PJ you are positively at the top of your game. Keep it up. Maybe SCO will dig
themselves an even deeper hole, like one so deep its warm down there, like a
caldera or something. These guys should start thinking about an exit strategy
that can salvage there standing with the diety the profess to love. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
Just a quick thaught.
Microsoft has a licence to use all UNIX code from SCO
SCO is attempting to prove that Linux is based on its UNIX code
If SCO can prove this, doesn't it allow Microsoft to use Linux without having to
touch that pesky GPL?
Just thinking out loud here :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
"The more precisely the POSITION is determined,
the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known"
This descibes the Caldera/SCO legal case perfectly.
---
"Numerical superiority is of no consequence. In battle, victory will go to the
best tactician."
~ George Custer (1839-1876)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
Just from a quick scan of the quotes above I have found
- SCOsource
licensing program.
- SCOsource program,
- intellectual property
initiative, SCOsource
- SCOsource licensing
initiative,
- intellectual property licensing initiative,
SCOsource
- SCOsource effort
- SCOsource
revenue
- SCOsource licensing revenue
7 different ways that
SCOsource has been described. The use seems to be fairly inconsistant. But it
would be possible to squirm their way out of it if the uses in the 10Q and the
reply to Novell are different.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:17 AM EDT |
"Moreover, to our knowledge, OSRM is not licensed to broker insurance in
its home state of North Carolina or anywhere else in the U.S." OSRM has not
been able to clarify the matter for TechRepublic.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5873133.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oops! - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- What has this got to do with Novell/SCOG - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 09:27 AM EDT
- Lloyds - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- Open mouth, insert foot - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 10:54 AM EDT
- OSRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 08:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
We certainly do not want to use choice words to describe what SCO did here, like
the words Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates use when they feel Microsoft gets the bad
end of a deal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 21 2005 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
When I followed the link to the latest SCO 10-Q, I could not find this
paragraph:
SCOsource licensing revenue consists of revenue
generated from vendor licenses to use our proprietary UNIX System V code as well
as IP licenses. SCOsource licensing revenue was $11,000 for second quarter
of fiscal year 2004 as compared to $8,250,000 in SCOsource revenue in the
second quarter of fiscal year 2003, and SCOsource revenue was $31,000 for
the first two quarters of fiscal year 2004 as compared to $8,250,000 in
SCOsource revenue for the first two quarters of fiscal year 2003. The SCOsource
revenue generated in the second quarter of fiscal year 2003 was from two
contracts executed with Sun and Microsoft.
The discussion of
SCOSource in the latest 10-Q does not mention the Sun or Microsoft agreements.
In fact, the only mention of either Sun or Microsoft is in the
paragraph:
In the operating system market, our competitors include
IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Hewlett-Packard, Sun, Microsoft and other Linux
distributors. These and other competitors are aggressively pursuing the current
UNIX operating system market. ...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|