SCO's 1Q 2005 Earnings Conference Call (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Groklaw has assembled a transcript (with accompanying mp3 audio) from the recent SCO 1Q conference call. "My overview impression of the call is that it was an attempt to resurrect SCO's old bullying persona, to go back to the "good old days", when a few companies bought SCOsource licenses and we were all under the impression the litigation was about Linux, and the stock went flying. Is it about Linux? You tell me. If you say it is, kindly also inform me exactly what code is allegedly infringing will you? With specificity? My inquiring mind wants to know. We've been asking that question for two years now. Silence from SCO. Or evidence the judge found not credible."

(Log in to post comments)

SCO's 1Q 2005 Earnings Conference Call (Groklaw)

Posted Apr 18, 2005 17:03 UTC (Mon) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

Is it just my imagination, or has the SCO party line on indemnification changed over time?
THEN:

He added, "What we would encourage AIX customers to do right now is make IBM assure them that they'll do everything they can to try and bring this to full resolution. I think that IBM needs to indemnify their customers and right now I don't see how they can do that."-- Blake Stowell, 2003-06-17

"The distributors pass the hot potato to business end users by shielding themselves with the GPL by saying, 'This product has no warranty and no indemnification.' So now if Linux has problems, including misappropriated intellectual property going into Linux, the end users are left holding this hot potato."-- Chris Sontag, 2003-10-08

NOW:

"We put that program together, we started to make some sales, things were moving along, and then roughly a year ago, we had a number of third-party companies, there's probably over a half dozen companies out there, that stepped up and said, "We're going to provide indemnification to basically preempt you from taking a SCOsource license, I'm sorry, indemnification from having to worry about SCO lawsuits in the future", which basically then had a lot of other customers come back and say, well, they are either going to take one of those licenses or they are going to come back when our claims are more complete, and then talk about a license." -- Darl McBride, 2005-04-15

(Thank you, Groklaw quote database!)

SCO's 1Q 2005 Earnings Conference Call (Groklaw)

Posted Apr 18, 2005 17:15 UTC (Mon) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

They can't think far enough in advance to see that people will react to their BS. I don't think it says much for their intelligence.

Smartest thing you can say about any legal case

Posted Apr 18, 2005 17:43 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

"In a statement, example.com said that its company policy is not to comment on litigation."

Does anyone wonder why companies do that now?

Smartest thing you can say about any legal case

Posted Apr 19, 2005 1:50 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

For the same reason that many did it before: only idiots try to play poker with their cards showing.

Sounds like

Posted Apr 18, 2005 17:53 UTC (Mon) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

Sounds like Darrrrl is trying to setup a pretext for suing some indemnification companies for
restraint of trade or at least interfereing with their licensing program.

Shocking, I know.