tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-350940242024-03-14T00:30:36.662-07:00SCO News RoundupProudly unaffiliated with the "SCO Group". Like it wasn't obvious.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.comBlogger210125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-65638591409592797962010-03-30T21:05:00.000-07:002010-03-30T23:27:48.832-07:003/30/10 SNR: Victory(!?) EditionSo this blog sort of tapered off last July, and I honestly haven't been following the endless SCO saga on a daily basis for quite some time now. A great deal has happened since last July, and I'm not even going to attempt a recap. Because there's rather big news today, perhaps you've heard it already.<br />
<br />
The jury's spoken -- unanimously -- and they've determined that SCO never owned any Unix copyrights. Which I don't think comes as a surprise to anyone but SCO, and even they ought to have known. There are still a few issues to be resolved in front of the judge sans jury, so this baby isn't quite over yet. And Mr. Cahn (who you would've heard a great deal about if I'd been posting all this time) says he still wants to go after IBM over contracts, for some reason. And it isn't clear yet (to me) whether SCO has any remaining appeal options, however ludicrous they might be, to drag this out even further. <br />
<br />
Have I mentioned that the SCO v. Universe charade has been going on for over seven years now? Just think how long that is in tech industry years, I mean, when SCO first sued IBM there was no such thing as YouTube, or Flickr, or Facebook, or Twitter. Wild Pentium 4's stalked the earth. You could still buy boxes running IRIX or Tru64. The 2.6 Linux kernel wasn't out yet, and gcc was on version 3.2.3. Windows XP was on Service Pack 1. If you were stuck on Windows, you were probably also stuck with IE 6, since there was no such thing as Firefox. Well, there was crufty old Mozilla, but almost nobody used it, that I can recall. Google had only just acquired Blogger (home to this humble blog here), and there was still no such thing as Gmail, or Google Maps, and they hadn't even gone IPO yet. <br />
<br />
SCO, meanwhile, repackaged a minor UnixWare update as a major OpenServer release, and dabbled in a bit of Me Inc. on the side. And that's about it for the last 7 years. I can't help but wonder, if you interviewed SCO's employees a few decades from now and asked them whether it was all worth it, blowing seven years of their (relative) youth, seven prime years of their careers, working for a small and unsuccessful parasite on the hind end of the tech industry, toiling away halfheartedly on dead-end 1980's technology, embarrassed to tell anyone who they worked for.... what would they say? <br />
<br />
I'd want a do-over, personally.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-72817747702583472802009-06-14T19:21:00.001-07:002009-06-14T20:29:44.315-07:00chapter 7 (?) mini-preview (?)So tomorrow there'll be a big hearing on whether to convert SCO's interminable Chapter 11 bankruptcy into Chapter 7 liquidation. The US bankruptcy trustee has requested this, as have Novell and IBM. SCO opposes the motions, for a variety of spurious, irrelevant, and ludicrous reasons. SCO's argument, in essence, is that they're just weeks away from a glorious victory on their appeal of the Novell case. (Ok, yeah, I neglected to cover the appeal here. I didn't see it as that big of a story, quite honestly, merely the latest way for SCO to drag things out a bit longer.) Anyway, they're supposedly <i>this</i> close to crushing Novell on appeal, and as soon as that inevitably happens they'll have countless gazillions at their disposal, so the court should grant them an extra stretch of delay, no matter what BK law technically requires. And if they get that, no doubt they'll need more delay when the case goes back to Kimball for basically a complete do-over. And for any appeals <i>that</i> results in, plus any appeals to the Supreme Court, plus any do-overs from there, plus delay due to any other court cases -- IBM, Red Hat, AutoZone, whoever. <br /><br />I'm reluctant to make any predictions. I think I said I wasn't going to make any more predictions about what the BK court was going to do, since I don't have any insight into that particular universe. On one hand, I can't see how the court could possibly rule in SCO's favor. The BK trustee has asked for Chapter 7 conversion, and under the law these days -- as I understand it -- the judge has to either grant that or dismiss the BK case entirely. That seems about as clear-cut as federal law ever gets. On the other hand, given SCO's track record it's hard to bet against them when they're angling for further delay. It doesn't always work, but it's worked enough, such that it's mid-2009 and we've still got friggin' SCO to kick around.<br /><br />One amusing aspect to SCO's opposition is the nano-deluge of letters and motions in support they've drummed up. Their filing includes a letters from a few of their remaining Unix customers, explaining that they might be inconvenienced, in theory, if SCO went away, assuming nobody buys the Unix business from the Ch. 7 BK trustee. The court also got a separate letter from Herb Jackson of Renaissance Ventures (or was it Renaissance Capital, or Renaissance Partners, I can't recall at the moment). He was a SCO true believer way back in the beginning, and apparently he's spent the last few years quietly watching his investment evaporate, but still never wavering as a SCO True Believer. Which is really sad, if you ask me. And on top of that, it seems that tomorrow we'll see an appearance, or attempted appearance, by lawyers for the latest Norris shell company, something called "Gulf Capital Partners", or something along those lines. Which, according to info on IV, employs one of the same DC frontmen as our old friends at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, of "Samizdat" fame. It's almost like SCO's already rolling the credits, and everyone who ever worked on their behalf gets to be in on it. I suppose next we'll hear from that analyst whose name I forget (Skiba?), still standing by his $45 per share prediction for SCO, due just as soon as they get that elusive courtroom victory. Maybe we'll see new FUD from DiDio or Enderle or even Lyons again, or possibly MOG / G2 will try to "intervene" in the case. If the current trend continues, maybe we'll even hear from Baystar, begging the court to let events play out so maybe they'll get some of their money back. Who knows? <br /><br />I do suspect there will ultimately be a ruling against SCO, but it may not be tomorrow. And whenever that happens, it's still not The End. First, as you might imagine, there's an appeals process in BK court, just like there is in regular federal court. My understanding is that cases go next to a BK appeals panel of three judges, and from there to the regular US Court of Appeals, and from there to the Supremes. And (if SCO wins at the Supremes), all the way back down, and in semi-parallel the Novell case also gets appealed to the Supremes if SCO doesn't win in Denver, and in another 5-7 years it all ends up back in Kimball's lap, unless he retires before then. And if, on the other hand, the case proceeds to Chapter 7 and current SCO management is quickly kicked to the curb, we're still not out of the woods. One would assume that a rational BK trustee, like any rational person, would realize that the SCO v. Universe cases are without merit and settle them ASAP. But we don't actually have any guarantee of that. We may get a non-tech-savvy one who doesn't get it but just sees big dollar signs, and SCO v. Universe then proceeds under new management. I'd hate to see that, but I can't rule it out.<br /><br />I'll try to do a post-hearing post if anything dramatic happens. It would be a shame not to, even though I'm not as wound up about the SCO saga as I once was (in case you hadn't noticed).brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-44564700112472987052008-11-23T11:35:00.000-08:002008-11-23T23:49:33.551-08:0011/23 SNR: "Final" JudgmentSo, finally, we have a <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20081120195227418">final judgment</a> in the SCO v. Novell case. No big surprises here: SCO owes money it doesn't have, a bunch of their claims are gone for good, with prejudice, etcetera. The one thing that surprised me was how long it took to get to this point. The trial, after all, was early this year, and Kimball ruled back in July, and then the case entered into a sort of post-trial limbo, with Novell holding off on the final judgment until SCO caved and dismissed much of what remained of their case. That seems to have been a clever move on Novell's part, and one that nobody anticipated, least of all SCO. All this time they've been promising the world that they've got a sure-fire guaranteed victory on appeal, just as soon as the chance to appeal arises, but they just burned through another quarter of dwindling cash that they couldn't have planned on. And with all the dismissed claims, the odds of the big payday they keep promising have gotten even more remote, if such a thing is possible. <br /><br />Speaking of appeals, I'm having trouble referring to this as a final judgment. Every time I try typing it, my fingers leave the keyboard and start making little air quotes. It's final in a legal sense, technically, in that the proceedings in front of Kimball are done, but I don't see how SCO can <i>not</i> appeal, after pinning all their hopes on it for the last few years. I don't see what their grounds for an appeal would be, but that's never stopped them before. So, in short, it's not over yet. Then there's that little matter of the bankruptcy case, and nonzero odds of the IBM and Autozone cases coming back to life at some point, sooner or later.<br /><br />So the question is, what does "final" really look like, as far as SCO's concerned? At what point can PJ break out the red dress, and the rest of us can break out a nice single malt, or Bordeaux, or whatever? I'm increasingly unsure there'll be one big event signifying "The End", unfortunately. I do see a few probable semi-milestones ahead, although I'm not going to guess dates or even an order for them. The one I'm really looking forward to is when they <i>finally</i> run out of cash, and have to lay off their remaining employees and cease operations. That won't stop the lawsuits, unfortunately -- SCO could, in theory, continue on for years to come as a legal entity, with nothing but a P.O. box to its name. BS&F, as you may recall, is obligated to keep fighting for SCO in the various SCO v. Universe suits without getting a cent more for their trouble. If whoever's in charge of SCO wants to keep this going for another 25 years, BS&F has to keep plugging along at it, to the bitter end and beyond. <br /><br />Also on the financial side of things, there's converting from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy, where the goal changes from reorganization to liquidation. In other words, shutting everything down and selling off the company's remaining assets, using the proceeds to pay off creditors. This would be quite a milestone, but it's not the end either. Far from it, actually. To liquidate a company's assets, you first need to know exactly what the company does and doesn't own. That's been the core issue in the SCO saga since it began, and before that in the old AT&T vs BSD conflict. The Novell case sorted much of that out, but I doubt that all possible questions of title are now resolved. Really, I think Chapter 11 would be a much faster process for SCO than Chapter 7, if they had any realistic chance of reorganizing and becoming viable again. Which they don't.<br /><br />Another <i>possible</i> milestone is the BK trustee booting out current SCO management, or what's left of it. This may or may not happen, but it'd certainly be party-worthy if it did. Just imagine, no more Darl or Ralphie to kick around. It's a nice thought, isn't it?<br /><br />On the legal side, it's harder to see a rapid end to the shenanigans. They'll go to Denver and appeal and beg for a do-over, for starters. The court isn't obligated to hear their appeal, and they won't if there aren't convincing grounds for them to do so. There's no automatic second bite at the apple here. If that happens, I don't see how SCO goes forward from there. But I'm not going to bet on that. Let's assume that when they go to Denver and show up in front of a fresh set of judges, they sound just credible enough that the court agrees to hear the appeal. From that point, it could take years. Probably not another 5-and-change years, but years, almost certainly.<br /><br />And as I mentioned, there are still a few court cases out there in suspended animation that may yet get revived. There was some action in the AutoZone case recently that I still don't understand. I think is that the court's stay expires around the end of this year, so it could conceivably go forward after that, although that would likely require the BK court's OK too. The IBM case is technically "closed" at this point but could still be reopened. And let's not forget the Red Hat case in Delaware. The key thing with all of these cases is that there's no upside for SCO in any of them going forward. Their remaining claims against IBM and AutoZone are waived, per the Novell judgment, so there are only counterclaims to resolve (I don't recall whether AutoZone filed any counterclaims, but I suppose they still could if the case proceeds.) And I don't think they'd have grounds for non-laughable counterclaims in the Red Hat case. So if any of these cases go forward, they will at the behest of the other companies involved, with SCO kicking and screaming and begging for delay the whole time. That, again, could take years.<br /><br />I don't want to sound like I'm just throwing a big wet blanket over the latest events, and really I'm not trying to do that. I just think a note of caution is in order. Believe me, I'd love it if this was really over -- perhaps you've noticed I haven't posted here since July. I'm rather tired and bored of the whole thing, I have to admit. And none of the semi-milestones I see ahead seem to offer much chance to become unbored, barring a highly unexpected reversal in court, a sudden huge influx of cash, or some other surprising twist. Barring the improbable, the future means chronicling the ongoing asymptotic decline of SCO. It's not anywhere near as exciting as it once was, but I feel like I really shouldn't give up on it entirely. So, although I can't promise daily, or even weekly posts here, I'll try to see what I can do.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-23528978701791591172008-07-16T22:56:00.000-07:002008-07-16T23:54:28.424-07:007/18 SNR: SCO owes $2,547,817 (plus interest)So we finally have <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080716182233901">a ruling from Judge Kimball</a>. SCO owes Novell precisely $2,547,817, plus interest. That's not as much money as I (and I think most people) were hoping for, but hey. SCO doesn't have a lot of cash on hand anymore. Too much over $2.5M and the exact amount awarded becomes an academic exercise. A $2.5M award two or three years ago would've been serious bad news. Now, not so much. <br /><br />PJ suggests the ruling was designed to discourage SCO appeals, which is an interesting notion. She doesn't elaborate, but I think I see what she's getting at. It's possible Kimball is indulging in a bit of game theory here. They can either take the current deal, fork over the $2.5M, and have Kimball's rulings stand as the final judgment in the case, or they can appeal and see what's behind door #2. It <i>could</i> be a better deal, but it could also be much, much worse. If he'd awarded Novell, say, $25M, there's zero chance SCO would fork over a cent voluntarily. They'd be on the next plane to Denver to file an appeal, because they'd have nothing to lose by doing so. Now, they'll have to think it over a bit more. In the end I think they'll still try to appeal, because they're a bunch of freakin' morons who won't listen to common sense, take their half-a-loaf (or pathetic-smidgen-of-a-loaf really) and go the hell away already. But it does up the odds that the appeals court will take one look at the case and decide SCO is exactly as I've just described them. $2.5M is also an amount Novell can reasonably ask the BK court to hand over, where a request for $25M probably wouldn't get a hearing.<br /><br />As I've said before on numerous occasions, I don't actually care whether Novell gets a cent back from SCO, just so long as SCO doesn't have the money anymore. If it all gets spent on lawyers and accountants and various BK hangers-on, that's fine with me. The moment Novell cozied up to Microsoft, I ceased to concern myself about their continued well-being. I'm sure their new friends in Redmond will take good care of them. Or not. My main concern has always been the claims and counterclaims in the IBM case (remember the IBM case?), and putting SCO's silly Linux accusations to bed permanently. If today's ruling means SCO lives long enough to properly lose the IBM case, I'd call it a good thing.<br /><br />The main downside of today's ruling is that SCO and its few remaining friends and allies (i.e. MOG) will spin it as a glorious victory. Which will inevitably suck in a new crop of clueless daytrading bagholders, create a temporary stock bubble, and allow the current bagholders to unload their shares at somewhat less of a loss. I think that's pretty much inevitable, and I can't muster a great deal of sympathy for people who rush in to buy stocks ending in ".PK" without doing any research. As far as I'm concerned Darl and friends can shill this ruling to high heaven, for all the good it'll do them. They still owe $2.5M they may or may not have at this point, and even if they do have the cash on hand they're still losing money and customers at an astonishing rate, and there's still the IBM case looming on the horizon. <br /><br />Today's ruling breaks the long logjam that prevented various other matters from moving forward. So from here I think things proceed along a few tracks, possibly in parallel. Regarding a SCO appeal, I think we'll see an attempt in short order. I've heard conflicting things about whether they'll need the BK court's approval to mount an appeal or not. Even if it doesn't, the center of excitement will now move back to Delaware. The pending ruling was SCO's excuse for not filing a new reorg plan with the BK court. Now they'll need to either come up with a new plan, or a new excuse. And as for the IBM case, I don't see any compelling reason the BK court ought to leave it stayed at this point, if IBM asks to have the stay lifted. <br /><br />Overall sentiment: "Yay!" Although without all-caps and with a single exlamation point. It's not an absolutely crushing victory, but I'll take it.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-69444643311542716492008-06-07T00:17:00.000-07:002008-06-07T02:30:44.696-07:006/6 SNR: Crickets.wav EditionHaven't done one of these in over a month, for the simple reason that nothing of importance has happened in over a month. The SCO v. Novell trial came and went, and Kimball didn't rule from the bench at the end, and now it's over a month later and we still don't have a ruling. I suppose I ought to have anticipated this, but I seriously didn't. I figured there'd be a ruling the moment closing arguments were done. Or if not that moment, the next day, certainly. Or within a week, for sure. But no. <br /><br />There was supposed to be a post-trial hearing in the BK case where SCO would unveil the shiny new reorg plan, but that didn't happen. SCO's new omnibus reason for delay is the lack of a ruling in the Novell case. Which is actually about the most reasonable excuse they've come up with in the last four years. Until Kimball rules, they don't know what they owe Novell, and they also can't appeal yet. Without knowing what their legal & financial universe looks like, there's no way for SCO to know what lies to tell next, so really there's no way for them to move forward at all. <br /><br />At this point I'm more or less OK with waiting. It's not great, by any means, but the Linux community can afford to wait a lot longer than SCO can. I've never been a big fan of "winning" by running out the clock on SCO, but it looks like that's how it's going to go down, and I guess I can live with that. There's a bit of poetic justice in SCO going under like this, "running out the clock" being one of those sports metaphors Darl can't get enough of. <br /><br />For old times' sake, if for no other reason, I did a news search for SCO. Here are the slim pickins:<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>A <a href="http://www.heise-online.co.uk/features/SCO-vs-Linux-mixed-reactions-to-Novell-Unix-copyright-verdict--/110819">Heise article</a> dated May 30th which seems to be a belated English translation of a piece about Kimball's big ruling last August. <br /><br /><li>SCO gets a mention in this list of <a href="http://www.newmobilecomputing.com/thread?317577">Top Ten Linus Quotes</a>.<br /><br /><li>My eyes lit up when I saw the headline <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2004/071204unixwarerev.html">"SCO's UnixWare measures up with open source additions"</a>. For a split second I thought we might have one of those ultra-rare product-related news stories. But no dice. This piece dates to July 2004. At the time, NetworkWorld concluded that UnixWare was a decent OS, and performed better than Mac OS X 10.3 on certain benchmarks. On the other hand, UnixWare 7.1.4 is still the most recent version of the OS nearly four years later, while Mac OS X is up to 10.5.x, with 10.6 on the way. <br /><br />One rather poignant bit from the review:<br /><blockquote><i>The SCO Update service (not tested, as no updates had been issued at the time we tested) connects to the host for updates from the mothership. </i></blockquote><br /><br />And as far as I know, the update situation never improved after that. For all we know, SCO Update might be the end-all, be-all, all-singing, all-dancing Platonic ideal of software update apps, but we'll never know for sure because there aren't any updates. Oh, so sad.<br /><br /><li>Good news for this humble blog's surprisingly large UK readership: You <a href="http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=132655">won't be seeing Boies & Co. </a> on your side of the pond anytime soon. It's actually kind of a shame -- I'd really like to see Boies in a powdered wig. I wonder what sort of powdered wig would go with his dirty sneakers?<br /><br /><li>In other Boies news, the AIG-Greenberg suit <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0U4yEBuYY7E&refer=home">continues</a>. <br /><br /><li>Maybe you haven't heard, but HBO has a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0U4yEBuYY7E&refer=home">new movie</a> about the 2000 election, just in time for the 2008 election. Boies is played by the one and only Ed Begley Jr. Perhaps not the most unkindest cut of all, but probably in the top ten.<br /><br /><li>In his copious free time while he's not burning the midnight oil on SCO's behalf, Boies is also helping defend Bank of New York Mellon in a <a href="http://www.nysun.com/business/battle-of-titans-brewing-over-new-york-mellon/79183/?dlbk">money laundering suit</a> brought by the Russian government. Yeah, good luck with that. It's actually kind of an interesting case. In essence, the Russian side is arguing that the US federal RICO Act applies worldwide, a legal argument one doesn't often encounter outside the US. <br /><br /><li>Another <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421722090">BS&F racketeering case</a>, again defending the accused. They seem to be developing a real specialty in RICO law. Good news, Darl & Ralphie! <br /><br /><li>Not that they've given up on appealing the judgements of the free market. Perhaps you've heard of the <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9961058-36.html">ConnectU vs. Facebook suit</a>, in which ConnectU (who you may not have heard of) alleges that Facebook swiped their precious methods and concepts. Naturally, BS&F is working for the party whose service failed in the marketplace. Some things never change.<br /><br /><li>Although some things never change, nearly everyone involved in the SCO saga has moved on. PJ mostly talks about ODF these days. Boies pretends the SCO suit never happened. IBM, Novell, and Red Hat are too busy making money off Linux to lose any sleep over SCO. Even MOG has other things on her mind these days. A number of articles such as <a href="http://search.sys-con.com/read/581024.htm">this one</a> now list her as "Virtualization News Desk editor" at SYS-CON. To the extent that "virtual" is an antonym of "real", this is probably a good career move for her.<br /><br /><li>Daniel Lyons has moved on as well, and he's managing to stay busy. On the heels of his fleeting 15 minutes of fame as the "Fake Steve Jobs", he just had a <a href="http://www.primenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=143941">cameo appearance</a> at something called "MEFCON", a trade show sponsored by the "Mobile Entertainment Forum" in LA. The way the press release is phrased, it sounds as if Lyons appeared in character, similar to how Sacha Baron Cohen often appears as Borat. <br /><br />So next time you're on the bus, and there's a creepy guy across the aisle surfing pr0n on his phone and fumbling around under his trenchcoat and generally having himself a "mobile entertainment" experience, remember that Lyons is getting his cut of the proceeds.<br /><br /><li>A <a href="http://www.forbes.com/technology/forbes/2008/0616/084.html">Lyons article</a> about an in-car navigation widget he's become fond of. In passing, he nonchalantly mentions he's been house hunting in Boston recently. If there's a widget that alleviates the horrors of driving in Boston, that's great and all. But actually buying a house there has very little to do with GPS coordinates and MLS listings, and everything to do with who your great-great-grandparents were. Invent a widget to overcome that little hurdle, and you'll really be on to something.<br /><br />Right after that little tidbit, he quotes <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Carver">Raymond Carver</a>, one of the least Bostonian, and least Lyons-esque, writers I can imagine. It's not clear to me what the Carver reference adds to the piece, other than pointing out to readers (yet again) that the author knows how to make fancy-schmancy literary references. <br /><br /><li>A piece on the glorious new <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/hardware/article.php/3750956/Meet+Microsofts+New+Embedded+OS+Windows+XP.htm">Windows Embedded Standard 2009</a>, which as it turns out is based on XP and not Vista. Which leads us to the inevitable Endroolage:<br /><blockquote><i><br />"It will go on lower-performance systems than Vista would run on," Rob Enderle, principal analyst for The Enderle Group, told InternetNews.com. "Plus, XP is a product that people have been comfortable with for the last seven years."<br /></i></blockquote><br /><br />Over in the Rob-o-Sphere, creating Vista was an inspired act of genius, and running away from Vista is an equally inspired act of genius. The sun always shines, and the bluebirds always sing, and it's always morning in America inside the Rob-o-Sphere.<br /><br /><li>A randomly selected bit of "Paul Murphy" word salad: <a href="http://www.builderau.com.au/program/java/soa/Is-Java-Windows-for-Unix-/0,339024620,339289109,00.htm">"Is Java Windows for Unix?"</a>. Honestly, the only reason I can see why he has a career as an Important Tech Pundit is that he kept the negatives. And since that fateful day he's remained mired in that distant era when there <i>were</i> such things as negatives.<br /><br /><li>Over on c.u.s.m., a <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/browse_thread/thread/985830bb94e4832b#">fun thread</a> on shell history and which shell is best. Yes, I checked, this is a new thread, not one dating to 1990 or so. Give 'em another 20 years and they might work themselves up to having a proper KDE vs. Gnome flamewar. Assuming SCO OSes exist 20 years from now, which I sincerely doubt.<br /><br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-26530250520081729662008-05-02T09:53:00.000-07:002008-05-02T15:28:05.917-07:005/2 SNR: SCO v. Novell, The Last(?) DaySo it's day 4 of 4 in the SCO v. Novell trial, so it'll all be over some time later today. Unless they find a way to drag the thing out longer, which shouldn't be ruled out.<br /><br />GL has a raft of new stories up. <br /><ul><li><i><b>Updated:</b> GL's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080502163143920">Report on the Last Day of the Trial in Novell v. SCO"</a>.</i><br /><li><strike>First off</strike>, a <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080501192534476">first look at Day 3</a>, with SCO presenting its case (such as it is). <br /><li><a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080501194602283">Transcripts</a> for the first two days, made possible by generous GL donors.<br /><li>Day 1 transcript <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080501212419403">as text</a>.<br /><li>Day 2 transcript <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080502101605725">as text</a>.<br /></ul><br /><br />Elsewhere on the interwebs:<br /><ul><li>Salt Lake Tribune: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_9133274">"SCO-Novell trial ends, judge promises decision soon"</a><br /><li>InformationWeek: <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/05/sco_on_the_stan.html">"SCO On The Stand"</a>, which begins <i>"There are times when the jokes just seem to tell themselves."</i><br /><li>Computerworld's IT Blogwatch: <a href="http://blogs.computerworld.com/sco_in_court_again_novell_wants_19_979_561_00">"SCO in court again: Novell wants its $19,979,561.00"</a>. Although it's really just a bunch of links to other stories you've probably already seen.<br /><li>ZDNet: <a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39409701,00.htm">"SCO chief testifies: 'Linux is copy of Unix'"</a>.<br /><li>Couple of Slashdot stories: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/01/1856237">"Darl McBride Takes the Stand In Novell v. SCO"</a>, and then <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/05/02/1259231.shtml">SCO's McBride Testifies '<br />Linux Is a copy of UNIX'</a>. <br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-19935380642873281382008-05-01T09:49:00.000-07:002008-05-01T14:19:35.600-07:005/1 SNR: "Darl took issue..."From GL's now heavily-updated <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080430193035760">Day 2 story</a>, we learn that Darl took the stand yesterday, and it sounds like it was quite a show. One courtroom observer delivers a quote for the ages:<br /><blockquote><i><br />Darl took issue with what he believed was Mr. Acker calling him a liar. Mr. Acker took exception and said he thought it had already been established that Mr. McBride tells the truth in the 10Qs.<br /></i></blockquote><br /><br />And the morning batch of media coverage:<br /><ul><li>Ars Technica: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080501-deluded-sco-ceo-on-witness-stand-linux-is-a-copy-of-unix.html">"Deluded SCO CEO on witness stand: <i>'Linux is a copy of UNIX'</i>"</a><br /><br /><li>OSNews: <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/19705/McBride:_Linux_Is_a_Copy_of_UNIX">"McBride: <i>'Linux Is a Copy of UNIX'</i>"</a>. Seems like Darl's star turn in the witness box isn't garnering many rave reviews. It's kind of puzzling really -- he had to have known he'd be on the stand sooner or later. And for the kind of money SCO's paying the guy, he could certainly afford some basic intro-level acting classes. But noooo. That's hubris for ya, I guess.<br /><br /><li>CIO Today <a href="http://www.cio-today.com/news/Novell-Says-SCO-Owes-It--20M/story.xhtml?story_id=0010004F00GD">reprints</a> yesterday's Deseret News story, in case you haven't seen it. <br /><br /><li>Salt Lake Tribune: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9114227">"Novell may expand its claims"</a>. Confusingly, the title refers to the possibility of Novell going after Sun and Microsoft. I actually don't see that happening, or at least I don't see those potential disputes ending up in court like this one. They'll sit down behind closed doors and work something out, the way normal companies usually do, and we'll see some PR about an exciting new partnership between various firms, the financial terms of which will not be disclosed. Happens all the time. Sometimes I think people forget just how abnormal SCO's behavior really is.<br /><br /><li>Ians-Blog: <a href="http://ians-blog.com/article/114/novell-v-sco-pj-needs-your-help">"Novell v. SCO -- PJ needs your help!"</a> Fortunately these days "help" just means PayPal donations, as SCO appears to have gotten out of the stalking business. At least for the time being.<br /><br /><li>CelebrityPro.com: <a href="http://www.celebritypro.com/news/chris_brown/Apr08feed/First_Word_from_Day_1_of_the_Novell_v_SCO_Trial.rss.htm">"Chris Brown News - First Word from Day 1 of the Novell v. SCO Trial"</a>. This one is probably not worth your time other than for the amusement value. Apparently there's another, R&B singing, non-courtroom-observing Chris Brown out there. It looks like CelebrityPro just aggregates all stories and blog posts containing a name. For each story, it generates a page full of cheesy youth-oriented flash ads (Axe body spray and so forth), with a link back to the original story. <br /><br />At least I think that's what's going on. The other possibility is that "our" Chris Brown is the real celebrity, and he's finally getting his 15 minutes. It's unlikely, but possible -- after all, <i>I've</i> never heard of that other guy, so how famous could he be, really?<br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-28577517862664693362008-04-30T15:58:00.000-07:002008-04-30T17:51:51.741-07:004/30 SNR: SCO v. Novell, Day 2So we're halfway there, wherever 'there' is. I haven't seen any courtroom reports yet, but Al P. has the official minutes <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=63198&pt=msg&mid=4673769">here</a>.<br /><br />The minutes mention that today SCO begged for something called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_dismissal">involuntary dismissal</a>", which if granted would make the case go away, never to return. No word on what grounds (if any) they think this is justified. I suspect the details will be rather amusing.<br /><br /><i><b>Updated:</b> GL's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080430193035760">coverage of Day 2</a> is up now. Not much detail yet, though. PJ typically updates the existing article when new info arrives, instead of creating a new article, so it's worth checking back again later.</i><br /><br />Until we hear today's news from SLC, here are some articles about yesterday's thrilling courtroom drama. Most are from local UT media, by reporters who've been covering the SCO saga for a while now. So I'd imagine they all attended the trial yesterday.<br /><br /><ul><li>Salt Lake Tribune: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/technology/ci_9101557">"Novell licensing beef with SCO tied to 1995 version of Unix"</a><br /><li>Provo Daily Herald: <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/264257/18/">"SCO, Novell trial underway"</a><br /><li>Deseret News: <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274921,00.html">"Novell says SCO owes it $20 million; SCO begs to differ"</a><br /><li>Server Watch: <a href="http://www.serverwatch.com/eur/article.php/3743896">"Enterprise Unix Roundup: Law and Order, Unix Edition"</a>. In which the SCO case gets second billing behind the Hans Reiser trial & conviction.<br /><li>Lamlaw: <a href="http://www.lamlaw.com/tikiwiki1983/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=491">"First Word from Day 1 of the Novell v. SCO Trial"</a> <br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-88449693710658997112008-04-29T17:16:00.000-07:002008-04-29T17:38:48.224-07:004/29 SNR: SCO v. Novell, Day 1At GL, <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080429182910157">the story so far</a>.<br /><br />Based on the trickle of news so far, it ounds like we haven't come to the eventful part of the trial yet. Assuming there's going to be an eventful part. I still suspect SCO's going to weasel out of this somehow. I don't know how. I don't even have any serious guesses about how. But still, I'm not sure I'll believe this is for real until there's a verdict. And maybe not even then.<br /><br />Until we hear anything further, here's today's batch of trial preview stories:<br /><ul><li>InternetNews: <a href="http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/04/sco-novell-trial-starts-today.html">"SCO Novell Trial Starts Today"</a><br /><li>Slashdot: <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/29/1141231">"SCO v. Novell Goes to Trial Today In Utah"</a><br /><li>Deseret News: <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274653,00.html">"Trial starts today in SCO lawsuit"</a><br /><li>Salt Lake Tribune: <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9066483">"SCO Group vs. Novell: New round"</a><br /><li>LocalNews8.com: <a href="http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8234091&nav=menu554_2_3">"Novell turns tables on SCO Group"</a><br /></ul><br /><br />Oh, and the Novell trial gets a quick mention in <a href="http://iphone.sys-con.com/read/552255.htm">MOG's puff piece</a> about the FranklinCovey deal. Btw, she says the FC deal is a "revenue-sharing" arrangement. Which (if true) means SCO only gets to keep a portion of any Me Inc. revenue from the deal, assuming said revenue ever exists. Somehow this is good news for SCO, though, probably because they're leveraging proactive synergies outside the box, or some damn thing.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-9480214283294388172008-04-28T23:59:00.000-07:002008-04-29T01:08:40.218-07:004/28 SNR: "Could it really happen!?" EditionSo unless a miracle of the bad kind happens in the next few hours, tomorrow morning will see the start of the long-awaited, long-delayed SCO v. Novell trial. I can't believe it myself, but it really does seem as if they're prepared to go through with it this time. Both sides have filed <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080423221023415">trial</a> <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080424212157620">briefs</a> this time, although SCO's arrived in redacted form. It's not clear to me what they hope to gain by that; anything in the trial brief will presumably show up at trial a few days later. I suppose they might try to shoo spectators out of the courtroom for parts of the trial that involve ultra-double-secret Methods And Concepts -- assuming Kimball goes along, of course. <br /><br />So PJ has a <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080428203024187">preview</a> of how the trial "should" play out. I'm still not convinced, though. I can't think of a convincing scenario in which SCO delays the trial once again. I haven't seen anyone else come up with such a scenario, either. But I still don't quite believe it's going to happen.<br /><br />This is what I suspect will turn out to be the key point: Tomorrow is merely the beginning of the trial, not the end. The thing's supposed to take four days, which means it might, or might not. And after those four days, Kimball will rule on the case at some indeterminate point in the future. And once that's happened, SCO's already promised to appeal, on the grounds that the (presumable) verdict is not what they had in mind when they first sued Novell, and they'd like a do-over, please.<br /><br />The best possible outcome for SCO this week is to be found liable for $0, and that would be a bit surprising. If that happens, I imagine their stock might go up temporarily, and the Norris deal might go forward, and things will seem relatively peachy for a while... until it's time to go ahead with the IBM case. <br /><br />A more realistic outcome is that SCO's found liable for some or all of the $30M Novell's asking for. There's been some discussion in the last few days about whether the $30M should go to Novell, or back to Sun & Microsoft. Truth be told, I don't particularly care, so long as SCO doesn't have it. If, as seems likely, SCO can't give any money back because they've spent it all on lawyers, it's not great news exactly, but it's still $30M they don't have anymore. So that's something, I guess.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-18610340163845940692008-04-23T23:59:00.000-07:002008-04-24T01:16:38.084-07:004/23 SNROk, this is a bit late, as usual. I got started compiling a list of news stories about the dead SNCP deal, and never quite got around to posting it. It'd be a shame for all that work to go to waste, I guess, so I'll attach that at the end in case you really feel like reading old news. But first, the new and newish stuff...<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>As always, whenever SCO has actual product news I try to lead off with it. It's a thing with me, I guess. It's big news even when it isn't inherently big news, just because it's so rare anymore. At this point, whenever something new or updated hits the street, there's a chance it just might be the very last product SCO ever releases. So the latest out of Lindon is the colossal, stupendous <a href="http://mobile-voip.tmcnet.com/topics/mobile-communications/articles/25535-sco-intros-new-version-hipcheck-mobile-remote-it.htm">Shout Postcard 1.1</a>. Among the thrilling new features: It would run on more mobile phones if anyone wanted to; there's an audit trail to track what these hypothetical users use the software for, if anything; and it's available in Japanese, in the unlikely event anyone in Japan would be caught dead using a big, clunky American mobile phone. Still, as I said, big, <i>big</i> news<br /><br /><li>In recent years there have been far more announced SCO products than released ones, so this item isn't quite as big news as the first. Seems that SCO's <a href="http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20080422/LATU06022042008-1.html">teaming up with Franklin-Covey</a> for some sort of Me Inc. personal organizer / time management doodad. Eerily similar to the old DT4 app they promised and apparently never quite delivered as part of an erstwhile partnership with Day-Timers. Also eerily similar to the interweb-based Franklin Planner stuff Darl was in charge of during his own Franklin-Covey days.<br /><br />This announcement has actually gotten a bit of press, believe it or not. Stories at the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9021082">Salt Lake Tribune</a>, <a href="http://www.telecommagazine.com/newsglobe/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_4124">Telecommunications Magazine</a>, <a href="http://www.techrockies.com/story/0014929.html">techrockies</a>, and <a href="http://internetcommunications.tmcnet.com/topics/broadband-mobile/articles/25947-franklincovey-the-sco-group-bring-collaborative-mobile-planning.htm">TMCNet</a>. Possibly this is all because Franklin-Covey stuff is a big deal in some quarters. Ok, so the TMCNet piece strongly resembles the press release, and the techrockies blurb is short. The other two are ok, though, and tell you probably everything there is to know about the deal. Unusually, the press release does have a quote from a VP at Franklin Covey, but the SL Trib story includes the line <i>"Representatives of FranklinCovey did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment."</i>. <br /><br /><li>Ok, let's be honest here. You don't <i>really</i> care about SCO products, real or otherwise, and neither do I. Luckily there's stuff going on in the legal world too, so let's talk about that instead. In the BK case, April 21st was the cutoff date to file a proof of claim. Basically creditors were supposed to file a form stating how much money they want from SCO, or in some cases that they want an amount TBD later. You can explore all the filings <a href="http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/SCO/claim/search.aspx">here</a> if you want to. A few highlights: Novell wants the $30M they intend to win from SCO, assuming SCO v. Novell ever goes to trial. IBM has a $0 placeholder claim for whatever they win from SCO, assuming SCO v. IBM ever goes to trial. SuSE asks for a bit over $1M over the Swiss arbitration, but says this is a preliminary number and notes the final one may be more like $50-100M. Sun (yes, Sun) also has a $0 claim, which reads as if they're threatening or preparing to sue SCO, presumably over their infamous SCOSource deal. Citi Financial wants $3M, but only if SCO stops supporting UnixWare 7.1.3. Amici (the infamous Boies tentacle) wants $440k for their usual "document handling" services. A former employee stakes a claim relating to a current age discrimination + harassment complaint. And the hits just keep on coming.<br /><br /><li>On GL, a bit about SCO's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2008042209004021">latest monthly operating report</a>, such as it is. Several GL readers of the accounting persuasion point out various inadequacies with the latest report. Although I have to admit I don't entirely grok what they're saying, not being of the accounting persuasion myself.<br /><br /><li>The 23rd was the deadline for SCO to file its <a href="http://www3.law.cuny.edu/wc/students/usage/brief.html">trial brief</a> for the Novell case (Novell filed theirs back in September, prior to the original trial date). So far no sign of it, although I don't have a PACER account to check directly. Kimball's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-485.pdf">order</a> setting the deadline & trial date mentions that filing a trial brief is optional. They may just be putting as little time and effort as possible into the case, with even the remaining optimists at SCO just hoping to get the thing over with so they can appeal and win those guaranteed gazillions, or whatever.<br /><br /><li>Oh, and they've announced <a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/the-sco-group-announces-sco,341866.shtml">SCO Tec Forum 2008</a>, so mark your calendars. Still in Vegas, still in August, but this year it's moved from the Mirage casino to the Planet Hollywood casino. Because, well, the Mirage has a BK claim against SCO for unpaid bills relating to last year's SCO Tec Forum. Including someone's $71 room service tab, if you can believe that. So it's off to a new casino this year. The announcement claims Stephen Norris himself will appear at the event, although I imagine that all depends on whether we ever see a revised SNCP deal, and whether the BK court goes along with the deal. The original deal proposal said NewNewSCO would unveil a shiny new business plan and a shiny new board of directors at Sco Tec Forum 2008. Without the deal, the event will probably be far less interesting. Rumor has it the annual meeting of SCO users and resellers will be held in parallel with the event. In the hotel bar. Last booth on the right. Although if things go badly in the courtroom, they may move it out to the parking lot, strictly BYOB.<br /><br /><br /></ul> <br /><br /><br /><hr><br />So here are those old SNCP links I promised. FWIW.<br /><br /><ul><li>eWeek [SJVN]: <a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2390331032.html">Another SCO buyout stumbles</a><br /><br /><li>E-Commerce Times: <a href="http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/SCOs-Plan-to-Rise-From-the-Ashes-Flickers-Out-62460.html?welcome=1207605065<br />">SCO's plan to rise from the ashes flickers out</a><br /><br /><li>Daily Herald : <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/261392/18/">SCO negotiating new Ch. 11 plan</a><br /><br /><li>Deseret News: <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695266913,00.html">Insolvent SCO scraps its reorganization plan</a>.<br /><br /><li>And both last and hindmost, <li><a href="http://soa.sys-con.com/read/536587.htm">MOG's spin</a>. Feh.<br /><br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-15702316565592068092008-04-02T23:11:00.000-07:002008-04-02T23:49:27.678-07:004/2 SNR: $100 Million? What $100 Million?Um, as I was saying about that $100M buyout deal... well, <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080402145608651">deal's</a> <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=60831&pt=msg&mid=4474639">off</a>, sorry. Seems that the chorus of <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080326180944670">vehement</a> <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080328001146985">objections</a> had the desired effect, and -- as it turns out -- there is actually a downside to utterly failing to meet the basic requirements of a bankruptcy reorg plan, like showing that the buyer actually has the money, and that you have some sort of business plan in hand so you won't be back in BK court again in a year's time. Stuff like that.<br /><br />So they're insisting the deal isn't completely dead, and they're going to restructure it as a straight asset purchase instead of the initial intricate proposal (which I havek to admit I couldn't make head or tail of, myself). So maybe we'll hear from SNCP again. Although SCO's also never admitted that the DaimlerChrysler suit is lost for good, even though there's no longer any such thing as "DaimlerChrysler". <br /><br />My personal hunch is that SNCP won't be up for another bite at the apple. Certainly not an asset purchase type of bite. The problem with any future asset purchase is the same thing that sank the York deal. SCO would have to come clean and state specifically exactly what it owns, and be able to prove it. They've gone to ridiculous lengths over the last 5 years to avoid doing that, and I doubt they'll start now. And this time around everyone's watching a bit more closely; already the BK trustee has cautioned them not to try selling anything they don't own. There's no way to spin that as a good sign, not that I can think of.<br /><br />The really great thing about the deal falling through (other than, obviously, the deal falling through) is that there isn't enough time left to put a new deal together before the Novell trial. The SNCP proposal would've expired if it hadn't been approved by April 28th, the day before the trial, which suggests the numbers only penciled out if there was still some doubt about the outcome of the Novell case. If another deal appears in the future, which is far from certain, it will happen after the case is over, and Kimball decides how much SCO owes to Novell. That's going to change the whole landscape, and not in SCO's favor. <br /><br />Now, if they'd filed a viable plan in a timely fashion and generally played by the rules, there might've been time to fix any deficiencies before the 29th, a.k.a. Doomsday. But instead they tried to railroad the thing through the BK court at the last minute, and now there's no time for a Plan B. Oh, well. C'est la vie.<br /><br />I think SCO's main goal is to stave off the Novell trial in any way they can. That's what the BK filing was about, and that may be what the York & SNCP deals were both about. And they certainly weren't in a hurry to get the trial going before the BK filing, either. Unless they can find a way to get the BK stay reimposed in Delaware, I think the focus now shifts back to Utah, and figuring out if there's any last-minute way to game the system and push the trial date off a few more months. I'm not a lawyer (have I mentioned that yet?) so I don't know what their odds might be. My hunch is that they aren't good, though.<br /><br />The news coverage of the latest twist ought to be good. I'll try to do another roundup tomorrow and cover at least the choice bits. I'm serious. Or if not tomorrow, at least some time soon, before the Novell trial at least.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-84977170207955451782008-02-15T08:05:00.000-08:002008-02-15T08:59:30.723-08:002/15 SNR: $100M?! WTF?!If you've been waiting in vain for new SNR posts since December, there's a very simple reason why there haven't been any: I'd rather lost interest in SCO, and it seemed like the only bit of suspense remaining was whether the company would completely evaporate before the Novell trial date in April. There was a bit of recent news about major layoffs at the company, and I considered posting about that, but it felt like gloating over ex-employees' misfortune and I couldn't bring myself to do it. <br /><br />And then yesterday <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080214125705140">we learned</a> that some insane private equity firm and its unnamed friends want to dump "up to" $100M into SCO, and they babble on about the bright future ahead for the company. Proving once again there really is one born every minute.<br /><br />So if the plan goes through, it's a whole new ballgame... to use a cheesy sports metaphor in "honor" of Darl, who apparently will <a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9111132755.html">get the boot</a> under the new reorg plan. That would be one silver lining to yesterday's news, I suppose. And SCO may actually have the cash to pay back Novell after the trial. They may even survive long enough to lose the IBM case too, so that we'd finally get a definitive, favorable resolution of SCO's crazy Linux accusations. So that would obviously be a good thing as well.<br /><br />Overall, though, I really just want to know what Stephen Norris and friends have been smoking. To look at SCO in 2008 and see a huge upside potential is simply bizarre. UnixWare and OpenServer have insignificant and rapidly declining marketshare, and the installed base for both continues to evaporate. And Me Inc. has been kicking around for several years now without gaining any traction whatsoever. SCO's wares aren't just niche products -- they're <i>fringe</i> products. It's been years since anyone's taken them seriously as a tech company, and nothing in the reorg plan suggests they have any clue how to change that, if they even intend to. In recent months they've gotten rid of quite a few employees on the technical side, some of them holdovers from the AT&T days. So if the plan is to make money by selling products, like a <i>normal</i> company would, they're in worse shape than ever, no matter how much cash they have in the bank.<br /><br />On the legal side, all the money in the world can't make a false accusation true, and that's all SCO's got. Considering who they're up against in the courtroom, even $100M (or "up to" $100M, technically) shouldn't be enough to scare any of the falsely accused parties into settling. I expect that somewhere in the not too distant future, SNCP and friends will be completely bewildered over why they ever invested in this silly worthless company. Meanwhile Darl gets his golden parachute, and SCO becomes somebody else's problem. It just might be the only good business deal he's ever made, and then only for himself.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-91565898643787096742007-12-27T02:51:00.000-08:002007-12-27T03:11:58.599-08:0012/27 SNR: Delist-O-Licious EditionSCO's been <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/industries/technology/article/sco-receives-nasdaq-notice-letter_418966_12.html">officially</a> <a href="http://www.rttnews.com/sp/Quickfactsnew.asp?item=3">expelled</a> from NASDAQ, effective today. Finally. They first received the delisting letter way back in September when they filed Chapter 11, and since then it's been months of pointless appeals and procedural gamesmanship. That's finally come to an end now. <br /><br />This doesn't mean the monster's finally dead, of course. They're still limping along in BK court, and there's the upcoming Novell trial (if SCO can hold out that long), and even the stock still exists in a somewhat less reputable form, assuming they switch to trading OTC after this. The venerable Yahoo SCOX board, however, may vanish in the near future. It's been sort of a nature preserve for trolls and those who feed them for quite a while now, so I can't say I'll be too broken up when it goes away. A few years ago I'd have been glum about it, but now I just think "good riddance".<br /><br />In any event, Happy Holidays!brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-49829589550082676312007-12-19T22:19:00.001-08:002007-12-20T10:55:09.202-08:0012/20 SNROk, I've fallen a little behind on my SCO-watching duties again. The last few weeks haven't been hugely eventful, but a few things have transpired in the last few days. And for the sake of completeness, I ought to at least mention a couple of earlier items I ought to have written about when they happened, and just sort of didn't.<br /><br /><i>[It came to my attention that I originally dated this thing 11/20 instead of 12/20. I really did get rusty at this stuff. Sheesh.]</i><br /><br /><ul><li>SCO wants <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071219004012610">permission to renew their leases</a> in Utah & New Jersey. And in Utah, they want to keep renting from Canopy, no less. Sure is funny how they managed to ask at basically the last possible moment, like they always do. It may seem unfair, and it may seem like they're railroading the BK court, but I think they'll get this one. Since they're in Chapter 11, the court's not likely to force them out of business over the cost of a lease, while they're <i>allegedly</i> still trying to reorganize and get back on their feet, or tentacles, or whatever. Besides, at the rate they're burning Novell's money on lawyers and cushy bonuses and such, they'll have to switch over to Chapter 7 before too much longer. Speaking of which...<br /><li>They also want <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200712191738477">permission to hand out bigger bonuses</a> than the BK court approved earlier. Seems it's becoming more and more difficult to keep employees from jumping ship, and the previously-approved caps are no longer sufficient to buy (or at least rent) the loyalty of key personnel. Which may be the absolute, unvarnished truth, come to think of it. On the other hand, I don't see how cranking up the burn rate helps SCO avoid cratering. They just want to pay current employees more to do their existing jobs. Current employees doing their existing jobs is what got SCO where it is today. <br /><li>The ever-relentless Panglozz has tracked down the CP80 Foundation's recent nonprofit IRS filings, and they look <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=52925&pt=msg&mid=3710207">a bit on the peculiar side</a> to say the least. I'm no tax attorney or anything, but the numbers just don't seem to pencil out. Trying to explain the situation is beyond me -- go check it out for yourself if you're curious.<br /><li>Sandeep Gupta <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071218162527323">is out</a> as head of SCO Operations. He only just got the big promotion a couple of months ago, post-BK. I wonder what that was all about? I wonder if we'll ever find out? In any case, Jeff Hunsaker is the new Sandeep Gupta, except that he comes from a sales background rather than a technical one. Oh well, it's not like SCO needs technical folks anymore. Hunsaker, you might recall, oversaw a series of SCO's market triumphs, starting with Caldera Linux, then moving on to SCO's Unix OSes, and finally to Me Inc. So he's got to be the sort of guy who doesn't let bad news get him down. That ought to come in handy in his new job. <br /><li>More important than any of this is last Thursday's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071213212122236">joint statement</a> by SCO & Novell, in which they offered Kimball several proposed trial dates. So SCO v. Novell could go to trial as early as January 11th, less than a month from now. And less than two months before the 5th anniversary of SCO suing IBM, for those of us who keep track of such things. One interesting bit is that SCO proposed a date in April that'd conflict with the still-scheduled arbitration in Switzerland. Novell didn't go along, hinting that they might try to get the BK court's stay lifted on that matter too. That ought to be fun.<br /><br />While the Novell trial is eagerly awaited by all, there are really only two items there's any suspense about. First, the exact dollar value SCO owes to Novell. Second, exactly how soon afterward we'll see the inevitable MOG article proclaiming SCO the winner. <br /><li>A recent Blankenhorn piece: <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1823">"SCO bankruptcy was celebrated online in 2007"</a>, in which he compares SCO to notorious cartoon villain Boris Badenov, of Boris & Natasha fame. He concludes with: <i>"In what may be the final humiliation for SCO, Groklaw’s recent posts have generally moved on to discussing Microsoft and OOXML."</i> And yes, that's got to be a bit humiliating. Around the time SCO filed BK, Darl said something about how happy Linus Torvalds and Sam Palmisano would be about SCO's difficulties. In reality I suspect neither guy has spent much time thinking about SCO at all, in the last couple of years. Now PJ's starting to move on too. At least they've still got me to kick them around, for whatever that's worth. I mean, this blog has "SCO" in the title, it's not like I can just switch gears and start ranting full time about M$ Exchange or Vista or whatever. I probably ought to have thought of that before I began this thing. Oh, well. I've said before that the "SCO" in the title really means "Stuff i Care abOut". Meanwhile, SNR could be "Signal to Noise Ratio", "SuperNova Remnant", or (my #1 choice) "Snr: Not Recursive". I'm not sure I've convinced anyone yet, but I can keep on hoping, I guess.<br /><li>Oh, and I, uh, got it all wrong about the December 5th hearing, as you might've noticed. Looks like the Cattleback deal's going through after all, and the mysterious buyer is an entity called "BlackMaple". I hope we're not witnessing the birth of a nasty new patent troll. In any case, SCO gets another ~$500k to pay back Novell with. Unless they spend it all on lawyers and such first.<br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-19649438753688211312007-12-04T00:25:00.000-08:002007-12-04T01:59:39.445-08:0012/4 SNR: Patently Absurd EditionSo the next SCO BK hearing is tomorrow, and the one issue of substance on the agenda is the Cattleback patent deal. Although I don't think it's hugely important in the larger scheme of things, it's quickly becoming one of the more bizarre episodes we've seen during the long, sordid SCO saga. Let's recap, shall we?<br /><br /><ol><li>SCO declares BK, and the filings briefly mention a new subsidiary, Cattleback Intellectual Property Holdings.<br /><li>SCO files an oddly named motion asking the BK court to approve the Cattleback patent sale, despite providing almost no details, not even the name of the buyer. Most people had forgotten SCO even owned any patents, since they'd never managed to go trolling with them. (Or use them in real live products. That's pretty much a given with SCO.) It wasn't clear what the deal meant, but all that furious handwaving looked awfully suspicious.<br /><li>Time passed, and other matters occupied the limelight for a while. Once SCO v. Novell was back in business, Novell filed <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007112816360756">objections to the deal</a>. Ouch!<br /><li>Another objection was filed by a previously unknown firm calling itself the "363 group", which showed up out of the blue and offered to buy the patent (or patents, plural, as they worded it) for a ~17% premium over what the original super-secret buyer agreed to pay. Ok, technically 363 didn't show up <i>completely</i> out of the blue. Turns out they're a division of Ocean Tomo, the firm that brokered the original patent deal. WTF!? SCO and Cattleback (its zero-asset, zero-employee subsidiary) pretend they're about to sue each other over a deal between Cattleback and Ocean Tomo. And then when the two mortal adversaries propose an amicable settlement and a hearty round of large cash bonuses, who shows up and objects but another arm of Ocean Tomo. <br /><li>Oh, and the US Trustee <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071130001907705">filed an objection</a> too. I gather that's never a good sign if you want your deal approved.<br /><li>So on Monday they finalized the agenda for Wednesday's hearing, and poof, 363's gone again. If they ever hand out an award for briefest cameo in the SCO soap opera, they'll at least be one of the nominees. A little too much public scrutiny, perhaps? Didn't realize they were bidding against their own client? Mindboggling.<br /><li>But not so mindboggling as the latest bit. Turns out the ultra-mysterious buyer is a <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071203174642627">client of the same law firm</a> Novell's been employing in all matters SCO. So presumably Novell's lawyers know who the buyer is, although I gather they can't share that info with Novell<br /></ol><br /><br />At some point, you just have to stop connecting the dots and hum a few bars of "Duelling Banjos". <br /><br />One of the things you learn watching SCO is to never ascribe to malice or stupidity what you can ascribe to malice <b>and</b> stupidity. I suspect there's more to the recent WTF moments than we know yet. I suspect there's a plan, or at least a scheme, behind at least most of what we're seeing. That tends to be the case with SCO, it's just that it's never a very <i>good</i> plan. Often an intricate plan, vehemently argued (see "methods and concepts", APA hairsplitting, etc.), but always a stupid plan in the end. Strictly "12 Dimensional Chess for Dummies" type stuff. So right now I expect to see SCO scream bloody murder about the potential conflict of interest thing and try to get Novell's lawyers thrown off the case. I also expect this scheme won't work, and (as usual) they'll be dumbfounded that it didn't.<br /><br />Further, I don't see the court going along with the Cattleback sale. I figured there would be objections from various parties wanting more info about the deal. SCO could satisfy those objections by explaining the deal a bit better, but so far they haven't done so. There's still time, and we may yet see them dump another pile of documents on the court an hour before the hearing. Or the court will give them a deadline to comply and fess up, which they'll do -- sort of -- exactly two minutes before the deadline. Assuming the court's still willing to cut them slack, that is, and that may not be a wise assumption after the York shenanigans.<br /><br />I actually don't care that much about the Cattleback deal other than for the entertainment value. It's strictly a sideshow, almost entirely unrelated to the issues in the IBM & Novell cases. The very fact that people are arguing over it now means that they're successfully delaying the BK case, avoiding pesky details like forming a creditors committee and submitting a realistic reorg plan. They are, however, showing their true colors very early, so that they're likely to be viewed with a great deal of skepticism once it's finally time to deal with the meat of the BK case. All that trouble, all that lost credibility, all those burned bridges, all over a lousy $500k. Smooth move there, guys. <br /><br />I think SCO's run into a common pitfall among bankrupt companies. If you declare BK, your fate's in the hands of a court that specializes in people just like you, and a US Trustee, and creditors' attorneys who do the same. And they've seen it all before, every last trick in the book. Even if you <i>are</i> as smart and clever and creative as you think you are, they've <i>still</i> seen it all before.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-82209720705635284572007-11-27T17:31:00.000-08:002007-11-27T17:54:26.910-08:0011/27 SNR II<ul><li>PJ's got today's ruling <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071127151556531">here</a>.<br /><br /><li>And as you'd expect, Zen's got <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=51025&pt=msg&mid=3544182">all of the day's docs</a>. Note, in particular, Novell #472. Yes, Novell. Within hours of today's ruling, Novell's already informed Kimball about it. With all of the noise SCO's been making about how eager they were to proceed with the Novell case (ok, mostly it was MOG saying that), you'd think they'd have informed Kimball immediately. It must've just slipped their little minds, I guess.<br /><br /><li>Slashdot <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/11/27/2130227.shtml">has the news too</a>. At the moment there aren't any comments referencing Soviet Russia, Natalie Portman, Beowulf Clusters, or even "Fr1sT P0st". I know because I looked, for once. So if you hurry, you could be the first.<br /><br /><li>The GL story's on Digg <a href="http://digg.com/linux_unix/Novell_wins_order_to_lift_stay_of_SCO_v_Novell_Order_as_Text">here</a>. I've never really taken the time to figure out Digg, but feel free to drop by over there and vote, or comment, or do some "social networking", or do whatever it is they do. If you're so inclined.<br /><br /><li>Coverage at <a href="http://www.techspot.com/news/28024-novell-may-proceed-to-sue-sco-says-judge.html">TechSpot</a> as well.<br /><br /><li>Meanwhile, the latest plague on our industry: <a href="http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=796745">Nigerian patent trolls</a>. Seriously. Well, "seriously" if you think they're genuinely Nigerian and not, say, Redmondian. <br /><br /><li>A thread on c.u.s.m about <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/browse_thread/thread/8041fb9242e9e453#c28f73f63dfdc40f">converting PCX files to JPG</a>. Yes, PCX files. Remember those, from back in the pre-Win3.1 days? This is what passes for cutting-edge technology in the SCO world. And yes, solving this problem requires ImageMagick, which is GPL'd Free Software.<br /><br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-10228520081674410602007-11-27T13:32:00.000-08:002007-11-27T13:52:23.606-08:0011/27 SNR: The Circus Heads Back to UtahAs expected, Judge Gross has <a href="http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-233.pdf">unstayed</a> <a href="http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-232.pdf">SCO v. Novell</a>, so we're finally going to see a trial after all. That is, unless SCO has another weird delay scheme up their sleeve, and it wouldn't be a total surprise if they do. At least they can't weasel out of it by declaring bankruptcy this time.<br /><br />On the other hand, maybe SCO's looking forward to a trial. At least that's what MOG's been telling us for a while now, and you can totally trust MOG... to be MOG. As the spin goes, as soon as SCO loses in front of Kimball they can head to the court of appeals, where total SCO victory is a guaranteed slam dunk (to use a cheesy Darlesque sports metaphor). When MOG says stuff like that it often reflects what SCO management is thinking, as if she heard it directly from the horse's mouth. Or from some orifice of the horse, at least. So don't be surprised to see some SCO PR fluff about how stoked they are to finally get their day in court, as if this was their super-genius plan all along. And I fully expect it to work out just as well as all their other super-genius plans have so far.<br /><br />So they declared BK to avoid the Novell trial, and now the Novell trial's going ahead anyway. That's got to chafe a bit, no matter how brave of a face SCO tries to put on it.<br /><br />I realize this is just another intermediate milestone on the road to "SCO Delenda Est", but I'm in the mood for a steak, and this seems like a reasonable excuse to go get one. Mmmmm.... Steak.....brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-80385703194319443822007-11-21T12:15:00.000-08:002007-11-21T12:44:45.307-08:0011/21 SNR<ul><li>Some coverage of the York non-deal:<br /><ul><li>SJVN <a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8935260272.html">speculates at length</a> about why the thing fell through, and is far more even-handed about it than I would've been.<br /><br /><li>A quick bit about it at <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1005725">LinuxJournal</a>.<br /><br /><li>At InformationWeek, our old chum Paul McDougall has <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204200964">a short piece</a> about yesterday's news. <br /><br /><li>Only a <a href="http://www.lamlaw.com/tikiwiki1983/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=432">brief blurb</a> at Lamlaw so far. <br /></ul><br /><br /><li>Oh, and there's a <a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/SCO-President-Darl-McBride-Its-Not-the-End-of-the-Line-60390.html">new Darl interview</a>, believe it or not. It's about what you'd expect. There are six questions total, and Darl answers three of them with cheesy sports metaphors. Then there's the boilerplate optimistic blather about exciting new mobile products. I really like the part where he says SCO will become the mobile flavor of Unix. I don't suppose he realizes that (unlike, say, the iPhone) Me Inc. doesn't actually put Unix on phone hardware. The only Unix connection at all is an OSR6 box on the back end, and that's only because SCO's trying for a bit of vendor lock-in. And good luck with that.<br /><br />Darl also once again compares SCO with the Apple of a decade ago. Note that Darl said all this while trying to sell SCO's assets to York and morph the company into a pure-play litigation troll. Apple never tried to do that, it's worth pointing out. Sorry, Darl, but there's more to being Steve than not wearing a tie. <br /><br /><li>Speaking of mobile *Nix stuff, Nokia's got a <a href="http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/gadgets/nokia-n810-internet-tablet-woohoo.asp">new Linux widget</a> on the market. Just in time for the holidays. Hint, hint. The N810 improves on the N800 I've gone on and on about here, sporting GPS and a 'real' keyboard. This also means they've dropped the price on the N800, and either one is stocking-stuffer-sized.<br /><br />Oh, and the forever-upcoming Linux-based PalmOS <a href="http://techdigest.tv/2007/11/run_the_palm_os.html">runs on the N810</a>. FWIW.<br /><br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-14592058852844799112007-11-20T16:36:00.000-08:002007-11-20T17:50:57.677-08:0011/20 SNR II<ul><li>A <a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8554039771.html">good SJVN article</a> on the York proposal, sadly overtaken by events. Ok, not "sadly" exactly. Creative effort, expended well in a good cause, but for naught. These things happen, I guess.<br /><br /><li>Also overtaken by events, a <a href="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695229128,00.html">Deseret News piece</a> about the Dec. 5th hearing.<br /><br /><li>From GL yesterday, the bit about <a href="http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-11-20-013-26-NW-CD-LL">SCO trying to sell Unix to IBM</a>. The law firm's terse logs merely say IBM wasn't interested. I'd be curious to know precisely what language IBM used to convey this sentiment, but no matter. The fact that SCO even tried this is just freakin' breathtaking. What's that word I'm looking for... it's kind of like "clueless", but a few orders of magnitude more so... <br /><br /><li>CIO Magazine: <a href="http://www.cio.com.au/index.php/id;1973109071;fp;4;fpid;16">"Eight Signs of Evil in High-Tech Companies"</a>. <br /><br /><li>From the "ugliness all around" department, here's <a href="http://www.sys-con.com/read/458700.htm">MOG on the Hans Reiser case</a>.<br /><br /><li>Over in blogospace, something called Microweb.biz offers us <a href="http://www.microweb.biz/news/sco-accuses-first-linux-user/">"SCO accuses first Linux-user"</a>. The site describes itself as "Delivering the old and new news and information on the top stories with a strong European focus". Which is obviously true. The story refers to very old news, as far as I can tell. And the European focus is obvious as well, if by that they mean the non-English-speaking part of the continent. And I quote:<br /><blockquote><i><br />The businesses ruzin already since halfway last year about rights on the source code of Unix System V. Cause for the dispute is SCO claim that Linux divide of the source code of its Unix-software contain.<br /></i></blockquote><br /><br />Seriously, these guys make "Paul Murphy" look good in comparison.<br /><br /><li>Elsewhere, a post titled <a href="http://perkypants.org/blog/2007/11/15/go-sco-go/">"Go, SCO, go!"</a> is not what you think. Seems that SCO's released a daylight savings patch for its OSes, which it's generously distributing <i><u>absolutely free</u></i>!!! Naturally if your SCO OS is no longer supported your only option is to upgrade your OS. Or do the DST update yourself, using the tips <a href="http://sconewsroundup.blogspot.com/2007/02/215-snr.html">I linked to back in March</a>. <br /><br /><li>After months of blessed inactivity, Lyons did a couple of new posts over at Floating Point semi-recently. I just noticed them because I haven't been checking all that religiously. In one, he provides helpful links to <a href="http://floatingpoint.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/sco-articles/">all his stories about SCO</a>, arranged chronologically. I'm not sure what occasioned this, but I imagine it's part of his attempt to put his SCO-shilling firmly in the past. Which is something I'm still not convinced of, btw. Even now, he often babbles on about Linux in peace-n-love hippie terms. I'm sorry, but anyone still who talks that way in 2007 is obviously a clueless marketroid who just doesn't get it and never will.<br /><br /><li>From c.u.s.m., a <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.misc/browse_thread/thread/94f009e65214f953#c713d7c2e76f9105">recent thread</a> on running OSR5.0.7 under VMWare on a Ubuntu box. Oddly, nobody bothers to mention the guy "needs" a $699 SCOSource license to do this. Go figure.<br /><br /><li>Meanwhile over on comp.unix.sco.programmer (Yes, there really is such a thing, at least in a vestigial sense), here are a pair of <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.programmer/browse_thread/thread/758bb78de13ec3f1#253723e0aed73a7b">recent </a> <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sco.programmer/browse_thread/thread/1a39847edae2fea4#6afd95e41ef8d55d">threads</a> about difficulties with OpenServer's License Manager. Whenever an OS comes with a "License Manager" misfeature, inevitably it errs on the side of DOS'ing you if it can't be absolutely positively certain you're paid up in full. If you're stuck with such an OS, your OS has a global single point of failure designed into it. So you'd better hope your "License Manager" is supernaturally reliable. If not, well, I'm sure your OS vendor would be delighted to explain your predicament to your pointy-haired bosses and accept the blame themselves. Or not.<br /><br /><li>And on comp.sys.sys5.r3, here's a poor soul who <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.sys5.r3/browse_thread/thread/5f89f980895accdb#271ae612626c4a90">needs boot media for some ancient NCR Tower boxes</a>. If you can help the guy out -- without violating the terms of your SysV license, obviously -- go give a brother a hand, ok? <br /><br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-84991736480462334812007-11-20T11:35:00.000-08:002007-11-20T11:53:19.364-08:0011/20 SNR: Stick a Fork in York -- They're Done!It's official: SCO's mega-emergency double-panic fire sale <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=50192&pt=msg&mid=3499549">is officially off</a>. Just before the big deadline SCO would've had to disclose exactly what they were proposing to sell, someone -- we don't know which side yet -- pulled the plug. Just when we thought SCO would have to finally make a definite statement about what it claims it owns, after all these years, <b>poof</b>. It appears to me that they're unwilling to do any basic disclosure even with tens of millions of dollars on the line. If the buyer wants to look in the box and verify there really is a pony inside, SCO's just going to leave the money on the table and walk away. The obvious conclusion, one that most people drew years ago, is that there's no pony in the box. <br /><br />So the immediate question in my mind is how to explain the big 28% drop in the stock yesterday. It's reasonable to wonder if somebody knew about today's news in advance and acted on it yesterday. Of course it's also true that a 28% drop in the stock translates to a whopping 7 cents, so I really don't know if that qualifies as "big" or not. I don't usually follow penny stocks like this, so a 7 cent change might just be random-ish Brownian motion. But having watched SCO for lo, these many years, I wouldn't count on it.<br /><br /><b>Updated:</b> GL's got the story <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071120141133294">here</a> now.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-75730278714639763652007-11-18T21:27:00.000-08:002007-11-18T22:51:34.229-08:00A semi-brief note on "Grokwar"Grokwar. The boards are thick with it. Everyone's talking about it. Even PJ's <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071115155803532">chimed in</a>, somewhat obliquely. For reasons I can't fathom, the hot issue of the day is not SCO's bankrupcy case, or the latest M$ shenanigans. No, it's all about comment moderation at Groklaw, and the dogged pursuit of random personality conflicts. My usual response is to try to calm things down and distract everyone with photos of cute kittens and so forth. That doesn't seem to be working this time around. So, as sole proprietor of this little corner of the anti-SCO multiverse, I figure I ought to say a few words about the current ugliness.<br /><br />I don't see any value in Grokwar. There's nothing to be gained by it. There really isn't. For the sake of argument, let's assume you're a partisan in the Grokwars, and your side finally achieves total victory, so that either a.) GL is utterly destroyed, or b.) the anti-GL crowd is utterly destroyed. What would you have you won, really? SCO would still be out there stirring up trouble, M$ would still be out there doing the same, and those who oppose them would be weak and exhausted from the endless, bitter infighting. For whom is this a desirable outcome? Who would be the real winner, in the end? Unsubtle hint: It wouldn't be you.<br /><br />I'm troubled by this impulse toward fratricide (or soricide, as the case may be), this inclination to see dark conspiracies and enemies under every rock. Don't take your eyes off the ball, folks. The enemy is SCO. Anyone who's against SCO is not the enemy. It's really that simple. If someone votes differently than you, or moderates your comments in a way you don't like, or doesn't rec you, or disses your colors, or says toMAYto when you say toMAHto, just roll with it. Let it be water off a duck's back. It's not so hard. <br /><br />So in case I haven't made it abundantly clear yet, this is not an anti-GL site (and I link to GL quite regularly). It's also not a pro-GL site (and I've been known to link to Al P.'s SCOFacts somewhat regularly as well). Not to invoke Godwin's law here, but if SCO's jackbooted thugs came for them, either Al or PJ (or both, if they could stand each other) would be welcome to hide in my attic for the duration, and I wouldn't rat them out. This blog exists because it seems worthwhile, most of the time, and because it's kind of fun, some of the time. My policy here (and everywhere) -- and my advice -- is to spend as little time as possible pursuing interpersonal conflicts, especially esoteric ones. Only fight over issues, not personalities, and only fight over issues when they matter. Otherwise, just freakin' shrug it off and forget about it, already. It's easy. Trust me.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-25465096544117607362007-11-13T21:56:00.000-08:002007-11-14T00:29:52.221-08:0011/14 SNR<ul><li>Turns out the 'big' hearing back on the 6th <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071106101704670">wasn't quite as big as I'd hoped</a>. The court won't hear the fire-sale motion until the 16th, and Novell's motion to restart the Utah proceedings is still under advisement, so we've still got those to look forward to. <br /><br />I suppose SCO could regard the outcome of that hearing as a win, in the sense that a temporary stay of execution is a win. I never had high expectations about the SuSE arbitration matter, and it does seem sort of reasonable to me that it would be stayed along with all the other proceedings. Which doesn't preclude SuSE/Novell from asking the judge to unstay it, of course, and I hope they at least try for that.<br /><br /><li>Right on the heels of the proposed fire sale, we learned that SCO <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071108123523631">sold one of its two patents</a> for about $570k. This deal is what SCO's "Cattleback Holdings" subsidiary was all about. The good Mr. Blankenhorn bashes the deal <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1652">here</a>, and it's an entertaining bit of invective, definitely worth reading. <br /><br />Blankenhorn does bobble the facts a bit at one point, where he asserts SCO's been suing over patents. Patents are about the only thing they haven't been suing over yet, and looking at the patent they sold it's a bit surprising they haven't. It's one of those vague and extremely broad patents so beloved by patent trolls, which is what I suspect the buyer wants it for. Maybe SCO was just too dumb to do it themselves. I mean, patent trolling is at least as odious a business as the stuff SCO's been up to, and I'm not trying to encourage that sort of thing. It's just that patent trolling often succeeds, a trait not shared by SCO's "method and concept" trolling. They could've quietly extracted mid-sized payoffs from a few key industry players and retired to the golf course, without ever attracting substantial media attention. But noooo, instead they had to declare jihad against all Linux users, and look where it's gotten them.<br /><br />Nobody's filed an objection to the patent deal just yet, but I suspect it's only a matter of time. If you're operating in Chapter 11, you don't simply transfer assets to a paper subsidary and have said subsidiary sell them. If you're bankrupt, the law assumes you're bankrupt because you're no good at managing your assets, and you need adult supervision for a while. That means you aren't supposed to dispose of significant assets without asking "mother may I?" first, which is what SCO just did, in a sneaky sort of way. Stay tuned on this one.<br /><br /><li>Oh, and the US Trustee's now <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071114002742380#comments">joined the chorus</a> of parties objecting to the fire sale. I still don't understand BK law enough to grasp exactly what this "ombudsman" business is all about, but I gather the US Trustee is entitled to supervise the proceedings to ensure the sale proceeds fairly, and SCO's proposal doesn't provide for that. <br /><br />My overall impression is that SCO declared bankruptcy without really understanding what it meant. I think Darl & Co. just saw it as a way to make the Novell suit "go away", and figured it'd be business as usual other than that. I suspect it's been one rude shock after another since then. Once they realized plan A was not to be, they came up with plan B, the fire sale, which looks to have been cobbled up in a great hurry. I can see why Darl likes the proposed deal, since he co uld divest himself of pesky things like "products" and "employees", and in return he'd get a big pile of cash so he could continue hunting the white whale. And it's a good deal for York too; they get software assets that just <i>might</i> be worth something, for what's basically pocket change by investment firm standards. If you aren't Darl, and you aren't York, the deal has very little to recommend it. I don't suppose they spent a lot of time figuring out how to sell the proposal to the BK court, which they're going to need to do. SCO isn't used to asking permission, doesn't really know how, and is either too dumb to hire somebody who knows the ropes, or too dumb to listen to them.<br /><br /><li>Here's an earlier <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202801648">InformationWeek story</a> about IBM & Novell objecting to the fire sale. It's a Paul McDougall piece, but it looks like even he can't dream up a positive spin for this. <br /><br /><li>I think McDougall's problem is that he's just enough of a journalist (barely) that he tries to stick to facts, more or less, and merely spins them to fit his biases. Which is a rank amateur's error. Look at how the pros handle it -- take MOG for example. She isn't limited by such mundane concerns as "truth" and "accuracy". If a client, say SCO for example, is paying you tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars every year, the truth is precisely whatever the client says it is, no more, no less. Witness her <a href="http://dotnet.sys-con.com/read/457496.htm">bizarro-world account</a> of the BK hearing on the 6th. She wasn't there, by all reports, and she doesn't claim to have been there, but she goes on and on in exquisite detail about what allegedly happened. It stands to reason she got the account from someone with SCO, and possibly improvised some details here and there. And still, absolute silence about the business arrangement between MOG and SCO. Why, full disclosure would be bad for business, of course.<br /><br />And a precarious business it is. Think about it: MOG's current gig involves misleading the public (and potential SCO investors/buyers) about what's going on in BK court. But she also gets paid at the discretion of said BK court. If you ask me, it wouldn't be at all unreasonable for Novell, or IBM, or the US Trustee to try to get the payments halted as an unnecessary expense. Even if it didn't work, it'd be highly entertaining to put various people on the stand and make them try to justify what SCO's spent on G2 over the years, and explain what they've gotten in return.<br /><br /><li>A few more tidbits on the <a href="http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/98771">renewed litigation</a> in Germany. A few years ago, in "round 1", SCO, or more precisely SCO's German subsidiary, promised to stop making false claims about Linux in Germany. Then just recently they went ahead and did it again, once again demonstrating the value of a SCO promise. My theory is that they figured BK nullified the previous agreement, so they were free to start lying again. SJVN covers it <a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2215951,00.asp">here</a>, and PJ attempts to explain the vagaries of German law <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071113135529406">here</a>. A viable alternate theory is that SCO Germany is in mid-meltdown right now, as evidenced by their <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071113124718963#comments">unlikely new CEO</a>, and the latest threats aren't part of a coherent strategy.<br /><br /><li>The delisting hearing was held on the 8th, so far as we know, but so far there's been no word on the outcome. Which isn't surprising at all really, because Nasdaq likes to make up its mind behind closed doors. So this is just to remind everyone that BK court isn't the only game in town.<br /><br /><li>A little product news to report. All you hardcore Shout Postcard fanatics out there will be pleased to know <a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LAM12912112007-1.htm">it runs on the new Palm Centro</a>. Which is entirely unsurprising since Shout Postcard already ran on previous Palm gadgets, and the Centro's more or less the same thing, in a smaller case and at a lower price point. In related news, Vista runs on the new chips Intel just announced. <br /><br />In case you're wondering, the Centro is not the long-promised Linux-based Palm we've heard so much noise about. It'll be fun to see how SCO reacts, assuming Palm ever goes down that route like they keep promising.<br /><br />Ok, so the real bit of interest here is that the press release strongly downplays the SCO connection. Now "Me Inc." is the name of the company, it seems, and we only learn it's a SCO subsidiary down toward the very end. I suppose it's only natural that they're ashamed about being part of SCO, and since they <i>are</i> part of SCO it's only natural they'd try to be a little sneaky about hiding the fact.<br /><br /><li>In more thrilling product news, there's a new maintenance pack out for OSR6. Coverage at <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3709791">InternetNews</a> and <a href="http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/prnewswire/LATU16106112007-1.htm">CNNMoney</a>. The second bit is just the press release itself, actually. Seems the new maintenance pack brings the latest exciting advances in Xenix emulation. Yeah, yeah, I know, back when OSR6 first came out SCO was bragging about how great Xenix emulation was, and how you could run all these old 16-bit games from the Xenix 286 days. So either the maintenance pack makes Xenix mode even <i>more</i> perfect, or perhaps it wasn't quite as fabulous as SCO led everyone to believe back then. <br /><br />In any case, the new update means that SCO's website now has a bunch of links with 'mp3' in the URL, which may be enough for them to fall afoul of the vast RIAA dragnet. Which would be a vastly entertaining spectacle.<br /><br /></ul>brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-75695331064381540162007-10-31T23:55:00.000-07:002007-11-01T01:54:32.609-07:0011/1 SNRSo the SCO universe is in a brief holding pattern until November 6th, when all hell is scheduled to break loose. That's when the BK court plans to hear arguments on a stack of motions from both SCO and Novell. The two biggies are SCO's petition to hold the proposed emergency fire sale auction, and Novell's to unstay the SCO v. Novell case and let Kimball sort out the conversion issue. If the BK courts worked like general-purpose courts, I'd expect all the motions to be taken under advisement, with an eventual ruling denying all the motions that might dispose of the matter one way or the other. But as PJ notes <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071029192844235">here</a>, BK court moves fast. Maybe that's overgeneralizing; some BK cases drag on for years and years with no end in sight, but right now the SCO BK matter appears to be moving much faster than the Novell & IBM cases ever did. It's still possible nobody will come away with a win on the 6th, but it may turn out to be a very critical moment in the SCO saga. If either side gets a win, they win big, and the possible outcomes appear to be mutually exclusive, so the judge can't simply approve all the motions on the table. Either SCO weasels out of the last few years of litigation, or Novell takes a key step toward putting SCO out of business for good, or possibly neither, but definitely not both. <br /><br />Oh, and there's that delisting hearing on the 8th to worry about right after that. In the event SCO's auction gets the go-ahead on the 6th, I wonder if they'll keep fighting the delisting battle or not. With the Unix biz gone, SCO would be down to the ongoing lawsuits plus a few random odds and ends, and may have no RL presence except for a mailbox at BS&F headquarters. There are plenty of OTC, pink sheet, and grey market companies operating that way, but they don't keep you on the Nasdaq if you don't have any employees anymore. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the proposed sale is getting a lot of press, understandably. SCO's Unix business may be a sad remnant of what it once was, but a lot of people still care who owns it.<br /><br />Stories at:<br /><ul><li>IT Jungle: <a href="http://www.itjungle.com/tug/tug110107-story01.html">"SCO to Sell Unix Wares for $36 Million?"</a>. The article briefly mentions that among the treasures York wants to buy are employees' desktop PCs and even the office furniture. Although I vaguely recall that SCO leased its office furniture from a Canopy tentacle at one time. I don't know if that's still true or not, and if I was Canopy I'm not sure I'd want my chairs back after SCO employees had been using them for the last few years. But you have to admit it'd make for an amusing court case. <br /><br />The piece also speculates about a "fairy tale ending", under which the new York/JDG entity releases the UnixWare and OpenServer code under an open source license. I seriously doubt that's in the cards, but it sure makes for a nice fairy tale, at least.<br /><li>CNet (Shankland): <a href="http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9804865-39.html">"SCO hopes selling Unix will raise $36 million"</a><br /><li>InternetNews: <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3707316">"SCO puts Unix up for sale"</a><br /><li>InfoWorld: <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/10/sco_to_sell_uni.html">"SCO To Sell Unix Business?"</a><br /><li>El Reg: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/25/sco_to_sell_linux_biz/">"SCO gets offer for Unix biz"</a><br /><li>The Inq: <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/27/sco-gets-bankruptcy-court">"SCO wants bankruptcy court approval to sell its Unix business"</a>. This is story initially reported SCO already had approval to do the deal, a goof the author humbly apologizes for at the end. It's a good piece, and even mentions the possible ties between York and Acacia (of patent troll fame). I'm not entirely sold on that angle just yet, but I do think it's reasonable to regard York with suspicion. <br /><li>VNUnet<a href="http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2202058/investors-eye-sco">VNUNet</a><br /><li>ComputerWorld<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9043982&intsrc=news_ts_head">"SCO gets 'potential' $36M offer to sell Unix business"</a><br /><li>TechRepublic<a href="http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-news/?p=1451">"SCO wants to sell Unix for cash to continue Linux fight"</a><br /><li>ComputerWorld Australia<a href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;490219298">"SCO Has a Buyer, Pending Bankruptcy Approval"</a><br /><li>Provo Daily Herald<a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/241276/3/">"SCO Gets $36M Bid"</a><br /><li>Linux Journal: <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1002708">"Someone Actually Wants SCO?"</a><br /><li>And finally SYS-CON, i.e. MOG: <a href="http://www.sys-con.com/read/448504.htm">"SCO Gets $16M Offer For Its Unix Business"</a>, if you're curious what ~$10k per quarter of SCO's FUD money buys these days.<br /></ul><br /><br />And on comp.unix.sco.misc, not a single word about the proposed sale. You'd think there'd be a little "what does the deal mean for us?" speculation, but no.<br /><br />I can't find the document now, but one of the recent BK docs mentions that SCO's once-vaunted "DT4" Me Inc./Daytimer app has shuffled off to the Great Bit Bucket in the Sky. The Daytimer company pulled the plug, and SCO's lawyers are considering legal action. Yeah. It'll be just like Project Monterey all over again, and SCO <i>almost</i> made trillions off that one, except for the losing repeatedly in court part. To the moon!!!<br /><br />Meanwhile, here's a piece about SCO's <a href="http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/97693">mysterious litigation in Germany</a>. The article suggests SCO's misrepresenting the case to the BK court, and they're actually trying to silence a critic of theirs over across the pond. All of that would be entirely in character for SCO. I'd like to know more about what's going on here. The redoubtable Al P. mentions the case in his recently filed <a href="http://scofacts.org/SCO-Group-bankruptcy-172.pdf">"Objections of Petrofsky to the Motions of the Debtors"</a>. <br /><br />And for the sake of completeness, the Salt Lake Tribune's piece on <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/technology/ci_7189028">SCO's recent layoffs</a>. I actually started a post about it, but it was all schadenfreude and gloating, and writing it felt kind of icky, so I nuked it. So just briefly and for the record, I'm just fine with the court's order sealing the names and personal details of those laid off. It's not that I buy SCO's hysterical hyperbole about ex-employees being harrassed, because I don't see that happening in real life. I just don't see it as very relevant, and the poor chumps have suffered enough already. They drank the Kool-Aid for years on end and followed the Dear Leader all the way into BK court, only to be thrown under the bus when York showed up and started flashing money around. That's got to sting a little. So if anyone's inclined to turn state's evidence, they'll do so without any prompting by well-meaning Linux supporters. It would be interesting to know which departments were affected by the cuts. I'm sure potential bidders would like to know if, for example, the layoffs were all senior Unix dev guys in the New Jersey office, or if they were just fluffy empty-suit jobs like "Community Outreach Coordinator" or "VP of Marketing".brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35094024.post-2966768196469236062007-10-23T21:55:00.000-07:002007-10-24T00:36:22.298-07:0010/23 SNRIt's been a couple of weeks since the last SNR post. My pitiful excuses will have to wait until tomorrow, though, because right now we've got some big news to cover. Hell froze over today, and in related news, SCO has an <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023172159177">actual "buyout" offer on the table</a>. I put "buyout" in quotes because it's not quite that simple. York Capital doesn't want the whole company, just certain assets. They're buying SCO's business units, but it doesn't look like that's their real angle. Despite all that blather from MOG about SCO "modularizing", York isn't the eager Me Inc. bagholder, er, buyer we were promised. I can't really fault MOG on that for once, though. I think everyone figured that was the one appendage SCO could slice off and sell successfully. I know that's what I expected to see. But no, the tea leaves (i.e. the proposed APA) suggest York wants into the Linux litigation business. Seriously. You're probably going, wait, there <i>is</i> no Linux litigation business. SCO's claims were debunked years ago, SCOSource withered on the vine for lack of customers, even their media shills have abandoned them at this point, and nobody takes them seriously anymore. What on Earth could York possibly be buying? Unix? I can't see them honestly trying to turn the Unix business around, I mean, nobody's <i>that</i> stupid. And Me Inc., a valuable asset? It is to laugh. All SCO has left to offer is a pile of used lottery tickets, none of them winners, and somehow they hooked themselves a buyer. How is this possible?<br /><br />The first thing to realize is that investment firms see the world differently than humans do. If you're a fund manager, paying $16M for something that almost certainly doesn't exist may actually seem like a good deal. Fund managers are gamblers by nature, and if you dangle a cheap lottery ticket in front of enough of them, you're bound to get a few bites. It worked on Baystar, and RBC, and Renaissance, and all the others. The difference is that York isn't content to let SCO play the Linux lottery on their behalf. They'd like the right to do it themselves, via a newly constituted entity. I suspect said entity ("NewNewSCO") will operate as a "pure play" IP troll, once they've laid off SCO's remaining engineers, sales & marketing people, and other nonessential staff. Meanwhile, "OldNewSCO", now asset-free, finally becomes the publicly traded lawsuit Baystar wanted them to become several years ago. So instead of one pack of litigious bastards, there'll be two. And I suppose when they're on the brink of losing in court, they'll declare bankruptcy again and undergo another mitosis, and there'll be four, and so on. <br /><br />Speaking of multiple entities: If I'm reading the deal right, only the York entity will get to call itself SCO (assuming it wants to), since the proposed APA includes trademarks. I wonder if any of the $16M is earmarked for the name, or Darl's tossing it in as a freebie? If York gets all the trademarks, I suppose they could call the new firm Caldera instead, or maybe Vultus, names that are nowhere near as sullied as SCO's, at least not yet. I kind of hope they go with "Vultus", because it's a truly stupid name.<br /><br />Back in the Baystar era SCO refused to hollow itself out and become a pure lawsuit factory, but now they're all hot for it, and they're proposing an "emergency" fire sale schedule, with an auction to be held December 5th. I think they're betting there won't be any other bidders on this dubious bill of goods. And if anyone else bids, and York loses the auction, they get a nice fat check for at least $780k. This might be a good time to point out that'd be $780k of Novell's money, just so it's clear what's going on here.<br /><br />So the deal goes on about how each company will share in the other's good fortune if either hits the jackpot, and York proposes to extend a $10M line of credit to SCO. And exchange for that line of credit, York gets to muscle its way to the front of SCO's long line of creditors. Cozy! Naturally SCO, as the distressed party in the deal, has certain unfavorable terms to swallow. First, York doesn't want to buy the Novell and IBM suits. And really, why would they? I certainly wouldn't. Likewise the ongoing Caldera IPO litigation, the "former Indian distributor" case, and all other non-Linux cases still belong to SCO. If I'm reading things right, York gets the AutoZone and possibly the Red Hat cases, and the right to file additional frivolous Linux lawsuits, and (I think) the right to sue over Me Inc. too. My guess is that the last bit is what York really wants. Mobile phone companies have deep pockets and seemingly prefer to pay up instead of fight, so it just might pay to go around filing groundless lawsuits against them. Besides, of all those lottery tickets York wants to buy, Me Inc. is the only one SCO hasn't scratched yet. <br /><br />This would all make a lot more sense if York was a newly minted bagholder with no prior history with SCO. But as the ever-relentless Panglozz points out, <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=47652&pt=msg&mid=3289996">they've had money in SCO since 2004</a>, and even had <a href="http://www1.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=47654&pt=msg&mid=3290076">dealings with Rich Emerson</a>, the M$ guy who arranged the Baystar deal. I'm not saying I see the black hand of Redmond behind the York deal, not yet anyway, but I do think it all looks a bit odd.<br /><br />Speculating about who's really writing the checks may be a moot point. I just can't see the deal going through as it's currently worded. First, SCO wants to sell the Unix biz, with York I suppose becoming Novell's new agent, for the same 5% cut of the take, all without Novell's consent. Meanwhile, Novell gets to continue suing the eviscerated, asset-stripped husk of SCO. I have this funny feeling they won't accept that sort of arrangement. SCO also proposes to sell the right to file new Linux lawsuits. There's no way for any potential bidder to know what this "asset" is worth at present. I don't see how they could reasonably auction it until certain PSJ's in the IBM case are sorted out. If we're lucky, IBM might "helpfully" point this out and talk the court into unstaying, say, CC10 for example. All in the interest of expediting the BK proceedings, of course. <br /><br />So in the end, this proposed deal just might turn out to be a good thing. Just not for SCO. The deal's weird enough that I'm going to have to stare at it a while and try to imagine what loopholes and sneaky tricks they've hidden inside of it. And I hope people who actually understand this stuff will do the same. It's a hell of a strange way to carve a turkey, that's all I can say.brx0http://www.blogger.com/profile/17988772767222837140noreply@blogger.com0