LinuxOne Continued Complications

Derek Simkowiak writes "After I informed a potential IPO underwriter about LinuxOne, Inc., they threatened to sue me. What happened after that was even more disappointing". This is an interesting exchange of opinions, facts, threats, and retractions. I highly recommend anyone interested in the future of Linux and Business read this article.

Comments

It isnt for the vendors to sort out

[Alan Cox]

Policing by competitors isnt right. The SEC is charged with protection of US investors from fraud. You should take it up with them, as should
everyone else who is concerned and has hard evidence.

LinuxOne -- the case for the defence

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked a securities analyst what he would tell a client about this one; here's what he told me. Looks surprisingly positive in the circumstances:

The value of LinuxOne's business is inestimable. The company has made an immeasurable contribution to the open source software, and can expect copious intangible rewards for doing so. The CEO has no small degree of experience as a tech-businessman, and will manage the company with his usual degree of skill for its entire future. Investors can look forward to profits of anything up to 500% more than the company is making now. This is an IPO which the investment community should be falling over each other to learn about.

Re:LinuxOne -- the case for the defence

[Coriolis]

I can't see anything to disagree with here:

The value of LinuxOne's business is inestimable.
There's no way we can tell how much this business is worth. Probably nothing.

The company has made an immeasurable contribution to the open source software...
The company's contribution to OSS does not register on any known scale of measurement.

and can expect copious intangible rewards
i.e., no money.

The CEO has no small degree of experience as a tech-businessman
Factually speaking, it's miniscule, not small.

manage the company with his usual degree of skill
Bear in mind his usual degree of skill, here...

for its entire future
Which is measurable in weeks.

profits of anything up to 500% more than the company is making now
Remember, 5 x 0 = 0

This is an IPO which the investment community should be falling over each other to learn about.
After all, you wouldn't want to invest in it by accident, would you?

530 Message

[shinji]

Try this! That 530 message in not a real 530 message. They have posted it to fool you. FTP to
140.174.127.95 (the site listed on their webpage).
try Anonymous login. first you get back.
530-There are too many users ...
but next you get back a real 530 message
530 Login Incorrect
I think linuxone does not want anyone to download linuxone and make everyone think lots of people are downloading it

Motley Fools Covered LinuxOne Also

[mssymrvn]

http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/rule maker000106.htm

Rob Landley didn't seem to have too many positive things to say about them. The article above is an interesting read. They go into a little more detail about the background of the founder(s).

Re:lawyer's letter

[Chuck Milam]

"The "threatening legal letter" from the Hotmail account appears to be an amateurish fake. I would be very surprised if it turned out to have been sent by a real lawyer. Notice also that when you send threatening letters through e-mail, you don't need real legal letterhead to print them on."

It would surprise me as well to see an attorney for a "technology" firm using a hotmail account to send offcial correspondence. Some things that raised the red flag for me in this "lawyer's" E-Mail:

• "Derek- I am the lawyer for LinuxOne, Inc." Hmm. Most of the legal correspondence I've seen is certianly more formal than this, even when delivered via E-Mail. For example, Instead of "Derek-" the greeting would be "Derek :" or "Mr. Simkowiak:". Also, most lawyers refer to themselves as "attorneys," not lawyers.
• "I have read with disgust the lies..." This certianly seems to be an inflammatory statement, not something a good attorney would open a letter with. Again, it just seems too informal.
• "This constitutes written demand for you to retract your false and malicious statements within 3 days, failing which, you, and your company, will be subject to civil prosecution for your actions. Your immediate action would seem most prudent.: Something just plain smells fishy about this statement as well. Don't attorneys usually cite some legal code or at least make it sound more formal when they insinuate that there has been some sort of wrong committed against a client?
• "Michael J. Morrison, Esq." Attorneys usually close with the name of their firm. I would hope the LinuxOne isn't using a single, independent attorney instead of a larger firm to conduct their business.

Overall, this whole message just seems too informal. Most legal communication follows a strict style, including snail mail addresses, formal greetings, closings, and well-defined paragraphs and sentence structure. My guess is that this is someone "playing lawyer." Or maybe they got one of those "Sally Struthers You CAN Learn to be a Lawyer at Home!" kits?

The Lawyer exists! Enough Already!

[IrishLeo]

A quick search from www.adanet.org nets:

MICHAEL J. MORRISON
1995 Ridgeview Dr.
Reno, Nevada
(Washoe County)

ADMITTED: 1976

LAW-SCHOOL: McGeorge School of Law (J.D.)

COLLEGE: United States Air Force Academy (B.S.)

BORN: 1945

ISLN: 902352344

The IPO was filed in Nevada was it not? Seems to me that this could be a legit lawyer.

URL: Abanet link to Mr. Morrison's Info


Also of interest is the Business Address cited in the LinuxOne S-1/A:

BUSINESS ADDRESS:
STREET1: 1495 RIDGEVIEW DR
STREET2: SUITE 220
CITY: RENO
STATE: NV
ZIP: 89509
PHONE: 7758276300


URL: FreeEDGAR S-1/A Filing for LinuxOne, Inc.

Conclusion. This e-mail was most likely sent by a real lawyer working for LinuxOne. Unless, of course, you want to get really paranoid and say that they saw the name on the building while renting their fake business office and decided to steal it for harassing honest, hardworking netizens...

Read the S-1/A a little further down and find:

With Copies To:

Michael J. Morrison, Esq.
1495 Ridgeview Drive, Suite 220
Reno, Nevada 89509
Telephone: (775) 827-6300

My guess is they had a real lawyer involved with the filing of their IPO material.

Nuf Said...

Did LinuxOne Lie About Red Hat?

[cburley]

A lot of people forget than [sic] a large number of programmers were promised stock by Red Hat and never received any.

That quote comes from the 5 Jan 2000 10:01:22 -0800 email Robert Philips wrote to Derek.

Being a recipient of the famous email Red Hat sent out to contributors to invite them to participate in the RHAT IPO, I don't recall any promise made that we would actually receive stock.

Can anyone provide actual evidence of such a promise, or is this just a case of Mr. Philips inflating his rhetoric to make Red Hat look bad (and, therefore, LinuxOne look better by comparison)?

Note that this could be considered "splitting hairs" by some -- I'm distinguishing Red Hat offering contributors the opportunity to purchase shares from an actual promise that they would receive shares. There's no need to accuse Red Hat of the latter, which is what Mr. Philips appears to have done, if all they did was the former. (It's like the distinction between right to free speech and the right to be heard -- the former is not equivalent to the latter.)

Actually the 530 message IS legitimate.

[bero-rh]

That 530 message is not a real 530 message. They have posted it to fool you. [...] first you get back: 530-There are too many users ... but next you get back a real 530 message 530 Login incorrect

Which is just what the ftp server they're using does when there are too many users.
It first send some 530-Whatever-the-admin-puts, then a 530 Login incorrect.
This is perfectly valid according to the RFCs, as long as all but the last line have a "-" after the 530.

I wrote the server program they're using, so rest assured I know how it behaves.

It's entirely possible, though, that they set a limit of 1 user and they have that one permitted connection opened for themselves - I can't get in either.