Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Novell Files for Summary Judgment Against SCO 112

Posted by CowboyNeal from the barristers-and-barring dept.
rm69990 writes "Novell filed a motion with Judge Dale Kimball asking him to grant summary judgment or a preliminary injunction on Novell's claims that SCO wrongfully retained the money it received from Microsoft and Sun for their SVRX licensing and sublicensing agreements. Novell indicated over a year ago, when they initially filed their counterclaims against SCO, that they were planning on asking Judge Kimball to force SCO to turn over these monies. However, Novell only recently received the actual licensing agreements between SCO, Sun and Microsoft through discovery, despite demanding copies of them as early as 2003, and thus was unable to determine that SCO had breached the APA until now, which is why this motion is being filed so late in the case. This motion will likely bankrupt SCO if granted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell Files for Summary Judgment Against SCO More

Novell Files for Summary Judgment Against SCO

Comments Filter:

  • Its about time (Score:2, Informative)

    by gcnaddict ( 841664 )
    Didn't IBM also file for summary judgement against SCO like, just a few days ago?

    Why do I get that funny feeling that SCO is screwed?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonobp ( 226246 )
      Yeah, they did.

      Are they screwed? That is not a good question because they were screwed when the first filed suit.

      Seriously, even if SCO wins, a verdict to that effect will not come around for perhaps 5-10 years. SCO thinks that they will then rake in a ton of money on their licensing. Like anyone would even use their Unix code by the time this is all said and done. I'm sorry but they killed their own company when the started all the lawsuits. They were so scared of Linux that they thought they needed to fig

      • Don't be sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 )

        I'm sorry but they killed their own company when the started all the lawsuits.

        Don't be sorry. This was never about SCO's business interests.

        This was an attempt to spread fear about Linux ... and when that wasn't working, it became a pump-and-dump scam so SCO executives could sell off their stock options at a profit (finally).

        Darl and friends all got what they wanted. Their business associates got a little more tarnish on their reputations. But Darl and friends walk away with $millions$.

        • Also notice that the millions came from Microsoft, through "partnerships" in setting up trade deals to keep SCO afloat for the past few years. SCO actually used ot have some useful products, but they've languished and decayed as their intellectual talent fled for the hills and the lawyers hopiing for a windfall win against IBM became more important to the company than actually writing software.

        • Re:Don't be sorry. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by schon ( 31600 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @10:39AM (#16258061)
          This was an attempt to spread fear about Linux ... and when that wasn't working, it became a pump-and-dump scam so SCO executives could sell off their stock options at a profit

          No. If you look at the timeline, it began as an attempt to extort money from IBM. Caldera was dead (apparently they never figured out that nobody would buy a Linux distro that used per-seat licensing) so they hired Darl McBride to sue IBM for "something", in an attempt to get a buyout.

          When IBM called their bluff, Caldera (now SCOX) began their media slams against them. This was when the stock pumping began (presumably, the stock pumping was done in an effort to encourage IBM to buy them sooner, rather than later.) At this time, they were publically stating that Linux was "clean", and it was just IBM who was at fault.

          Around April 2003, MS threw $60M at them (this is the money that they owe Novell) for "licenses" that MS already had, and wasn't even using. It was at this point that SCOX changed their tune and started the whole "millions of lines of code was dumped into Linux", their threats to sue Linux end-users, and their $699 "license". (The inference is that MS saw an opportunity to spread FUD, and that's what the money was for. The timing is just too good .)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by dave562 ( 969951 )
            You should be getting paid big money by major publications for your ability to create clear, concise summaries like that. Seriously. Think about submitting that to major papers to use as background for the story that they will eventually run when the case is over.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dbIII ( 701233 )

            This was an attempt to spread fear about Linux ... and when that wasn't working, it became a pump-and-dump scam

            Personally I think it was a scam from day one. To use a twisted metaphor - Darl deliberately drove the SCO car into the brick wall that is IBM and took it to his brothers panel shop to get fixed. The big name lawyers were only there for guest appearances - his brother is raking in a fair bit of the cash. I think it was set up to fail from day one - SCO is the victim of Darl here and the linux l

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by rtb61 ( 674572 )
              They might be questionable. It appears they purposely delayed the information to novell to avoid payment of monies owed, so that the money could be used instead to fund civil suits, and the wages of the executives and directors.

              If bankruptcy ensues, with out being able to make full restitution to novell, fraud and trading whilst technically insolvent, will become a real issue. The only hope for Darl might be information about microsoft that could be legally usefull to either IBM or Novell (interesting tim

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by nomadic ( 141991 )
          Don't be sorry. This was never about SCO's business interests.

          I disagree. This has always been about the money, and threatening linux was just a means to that end.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by toppsoft ( 443468 )
        A summary judgement means that the judge rules without a trial. No waiting 5-10 years for the legal system to churn.

        Of course, asking for one and getting it are two entirely different beasts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Marcion ( 876801 )
      Perhaps Novell figures that the need to be first in the queue of creditors when the liquidators arrive, having the money in a trust would mean they have a better chance at the money.

      I suppose if worst comes to worst then they could always go after Microsoft et al who have Unix licences that Novell have not been paid for.

      • SCO is between a rock and a hard place (Score:5, Informative)

        by Marcion ( 876801 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @10:09AM (#16257875) Homepage Journal
        SCO argues that the Asset Purchase Agreement gave SCO the rights to Unix, and thus the rights to hold IBM for account for its 'allegedly' putting Unix source code into Linux (most of the so-called 'evidence' for this was thrown out by the court because of the lack of line and file information). So if the Asset Purchase Agreement is held by the court to be valid then SCO owes Novell tens of millions. If the court says that the Asset Purchase Agreement is invalid then SCO does not have any property over the Unix code and Novell owns it all, Novell sacks SCO as their franchisee, and SCO do not have a business model or revenue income. Either way, I cannot see a future business model for SCO, their licence revenue is drying up year-on-year as people port their apps to Linux or Solaris; and all the people that can make money from Unix (as opposed to SCO who just lose it), that is Sun, IBM and HP, do not need SCO at all. Sun's Solaris is based on BSD and they have already bought a get out of jail free card for any Unix V pollution, and IBM had a licence from AT&T for AIX and want to move to Linux anyway, as with HP. Everyone else just uses Linux. If there is a market left for SCO, please tell me what it is?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by schon ( 31600 )
          So if the Asset Purchase Agreement is held by the court to be valid then SCO owes Novell tens of millions. If the court says that the Asset Purchase Agreement is invalid then SCO does not have any property over the Unix code and Novell owns it all

          Completely wrong. This has nothing to do whether the APA is valid or not. It *is* valid. Novell isn't contesting that at all. If both parties to a contract say that the contract is valid, then it's valid, end of story.

          • Re:SCO is between a rock and a hard place (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Marcion ( 876801 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @10:54AM (#16258149) Homepage Journal
            >Novell isn't contesting that at all.

            Indeed, it is SCO that wants to pick and choose which terms to accept. If the Judge does rule that they have to pay then it is game over for SCO.
          • If both parties to a contract say that the contract is valid, then it's valid, end of story.

            That isn't always true. A third-party beneficiary (or someone else with a special relationship, like an assignee) can challenge the validity of a contract on grounds of, e.g., illusion, illegality, or impossibility, even though the contractors assert its validity.

            Example:

            Quality Vendor sells products to Happy Customer.
            EVIL VENDOR: (holding a gun to Quality Vendor's head) Agree to sell me the Happy Customer business

        • Sun's Solaris is based on BSD and they have already bought a get out of jail free card for any Unix V pollution,

          Actually, no ... if it turns out that SCO was in breech, then they didn't have the right to sell a unix license to Sun for $8m. So Sun has an invalid license ... but they can always sue SCO (and SCO's directors) for damages.

          In a year it'll probably be easier to list the big-name players who AREN'T suing SCO (or at least have filed a claim against their bankruptcy).

        • Sun's Solaris is based on BSD

          Not the current version. Sun's original flavour of Unix was based on BSD, but for Sun OS 5 they based it on SVR4 from AT&T. A few bits of the last BSD based version were ported across (hence the /usr/ucb directory). The SVR4 version was called Solaris, but in a typical Sun marketing exercise they later renamed the last BSD version Solaris 1 and the current SVR4 version Solaris 2.

          • The Solaris 1 name wasn't just a marketing exercise. It was an intermediate version with both SVR4 and BSD pieces so that SunOS users could get used to the fact that Sun was moving over to SVR4 before the full-fledged flip-over. That way, people wouldn't be caught completely flat-footed by the final change-over.
        • Solaris 2.x, that is SunOS 5.x, is not based on SunOS 4.x. The SunOS 4 series was based on BSD, but Solaris was a full fledged Unix SVr4 implementation. As far as I am aware they recieved a License for the System V source to do their own implementation on Sparc.

          The current versions of Solaris have nothing to do with BSD; that was SunOS 4.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Timex ( 11710 ) *

          I cannot see a future business model for SCO, their licence revenue is drying up year-on-year as people port their apps to Linux or Solaris; and all the people that can make money from Unix (as opposed to SCO who just lose it), that is Sun, IBM and HP, do not need SCO at all. Sun's Solaris is based on BSD and they have already bought a get out of jail free card for any Unix V pollution,

          You might want to re-check your facts.

          Last time I checked, SunOS 4.1.x was BSD-based, and when Solaris 2.x was released, it

          • The copy of SPARC-based Solaris 8 that I have handy mentions that parts of code may contain code derived from BSD, but that's about it.

            Unless I'm mistaken, Solaris 8 contains at minimum the csh/tcsh, which is BSD licensed. While the advertising clause was removed in 1999, you still have to give credit to author in the docs. Unless ( AT&T | Novell | SCO | Sun ) had recreated all UCB/BSD code (userland or kernel), they would have to still have the credits in the manual.

            BWP

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Timex ( 11710 ) *

              Unless I'm mistaken, Solaris 8 contains at minimum the csh/tcsh, which is BSD licensed. While the advertising clause was removed in 1999, you still have to give credit to author in the docs. Unless ( AT&T | Novell | SCO | Sun ) had recreated all UCB/BSD code (userland or kernel), they would have to still have the credits in the manual.

              True, and that's why the documentation says portions of the code may be derived from code belonging to UCSD. That doesn't make the underlying operating system BSD-like th

    • The question should be, why have they lasted so long?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Because they were propped up by a "chinese wall" arrangement of financing through Baystar Capital, eventually leading back to, yes, Microsoft and friends.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Marcion ( 876801 )
        >The question should be, why have they lasted so long?

        Because Windows Vista was not ready yet ;)
    • They've been screwed since day one of the whole litigious fiasco. Shame seems not to have any effect or relevance to the SCOX management team, though, as they still believe their campaign to extort money from anyone/everyone associated with Linux development is the One True Way to corporate enlightenment. Unfortunately for them, potential customers are scared of doing business with them with their litigious ways, and efforts to support and sell UNIX and their Me mobile platform are being met with the soun
    • Maybe because it is? :)

      Finally!!

  • Jailtime for Darl (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    He obviously knew that the lawsuits were frivilous, so he was clearly acting outside his role as company officer. Who can go for him personally?
    1. Shareholders
    2. The SEC
    3. IBM, Redhat, Novell, Autozone and daimler
    4. All of the above

    I think option 4, the senior execs attempted to defraud stockholders in a pump and dump, fraudulently attempted to obtain money from autozone and dailmer and launched into damaging media tirades that were damaging to linux. Does anyone see this differently?

  • This could be it. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 30, 2006 @09:38AM (#16257705)
    Judge K. can decide on the issue of whether SCO has kept Novell's money. It is just a matter of law and there is no realistic dispute over the facts. (If there was a real dispute over facts then it would have to go to a jury.) It's just a matter of reading the contract.

    So, Judge K. issues a summary judgement saying that SCO has to give Novell 25 million dollars right now. That bankrupts SCO. That doesn't stop the court cases though. The bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court replaces SCO's management. The bankruptcy trustee then negotiates with the creditors (mostly Novell and IBM). All the cases are settled out of court. My WAG is that the out of court agreements include SCO (as directed by the trustee) admitting that they are wrong about all the cases and all the counterclaims.

    The counterclaim we all care about the most is IBM's counterclaim number 10. That's the one that says that there is no copyrighted Unix code in Linux. That will be the end of that particular piece of FUD.

    My fondest wish is that Darl goes to jail for Lanham act violations or for something the SEC charges him with.

    • Well, not quite (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That's the one that says that there is no copyrighted Unix code in Linux.

      In the 2.0.36 kernel tree there is a file in the net section where the ppl admit they took it from FreeBSD and then removed the BSD copyright.

      And the ATA code came from BSD/no it did flap a few years ago.

      So not everyone's hands are clean in the Linux kernel in the past.

      There is a likelyhood of shared code, but is 3 lines 'infringement'? 1 line? 30? 3000? 300,000?

      It would be best that there is no code. But being able to be shown w

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rm69990 ( 885744 )
        Novell and SCO are disputing ownership of the copyrights. BOTH NOVELL and SCO have distributed Linux under the GPL, for years. They BOTH have licensed its use in Linux. End of story.
    • My fondest wish is that Darl goes to jail for Lanham act violations or for something the SEC charges him with.

      MY fondest wish is that Darl gets to share a cell with "Bubba"...

  • Does anybody know what happens with the SCO vs IBM case, if this motion is granted and SCO is bankrupted before the IBM case goes to trial?

    I'd love to see a big SCO-shaped crater, but we've been following that case for so long, I want to see how it ends.

    • I read in the comments of the page that such a motion is only granted if it is shown that it will not make SCO bankrupt. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand why these motions exist then? Why would Novell get money from SCO in the first place? What has the deal with microsoft and sun to do with novell?

      • Re:If it's granted, what happens to the IBM case? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @10:00AM (#16257819)
        I read in the comments of the page that such a motion is only granted if it is shown that it will not make SCO bankrupt. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand why these motions exist then? Why would Novell get money from SCO in the first place? What has the deal with microsoft and sun to do with novell?
        When SCO/Caldera bought some rights to Unix System V from Novell they couldn't/wouldn't pay enough money up front. So they agreed that of all future license there would be a 95/5 split between Novell and SCO/Calders (yes, 95% to Novell).

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by nomadic ( 141991 )
        I read in the comments of the page that such a motion is only granted if it is shown that it will not make SCO bankrupt. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't understand why these motions exist then?

        If you're talking about the motion for an injunction, they're not intended as any sort of final resolution, but are just a way to prevent one or more sides from suffering harm while an issue is settled. A judge generally won't grant an injunction that will destroy a company before they get their day in court, as tha

      • There are two separate requests. (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The asset purchase agreement says that SCO is basically acting as an agent for Novell. They collect the money for the licenses, pass it on to Novell, and Novell gives them 5%. The important distinction to make here is that the money is owned by Novell; in other words, SCO has no claim to the money at all. That makes it different than saying that SCO owes money to Novell. It means that when SCO goes bankrupt, all the money goes to Novell; they don't have to share it with the other creditors.

        Anyway, the t
        • If you were interested in my initial question anyway of course :) But a very clear answer, I had expected something like that on groklaw, but there was no description at all, a shame for those who don't follow it every day. I guess SCO actually did something unlawful by not giving the money that belongs to Novell, and I wonder how completely stupid you can be to do something like that. If you start a huge process to get your "lawful" rights for chunks of code to you, why make blunders like that? Probably th

    • I'd love to see a big SCO-shaped crater, but we've been following that case for so long, I want to see how it ends.

      How about seeing a caldera? Here's Rabaul Caldera [mtu.edu], Papua New Guinea.

      Falcon

  • Too Bad It Won't Go (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MikeyTheK ( 873329 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @09:41AM (#16257723)
    Unfortunately, this has absolutely no chance of success. Motions for Summary Judgment are generally denied unless the other side's argument is so flimsy that there is no shot at it succeeding at trial, and is wasting the court's time. However, since a judge can't just dismiss a civil action for being st00pid, s/he generally first tries to get the parties to settle, and then tries to encourage the plaintiff (or defendant) to punt, to save them the embarrassment of granting a MSJ. If they refuse, then this might succeed.

    In a case like this, though, where the facts and evidence are sure to be the crux of matters, there is no way the judge will grant it, which is unfortunate.

    • Re:Too Bad It Won't Go (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Saturday September 30, 2006 @10:22AM (#16257955) Homepage

      Well, the motion isn't for the entire case, just one small specific sub-part of it - that SCO owes Novell those royalties. It seems to me (and I'm clueless about law except for following these things on Groklaw) that that point may be uncontroversial enough to grant the point.

      Of course, SCO will get to file a defence first, but it seems it's pretty hard to give arguments at all - they did receive the royalties, the contract does say that a large part of those go to Novell, and they haven't paid yet. Those are facts. Perhaps they'll be able to make the issue seem slightly controversial, but that won't be easy.

    • Unfortunately, this has absolutely no chance of success. Motions for Summary Judgment are generally denied unless the other side's argument is so flimsy that there is no shot at it succeeding at trial, and is wasting the court's time. However, since a judge can't just dismiss a civil action for being st00pid, s/he generally first tries to get the parties to settle, and then tries to encourage the plaintiff (or defendant) to punt, to save them the embarrassment of granting a MSJ. If they refuse, then this mi

  • Business implications? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pawes ( 597885 )
    So if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, what are the implications for those companies that use their OS?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Seven001 ( 750590 )
      Who cares? If anyone is stupid enough to still be using their OS, they deserve whatever comes to them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Pharmboy ( 216950 )
        I think McDonalds uses SCO Unix on their registers in all their shops. You know, the ones where the kids have to just push the symbol that looks like a Big Mac® because they can't be trusted to enter the right prices. At least they used to. Lots of systems still use unix like that, where it all ties to a central system.

        • Re:Business implications? (Score:5, Funny)

          by MrNaz ( 730548 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @10:23AM (#16257969) Homepage
          What, you mean they aren't using MacOS?
        • The last time I was in McDonalds (Australia, Sydney) they were having all of their registers replaced by some bloke with a Fujitsu shirt. So this may no longer be a problem.

          ...Assuming it ever was...

          • Fujitsu do a lot of integration work, which means they may have installed SCO Unix at MacDonalds in the first place. Changing the registers isn't really a good indicator that they're changing OS.

            On a related note, I was amazed to the Blockbuster Video chain still using DEC VT420 terminals a couple of years back. I wonder if their backend was still running on VMS ...

      • A few really big companies (think of people who process financial transactions) on systems that have been running on SCO since it made sense. They're using software with thousands of tweaks and patches that make it incredibly expensive to port to a different OS.

        They'll probably have to pony up the millions of dollars to practically rewrite their central processing software from scratch. (Maybe this time they won't use COBOL.) They won't be happy. It will happen over the course of years, since what they have

    • Initially, there is no impact. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday September 30, 2006 @09:59AM (#16257809)
      So if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, what are the implications for those companies that use their OS?

      Their systems will be running the same software on Judgement +1 as they were on Judgement -1. So their immediate situation shouldn't be any different.

      Also, if their management has any clue what-so-ever, they've already explored the costs/options involved in migrating.

      The best case scenario for them would be for IBM to win EVERYTHING including sufficient cash awards that SCO would be unable to pay them (this is looking very possible if Novell gets their judgement). Then IBM could take the SCO business as partial payment (under the same terms with Novell as SCO had) and I'm sure that IBM would offer very inexpensive migration services to get everyone to Linux or AIX or something else.

      This would be great PR for IBM's Linux drive. SCO attacked IBM/Linux and SCO was completely destroyed as a company and then IBM still took care of SCO's old customers (far better than SCO did with their lawsuits).

      You cannot buy PR like that.
      • Actually, if Novell wins this, then almost certainly the sco UNIX will revert to Novell as SCO has reneged on their agreement. And I would rather see Novell get it as they are doing Linux OS and would certainly push SUSE into the SCO space. And I would guess that IBM and Novell would quickly iron this out.

        What I want to see happen though, is for all of SCO's records to be turned over to Novell. I esp. want to see the records WRT MS and Sun's support of SCO. It would be interesting to find out how nefarious
      • Part of the APA says that SCO has to actively market Unix system V software. If IBM wins and assumes the responsibilities of the contract, then they would also have to actively market it. There is a clause that says Novell will take back its rights if the product isn't actively marketed.
    • So if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, what are the implications for those companies that use their OS?

      Not much too different from companies who based their IT systems on other OS's that went defunct(BeOS, Amiga, MPE, VMS, IRIX, DG/UX, OSF/Tru64, etc).

      They migrate their systems over to Windows instead. ;-)

      • Re:Business implications? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @12:26PM (#16258675) Journal
        Actually,

        The assets of the bankrupt company belong to the creditors - that would in the majority be IBM so, in effect IBM would be able to use these assets to realise any monies owed.

        In light of the fact that some of the potential 'assets' of SCO would have included the costs awarded to them IF they had won the case, IBM could now withdraw their request for summary judgement and pursue the claim(s) formerly alleged by SCO.

        Now, since IBM is also a defendent in the case, they could ADMIT the claims in the original SCO lawsuit and pay themselves nominal damages BUT also now have the case proven and so open the floodgates for them to pursue Red Hat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Slackware developers etc. etc. and each and every corporate and private Linux user.

        The result would be that IBM becomes the most evil force in the empire, Microsoft becomes the people's friend, Bill Gates is made a saint and everyone starts installing GND/HURD (but can't explain why), the world's economic infrastructure implodes and the only way to do any serious computing is to submit a batched application via teleprinter to your local University who had the forsesight to store their old VAX 11/750 in 1987 'just in case'.

        L3K

        PS : IANALAMTUFCE

        (I am not a lawyer and made this up for comic effect)

        • The assets of the bankrupt company belong to the creditors - that would in the majority be IBM so, in effect IBM would be able to use these assets to realise any monies owed.

          The major creditor would actually be Novell because the license revenues SCO didn't pay to Novell.

          Falcon
          • Thanks,

            References to 'IBM' will be replaced with 'Novell' as part of a patch kit to be released next Tuesday.

            Changelog
            =========

            Bug #0001: Replace 'IBM' with 'Novell'
            Bug #0002: Replace 'GND/HURD' with 'GNU/HURD' before RMS finds out and has a hissy fit

          • The major creditor would actually be Novell because the license revenues SCO didn't pay to Novell.

            Ya... but that's no fun. Novell already owns it!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I think they'll be very upset. Both of them.
    • So if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, what are the implications for those companies that use their OS?

      Once the corpse is picked clean, someone will wind up with the rights to SCO's dusty old Unixes so support would probably continue to be offered by other parties until those companies eventually migrate to an OS that's still being developed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      So if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, what are the implications for those companies that use their OS?

      If you mean the companies that were dumb/scared enough to pay for the privilage of using SCO Unix, I imagine the companies would have grounds to sue for their licence fees back since they were pruchased based on the idea SCO owned the rights to something they didn't.

      But that would assume they can. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some clause in the license that says by purchasing this license you are agreeing t

  • the Baystar connection .. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rs232 ( 849320 ) on Saturday September 30, 2006 @09:55AM (#16257793)
    "Mr. Emerson [Microsoft's senior vice president of corporate development and strategy] and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would `backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment....Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investement in SCO."

    "Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft"

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200609292 12013816 [groklaw.net]

  • 'Bout Damn Time (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vaderhelmet ( 591186 )
    C'mon, this has been dragging on for so long that it's gotten ridiculous (even more so than the first time I heard about it). It's just a nonstop round and round pissing match between SCO and any company that looked like it had deep pockets to take from. I seriously hope that this move nails their coffin shut and closes their doors forever. I think I will file a motion to have Darl McBride declared an economic terrorist and taken away to Gitmo!
  • FINISH HIM!

    Oh, sorry, wrong thread.

    Hang on a sec... maybe not. ;)

    Looks like Novell and IBM are going for the finishing blow. And if IBM are true to form, this will be very, very slow and very, very public.

    My regret is that the scum who participated in this little pump-and-dump will get to hang on to the money they made.
    • They passed Sarbanes-Oxley because of Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom/MCI.

      If SCO really did conceal $25-odd million dollars of SysV royalties from Novell three years ago *and* failed to properly disclose this material fact in their SEC filings and statements to investors, Mr McBride might want to find a Monopoly set and hang on to that "Get out of jail free" card.
      • you mean the card that is currently underfoot of a legion of Penguins?? (if you squint hard enough you may see that they are really a very large and very metallic Deamon does oh "A missile-launching skyscraper with goat legs. 'Nuff said." ring a bell?)
  • means "Asset Purchase Agreement" here.

    The top Google results for "define:APA" are

    American Psychological Association
    Association of Police Authorities
    A professional trade association comprised of both publicly and privately employed planners.
    or jala - water [from Ayurvedic medicine)
    Auxiliary Personnel Attack
    the Engineered Wood Association, formally[sic] known as the American Plywood Association
    Army pre-positioned afloat
  • "This motion will likely bankrupt SCO if granted."

    Seeing SCOX(E) bankrupt after claiming I owe them thousands of dollars for running Linux-based OS's on a couple machines will be satisfying. But I wonder if it has a little tinge of missing the point, like convicting a murderous gangster for tax evasion? Are there any legal declarations we'd still like to see come out of these procedings, that might be short-circuited by pre-trial SCOX(E) death? Any of their claims that not surviving to the end of the

  • Here's the SCO vs IBM case schedule. [groklaw.net] Note how many key steps are now complete and in the past. Discovery is over. Expert reports are over. The final deadline for expert discovery passed last week. No more surprises. No more "secret evidence". No more stalling. We're past that. All the evidence is on the table now. The process grinds slowly, but it does grind.

    Now the process speeds up. There's a significant deadline every few weeks now. Right now, summary judgement motions are being briefed and decid

  • I feel bad for the honest engineers who work there, but I hope that Groklaw. etc. keep covering the story as indictments against Darl and his cronies are filed. This will be most amusimg to watch. Especially since very soon he will not be able to afford his personal bodyguards since I'm convinced that both Novell and IBM will be able to pierce the corporate veil by proving willful negligence and intent to deceive.

    Caldera (the new SCO, what we now know as SCO) was once a great company (opened up DR Dos, off
    • ... could be witnessing the company's shenanigans and still be considered honest.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Teancum ( 67324 )
      Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if Novell ended up actually owning the trademarks for DR-DOS, SCO, and Caldera as a result of the bankruptcy?

      Just food for thought. Or perhaps even more silly would be that all of those (especially Digital Research!) ended up being owned by Microsoft instead?
  • Does anyone else see SCO in the same light as those cheesey ending of thrillers where the baddie is dead and everything is lovely.. then the baddie isn't dead, after all. So they kill him again... etc etc. (repeat until required cheese level is achieved).

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close