The Scotts Valley Operation?
Jeff Liebermann
relocate in Scotts Valley.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/September/02/biz/stories/02biz.htm
Will the name change to "The Scotts Valley Operation"?
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 AE6KS 831-336-2558
David Fenske
> According to the local newspaper and fish wrapper, SCO plans to
> relocate in Scotts Valley.
>
I thought they were changing their name to USL, and acronym for Unix
System Litigators.
J. L. Schilling
> Will the name change to "The Scotts Valley Operation"?
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Jeff Liebermann
Schilling) wrote:
>Sic transit gloria mundi.
Well, it's not dead yet, but it's close. I've participated in a few
human death watches and find the corporate version rather similar.
The relatives all sit around looking for subtle signs that the dying
person will squeeze out a few more days of life. Everyone exudes hope
and confidence, while secretly wishing that it would be over soon, so
they can be somewhere else. Meanwhile, the body mechanics perform
heroic and expensive procedures to squeeze a few days and many dollars
out of the patient. The end is usually predictable.
The corporate version is identical. The stock holders, stake holders,
and employees all look for subtle signs of hope that their investments
in time and capital will not go down the drain quite yet. I dunno
what they are thinking, but I would like to see a clean ending rather
than a protracted ordeal. Meanwhile, the attorneys perform heroic and
expensive legal maneuvers to squeeze a few days and many dollars out
of the corporation. I'm not sure the end is predictable, as modern
medicine and modern litigation can apparently keep a corpse alive.
Tony Lawrence
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> The corporate version is identical. The stock holders, stake
holders,
> and employees all look for subtle signs of hope that their
investments
> in time and capital will not go down the drain quite yet. I dunno
> what they are thinking, but I would like to see a clean ending rather
> than a protracted ordeal. Meanwhile, the attorneys perform heroic
and
> expensive legal maneuvers to squeeze a few days and many dollars out
> of the corporation. I'm not sure the end is predictable, as modern
> medicine and modern litigation can apparently keep a corpse alive.
>
Well, if they do die, I think you'd have to classify it as suicidal -
perhaps not on purpose, but definitely Darwin Award worthy. Whether
IBM did them wrong or not, it doesn't take much brain power to realize
that you really don't want to lock horns with them if you can avoid it,
and the downside went absolutely exponsential when the Linux threat was
factored in. Darl McBride should arrange for his epitaph now: "What
the $##@! was I thinking?".
Still, I'd like to see closure. If a house cat is dumb enough to pick
a fight with a lion (copyright on the whiskers, no doubt), I'd rather
not see it get killed off by an army of mice it offended along the way.
On the other hand, it would be nice to get it all over with. We'll
have to suffer through the jeering and cat-calling of FyRE et al. while
they strut around reminding us of their brilliance, but their
chest-pounding can only last so long, and we can then get on with
cleaning up the mess. The newsgroup will certainly hang in there while
migrations are in progress. After that.. well, all things must end.
I'll be curious to see what would happen to GrokLaw. I see PJ already
trying to transition to a more general computer/legal/whatever site,
which might be possible but on the other hand SCO's exit might just
foreshadow GrokLaw's disappearance too. We'll see.
If SCO does go under soon, I hope somebody will be able to keep the
TA's up somewhere for those people who might be stuck on the platform
for a bit. It would be nice if SCO released those to PD before the
lights go out.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
Neil Morrison
"Tony Lawrence" <pcu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:chfmoa$k...@odbk17.prod.google.com...
| Well, if they do die, I think you'd have to classify it as suicidal -
| perhaps not on purpose, but definitely Darwin Award worthy....
Reminds me of the Osborne I disaster:-
"... Still, there remained enough of a non-IBM market out there that Osborne
Computer might have held on for another year as it quickly produced a
follow-up version. But that didn't fit with Adam Osborne's ego.
As I wrote 20 years ago, "Adam Osborne apparently could not live with the
idea that the industry he had smugly drubbed over the years was whispering
that he had made a mistake. So, a week after the introduction of the
Executive, the company's last chance of survival, Adam Osborne made it
obsolete by announcing he was at work on a new IBM-compatible model. Sales
instantly fell off." On Sept. 13, 1983, 26 months after it was founded,
Osborne Computer went bankrupt. Osborne would later write a memoir of his
experiences in which he blamed the new CEO, fate, inexperience - almost
everyone but his own judgment - another Valley precedent.
But for most of us, the last image of Adam Osborne, the one brought back to
my mind as I read his obituary, was from People magazine the week of the
Osborne bankruptcy, showing Adam coming out of his company's now-empty
building holding his briefcase in front of his face to escape the cameras he
once so loved ..."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/SiliconInsider/SiliconInsider_030403.html
N
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Well, if they do die, I think you'd have to classify it as suicidal -
>perhaps not on purpose, but definitely Darwin Award worthy.
Maybe. I would not consider it suicidal but rather an act of
desperation. Eventually commentators and pundits will be scribbling
eulogies on how SCO offended the Linux horde and how Slashdot and
Groklaw were responsible for final collapse. History is written by
the victors and the survivors. I might as well get a head start.
As far as I can determine, the march downhill began with the sale to
Caldera. I asked Doug flatly "why did you sell out to Caldera"? He
answered "Because nobody else wanted it". Growth prospects for an
operating system competing with a monopoly on one flank, and a freebie
on the other, were not good. There were other things going on, but
basically, it was time to sell.
No sooner had the sale been announced, IBM unilaterally elected to
abandon Project Monterey (64bit Unix on Itanium). Never mind that
they had signed a contract, gotten everything that SCO had promised to
deliver, and done zilch in return. (I seem to have lost my copy of
the original Project Monterey contract. Anyone have a copy?) At the
time, Caldera had a valid complaint against IBM, but nothing happened.
Instead, Caldera tried to turn paying SCO Unix customers into
non-paying Linux customers. I kept asking the same question: "How am
I suppose to make money with Linux"? and getting no intelligible
answers. A short conversation with Ransom Love at one of the SCO
Forums convinced me that we had moved from the frying pan to the fire.
Meanwhile, OpenDesktop was selling and supporting the company.
Enormous efforts were expended in arm twisting users to switch from
ODT to Open Unix (Unixware). ODT continued to outsell Open Unix. So,
they switch to shoving them in the direction of Caldera Linux. That
didn't work for a long list of reasons that I don't wanna get diverted
discussing. Eventually, Caldera got the clue, changed the name back
to SCO, redirected additional development efforts toward what was
bringing in the revenue, and hoped for the best. It was the right
move, but far too late. The attempts to kill off ODT had finally
succeeded, more by neglect than intent, and projections looked dismal.
At this point, traditional practice is to retire all of upper
management and bring in a recovery team and a turn around expert.
Apparently someone at Canopy Group didn't think that would work.
Instead, they brought in a salvage crew. The way that works is to
inventory the assets available and make the most of what was found.
SCO's primary asset turned out to be its intellectual property. How
to cash in on that was the problem. So, they brought in group with
experience in IP litigation and hired the premier IP litigation law
firm.
Initially, they did the right thing and sue IBM for breach of
contract. However, something went awry and the claims expanded beyond
what one would consider reasonable. The stock went up in anticipation
of a fast buck on an settlement payoff, but that didn't happen. So,
Plan B was apparently to do whatever it takes to keep the stock high.
The rest is well documented on Groklaw. I find it amusing to note
that they finally remembered the Project Monterey break of contract
claims just recently. Methinks David Boise and accomplices were
saving that for the trial that may never happen but decided to throw
it in early. Like Chicken Little, you can only say that the sky is
falling a few times before everybody stops listening.
I would not call this mess suicidal. More like desperation, attempted
retaliation, serious lack of ethics, lack of market understanding, and
management ineptitude.
>Whether
>IBM did them wrong or not, it doesn't take much brain power to realize
>that you really don't want to lock horns with them if you can avoid it,
I'm not sure it could have been avoided. I firmly believe that SCO
would have done a Chapter 11 last year were it not for the stock price
jump, investments, and licensing. Desperation breeds a rather strange
flavor of ethics.
>and the downside went absolutely exponsential when the Linux threat was
>factored in.
The effect goes far beyond Linux. Were it not for the Linux IP issues
brought up by the suit, the push by Microsoft to enforce its software
patents would never have happened. While it may have come in a
different form at a different time, the damage done by the enforcement
of largely ridiculous software patents will probably dominate software
development and the computah industry for some time to come.
Jeff Liebermann
<je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>(I seem to have lost my copy of
>the original Project Monterey contract. Anyone have a copy?)
Never mind. Foundit:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004030711323697
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/851560/0000891618-99-000561.txt
53 pages. Ugh.
Also:
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/ProjectMonterey
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/help/architecture/idfmontereylab.pdf
Tony Lawrence
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2004 11:43:22 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, if they do die, I think you'd have to classify it as suicidal
-
> >perhaps not on purpose, but definitely Darwin Award worthy.
>
> Maybe. I would not consider it suicidal but rather an act of
> desperation. Eventually commentators and pundits will be scribbling
> eulogies on how SCO offended the Linux horde and how Slashdot and
> Groklaw were responsible for final collapse. History is written by
> the victors and the survivors. I might as well get a head start.
(btw - great post, Jeff - as usual)
Well, desperate is one thing, and dumb is another. The picture you
paint here is that of a series of dumb moves that brought them to where
they saw no other choice. Perhaps that is how they saw it, but there
WERE other choices. As I've said before, they might not survive no
matter what, but this lawsuit , win or lose, just about guarantees
death. Other choices gave them at least a chance.
..
> The effect goes far beyond Linux. Were it not for the Linux IP
issues
> brought up by the suit, the push by Microsoft to enforce its software
> patents would never have happened. While it may have come in a
> different form at a different time, the damage done by the
enforcement
> of largely ridiculous software patents will probably dominate
software
> development and the computah industry for some time to come.
Understatement :-)
Tony Lawrence
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Instead, Caldera tried to turn paying SCO Unix customers into
> non-paying Linux customers. I kept asking the same question: "How am
> I suppose to make money with Linux"? and getting no intelligible
> answers. A short conversation with Ransom Love at one of the SCO
> Forums convinced me that we had moved from the frying pan to the
fire.
Well, I think they missed a great opportunity. I've spelled it out in
longer form at http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1083.html but in short SCO
should have used open source to build apps that would give people a
reason to use their OS. It's my opinion that having a proprietary OS
could actually give you an advantage over open source if you exploit it
correctly - like Eastern Martial Arts, use your opponents own strength
against them.
Neil Morrison
| Well, I think they missed a great opportunity. I've spelled it out in
| longer form at http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1083.html but in short SCO
| should have used open source to build apps that would give people a
| reason to use their OS. It's my opinion that having a proprietary OS
| could actually give you an advantage over open source if you exploit it
| correctly - like Eastern Martial Arts, use your opponents own strength
| against them.
Installing, upgrading and supporting Xenix on the Tandy 6000 series was a
piece of cake since the hardware was so stable in configuration. SCO Unix on
Compaq computers is horribly difficult in comparison, and I don't want to
know about Linux on whatever someone has cobbled together.
--
Neil Morrison
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Methinks you've misread my comments. I was asking how *I* am suppose
to make money with Linux, not how SCO is suppose to make money with
Linux. The answer to SCO's problem was simple. Sell a mixture of
free and proprietary packages. Concentrate on integration issues,
which methinks are still the biggest Linux headache[1]. Target
specific applications markets and emphasize reliability and testing,
which customers are always willing to pay for. After all, SCO's
expertise was in feature conglomeration, testing, and integration.
However, that wasn't going to happen because the obvious free part of
the puzzle was the operating system and SCO had huge investments in
ODT and Open Unix. In other words, SCO would have had to sell
applications and services built on Linux and literally abandoned their
two Unix OS's. That wasn't going to happen.
However, my question was how *I* was going to make money with Linux.
Traditional consulting is the obvious way, where I perform heroic
feats of system integration and bludgeon applications into a useable
form. That works but one problem; I don't need SCO for that. I can
do that with pure open source packages. Another plan would be to
write a Linux application and support it. Yeah, I can do that but
again, I don't need SCO unless I wanted to build it on OSR5 and Open
Unix.
Perhaps the correct question should be:
"How can SCO make me rich"?
Your blog article mentioned:
http://www.sys-con.com/java/46131.cfm
as an example of how to make money with Linux. I find the article to
be little better than useless philosophical speculation on the future
of Sun's policy of the week toward open source Java desktop. I don't
make money with a philosophy or "editorial outlook". Quoting:
"You don't buy the software from Sun - instead you subscribe
to the editorial outlook."
Bleh. Please find a more appropriate article.
[1] For this week, the latest Skype beta for Linux arrived with
Chinese as the default language. KDE 3.3 broke my sound drivers in
Suse 9.1. QA and regression testing? Whazzat?
Tony Lawrence
Which is exactly what I suggested: integration.
>
> However, that wasn't going to happen because the obvious free part of
> the puzzle was the operating system and SCO had huge investments in
> ODT and Open Unix. In other words, SCO would have had to sell
> applications and services built on Linux and literally abandoned
their
> two Unix OS's. That wasn't going to happen.
No, you missed my point: integrate ON OSR5.
>
> However, my question was how *I* was going to make money with Linux.
> Traditional consulting is the obvious way, where I perform heroic
> feats of system integration and bludgeon applications into a useable
> form. That works but one problem; I don't need SCO for that. I can
> do that with pure open source packages. Another plan would be to
> write a Linux application and support it. Yeah, I can do that but
> again, I don't need SCO unless I wanted to build it on OSR5 and Open
> Unix.
Which is what SCO needed to do: bundle and modify Open Source apps on
OSR5.
Of course the presumption is that you come up with something better
than what Joe Random could do on Linux. If you can't, you fail.
>
> Perhaps the correct question should be:
> "How can SCO make me rich"?
>
> Your blog article mentioned:
> http://www.sys-con.com/java/46131.cfm
> as an example of how to make money with Linux. I find the article to
> be little better than useless philosophical speculation on the future
> of Sun's policy of the week toward open source Java desktop. I don't
> make money with a philosophy or "editorial outlook". Quoting:
> "You don't buy the software from Sun - instead you subscribe
> to the editorial outlook."
> Bleh. Please find a more appropriate article.
I think you missed the point of that also. If Sun or SCO started
porting Open Source apps and integrating well into smooth running
systems where you could always depend upon them, that's "editorial
outlook" - something you will pay for as an end user or a systems
reseller. It's what RedHat does, but companies like SCO or Sun (and
even Microsoft) have an opportunity to do it better, and still
effectively prevent copying.
>
> [1] For this week, the latest Skype beta for Linux arrived with
> Chinese as the default language. KDE 3.3 broke my sound drivers in
> Suse 9.1. QA and regression testing? Whazzat?
I have mixed feelings about Skype. On the one hand, it's great because
it is free. On the other hand, all the router companies and/or AOL are
surely going to take their market away.
--
Tony Lawrence
Joe Dunning
On 2004-09-05, Jeff
> On 5 Sep 2004 11:43:22 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> No sooner had the sale been announced, IBM unilaterally elected to
> abandon Project Monterey (64bit Unix on Itanium). Never mind that
> they had signed a contract, gotten everything that SCO had promised to
> deliver, and done zilch in return. (I seem to have lost my copy of
Never mind that IBM had the right to terminate, and Caldera would (or
should) have known this.
> the original Project Monterey contract. Anyone have a copy?) At the
> time, Caldera had a valid complaint against IBM, but nothing happened.
Not according to my reading of the contract. Since IBM had the right to
terminate, what "valid complaint" could there be?
>
> At this point, traditional practice is to retire all of upper
> management and bring in a recovery team and a turn around expert.
> Apparently someone at Canopy Group didn't think that would work.
> Instead, they brought in a salvage crew. The way that works is to
> inventory the assets available and make the most of what was found.
> SCO's primary asset turned out to be its intellectual property. How
> to cash in on that was the problem. So, they brought in group with
> experience in IP litigation and hired the premier IP litigation law
> firm.
I don't think Boise et al are "the premier IP litigation firm", in fact,
I don't think they even qualify as "experts" in IP litigation. Not that
they are incapable, but they had no special experience.
>
> Initially, they did the right thing and sue IBM for breach of
> contract.
See above, since IBM had the right to terminate, there was no basis to
sue.
However, something went awry and the claims expanded beyond
> what one would consider reasonable.
I have not seen any evidence of any "reasonable" claims.
> I would not call this mess suicidal. More like desperation, attempted
> retaliation, serious lack of ethics, lack of market understanding, and
> management ineptitude.
Ineptitude, greed, lack of ethics: I would agree with those sentiments
about SCO's management.
>
> The effect goes far beyond Linux. Were it not for the Linux IP issues
> brought up by the suit, the push by Microsoft to enforce its software
> patents would never have happened.
I have not seen any real activities by Microsoft. A lot of sabre
rattling, but so far, not much more.
In summary, I think you have some basic factual errors in your
assumptions and you should review your feelings on the issues in light
of these errors and the corrections I have noted above.
Tony Lawrence
Joe Dunning wrote:
>
> I have not seen any real [patent related] activities by Microsoft. A
lot of
> sabre rattling, but so far, not much more.
>
Microsoft will have to pick both the patent and its target very
carefully. They can't afford to screw up and lose - the negative PR
would be intense.
Maybe they have something they think they can win with, and maybe they
don't. I think it's pretty plain that they will use any weapon they
think will be successful.
I think you have to think of a lioness stalking prey. She's going to
watch for the right animal in the right place at the right time. Just
because she's not looking at you right now doesn't mean you aren't a
possible choice for dinner.
--
Tony Lawrence
Neil Morrison
| Microsoft will have to pick both the patent and its target very
| carefully. They can't afford to screw up and lose - the negative PR
| would be intense.
|
| Maybe they have something they think they can win with, and maybe they
| don't. I think it's pretty plain that they will use any weapon they
| think will be successful.
|
| I think you have to think of a lioness stalking prey. She's going to
| watch for the right animal in the right place at the right time. Just
| because she's not looking at you right now doesn't mean you aren't a
| possible choice for dinner.
During a commercial spot masquerading as a media interview with the Chicago
Sun-Times on June 1, 2001, Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft says, "Linux is a
cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything
it touches."
Steve Ballmer at Microsoft's annual financial analysts meeting in Seattle,
on July 31, 2000
"There's no company called Linux, there's barely a Linux road map. Yet Linux
sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the
characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it.
That is, it's free."
http://cs.senecac.on.ca/~selmys/quotes.html
N
Free Code
I guess freedom *is* communism to a monopolist. After all, they lose
control when there is open cooperation that does not drive a wedge between
people in order to exploit them and take their money for personal gain.
Using Ballmer's "logic" there must be a lot of communists who fought for
this country's freedom over the centuries. Who else supports freedom,
other than communists (following his statements to the absurd lengths he
goes to, seeking a false conclusion)? I suppose that the Constitution is a
cancer because it too, is free (as in freedom).
Not the sharpest tool in the shed, but so few call bullsquash on the MS
execs. A lot of others merely suck up to them, hoping to take some crumbs
from the food that drops on the floor. That's no life for any
self-respecting human being.
To each their own, but I shall choose my own path.
Have a nice day.
freecode
Jeff Liebermann
>Never mind that IBM had the right to terminate, and Caldera would (or
>should) have known this.
True. Let's say we have a joint development contract between you and
me. I'll play IBM and you play Caldera/SCO. We reach an agreement
that says either party can bail out at any time without much notice.
So, the joint development contract starts with you delivering all your
UW7 source code to me. I say thank you and immediately terminate the
contract. That's literally what happened.
IBM's excuse was that Caldra bought SCO which changed the picture.
That makes about as much sense as having a change of your office
landlord as justification for me pulling the plug on our joint
development contract.
>> the original Project Monterey contract. Anyone have a copy?) At the
>> time, Caldera had a valid complaint against IBM, but nothing happened.
>Not according to my reading of the contract. Since IBM had the right to
>terminate, what "valid complaint" could there be?
None. It was a badly written contract. SCO has never been known for
scribbling air tight legal documents. The purchase agreement by
Caldera was a horrible mess that nobody, including the SEC could
understand. It was about as clear as mud. The SEC literally ordered
SCO and Caldera to rewrite most of it so it was intelligible.
The real question (from my warped perspective) is whether the courts
will enforce the *INTENT* of the Project Monterey contract. It is
obvious to even the most die hard Linux fanatic, that it was not SCO's
intent to just hand the UW7 source code to IBM, and have IBM deliver
zilch. I've asked practicing attorneys what the court might do. All
have said, toss a coin.
>I don't think Boise et al are "the premier IP litigation firm", in fact,
>I don't think they even qualify as "experts" in IP litigation. Not that
>they are incapable, but they had no special experience.
It's David Boies of Boies, Shiller, and Flexner:
http://www.boies-schiller.com
Another flash infested web pile. Yech.
Look under "Practice Areas" and then "Intellectual Property".
They have some IP experience, none of it very good. They
unsuccessfully defended Napster in court. Prior to that, he was
special council for the Justice Department in their case against
Microsoft, which had considerable IP content. You'll need to register
to see his case history:
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1830702_1?channel=LP
I guess you're right. They're not the best, just the highest profile.
>I have not seen any evidence of any "reasonable" claims.
Breach of contract with IBM in the Project Monterey contract. That
was the original claim. Linux was never even mentioned. I consider
that a reasonable grievance, despite the screwed up contract.
However, that would not have justified the $10million to Boies and
Company, so they raised the stakes. The rest you know.
>I have not seen any real activities by Microsoft. A lot of sabre
>rattling, but so far, not much more.
What you must have seen is that Microsoft is making peace with its
former enemies. Oracle and MS settled their patent issues with a big
fat check. Sun did the same with an even bigger fat check. MS is
maintaining a low profile and non-confrontational position on all
public issues. Once all the major complainers are pacified and paid
off, I'm certain MS will drag their patent portfolio out of mothballs
and into the courts. MS has relied in the past on copyrights, but is
fully prepared to defend its software patents. My guess(tm) is that
before MS decides to go to court, they want to be sure the proper
politicians are in place that will not try to convince congress that
software patents suck and are an impediment to technical progress. MS
makes very few mistakes because they prepare the ground very well
before they move.
This software patents list is EU centric and a bit old, but might give
you a picture of things to come:
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/microsoft/index.en.html
http://swpat.ffii.org/players/ibm/index.en.html
>In summary, I think you have some basic factual errors in your
>assumptions and you should review your feelings on the issues in light
>of these errors and the corrections I have noted above.
Please let me know when you are able to distinguish between opinions
and facts. Meanwhile, spare me your suggestions and judgements of my
comments. I welcome your opinions but your personal suggestions are
out of line.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:55:23 GMT, Joe Dunning <j...@dev.null> wrote:
...
>>I don't think Boise et al are "the premier IP litigation
>>firm", in fact, I don't think they even qualify as "experts"
>>in IP litigation. Not that they are incapable, but they had no
>>special experience.
>It's David Boies of Boies, Shiller, and Flexner:
> http://www.boies-schiller.com
>Another flash infested web pile. Yech.
>Look under "Practice Areas" and then "Intellectual Property".
>They have some IP experience, none of it very good. They
>unsuccessfully defended Napster in court. Prior to that, he was
>special council for the Justice Department in their case against
>Microsoft, which had considerable IP content. You'll need to register
>to see his case history:
> http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1830702_1?channel=LP
>I guess you're right. They're not the best, just the highest profile.
Before Boise had his own firm, he was one of the lawayer that
successfully fought the justice deparment when he was at IBM.
They papered the government to death, including writing special
software to search their documents for use in the trial.
He at least knows how IMB >used< to do things. That may not
have any bearing on their current approach in litigation.
>>I have not seen any evidence of any "reasonable" claims.
>Breach of contract with IBM in the Project Monterey contract. That
>was the original claim. Linux was never even mentioned. I consider
>that a reasonable grievance, despite the screwed up contract.
>However, that would not have justified the $10million to Boies and
>Company, so they raised the stakes. The rest you know.
Put lawyers on contigency and the stakes will go as high as
possible.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Tony Lawrence
Well, Linux *is* communism, or to use different wording, it's a
communal effort. Funny how we applaud communal efforts but hate that
word "communism", isn't it? If Linux is communism, it's awful, but if
it's a communal effort, that's good.
As usual, it is what it is, regardless of labels. But it does threaten
the income of those who sell copyrighted/patent covered software. When
income is threatened, people fight back. Microsoft will use words, any
government assistance it can, its patents, and anything else it can
think of to damage Linux.
--
Tony Lawrence
Tony Lawrence
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> The real question (from my warped perspective) is whether the courts
> will enforce the *INTENT* of the Project Monterey contract. It is
> obvious to even the most die hard Linux fanatic, that it was not
SCO's
> intent to just hand the UW7 source code to IBM, and have IBM deliver
> zilch. I've asked practicing attorneys what the court might do. All
> have said, toss a coin.
Can't be, Jeff. All the evidence from GrokLaw says that SCO has no
case and can't possibly win. Further, such eminent legal authorities
as our own FyRE have repeatedly ridiculed any suggestion that anything
other than a loss is possible.
You must be lying. Obviously you must be one of those immoral SCO
resellers we've been warned about.
Seiously, as you noted in other posts, SCO should have stuck to this
and hammered the hell out of it in PR. Dragging Linux and all the
other crap into it was dumb, dumb, dumb. If they had left it at this,
they might have even had a good percentage of Linux folk sympathetic to
to their argument.
--
Tony Lawrence
Joe Dunning
> On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:55:23 GMT, Joe Dunning <j...@dev.null> wrote:
>
>>Never mind that IBM had the right to terminate, and Caldera would (or
>>should) have known this.
>
> True. Let's say we have a joint development contract between you and
> me. I'll play IBM and you play Caldera/SCO. We reach an agreement
> that says either party can bail out at any time without much notice.
If you agreed to such a contract then, you either:
1. Screwed up royally when signing the agreement
2. Took on a risk, knowing that you had little choice.
> So, the joint development contract starts with you delivering all your
> UW7 source code to me. I say thank you and immediately terminate the
> contract. That's literally what happened.
>
> IBM's excuse was that Caldra bought SCO which changed the picture.
It's not an excuse. The contract has a specific clauses that allowed IBM
to terminate if there was a change of control.
> That makes about as much sense as having a change of your office
> landlord as justification for me pulling the plug on our joint
> development contract.
Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
could be bought by a competitor.
>
>
> None. It was a badly written contract. SCO has never been known for
> scribbling air tight legal documents. The purchase agreement by
> Caldera was a horrible mess that nobody, including the SEC could
> understand. It was about as clear as mud. The SEC literally ordered
> SCO and Caldera to rewrite most of it so it was intelligible.
>
> The real question (from my warped perspective) is whether the courts
> will enforce the *INTENT* of the Project Monterey contract.
My opinion is that, since the contract hasvery clear wording allowing
IBM to terminate in the event of a change of control, IBM's actions
followed the *INTENT* of the contracrt.
> It is
> obvious to even the most die hard Linux fanatic, that it was not SCO's
> intent to just hand the UW7 source code to IBM, and have IBM deliver
> zilch. I've asked practicing attorneys what the court might do. All
> have said, toss a coin.
As I said before, the problems were of old-SCO's making: the management
signed a contract with terms that expressly allowed IBM to do what
it did. At best, I have read claims that Caldera sought assurances from
IBM that IBM would not terminate -- however, I think these claims come
from Caldera and hence cannot be trusted.
>
>>I don't think Boise et al are "the premier IP litigation firm", in fact,
>>I don't think they even qualify as "experts" in IP litigation. Not that
>>they are incapable, but they had no special experience.
>
> It's David Boies of Boies, Shiller, and Flexner:
> http://www.boies-schiller.com
> Another flash infested web pile. Yech.
> Look under "Practice Areas" and then "Intellectual Property".
>
> They have some IP experience, none of it very good. They
> unsuccessfully defended Napster in court. Prior to that, he was
> special council for the Justice Department in their case against
> Microsoft, which had considerable IP content. You'll need to register
> to see his case history:
> http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1830702_1?channel=LP
> I guess you're right. They're not the best, just the highest profile.
>
>>I have not seen any evidence of any "reasonable" claims.
>
> Breach of contract with IBM in the Project Monterey contract.
Nope. Not reasonable -- there was no breach.
That
> was the original claim.
No. It has not been mentioned in any court filing as far as I can tell.
Linux was never even mentioned. I consider
> that a reasonable grievance, despite the screwed up contract.
SCO signed the contract. What you are suggesting is that somehow SCO
should not be responsible for agreeing to the contract. Let's imagine
another situation:
You sign a lease on an office that alloows you to terminate the lease on
30 days notice. You then give 30 days notice and the landlord now sues
you for breach of contract. Is that reasonable? No. Just as it is
unreasonable for TSG to sue IBM for exercising the rights IBM had under
the contract.
Remember, there were alternatives:
1. Don't sign a contract with IBM
2. Insist that if IBM terminated, IBM had no or reduced rights to use
the code,
3. Insist that if IBM terminated, IBM had to pay a royalty to use the
code
4. etc.
I've been there: I have negotiated IP contracts and had to deal with
clauses that aloow termination in the event of change of control. The
best solution is usually to limit the damage to my interests if the
other party terminates early.
So, SCO screwed up. SCO may have signed because they felt that they had
no alternative, but, neither the courts nor the constitution have
guaranteed anyone the right to make a profit. Companies go bankrupt: it
happens every day. Technology changes can remove the reason for a
company to exist. It's called creative destruction. It's how the economy
develops.
>
> What you must have seen is that Microsoft is making peace with its
> former enemies. Oracle and MS settled their patent issues with a big
> fat check. Sun did the same with an even bigger fat check. MS is
> maintaining a low profile and non-confrontational position on all
> public issues. Once all the major complainers are pacified and paid
> off, I'm certain MS will drag their patent portfolio out of mothballs
> and into the courts.
Microsoft's methods appear to be to get potential competitors onto their
side first, then kill them. Sun's present state with regard to Microsoft
is only temporary -- if the agreement has reduced or removed Sun's
ability to compete, then all Sun has done is delay their demise.
Tony Lawrence
Joe Dunning wrote:
> Microsoft's methods appear to be to get potential competitors onto
their
> side first, then kill them. Sun's present state with regard to
Microsoft
> is only temporary -- if the agreement has reduced or removed Sun's
> ability to compete, then all Sun has done is delay their demise.
I was reminded by a blurb in the latest MacWorld that John Sculley was
one of the first to make that mistake - a 1985 agreement letting MSFT
use some Mac OS technology in exchange for continuing Word on the Mac
and delaying Excel one whole year. I thought it was dumb then, and I
think history supports that opinion.
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
"Another point source of web pollution"
Tony Lawrence
Joe Dunning wrote:
> On 2004-09-06, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:55:23 GMT, Joe Dunning <j...@dev.null> wrote:
> >
> >>Never mind that IBM had the right to terminate, and Caldera would
(or
> >>should) have known this.
> >
> > True. Let's say we have a joint development contract between you
and
> > me. I'll play IBM and you play Caldera/SCO. We reach an agreement
> > that says either party can bail out at any time without much
notice.
>
> If you agreed to such a contract then, you either:
> 1. Screwed up royally when signing the agreement
> 2. Took on a risk, knowing that you had little choice.
I vote for "screwed up royaly". While the Monterey project certainly
was a juicy plum, I don't think it was "life or death" at the time.
>
>
> > So, the joint development contract starts with you delivering all
your
> > UW7 source code to me. I say thank you and immediately terminate
the
> > contract. That's literally what happened.
> >
> > IBM's excuse was that Caldra bought SCO which changed the picture.
>
> It's not an excuse. The contract has a specific clauses that allowed
IBM
> to terminate if there was a change of control.
>
>
>
> > That makes about as much sense as having a change of your office
> > landlord as justification for me pulling the plug on our joint
> > development contract.
>
> Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
> could be bought by a competitor.
Caldera as a competitor to IBM ??
>
> >
> >
> > None. It was a badly written contract. SCO has never been known
for
> > scribbling air tight legal documents. The purchase agreement by
> > Caldera was a horrible mess that nobody, including the SEC could
> > understand. It was about as clear as mud. The SEC literally
ordered
> > SCO and Caldera to rewrite most of it so it was intelligible.
> >
> > The real question (from my warped perspective) is whether the
courts
> > will enforce the *INTENT* of the Project Monterey contract.
>
> My opinion is that, since the contract hasvery clear wording allowing
> IBM to terminate in the event of a change of control, IBM's actions
> followed the *INTENT* of the contracrt.
Most of us enter into contracts expecting to get something in return.
What did SCO get?
--
Tony Lawrence
http://aplawrence.com
"Hackneyed opinion and inept technical advice our specialty"
Brian
> My guess(tm) is that before MS decides to go to court, they want to
> be sure the proper politicians are in place that will not try to
> convince congress that software patents suck and are an impediment
> to technical progress. MS makes very few mistakes because they
> prepare the ground very well before they move.
What? Microsoft makes very few mistakes? I am sorry but are we talking about
the same Microsoft?
Microsoft is historically one of the most inept litigators in history. If
they didn't have a war chest filled overflowing by years of monopoly
pricing they would have been driven out of business years ago.
Few mistakes? Have you used their software recently? Even their PR campaigns
are weak and subject to comedic ridicule.
The only thing Microsoft really has going for it is momentum... Period!
Microsoft is no brooding dangerous giant, it is a romping bull in a China
shop. They just aren't as stupid as The SCO Group.
As for Monteray, it was dead before it got started and Intel had more to do
with that than anyone.
Brian
Tony Lawrence
Brian wrote:
> The only thing Microsoft really has going for it is momentum...
Period!
>
> Microsoft is no brooding dangerous giant, it is a romping bull in a
China
> shop.
Underestimating Microsoft is probably the most dangerous thing Linux
folk do.
> They just aren't as stupid as The SCO Group.
Far from it, to be sure.
--
Tony Lawrence
Joe Dunning
>
> Joe Dunning wrote:
>>
>> Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
>> could be bought by a competitor.
>
> Caldera as a competitor to IBM ??
Arguably, yes, UW on Intel as a competitor to AIX on PPC or x86. But
that is not the point. It's frequently difficult to define a competitor
in a way that is suitable for a contract, so contracts just talk about
change of control, they don't attempt to limit to the company being
controlled by a competitor.
>>
>> My opinion is that, since the contract hasvery clear wording allowing
>
>> IBM to terminate in the event of a change of control, IBM's actions
>> followed the *INTENT* of the contracrt.
>
> Most of us enter into contracts expecting to get something in return.
> What did SCO get?
Perhaps nothing, but arguably, IBM entered the contract with the
expectation that they would be dealing with SCO (old-SCO that is) and
not Caldera. So, arguably, it was SCO that did not hold up its end of
the contract.
Anyway, we are discussing our opinions of the expectations people had
going into the contract. The real issue is that IBM had the right to
terminate and so, there is no justification for TSG to sue over
this. People involved may be upset over the way things turned out, but
ultimately, as you agreed, SCO's management screwed up when they agreed
to the terms. I don't think TSG has a valid reason to sue just because
of bad decisions by SCO.
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> My guess(tm) is that before MS decides to go to court, they want to
>> be sure the proper politicians are in place that will not try to
>> convince congress that software patents suck and are an impediment
>> to technical progress. MS makes very few mistakes because they
>> prepare the ground very well before they move.
>What? Microsoft makes very few mistakes? I am sorry but are we talking about
>the same Microsoft?
Yep. The one that reported an 82% profit growth last quarter, despite
the general economic downward dive, and is about to pay out $75
billion in cash to its stockholders. You know, the company that sells
products and services that everyone from gamers to governments pay
real money to purchase or license. The one with the $296 billion
market cap and a consistent 22% profit margin.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
>Microsoft is historically one of the most inept litigators in history.
Oh, that. Yeah, I agree that they made a mess of the Justice
Department suit. Allegedly, Bill Gates handled the legal strategy
personally and demanded a confrontational strategy. All the JD wanted
was for MSFT to contribute more to political candidates. They got
that from MSFT, but found that they couldn't conveniently drop the
case thanks to MSFT turning every detail into an issue or media event.
A first year graduate attorney could have assembled a better strategy.
>If
>they didn't have a war chest filled overflowing by years of monopoly
>pricing they would have been driven out of business years ago.
There were alternatives available all along. OS/2, Linux, Novell,
Apple, numerous Unix mutations, etc were all available long before
MSFT became entrenched. Why did they fade, while MSFT products sold
and continue to sell?
>Few mistakes? Have you used their software recently?
I'm using it now. It works well enough for me. There are many things
I don't like. I also prefer SCO Unix. However, I use what my
customers use so that I'm familiar with their complaints and issues.
Yeah, there are mistakes, but it works well enough.
>Even their PR campaigns
>are weak and subject to comedic ridicule.
Weak? Well, they're aimed at emerging market segments that are not up
on computah lingo and have only a vague idea of what computing is
about. MSFT does target experienced users and sysadmins in the trade
journals. However, the big money in advertising goes into the
management communications areas. Dilbert doesn't make purchase
decisions these days. It's the clueless PHB (pointy hair boss) that
signs the cheques. I know a bit more than average about such
marketing and think MSFT spends its advertising money rather well.
>The only thing Microsoft really has going for it is momentum... Period!
Right. MSFT delivers something that people will pay money for. You
and I may not like the product, but there are a substantial number of
paying customers that think it's good enough to pay for and continue
to pay for. That's momentum.
>Microsoft is no brooding dangerous giant, it is a romping bull in a China
>shop. They just aren't as stupid as The SCO Group.
Forgive me if I don't get into Animal Farm analogies and other
absurdities.
>As for Monteray, it was dead before it got started and Intel had more to do
>with that than anyone.
Really? Intel was late with Itanium and IMHO has a horrible 32 bit
compatibility strategy. However, IBM isn't any better. Know any
joint development efforts with IBM that have actually survived? IBM
and Apple with Taligent? I'm lazy and don't wanna build a list right
now, but the trend in joint efforts with IBM is ominous. Lots of
fanfare at the initial announcements, IBM legal bureauocracy grinds
development to a halt, joint effort collapses when the smaller
partners get fed up and leave. IBM takes what's left. I hear the new
IBM management is far more considerate of small companies than the
previous bunch. However, this was 4 years ago, when they were more
predatory and litigatory.
J. L. Schilling
>
> Well, Linux *is* communism, or to use different wording, it's a
Somehow I don't think any Usenet discussion on this notion
(does L = C) is going to have a very good signal-to-noise ratio!
http://www.blackhats.org/fun/nerd/linux-communism.html
is somewhat amusing however.
Jonathan Schilling
Jeff Liebermann
>If you agreed to such a contract then, you either:
>1. Screwed up royally when signing the agreement
>2. Took on a risk, knowing that you had little choice.
IBM probably wrote the contract. They have much more experience
writing joint development contracts than SCO. One would expect it to
be rather one sided.
Just for fun, Appendix A lists the things IBM was suppose to be doing
on behalf of SCO. None of them were even started by IBM.
Attachment A
I. IBM intends to engage in at least the following marketing
activities to market, promote and sell the Unixware and the IA-32
Product on IBM systems in 1999 with a minimum cumulative funding of
Five Million Dollars in the first year:
* Unix on Intel Awareness Campaign
* Increased WW Business Show Presence
* Enable Support Centers for UnixWare and IA-32 Product
* ISV Recruitment (exclusive of payments from Intel/IBM ISV fund)
* Training of Sales Reps (including direct and channels) and
Geography personnel
* Channel Strategy Programs (including development of Channel
Solutions Offerings)
* Netfinity Development and Programs
* Expand SCO engagement with major IBM Segment Stategy (e.g.,
e-business)
* Jointly Developed Business Propositions (e.g., Network Computing
in Retail)
* General Marketing/Communication material development
II. Separate from the activities under I. above, IBM will make certain
IBM middleware available for the UnixWare 7 and IA-32 Product platform
based on IBM's own determination of commercial considerations. At a
minimum, however, IBM plans to make the following middleware available
for the IA-32 or UnixWare 7 Product:
- MQ-series
- DB2
- eNetwork Directory
- Net.Data
- IBM Websphere
- Commserver
- Tivoli Management Software
- Network Station Manager
======
Note that the termination clause included a 6 month "wind down"
period. I wasn't paying much attention at the time, but I believe
that there was no 6 month "wind down" period. More like pull the plug
and run.
>It's not an excuse. The contract has a specific clauses that allowed IBM
>to terminate if there was a change of control.
Agreed. But timing is everything and IBM got a free ride. The open
question is whether a breach of contract case will be tried on the
basis of a literal interpretation of the written agreement or a
liberal interpretation of the intent of the agreement. I dunno.
>Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
>could be bought by a competitor.
True. IBM could consider Caldera a competitor. Strangely, I had read
it as IBM being afraid that ownership of Project Monterey code by a
Linux company might leak some of the joint development code into the
Linux code base, where ownership is far from clear or absolute. This
may be wrong, but if true, would certainly be ironic.
>My opinion is that, since the contract hasvery clear wording allowing
>IBM to terminate in the event of a change of control, IBM's actions
>followed the *INTENT* of the contracrt.
Even better. It's worded so that *ONLY* IBM can pull out
unilaterally. Don't forget the wind down period where a settlement of
standing issues was alledgely suppose to take place. That was the
intent of this period but it never happened.
>At best, I have read claims that Caldera sought assurances from
>IBM that IBM would not terminate -- however, I think these claims come
>from Caldera and hence cannot be trusted.
I think it would be reasonable to expect Caldera to attempt to salvage
the agreement. However, conditions changed in 2000 and Linux started
to look much more interesting to IBM than before. IBM really didn't
need SCO as much a year later. I'm not sure exactly when IBM suddenly
decided that Linux was good for IBM, but I suspect it was around this
period (early 2000). When did 64bit Linux first appear?
>Remember, there were alternatives:
>1. Don't sign a contract with IBM
>2. Insist that if IBM terminated, IBM had no or reduced rights to use
>the code,
>3. Insist that if IBM terminated, IBM had to pay a royalty to use the
>code
>4. etc.
Yep. At the time of the original agreement (late 1998) SCO needed IBM
to market UW7 which was not selling well. In SCO's position, I would
have signed anything that would have provided that. IBM wanted ULS's
help in building a 64 bit Unix because they did not want to engage in
a protracted development effort. Yeah, there were alternatives, but
in late 1998, the benifits to SCO were enormous and possibly
overwhelming to the point that they would sign anything. I've never
had to negotiate a contract with IBM, but I hear it's no fun.
>Microsoft's methods appear to be to get potential competitors onto their
>side first, then kill them. Sun's present state with regard to Microsoft
>is only temporary -- if the agreement has reduced or removed Sun's
>ability to compete, then all Sun has done is delay their demise.
I'm afraid you're right. The recent settlements have really been
payoffs. There may now be some long term prospects of having Sun and
Oracle continue to be propped up by MSFT. Sun would probably have
gone Chapter 11 were it not for the settlement. As Scott McNealy once
quipped, Java is the only product that MSFT supplies that it doesn't
own.
Neil Morrison
"Jeff Liebermann" <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:obnrj012tkkdf6a7i...@4ax.com...
| Attachment A
| I. IBM intends to engage in at least the following marketing
| activities
Kind of like "Saddam Hussein intends to engage in at least the following WMD
programs"?
| II. Separate from the activities under I. above, IBM will make certain
| IBM middleware available for the UnixWare 7 and IA-32 Product platform
| based on IBM's own determination of commercial considerations....
Obviously they are paying the lawyers too much money and the developers too
little!
N
Neil Morrison
| Well, Linux *is* communism, or to use different wording, it's a
| communal effort. Funny how we applaud communal efforts but hate that
| word "communism", isn't it? If Linux is communism, it's awful, but if
| it's a communal effort, that's good.
|
| As usual, it is what it is, regardless of labels. But it does threaten
| the income of those who sell copyrighted/patent covered software. When
| income is threatened, people fight back. Microsoft will use words, any
| government assistance it can, its patents, and anything else it can
| think of to damage Linux.
My all time favorite was when the (private) Insurance Council started crash
testing cars. The US made cars did fairly well. The Japanese cars did very
badly. The Japanese fixed their cars. The US auto makers complained to the
government and wanted laws passed to stop the testing!
NM
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>You must be lying. Obviously you must be one of those immoral SCO
>resellers we've been warned about.
I always lie. But that's ok because nobody listens.
>Seiously, as you noted in other posts, SCO should have stuck to this
>and hammered the hell out of it in PR.
Yep. I've known about the Project Monterey angle since the initial
lawsuit. So have various current and former SCO employees. When I
didn't hear it even mentioned during the media circus phase, I assumed
that SCO was holding this back as some kind amazing revelation for the
trial. My mistake was giving too much credit to the SCO legal team.
>Dragging Linux and all the
>other crap into it was dumb, dumb, dumb.
Yeah, but it was logical at the time. If IBM had misappropriated UW7
code and then done absolutely nothing with it, there would be no case.
There has to be damage done. IBM was smart enough to not use it in
their own code, where they apparently track ownership and IP rights
with great care. So what could IBM have done with the code to present
the impression that there had been damage done to SCO? No 3rd part
company was given a sample of the code. No susidiary products or
services were based upon it. So, who's left that can use some UW7
source code? Obviously, the Linux crowd, which is by definition
decentralized and presumed incapable of defending themselves. My
guess(tm) is that someone at Caldera *ASSUMED* that IBM had just
passed it around to whomever needed or wanted access to the UW7 source
code, which precipitated initial claims of misappropriation. Since
the brilliant Caldera legal team wanted to save the Project Monterey
angle for the trial, they couldn't accuse IBM of giving out Project
Monterey development code. Instead, they accused IBM of leaking
USL/AT&T/UW7 code.
Disclaimer: This is quite a bit of reverse engineering and guesswork
on my part, but methinks it's basically correct. I have no inside
information to substantiate any of my guesses.
>If they had left it at this,
>they might have even had a good percentage of Linux folk sympathetic to
>to their argument.
I don't think so. The Linux movers and shakers have never been
particularly sympathetic toward SCO (old or new). When Skunkware was
being worked on, contacting the various authors for legal releases,
permissions, and sometimes licenses, in accordance to their own
license agreements, was an ordeal. Some would not return calls and
email. Some presented the general impression of hostility. This was
long before the litigation started. Even when Caldera was doing its
best to present Linux as a business solution, there would be chants of
"business is evil" from the Linux horde. While most of those involved
were civil and cooperative, the undercurrent of hostility should have
given SCO a clue.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager je...@cruzio.com AE6KS
Jeff Liebermann
>On 2004-09-07, Tony Lawrence <pcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Caldera as a competitor to IBM ??
>Arguably, yes, UW on Intel as a competitor to AIX on PPC or x86.
I don't think you read the Project Monterey agreement. SCO owned UW7
prior to the Caldera purchase of SCO. Thus IBM was already dealing
with an alleged competitor. In addition, IBM was agreeing to help
sell this competitors UW7 product as part of Project Monterey.
What Tony is asking how the change of SCO to Caldera ownership could
have presented any form of *ADDITIONAL* competition to IBM. Caldera
was a Linux seller and IBM did not have a Linux product or strategy at
the time. There's no competition, therefore there's no threat, and
therefore should not have pulled the plug merely because of some
alleged competition.
>But
>that is not the point. It's frequently difficult to define a competitor
>in a way that is suitable for a contract, so contracts just talk about
>change of control, they don't attempt to limit to the company being
>controlled by a competitor.
Baloney. One of the major components of any joint development
contracts is to separate the areas of non-involvement, define the
areas of co-operation, and divide the pie in terms of expenses and
profits. This was done fairly well in the Project Monterey agreement.
There's no way the addition of Linux to the puzzle could have
constituted much of a change of competitive position for either party
as defined in the agreement.
>Perhaps nothing, but arguably, IBM entered the contract with the
>expectation that they would be dealing with SCO (old-SCO that is) and
>not Caldera. So, arguably, it was SCO that did not hold up its end of
>the contract.
Got it. It's the people with whom your dealing that are important,
not the substance or intent of the agreement. If I don't like your
face, I won't do business with you. Swell.
Did you notice that only IBM had the contractual ability to pull out
unilaterally and without much justification or compensation?
Dissolution clauses are usually very detailed. I can think if several
reasons why SCO had allowed this to happen. The one I don't like to
think about is that SCO may not have expected the company to survive
the length of the agreement and therefore didn't care.
>Anyway, we are discussing our opinions of the expectations people had
>going into the contract. The real issue is that IBM had the right to
>terminate and so, there is no justification for TSG to sue over
>this. People involved may be upset over the way things turned out, but
>ultimately, as you agreed, SCO's management screwed up when they agreed
>to the terms. I don't think TSG has a valid reason to sue just because
>of bad decisions by SCO.
I just really hate to agree with you, but I think you're absolutely
correct. This shouldn't have happened. Desperation makes people and
companies do desperate things. We would all be better off if none of
this had happened.
Bill Vermillion
Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>On 7 Sep 2004 05:19:02 -0700, "Tony Lawrence" <pcu...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>If they had left it at this, they might have even had a good
>>percentage of Linux folk sympathetic to to their argument.
>I don't think so. The Linux movers and shakers have never been
>particularly sympathetic toward SCO (old or new).
SCO seemed to always have a problem with anyone who used anything
other than SCO. Old users of this group will remember Larry Snyder
- the inveterate evangelist for Dell's SysV4 [for those of you who
think that looks strange, at one time Dell though SVR4 was the
future and had their own implementation].
There were at least a 1/2 dozen SVR4s out there and all of those
users seemed to be anti-SCO as it was so old - this was
pre-OSR5 days.
Nothing has changed except the protaganists for the other OSes,
whichever those might have been at that time.
Bill Campbell
>On 2004-09-06, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>> That makes about as much sense as having a change of your office
>> landlord as justification for me pulling the plug on our joint
>> development contract.
>
>Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
>could be bought by a competitor.
That certainly was the case for a friend of mine who worked for three
companies in a period of weeks without moving his desk, ending up at Sun,
when the first company he worked for, which built Sparc based systems, was
purchased by another company that was a Sun competitor, and sold off that
part of their newly acquired business to Sun.
Going further back in another field, Chrysler found itself selling cars
with Ford engines after it bought the company that built the Sunbeam Tiger.
Bill
--
INTERNET: bi...@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/
A Galileo could no more be elected president of the United States than
he could be elected Pope of Rome. Both high posts are reserved for men
favored by God with an extraordinary genius for swathing the bitter
facts of life in bandages of self-illusion.
-- H. L. Mencken
Tony Lawrence
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> I don't think so. The Linux movers and shakers have never been
> particularly sympathetic toward SCO (old or new). When Skunkware was
> being worked on, contacting the various authors for legal releases,
> permissions, and sometimes licenses, in accordance to their own
> license agreements, was an ordeal. Some would not return calls and
> email. Some presented the general impression of hostility. This was
> long before the litigation started. Even when Caldera was doing its
> best to present Linux as a business solution, there would be chants
of
> "business is evil" from the Linux horde. While most of those
involved
> were civil and cooperative, the undercurrent of hostility should have
> given SCO a clue.
Well, unfortunately, the Linux movement has attracted its share of
unrealistic and really quite stupid people (stupid in general, not
necessarily at technology).
But hey, the world is full of 'em, isn't it?
I wonder if any of the chanters are among those now being wooed for
cozy positions at companies eager to influence the Linux kernel? (
http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B1084.html ). Or is business only evil when
it isn't filling YOUR wallet?
Buncha maroons, I say.
--
Tony Lawrence
Bill Vermillion
Bill Campbell <bi...@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 07, 2004, Joe Dunning wrote:
>>On 2004-09-06, Jeff Liebermann <je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>...
>>> That makes about as much sense as having a change of your office
>>> landlord as justification for me pulling the plug on our joint
>>> development contract.
>>
>>Change of ownership is frequently cause for termination: the company
>>could be bought by a competitor.
>
>That certainly was the case for a friend of mine who worked for three
>companies in a period of weeks without moving his desk, ending up at Sun,
>when the first company he worked for, which built Sparc based systems, was
>purchased by another company that was a Sun competitor, and sold off that
>part of their newly acquired business to Sun.
>Going further back in another field, Chrysler found itself
>selling cars with Ford engines after it bought the company that
>built the Sunbeam Tiger.
I had one of those. Could never figure out why tire mileage was
not good until a friend followed me back from Sebring.
The car was sort of crabbing down the road. I'm guessing it was
dropped when it was unloaded off the boat, as that would explain
the strange body repair that appeared to be just in front of the
right window post.
Since the rear axle was pretty much bolted directly to the body
the shop that did it for me [ so good one Ferrari owner from Texas
would always stop there on his trips to Miami ] cut slots big
enough for the bolts that held the axle in place to be moved back
and forth. The bolts went through about a big 5 inch steel
washer. When the alignment was right they were welded in place.
Bill