Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Caldera Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

NRF Calls SCO's Claims 'Meritless' 326

Xenographic writes "The National Retail Federation has just put out a press release in which their CIO concludes that SCO's IP claims are "meritless," and that Novell is the last company which can show a clear title to the code in question. That SCO's claims are meritless is hardly news to anyone who has been following this, but what is interesting is that the NRF was prompted to release this because of legal threats to their membership, specifically SCO's threats to sue "major retailers." So the businesses being menaced by SCO are banding together, making it that much less likely that SCO will be able to generate easy money from mere threats of litigation. SCO's stock, meanwhile, appears to have taken a small dive from this news. Also, you can find further details and analysis on Groklaw."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NRF Calls SCO's Claims 'Meritless'

Comments Filter:
  • by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:49PM (#9066286)
    SCO is really scrambling now to amend their suits, claims, and counterclaims and they are looking sillier and sillier. Still, there are enough "nervous nellies" in the I.T. world to allow SCO to continue to bluster and bully there way to a few more "license" bucks before the courts finally put an end to this nonsense. It's good to see the retailers to tell SCO to put it where the sun don't shine.

    Happy Trails!


  • by ( 583077 ) <nospam AT minotaurcomputing DOT com> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:50PM (#9066302) Homepage
    Wouldn't it be funny if when it's found that Novell indeed unquestionably owns the rights to the code, they turn around and pull a SCO on us?

    hehe he

    • Re:At the end... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ravind ( 701403 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:53PM (#9066330)
      They would still have to show some copied code.
    • GPL to the rescue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DaveAtFraud ( 460127 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:08PM (#9066491) Homepage Journal
      Since Novell bought SuSe they are now a Linux distributor and bound by the terms of the GPL. If Novell owns the Unix copyrights (looks like they do from what I read on Groklaw), we're all VERY safe from them attempting to pull an SCO.

      Personally, I'd worry more about "submarine" software patents that someone will suddenly complain are being infringed ala PanIP, RAMBUS, et al. You will note how easily IBM was able to find four patents for their counter-suit against SCO.

      (You can go back to worrying now)
    • by mcc ( 14761 ) <> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:58PM (#9066958) Homepage
      Because the thing is that Novell is selling linux [], and in fact owns SUSE and Ximian, and as a result are bound by the terms of the GPL.

      The neat thing about the GPL is its seemingly foolproof method of making sure everyone plays fair: they make it in everyone's interests to play fair, by making everyone not just borrow from everyone else, but depend on everyone else.

      For example, let's say a company releases a piece of software [] under the GPL, then the next day decides to recant and announces that no, we changed our mind, it wasn't GPLed after all. If the company never sold anyone a copy, just put it up for download on a website, well then, who's to disagree with them? If someone had given them money for it that could be construed as having some sort of contractual validity, and the license that they included when they originally distributed the license irrevocable. But if it was just a free download, and the license included with the download as a written offer... well that's kind of fuzzier, isn't it? It would seem the company couldn't "go back" on their license offer, but the company could claim all kinds of things. They could claim the release was "unauthorized", or not intended for public release outside the company, or there were mitigating copyright and contractual cirucmstances the company was not aware of at the time doctrine of mutual mistake blah blah blah. And if this were the BSD license, that's where things would end.

      But the GPL, among doing other things, adds an interesting wrinkle to things by legally intertwining to a certain extent everyone who cooperates using it. If someone releases some code they own under the GPL, they still own it and can do whatever they like with that code outside the context of the GPLed product However if someone is distributing or redistributing a product containing someone else's GPL code-- anyone's-- then they suddenly find themselves with a small and reasonable, but important, set of obligations.

      So, here's another hypothetical example. Let's say Novell announces they own lines 5000-5435 of the linux kernel; that those lines were stolen from NetWare by a disgruntled employee who then submitted them to Linux as his own work at some point; that they have indisputable proof of this; and they further announce that anyone who wants to sell linux owes them $699 a copy for Novell's 435 lines of code there.

      The problem here is that they can't do that; the instant Novell points out those 435 lines of code are unlicensed, distributing Linux becomes illegal, period. The reason for this is that the GPL says that in order to distribute under the GPL, you must be able to offer to anyone who you distribute it to an unlimited GPL license themselves, which includes the right to freely redistribute and modify. If you don't have the rights to distribute Linux under the GPL, you certainly don't have the right to distribute Linux by any other mechanism. And if you have to pay $699 to distribute the Linux kernel, then you don't have the right to distribute it under the GPL. The rest of Linux, everything except those 435 lines, is still GPLed and freely distributable; but the whole package, or any package that contains those 435 non-Free lines linked against GPL code, is something nobody-- including Novell-- has the right to distribute at all until those lines are removed or replaced.

      So, Novell currently lacks the ability to attack Linux in this fashion without losing the right to sell Linux in the process-- which would be a major problem for them since they currently have a decent amount riding on their Linux-based products. And the really fun thing is, if Novell does as SCO did after raising their apparently fraudulent claims against Linux, and continues to distribute Linux even after they make the public claim that they own code in Linux that they never gave Linux a license to, then one of
      • So, here's another hypothetical example. Let's say Novell announces they own lines 5000-5435 of the linux kernel; that those lines were stolen from NetWare by a disgruntled employee who then submitted them to Linux as his own work at some point; that they have indisputable proof of this; and they further announce that anyone who wants to sell linux owes them $699 a copy for Novell's 435 lines of code there.

        <NITPICK>Wouldn't that be 436 lines of code? </NITPICK>

    • Re:At the end... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iabervon ( 1971 )
      Novell's business depends on Linux going forward, because they're abandoning the NetWare kernel in favor of the Linux kernel. Even if they were to own the copyright on something vital to Linux, they couldn't license that to their customers without releasing it under the GPL, since that would violate the GPL on the rest of the kernel. So, even if they did have relevant copyrights and hadn't licensed the code out under the GPL, they would have to drop most of their product line to do anything about it. Note t
  • Code in question? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:50PM (#9066303)

    ...Novell is the last company which can show a clear title to the code in question.

    What code would this be, exactly?

  • Interesting (Score:2, Funny)

    by 2names ( 531755 )
    NRF == "Trade Federation"

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe Lucas can work something like SCO into the storyline of EpIII. What with all the damn boring politics in the last two.
  • Next lawsuit ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crimethinker ( 721591 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:54PM (#9066342)
    SCO will sue the NRF for slandering their claims.

    I don't get these guys. How soulless do you have to be to outright lie about what you own, when you bought it, and the terms of an otherwise perfectly clear license?

    Ooops, now SCO will sue me, too.

    P.S. If you thought GPL was "viral," listen to SCO sometime: anyone who has ever seen the SysV source code can never work on an OS again, because that makes it a "non-literal derivative." Jeez.


    • by NaugaHunter ( 639364 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @04:01PM (#9066989)
      I think at the beginning they honestly thought they had the rights to some of the code, and that they thought the whole area was fuzzy enough that IBM would either pay them or buy them out rather than push their luck. Whether they started to over believe themselves, or just got so wrapped up in the snowball of lies that they had no way out, I have no idea.

      I would agree that patented/proprietary code is far more viral than GPL code could possibly be, since your right to use it is generally tied to contracts which can be cancelled. Having worked in "the industry" for 10 years, I have no conscious idea how I solved problems back then 4 companies ago. However, I have no doubt that if presented with a similar problem now I'd solve it in a similar way. In theory, virtually everything I've written from my second company on might have vestiges of supposedly 'proprietary' code.

      About the only defense to this is it's almost universal - anyone who's moved around a lot is likely to be in this position. The next software hurdle will be MS's sudden patent rush, and fighting the 'obvious' patents. Hopefully we can get the Patent Office/system overhauled or at least looked at before Longhorn comes out.
  • by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:54PM (#9066347)
    Ok how many people have to tell SCO to shove it before a judge does? Lemme see:

    National Retail Federation

    There are more I am sure, but I mean come on. Noone agrees with SCO (at least I have not heard of anyone). When is a judge just going to toss this crap out of court?
    • by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:14PM (#9066560) Homepage Journal
      The judge doesn't care how long it takes, and isn't allowed to care. If the judge shows bias through a summary dismissal,the whole mess gets tossed right back into retrial because of their "bias" against greedy, self-serving corporate and legal vultures. Judges aren't allowed to summarily rule against festering scum, no matter how obvious the guilt may be. You could videotape a broad-daylight murder, and it would still have to go through "the system."

      It's up to the lawyer to push for a quick decision, and it isn't in the lawyer's self interest to encourage a decision in reasonable time. The longer the lawsuit, the more the lawyer can bleed the client.

      Do you think any individual could get away with refusing to provide evidence demanded by the courts, and not end up in jail for contempt? The entire SCO management team should be seeing fraud charges and jail time when this debacle is finally ended, but instead we'll just see a few lawyers walk off with another porsche or two, Darl will whine about how they mislead him, and the only ones who'll really pay will be the people and businesses impacted by the fraud.

      It's the New American Way to "manage" the law. Companies like Microsoft and SCO build their very existence on treating the fines and penalties as the cost of doing business. It's not going to change until the lawyers, CEOs, and other corpororate officers are held personally responsible for their fraud and mismanagement, and jailed accordingly.

      • I agree, however it IS within a judge's jurisdiction to 'push' the case along by expediting the plaintiff's requests for extensions and denying them if they're not prepared. Either you come to the court set for battle or don't come at all. I wonder if the judges are getting a kickback from all this in the form of potential political campaign funds? It wouldn't surprise me.
    • It isn't over until Lorra Diddlings sings.
  • by BCoates ( 512464 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:54PM (#9066353)
    Thinks they're worth a penny a share []

    (look at the bottom of the 'bid orders' section)

  • Nooo! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <[ten.lemmuhnhoj] [ta] [lemmuhj]> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:58PM (#9066395) Homepage
    Don't say it's so!

    If SCO doesn't have any more real claims in court, how will we as a society get by?

    The last time a major company fell apart, we had to hire Sally Struthers to start up "CEO charity foundations".

    We can't have these people walking the streets. Keeping them in upper management positions is the only way to protect the rest of us from serious harm. At least in the boardroom, secluded from the rest of society, they can do the least damage.
  • by DanTheLewis ( 742271 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:58PM (#9066398) Homepage Journal

    (from their Mission Statement [])

    The National Retail Federation is the world's largest retail trade association, with membership that comprises all retail formats and channels of distribution including department, specialty, discount, catalog, Internet and independent stores as well as the industry's key trading partners of retail goods and services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.4 million U.S. retail establishments, more than 20 million employees - about one in five American workers - and 2003 sales of $3.8 trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents more than 100 state, national and international retail associations.

    Yikes. One in five American workers and $3.8 trillion in Sales can't be wrong!

    Or can they?


    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:13PM (#9066543)
      ...and they said to get back to the store. There's some stocking to be done.

    • Yikes. One in five American workers and $3.8 trillion in Sales can't be wrong!

      Or can they?


      They could be wrong. The size of the claimant does not indicate the validity of the claim.

      In my opinion, at least it seems that the NRF has done some homework. Even if SCO was right, I'd think that they would still fight it unless it was a totally lost cause. They give up if thought that the cost of paying up would be lower than the legal costs, but I doubt that because SCO has diminishing funds to file la
      • Right (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DanTheLewis ( 742271 )

        I was referring more to the kind of clout an organization like this has, than their truth-handling ability.

        When this sluggish market-force monster rears its ugly head and blasts SCO with this strength, there is even less chance that any white knight will come to the rescue of SCO (the princess in the tower? nah, the warty witch).

        SCO should have let this sleeping dragon lie.

  • by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <<splisken06> <at> <>> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @02:58PM (#9066399)
    In my opinion, it is almost as if The SCO Group's business model is to generate a revenue stream through litigation.

    Almost as if?!? I realize that lawyers include modifiers like that to lessen the chance of successfully actionable lawsuits, but come on. SCO is suing former clients, it's going through money like it's still days. For the corporation, the ONLY revenue stream is through litigation.

    Of course, for the principals, the primary revenue stream is through stock manipulation, shifting assets between Canopy elements and taking everything not explicitly nailed down. But that's personal, not business.

  • SCO group layoffs (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:00PM (#9066417)
    In related news [] the SCO group lays off 275 to "re-allign" their organization.

    • SCO has only sold $20,000 in Linux licenses the last quarter. That's a little over 25 licenses. Guess there really isn't much of a line to buy a printed piece of paper that gets you nothing.
    • Re:SCO group layoffs (Score:5, Informative)

      by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:45PM (#9066850) Homepage Journal
      In related news the SCO group lays off 275 to "re-allign" their organization
      The actual number is more like 27 or 26. From the article:
      Spokesman Blake Stowell declined to say how many were cut but said the layoff affected less than 10 percent of the company's staff, which totaled 275 employees before the cut. Jobs were eliminated across the company, including sales, marketing and engineering, he said.
      Note apparently no losses in anything related to SCO's new core business, litigation...
    • Re:SCO group layoffs (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trogre ( 513942 )
      The article says "less than 10 percent" of the then 275 employees were to be laid off.

  • by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:00PM (#9066419)
    First of all, I don't see much evidence of a meaningful dip today. If you want to talk about meaningful numbers, go click on the 3 month or 6 month chart for SCO. There's been pretty steady selling pressure on this sucker for some time now. I don't really understand how it's slid as slowly as it has, but I guess it's just a reflection of the slow process by which the media's coverage of this case has gone from asserting that SCO's IP was clearly infringed by Linux, to the inclusion of phrases like "SCO claims" and "according to SCO," prior to those claims, and, increasingly, interviews with analysts and industry figures who are pretty willing to join the SCO bashing as they all start to realize that if SCO wins, the whole economy loses, with a massive number of companies relying somewhere in the wings not just on Linux but on lots of pieces of Open Source technology.

    With a market cap of around 90 million now, this one has been a real dog for the investors. And this is a company with $65 million in cash in the bank, supposedly - that means the price-to-book ratio is getting mighty low. And their P/E is pushing down towards 20.

    For those not familiar with this stuff, that means the premium people were putting on this stock reflecting the possibility of a big (i.e. 5 billion dollar) win against IBM has basically dropped to near-zero. I wouldn't be surprised to see the whole executive team get rotated out soon or something else drastic happen to SCO. The legal battle may drag out for ages, but the market has spoken.

    • They had a small rise this morning, and when I saw it hit the news, there was about a 0.20 drop. Granted, it's not a lot for them by any means, but it was a rather sharp line downwards at the time I saw it.

      Anyhow, the more important part is that more people are taking note of this (outside of slashdot types) and so SCO is unlikely to get any more large cash infusions, barring someone with a vested interest in this funding them...

      As another poster mentioned, SCO's POS[1] deployments are primarily in retai
  • by deadmongrel ( 621467 ) <> on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:04PM (#9066463) Homepage
    Who ever is instrumental for this already got away with the money. They are trying to lick the leftovers from the plate now. The funny thing is somebody lost and its not us(Open Source people), its the people who bought the stock.
    One thing is for sure, this whole fiasco made more good publicity to FOSS. More people know about linux and more importantly what open source is.
    • That would be the lawyers and Canopy Group (Ralph Yarro et. al.). Certainly not Baystar, they seem to have been duped by SCO, Canopy and their own greed into a big PIPE investment in quite the bowser of a company.

      As far as I can tell, Canopy hasn't sold any of their stock. However, they suckered Baystar into putting 50 million in cash into this beast to prop up the value of their stock (Canopy's filings with the SEC indicate they own about 35 million dollars in SCOX, in other words about 40 percent of t

    • The funny thing is somebody lost and its not us(Open Source people), its the people who bought the stock.

      The people who bought into this turkey and didn't get out after it started declining from $20 deserve to lose their money. Maybe they'll think twice the next time they hear about a dying company rolling the "IP Litigation" dice.

      One thing is for sure, this whole fiasco made more good publicity to FOSS.

      More importantly, if SCO doesn't implode before reaching trial, the case will result in the vindic
  • by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:05PM (#9066467) Homepage Journal
    This news alone is just more ammo against SCO, but little will be done with this news alone. Aside from the fact that they have laid off ten percent of their staff [], nothing much has happened anyway aside from the usual doggerel of them saying that Linux is for all intents illegal.

    Besides, the downward trend has been going for some time - they were hovering around $7 last week, now they've dropped a dollar since. So one day's stock variations is not going to make or break somebody in the general sense.

  • by LocoBurger ( 18797 ) * on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:09PM (#9066515) Homepage

    No, no. Not the NRF part. Sure that's significant and interesting and all..

    Look at the Groklaw link. It seems to be saying that SCO has dropped all claims that IBM did anything illegal with Linux kernel code. They're only pusrsuing the claim that IBM shouldn't be selling AIX and Dynix anymore (which is a pretty laughable claim, anyway).

    They [SCO] are not suing IBM for "IBM's use, reproduction and improvement of Linux":
    The only copyright claim SCO has asserted against IBM is primarily for IBM's continuing use of AIX and Dynix after SCO terminated IBM's UNIX licenses."

    Has SCO backed off of all Linux claims?!?

    • Not to mention that the reason that SCO "terminated" the AIX license to begin with was due to the alleged copyright infringements perpetrated by IBM by submitting code to improve Linux.

      Go figure!

  • What "NRF CIO" means (Score:5, Informative)

    by wytcld ( 179112 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:14PM (#9066556) Homepage
    For those of you who think it's kind of odd that a CIO is offering what's a legal opinion - yes it it. The NRF is the largest retail lobbying association. But it's all just a small office in DC. (Used to have a larger office in NYC but the biggest retailers didn't like that some of their dues where going to the NY office's mainly educational mission, which was of most worth to small retail members who didn't have their own in-house educational arm. So they staged a coup in the early nineties and moved the focus just to the lobbying branch in DC.)

    Anyway, the NRF has a handful of people given the same titles as typical top retail executives, including CIO and VP of this and that. Each of these has about one person reporting to them - the title is more so that when they organize conferences in their areas they'll have equivalent rank to the top attendees. Most of the have actual backgrounds elsewhere in the departments they're posing as head of, but they're all basically retired from that and in a second career with the trade association.

    So this is not a lawyer saying this, and not even a real, current CIO. The NRF has on retainer some of the biggest names in American law. Might make you wonder why they didn't have one of them make the statement (although it's a sure bet one of them put these words in the CIO's mouth). All a bit odd....
  • by crawdaddy ( 344241 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:16PM (#9066577)
    You think this is a serious reaction to SCO? Feh...forget the NRF's stance on it...I'm waiting for the NRA'S response!

    (emphasis added to enhance tonality)
  • by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:21PM (#9066625) Homepage Journal

    Verisign, Inc.
    Kmart Corporation
    GO Software
    Hewlett-Packard Company
    LexisNexis - PeopleWise
    South Dakota State University
    Washington State University
    Southern New Hampshire University

    for more see here []
  • NRF CIO Dave Hogan:

    In my opinion, it is almost as if The SCO Group's business model is to generate a revenue stream through litigation.

    Hasn't SCO said this? I don't think it's "opinion" or "almost if". I believe SCO said this, but if they didn't, their invester BayStar certainly did.

  • by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:29PM (#9066688) Journal
    Just this morning I was thinking it was time I looked into shorting SCO stock. I missed out.
  • Gee, I wonder why. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hal2814 ( 725639 )
    The National Retail Federation has members that stand to be sued by SCO if SCO's claims are true. Of course NRF is going to say that SCO's claims are meritless. Like SCO, NRF is looking out for number one!

    $_from_members_using_Linux > $_to_fight_SCO

    If it were the other way around, the NRF would probably be pushing members to abandon Linux as we speak.

    Keeping memebers and avoiding legal battles is all NRF cares about. That's not a bad thing, but it does make them a little biased when evaluating the S
  • by MythosTraecer ( 141226 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:46PM (#9066854)
    The significance of the National Retail Federation speaking out against SCOX may be deeper than some realize. One of SCO Unix's core markets (if not the only one) was/is retail point of sale systems. In the 1980s and early 90s, SCO Unix (and its Xenix predecessor) was one of the few choices available to run a POS system on affordable PC hardware. If SCO Unix has any market left, it is the members of the NRF, many of whom have large deployments of SCO Unix throughout their store chains. Who even runs SCO Unix anymore? The answer is these people. The companies in the NRF comprise the SCO Unix core market, and if SCOX plans on continuing to sell software to businesses, it needs them.

    But now, these companies, the last customers SCOX has, have turned against them. With their previously existing relationship, SCOX could have been in a good position to sell them Linux, but they have ruined that opportunity now. What tiny market SCO Unix had is gone, and any hope SCOX had of continuing to be a software company just went with it.

    On the other hand, their litigation isn't going well either. Better say goodbye, folks, because SCOX is not long for this world.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @03:48PM (#9066870) Homepage
    It's a slow week for SCOX. It's been trading around 6.25 +- 0.25 for the last week. Volume is down. Over the last six months, the stock has tanked. It started the year around 18. But this week is slow.

    The market is losing interest in SCOX. It's clear now that there's no big near-term win there.

    It's hard to get excited about a press release from a lobbyist from a trade association, especially when it doesn't announce any action. But it's good to have statements like that, because it discourages Congressional action. Recall that SCO was lobbying Congress at one point. With IBM, Damlier-Chrysler, Utah's Novell, Goldman Sachs, and the National Retail Federation against SCO, Congress isn't going to do anything stupid.

    The real action is in the SCO vs IBM lawsuit, where SCO is not doing well. SCO has narrowed their copyright claim []. SCO had a deadline coming up on the discovery front, where they have to disclose the "infringing code". They're close to the "put up or shut up" point in that case. They've stalled and stalled, but it didn't work. One motion at a time, IBM has whittled away at SCO's claims. The trade secret claim is gone. The copyright claims are steadily shrinking. The claim that the GPL is "unconstitutional" is gone. Meanwhile, IBM's claims against SCO threaten SCO's remaining cash.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @04:05PM (#9067012)
    "meritless". In a later announcement, they announced that today is Wednesday.
  • by panurge ( 573432 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @04:11PM (#9067061)
    Is that actually SCO seems to have been of some use, on the basis of what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. They have:
    • Caused major corporates like IBM and HP to assess how important FOSS is to them, and act accordingly
    • Probably influenced the acquisition of SuSE by Novell, and helped commercialise Linux
    • Raised the profile of Linux in the world at large, by making business analysts realise there is something here that people will fight over
    • Probably speeded up improvements in the FOSS creation process, helping to ensure that its IP status is robust
    • Made a heroine of PJ
    • Given the entire IT industry a new hate figure to mold in wax and stick pins in, doubtless helping Bill G sleep better at nights of the full moon
    • Enriched several poor and deserving attorneys and helped to ensure that neither DaimlerChrysler nor Porsche have too many layoffs
    • Further educated some of the people who thought they understood the stock market
    Darl McB deserves some sort of award for all this. With his remarkable combination of tact, diplomacy and tireless negotation, he should at least be made Ambassador to Iraq.
    • Made a heroine of PJ

      More importantly in this regard, the case triggered off "The Groklaw Effect": The results of an online community working to debunk bogus legal claims. Will the next IP-fraudster think twice about attacking F/OSS?
    • he should at least be made Ambassador to Iraq.

      I think I speak for most everyone here when I say that Darl should be made Ambassador to Bubba. A two or four year appointment will not be enough of a reward, either. A Lifetime appointment sounds just about right to me.

      Let's not forget his partners, either. Sontag et al having been his advisors, they can just continue to advise him...

  • SCO's stock (Score:5, Informative)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @04:39PM (#9067310) Journal
    It was down that low before the news. Investors were beginning to notice the "painting" and other often illegal stock manipulation tactics that were being used to keep SCOX sailing. Royce is one of the prime suspects behind the stock manipulation, having invested $30 million dollars in SCOX through Baystar, and gradually increasing their investment by a small few thousand shares at a time, around the open and close of the market, when most of the suspected "painting" has occurred. The SCOX price always went UP on bad news, an almost sure sign of illegal stock manipulation. Another thing that was keeping the SCOX price up was a $45 price target set by "analyst" Brian Skiba. That price target was recently pulled, leaving only a more realistic, albiet still high $5 price target on the SCOX summary pages of most financial sites.

    Today, SCOX price has risen slightly again, on a day when their perceived value should have dropped due to bad news. I have no doubt that the stock manipulation is still going on.

    Note: This is all stuff I've read in the Yahoo! SCOX forum, nothing I deserve credit for researching myself.
    • Re:SCO's stock (Score:3, Informative)

      by Error27 ( 100234 )
      Brian Skiba and his assistant at Deutsche Bank both left to work for a company in California. The question to me is, if they left on their own, or if they were encouraged to leave after DB got a subpeona from IBM?

      The SCOX stock price has been hovering at the $6.00 mark for the last couple days, always closing just above. It could be that a bunch of people have set things up so that they automatically purchase SCOX when it's less than $6.00. This isn't necessarily manipulation at all.
  • The SCO Group laid off a "small" number of employees late last week as part of an effort to make its Unix products group profitable

    If laying of a "few" people can turn SCO "profitable", man, that's one sad company. I think the most interesting part will be to see exactly what departments got the ax. We all know they don't need any programmers there anymore except as "token", as in "See, we still have a technical staff" bullshit.

  • comparison (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Wednesday May 05, 2004 @06:30PM (#9068270)
    I think this graphic pretty much sums up the story [] despite the best efforts of a few corrupt investment brokers and lawyers.

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.