(SCOX)
Loading...
Symbols:
SCOX Forum Topics
loading ...Recent SCOX Articles
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Editors
General Discussion on SCOX
Is this a buy or a sell? ReplySCO Group Finally Files for Bankruptcy [view article]
Today NASDAQ finally took the step of delisting SCO Group. Many in the tech sector cheered as the stock sunk to a mere ten cents while trading on the pink sheets.hingefire.blogspot.com...
Reply
Where Does SCO Go From Here? [view article]
Say goodbye to SCO.... 1st mistake is being geeks geeks and geeks (did I say computer geeks?). They should have low balled the good SCO Unix operating system for $100 or free - and Microsoft would have never made it with DOS, MS-DOS, Windows 95, Windows 98.... BUT THEY MISSED THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY. Ditto with LINUX (free or almost) - but gotta sell it - geek mindset - not a marketing Bill Gates nor IBM nor Big Company mindset......<strong>
Got to make money.... but giving it away... to penetrate the masses is also a very good manuever that SCO failed to do (multiple times)!</strong> Reply
SCO vs. Novell: The Last Word Has Yet To Be Said [view article]
Thanks for registering, hapmoori.You don't say what it is that you found odd however? Therefore I am not sure if you are objecting to the judge's opinion (see link in article) or mine. I assume it is the judge's opinion you are arguing with because my only opinion above is that Novell had good lawyers and that Novell shareholders have a stake in this (this is an investment research site after all). There is nothing in my opinion based on anything by McBride, only by the Utah Federal District Court Judge, cited by page and paragraph where required.
Is it possible that somewhere in the past you read the 1995 Novell-SCO agreement but not the Ammendments that came out in 1995 and 1996???
Also according to the judge's ruling in August 2007, it is the non-compete clause and not the asset purchase list that gave SCO grounds to sue Novell. That they didn't is just a continuation of the bad legal advice they have been getting all along.
Either way, like they say, it ain't over til it's over.
Thanks again
Dennis Reply
SCO vs. Novell: The Last Word Has Yet To Be Said [view article]
You wrote something so odd that it compelled me to register. I'm not going to take time reading over a bunch of documents I read a couple of years ago to respond to this article in the depth of detail it deserves because I have no time for it. What I will say is based on all of the contracts I read, I felt like SCO's case against IBM was completely without merit, and Novell's case against SCO was borderline.With respect to IBM, you have to realize that what SCO was attempting to say was that SCO licensed Unix to IBM, IBM added stuff like JFS (a file system of their own making, not part of anything provided by SCO), IBM then open-sourced JFS and implemented it in Linux, and consequently, SCO's IP is in Linux. The problem with that is that JFS was never part of what SCO gave IBM. Now, could SCO have done a viral license ala GPL? I guess they could have, but they didn't. None of the AT&T agreements nor the SCO extensions signed by IBM granted SCO anything with regard to code produced by IBM.
Let's take it a step further. If you read the IBM/AT&T agreements/letters, you will see that IBM retains rights to its programmer's brains. Yeah, programming contracts are this stupid. What that meant is that just because a programmer worked on Unix code and remembered it, doesn't mean that AT&T somehow owned everything that programmer did in the future. In fact, I forget the exact wording, but I remember it being as if the guy could reproduce it almost verbatim from memory if he wanted. That's as long as it was from memory and not a copy/paste or transcription operation. So, if (big if) an IBM AIX programmer shifted over to work on Linux, as long as he/she was not actively looking at Unix code, it didn't matter. He could put whatever he wanted into Linux.
Now, on Novell and SCO. My memory is failing me somewhat, but I remember the SCO agreement as mainly giving SCO the right to operate the licensing business on behalf of Novell. I don't recall reading anything that sold the business to SCO. It was more like hiring an outside firm to handle contracts and invoicing or something like that. I'm sure it also included the Unix license they needed to continue their own brand of Unix.
Anyway, I may be a bit off because I considered all of this case closed a long time ago. From what I do remember, it just doesn't sound like very in-depth research was done for this article. It seems more like taking McBride's words at face value which has been proven time and again to be a naive path. Reply