On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:47:54 GMT, Brian <brian@stanley-park.com>
wrote:

>I noted two large sales (50K and 80K) and a drop of 75 cents over a period
>of about 1 hour after the first trade.

When? I don't see it on the graphs:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d
I'll accept your word for it. However, selling 130K shares barely
qualifies as dumping when the 3 month average daily volume is 325K
shares.

>Interwsting. You are suggesting that by having an initial growth pattern
>based on unsubstaniated statements by Garl & Company that now people
>running stock bots are propping up the price?

Exactly. If they were investing blindly, and only concerned with
stock performance, SCOX looks like a good investment. Programmed
trading is an established method that is officially frowned upon, but
in my limited experience, all too common. It caused the stock crash
of Oct 1987 and will probably be responsible for other such glitches.

>There is no code.

Then, there is no case.

>SCOX investors are gullible idiots - they are going to lose everything.

Possibly. It largely depends on the actions of the larger stock
holders and institutional investors.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX
The big ones have too much to lose if they start dumping stock. If
there's gonna be any erosion, it will be from the bottom. Hmmm...
Where's Canopy Group?

>So you believe David Boise will actually make an appearance this time?

Yeah. He trashed his reputation with the last no show and will
probably try to do something entertaining to earn his 10%. I could
think of some good things to say, but he's not known as a great trial
attorney. He'll probably put someone else in his place.

>> Let's pretend that SCO hands over a bunch of disjointed code
>> fragments, header files, and in house analysis. IBM will of course
>> leak it to the world.

>IBM will not leak it to the world.

True. It will probably leak via being accidentally left in the trash
next to the copier, in the mens room, blown out the back of a car, or
other mechanism that defies assignment of blame. Whatever works.

>> Groklaw and Slashdot will analyze the code in detail and
>> predictably declare non-infringement. From that point, how
>> long would you think it would take the court to come to the
>> same conclusion? Based on some dated personal experience, my
>> guess is about 6 months minimum. Let the show go on...

>I doubt SCO will last another 120 days.

I'll keep count and let you know. However, it's fun to speculate.
What if SCO decides to turn it into a political issue. It's fairly
safe for a candidate to take sides. On one side, we have SCO, the
paragon of small business protecting its rights. On the other side,
we have the rather odd marriage of the predatory giant corporation
aligned with a Communist soviet of geeks that believe in the
redistribution of intellectual property. Never mind the issues, just
visualize the images presented. I could do quite well with this as a
start. If IBM tries to fight it in public, one could claim that
they're trying to buy votes. If the Linux horde retaliates with yet
another DDOS attack, they be treated like spoiled brats and will find
themselves blamed for just about every subsequent internet hiccup.

>The first thing that will happen is IBM will move to strike a number of
>claims baised on the documents they have received or will receive form SCO
>this month.

Judge Wells seems to be quite tolerant of SCO, giving SCO most (but
not all) of what it wants. What's missing is that SCO has indicated
that it will produce the code "at the appropriate time" which none of
the parties involved seem to have a clue as to when that will be. I
dunno. I guess the judge doesn't wanna risk a mistrial and is
therefore being tolerant.

>> Ummm.... I've worked for only 2 large corporations and played
>> consultant to about 3 more. They all lied, cheated, and stole,
>> especially when driven by the legal departments. The difference here
>> is that it's being done in public. In most cases, only the affected
>> parties care much. That's not to condone the misinformation, but just
>> to underscore that it's not unusual. Ever read through a pile of
>> interrogatories? They're usually at least 50% distortions and lies.

>Not my experience.

You're lucky. I've written and responded to interrogatories and can
assure you that if the truth were buried in them, it is well hidden.
However, it is not necessary to lie. Unsubstantiated claims (such as
100K shared being dumped), along with carefully crafted omissions, is
usually sufficient.

>> Idealism has its price, especially when you have a family and mortgage
>> company to feed. Don't tell me you've never been asked by an employer
>> to do something unethical, improper, or devious? If not, you must
>> lead a sheltered life.

>I must be lucky.

In that case, I envy your lack of having the experience of being told
to do something disgusting, knowing that you'll be fired if you get
caught, and that you'll be squeezed out of the company, if you don't.
Most people find such experiences to be difficult and distasteful.
So, they solve the problem by hiring an attorney or sacrificial
scapegoat to do it for them. Whatever works.

Midnight in the office again. Well, I guess computers are best done
under cover of darkness.

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831.336.2558 voice http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
# jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# 831.421.6491 digital_pager jeffl@cruzio.com AE6KS

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:15:49 GMT, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:47:54 GMT, Brian <brian@stanley-park.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So you believe David Boise will actually make an appearance this time?
>
>Yeah. He trashed his reputation with the last no show and will
>probably try to do something entertaining to earn his 10%. I could
>think of some good things to say, but he's not known as a great trial
>attorney. He'll probably put someone else in his place.

Are you sure? I thought that Boies' skill was in questioning witnesses
at trial -- getting them to contradict themselves, etc..

>
>>> Let's pretend that SCO hands over a bunch of disjointed code
>>> fragments, header files, and in house analysis. IBM will of course
>>> leak it to the world.
>
>>IBM will not leak it to the world.
>
>True. It will probably leak via being accidentally left in the trash
>next to the copier, in the mens room, blown out the back of a car, or
>other mechanism that defies assignment of blame. Whatever works.

I suspect that IBM will not do any of these things. Given the lack of
any trade secrets in Linux, it's quite possible that IBM could challenge
the protected nature of parts or all of SCO's latest 60+ pages.

>
>
>>I doubt SCO will last another 120 days.
>
>I'll keep count and let you know. However, it's fun to speculate.
>What if SCO decides to turn it into a political issue. It's fairly
>safe for a candidate to take sides. On one side, we have SCO, the
>paragon of small business protecting its rights.

No. such a "paragon" would be a company that actually wanted to say how
people were violating its rights, not running from every opportunity so
to do while claiming people owed it money before any judgements,
while the very copyrights on which its claims were based are contested
by another company.

>
On the other side,
>we have the rather odd marriage of the predatory giant corporation
>aligned with a Communist soviet of geeks that believe in the
>redistribution of intellectual property.

No, I don't think any (or at least many) of such "geeks" want to
redistribute anyone's IP. They want to create their own and make it
freely available. There is a huge difference.

>
>Judge Wells seems to be quite tolerant of SCO, giving SCO most (but
>not all) of what it wants.

Not any more. On Dec 5, she gave SCO nothing -- requiring SCO to produce
its evidence while halting further discovery production by IBM.

> What's missing is that SCO has indicated
>that it will produce the code "at the appropriate time" which none of
>the parties involved seem to have a clue as to when that will be.

No. That was Jan 10. Read the ruling for yourself: SCO was required to
answer IBM's interrogatories "with specificity".

>
>>I must be lucky.
>
>In that case, I envy your lack of having the experience of being told
>to do something disgusting, knowing that you'll be fired if you get
>caught, and that you'll be squeezed out of the company, if you don't.
>Most people find such experiences to be difficult and distasteful.
>So, they solve the problem by hiring an attorney or sacrificial
>scapegoat to do it for them. Whatever works.
>

Interesting. I have certainly worked for one large US company that I
perceived as being very ethical. During many years there, I was never
asked to do anything disgusting. Now, I'm not so naive as to think that
every employee (and more importantly every manager, VP, etc) had such
high standards, but overall, the company did.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:26:31 GMT, joe@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
wrote:

>Are you sure? I thought that Boies' skill was in questioning witnesses
>at trial -- getting them to contradict themselves, etc..

Well, I'll admit that I'm not sure. All I've seen of David Boise was
sound bites from his representation of Al Gore's position in the
Florida election count fiasco, and his non-appearance in the Napster
case. I found very little detail about him on the web. The best
approximation is a Wired Magazine article on his defense of Napster
at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/boies.html
I'll take your word for it that he might be skilled at questioning
witnesses. However, I don't see many witnesses involved in SCO vs IBM
and suspect he will only be presenting his arguments to Judge Wells.
In the Napster case, ALL the arguments innumerated in the Wired
article were rejected by Judge Patel. Judge Wells is being somewhat
more tolerant. Whether this reflects on his abilities or the merits
of the case is difficult to tell from here.

>>True. It will probably leak via being accidentally left in the trash
>>next to the copier, in the mens room, blown out the back of a car, or
>>other mechanism that defies assignment of blame. Whatever works.
>
>I suspect that IBM will not do any of these things. Given the lack of
>any trade secrets in Linux, it's quite possible that IBM could challenge
>the protected nature of parts or all of SCO's latest 60+ pages.

Proprietary code release has been the basis of SCO's logic that they
should not be compelled to release examples of infringement. My
guess(tm) is that the court will reach a compromise. IBM can have a
look if they agree to keep it out of the press. If that happens, it
will be IBM's responsibility to prevent leaks. It's not in there
interests to do so, and I predict there will be an "accidental" leak.

>No. such a "paragon" would be a company that actually wanted to say how
>people were violating its rights, not running from every opportunity so
>to do while claiming people owed it money before any judgements,
>while the very copyrights on which its claims were based are contested
>by another company.

Ok, so SCO is not such a paragon of virtue, justice, and the American
way. I'm talking about image, impressions, sound bites, and
propaganda, not facts. SCO does not need to be the model of the
perfect small business. They only need to be presented as that victim
of abuse by a giant corporation, the victim of a project gone bad
(Project Monterey), and the target of Linux hackers with Communist
tendencies. Perception is everything.

>No, I don't think any (or at least many) of such "geeks" want to
>redistribute anyone's IP. They want to create their own and make it
>freely available. There is a huge difference.

Agreed. The motives of all Linux advocates is pure and noble. Never
mind the apparently common advocacy of the demise of intellectual
property rights. However, I recognize the problem. It's very
difficult to prove ownership of anything. Stare at the objects on
your desk and see if you can document and prove that you actually own
them. Try the same with any code you've written. Did you
accidentally plagiarize an algorithm from a 10 year old book on
programming? Perhaps you borrowed some code from a project you worked
on at a former employer? In any case, it's difficult to prove you own
every line of code. To be fair, it's much easier to prove
infringement than ownership. "Create their own" is possibly a legal
illusion.

>>Judge Wells seems to be quite tolerant of SCO, giving SCO most (but
>>not all) of what it wants.
>
>Not any more. On Dec 5, she gave SCO nothing -- requiring SCO to produce
>its evidence while halting further discovery production by IBM.

I was referring to the fact that the case made it this far without
getting thrown in the dumpster. Every attorney I personally asked
about the merits and effects of withholding the proof of infringement
has indicated that only in high level, high profile, and high dollars
litigation is such nonsense allowed. The same issues, but between
much smaller companies, would have been settled with a motion to
dismiss, much earlier on the principle of "no evidence therefore no
case".

>> What's missing is that SCO has indicated
>>that it will produce the code "at the appropriate time" which none of
>>the parties involved seem to have a clue as to when that will be.
>
>No. That was Jan 10. Read the ruling for yourself: SCO was required to
>answer IBM's interrogatories "with specificity".

Ok. I'm wrong. So 01/23/2004 is the time for all good men to release
the code. I note that SCO is asking for a 30 day delay due to the
Xmas holidaze. I dunno if Judge Wells agreed. My guess is that SCO
will get its 30 days solely to avoid an appeal based on procedural
errors.

>Interesting. I have certainly worked for one large US company that I
>perceived as being very ethical. During many years there, I was never
>asked to do anything disgusting. Now, I'm not so naive as to think that
>every employee (and more importantly every manager, VP, etc) had such
>high standards, but overall, the company did.

I'm sure the great majority of large companies are ethical, moral, and
generally try to do the right things. Somehow, I just never seem to
work for or with these. Perhaps the problem is one of visibility. I
once worked for a very small company that I perceived to be ethical,
moral, etc. While employed, I never saw anything improper. Then, one
day, the police arrived with the arrest warrants. I soon discovered
that my employer was far from ethical, moral, etc. I just wasn't in
the right place to see any of it.


--
Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
(831)421-6491 pgr (831)336-2558 home
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us jeffl@cruzio.com

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:18:47 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:26:31 GMT, joe@blahblah.invalid (Joe Dunning)
> wrote:
>
> In the Napster case, ALL the arguments innumerated in the Wired
> article were rejected by Judge Patel.

Well, I have my own opinion of Judge Patel. It's not based on Napster or
any of the high profile cases, but the management of a case where a
business went bankrupt owing the former employees health care for life.
Many died before any money was paid out. It took over 10 years before
any money was made available. The one asset the company had was land --
but the 10 year period included the late '90s when property prices in
the Bay Area went wild.

>>
>>I suspect that IBM will not do any of these things. Given the lack of
>>any trade secrets in Linux, it's quite possible that IBM could challenge
>>the protected nature of parts or all of SCO's latest 60+ pages.
>
> Proprietary code release has been the basis of SCO's logic that they
> should not be compelled to release examples of infringement. My
> guess(tm) is that the court will reach a compromise. IBM can have a
> look if they agree to keep it out of the press. If that happens, it
> will be IBM's responsibility to prevent leaks. It's not in there
> interests to do so, and I predict there will be an "accidental" leak.

The interesting thing about Trade Secrets is that they are quite
fragile. Once disclosed, they no longer exist. IBM can argue that since
these "valuable trade secrets" are now public, they are no longer
confidential. That's why I think IBM may be able to get some or all of
the 60+ pages made public without resorting to underhand tactics.

>
>>No, I don't think any (or at least many) of such "geeks" want to
>>redistribute anyone's IP. They want to create their own and make it
>>freely available. There is a huge difference.
>
> Agreed. The motives of all Linux advocates is pure and noble. Never
> mind the apparently common advocacy of the demise of intellectual
> property rights. However, I recognize the problem. It's very
> difficult to prove ownership of anything. Stare at the objects on
> your desk and see if you can document and prove that you actually own
> them. Try the same with any code you've written. Did you
> accidentally plagiarize an algorithm from a 10 year old book on
> programming?

What you are saying is: did you use any "residuals"? Well, guess what:
no-one owns residuals. If companies were able so to do, then engineers
would not be free to move from one company to another.

>
>>>Judge Wells seems to be quite tolerant of SCO, giving SCO most (but
>>>not all) of what it wants.
>>
>>Not any more. On Dec 5, she gave SCO nothing -- requiring SCO to produce
>>its evidence while halting further discovery production by IBM.
>
> I was referring to the fact that the case made it this far without
> getting thrown in the dumpster. Every attorney I personally asked
> about the merits and effects of withholding the proof of infringement
> has indicated that only in high level, high profile, and high dollars
> litigation is such nonsense allowed. The same issues, but between
> much smaller companies, would have been settled with a motion to
> dismiss, much earlier on the principle of "no evidence therefore no
> case".
>
>>> What's missing is that SCO has indicated
>>>that it will produce the code "at the appropriate time" which none of
>>>the parties involved seem to have a clue as to when that will be.
>>
>>No. That was Jan 10. Read the ruling for yourself: SCO was required to
>>answer IBM's interrogatories "with specificity".
>
> Ok. I'm wrong. So 01/23/2004 is the time for all good men to release
> the code.

No, you are wrong again. The date was Jan 10 (maybe 12 because of the
weekend). Jan 23 is merely the date of the next hearing -- answers
("with specificity") were supposed to be given 30 days after the order
was entered on December 12.

> I note that SCO is asking for a 30 day delay due to the
> Xmas holidaze. I dunno if Judge Wells agreed. My guess is that SCO
> will get its 30 days solely to avoid an appeal based on procedural
> errors.

I guess not, since the holidays were a known event on December 5 and
since Judge Wells effectively denied SCO the opportunity to go on a
fishing expedition at that time.

Just looked over this; some I agree with, some I at least partially do;

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:47:54 GMT, Brian <brian@stanley-park.com> wrote:
>> I agree with the Greek chorus. If there is massive infringement, at
>> least let the defendent (IBM) see the code.
>
>There is no code.

Even I'm not ready to go quite that far yet, Brian. I will go so far as to
agree that there is no EVIDENCE of code (SCO hasn't shown a scrap of truly
infringing code) and that SCO acts DARN (DARL?) funny for a company which
claims millions of lines of infringing code. Is there any infringing code
at all? We won't know 100% until "the fat lady sings", but there's
certainly no evidence of it, and I seriously doubt it.

>> Let's pretend that SCO hands over a bunch of disjointed code
>> fragments, header files, and in house analysis. IBM will of course
>> leak it to the world.
>
>IBM will not leak it to the world.

That I'll agree with 100%. IBM's playing this thing REAL cool and by the
book. They have shown that they have respect for the law and respect for
intellectual property. I don't think IBM will *leak* any alleged
infringements to the world, but there IS a good chance that IBM will argue
that there is no justification for keeping whatever SCO presents in
confidential status so that the *judge* can order the material to be
available to the world.
--
"Every time I think I've heard it all from SCO, they come up with a new howler."
Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek