Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government Operating Systems Software The Courts Unix Novell Linux Business News

Darl McBride Takes the Stand In Novell v. SCO 138

Posted by timothy from the utah's-own-information-minister dept.
UnknowingFool writes "Everyone's favorite CEO Darl McBride took the stand on Wednesday April 30 in Novell v. SCO. Chris Brown has posted his account on Groklaw of the 2nd day of trial. The first day's account can be found here. To refresh your memory in this ongoing case, Judge Kimball has already ruled that Novell owns the copyrights to Unix and has practically dismissed all of SCO's claims. This portion of the trial is about Novell's counterclaims that SCO never paid them the money from the Sun and MS deals. What is to be determined in this trial is how much of the money from the deals were for Unix licensing (SVRx) and how much were for SCO's server technology (Unixware)." (Read on for the rest, below.)
UnknowingFool continues:

"Reading the account, it seems that the SCO folks are currently trying to delicately separate Unixware and SVRx. However Novell's lawyers are quickly pointing out in the past where SCO made no distinction between SVRx and Unixware in their literature or press releases. In day 1's account, SCO's tree picture shows Unix as SCO IP (Unix).

Also SCO's position is that it owes Novell nothing because the deals to MS and Sun were Unixware deals and not SCOSource deals (the much despised Linux licensing program) or SVRx deals. Novell points out fatal flaws in SCO's arguments. Sun wanted the ability to open source some of their Solaris code (which became OpenSolaris). Solaris and Unixware both branched from SVR4 so they would need permission from the owner of SVRx copyrights, not the Unixware owner. That owner is Novell. The MS deal is a little different in that MS wanted Unixware rights AND rights to legacy Unix (SVRx).

The best part of the cross-examination was Darl refusing to admit that the MS and Sun deals were not SCOSource, but Novell showing SCO's financial statements (10Q) where both deals were listed under SCOSource and not Unixware revenue."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Darl McBride Takes the Stand In Novell v. SCO More

Darl McBride Takes the Stand In Novell v. SCO

Comments Filter:
  • I have (via Ars Technica) some interesting comments from his testimony [arstechnica.com] yesterday. He stated (under oath):

    ... many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers ... We have evidence System V is in Linux ... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].

    This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day.

    Also, as to his book remark, he didn't [amazon.com] look very hard [amazon.com]!

    Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

    • This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day.
      Wait... you're going to claim that Darl McBride is a liar?!?!? I'm totally shocked!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Z00L00K ( 682162 )
        Why not - everybody lies about something - you just have to figure out what!

        An interesting comment from Groklaw:

        Before selling Nathan's car to Marty, Scott had it repainted. A really nice paint job. Scott claimed that the only thing of value that Marty was buying was the artistic paint job. The car was merely incidental - it was just the canvas for the art work. Therefore, Nathan shouldn't be entitled to the money that Marty paid.

        Tom M.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

      I'm sure most of us would love to see McBride behind bars (I know I would), but I'm afraid it probably won't happen. In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.
      • But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by DaveInAustin ( 549058 )
          Actually, Darl managed to sell [korgwal.com] quite a few shares between the time the lawsuit was announced and when the stock tanked. That is, during the time when he was telling the press about the "rocket scientists" who found the "millions of lines of code".
          • Hmm, perjury, plus a possible insider-trading rap. Sounds like the kind of thing that could send him to a pound-you-in-the-ass federal pen.

            -sigh-

            We can only hope.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by chromatic ( 9471 )

              We can only hope.

              Why would you ever wish prison rape on anyone?

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by NotBornYesterday ( 1093817 )
                Sorry if I seem insensitive. I do not wish rape - prison or otherwise - on anyone. I am only wishing federal prison upon him for the (apparent) perjury and insider trading.

                I'm not saying that I want him to *literally* get screwed. Metaphorically, sure. It's about time he and the other greedy, souless suits at SCO receive a taste of what they dished out in their vicious, deceitful battle against Linux and the software industry in general. "We can only hope" they see prison time, because I think these

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Simon80 ( 874052 )
          I would assume that he sold some of the stock before it went down the tubes, unless he's just stupid.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.

          I thought the whole point of the pump'n'dump was to dump after pumping.

          • 1. Announce lawsuit leading people to speculate SCO will get a big judgement or license fees. Price goes up.
          • 2. Sell SCO stock.
          • 3. Profit.
          • 4. SCO loses and stock price falls, but this no longer concerns you.

        • But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.

          Though I disagree about the "plutocracy" statement Darl could have unloaded a lot of stock before the company tanked.

          Falcon

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ibbey ( 27873 )

            I disagree about the "plutocracy" statement

            Disagree all you want, there sure aren't many examples of it happening. True, in extreme cases rich people do go to jail, but it takes almost overwhelming evidence for it to happen. Like videotape of OJ actually stabbing Nicole -might- have been sufficient. Phil Specter, Robert Blake... There are others. And even when they do occasionally get convicted of something, they typically don't serve the same type of hard time that the great unwashed do. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are far less comm

            • True, in extreme cases rich people do go to jail, but it takes almost overwhelming evidence for it to happen.

              That's how it's supposed to be, for a criminal trial it requires the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt to vote guilty. Only in civil cases does "guilty" only require guilty based on a preponderance of evidence. That's why OJ won the criminal case but lost the civil case. As Thomas Jefferson [baseballmusings.com] said, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned."

              Falcon

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ibbey ( 27873 )
                Fair point. The real problem isn't that the rich get off to easy, or that the poor don't. The real problem is that the two groups are not punished equally. Your personal net worth, your political ideology, etc. should have no bearing on criminal prosecutions, but unfortunately, that isn't the case. If you can afford to hire the right lawyer, you almost never end up in prison, no matter how egregious your crimes.
      • In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

        When all is said and done most male slashdotters will qualify as richer and more powerful than McBride.

        Let's make this thing happen !
      • I'm pretty sure that CEO of a $1M market cap company doesn't qualify him for rich and powerful status.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        Well I don't think this is a plutocracy but if you want to take it from that point of view fine.
        IBM wants to see McBride in jail. It would be a lovely show of force and the danger of messing with Big Blue in Big Blue's back yard.
        So from your view point I would say McBride is looking at some hard time.
        I on the other hand would bet he is just an idiot that listened to other idiots and believed every word he said.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sm62704 ( 957197 )
          The reason I consider it a plutocracy is because if you have enough money, you can "contribute" to both major party candidates, and whichever one loses won't matter to you because the winning politician will now be beholden to you. A big enough campaign bribe and you can get any legislation you want passed.

          Even though Bill Gates lives in Washington state, he has more pull with my Senators and Congressmen than I, an Illinois resident and voter, do.

          And if a monied bigwig from IBM does in fact want McBride in

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
            I don't think that anybody with enough money can get any legislation they want passed. There are still limits.
            But I would bet that their are more than a few big wigs at IBM, and maybe even Intel, and AMD that would like to see it as well.

          • you can "contribute" to both major party candidates, and whichever one loses won't matter to you because the winning politician will now be beholden to you.
            Odd; if I know that the guy contributed heavily to my opponent, I've got a lot of incentive to discourage him from ever doing that again.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by sm62704 ( 957197 )
              But how would you do that? If you don't pass the bills he wants passed, next election your opponent gats twice the funding from that contributor and yors is cut or eliminated. He has power over you. All you can do is pass laws, while he has a gun that fires cops, judges, and politicians.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        "More powerful man wants him there."
        Is there something on backup media?
        Something of interest to cold war historians?
        Something of interest to security experts?

        Or is it all a known known?
    • He was also grilled over statements in their 10-Q that were, shall we say, at odds with what he was trying to say on the stand.

      Novell confronted him and he angrily accused them of calling him a liar. Their rejoinder was that he had just claimed that he told the truth on their 10-Q.

      In other words, he was trapped by his own words :]

      I'm surprised his pants didn't burst into flames.
      • no but I bet there was a small oder as he got up.
      • He will probably claim that he simply "Misspoke" :-)

        • He claimed that the licenses weren't SCOsource when the SEC filing said they were. He can't just say "oops. My bad. I didn't know what we were talking about." These licenses are pretty much the main section of the lawsuit. If a CEO takes the stand in a lawsuit without knowing the basic facts of the case, it's gross incompetence of a level that should be criminal. So either Darl is the world's biggest idiot of a CEO, or he perjured himself, or SCO lied in their SEC filing. I doubt that his ego will al

          • >So either Darl is the world's biggest idiot of a CEO, or he perjured himself, or SCO lied in their SEC filing.

            I assume you are not using this as the logical OR. Clearly, any two, or more likely, all three could be true.

            • This is slashdot. The logical operator you are referring to is XOR. OR allows multiple operands to be true.

          • So either Darl is the world's biggest idiot of a CEO, or he perjured himself, or SCO lied in their SEC filing.

            The The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 [wikipedia.org] requires the CEO, in this case Darl, sign that all accounting the corporation files is truthful so 2 and 3 are the same.

            Falcon

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        he angrily accused them of calling him a liar.
        Wow. Just wow. "Are you calling me a liar!?!" is a common tactic used by bullies when caught lying. It works great when the bully is some sort of threat. It rarely works in court, where such tactics are well understood. No one is going to back down when Darl contradicts himself just because he puffs up his chest and looks threatening.

        This guy is in way over his head.

    • Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

      Ah, but it's not a lie if you believe it.

      See, he can be misinformed, stupid, confused, or just plain wrong ... none of which gets you convicted for perjury. He just has to believe what he's saying.

      You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says, and that he's merely operating on his understanding of legal and technical briefs provided to him. Hell, half of Slashd

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by UnknowingFool ( 672806 )

        You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says, and that he's merely operating on his understanding of legal and technical briefs provided to him. Hell, half of Slashdot has spent time pointing out how clueless he is.

        True, but thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as CEO he had to attest to the truthfulness of any financial statements. So as Novell pointed out, he was lying then or he's lying n

      • Ah, but it's not a lie if you believe it.

        See, he can be misinformed, stupid, confused, or just plain wrong ... none of which gets you convicted for perjury. He just has to believe what he's saying.

        However he said "When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist" which would seem to indicate he has been to bookstores lately. I kno

      • Ahem. Darl is lying, since he was told way back in 2002 by Chris Sontag there was not a single line of "their" UNIX in Linux.

        Cite: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050715-5099.html [arstechnica.com]

        I doubt anyone could prove he didn't know, whereas there's plenty of people now who *do* know. Shit, Chris Sontag himself testified before Darl and said he never saw evidence of UNIX in Linux that he could recall. And what does Darl say?

        Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].

        Sorry, Darl m

    • Re:I'm Pretty Sure He Committed Perjury (Score:4, Funny)

      by ravenspear ( 756059 ) * on Thursday May 01, 2008 @03:43PM (#23267212)
      Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

      Except, to prove perjury you would have to prove that he was knowingly making false statements, or in other worlds that he knew what he was talking about and just chose to say the opposite of what's true.

      So basically you would have to prove that Darl is not an idiot. Good luck with that ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by berashith ( 222128 )
        So now we understand the motives behind his actions for all this time. He wanted us to all scream about how stupid he is, and then submit the comments from /. as evidence that he didn't perjure himself.

        My God, he is a genius.*

        * this is the first step of destroying this evil plan

  • Her's hoping (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Thursday May 01, 2008 @03:45PM (#23267226) Homepage Journal
    Here's hoping he performs better than Hans Reiser ... no, on second thoughts cancel that.
    • Here's hoping that he receives the same sentence as Hans Reiser. Cheers!
      • Here's hoping Hans Reiser charges him $699 for the idea. He can prove prior art, too.
      • With any luck, they'll be cellmates. They deserve each other.

      • Here's hoping that he receives the same sentence as Hans Reiser. Cheers!

        Hans Reiser has not been sentenced yet. That happens on July 9 [mercurynews.com].

        My hope for true justice includes someone claiming rights to everything Daryl owns, requiring him to spend huge amounts of money defending his assets in court. I'd say someone should take credit for something Daryl created, but it's pretty clear that he isn't likely to create anything worth claiming rights to.

  • can't you just strike them down and put an end to our misery?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      That is what he is doing. Bolts from the blue and frogs are so old testament.
      This way McBride will know that he did wrong the entire time he is being struck down.

    • What? And have them become more powerful than we could possibly imagine? No. We won't make that mistake.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sm62704 ( 957197 )
      Misery? Our misery is over. SCO can no longer harm us. I for one don't want SCO to get a quick death at the end of a rope when the horse runs away, but a slow agonizing one as it's slowly pulled up, with SCO kicking and slowly strangling.

      Besides, my popcorn isn't done popping.
      • My only regret is this trial is only four days long!

        Its entertaining watching Darl McBride perjure himself and SCO fail to make evan a defensive case after the fact they lost.

        I think we can all see Novell getting money, but the dance for the money is going to be awfully fun, watching SCO's talentless lawyers trying to convince the judge that when they said red, they meant blue.

  • Editors ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by garett_spencley ( 193892 ) on Thursday May 01, 2008 @03:50PM (#23267282) Journal
    The section logos beside the article text, in order, read as follows:

    Caldera
    the Courts
    Unix
    Novel
    Tux

    All together now ... CCUNT.

    I guess you couldn't really leave this one out of "the courts". Either way, well done.

  • they should call it.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by pak9rabid ( 1011935 ) on Thursday May 01, 2008 @04:08PM (#23267496)
    ..UnixWars Episode V..Novell Strikes Back.
  • I'm not exactly sure how best to implement it; but it seems to me that more of our public social processes need a formal mechanism whereby blatantly factually incorrect statements can be challenged and amended. In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time. Sometimes, their opponents call them on it; but that ends up degenerating into a game of "he said-she said". Surely it wouldn't be that har

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
      In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time.

      No they can't.
    • We can issue everyone in the court one of those little suction cup guns and put color coded flags on the end of the cup. When you shoot the person on the stand with the gun, you have to present irrefutable proof that they are wrong in what they said. If that person gets too many hits, they are asked to stand down.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Simon80 ( 874052 )
      Finding the clip of them saying something is hard in realtime, though I guess if the questions are prepared beforehand, then the clip can also be found beforehand. There's a Daily Show where a clip is actually played showing that happening to Mitt Romney during an interview, it was fun to watch.

    • This sort of moderation wouldn't be suitable for matters of opinion or debate; but there are really a lot of things that are knowable with a high degree of confidence, particularly given our access to vast databases and recordings of past events:
      Politician: "I never said "foo", I said "bar".
      Moderator: "This clip is from our interview three weeks ago"*plays clip of Politician saying "foo".

      This is why I like the Daily Show versus regular news. Regular news broadcasts a quote from a politician: "I've always

      • On that note, I might add a Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] story on Adam Chodikoff, the guy behind the Daily Show who apparently manages to track down all those clips of politicians saying contradictory things. IMHO, the Daily Show would be scathing but ultimately harmless satire (like the Onion) without this factor. With it, it becomes something politicians actually have to be afraid of.

      • >This is why I like the Daily Show versus regular news. Regular news broadcasts a quote from a politician: "I've always been against foo!"

        Network news used to be like that. In 1972 Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern were vying for the Democratic nomination. The California Democratic primary rules stated it was winner take all delegate votes. After he lost, Hube the Cube filed suit to force the delegates to be awarded proportionally. Walter Cronkite reported the story and then showed a clip of hi

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rts008 ( 812749 )
      The perfect mechanism is already in place: *drum roll* The Slashdot Poll!

      With the Slashdot Poll, you too can have your debate/court case/election decided and validated.
      (careful with the Cowboy Neal option though)

      After all, we are mature, informed, knowledgeable, and totally unbiased here, right? *crickets chirping* Hello?
    • Politician: "I never said "foo", I said "bar".
      Moderator: "This clip is from our interview three weeks ago"*plays clip of Politician saying "foo".

      I don't think interviewers often really pull this sort of thing... not for politicians or anyone.

      I remember hearing an interview with Bertrand Russel (the anti-nuclear peace activist) where he was asked about his earlier support of massive pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Russia.

      He flat denied ever having said such a thing.

      The interviewer didn't bother to roll o
    • I'm not exactly sure how best to implement it; but it seems to me that more of our public social processes need a formal mechanism whereby blatantly factually incorrect statements can be challenged and amended. In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time.

      There are already some fine mechanisms in place that have been tested for centuries.

      In courts: Cross-examination, witnesses for the other s
      • Just as the price of freedom is letting other people do things you [DON'T] like, the price of free speech is letting other people SAY things you don't like.

        (GOTTA hit "preview" more often....)
  • Does anyone know if the trial is being broadcast anywhere? If it is, torrents would sure be appreciated.
    • I don't even think Court TV is still around. Last I heard it was TruTV and had primarily shows like "Cops" and "Worlds _____iest _____".
    • Transcripts are being purchased with the combined contributions of Groklaw readers, and will be available soon (apparently the first day's has issues with floppies). Reading is going to be better than watching days worth of trial at any rate, plus it will be court produced public record.
      • Good to hear. When the MPAA vs 2600 case was on, I read all of the depositions and transcripts for that case. I'm sure I'll do the same with this one.

        Too bad, though, I would have loved the opportunity to watch ol' Darl Vader being grilled by Novell's lawyers.
  • By God, we hangs OS Rustlers around these here parts. Someone git us a rope and we can commence with the hangin'!!!

    Perhaps the judge will find it in his heart to jail this Team-Killing FuckTard, or at least fine him all his assets. Truthfully he is as bad as any spammer.
  • I thought that this was all over with. Or was that just some other aspect of it?

    • Re:I Thought... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday May 01, 2008 @04:43PM (#23267896) Homepage
      The part where they determined whether or not (and how much) SCO owned Unix is over. Now that it has been determined that Novell owns the copyrights, the questions are:

      1. Did SCO sell Unix licenses and keep money that should have gone to Novell?
      2. If so, how much of this does SCO owe Novell?

      The main sales in this trial are the Microsoft and Sun ones. There's something like $20 million that SCO might owe Novell. (Money that SCO doesn't have even if they sold every last chair in the office.)

      SCO insists, however, that the licenses weren't SCOsource licenses and thus weren't ones that Novell would be owed money for. Darl testified to this on the stand. However, SCO's own SEC filing insists that the money was SCOsource. So either SCO lied in an SEC filing or Darl perjured himself. Either way, Darl and SCO have only the barest shreds of a case left. (Unfortunately for them, that "barest shred" relies on the past few years of case history vanishing magically.)

  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by eno2001 ( 527078 ) on Thursday May 01, 2008 @04:42PM (#23267888) Homepage Journal
    ...who's a cocksmoking teabagger now Darl?
  • It is good to see my Mickey Mouse Death star logo on the front page again.
  • It may be they listed it under scosource to show that scosource wasn't an unmitigated failure. A public relations stunt that is backfiring on them badly now.

    Whatever, doesn't matter anyway, they are rapidly heading towards history and a fabulously lucrative book deal for PJ when she writes her history of the event.

    • It may be they listed it under scosource to show that scosource wasn't an unmitigated failure. A public relations stunt that is backfiring on them badly now.

      If you read the transcripts [groklaw.net] you'll find that the deals were all about selling rights to SVRX source code, the same thing as SCOSource. Of course Darl et al are trying to backpedal on that one, but the protests ring hollow. Of course, you're probably right about them not having to list it as a SCOSource license and that's burning them in court now, but

  • Oh wait, I just did. SCO has to be the ultimate metric of when a struggle has just gone on for too long.

    (By the way, I don't really hate Hillary, and I don't like Obama all that much. I preferred Edwards quite strongly, and McCain is a kind of insult to the intelligence of the voters--but look at Dubya. I'm evidently wandering--but I did think of another point of comparison. Hillary has too many negatives--rather like Darl McBride, whereas I think Obama can generate the kind of positive enthusiasm I associa

  • While the train-wreck that is Darl is becoming more amusing by the trial, $CO's tactics are just getting silly. In Ars Technica's write-up of this trial [arstechnica.com], not only do they mention some of Darl's more interesting statements (such as him saying that "Linux is a copy of UNIX"), but the author also points out that SCO's current strategy seems to be that, while it doesn't own the trademarks it claimed it did, all its blustering that led to Microsoft and Sun coughing-up licensing cash was erroneous and the license

    • I'm inclined to hope that tactic works. Does it seem to anyone else like $CO's execs may be on the hook for committing fraud by selling things they didn't own? In the real world, most times you sell stuff that doesn't belong to you (like counterfeit or pirated software), you go to PRISON for your efforts. So why shouldn't Darl and his pals wind up behind bars for extorting money out of companies for licenses they didn't own the rights to sell?

      Methinks that is why they are trying to play it "straight" an

  • UnixWare is just another flavor of Unix, like SCO OpenServer, IBM AIX, or SUN Solaris. SCO's problem is that they totally realized this, that is why they always maintained they owned the SVRX copyrights. I think they should be locked up for perjury. Now after the court ruled that Novell retained the copyrights, SCO is still trying the same deal by claiming that UnixWare is just the next version of SVRX. It's absurd.

  • Here's how it plays out.

    Tomorrow, trial ends. In a few days or weeks, Judge Kimball renders a decision, which will be some dollar amount SCO has to pay to Novell.

    The payment issue goes to bankruptcy court. Novell is now the lead creditor and can strongly influence the bankruptcy process.

    SCO management tries something else in bankruptcy court, and it goes nowhere. The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee is already fed up with SCO. The trustee's representative actually said "I don't think this case can take a

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Xtifr ( 1323 )
      You're close, but you're overlooking one detail. The minute the judge in Utah uttered the word "conversion [law.com]", SCO went rushing off to the bankruptcy court as fast as they could scuttle in the hopes of more delay. Novell isn't going to get in line as a debtor. They are, basically, the victims of theft; the money in question was never SCO's to begin with. The resulting scenario will probably play out fairly close to the way you described, except that repaying Novell is going to be a much higher priority th

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close