Yahoo! SCOX Review

Message ID: 335523 Posted By: heimdal31 Subject: Bert Responds Some of you may remember that I had asked Bert Young a question at the CC back before Christmas. I got a response from him last Wednesday but was waiting to see if there was a response to my followup question. Response from Bert below with only e-mail and phone numbers obfuscated. My followup in the next e-mail. BEGIN QUOTE Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 15:23:33 -0700 From: Bert Young <BERT YOUNG AT sco.com> To: 'tim rushing' <XXXX AT threenorth.com> Cc: 'Bert Young' <BERT YOUNG AT sco.com> Subject: RE: Exhibit B of Common Stock Purchase Agreement (fwd) Tim, When we filed the S-1 we were required to file the common stock purchase agreement as an exhibit to the filing - but I don't believe that we are required to file exhibits or addendums to the 'exhibit' unless they have material terms or conditions that need to be disclosed.....in our case, since the reps and warranties were fairly st...

Message ID: 191388 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-10-12 14:24:00 Subject: Source of ideas Recs: 22 << Nice to see that PJ also does not care to provide proper attribution to contributors. The story about Merkey was broken here, by heimdal31 in msgid 189506 on the 5th, a week ago.>> As Br3n said, someone else could have easiliy e-mailed that information. The only reason I did any digging on Merkey was because Atul666 posted something about a Canopy patent and I was curious. I suspect that the only reason Atul666 has been making his efforts to post link-filled data has been to fight the Grokwar threads--and that was certainly why I bothered to dig into one of his posts. So, since the Grokwars are in part because of PJ, you can just as easily say that PJ was the proximate cause of digging up the Merkey data :-) Seriously, I post stuff here to fight the scam. I post it so that it will get disseminated widely. When I get a new idea from someone else...

Message ID: 163646 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-08-05 14:55:00 Subject: Of Bounces and Forums Recs: 13 Last year's SCOForum occurred a little later in the month than this year's and was rife with many more contradictions than this years. Last year, SCO planned to show concrete examples of infringing code and those involved in the scam fully expected a huge bounce to come out of it. To their chagrin, by Tuesday morning their code samples had leaked and the community had torn it to shreds. I'm sure they expected a big fall. However, by Wednesday Cohen of the Royce Technology Fund had gone to work and Thursday the SCOForum price spike had begun. Lots of ironic contradictions in all of that. On Friday 15 Aug last year, the Fri before SCOForum, SCO closed at 10.30. On Thursday, the Cohen spike (see www.threenorth.com/cohen.html) began and SCO hit 12.66 on volume of 750K. The volume peaked the following Monday with over 1M shares and the price p...

Message ID: 97029 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-02-23 13:32:00 Subject: Lots of losers Recs: 4 JustBS, I fear that so many on this board have pre-judged you and failed to make a serious reply to your question as to who loses if SCO wins the IBM suit. I will make an attempt to provide a serious answer. First, IBM would certainly loose something. However, given that SCO has pulled copyright violations out of the suit and are making vague charges related solely to IBM distributing AIX, there is a real question as to whether SCO could convince anyone that the damages are in the billions. So, IBM loses, but I bet they don't lose much. Korbomite had part of the right answer: the common shareholders who expected some big lottery win. They lose because the IBM payout will be small and because NO LINUX USERS WILL OWE SCO MONEY. (See below.) I and others on the board lose out, win or lose, because a great source of entertainment will be lost. The idiots who ...

Message ID: 92788 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-02-11 12:04:00 Subject: Insider Sales: John Wall Recs: 6 Someone this morning posted a list of insider sales and the total amount it has netted insiders. I think there is one person you are missing in all of that: John Wall. Of course, you are missing him becuase he didn't have to file any Form 4s. I also think that he is likely an innocent "insider" who got out when he saw the scam in the making. John Wall owned 800,000 shares of SCO when the scam started. Wall actually had founded a Redmond company and acquired the SCO shares when SCO had acquired some shares of his company and when SCO made a loan to his company. Soon after the lawsuit, Wall filed an S-3 stating his intention to sell. There was an article in June indicating he owned 600,000 shares--though, I could find no record of the sale or of the 600,000. I strongly suspect that he has exited his SCO position, though we may not know u...

Message ID: 80270 Posted By: heimdal31 Posted On: 2004-01-13 12:15:00 Subject: Novell threatens to release all Recs: 22 Still looking at those letters. http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_7_03_n-sco_tla.pdf In one of three dated October 7, 2003 from Novell to SCO, Novell specifically addresses SCO's threats to license to Linux end users. Novell then goes on to quote contract language that allows Novell to license UNIX and UnixWare to its customers with some restrictions. Novell then goes on to point out (as we have done here in the past) that the Caldera purchase of the Unix rights activates the "Change of Control" clause of the agreement, which removes those limited restrictions on Novell. Novell again mentions the threats against Linux users and threatens to exercise its rights. There is no direct linking that if SCO doesn't back down, Novell may open source everything it can, but the threat is certainly implied. If something like...