View Full Version : MS feeds another $8,000,000 to SCO
Stacey
11-07-2003, 09:51 PM
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147824
--
Stacey
Yousuf Khan
11-08-2003, 01:01 AM
"stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:boi00l$1dg2sn$1@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de... http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147824
IBM and Microsoft fighting legal battles through other companies.
Yousuf Khan
Tony Hill
11-08-2003, 03:56 PM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:51:36 -0500, stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:http://www.vnunet.com/News/1147824
Here's the actual statement, straight from the SEC filling:
"During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, SCO entered into a
licensing agreement with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"). The
initial licensing agreement allowed Microsoft, at its election, to
exercise two options to allow Microsoft to acquire expanded licensing
rights with respect to SCO's UNIX source code. During the quarter
ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid for the first of
these options. During SCO's current quarter, ending October 31, 2003,
Microsoft exercised and paid $8,000,000 for the second option."
And for those wondering about the previous licensing value, here's a
little bit from the quarterly report, dated Sept. 15.
"We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these
existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others
in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property
without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the
execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter.
The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a
long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in
the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that
were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second
license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers
Microsoft's UNIX compatible products, subject to certain specified
limitations. The Sun and Microsoft license agreements are
non-exclusive, perpetual, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source
code.
The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally
depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the
amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to
license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in
revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and $7,280,000
during the July 31, 2003 quarter. The license agreement with Sun
provides for an additional $2,500,000 to be paid to us by November
2003. On July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised an option to acquire
expanded licensing rights. Upon delivery, we expect to recognize
additional revenue related to this option."
It actually looks like Sun has been paying more in licensing than
Microsoft has. In fact, Sun also invested $150,000 in SCOX at about
the same time.
-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Dean Kent
11-08-2003, 05:28 PM
"Tony Hill" <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:4e700bfbfc1cfcd6a434f7aa3c7cbca6@news.1usenet.com... It actually looks like Sun has been paying more in licensing than Microsoft has. In fact, Sun also invested $150,000 in SCOX at about the same time.
Well, who is in more trouble - Sun or MS? And who stands to lose the most
if Linux continues to expand its market? I think that the dollar amounts
paid to SCO as the 'hatchet man' gives us a pretty good indication, if we
hadn't already seen the financial statements...
Regards,
Dean
------------- Tony Hill hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Stacey
11-08-2003, 07:15 PM
Tony Hill wrote:
And for those wondering about the previous licensing value, here's a little bit from the quarterly report, dated Sept. 15. "We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatible products, subject to certain specified limitations. The Sun and Microsoft license agreements are non-exclusive, perpetual, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code. The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and $7,280,000 during the July 31, 2003 quarter. The license agreement with Sun provides for an additional $2,500,000 to be paid to us by November 2003. On July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised an option to acquire expanded licensing rights. Upon delivery, we expect to recognize additional revenue related to this option." It actually looks like Sun has been paying more in licensing than Microsoft has.
?? Where does it say this? The above money is a combined total of the two
companies licenses.
Also Sun was paying for UNIX licensing as it sells UNIX systems and probably
has been paying these licensing fees for years.
When did MS start selling Unix (or linux etc) based OS's to anyone? Or
anything based on the unix OS's source code? Next we may see MS claiming
=they= now OWN the linux source code and will try to squash it that way?
--
Stacey
George Macdonald
11-10-2003, 06:32 AM
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 22:15:18 -0500, stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tony Hill wrote: And for those wondering about the previous licensing value, here's a little bit from the quarterly report, dated Sept. 15. "We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these existing licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"), a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code and a major participant in the UNIX industry, and was a "clean-up" license to cover items that were outside the scope of Sun's initial UNIX license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"), and covers Microsoft's UNIX compatible products, subject to certain specified limitations. The Sun and Microsoft license agreements are non-exclusive, perpetual, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code. The amount that we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of $8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and $7,280,000 during the July 31, 2003 quarter. The license agreement with Sun provides for an additional $2,500,000 to be paid to us by November 2003. On July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised an option to acquire expanded licensing rights. Upon delivery, we expect to recognize additional revenue related to this option." It actually looks like Sun has been paying more in licensing than Microsoft has.?? Where does it say this? The above money is a combined total of the twocompanies licenses.Also Sun was paying for UNIX licensing as it sells UNIX systems and probablyhas been paying these licensing fees for years.When did MS start selling Unix (or linux etc) based OS's to anyone? Oranything based on the unix OS's source code? Next we may see MS claiming=they= now OWN the linux source code and will try to squash it that way?
Microsoft sold Xenix in the early '80s ('81/'82) for 8086/8088 systems
through various OEMs. AFAIK they had a non-exclusive license for it from
HCR (Human Computing Resources of Toronto) who "developed" it from Unix V6
(or V7?). SCO purchased HCR in 1990 but I'm not sure what the relationship
was between SCO and HCR before that and the whole history of Intel x86 Unix
is a tangled web of license transfers and acquistions back in the early/mid
'80s. One version of the history has SCO obtaining its initial Xenix
license from Microsoft in the early '80s... possibly a total exclusive
transfer of rights at some (later) point... since M$ now appears to have to
buy some of the rights back again.
Remember that there was a lot of trading of software going on as the PC
started to catch on - e.g. Microsoft licensed its first "C" compiler for
DOS from Lattice and MS-DOS itself was originally a license of QDOS (Quick
& Dirty Operating System) from Seattle Computer Systems.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
MyLounge.com Site Map
Forum:
Cars,
Cell Phone,
Database,
Games,
Home Improvement,
IT,
Music,
School,
Sports,
Web Design,
Web Server,
Weight Loss
The MyLounge.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not
be relied upon and is not a substitute for any advice. The information contained
on MyLounge.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation
of the opinions of MyLounge.com. MyLounge.com does not warrant or vouch for
the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications
of any person responding. Please consult a expert or seek the services of an
attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation. Please note
that our forums also serve as mirrors to Usenet newsgroups. Many posts you see
on our forums are made by newsgroup users who may not be members of MyLounge.com
Term of Service
vBulletin v3.0.7, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.