Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Software Linux

SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters 449

Posted by michael
from the pyramid-scheme-coming-down-around-their-ears dept.
isn't my name writes "The New York Times is reporting that SCO has sent new letters to Linux-using businesses with specific examples of infringement. SCO has its fiscal earnings call scheduled tomorrow at 11am. In all probability, these letters are designed to get analyst/reporter interest focused on their claims instead of the numerous fundamental problems with their case. So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters

Comments Filter:
  • by baryon351 (626717) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:10AM (#7785040)
    Copied/edited from a comment I posted on Groklaw, and thought very worth mentioning here too.
    --
    SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux. .

    Why is this necessary? is it all media show just to look like they're being exceptionally diligent in keeping their property under control, leaning on their licensees to make sure they don't bring up a situation like they claim is happening with IBM, or are they asking for something MORE than is in the original 6000 unix licenses?

    Presumably, those licenses (for real SCO Unix customers) already prohibit the revealing of code from SCO products to Linux or anything else, so this step of having those licensees say "no we're not contributing" looks to be a double up of effort. They've signed those licenses, isn't that already enough?.

    However, the wording as stated in the article may be relevant. It seems a pairing of two things that may not be related; "certify that you are complying with SCO licenses AND that none of your employees have contributed to Linux". It sounds a little like if you're trying to defend yourself against a drunk driving charge, and are being asked to sign a document saying "certify you did not drive while intoxicated AND that your car now belongs to me". You can refuse and it sounds you're saying you did drive drunk, or you can sign and you've given up your car. There's probably a legal term for this tactic, but of course, IANAL. IANEAP.

    So do those existing 6000 licenses NOT cover things adequately? Is it possible those licenses may through loopholes, or just by their very nature, allow some level of code copying as the licensees need, into other products, and SCO is trying to plug a hole that could be undermining them? Is it a double up of what's already in the license, or a way of sneakily extending that license?

    Or are they hedging bets, to give them more ammunition/evidence to sue their own customers if the IBM case fails.
    • by Zocalo (252965) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:34AM (#7785123) Homepage
      I think your drunk driving analogy is a bit extreme - you left out the words "Unix code" on that occassion. There is a big difference between "your employees contributed to Linux" and "your employees contributed Unix code to Linux". The former would be the devious legal weasel thing you imply, while the latter *is* wrong unless the license of the Unix code concerned permits this, and SCO's license does not.

      It does however give them a signed document they can produce in a courtroom if one of your employees is found to have contributed some "infringing" code to Linux however. If I were one of SCO's customer's I'd be very worried they were about to pull an RIAA and start sueing the hand that pays the bills real soon now... Now *there's* the legal weasel tactic we all expect from SCO.

    • by Elektroschock (659467) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:42AM (#7785160)
      In my mind Sco does criminal action. A Munich court ruled it anti-competitive, SCO Germany even had to pay a penalty, so we are secure against SCO FUD. A BSA troll used the SCO argument against Linux in a meeting in Germany, but we are more or less safe. Sco infringed basic business rules, when you are concerned about an infringement of copyright, nothing special, it happens, you don't start a public media campaign. Sco mixed up patents and copyright. Its messages to the press were intended to be misguiding.

      The case shows how dangerous IPR in the hands of failed companies may become.

      SCO's action has to be investigated because of capital market fraud.
    • by SkArcher (676201) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:46AM (#7785182) Journal
      The further point is that SCO don't have the right to determine what happens to copyrights held by other companies.

      If a company (lets say... IBM) creates a software form which is copyrighted, they can choose exactly what to do with it. If they want to release it under the GPL, they can do that. If they want to release it to SCO for inclusion in Unix, they can do that too.

      Note that, because it is possible for the copyright holder to release exactly the same code under both the GPL and another form of license, should they so wish. They can also create derivative works of the original code of theirs and distribute those derivative works as they see fit.

      OpenOffice/StarOffice works on this principle, as (i belive) does one or more of the SQL implementations.

      What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.

      As copyright holders, IBM can allow anyone they feel like to use their code (including anything they have written regarding JFS, NUMA and SMP).

      Note that this means that the code in UNIX does not mean that any part of UNIX will have to be placed under the GPL.

      See the Groklaw Article :: The GPL is a License, Not a Contract, Which is Why the Sky Isn't Falling [groklaw.net] for related discussion.

      And with that fact in mind we refer you to the RedHat case on anti-competitive practices.
      • by tolan-b (230077) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:26AM (#7785389)
        What SCO are claiming in this case is that IBM have effectively assigned all copyrights to SCO for the code in question, and/or that by licensing the code to SCO for use in Linux, the same code cannot also be Licensed for use in Linux. This is a gross misstatement or misunderstanding of the GPL and copyright law.

        Not quite. SCO (in their actual lawsuit against IBM, rather than their press FUD) are claiming that the terms of their license with IBM mean that any code that IBM develops which is a 'derivative work' of Unix can not be redistributed.

        In this case, because NUMA et al are so closely bound to Unix, SCO are claiming they count as derivitive works, and are thus covered by the SCO/IBM license agreement, and should not have been included in Linux.

        Despite this being a case about breach of contract, ie the Unix license to IBM, SCO are pitching it in the media as a breach of copyright case.

        SCO still haven't made a single legal move that directly implies there is actual original SCO code (as opposed to IBM developed derivative code) in Linux, only lots of shouting and FUD. So legally speaking this is all about breach of contract by IBM, not breach of copyright by Linux users.
        • by Platinum Dragon (34829) on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:07PM (#7786483) Journal
          Not quite. SCO (in their actual lawsuit against IBM, rather than their press FUD) are claiming that the terms of their license with IBM mean that any code that IBM develops which is a 'derivative work' of Unix can not be redistributed.

          More specifically, IBM managed to score a clause in their contract with AT&T that allows Big Blue to keep copyright and control over any additions to and derivative works it creates from SysV. It has been noted, however, that the technologies in question were created by Sequent, which did not have such a clause in their Unix licence. IBM purchased Sequent, and the dynix/ptx-related SMP code. It was theorized, on /. and elsewhere, that SCO's case may ultimately hinge on whether IBM's exemption applies to code purchased from, or as part of, other companies, or if they're stuck with the code's original licence. In other words, does IBM's SysV contract override the contract provisions under which code the company purchases was developed? Do Sequent's contracts still exist, or are they now simply historical footnotes? And would IBM's legion of legal attack dogs manage to overlook this minor point, or was it discussed and cleared when the sale took place?

          Although this seems like a potential avenue of victory for SCO, their total lack of cooperation so far with the discovery process and the court indicates they may not even have solid footing on these grounds. They could not cough up anything useful for discovery, in a lawsuit they initiated, and still haven't done so. Yet, the company has time to draft threatening letters with a list of filenames, which presumably have code they could present as part of their case.

          Barring a surprise twist, I think SCO's shareholders are in for a sick surprise when the execs take the money and run.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:10AM (#7785041)
    Ever consider the possibility that they may actually have a legitimate claim?

    For a group of people who make their living in software, slashdotters sure do hate it when someone el$e tries to!

    yeah, yeah, I know... -1 flaimbait. *sigh*

    • by lotas (177970) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:14AM (#7785053) Homepage Journal
      they might have a legit clame, but they havent proved it yet
    • by 0mni (734493) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:21AM (#7785080)
      I'm all for copyright, and I will even support the removal of every piece of copyrighted code from linux. IF and only if it was there and they started prove it. Its not really as hard as they make it sound, it involves a highlighter and a few judges. Thats the best thing about open source, if someone makes the mistake of putting in code that is copyrighted or just plain stupid it is removed. The reason everyone is agains SCO is the stupidity of their attacks. It goes against logic (and natural selection for that matter) to fix the problem in the way SCO is. UNLESS of course they dont want the problem solved so much as want to make money from it.
      • by baryon351 (626717) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:26AM (#7785100)
        UNLESS of course they dont want the problem solved so much as want to make money from it. I think thats exactly it. SCO are doing their damnedest NOT to reveal just what they claim is in linux that shouldn't be there. They aren't trying to remedy a thing, and they've been talking about this for nearly 12 months. I suspect when they say they're "naming 65 files" that they won't name the files as in Linux, but they'll name the files -in SCO's source tree-. They'll say "You have the content of these 65 files in Linux so you must pay" with no way to check the content.
    • by bunhed (208100) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:33AM (#7785117)
      Exactly and regardless, SCO's colors will come out in the wash, one way or the other. Nothing said here will change that. The danger is the damage that the linux community is doing to itself by spouting off like a bunch rabid loons. The penguin heads need to chill out and sit down and let SCO sink or swim. Really, what are they going to do, even if they are right? Linux isn't going to go away because of 2 lines or 200 lines of code. It won't go away even if they outlaw it altogether. :)
    • by logicnazi (169418) <logicnazi@gmail. ... minus herbivore> on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:41AM (#7785476) Homepage
      Why am I bothering...I don't know.

      The problem is that even if they did have a legitamate claim their claim can't really cover what they are trying to do in any reasonable manner. They never even claim that any significant fraction of linux is built on infringing technology.

      Suppose I had invented the computer with only a little help from an assistant (who perhaps now was dead). Then someone comes along and says that in some little piece of technology (say in the punch card reader mechanism..but I don't know this) my assistant had accidently copied it from them. Undoubtedly, if I knew what piece of technology was infringing I could easily engineer another solution. However, they won't tell me and demand royalties on every computer sold.

      This goes beyond the pale even of using ridiculously overbroad patents to sue for money.
    • by Fnkmaster (89084) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @01:39PM (#7787318)
      They might, but these 65 files aren't it. I don't know much, but I know that many of these appear to be simple lists of constants that A) are part of the POSIX standard and B) if they were copied from somewhere, it would be from BSD. As I understand it, the copyright to these parts of the BSD code was already settled in the AT&T/BSDI lawsuit, and as such, are fairly free and clear under the BSD license.


      If they can appear under the BSD license, then they can be redistributed with Linux, linked with GPLed works, etc.


      If SCO wants to make a case, it's not going to be based on some BSD header files that consist of 50 lines of #define ERRNO -25.

  • by rf0 (159958) * <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:11AM (#7785046) Homepage
    there stock price is going up, they will most likely make a profit and all for lying.

    Rus
    • by 0mni (734493) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:29AM (#7785110)
      Everyone from Slashdot needs to buy SCO stock. But all at the same time as to not pay inflated prices. Now let's just say that all the Slashdot users put a few hundred dollars into SCO stock. Then we all co-ordinate to sell the stock at the now inflated price (once again at the same time). Not only will we all gain a few bucks from SCO but we may drive the share price down. Win-Win situation. (Oh and if this is illegal please tell me so I can spend the profit BEFORE my arrest)
      • Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jd142 (129673) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:48AM (#7785195) Homepage
        Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?

        I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.

        Impractical of course, but as long as you're talking about a coordinated effort, why not just solve the problem entirely.
        • Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sphealey (2855) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:54AM (#7785214)
          Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?

          I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.

          The majority of SCOX is currently held by insiders and various investment firms. The amount available for general trading isn't enough to gain control of the company. If FOSSers were to start buying the outstanding shares, that would only drive the price up to the benefit of Darl and Baystar.

          Now, if thousands of Slashdotters were to place orders to buy at $0.50 with their brokers, that might get Wall Street's attention.

          sPh

        • Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheMidget (512188)
          Hey, another guy (or gal?) who likes the number 142!

          Umm, if every slashdotter bought a couple hundred dollars worth of stock, would that make us (as a group, disparate though it would be) majority stockholders, in which case we would have more pull to make them drop the suit?

          I haven't done the math, but there can't be that many outstanding shares of stock compared to the number of registered slashdotters.

          It might work out (if everybody ponies up enough dough to buy SCO's overinflated stock), but, knowi

      • Re:GOOD IDEA!!!! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:05AM (#7785266)
        You do realize that stocktrading doesn't work like this, don't you? For every put at an "inflated" price there has to be a call at the same price. Otherwise the stock price falls before you can sell all your stock. When the stock price is at x dollars, it doesn't mean you can sell arbitrary numbers of shares at that price.
      • by richie2000 (159732) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:21AM (#7785359) Homepage Journal
        Everyone from Slashdot needs to buy SCO stock.

        So what you're saying is basically that we should Slashdot the stock market. Wouldn't that be considered a DDOS on capitalism itself?

  • by C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:12AM (#7785048) Journal
    SCO Sends Second Warning Letter to Linux Users
    By STEVE LOHR

    Published: December 22, 2003

    he SCO Group plans to announce today that it is escalating its campaign to collect license fees from corporations using the Linux operating system, with warning letters to the companies. Supporters of Linux, including I.B.M. and other companies, say that SCO's interpretation of its claim over Linux is exaggerated.

    The letters, dated Friday, are the second round that SCO has sent to corporate users of Linux. SCO sent letters to 1,500 companies in May, warning them that it contended that Linux had violated its intellectual property rights. SCO owns the rights to the Unix operating system. The company asserts that Linux, a variant of Unix that is distributed free, violates SCO's license and copyright.

    The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux."

    The letters focus on application binary interfaces, the programming hooks by which a software application gains access to the underlying operating system. "We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights," the letters state.

    Letters asserting copyright violations in Linux are being sent to several hundred of its corporate users. SCO, based in Lindon, Utah, is also sending letters to many of its 6,000 Unix licensees requiring them to certify in writing that they are complying with SCO licenses, a company executive said. SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.

    The warning letters come after David A. Boies, a lawyer representing SCO, said on Nov. 18 that the company intended to single out and sue a large corporate user of Linux within three months.

    The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem."

    SCO began its Linux campaign last March, when it sued I.B.M., the leading corporate champion of Linux. SCO, seeking $1 billion in damages, has accused I.B.M. of illegally contributing Unix code to Linux. I.B.M. has denied the charges.

    On Dec. 5, a federal district judge in Utah ordered that within 30 days, SCO had to show the court and I.B.M. the Linux code to which SCO claims it has rights and where I.B.M. has infringed upon it.

    • by Dub Kat (183404) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:27AM (#7785103) Homepage
      Is anyone aware of smaller companies coming together to battle SCO if need be?

      As a small company who's lifeblood depends on Linux, it'd be great if we came together to fight SCO if and when the time comes. Pooling our resources would likely work much better than going it alone. It really does give me pause when wondering what I'd do if I were the recipient of this letter.

      This whole deal is aggravating to others I'm sure; we want to focus our time and energy on technology, not on what we'll do if SCO starts demanding thousands of dollars from us.

      $60/Month Colocated Linux Server [aktiom.net]
    • 65 files! (Score:5, Funny)

      by LaminatorX (410794) <sabotage.praecantator@com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:50AM (#7785201) Homepage
      Gentlemen of this comitee, I have in my hand a list containing the names of 65 card carrying Communists within the Depart od ...

      Excuse me, I meant to say 65 files that have been copied verbatem into the Linux kernel.

      And no, I cannot actually show you the list. Revealing the files would compromise the ability of our brave pattern matching experts to compile further lists.

      Good Night, and God Bless Unixware.

  • quote discussion (Score:4, Interesting)

    by powlow (197142) <(powlow) (at) (gmail.com)> on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:15AM (#7785062) Homepage Journal
    quote from one of the stories :

    "The new letters, signed by Ryan E. Tibbitts, SCO's general counsel, name more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base and contributed to Linux.""

    and

    "SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."

    and

    "The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. "Once you have reviewed our position," the Linux letter said, "we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.""

    hmmm...reaching for payoffs anyone?!
    • by julesh (229690) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:55AM (#7785564)
      The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat.

      Anyone else think "Pay us, or we'll hit you with olive branches!"? Could be quite painful - I'd comply if I received a letter like that... ;-)
    • by schon (31600) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:04AM (#7785608)
      OK, so here's what I found interesting:

      more than 65 programming files that "have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted Unix code base

      So - they're saying that the files themselves have been copied "verbatim" - not that the files contain code that had been copied verbatim..

      If this is true (and not a misinterpretation, or the result of judicious editing), then it would be pretty simple to call SCO's bluff, no? You just get a copy of the letter, and take a look at the files in question.

      Now the question is: Did the reporter (or editor) do some doctoring, or is SCO actually identifying the alleged stolen code?

      And can anyone get a copy of that letter?
    • Not a Single Reply (Score:5, Insightful)

      by theonetruekeebler (60888) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:24AM (#7785726) Homepage Journal
      They won't get a single reply.

      Legalese: SCO's Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux.

      Translation: Give us a letter which we can use as grounds or evidence against you, should we decide to file more lawsuits in the future.

      Playbook:

      1. SCO asks FooCo, a (former) Unix licensee, to send them a letter stating "we have never published Unix source code."
      2. FooCo sends the letter.
      3. SCO says, "They're lying! This letter is evidence that they've lied! Subpoena them for everything!"

      The saddest part of this is that, in this day and age, I can spell "subpoena" without stopping to look it up.

      • by Draconomicon (158565) on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:19PM (#7786582) Homepage
        Yes, but you have to consider the original latin roots for the word subpoena.

        Sub, meaning below.

        Poena, referring to the projective portion of the male genitalia.

        And thus, we discover the true meaning of the word sub-poena -- "below the projective portion of the male genitalia"... or, in more common parlance, "by the balls".
  • by agent dero (680753) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:15AM (#7785063) Homepage
    I would like to put my business using Linux, and all my clients on the "Do-Not-Mail" list that Congress enacted

    That applies right? I don't want their telemarketing, "Register your copies of linux for only $699 per CPU"

    Isn't that why Congress passed the anti-telemarketing bill right?
  • What next? (Score:5, Funny)

    by mattjb0010 (724744) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:16AM (#7785065) Homepage
    SCO sends out Christmas cards? Does SCO stand for Santa Claus Operation?
  • by svanstrom (734343) <tony@svanstrom.org> on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:17AM (#7785068) Homepage
    Seriously, nothing significant will happen before trial, so why do we give them the publicity they're craving?

    Sure, it might feel like "we" are fighting them, but what's the result of that fighting? Do we just spread the word that people can get sued for using Linux, or do we convince people that it's safe to use Linux?

    And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?

    Ok, so it isn't always easy, or even possible, to move away from Linux, but why do most people seem to think that there's just "free" Linux or "pay to SCO" Linux?
    • by tommck (69750) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:22AM (#7785085) Homepage
      And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
      Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next [newsforge.com].

      • by WCMI92 (592436) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:34AM (#7785125) Homepage
        And how come we don't hear people saying that "we" should move to *BSD while this is going on, showing SCO that we rather not use Linux than pay them?
        Because SCO already said that they're going after BSD next.

        Considering that SCO is on Microsoft and Sun's payroll, I'd think that EVERY non-MS or non-Sun OS product will be the subject of litigation, IF this travesty of a case succeeds.

        And one can never tell whether it will or not. The Federal court system from top to bottom has clearly gone insane... Hell, laws can be passed now making it illegal to criticize SCO in ads 30 days prior to them having a board meeting and conference call...

        Sound farfetched? It isn't. Once you've made a crack in the first amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...), it's easier to use crowbars to widen it than it was to make the crack in the first place...

        All it takes now is buying the right Congressmen. And the DMCA shows us how easy THAT is!

  • by KoolDude (614134) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:18AM (#7785069)
    D34r L1nux u53r

    W3 0wn j00

    r3g4rd5,
    D4r1 Mcki1dd13
    • by Valdrax (32670) on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:06PM (#7786479)
      You can find it here. [lwn.net]

      The gist of it seems to be numerous copies of 'errno.h', 'signal.h', and 'ioctl*.h' in the various platform-specific ASM source files, 'bsderrno.h' and 'solerrno.h' in the sparc/sparc64 ASM sources, as well as the following files:

      include/linux/ipc.h
      include/linux/acct.h
      inclu de/asm-sparc/a.out.h
      include/linux/a.out.h
      arch/ mips/boot/ecoff.h
      include/linux/stat.h
      include/l inux/ctype.h
      lib/ctype.c

      I need to do some code-reading myself, but as far as I'm aware all of those are part of the POSIX standard. I could be wrong, and even if they are in the POSIX standard, the files could be copies, but we'll have to wait and see from an official response from the kernel developers to see where these files come from.
  • by davetm (203784) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:18AM (#7785070)
    SCO's solvency may depend upon this meeting. I'd rather see this meeting go O.K. so that SCO survive and the case goes through the courts fully. That way linux is shown in court to be a good member of society.
    If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.
    • by Paradise Pete (33184) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:58AM (#7785226) Journal
      If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.

      IF SCO goes belly up the assets don't disappear. Someone will buy them, and then they would have the right to pursue any litigation. More likely, though, is that whoever bought them would try to make peace and announce the claims were unfounded.

      That said, SCO does not ever want to go to court. They are making their money now, and a trial could only hurt them. So if they don't go belly up they will drag things out as long as possible, and the problem will continue.

    • Say what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Platinum Dragon (34829) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:28AM (#7785407) Journal
      If SCO go bankrupt before the case gets tested in court it will leave a smear on the good name of linux.

      Huh?

      SCO is the one leaving a smear on the good name of Linux by making accusations of wholesale copyright infringement and theft. There are indications that SCO is involved in a pump-and-dump scheme, or at least a last-ditch attempt at grabbing as much easy cash as possible before the bottom falls out. If you haven't noticed, SCO hasn't exactly been forthcoming about what they claim Linux coders stole, something which may wipe out their case since it becomes obvious the legal action is not about legitimately correcting an injustice, but extortion.

      If SCO ever comes clean with the kernel hackers about what specific code and other IP they claim is infringing, and if the kernel hackers fail to deal with what legitimate issues exist (if any, which at the moment does not appear likely), then it would smear the good name of the Linux community. Until then, the party acting in bad faith here appears to be SCO, while the Linux community, and the companies investing time and money in it, seem to be the ones that want to legitimately deal with copyright concerns--real copyright concerns, not vague claims of infringement that somehow keep turning out to be crap.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:18AM (#7785072)
  • SCO hypocrits... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:21AM (#7785081) Journal
    "Unix licensees are asked to certify that none of their employees or contractors have contributed any Unix code to Linux."

    from a company that willingly contributed with more than a few lines of code...

  • by illuminata (668963) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:23AM (#7785088) Journal
    I know that many Slashdot editors and story submitters like to put their two cents in, but this story is worse than almost any that I've seen before.

    So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted.

    This is about as bad as the stuff at indymedia.org! That's not news. In combination with the title of the story, SCO Gets More Desperate; Sends More Letters, this might as well be a political action site instead of a news source.

    Michael, couldn't you just show an ounce of journalistic integrity and not accept stories with this much spin? Stating your opinion in something that's not an editorial doesn't help your credibility, either.
  • More SCOmmy behavior (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WCMI92 (592436) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:25AM (#7785097) Homepage
    Looks a lot like a BSA stormtrooper threat letter to me... Certify that you are in compliance...

    Yeah, like any company with a legal department, or headed by someone smart enough to consult a lawyer will send ANYTHING like that to a litigious company like SCO.

    Actually, even that is wrong.. SCaldera isn't just a litigious company... All their R&D and PRODUCTION now is litigation!

    If not for their friends at Microsoft, Sun, The Melinda Gates Foundation, and the idiots who keep buying their stock (Don't weep for these people when they lose it all, had they even done a GOOGLE search on SCO they'd have known not to invest) they'd have been bankrupt months ago.
  • by sadangel (702907) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:37AM (#7785133)
    Can't wait to see if this will be the first case of slashdotting a phone call.

    To hear the SCO call:
    "Please join us by dialing: 1.800.289.0436 -or- 1.913.981.5507 Confirmation Code: 510065"

    11:00 AM Eastern Time Monday
    • I actually *did* call in the last conference call (just so they can get charged the $$). Note: when you call, tell them you're a SCO investor. You don't get too many questions that way.

      Listening in last time, it was pretty much the same thing. Everything was all about Linux this and that, protecting their IP and so forth. I'd never figured out exactly what IP they were referring to.

      It's too bad I didn't get picked for the Q&A afterwards. I had a couple of juicy questions.
  • Classic case of... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gethsemane (733524) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:38AM (#7785143)
    Its better to be thought of a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt. Personally, I would like to see SCO stand up and provide substantial claims to their suit other than a few lines of code that seem to be so generic anyone could have created them. I believe a few weeks ago a judge ordered SCO to cough up some real prrof and hopefully they run away with their tail between their legs.
  • by Advocadus Diaboli (323784) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:39AM (#7785144)
    SCO is sending letters to 1500 companies that are using the Linux operating system. May I ask where SCO got the addresses of those companies? I guess its not listed in the yellow pages that a company uses Linux. So they had to do some sort of "investigation". Could it be that this gathering of data is illegal? That its a form of industrial espionage?

    Just a thought...

  • Header Files (Score:5, Interesting)

    by femto (459605) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:39AM (#7785145) Homepage
    > ... The letters focus on application binary interfaces

    Anyone get the impression that SCO is claiming that lines such as:

    time_t time(time_t __timer);

    in files such as time.h are violating their 'copyright'?

    In that case, wouldn't it also be a copyright violation to quote the title of a book? US Law seems to be quite clear [ivanhoffman.com] that a thing like a book title cannot be copyrighted and plenty of boos share titles.

    • Re:Header Files (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:04AM (#7785253)
      In addition, Linux header files were probably written based on POSIX standards, not Unix header files. In this case, the header files have been created independently of Unix and it is irrelevant if they look similar Unix header files.

      Then there is the matter that Caldera released the Linux header files under the GPL, so if necessary a new copy of the Linux header files could be derived from GPL'd material (ie. the Linux header files Caldera released).

    • Re:Header Files (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rmull (26174) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:42AM (#7785480) Homepage
      That's an API, the application programmer's interface. An ABI, the Application Binary Interface, specifies the way already compiled binaries communicate with each other. Things like calling conventions, for example. Now, I believe the article is in error here, since it's even more ludicrous to complain about ABI similarities - the way things are done are, AFAIK, pretty standard.
  • by Zocalo (252965) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:43AM (#7785163) Homepage
    So, SCO plans to single out one large Linux using corporate for license infringement and "make an example of them". What's the bet that they will try and perform the usual predatory tactic and try and cull one of the weaker members of the GNU/Hurd? ;)

  • Funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik (635988) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:49AM (#7785199)
    SCO manages to produce the code for threatening letters rather than the court
  • only 65 files? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by budGibson (18631) on Monday December 22, 2003 @08:57AM (#7785221)
    Hey, I thought it was supposed to be millions of lines of code.

    Interesting how they interpret the need to let customers remedy the situation. They don't tell you how to fix the source and be free of them. They force you to pay them licensing fees.

    Even Microsoft was allowed to remove the offending plug-in patented technology from IE as part of a remedy.

    hmmm
  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joto (134244) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:09AM (#7785290)
    So, slashdotters, we need to find a copy of the letter and tear it apart with specificity before tomorrow morning in the US East Coast, so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted."

    It doesn't matter much what analysts think about the case itself. What matters is what analysts think other people think about the case. Even if every analyst on earth would think the lawsuit was fraudulent, doesn't mean they wouldn't recommend buying stock, because people are doing it anyway.

  • by mraymer (516227) <mraymer AT centurytel DOT net> on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:13AM (#7785319) Homepage Journal
    ...so that any analysts/reporters will not be distracted.

    How can they be distracted? Just look at SCO's case:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.

    But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer trying to prove SCO's case and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

    And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must find Linux guilty of copyright violation and find the GPL invalid.

    I know SCO seems wrong. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a worthless software company's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must agree with SCO. Here look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey.

  • by GreatBallsOfFire (241640) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:22AM (#7785362)
    Some points to keep in mind:
    1. Copyright is a statement of ownership - The fact that code that is copyright SCO is in Linux means nothing. They own that source code which is copyrighted by SCO, and it has nothing to do with whether or not it is linked into Linux, and SCO's rights to control Linux.
    2. License is a statement of permission to use - It is nothing more than permission given to you by the copyright owner, and the ways you can use the code.
    3. Contract is an agreement - A contract is an agreement with enumeration. From what I remember from business related courses, you must have some form of payment in order to to make a contract binding.
    If copyrighted SCO code was contributed to Linux by SCO employees, and SCO management did not approve, then SCO was damaged by those employees, not Linux users. SCO can request that the code be removed and users running that code may be requested to stop running that code, but this must be done in a reasonable manner. They cannot go back and seek damages from the users, because they are innocent third parties. Damages would be limited to the guilty parties, presumably the SCO employees. If it was IBM instead of SCO employees, and IBM has a license that says the source code cannot be used in whole, or that anything derived from that code cannot be used, then SCO has a case against IBM, not the end user.

    Licenses that come with commercial software are embodied in a contract, and this is where the confusion usually comes in. You pay, you agree to the terms contained within the contract by some action, such as clicking on button in a dialog or ripping clear plastic off the media, and the contract then grants you a license. What is generally termed a license is really a contract, and this ends up confusing the general public.

    There is significant controversy in the media over whether or not GPL is valid, and what it means, but in reality this is simple. GPL is permission given by the licensor, presumably the copyright owner, to the licensee to use the code, how to use it and under what conditions it is permitted. The only problematic area is the redistribution clause in GPL limits how much you can charge for redistributing the code. It mentions money, and therefore tends to pollute the license, so now its terms are no longer black and white, but it is still a license. Presumably, SCO was aware of the license when their code made it into Linux. Since they were distributing the code, including code they owned, in the form of a distribution under their trademark, it is difficult for SCO to argue their case. Most likely, they were aware of the situation, and knowingly distributed the code under the same GPL license. They accepted it, and to now claiming ignorance is questionable, at best. I doubt veracity of recent statements because of this.

    If you are an end user and get one of their letters, do nothing, as any action you take may work against you. If you are part of the media, ignore it as it is just another attempt by SCO to manipulate you and have Linux tried in the court of public opinion.

    Again, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has had to deal with them in this respect. This is only my opinion. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
  • DMCA? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Quixote (154172) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:24AM (#7785373) Homepage Journal
    SCO's invoking the DMCA (everyone's favorite piece of legislation in these here parts). Here's a snippet from their release [sec.gov]:

    DMCA Notification Letter
    SCO has commenced providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).

    Their stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Well, if it "must be removed", then tell us what is it that "must be removed", dammit!

    Also note that they claim that the ABI code was part of the settlement between UCB and BSDI (and SCO/ATT/Caldera/Novell are neither of those two...) :-)

  • by jcaveman (729608) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:28AM (#7785406)
    Wow! We're down from millions of lines of code to 65 files! Since they are "focusing" on API related issues does that mean they think they have copyright on the all files ending in .h ?
  • by zzabur (611866) on Monday December 22, 2003 @09:44AM (#7785498)
    LINDON, Utah - Dec. 22, 2003 - The SCO Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCOX), owner of the UNIX operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today reported revenue of $24.3 million for the fourth quarter of its fiscal year ended October 31, 2003, a 57% increase over revenue of $15.5 million for the comparable quarter a year ago.

    Fourth quarter revenue from UNIX products and services was $14.0 million. In addition, revenue generated from the Company's SCOsource licensing initiative was $10.3 million, which was derived from licensing agreements reached with Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc. earlier in fiscal 2003.

    For the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company reported a net loss to common stockholders of $1.6 million, or $0.12 per diluted common share. Excluding the previously reported charge of approximately $9.0 million incurred in connection with its October 2003 private placement for compensation paid to law firms engaged to enforce its intellectual property rights, the Company would have reported net income for the fourth quarter of $7.4 million, or $0.44 per diluted common share. The Company reported a net loss to common stockholders of $2.7 million, or $0.26 per diluted common share, in the comparable quarter a year ago. A GAAP reconciliation of net income (loss) and earnings per share for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2003 excluding the above charge is included in the financial tables at the end of this release. ...

  • Final Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tilleyrw (56427) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:04AM (#7785611)

    Linus should finish the SCO matter by asserting his copyright
    to the majority of the Linux kernel.

    Forbid SCO to copy or duplicate his kernel.

    Then he can sue SCO a mere $699 for each infraction. Poetic justice.

  • by cyclist1200 (513080) on Monday December 22, 2003 @10:08AM (#7785633) Homepage
    "We are hoping to boost our stock by reminding everyone before our big conference call that no matter what anyone else thinks, and despite the fact that every assertion we make has been logically shot down, and despite the fact that we've lost ground in court, and despite the fact that nothing has been decided in court yet, we're right!"
  • by hacker (14635) <hacker@gnu-designs.com> on Monday December 22, 2003 @11:45AM (#7786326)

    One thing I am seeing overlooked over and over, is the actual business perception to Linux adoption.

    I spoke with a client the other day on a concall, a very large hotel chain in the US, who were in the midst of replacing their CRM systems (front desk check-in systems) with Linux, 600 installs to start with. They wanted some ideas about how to consolidate their server facilities using Linux, and to remove the "low-hanging fruit" (Samba servers, print, file, domain controllers, web, etc.). They also wanted to know if we could 'guarantee' that they would not be sued if SCO wins this case. Since anyone offering such a guarantee would be risking a lot, I mentioned that it was impossible to "insure" against a lawsuit, especially in the U.S., where anyone can be sued for anything, wrong or right, frivolous or legitimate.

    Since we can't offer a "Linux Guarantee(tm)", this hotel chain mentioned that they are internally budgeting $699.00 for each Linux deployment they do, to indemnify themselves against the chance that SCO may win, and may sue them.

    This is reality .

    Companies are unsure about whether Linux is violating SCO's IP, or not, but they don't want to take the chance, no matter how much we advocate, educate, and teach them about the frivolousity of this FUD and lawsuits.

    Add to this, the "risk" to a company like this, if I, for example, contribute to Linux (the kernel, or the OS proper), and am an employee of this company. I am now a "risk" to them, because right now, I could be contributing to a project (Linux) that is violating a commercial company's IP (SCO). Companies do not want this risk, and you can bet I'd be laid off/fired for it.

    Deploying Linux (right now, to them) is a "risk". Employing people who contribute to Linux is also a "risk", until this thing is settled in the courts .

    This is going to affect a lot of industries, jobs, and employment, in an economy which is already ragged and in tatters. The "economy" as a whole is improving, financially, because domestic jobs are being eliminated and offshored. Let's not let it continue, because some commercial litigation company (SCO) decides they want a piece of the pie they don't own and didn't create.

  • by roystgnr (4015) <.roystgnr. .at. .ticam.utexas.edu.> on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:12PM (#7786527) Homepage
    Linux Weekly News has a copy of the letter [lwn.net]. The 65 files don't sound quite as threatening when you discover the first 17 of them are errno.h [linux.no]. Quick, someone go warn the IEEE [opengroup.org]!
  • The infringing files (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rayban (13436) on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:16PM (#7786559) Homepage
    Found in http://lwn.net/Articles/64052/, from http://www.groklaw.com. Unfortunately, I need to add more characters per line to get past the slashdot lameness filter:

    include/asm-alpha/errno.h
    include/asm-arm/errno .h
    include/asm-cris/errno.h
    include/asm-i386/err no.h
    include/asm-ia64/errno.h
    include/asm-m68k/e rrno.h
    include/asm-mips/errno.h
    include/asm-mips 64/errno.h
    include/asm-parisc/errno.h
    include/as m-ppc/errno.h
    include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
    include/ asm-s390/errno.h
    include/asm-s390x/errno.h
    inclu de/asm-sh/errno.h
    include/asm-sparc/errno.h
    incl ude/asm-sparc64/errno.h
    include/asm-x86_64/errno. h
    include/asm-alpha/signal.h
    include/asm-arm/sig nal.h
    include/asm-cris/signal.h
    include/asm-i386 /signal.h
    include/asm-ia64/signal.h
    include/asm- m68k/signal.h
    include/asm-mips/signal.h
    include/ asm-mips64/signal.h
    include/asm-parisc/signal.h
    include/asm-ppc/signal.h
    include/asm-ppc64/signal .h
    include/asm-s390/signal.h
    include/asm-s390x/s ignal.h
    include/asm-sh/signal.h
    include/asm-spar c/signal.h
    include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
    include/ asm-x86_64/signal.h
    include/linux/stat.h
    include /linux/ctype.h
    lib/ctype.c
    include/asm-alpha/ioc tl.h
    include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
    include/asm-arm/ ioctl.h
    include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
    include/asm-i38 6/ioctl.h
    include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
    include/asm-m 68k/ioctl.h
    include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
    include/asm -mips64/ioctl.h
    include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
    incl ude/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
    include/asm-parisc/ioctls. h
    include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
    include/asm-ppc/ioctls .h
    include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
    include/asm-ppc64/i octls.h
    include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
    include/asm-s39 0x/ioctl.h
    include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
    include/asm-sh /ioctls.h
    include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
    include/asm- sparc/ioctls.h
    include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
    inclu de/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
    include/asm-x86_64/ioctl. h
    include/linux/ipc.h
    include/linux/acct.h
    incl ude/asm-sparc/a.out.h
    include/linux/a.out.h
    arch /mips/boot/ecoff.h
    include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
    include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
    include/asm-sparc64/ bsderrno.h
    include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
  • by Teppy (105859) * on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:34PM (#7786683) Homepage
    Darl just said that the source files in question are "40 or so header files that are included by virtually all applications."
  • by mpsmps (178373) on Monday December 22, 2003 @12:34PM (#7786684)
    LWN has posted SCO's copyright letter [lwn.net].

    It asserts files like errno.h are infringing. It acknowledges these files were part of the BSDI/USL settlement but says that their use in GPL'ed software was not allowed by the settlement.

  • by stevew (4845) on Monday December 22, 2003 @01:01PM (#7786941) Journal
    IANAL - but from all the reading I've done, this is just more of the same bluff and bluster that SCO is now so infamous for.

    Let's suppose that SCO indeed has the now just "65" copyrighted files in the kernel for an ABI (betting it's the Intel ABI). The reason they have to attack the GPL is because all their other claims are tripped up by it. Don't forget that Caldera/SCO shipped these same files under GPL from their web-site for quite a long time. In my mind - they have willing released those files under GPL by that action, consequently, they have no claim UNLESS they can get the GPL invalidated some how.

    I'll further wager that those files got their as part of SCO's original business pursuits and were put their by SCO, and not IBM or others. I have no proof of that - just pure speculation on my part.
  • insider trading (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mabu (178417) on Monday December 22, 2003 @02:03PM (#7787516)
    I don't see any people within SCO buying shares. They're all unloading it. That shows quite a lot of faith in their cause:

    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 91 $15.05 0
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 300 $15.06 0
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 1,300 $15.056 0
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 S 4,949 $15.1 0
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 91 $1.12 91
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 300 $1.12 300
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 1,300 $1.12 1300
    GASPARRO LARRY VP 12/10/2003 OE 4,949 $1.12 4949
    OLSON MICHAEL P VP 11/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 82 $16.3 51830
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.4 51912
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.6 54717
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 100 $16.69 54817
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 500 $16.92 51330
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 563 $16.8 50767
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,100 $16.5 53617
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,350 $16.75 54917
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 1,605 $16.42 52012
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 AS 4,500 $17.0 47330
    OLSON MICHAEL P CT 10/13/2003 OE 5,500 $2.07 56267
    OLSON MICHAEL P VP 10/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
    OLSON MICHAEL P VP 09/11/2003 144 10,000 N/A N/A
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 23 $14.721 105300
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 300 $14.714 105000
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 400 $14.72 105323
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 09/02/2003 AS 4,277 $14.71 105723
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/26/2003 AS 5,000 $14.74 110000
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 700 $10.44 119300
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/19/2003 AS 4,300 $10.4 115000
    BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 AS 7,000 $10.9 221043
    BENCH ROBERT K. CFO 08/08/2003 144 7,000 N/A N/A
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 1,900 $12.57 123100
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 08/05/2003 AS 3,100 $12.56 120000
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 100 $12.81 129900
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/30/2003 AS 4,900 $12.8 125000
    HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.35 23894
    HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 100 $13.43 24494
    HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 500 $13.4 23994
    HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 900 $13.44 24594
    HUNSAKER JEFF F. VP 07/23/2003 AS 3,400 $13.3 20494
    HUNSAKER JEFF F. EMP 07/23/2003 144 5,000 N/A N/A
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.0 130000
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 100 $13.2 149900
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 200 $13.19 149700
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 800 $13.02 145900
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 1,300 $13.1 130100
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,000 $13.07 146700
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 3,700 $13.13 131400
    BROUGHTON REGINALD C. SR VP 07/22/2003 AS 10,800 $12.91 135100

news: gotcha

Working...