|
| Authored by: SkArcher on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:35 AM EST |
How many times will the judge allow them to argue that they need to go on a
fishing trip into AIX?
What are the odds of IBM managing to stay up all night and work through these
new motions and nail SCO down? Otherwise I see SCO rinsing and repeating this
tactic all the way to August, and this is hurting us (and specifically, me) now.
---
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kpl on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:37 AM EST |
They're nothing if not consistant.
(or is that consistantly
inconsistant, I dunno,
I've lost track)
;-)
---
--------------------
mv sco /dev/null
-------------------- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: solman on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:44 AM EST |
The article reads as though Shankland and his sources are assuming that the
expanded claims include a copyright claim based entirely on SCO's comments
during the last hearing.
This is far from an authoritative indication that SCO has, infact, added such a
claim.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Captain on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:47 AM EST |
"Those of us with a memory recall that SCO told the judge on December 5,
at the last hearing, that they would be adding a copyright infringement claim
within a week."
Almost, but not quite. Kevin McBride used a very
subtle form of newspeak. IIRC, he said 'within a few days, or no less
than a week.' Double-plus misleading. ---
EuroGeek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:51 AM EST |
I don't know much about legal proceedings, but I'm guessing it's similar to
anything else that happens in life - you want to avoid unpleasant things for as
long as you can and do pleasant ones as soon as you can. Given that, I would
expect SCO to be the ones that want to push this thing forward. After all, it's
*them* that started the case, *them* that claim to have the evidence etc.
What possible reason could they have to stall?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 02:12 AM EST |
Has SCO asked the court to add a copyright claim, or has SCO issued a press
release saying they are going to ask the court to add a copyright claim?
There's a difference. In this case, it's not a trivial difference.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 02:13 AM EST |
This will help their Linux licensing scheme. It counters one of the easy
arguments against licensing from them.
"They probably don't have a copyright case against Linux users, because if
they did they're have one against IBM."
Well now they do. I expect they'll be sending out a new set of licensing
letters soon.
Steve
--
New poster, haven't registered yet.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 02:32 AM EST |
The McBride brothers get to go before the court now, before the same judge who
told them to stop dawdling and comply with IBM's discovery requests, that during
their court ordered two months of looking real hard, they've uncovered
additional evidence that allows them to add a copyright infringement complaint,
or whatever their new complaint turns out to be.
Now the judge gets to make one of two rulings:
sympathetic, or leave 'em enough rope: 'I understand, it's a lot of data to plow
through, your request is granted.'
or testy: <Judge Milian voice> 'You brought this case forward 9 months
ago, in the seven months after that you repeatedly failed to cooperate with the
defendant's discovery requests, until I ordered you to two months ago, and NOW
you discover material for addiational complaints? Perhaps if you were a bit more
forthcoming with discovery, you wouldn't have had to wait until the last minute
to file your additional complaint, and I might've been more sympathetic. Next
time, do your homework, and come prepared to class.' </Judge Milian
voice>
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 02:46 AM EST |
Organizing - Links to best comments 2
Here is the second installment
of Links to best comments. Instead of allowing the post to grow too much, I'll
post links to previous installment, mentioning the best of the best in the
previous installments. Also, unless an anchor page is set up, I'll post each
new installment in the latest Groklaw story. So far, I am only indexing
mainline comments, but I'll take suggestions for the best comments in response
threads to mainline comments.
Here are the best project related
comments since February 04 2004 @ 07:08 PM EST, by
subprojects.
ORGANIZING - comments providing links and abstracts of
sources, stories, and other comments
Links
to best comments 1 Includes Start timeline here, procedures suggestions,
subproject definitions, Linux subproject start, Timeline of SCO claims,
volunteers, links for OS/2 and non-Unix
SUGGESTIONS - comments
suggesting ideas for project procedures, organization,
License reporting tool
websites change, close
analyzing software source code
Use
open format like XML
Digitally signed archive
Format
suggestions
Timelines with phases
MICROSOFT - comments about where
Microsoft fits in
HISTORY - comments describing some part of the
history that does not fit well in other subprojects
LINUX -
History of Linux
Linux
& Minix Linus's book "just for fun"
Early
Linux development
Minix
resources
UNIX - History of Unix
20 yr
old UNIX graph
DEC
Timeline
SunOS
4 header files
Catalog of operating systems
PWB
1.2
Unix
Heritage Society Web site
Eric
Lévénez's Unix Timeline
Rob
Kolstad, former president of BSDi
Tracking missing notices in vi
UNIX before Berkeley
Unix history graphing
project
SUBPROJECTS - comments naming or listing
subprojects
SCOCLAIMS -
PERSONNEL - comments
suggesting persons to work on the project
RSC
volunteered for general help
CS and
IDS Faculty and Students
contact Robert Haslam, an attorney for BSDI
Peter
Salus
old
timers from AUTODIN
LAW - comments describing requirements of
the law, licenses, and contracts, cases
GPL
Basis in copyright law - Suggestion for GPL FAQ
This list is
complete, AFAIK, up to February 06 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 02:50 AM EST |
"And by the way, 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. And we'll put then
fully in front of the Court the three buckets we have outlined here, contract,
trade secrets and copyright. "
Three buckets? I'll proffer they are three buckets of luke warm spit[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Greebo on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:10 AM EST |
| Hi,
This is a
nice
quick summary of how things fit together so
far.
---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jobsagoodun on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:22 AM EST |
I guess the judge will allow the new copyright claims to forestall any possible
appeal. But could the judge make this delay more bittersweet - for example by
making SCO put down a bond to cover IBMs expenses on the offchance that IBM
prevail & put SCO into liquidation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Greebo on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:34 AM EST |
| Looking at the Yahoo Message
Board shows something interesting. All of the 'Sentiment' comments
are Strong Sell.
If you read some of the comments as well it's
obvious that most people expect IBM to ask for a Motion to Dismiss, and that
once that happens SCO's price will plummet.
So the message to the Investors
is Get out whilst the goings
good!
Cheers,
Greebo ---
--------------------------------------
---
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:12 AM EST |
Want to bet that they start arguing in the Novell suit (before a different
judge) that the contractual aspects of the IBM suit to be settled before the
Novell suit can proceed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:28 AM EST |
They're going to be asked to show, with specificity, where the infringement
occurs.
I don't think waving their arms around and talking about "millions" of
lines is going to do the trick.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:50 AM EST |
It tells me they would like to delay.
I don't know about the
court rules in the US, but I would
assume that the mere fact that they are
indeed adding a
copyright infringement claim, is yet another indicator,
that
they want to delay: I would consider it quite likely,
that the judge takes this
as a reason to wait for the
result of the claims of SCO against Novell. If so,
the
case would be delayed almost forever...
Jochen Wiedmann
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: shareme on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:59 AM EST |
a question
Since from what I read abotu the UCB VS BSD first rulling states that
copyrights from 1978-1988 over SYstem5version4 might be public domain..
What copyrights to System5 are left?
If you read the rulling a detailed analysis is offered on what copyrgiths past
version 4 might be still not be public domain, namely version 7 code only or
higher..
If these copyrights are the only ones left, then what proof does SOC offer in
claiming them as Novell still owns them according to both Novell and OpenGroup
and other reports..
BTW the only trade secrets the UCB vs BSD case was set to recognize was the
IP/TCP stack ..
---
Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't
exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- good luck... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:52 AM EST
- sorry... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:54 AM EST
- BSD - Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: gressil on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:10 AM EST |
Shankland also reports that SCO will be holding a press conference after
the hearing tomorrow, which I'm sure surprises you greatly. A press conference?
Those shy violets?
I'd put money (not a lot of course, this is SCO)
that they are going to announce their target for the end user copyright claim at
this press conference. They have to do something, I can't see this hearing going
too well for them and their stock price is going to take a hit (it's down $5
over the last month), what better way to bump it up than announcing more
litigation? It certainly worked in the past.
Chris [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: krow on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:39 AM EST |
And since IBM *already* asked for any code in linux that SCOX claimed any IP
rights to with specificity in their interrogitory, could the judge deny the
motion based on the non-appearance of code in SCOX's response (remember that one
of the Lindon Stooges said that they didn't provide any code because the IBM
case wasn't a copyright case -- not that there's never been a gap between what's
said in Lindon and what is in fact true.) If they seek to file a copyright case
and they've failed to provide relevant responses to explicit interrogitories
that they were compelled to answer, what are the courts options? Are they going
for a dismissal without prejudice?
Cheers,
Craig
---
Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:02 AM EST |
If I were IBM, I would say to judge Wells that she let the SCO Group add their
copyrights allegation <i>after</i> they have stated their original
allegations as required by the Dec 5 order. Interesting: the trial is still
stuck at the stage where the SCO Group is stating its allegations. We are not
even at the stage where the judge has to make the determination that the SCO
Group's evidence is adequate to sustain its allegations. And yet the SCO Group
is still getting ahead of itself and bombarding judge Wells with its fishing
expedition requests.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: phrostie on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:01 AM EST |
just my .02USD, but i'm guessing that IBM's men in black saw this coming. 5
bucks says they walk in looking like the chesser cat.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:16 AM EST |
Okay, let me get this straight in my head...
February 4th was the
cutoff date for amending claims, if I'm not mistaken.
Also if I'm not
mistaken, when SCO amended their claims the first time, they didn't file any
motion to do so, they just filed an amended claim.
This time, right at
the deadline, they file a motion (which IBM gets to comment on, and on
which the judge must ultimately rule after more back-and-forth) asking the judge
to allow them to file an amended claim, rather than actually amending their
claim.
Forgive me for being dense, but how in the world can Judge Wells
possibly not construe this as a delaying tactic (which, by the way,
according to SCO's Memorandum in Support of this motion, they claim is not the
case and therefore said motion should routinely be granted)??
Maybe I
just need more coffee (or perhaps a good dose of SCOolAid).
---
"When
I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: maroberts on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:30 AM EST |
...and the new copyright claim were somehow linked to Novells case, in the
interests of keeping the case moving, I would tell the judge to treat it as a
separate issue and have a separate trial after SCO v Novell has been decided.
The problem with the above is that SCO may make the claim that their copyright
issue and contract issue are intertwined and not to present both together would
prejudice their case. In that case, in the interests of proceeding, IBM will
probably have to do Novells work for them and prove that SCO do not own any
copyrighted Linux/AIX code. Otherwise the case will be a festering sore for
years.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:47 AM EST |
| Hey, does anybody know what time the festivities are set to begin today? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What Time? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:22 AM EST
- What Time? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST
- What Time? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 07:57 AM EST |
| Since SCO supposedly had more than eight months to identify, with specificity,
all rights that they have to Linux (which I innocently suppose would
include copyright) one might suppose that they included these copyright claims
in January? Is the Court supposed to believe that they've discovered copyright
issues in the last four weeks? Or is this another case of "we own the copyright
to stuff that's been added to Linux, but we don't know what it is until IBM
turns over their lab notebooks?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Xaos on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST |
| http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040206/COLUMNIST19/402
060318
Here is another moron who basically blames mydoom on the linux
community. It's worse then the bbc article. ---
Can we outsource Darl to
india? No wait humans live there. -Xaos- [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Lord Bitman on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:04 AM EST |
I don't entirely understand any of this. What "Discovery Obligations"
must IBM deal with? From what I've said, it seems that SCO has been saying
"We know you have done something bad, please tell us what".
When IBM says "tell us why you think we've done something bad", SCO
claims that they need time for discovery. Isn't that grounds for dismissal right
there? Shouldnt they have already discovered at least
<i>something</i> before making these claims? Yet they produced
nothing more than a note saying that they needed more time for discovery.
Can anyone explain to me how this whole mess works?
---
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:07 AM EST |
| Shankland says that "The Lindon, Utah-based company amended its claims
against IBM on the eve of a hearing about what information Big Blue needs to
disclose to SCO" and that "Wells decreed at the December hearing that
SCO should meet IBM's information requests but issued a stay until Friday on IBM
complying with SCO's information requests. Friday's hearing will address the
issue of what information IBM should provide.".
Is this true? My
recollection from the December hearing is that today's date is primarily about
SCO's compliance with IBM's motions to compel discovery. In light of what's
happened since december, what are the chances that SCO's motions will be
discussed today?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:12 AM EST |
Say! Did anybody read Mr. Shankland's article? He covered most of the
important points. Like that the SCOundrels' claim to own the copyrights on UNIX
are contested by Novell. It really isn't a bad piece, at all. Of course, it
shows, I think, why so many reporters don't bother. The case looks like a ruddy
big mess. (I suppose that's got something to do with the fact that the case has
become a ruddy big mess, not unlike a daytime-drama, but that may just be my
impression.)
Anyway, kudos to Shankland.
The Flatlander
Any Friday where the SCOundrels get their posteriors served to themselves on
paper plates is a Good Friday.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:13 AM EST |
A bit off topic, but still.
Looking back on this in a couple of years, we'll all see that this case, and the
publicity it brings and keeps bringing, thanks to good old Darl, will be the
single most significant event in bringing Linux to the desktop market. After
all, I know of people that had never heard of Linux that are talking about it,
asking questions and such.
In addition, the precedent this case will create with respect to the GPL will,
in a positive way, put it's foundation in concrete.
Therefore, let'em do what they do best ... marketing Linux, the SCO way.
Ben[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:21 AM EST |
http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/pups/1998-March/000027.html
Read from 199803180122.MAA02264@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au
Nothing ever changes it seems... :-([ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: N. on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:24 AM EST |
| Psst. IBM. Are you sure you've thought of absolutely, positively
*everything*?
That line intrigues me...
N.
---
N.
(Recent convert to Linux) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tintak on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST |
Good piece in The Inquirer
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14018
Groklaw gets a link. Hoorah.
---
What shape should a weathervane be?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:40 AM EST |
IANAL and probably a little thick re legal issues but what copyright claims
could SCOG make against IBM. The only possible one that I can guess is as a
result of SCOG's revocation of IBM's perpetual source licence.
Assuming the additional claim is copyright and assuming the above is that
copyright claim is it likely that the judge would allow this to be added. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: shawnh on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:40 AM EST |
| From the Cnet.com news article SCO adds copyright claim to IBM
suit:
SCO spokesman Blake Stowell declined to comment on the expanded
legal attack--the company's second amended complaint against IBM--other than to
say SCO plans a news announcement after Friday's hearing.
It is apparent
from the above comment that Blake Stowell has been kidnapped and replaced with
Linux Zealots. Mr. Stowell has never been known for declining to comment, and
therefore, logically, it must be the Linux community impersonating him. News at
11.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skyisland on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:41 AM EST |
I wonder if SCO's lawyers, well aware of their client's
tendencies, are just doing the necessary things to
cover themselves against a legal malpracitice lawsuit? ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 08:57 AM EST |
Wasn't Chris Sontag or Blake Stowell just saying that this was a contract
case?
Also, since Novell has contested SCO sweeping claims to UNIX,
doesn't that give Judge Wells the leeway to deny any request by SCO to
add UNIX copyright claims to the case?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Is it possible, the copyright claims are a vehicle to get ahold of the source
from IBM that SCO really wants?
You draft your claim as to require discovery of that code so you can actually
use it for the previous issues in the case? Or would any discovery be limited
to use for this claim only? As before, I would assume IBM would object if SCO
didn't have any specific grounds to request discovery (as before).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ScoundrelLV on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST |
Let's look at the options.
1) Judge Wells allows the motion so they can amend their claims. Can she not
ask what pleadings amendments they are adding and at what date? If they claim
copyright will be added. Then it goes back to interrogatory 12. Show what
copyrights SCO has.
2) Disallow the motion and hold SCO in contempt. delay IBM's discovery and note
that [guessing]IBM has filed for a summary dismissal[/guessing].
As an aside can IBM claim SCO to be a vexatious litigant (something I heard on
TV sometime ago). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:16 AM EST |
Well, SCO avers to the Court that their intention is not to delay the case.
Fair enough, says Her Honor: they may consider all future motions for extension
of time to be denied in advance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Alan Bell on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST |
| http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040206/laf019_1.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:28 AM EST |
Since TSG's ownership of the copyrights is in question they probably expect IBM
to point that out to the judge. Want to bet that they request a continuance
pending the outcome of the Novell lawsuit?? This way they have to neither put
up or shut up![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: CyberCFO on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST |
My thoughts this morning:
1) The strategy is to delay as long as possible and when delay is no longer
possible, go on the offensive and widen the claim giving yet more opportunity to
delay;
2) Include a copyright claim, knowing full well that the copyrughts are in
dispute, forcing IBM to move that any claim for copyright infringement cannot be
addressed until clear copyright can be determined, thus giving additional
delaying again;
3) Proclaim to the world that we're not delaying, it is IBM that is delaying and
they are forcing us to widen the case so that we can get what we need to move
this thing along.
Transparent and unfair, but as long as they stick to their story, ain't nothing
anybody can do about it.
---
/g[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST |
Instead of accepting or rejection the motion the judge says 'Yes you can make
the copyright claim but not in this case, sue IBM again'. That would stop the
time wasting without prejudicing the current contract dispute. Any precedent for
doing this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: nvanevski on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:47 AM EST |
| Not much connected with the trial, but still mentions Darl in a not-so-gloriuos
manner : CNN Dumbest Tech Moments in 2003 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST |
| A press release
from this morning shows that some of the terms of the $50 million funding
deal have changed.
Investors get:
The conversion price now has a
floor of $13.50
They get to nominate a director at the shareholders
meeting
SCO gets:
Cut some slack in the redemption terms (seems
like the debt limit is more than $1 million now
Enron-style
bookkeeping. The redemption risk does not need to be put in the quarterly
report..
(Possibly saving SCO from appearing to lose money in the next
quarter.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: CPD on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST |
| Remember the infamous PIPE transaction? Aparantly SCO has persuaded their
investors to swap their preferred shares for a new series of preferred shares
that no longer have the cash redemption feature. They can now be swapped for
ordinary shares at a variable price, floored at $13.50 US but no cap.
I
don't really understand the import of this, but would really like to understand
what the floor price really means - any financial types care to explain? One
obvious consequence seems to be that a falling share price no longer threatens
insolvency due to a need to redeem the preferred shares in cash - or am I
misreading this?
(See: story)
Colin ---
Just when I thought it
couldn't get any wierder, SCO proved me wrong again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - Heads up PJ, everyone, financial news breaking... - Authored by: CPD on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
- OT - Heads up PJ, everyone, financial news breaking... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST
- Redemption still in force - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST
- OT - Heads up PJ, everyone, financial news breaking... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Thwack on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:57 AM EST |
Sorry this is off topic, but it looks to me like something amazingly shady is
just about to happen here.
http://clearstation.etrade.com/cgi-bin/bbs?post_id=5208702&Refer=
Now, I'm not that familiar with a lot of the things that happen on the stock
market, but it looks like SCO is just about to protect some of it's investors
against whatever could happen to it's stock value after the ruleing this
morning. Anyone else find this a bit fishy?
---
Not every monkey flings poo,
some fling lawsuits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST |
We've just seen some articles (IE, Orangecrate) raising the issue that the PIPE
investors haven't made themselves known to the SEC yet, in spite of holding such
a large chunk of stock.
Could this re-issue of new shares be a ploy to "reset the clock" on
any SEC reporting requirement that would reveal who the investors are?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:23 AM EST |
SCO's copyrights are all being contested by Novell. Can't move forward on
copyright claims until Novell's claims are dealt with.
Soooooooooo, SCO can bring copyright actions at a later date.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: seeks2know on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST |
SCO stock is already up $1.40 (although trading is light) to $14.40
today.
Looks like the market likes what their hearing from
SCO.
Aaargh!!! ---
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of
truth than lies." - Friedrich Nietzsche [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ChrisP on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST |
Just speculation you understand, with some IIRC.
Can SCOG afford to have Kevin McBride fronting for them in today's hearing?
I get the feeling that this whole business was dreamed up by the McBride
brothers a year and a half ago. Darl's company was/is on a downward slope, and
Kevin works for himself, though with an association with another law firm.
Perhaps he was/is not that successful as a lawyer either. Now if between them
they could gouge IBM for loads-a-money, both their careers would take a major
upturn.
As has been commented before, the standard of SCOGs court filings has been
pretty poor, with mistakes in spelling, grammer and facts, and often poorly
argued as well. One might think they were composed by a not very good lawyer,
who didn't have a decent paralegal or legal typist, and who never bothered/was
too self-confident to have the result proof-read before filing. Is this the
standard you would expect from a nationally known legal partnership like Boies
et al? Seems more likely to me that a one-man band did the work, and the big
name lawyers just signed it without reading or having time or authority to
change the contents.
On Dec 5th. Kevin got his chance to shine in court, and (reportedly) he bombed!
Can SCOG afford to let this happen again? Will family ties override good
business sense? Has Kevin blown his big chance? I guess we'll know in a few
hours.
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W dammit, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:42 AM EST |
Just a thought here....
Is there any chance that the judge can
rule that SCO must cease threatening letters and lawsuits against 3rd parties
until some of these IBM & copyright issues are resolved in
court?
IANAL - but this would seem (to me) to be a legitimate thing to
do, along the same lines as why courts issue gag-orders and the like. Given the
fact that this case could be further postponed until the Novell copyright issues
are resolved, it would seem to me that SCO's could be ordered to cease making
claims that it cannot prove.
Any lawyers out there?
Mike A.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tsho on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST |
Hi all. I don't remember seeing anyone posting this article, so here it is. I
think they actually get that Linux users didn't launch MyDoom. At least they
don't equate it.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02062004/business/136053.asp
---
Another Recent Windows Convert[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TAZ6416 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:57 AM EST |
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14018
Quite scathing of SCO I thought for a change.
Jonathan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lnx4me on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:58 AM EST |
IANAFA, IANAL, but could someone explain why SCOX has apparently gotten a $1.20
(10:30AM EST) bounce from the conversion of Series A Preferred Convertible
Stocke (Yahoo Finance)
thx
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bobn on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:04 AM EST |
| SCO has received no information from IBM, as their discovery requests are on
indefinite hold, pending their compliance with IBM's requests. So where can new
claims be coming from, nearly a year after their initial claims?
Are they
really allowed to keep adding claims indefinitely? How is *any* plaintiff to
defend *any* suit if it can keep changing? Is there no cutoff point where the
judge must say "Sorry, that's a new suit, not part of this one?"
Also, will
the new charges automatically need to be backed up with specificity right now,
as required by the judge's previous rulings?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:13 AM EST |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5154413.html SCO adds copyright claim to IBM
suit
I am preparing this note to send to zdnet's talkback forum in response to the
article, and would like to see ideas for the final version of this note and for
the details and analysis posts. I would like to see two threads: one for
drafts, and one for final versions.
Since there is a very small window for this note to do good today, I am sending
it to Groklaw as a draft, in hopes that IBM will find it in time, and follow
responses to get ideas. I would like to see a final version of this note and the
first details post before SCO's press conference today, to send to zdnet and
other media.
SCO did not file new claims on February 4, the last day they were allowed to
file new claims. They filed a request to be allowed to add new claims. The
request might have mentioned copyright claims, but the TuxRocks web site, which
tracks these documents, does not yet have a copy of Exhibit A: Proposed Second
Amended Complaint.
In order to make an educated guess on how the judge will rule on SCO's motion,
let's review what has happened since December 5. Since a lot has happened, I
posted the details and analysis in Groklaw (link TBD), and will just summarize
here:
Dec. 5, Kevin McBride: SCO will file copyright claims "in a few days or
no less [sic] than a week"
Jan. 12, SCO filed response to compel order
Jan. 13, Stowell said no copyright claim info in the response; did they defy
the court order?
Jan. 20, SCO filed a supplemental response to the compel order, 8 days late;
Feb. 4, SCO filed Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings, Notice of Filing
Plaintiff's Exhibits for Use at Hearing, Support of Motion for Leave to File
Factors to be considered:
Original claims so vague that IBM had to repeatedly ask what the case is
about;
Repeated delays in answering IBM's interrogatories, so, after 9 months, the
judge had to compel SCO to respond within 30 days;
Repeated out-of-order requests for IBM to answer SCO's interrogatories that
the judge said she won't consider until the compel order is satisfied;
Possible defiance of or late compliance with the compel order;
Court cases in which similar requests for Leave to File Amended Pleadings were
denied;
Other factors?
I hope that IBM offers this history and list of factors as an informal note to
the judge, today, with a promise to file a formal memorandum soon. I also hope
that members of Groklaw will dig up additional info for IBM to consider for its
formal memorandum.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bbaston on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:17 AM EST |
I don't know what this means, or even if it is off topic, but its result seems
to have given SCOX stock prices a big boost from the open of $13.00.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040206/laf019_1.html
Maybe predicting what SCOX will do next means looking at SCOX as an uninformed
investor?
---
Ben
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO, {;)}
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold, hairysmileyface,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Is the time posted for when the hearing will begin? All I know is it'll be
going on sometime today.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Xenographic on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST |
http://comics.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20040206.html
'Your company has become synonymous with incompetance and crime.'
Sounds like SCO inspired a Dilbert strip? :][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kurt555gs on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST |
It must be Microsoft behind this, I am sure the BBC was deluged by
letters yesterday about thier last anti-linux shill article on MyDoom, but
today we have this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3457823.stm
Cheers
Kurt
---
* Kurt *
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lightsail on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:45 AM EST |
Remember IBM v DOJ, IBM's legal team is a tireless relentless machine. They
will, in defence of the TSG lawsuit, be the immovable object,constantly blocking
the TSG avenues of progress. On offense, The will be the unstoppable force, as
they present the counter suit.
As to the fool hardy move of claiming copyright infringment, I expect that IBM
will have done line by line study of the origins of UNIX code. AT&T used
much of the work done at UC Berkeley to improve Unix. I remember a lawsuit about
that some time ago that was not favorable to AT&T USL. IBM used BSD Unix
early in its AIX history and SysV in the later AIX development. They are very
familiar with both. TSG predecessor in interest, AT&T has dirty hands in the
Unix copyrights. The AT&T copyrights are compromised and that will undermine
any TSG copyright claims. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 11:51 AM EST |
Maybe SCO can offer licenses to view the court case? This case is their IP
right?
<grin>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PenguinLust on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:03 PM EST |
Two years ago, SCO claimed that it owned more than 800,000 lines of the
system which had always been available for free and to anyone since its
invention in 1991.
Hmmmm, two errors in one paragraph. When SCO
filed suit against IBM in 2003 (It's not 2005 already is it?) the claim
was around a few thousand lines to my knowledge. They only increased it to the
much more sinister sounding Millions of lines of code later. They've also
flopped around a bit on if they actually own the code personally or it falls
under their liberal interpretation of derivitive.
Aside from that
more of the current media drivel of Linux users are cyberterrorists using virii
to vent their frustrations. About the only facts I see are the court date and
the indemnification. I would guess his previous writing was done for some of the
more sensationalist UK rags.
CAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST |
I thought the Novell case was a slander of title case, not a contract dispute
over the copyright. I thought SCO had asked for the copyright transfer as part
of the damages, but I didn't think SCO has a pending legal claim that Novel had
violated their contract in not transfering the copyright to SCO.
Am I wrong, if not why would adding a copyright claim delay the IBM trial?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST |
Here's the latest from those fine folks at Computerworld:
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,108
01,89922,00.html?nas=AM-89922[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sbungay on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:22 PM EST |
IANAL, so I'm probably way out in left field on this but here goes.
How will this work with the copyrights being claimed by both Novell and SCO?
Would the Novell/SCO Copyright ownership dispute cause the IBM contractual
dispute to be delayed if the Copyright claim is brought into the picture? Could
SCO be looking for a quasi judicial recognition of their copyright claims by
getting this copyright claim added?
---
He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of
doing everything for money.
Benjamin Franklin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
Notice the change to the conversion feature. The old ones were convertible at
$16.93. The new ones have a variable conversion price, with a floor of $13.50.
Looks like SCO had to sweeten the pot considerably for its preferred holders.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 02:10 PM EST |
Back from the courthouse.
1st impressions = hurry up and wait.
Judge Wells is taking the motions to compel under advisement. IBM announces the
SCO failed to comply with the court order. Judge asks IBM if SCO mostly
complied. IBM says much is still lacking.
SCO asks for AIX all versions and works in progress. They say that they need it
to see if IBM has released code to Linux. Mr Marrott for IBM produces press
releases showing that SCO has said that HP and Sun are in compliance with the
license. Mr Marrott asks the Judge how SCO can no this without the source code
of HPUNIX or Solaris.
SCO wants AIX but they are willing to say HP and Sun are clean without a need
for their source code.
Judge is going to take matters under advisement and publish her rulings later in
the week.
The Judge did ask SCO how much more time they would need to comply fully. SCO
says about one more month. Judge Wells also asked IBM how long it would take
for them to supply what SCO is asking for? Mr Marrott said about 2 weeks.
My feelings are kind of gloomy and dark. I think this is going to drag out for
quite a long time.
Judge Wells did call all council into her chambers for over a half hour at the
start of the hearing. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in there. I
would much rather been in IBM's shoes than SCO's.
I will post more thoughts as they come to me.
I did hear part of an interview with Chris Sontag on the front steps of the
courthouse. I will post my thoughts on that later.
Karl
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:23 PM EST |
Looks like ZDnet has updated the article. Apparently, SCO has also decided to
add on to their damages
claim:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5154719.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
To the
tune of a total of $5 billion[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST |
SCO can't possibly think they have a realistic chance to win this, clearly they
are trying to fool more computer illiterate investors into buying their
worthless stock.
What I don't understand is, in a country where the government is going after
Martha Stewart based on questionable logic involving whether she lied in public
in ways that could affect stock prices, why aren't they going after SCO? There
is evidence that SCO has repeatedly and obviously lied publicly and has
consistently failed to provide evidence for their claims. SCO was a penny stock
before the lawsuits THEY started and company officers and friends have sold
substantial holdings at large profits. How obvious can you get? The SCO
big-wigs should be facing criminal charges with the possibility of spending
years in jail. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST |
| I think that orwell would be a good verb to use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
