SCO has filed its discovery response to IBM; a copy of it is located here. Groklaw has the body of the document in text format.
Fascinatingly, SCO reports that the discovery materials exceed "more that 60 pages", i.e., presumably less than 70. This is to cover 11 interrogatories that they have not answered with the necessary specificity, according to the courts.
Those interrogatories compel SCO to identify, in particular and among other things:
a) all the code in Unix to which SCO claims rights and has been misappropriated by IBM, and
b) all the code in Linux, by file name and line number, that SCO claims rights to, whoever contributed it.
Those two interrogatories alone would require more than 60 pages to answer, especially considering SCO's claims of "millions of infringing lines in Linux". I mean, seriously, how did they identify all those lines, *and* answer the rest of the interrogatories, in less than 70 pages? Really, really small fonts?
True, but the write performance gets better as you add more drives to the array(More drives = fewer parity calculations per kilobyte). For instance, 5 drives will perform significanlty better than 3 in a RAID 5 configuration, on both read and write operations.
I thought that kind of testing was done in Northern Greenland and the interior of Iceland. Anyway, that's where NASA sent me when I was helping to fake the last moon landing.
I think I saw the same sign, but it was a little difficult to read. I thought it said, "Re: Darl & Kevin. We're sorry. Please send them back as soon as you capture them. We'll put them under tighter security this time."
Come to think of it, "Darl" does look like a Martian name.
Err, wait, My understanding is that it was the lower frequency, red light, that got scattered, thus allowing more of the high-frequency light to get through the atmosphere and down to us. Lower frequency = longer wavelength, thus more likely to get scattered.
Exactly, and since the Martian atmosphere is considerably thinner that Earth's there will be far less scattering. Without any dust in Mars atmosphere, i.e., on a clear day, Mars sky should still look redder than Earth's, or at least whiter, kinder of like Earth's sky would look through a lens filtering out the blue.
"The stock price DOES reflect the value of a company in dollars. If I have something worth 10 cents, but I can find somebody to buy it for 10 dollars... My something is worth 10 dollars."
This is always a somewhat contentious statement. Without getting into the economic theory, one semantic distinction I've generally found heuristically useful is:
Value is what other people will pay; Worth is what you would pay.
So in this context, you're right. The stock price reflects what other people will pay you for it, are paying for it, value. It doesn't reflect worth, however. It's worth is what you can make out of it by holding on to it, what price you would sell it for, or what price you would pay to get it.
So when you say your something is worth ten dollars, well, no, it's not. That's it's value; i.e. what someone will pay you for it. If it's worth 10 cents to you, then you've just made a great deal, but it's still worth 10 cents.
When value equals or exceeds worth, then that's usually when a transaction occurs.
There are no options available for SCO. Even shorting is hard to do, because short interest is over 15%. Subtract The Canopy Group and other institutional and large investors, and that 15% shoots up to possible half of the available float. Presumably, most shares that are available for borrowing are coming from institutions.
This all means:
A) Shares to borrow are very hard to come by,
B) Institutions can drive up the stock price by squeeaing people who short SCO at their whim.
"Also, in the traditional interpretation the Lamanite ancestors all came on Nephi's ship..."
Not to nitpick, well, actually I guess that is the subject, but:
Is it really possible for a religion that's been around for less than two hundred years to have a "traditional" interpretation? Dogma, sure, but tradition?
"Nobody has accused anyone at SCO of violating these rules."
Well, actually they have. I'm sure the SEC has plenty of complaints/accusations on record at this point, because I keep reading on Groklaw and the Yahoo SCOX bulletin boards that people have called the SEC to complain.
While there are many problems to choose from in making a complaint, probably the most convincing, and the one that goes to the heart of your assertion is that, while claiming that the executives cashing out options (Reginald Broughton, etc.) had no insider knowledge before filing their SEC sales forms, the truth is that David Boies was contacted before January, 2003, and that SCO was in contact with Boies in regard to intellectual issues before then. Darl McBride has even said in interviews that they first approached IBM in November/December 2002 with respect to intellectual property issues.
So the excuse of filing stock sale forms before any insider knowledge was available is disingenuous, at the very least.
Further, a minor correction on your description of Darl's stock arrangement. Darl would have rec'd 600,000 stock options on performance of 4 straight profitable quarters. But we have no way of knowing whether that was based on Pro Forma or GAAP measurements, and SCO announced a Pro Forma profit of 44 cents per share for the quarter, as well as the GAAP loss.
Finally, Darl has 150,000 options coming to him on March 1, as a result of achieving 1 profitable quarter. Those options are available to him either immediately or in the next quarter (Sorry, I forget which). The point being that Darl will not have to wait a full year to cash out if he chooses. He only needs to keep the stock price up for another 3-6 months.
This is completely off-topic, but while reading the DVD-Jon story on Aftenposten (yes, I read the stories, there goes my karma), I browsed some of the other stories, and:
Did you know that Norway leads the world in both per-capita porn consumption *and* per-capita deodorant use?
Is there a connection between the two? I have no idea. I simply know that I must move to Oslo someday. It's calling my name.
Actually, it was established that 135-140 was the optimal safe temperature. It was also established at the trial that most local vendors (this was in New Mexico) were serving coffee at 150 to 165. Still too hot, but it would give someone who accidentally spilled the coffee on themselves 30 - 60 seconds to clean up before it would cause 3rd degree burns, as opposed to the 3-5 seconds at 180.
"Are you turning this into Celsius to try and confuse things? Convert your argument back to degrees F and try again."
Uh, no, I was doing it because someone from the UK asked us to, so they could understand the arguments better.
Interesting, though, that you think translating the argument to Celsius weakens it. Are you sure you should be posting on a tech. site if translating between Celsius and Farenheit threatens you that much?
On the other hand, you think that drinking 180 degree Farenheit (82 Celsius) coffee is a safe thing to do.
Whoa, I just realized something. You're not very smart.
Re:We can end the McDonalds lawsuit discussion
on
The Voice of Groklaw
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Actually, we can end this conversation when you stop making completely bonker assertions as to the proper drinking temperature for coffee.
Umm, sorry, but I think my sugestion is a little more realistically achievable than yours.
You know, the funny thing is, if you check out facts on this case, as presented in court, even McDonalds admitted that coffee at 180 degrees was too hot to drink and would cause 3rd degree burns. They didn't want to change the holding temperature, not because it was drinkable at 180 degrees (they admitted it wasn't), but because they felt most of their customers weren't drinking it until they got to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinatingly, SCO reports that the discovery materials exceed "more that 60 pages", i.e., presumably less than 70. This is to cover 11 interrogatories that they have not answered with the necessary specificity, according to the courts.
Those interrogatories compel SCO to identify, in particular and among other things:Those two interrogatories alone would require more than 60 pages to answer, especially considering SCO's claims of "millions of infringing lines in Linux". I mean, seriously, how did they identify all those lines, *and* answer the rest of the interrogatories, in less than 70 pages? Really, really small fonts?
"Hell IBM could produce a 5year old child that could write header file..."
And his name is Linux?
Have you tried Solitaire?
The verbage precision might not be high, but, oh, the verbiage!
True, but the write performance gets better as you add more drives to the array(More drives = fewer parity calculations per kilobyte). For instance, 5 drives will perform significanlty better than 3 in a RAID 5 configuration, on both read and write operations.
I thought that kind of testing was done in Northern Greenland and the interior of Iceland. Anyway, that's where NASA sent me when I was helping to fake the last moon landing.
I think I saw the same sign, but it was a little difficult to read. I thought it said, "Re: Darl & Kevin. We're sorry. Please send them back as soon as you capture them. We'll put them under tighter security this time."
Come to think of it, "Darl" does look like a Martian name.
Err, wait, My understanding is that it was the lower frequency, red light, that got scattered, thus allowing more of the high-frequency light to get through the atmosphere and down to us. Lower frequency = longer wavelength, thus more likely to get scattered.
Exactly, and since the Martian atmosphere is considerably thinner that Earth's there will be far less scattering. Without any dust in Mars atmosphere, i.e., on a clear day, Mars sky should still look redder than Earth's, or at least whiter, kinder of like Earth's sky would look through a lens filtering out the blue.
I'm waiting for Darl to sue Canopy and/or SCO when he fails to get as much money out of it as he expected.
"The stock price DOES reflect the value of a company in dollars. If I have something worth 10 cents, but I can find somebody to buy it for 10 dollars... My something is worth 10 dollars."
This is always a somewhat contentious statement. Without getting into the economic theory, one semantic distinction I've generally found heuristically useful is:
Value is what other people will pay; Worth is what you would pay.
So in this context, you're right. The stock price reflects what other people will pay you for it, are paying for it, value. It doesn't reflect worth, however. It's worth is what you can make out of it by holding on to it, what price you would sell it for, or what price you would pay to get it.
So when you say your something is worth ten dollars, well, no, it's not. That's it's value; i.e. what someone will pay you for it. If it's worth 10 cents to you, then you've just made a great deal, but it's still worth 10 cents.
When value equals or exceeds worth, then that's usually when a transaction occurs.
There are no options available for SCO. Even shorting is hard to do, because short interest is over 15%. Subtract The Canopy Group and other institutional and large investors, and that 15% shoots up to possible half of the available float. Presumably, most shares that are available for borrowing are coming from institutions.
This all means:
A) Shares to borrow are very hard to come by,
B) Institutions can drive up the stock price by squeeaing people who short SCO at their whim.
"By the time IBM, Linus and the rest are done analyzing it and proving that SCO has no claim to that code SCO will have something else."
Code Sores?
(I'm sorry...)
Umm, because it's on the same production dealine as UNIX System VI?
"Also, in the traditional interpretation the Lamanite ancestors all came on Nephi's ship..."
Not to nitpick, well, actually I guess that is the subject, but:
Is it really possible for a religion that's been around for less than two hundred years to have a "traditional" interpretation? Dogma, sure, but tradition?
"Nobody has accused anyone at SCO of violating these rules."
Well, actually they have. I'm sure the SEC has plenty of complaints/accusations on record at this point, because I keep reading on Groklaw and the Yahoo SCOX bulletin boards that people have called the SEC to complain.
While there are many problems to choose from in making a complaint, probably the most convincing, and the one that goes to the heart of your assertion is that, while claiming that the executives cashing out options (Reginald Broughton, etc.) had no insider knowledge before filing their SEC sales forms, the truth is that David Boies was contacted before January, 2003, and that SCO was in contact with Boies in regard to intellectual issues before then. Darl McBride has even said in interviews that they first approached IBM in November/December 2002 with respect to intellectual property issues.
So the excuse of filing stock sale forms before any insider knowledge was available is disingenuous, at the very least.
Further, a minor correction on your description of Darl's stock arrangement. Darl would have rec'd 600,000 stock options on performance of 4 straight profitable quarters. But we have no way of knowing whether that was based on Pro Forma or GAAP measurements, and SCO announced a Pro Forma profit of 44 cents per share for the quarter, as well as the GAAP loss.
Finally, Darl has 150,000 options coming to him on March 1, as a result of achieving 1 profitable quarter. Those options are available to him either immediately or in the next quarter (Sorry, I forget which). The point being that Darl will not have to wait a full year to cash out if he chooses. He only needs to keep the stock price up for another 3-6 months.
This is completely off-topic, but while reading the DVD-Jon story on Aftenposten (yes, I read the stories, there goes my karma), I browsed some of the other stories, and:
Did you know that Norway leads the world in both per-capita porn consumption *and* per-capita deodorant use?
Is there a connection between the two? I have no idea. I simply know that I must move to Oslo someday. It's calling my name.
Minions? Hey! Watch who you're calling minions, or we'll come after you.
(Pause)
Oops.
Actually, it was established that 135-140 was the optimal safe temperature. It was also established at the trial that most local vendors (this was in New Mexico) were serving coffee at 150 to 165. Still too hot, but it would give someone who accidentally spilled the coffee on themselves 30 - 60 seconds to clean up before it would cause 3rd degree burns, as opposed to the 3-5 seconds at 180.
"This is why coffee pots exist. If you could make coffee with hot tap water, you would not need them."
Have you ever seen the inside of a hot water heater, after it's been in use a couple of years? It's disgusting.
Trust me, you don't want drink hot water from the tap.
"Are you turning this into Celsius to try and confuse things? Convert your argument back to degrees F and try again."
Uh, no, I was doing it because someone from the UK asked us to, so they could understand the arguments better.
Interesting, though, that you think translating the argument to Celsius weakens it. Are you sure you should be posting on a tech. site if translating between Celsius and Farenheit threatens you that much?
On the other hand, you think that drinking 180 degree Farenheit (82 Celsius) coffee is a safe thing to do.
Whoa, I just realized something. You're not very smart.
Actually, we can end this conversation when you stop making completely bonker assertions as to the proper drinking temperature for coffee.
"Take the time machine back 15 or so years..."
Umm, sorry, but I think my sugestion is a little more realistically achievable than yours.
You know, the funny thing is, if you check out facts on this case, as presented in court, even McDonalds admitted that coffee at 180 degrees was too hot to drink and would cause 3rd degree burns. They didn't want to change the holding temperature, not because it was drinkable at 180 degrees (they admitted it wasn't), but because they felt most of their customers weren't drinking it until they got to work.
Uh oh, we're not argue Beta vs. VHS again, are we?
One word: snort.