SCO Says It Has No Plan To Sue Linux Companies 478
cadfael writes "SCO is reported in the Age as saying they 'Have no plans to sue Linux companies...' This seems to contradict the earlier statements of Chris Sontag. This story also points out how Canopy owns stakes in several other Linux companies, including Linux Networx wheich supplied the supercomputer for Lawrence Livermore Nat Lab. One begins to wonder if the reality of their situation has become clear to them?" Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
SCO always tells the truth! (Score:4, Insightful)
Loser pays (Score:4, Insightful)
Australia only? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Timeline of events? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Caldera goes bankrupt
Now they're trying to change it to this:
1. Caldera goes bankrupt.
a. Sells out, changes name to SCO
b. Threatens IBM
c. Threatens Linux Users
d.
But in the end, they're done for.
Insider selling completed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
More evidence for bait and switch (Score:5, Insightful)
Back Pedaling or more FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read what is says - "never planned" doesn't mean (Score:1, Insightful)
I seriously doubt that tis is the "beginning of the end". The stock is still well north of $14.
Parse the statement... (Score:3, Insightful)
Proof. (Score:2, Insightful)
Distribution is OK now (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey McB, so you are now endorsing distribution of illegal product while you demand money from those who bought it? Give me a fsckin break, would you?
Sue Linux companies? No! (Score:4, Insightful)
Threatening to sue other companies pumps up the stock price, allows Canopy to use the inflated stock price for asset shuffling (skimming big profits), allows senior management to sell shares at a big profit, builds up our press clippings book which is very impressive to PHBs.
Actually suing involves bothersome discovery procedures where you have to actually show some sort of cause for you action. Where's the fun in that?
"SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to the claims in the Client Server News story, SCO has not engaged Mr. Boies to take legal action against our fellow Linux vendors.
SCO press release, January 13, 2003
SCO says it has made no decision on Unix IP [theregister.com]
So I don't believe SCO's statements about their future plans. They are practicing the adage: "diplomacy consists of saying 'nice doggy' while you are looking for a rock".
They're telling the truth! (Score:4, Insightful)
Adobe did the same thing. Remember Sklyarov? (Score:5, Insightful)
So is this really anything new? Probably not.
Re:of COURSE they're not suing companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
No plans to sue linux companies eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:SCO's haiku (Score:3, Insightful)
We sue
Or we don't
Our stocks rise
I thought haiku was 5 syllables, 7 syllables, 5 syllables.
No.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm sure Redhat would lodge like a bone in their throat. I'd love to watch them choke.
For all those who didn't read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
in other words they expected everyone would just pay them given the threat of legal action.
"concrete plans"
In other words they don't currently have the financial resources to take on more then one court case.
They did not say anywhere "will not" or "has no intention of".
Re:Profit based on betting (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose SCO is demanding $100 per Linux server, and you have 10 such servers. Then if they win you will need to find $1000. If SCO's stock price currently reflects a 5% chance of them winning, then any stock you do buy will increase 19-fold in value if they win. Therefore you need to buy $1000/19 worth of SCO stock to hedge against the risk. Of course you'd do this only if you think the 5% estimation by the market is about right, or too low - or if you think it's a bit too high but you're risk-averse.
If SCO wins, your stock should appreciate in value enough to cover the protection money you have to pay. If SCO lose, you've wasted about $52 on their now-worthless stock.
Translation (Score:4, Insightful)
They have no intention of letting any of these suits run to conclusion in court, because they will lose, and lose badly, and that will be the end of their stock pumping.
On even numbered days, they're reasonable guys with a great product, so buy their stock.
On odd numbered days, they're stone cold corporate predators who own half the source code on the planet, so buy their stock.
On Sundays, Darl consults his Magic 8 Ball (tm) to decide if it's time to cash in and skip to Brazil for the face change operation, or whether he should pump for another week.
Re:Stock Price -- Evidence about Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
August 16, 2003 - Saturday 8:15 AM PDT - SCO 10q and just how much has Microsoft agreed to pay SCO?
Bring up the above link and look for the heading "Recent Developments". "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." What does this all mean? Well. It appears that whatever portion of the $8 million that came from Microsoft is not clear. But, it does appear that it only covers 2003. So when 2004 comes around and SCO needs to cover a few more legal bills, Microsoft will have at least the option to pay more money to SCO for their dirty work. Also interesting is the grant of a warrant for up to 210,000 shares of common stock of SCO. Of course, that means that Microsoft wants to benefit from owning a piece of SCO. No surprise there. Microsoft has plenty of money to fuel the ill conceived effort by SCO to harm the Linux marketplace. And, as I have pointed out, Microsoft benefits from the up side should that occur. And, Microsoft is shielded from the down side should SCO's illegal activities result in extensive liabilities to IBM, Red Hat, SuSE, others and Linux contributors. In other words, Microsoft is directly involved in using its money to harm Linux. It may be shielded from legal liability. But, there is no question that Microsoft thinks its monopoly is better off engaging in this activity. And, it appears that Microsoft taking a license has nothing to do with a need to license Unix. That is a non-issue. This is all about causing harm to Linux and IBM in particular. And, it can not be about the respect for IP or contracts rights because SCO plans to breach its Linux contracts (the GPL) and steal all intellectual property in Linux and claim it as it's exclusive property. That is clearly not respecting the IP rights of others. And, Microsoft has the ability now to add more cash to the fire if the illegal effort is going well and competitors are being harmed by SCO efforts or limit its losses if it is not. But, it is absolutely clear that Microsoft is behind the effort to directly harm Linux and it is NOT related to a needed Unix license. If Microsoft even thought it needed a Unix license it would not have waited until now to get one NOR would it expire this year. This is simply a sham to use illegal means against a competitor. Let SCO do the dirty and illegal work but fund them as long as money fuels it. In other words, fund the contract to go after Linux using illegal means. [Thanks to GrokLaw for permitting a link to be placed on this site referring to SCO documents as they accumulate and for providing some direction to the above information.]
Re:Timeline of events? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time to buy a SCO share (Score:3, Insightful)
Targets (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Profit based on betting (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I understand where you are getting your numnbers from. You are taking the $3b settlement / their market cap (rounded to $189m). That would be about a 16-fold increase of value. I think that this is how you got your 19-fold number, just using older numbers.
Except you forgot to take in to account laywer fees. I have no idea what that would run in a case like this, but I'd be suprised if it was less then 40%.
Then you have to remember who you are dealing with. When Caldera and Microsoft were arguing over the DR-DOS lawsuit, Microsoft eventually settled up with Caldera Inc. Not Caldera Systems. Caldera Inc at the time was basically The Canopy Group before they became the Canopy Group if I remember correctly. Caldera Systems never saw a dime of the money. Caldera Inc spun off Caldera Systems to remove it from the lawsuit.
It wouldn't suprised me if something similiar would happen here. After the lawyers, most of the money would probably going to go to a few people or organizations (read Canopy Group). Common investors would see a small portion. Nothing near the 16x increase that would be in an ideal setting.
Further, SCO has already said that licenses would be $199 for desktop linux installations and $699 for servers. These fees would double after Oct 15th. This is significantly more then the $100 license.
So if you have your same 10 serves and you get your license now, it's going to cost you $6990 now or $13990 later. Assuming you invest now, your now out $437 ($6990/16) in common stock. Their stock would have to increase 32x in order to cover the licensing costs...if they are still at the $1399 price.
Track and kill (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait - it may be just more careful wording (Score:3, Insightful)
If you follow scox at all, you know that scox can choose their wording *very* carefully. So, maybe that statement isn't as clear as thought.
For example: "no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court." That is not saying that scox is not going to sue linux end users. Scox could still be holding to their "give us protection money or risk a lawsuit" policy.
Re:Good Quote - better quote... :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing cirucmstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor coroprations have any righ to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
- Robert A. Heinlein, Life Line
Re:Timeline of events? (Score:2, Insightful)
---
yeah, we are almost broke