Thanks for pointing out about stilling "$10 here and there", the analogy you're using may be interesting, but analogy can only go so far. In real life, if I have $100 in my pocket and someone had stolen $10 I'd rather quickly notice it unless I didn't check my pocket for a long time, which seems to be the case with SCO not starting their claim earlier and selling Caldera Linux. Also, in software it's not that simple, since acc. to Novell it is still Novell's $100 not SCO's, also Open Gr. Owns the trademark. The core of SCO's claim is that IBM borrowed their $100 and made a $1000, or more by mixing their $100 with other dollars (and IBM was not the only one), so now they're suing IBM for $10,000(*100,000). So, there's huge disparity here in numbers. Why SCO should be compensated for their $100 by many times more ASSUMING its their $100?
'McBride said: "We're not going to show two lines of code. We're going to show hundreds of lines of code" that allegedly violate SCO's intellectual property...' - hundreds of lines of code, is that enough to prove the SCO's claim? According to some sources, SCO would have to have not hundreds but thousands lines of code to show as violation of their UNIX rights (5-10% of the total would be the minimum). Since Linux's kernel contains several millions of lines of code, say it is 3mil, then 1% would be a whooping 300,000 lines of code. In addition, there would have to be a coherent and not haphazard way stolen code was implemented into Linux. So, SCO is nowhere near of proving their case even if hundreds of their lines of code might have gotten into Linux.
It wouldn't make good business sense for IBM to engage in PR war with SCO before the trial begins. It's just the way IBM works, their stern wording in court fillings, however, indicates that they know exactly what they're doing. It's like saying to SCO "you boys have no standing in this case..."
That IBM's filling is at: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibm_response_to_sco- group_complaint_on_april30_2003.pdf
"How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation?" "It's very extensive," says C. Sontag. By "very extensive" it is normally meant something in proximity of say 40-50%. In patent court, however, less than that is required to prove the case. For example, I know of case where only 10-20% of IP was judged as copying and IP infringement. To that effect, SCO would have to prove that at least 10-20% of Linux kernel code was copied from their UNIX of which there's doubt they are owners. In other words in millions of lines of code in Linux kernel, say it is 3million, they would have to show at least 300,000 lines as copied to make the case for 10%.
Now, C. Sontag talks about "code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places", how many places he doesn't specify. But if you take say 15 lines of code and multiply by 100 then you get only 1,500 lines, which is miniscule 0.05%, so it's not even 1%, which should rise the eyebrows of any sane judge. Also, if the claimed code lines are in "multiple places" and not logically connected as subroutines then the case is even weaker, because there's no coherence of the copied code as to suggest that there was a premeditated effort to copy their code.
What is "earth shattering" about it is that indeed it is "earth shattering". It's not that India is one of the poorest countries in the world that matters here, but the brainpower that is inherent in their ability to first adopt then innovate with far less cost to software development. The reason Gates went there was that he recognized it as a potential money saving and money making opportunity as well as doing "charitable" PR with some millions of $.
In addition, 25% software engineers at MS are Indian. Balngalore area is a huge software and computer-engineering center now that can compare to Silicon Valley, etc. But the reason their Prez spoke about importance of OSS is that he recognized superior ethics in OSS development as compared to proprietary model. So, when India moves in OSS direction there's a model country that can be copied elsewhere. Since ideas from India have considerable intellectual impact on the younger generation in the West since around the 60ies it is in that tradition that OSS can become more widespread than it is now.
By the way "superior ethics" of OSS is like "karma yoga", or selfless service that one does for the sake of others without expecting a reward or recognition, even though such reward may come anyway, but then you don't dwell on it in your mind, etc. So, OSS is naturally an ally with Indian traditional thinking and so in that regard there's coherent purpose for both.
Today 2mil shares of SCOX were traded on far higher volume than any other day of their average trading (300k or so). So, it is rather obvious that SCOX is walking on the thin ice of news and expectations that were hyped to their stockholders and speculators. The decline is as rapid as its rise in the previous weeks, so it might be a matter of few weeks as well when it goes under $5. June 13, or even earlier, should show what SCOX is really worth.
The decline is not a classic 5 wave down appearance (by Elliott Wave standards), so it's hard to say how deep this correction will go and how fast. If it were 5 waves (called impulse wave), SCOX would be pretty much doomed already. Besides, if anyone of you is inclined into technicals, today's action just touched the lower bond-support channel (hourly view), so it is likely that SCOX will try to fight back with some renewed rally. It'd have to go below $5.80 to cut trough the current support.
That was predictable..., because it had very high stochastic reading, almost 100 in weekly, so it was ready to tank this way or the other. Good play would be to wait now for it to rebound and then short it. Rebound could reach back to around 7.0
Not so much "authorized" but benefited from it. Therefore, if they benefited from it they need to return the money they acquired from those sales and only then they can claim code volitions, assuming it is true that Linux kernel contains their code, which is so far doubtful, because they didn't release their code. Besides, there's an issues if "their" code really belongs to them since they don't own UNIX trademark, and UNIX code was distributed among developers prior to their purchase of UNIX from Novell.
There's no damage whatsoever to IBM, so far, just read the IBM's terse response to SCO unfounded claims: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibm_response_to_sco- group_complaint_on_april30_2003.pdf
Simply stated IBM denies all the "averments" that are implied in the SCO's claim. From those short responses it is rather clear IBM is not going to succumb to that hardball SCO is trying to play, IBM is playing even harder ball. To that SCO complains in their "SCO Comments on IBM's Response": "The response is short on details and gives little evidence of why they have denied the vast majority of SCO's claims...", see: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/sco_response_april30 _2003.html
Why SCO complains? Because after IBM moved the case to a federal court they are in the disadvantage to begin with while they counted on "field advantage" in the state court. But also, since IBM gives only lawyer-like terse responses they cannot pint point any weaknesses in IBM's perceived strategy. IBM keeps them guessing. So, the next step SCO is taking is to threaten: "SCO will revoke IBM's AIX license on June 13, 2003...", guess where that takes SCO, it takes them nowhere, because you can not revoke something that was not yet judged as revocable, that is SCO has to prove first that their license with IBM was breached before they can legally revoke the license. If they revoke the license before the case is resolved IBM will hit them hard with a counter suit.
Were you able to get SCOX from a broker? Which broker? I'd expect, that stock would be hard to short since most brokers would not have it to loan it to you for shorts.
SCO and Monterey Project - the key to their claim
on
What if SCO is Right?
·
· Score: 1
I checked few places and also blogspot.com. One thing needs explanation, since SCO's case was moved to Utah's federal court by IBM, SCO must release their code that they consider offending to IBM even before the trial starts. As someone pointed it out on/. already that has to happen soon, even before this month is over. That's why couple of days ago someone from SCO said they'll release that code to few individuals, not the public. It's not that they'll do it voluntarily but because they have to do it under the federal rules.
2. This whole thing of SCO going against IBM and by extension Linux vendors is about emotional grange SCO's execs have since their failed Monterey Project. Since IBM pulled out of it and went with Linux development, SCO considered that move as hostile to their chances of market growth and ultimately to their business survival. They blame IBM for their falling business and lack of growth, (50-55 of SCO's complain):
"As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey."
What is IBM's response to that?, it says: "States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 50..." In fact in many places IBM simply and tersely states: "Denies the averments of paragraphs" so and so. Further, in IBM's response under "Affirmative Defenses" section says: "Caldera lacks standing to pursue claims against IBM relating to Project Monterey." In other words folks, SCO/Caldera have no legal grounds against IBM, at least that's what IBM is saying. The lack of legal grounds would meant that Project Monterey was not legally bonding agreement that included "deliverables" but a collaboration of vendors that was lose enough as to have no legal effect on IBM for pulling out of it. But for SCO that was probably critical project that they staked hopes on and when IBM was out they had no further chances for profit.
So, they felt IBM undercut their potential profits growth and by going with Linux development they had even further motive to believe that it was specifically targeted against SCO. That is the emotional backlog of their case. All the rest is the top logical layer that covers deeply felt resentment against IBM and Linux for undermining purposefully or not their dream of UnixWare becoming profitable an enterprise-level app/OS.
It's not "the smart money" as far as I can tell, insider trading is at 68%, yes, but smart money is "institutional" trading and that's only 16% of their daily volume. With 12 million of SCOX shares outstanding, the daily 350,000 shares volume would be only 3% of the total. It's not exactly a buying/trading spree. Rather this is overall market condition that is still sort of bullish and so most stocks moved up including Red Hat.
Today SCO's stock, SCOX, shoot up from $3.6 to $4.40 on higher than usual volume, that's 28% in one day. Well, what's going on? Is SCO getting liked by investors on hopes that its value will even go higher? It's hard to say, or though overbought condition is already showing up. The stock is in 68% traded by insiders, which points to the idea of who might be behind it - SCO's execs themselves. The other possibility is that IBM is using proxy buying to gain shares and voting rights in SCO.
If that had to be done (to prohibit the distribution of earlier versions) then SCO would already won big times, since there are 1000s of Linux servers out there. But this is not a clear-cut case. So, I doubt that some judge in Utah will be so lazy as to hand over victory to SCO without doing in depth investigation.
Assuming that was the case (SCO put Linux code into UnixWare) there would have to be time difference between the two codes. In other words Linux being prior to UnixWare code and so it'd be easy to prove it. It'd be enough to show that UnixWare product came later, which it did.
My take on SCO's stock SCOX is that it had risen from $1 a share to $3.55 due to the overall market conditions since last Oct 2002, when most stocks started moving up (secular bull market). So, now SCOX is way overbought and will need some sell off to balance it out.
Insider trading on this stock is very high at 68%, it shows that it is not likely to be possible to sell it short, which would be ideal at his situation to make money on it. So, those managers there make sure that the stock is not widely available for public trading, which also means that they want to control distribution of their shares. But the catch is that they will have to buy it more in order for SCOX to go higher. In case they lose court case with IBM their financial loss can be devastating personally and for the whole company. Next thing we know is that their CEO jumped the ship.
Ok, that's a good one, except that it would have to be true, in other words it would have to be true that SCO's pitiful code was found in Linux and that it was proven in court. I like your imagination, anything is possible in a crazy world that we live in right now under GWB whose security religion can compel anyone to abandon common sense.
Ok, so why worry even about anything?, say, SCO makes a dent in the Big Blue (worse case scenario), so what? With one billion of $ they could manage to eliminate few Linux companies such as Mandrake, hey I'm not judging who should go out next, just imagining, next SCO becomes a policemen of software development and they sue M$ for providing their close source to closed source developers who managed to talk to open source developers about security coding features that are then returned to them as fixes for M$ security breeches, endless nonsense. Got that? Guess not, he he.
Not a chance, BSD has its place but there's nothing like Linux, still free-flowing current of development and adaptation, besides Linux is a bear market survival for some ITs, cutting costs, etc., some states at least talk about including it in their software purchases. SCO vs. IBM may be just the beginning of what's to come in corporate wars of software, next M$ will sue Oracle for including couple of their Access algorithms, etc. Why?, big companies are like giants who run out of food, they have to crush each other before peace returns to the forest.
Yeah, I know where that is, worked nearby for a Linux (Turbolinux) company that closed its offices not long ago, but UNISYS still there, he? those rascals.
Yes, that would be a fair assumption but without the specific charges in the known it is difficult to say what they mean. SCO is not making it public because it's either not firm argument and they know it, or it is arguable argument and they may look like fools after all, so they'd rather prolong the matter and hope for some pretrial settlement with IBM, which would pull them out of the financial problems. It's all about money, because they talk that it costs them if others use their code, "their property", and all that bs.
I believe it's the survival game for them. They know well their SCO UNIX products don't sell well and now they got rid of Linux (Caldera) as well, so the only hope is to make those charges against Big Blue. It's a low blow and let's hope it won't stick to the the big iron - it can even backfire with some fireworks as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for pointing out about stilling "$10 here and there", the analogy you're using may be interesting, but analogy can only go so far. In real life, if I have $100 in my pocket and someone had stolen $10 I'd rather quickly notice it unless I didn't check my pocket for a long time, which seems to be the case with SCO not starting their claim earlier and selling Caldera Linux. Also, in software it's not that simple, since acc. to Novell it is still Novell's $100 not SCO's, also Open Gr. Owns the trademark. The core of SCO's claim is that IBM borrowed their $100 and made a $1000, or more by mixing their $100 with other dollars (and IBM was not the only one), so now they're suing IBM for $10,000(*100,000). So, there's huge disparity here in numbers. Why SCO should be compensated for their $100 by many times more ASSUMING its their $100?
'McBride said: "We're not going to show two lines of code. We're going to show hundreds of lines of code" that allegedly violate SCO's intellectual property...' - hundreds of lines of code, is that enough to prove the SCO's claim? According to some sources, SCO would have to have not hundreds but thousands lines of code to show as violation of their UNIX rights (5-10% of the total would be the minimum). Since Linux's kernel contains several millions of lines of code, say it is 3mil, then 1% would be a whooping 300,000 lines of code. In addition, there would have to be a coherent and not haphazard way stolen code was implemented into Linux. So, SCO is nowhere near of proving their case even if hundreds of their lines of code might have gotten into Linux.
It wouldn't make good business sense for IBM to engage in PR war with SCO before the trial begins. It's just the way IBM works, their stern wording in court fillings, however, indicates that they know exactly what they're doing. It's like saying to SCO "you boys have no standing in this case..."
- group_complaint_on_april30_2003.pdf
That IBM's filling is at: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibm_response_to_sco
"How many lines of code in the Linux kernel are a direct copyright violation?" "It's very extensive," says C. Sontag. By "very extensive" it is normally meant something in proximity of say 40-50%. In patent court, however, less than that is required to prove the case. For example, I know of case where only 10-20% of IP was judged as copying and IP infringement. To that effect, SCO would have to prove that at least 10-20% of Linux kernel code was copied from their UNIX of which there's doubt they are owners. In other words in millions of lines of code in Linux kernel, say it is 3million, they would have to show at least 300,000 lines as copied to make the case for 10%.
Now, C. Sontag talks about "code ranging from five to 10 to 15 lines of code in multiple places", how many places he doesn't specify. But if you take say 15 lines of code and multiply by 100 then you get only 1,500 lines, which is miniscule 0.05%, so it's not even 1%, which should rise the eyebrows of any sane judge. Also, if the claimed code lines are in "multiple places" and not logically connected as subroutines then the case is even weaker, because there's no coherence of the copied code as to suggest that there was a premeditated effort to copy their code.
What is "earth shattering" about it is that indeed it is "earth shattering". It's not that India is one of the poorest countries in the world that matters here, but the brainpower that is inherent in their ability to first adopt then innovate with far less cost to software development. The reason Gates went there was that he recognized it as a potential money saving and money making opportunity as well as doing "charitable" PR with some millions of $.
In addition, 25% software engineers at MS are Indian. Balngalore area is a huge software and computer-engineering center now that can compare to Silicon Valley, etc. But the reason their Prez spoke about importance of OSS is that he recognized superior ethics in OSS development as compared to proprietary model. So, when India moves in OSS direction there's a model country that can be copied elsewhere. Since ideas from India have considerable intellectual impact on the younger generation in the West since around the 60ies it is in that tradition that OSS can become more widespread than it is now.
By the way "superior ethics" of OSS is like "karma yoga", or selfless service that one does for the sake of others without expecting a reward or recognition, even though such reward may come anyway, but then you don't dwell on it in your mind, etc. So, OSS is naturally an ally with Indian traditional thinking and so in that regard there's coherent purpose for both.
Today 2mil shares of SCOX were traded on far higher volume than any other day of their average trading (300k or so). So, it is rather obvious that SCOX is walking on the thin ice of news and expectations that were hyped to their stockholders and speculators. The decline is as rapid as its rise in the previous weeks, so it might be a matter of few weeks as well when it goes under $5. June 13, or even earlier, should show what SCOX is really worth.
The decline is not a classic 5 wave down appearance (by Elliott Wave standards), so it's hard to say how deep this correction will go and how fast. If it were 5 waves (called impulse wave), SCOX would be pretty much doomed already. Besides, if anyone of you is inclined into technicals, today's action just touched the lower bond-support channel (hourly view), so it is likely that SCOX will try to fight back with some renewed rally. It'd have to go below $5.80 to cut trough the current support.
That was predictable..., because it had very high stochastic reading, almost 100 in weekly, so it was ready to tank this way or the other. Good play would be to wait now for it to rebound and then short it. Rebound could reach back to around 7.0
Not so much "authorized" but benefited from it. Therefore, if they benefited from it they need to return the money they acquired from those sales and only then they can claim code volitions, assuming it is true that Linux kernel contains their code, which is so far doubtful, because they didn't release their code. Besides, there's an issues if "their" code really belongs to them since they don't own UNIX trademark, and UNIX code was distributed among developers prior to their purchase of UNIX from Novell.
There's no damage whatsoever to IBM, so far, just read the IBM's terse response to SCO unfounded claims: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/ibm_response_to_sco- group_complaint_on_april30_2003.pdf
0 _2003.html
Simply stated IBM denies all the "averments" that are implied in the SCO's claim. From those short responses it is rather clear IBM is not going to succumb to that hardball SCO is trying to play, IBM is playing even harder ball. To that SCO complains in their "SCO Comments on IBM's Response": "The response is short on details and gives little evidence of why they have denied the vast majority of SCO's claims...", see: http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/sco_response_april3
Why SCO complains? Because after IBM moved the case to a federal court they are in the disadvantage to begin with while they counted on "field advantage" in the state court. But also, since IBM gives only lawyer-like terse responses they cannot pint point any weaknesses in IBM's perceived strategy. IBM keeps them guessing. So, the next step SCO is taking is to threaten: "SCO will revoke IBM's AIX license on June 13, 2003...", guess where that takes SCO, it takes them nowhere, because you can not revoke something that was not yet judged as revocable, that is SCO has to prove first that their license with IBM was breached before they can legally revoke the license. If they revoke the license before the case is resolved IBM will hit them hard with a counter suit.
Were you able to get SCOX from a broker? Which broker? I'd expect, that stock would be hard to short since most brokers would not have it to loan it to you for shorts.
I checked few places and also blogspot.com. One thing needs explanation, since SCO's case was moved to Utah's federal court by IBM, SCO must release their code that they consider offending to IBM even before the trial starts. As someone pointed it out on /. already that has to happen soon, even before this month is over. That's why couple of days ago someone from SCO said they'll release that code to few individuals, not the public. It's not that they'll do it voluntarily but because they have to do it under the federal rules.
2. This whole thing of SCO going against IBM and by extension Linux vendors is about emotional grange SCO's execs have since their failed Monterey Project. Since IBM pulled out of it and went with Linux development, SCO considered that move as hostile to their chances of market growth and ultimately to their business survival. They blame IBM for their falling business and lack of growth, (50-55 of SCO's complain):
"As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey."
What is IBM's response to that?, it says: "States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 50..." In fact in many places IBM simply and tersely states: "Denies the averments of paragraphs" so and so. Further, in IBM's response under "Affirmative Defenses" section says: "Caldera lacks standing to pursue claims against IBM relating to Project Monterey." In other words folks, SCO/Caldera have no legal grounds against IBM, at least that's what IBM is saying. The lack of legal grounds would meant that Project Monterey was not legally bonding agreement that included "deliverables" but a collaboration of vendors that was lose enough as to have no legal effect on IBM for pulling out of it. But for SCO that was probably critical project that they staked hopes on and when IBM was out they had no further chances for profit.
So, they felt IBM undercut their potential profits growth and by going with Linux development they had even further motive to believe that it was specifically targeted against SCO. That is the emotional backlog of their case. All the rest is the top logical layer that covers deeply felt resentment against IBM and Linux for undermining purposefully or not their dream of UnixWare becoming profitable an enterprise-level app/OS.
It's not "the smart money" as far as I can tell, insider trading is at 68%, yes, but smart money is "institutional" trading and that's only 16% of their daily volume. With 12 million of SCOX shares outstanding, the daily 350,000 shares volume would be only 3% of the total. It's not exactly a buying/trading spree. Rather this is overall market condition that is still sort of bullish and so most stocks moved up including Red Hat.
Today SCO's stock, SCOX, shoot up from $3.6 to $4.40 on higher than usual volume, that's 28% in one day. Well, what's going on? Is SCO getting liked by investors on hopes that its value will even go higher? It's hard to say, or though overbought condition is already showing up. The stock is in 68% traded by insiders, which points to the idea of who might be behind it - SCO's execs themselves. The other possibility is that IBM is using proxy buying to gain shares and voting rights in SCO.
If that had to be done (to prohibit the distribution of earlier versions) then SCO would already won big times, since there are 1000s of Linux servers out there. But this is not a clear-cut case. So, I doubt that some judge in Utah will be so lazy as to hand over victory to SCO without doing in depth investigation.
Assuming that was the case (SCO put Linux code into UnixWare) there would have to be time difference between the two codes. In other words Linux being prior to UnixWare code and so it'd be easy to prove it. It'd be enough to show that UnixWare product came later, which it did.
My take on SCO's stock SCOX is that it had risen from $1 a share to $3.55 due to the overall market conditions since last Oct 2002, when most stocks started moving up (secular bull market). So, now SCOX is way overbought and will need some sell off to balance it out.
Insider trading on this stock is very high at 68%, it shows that it is not likely to be possible to sell it short, which would be ideal at his situation to make money on it. So, those managers there make sure that the stock is not widely available for public trading, which also means that they want to control distribution of their shares. But the catch is that they will have to buy it more in order for SCOX to go higher. In case they lose court case with IBM their financial loss can be devastating personally and for the whole company. Next thing we know is that their CEO jumped the ship.
SCOX stock is already overbought (daily/weekly stochastic indicator), so the next thing you know SCOX is going down big time.
Ok, that's a good one, except that it would have to be true, in other words it would have to be true that SCO's pitiful code was found in Linux and that it was proven in court. I like your imagination, anything is possible in a crazy world that we live in right now under GWB whose security religion can compel anyone to abandon common sense.
Ok, so why worry even about anything?, say, SCO makes a dent in the Big Blue (worse case scenario), so what? With one billion of $ they could manage to eliminate few Linux companies such as Mandrake, hey I'm not judging who should go out next, just imagining, next SCO becomes a policemen of software development and they sue M$ for providing their close source to closed source developers who managed to talk to open source developers about security coding features that are then returned to them as fixes for M$ security breeches, endless nonsense. Got that? Guess not, he he.
Not a chance, BSD has its place but there's nothing like Linux, still free-flowing current of development and adaptation, besides Linux is a bear market survival for some ITs, cutting costs, etc., some states at least talk about including it in their software purchases. SCO vs. IBM may be just the beginning of what's to come in corporate wars of software, next M$ will sue Oracle for including couple of their Access algorithms, etc. Why?, big companies are like giants who run out of food, they have to crush each other before peace returns to the forest.
Yeah, I know where that is, worked nearby for a Linux (Turbolinux) company that closed its offices not long ago, but UNISYS still there, he? those rascals.
So, if that would be a temprary project just get the temp lic # from their web site. That was possible few months ago.
To buy it?, short sell it ASAP, it's already overbought, he he.
Yes, that would be a fair assumption but without the specific charges in the known it is difficult to say what they mean. SCO is not making it public because it's either not firm argument and they know it, or it is arguable argument and they may look like fools after all, so they'd rather prolong the matter and hope for some pretrial settlement with IBM, which would pull them out of the financial problems. It's all about money, because they talk that it costs them if others use their code, "their property", and all that bs.
I believe it's the survival game for them. They know well their SCO UNIX products don't sell well and now they got rid of Linux (Caldera) as well, so the only hope is to make those charges against Big Blue. It's a low blow and let's hope it won't stick to the the big iron - it can even backfire with some fireworks as well.