SCO Group (SCOX) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : SCO Group (SCOX)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (186)	4/25/2007 5:45:31 PM
From: tonysee200x	of 239

“but I have to admit that I can't understand how Novell current management would say things that appear to be so incorrect in the eyes of the Novell executives who negotiated the deal. “ Novell's current management has not recently commented on the case. On the other had the Novell legal team has already said-- The APA explicitly excludes copyrights Minutes from the Novell board of directors meeting just prior to the sale says copyrights are excluded. copyright law requires a explicit document to indicate the rights have transferred. None has been produced. Also recent filings say David Bradford who was the Senior Vice-president and General Counsel, who oversaw the negotiation and drafting of a contract between Novell and Santa Cruz says. “The Asset Purchase Agreement means what it says: copyrights were not included as an asset; copyrights were specifically excluded from the asset transfer. The exclusion was intentional. Should any persons suggest otherwise, they are mistaken. “ *Allison Amadia who negotiated the famous amendment 2 says “......Novell was not going to transfer ownership of any copyrights to Santa Cruz through Amendment No. 2.” >>> IMO-- The fact that Frankenberg understood the agreement to include copyright transfer is interesting and confusing but absent and written document backing this up I am not sure what it means legally. >>> oh and not surprisingly I think the exact opposite to you regarding the short interest. I believe people covering shorts is supplying enough buyers to prevent the stock from tanking more then it has. I don't think many new people are coming in and shorting the stock at $.99. My thinking is once the shorts are done covering the number of buyers goes down and the price of the stock goes down with it.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next