Latest SCO News

SCO has discovered an amendment to their contract with Novell that may clarify that they did purchase the copyright to System V after all. Heise has an interview in German with a former employee. Cringely says SCO probably was responsible for any duplicated code itself, with a theory that is quite plausible. One non-programmer corporate analyst has looked at SCO's alleged evidence. And SCO has another press conference today.

Comments

Teleconference

[Zutroi_Zatatakowsky]

The teleconference is at 12:00PM (EST). Be sure to join in!

Toll Free within North America: 1-800-946-0722
International: 719-457-2647
Password to enter call: 746737

More info here .

This time, I won't miss it!

Conference Call notes

[mec]

First my notes from today's SCO conference call. Then I will post my opinions in a follow-up message.

XXX 12:04 est 2003-06-06

Blake Stowell says that Darl McBride and Chris Sontag will be talking today.

XXX 12:05

Darl McBride talks about the Novell announcement of May 28, 2003. "In fact, Novell does not own the copyrights." "SCO is the only rightful owner of the Unix System 5 source code and copyrights." "Portions of the Unix System 5 code were found in Linux." "Linux users need to obtain opinions from their own legal counsel."

XXX 12:07 Question and Answer session

[question #1] Peter Gally, eWeek magazine

Q: share price was up 29% today ahead of announcements of news. What do you attribute that to? A: "I can't really comment on that." Q: "Did you or any SCO executives buy or sell any shares yesterday?" A: "I personally didn't" ... not aware of any who did.

[question #2] Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe

Q: "When Friday the 13th rolls around ... what are you going to do?" (regarding AIX license revocation) A: "We have a number of options at our disposal."

[question #3] Stephen Shankland, CNET

Q: Copyright office does not have an assignment on file [for the Unix copyrights from Novell]. "Is it your understanding that the copyrights have not been registered yet?" A: "Stephen is correct ... [if we need] we will change the assignment of copyright ..." [we can do that at any time].

[question #4] "George Weiss", "Gartner Group" [Note: caller #4 was later exposed as an imposter]

Q: "How long can you continue to deceive investors ... if you're not trying to get bought out, what are you trying to do?" A: "We're trying to protect our IP rights."

[question #5] Todd Weiss, Computer World

Q: "Where can we see the Asset Purchase Agreement?" A: "We have a lot of documents ... 30,000 contracts ... in the case of the Asset Purchase Agreement ... SEC filings on the Internet."

[question #6] Herbert Jackson, Renaissance Ventures

Q: "Were patents addressed?" [in the Novell-SCO asset purchase agreement] A: "Ownership of the patents was not something that SCO has ever claimed."

[question #7] Lenny Brecken, Brecken Capital

Q: "Why wasn't amendment [amendment 2 to Novell Asset Purchase Agreement] immediately available?" A: "[It was available ...] inside of four business days." Q: "[Patent question] ... is that relevant?" A: "This isn't a patent case." A: "30,000 contracts .. methods, concepts, know-how ..." [that is, their 30,000 sub-licensing agreements contain contract language restricting those things]

[question #8] Roger Howerth, IP Week

Q: "Why will you not provide details [of the offending source code]?" A: "Source code is a little bit different ..." [long answer about how revealing source code would damage the trade secret status of their claims] ... "confidentiality protection"

[question #9] George Weiss, Gartner Group [Unlike question #4, this time it's the REAL George Weiss]

Statement: "I didn't ask the earlier question." A: "We already knew that" ... "I appreciate you clarifying that." ... suggestion to the fake George Weiss to drop off the call. Q: "Are you aware of any organized movement ... to settle the claims with SCO?" A: "I can't comment" ... "discussions with large players."

[question #10] Lenny Brecken, Brecken Capital

Q: [AIX license revocation] "Are you going to hold a CC on that date [June 13]?" A: "... on the 16th, we will take the appropriate steps ..."

XXX 12:22 Blake Stowell, closing statement

[If you want a replay, or want to followup, contact us

Re:Conference Call notes

[mec]

And now my opinions ...

First, disclosure: I am short SCOX.

McBride didn't break any new ground here, just as he didn't in the last conference call. Which leads me to believe that the purpose of these calls is to spin the market, not to inform the market.

The imposter on #4 did not accomplish anything. SCO figured him out even before the real George Weiss exposed him.

SCO dodged questions about their AIX revocation strategy, which I think is legitimate to dodge.

Todd Weiss of Computer World asked for a copy of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and SCO. I think the court is going to want a copy of that, too, and SCO didn't file one with its complaint. McBride dodged that by saying it was available in "SEC filings on the Internet". I think that was a bullshit evasion.

McBride admitted that SCO does not claim ownership of any patents in Unix.

McBride referred to 30,000 contracts which contain language about methods, concepts, and know-how. He didn't say that IBM's specific contract prohibits IBM from re-using any of that. In fact, Exhibit C, paragraph 9 of SCO's complaint contains language which specifically allows IBM to do that. See http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit . In fact, could some helpful person post the specific URL's of the complaint and the exhibits?

The strongest SCO point is that they found part of the Novell contract that does grant copyrights to SCO. The weakest SCO point is that they aren't willing to show this contract to reporters.