×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Proposes Sale of Assets To Continue Litigation

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the know-when-to-fold-'em dept.

The Courts 290

gzipped_tar sends in this excerpt from the Salt Lake Tribune: "The embattled SCO Group Inc. is proposing to auction off its core products and use proceeds to continue its controversial lawsuits over the alleged violations of its copyrights in Linux open-source software. The Lindon company has filed a new reorganization plan with the federal court in Delaware where it sought bankruptcy protection from creditors after an adverse ruling in the Linux litigation. If approved by a bankruptcy judge, the plan could mean SCO's server software and mobile products lines are owned by other parties while SCO itself remained largely to pursue the lawsuits under the leadership of CEO Darl McBride. 'One goal of this approach is to separate the legal defence of its intellectual property from its core product business,' McBride said in a letter to customers, partners and shareholders. Jeff Hunsaker, president and COO of The SCO Group, said the litigation had been distracting to the company's efforts to market its products. 'We believe there's value in these assets and in order for the business to move forward it's imperative we separate it from our legal claims and we allow our products business to move forward,' he said Friday."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

290 comments

Die Sun scheint ma am Penis... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408343)

...schen is!

  You are not logged in. You can log in now, Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

Wow. Just wow. (5, Interesting)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408345)

So Darl is going to basically sell off most of what the company has to continue a lawsuit he has no hope of winning? What the HELL is wrong with this guy? Worst. CEO. EVAR.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408355)

In a just world, he will die a homeless drug user on the streets.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408415)

In a just world, he will die a homeless drug user on the streets.

Darl does not deserve drugs. How about him dieing a homeless, disease ridden prostitute?
Then the only change necessary is creditors seizing his home.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408791)

(as his lawyer): Sponge Bath, uid 413667, and an anonymous coward....

Re:Wow. Just wow. (5, Funny)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408847)

In a just world, he will die a homeless drug user on the streets.

Darl does not deserve drugs. How about him dieing a homeless, disease ridden prostitute? Then the only change necessary is creditors seizing his home.

Darl does not deserve sex. How about him dieing a homeless RIAA lawyer?

Re:Wow. Just wow. (2, Insightful)

Faluzeer (583626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409113)

In a just world, he will die a homeless drug user on the streets.

Darl does not deserve drugs. How about him dieing a homeless, disease ridden prostitute?
Then the only change necessary is creditors seizing his home.

Hmmm

I hate what tSCOGroup tried to do, I hate the fud that was generated, I hate the lies that were told, however none of things lead me to want those involved to die horrific deaths, instead I want all those involved to suffer to the maximum extent possible under the law...

I believe that you and the AC you replied to, need to get a sense of perspective, nothing Darl, or anyone else at tSCOGroup has done warrants such deaths. I honestly believe that attitudes such as yours, do as much harm to the Open Source movement as those expressed by Darl and co.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (1)

Cally (10873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408943)

When youre down and out,
When youre on the street,
When evening falls so hard
We will point and laugh...

(With apologies to Simon & Garfunkel.)

That depends upon his job. (2, Interesting)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408401)

If he finds a buyer (or buyers) for the products that pay enough for those products then SCO gets a lot of money. Some of which could be direct towards himself and the other execs as bonuses or whatever.

Now, if you question whether he can find a buyer willing to pay that much for a dying product, just remember that he has found investors and partners before who seemingly pay millions of dollars for nothing.

Right now, his job is to drag this case out.

McUnix (5, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408669)

SCO has a market cap of just over $3 million [yahoo.com]. IIRC, McDonald's Corp is one of their major customers. That $3mil is pocket change for the $66.95 billion [yahoo.com] market cap McD's Corp.

What if McDonald's buys SCO? McD's could hire a couple devs (since that is all SCO needs, apparently..) for maintenance and some support personnel, then service their own stores as well as other existing customers. Maybe they'd wind up saving, if not making, some money in a few years. Perhaps give Darl a store to manage...

Heh. :)

Point being, with a market cap of only $3mil, SCO and anything they have/own are basically chump change for a real corporation. So, if the judges (have) let this happen, then, and I hate to even think of it, we'll see this zombie keep stumbling forward...

Re:That depends upon his job. (2, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408685)

your forgetting the problem. The core products are what has been sued over. Darl can't sell them and continue the lawsuit as they wouldn't be the owners of the products anymore.

Not only is this proposal nearly two weeks late(it was due Dec. 31) This destroys the company and any potential assets creditors may have access to recoup their losses. Only a naive bankruptcy judge would allow the only asset a company has to be sold for literally nothing.

What's worse is that those products are only worth maybe 5 million at book value, and worth much less than a million in in their current neglected state. You can't pay lawyers making $500 an hour very long on that kind of money. especially how Boise seems to charge SCO for every staple used.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408469)

Disclaimer: IANASP (I am not a securities professional)

Their stock chart [yahoo.com] doesn't inspire much confidence, unless you are a short seller. Not to mention that they had to change their ticker symbol from SCOX to SCOXQ.PK after being delisted from NASDAQ.

Current share price: 14 cents
Market cap: $3,060,000

Re:Wow. Just wow. (3, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408523)

If you buy into the entire Microsoft paid them to spread FUD about Linux conspiracy, this actually plays directly into it. Vista wasn't the prize puppy MS was wanting it to be. With the economy going down and all of Vista's happiness, companies and people are looking at the FOSS routes a little more. What better way to battle that and ensure MS had a viable product until the economy recovers and windows 7 is making money then to re-raise the Linux is illegal battle.

Or in other words, nothing is wrong with him that wasn't already wrong with him. He is just needed one more time. I suspect MS or some affiliate of MS is more then willing to buy off the assets.

This all makes sense if you don't look at him as the CEO of SCO but the employee of a dieing company who is looking to the future.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409099)

You're a twat! Do you actually believe the shit that's coming out of your mouth?

Re:Wow. Just wow. (1)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408637)

So what's to stop the products being bought by, say, McBride enterprises llc (with some 'interesting' backers)?

Surely, the products are tangible assets which should be ringfenced to protect the interests of the other parties in the ongoing (sigh - VERY ongoing) litigation?

Re:Wow. Just wow. (1)

hilather (1079603) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408661)

So Darl is going to basically sell off most of what the company has to continue a lawsuit he has no hope of winning? What the HELL is wrong with this guy? Worst. CEO. EVAR.

Its such a desperate gambit. In the SCO movie, I have a feeling Darl McBride will be played by Nicholas Cage. He will be twitchy, incomprehendable at points and everyone will love to hate him.

Re:Wow. Just wow. (3, Funny)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408957)

In this economy, Darl knows he will never get another job as an executive. I mean how the hell can you spin his tenure as CEO of SCO on a resume? I guess you could say something like "leveraged corporate IP" -- just leave out the part about "just not OUR corporate IP. Heh." And maybe "worked with compliance and legal department to partner with the titans of the computer industry" -- just leave out "it was a forced partnership. Okay, we sued their asses and had ours handed to us on a platter, but still. I've got more balls than brains, it has to count for something!"

I'd suggest "innovative customer relations program", but the MPAA has them beat on that one.

what core product business ? (4, Insightful)

rs232 (849320) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408365)

'One goal of this approach is to separate the legal defence of its intellectual property from its core product business'

Then why not drop the case and focus more fully on your 'core product business'

Re:what core product business ? (5, Funny)

nizo (81281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408421)

Then why not drop the case and focus more fully on your 'core product business'

At this point he pretty much is.

Re:what core product business ? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408539)

Then why not drop the case and focus more fully on your 'core product business'

Because the core product is hopelessly obsolete and only used by a very small and fast shrinking customer base. SCO started this case because their core business was no longer viable.

It's a real shame. They just failed to keep up with the competition.

seriosly, would anyone here buy an SCO product? (1)

Rick Bentley (988595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409079)

You'd have to be an IT manager who had been living in an ice-cave w/o Internet connection for half a decade to actually want to support these ass-clowns.

Who is actually buying SCO products at this point? Is it just legacy customers who need ongoing support? Seriously, if a purchase-order to SCO crossed my desk I'd assume it was a practical joke ... and if the person was serious he'd probably end up ostracized by everyone else at the company who can even spell "*nix".

I mean, some companies are afraid to do anything the least bit controversial for fear of generating backlash from their would-be customers, and these guys go ahead and crap the bed in the middle of the entire industry -- yet they are still doing 8-figures a year in sales. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=scoxq.pk [yahoo.com].

Who's buying their stuff?

No SNCP, no Arab sheik (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408367)

They want to pay Novell in worthless stock.

And the directors will get their pay in worthless options going forward.

It's amazing how long this zombie company can stay on its feet.

Re:No SNCP, no Arab sheik (3, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408493)

It's amazing how long this zombie company can stay on its feet.

So that's why Darl and the other directors at the last board meeting kept saying, "Brains! brains! We need brains!"

Re:No SNCP, no Arab sheik (2, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408635)

I find the parrellels to Balmer's, "Developers, developers, developers, developers,..." rather disturbing.

zombies (1)

falconwolf (725481) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408953)

So that's why Darl and the other directors at the last board meeting kept saying, "Brains! brains! We need brains!"

Maybe they're hoping to get smart by eating brains.

Actually, unless he gets what he deserves and ends up with Bubba as a cellmate, I bet he and the other directors walk away with millions of dollars in their pockets.

Falcon

Is groklaw aware of this new development? (4, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408373)

The recent story of their cessation to "compile" the history of the case seems a bit premature now.

That said, I'm beginning to wonder if Darl is playing "weekend at bernies" with the board of directors, because no sane board would authorize the liquidation of the bulk of a company's assets so an obsessed executive can go tilting at windmills.

Re:Is groklaw aware of this new development? (5, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408579)

> because no sane board would authorize the liquidation of the bulk of a company's assets so an obsessed executive can go tilting at windmills

The decision was made by Ralph J. Yarro III back in 2003 to tilt at the windmill. Darl was hired to lead the charge. Back at the beginning Darl said SCO would pursue this to their "utter destruction" if need be. Well it looks like they are.

History: SCO, then called Caldera, was Novell's proxy in the DRDOS lawsuit against Microsoft. This lead Yarro, then managing the Canopy investment company that effectively had full control of SCO/Caldera to look for new lawsuit opportunities to cash in on. The decided to attack Linux using their "UNIX IP". To bad there is no UNIX IP in Linux.

The court system that allows civil cases of this nature is really to blame for the whole thing. SCO's lawyers are now heavily "invested" in the case (at one point they were literally going to be investors in SCO, but then changed their minds to cash up front) and are not really working for justice, but for their piece of the litigation reward pie.

That would be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408885)

To bad there is no UNIX IP in Linux.

The 2.0.36 version of the kernel had a bit of FreeBSD code in the network stack with the FreeBSD copyright removed and GPL copyright inserted.

And RedHat 5 had BSD lpd/lpr code. Without placing 'parts copywrite Berkley' in adverts.

So to say there is 'NO' UNIX IP in linux isn't quite right.

4 Billion (or whatever they were suing for) - I'll agree. But with the toxin of IP laws - to say there is no UNIX IP shows your lack of imagination.

Re:That would be wrong (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409055)

- to say there is no UNIX IP shows your lack of imagination.

IP is not imaginary.

A) there really is not such thing as "UNIX IP". Unix is an open standard specification administered by the OpenGroup.

B) SCO uses the term "UNIX IP" to mean something they own. They own squat.

C) In the IBM case SCO was required during discovery to produce any claims over Linux that SCO had. SCO at that time claimed to own the core "UNIX IP" without any definition of that. What SCO produced is essentially nothing.

D) The BSD settlement came to the conclusion that there is pretty much no such thing as any private rights in any code from the original seed Unix through SysV. Basically AT&T had handed it around to many people without copyright notices (when the notice was required).

Re:That would be wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409201)

FreeBSD is not a certified UNIX, according to The Open Group [opengroup.org], which handles that certification.

Re:Is groklaw aware of this new development? (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409155)

Uh, they're still referring to UNIX IP being property of SCO?

Just how is this possible? It's well-known that Novell owns UNIX IP (maybe not the trademark, but the copyrights, etc. to the code) and as the owner of Unix IP, Novell obviously has no objection to Unix's affecting Linux, since Novell is distributing Linux pretty aggressively.

On top of that, even if there were Unix code, or even SCO-authoried UNIX code in the Linux kernel, SCO themselves distributed that same code under the GPL releases as Caldera Linux, and later on, SCO Linux.

Want to know the saddest part of this?

Prior to Darl's influence, Caldera was a great company. They were founded by former Novell folk who were avid supporters of Open Source. Not free as in beer, but free as in speech, where if you buy a product, you not only get the binaries, but the source so you can fix bugs in the event that the product ceases to be available. They brought DR Dos back to life (and sued Microsoft in the process for their anti-competitive tactics).

They introduced Caldera Linux, which was a bit ahead of its time. Online repositories accessible through a decent GUI, network management through a usable GUI, and a somewhat polished (for the time) desktop environment, all as open source. The "open" nature of it was touted heavily on it, and although it wasn't my primary OS at the time (I had to work a LOT of hours from home on Windows projects so I dumped Linux for a few years, unfortunately) I liked it a lot.

Caldera was very open and very pro-open source. The founders saw the vision and potential of open standards. I don't know exactly what prompted the change which brought that shark Darl in, but Caldera was very focused on poising themselves for the open source revolution and the potential for "value-added" services, using the "free/free" aspect to gain market penetration.

Keep in mind what Caldera was doing then is what Novell and Canonical are doing now, and it's somewhat ironic that SCO (formerly Caldera) was founded by ex-Novell employees who shared the same vision that Novell has FINALLY embraced in recent years.

Re:Is groklaw aware of this new development? (1)

stiggle (649614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408605)

It depends on which company they sell the assets to. Just suppose they create a new unrelated company which just so happens to have almost the same board of directors which then buys all the 'valuable' assets from SCO leaving Darl with the debts and the law suits. Then the rest of them can continue without the debts and the court cases hanging over them. This way they can control which company obtains the assets, otherwise they'll end up being transferred to Novell or eventually the Administrators will sell them on for whatever they can get.

Re:Is groklaw aware of this new development? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408649)

This endless division and sale of pieces of UNIX intellectual property reminds me of subprime mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps - can anyone really understand the whole mess? What does it mean, that SCO will spin off its product assets, but still hold customers liable for damages for *using* products that allegedly infringe the IP of assets that SCO no longer has?

Some regulator or court has to say, stop the madness. You cannot separate your assets from the rights to sue for infringement on those assets.

Kinda refreshing, actually... (5, Insightful)

RicardoGCE (1173519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408379)

They're finally owning up to what we've known all along: SCO's business is litigation. Server software? Pffft.

I love the fact that they're willing to sell the very products they're supposedly protecting from unauthorized use of "their" code, just to keep the legal fight going.

Re:Kinda refreshing, actually... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408553)

I suppose Daryl thinks that when he wins (he clearly can't imagine any other outcome, no matter of often his lawyers get their asses kicked in court) he can just buy the software assets back. Of course, when he loses SCO will be even more screwed than before (which I didn't think was even possible before today).

I predict... (1)

pondermaster (1445839) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408381)

...that there will be a lot of "IANAL, but"'s comments on this story.

Re:I predict... (0, Offtopic)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408547)

Why do so many slashdot readers enjoy anal sex, anal masturbation, and anal fisting? If they like it, there are other places to talk about it!

Re:I predict... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408831)

Feels good man.

They don't want to be able to pay Novell/IBM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408383)

SCO wants to make darn sure that, at the end of the day, there is not a single penny left to pay Novell or IBM the money they will owe them.

I have a better idea. Wind up the corporation, sell all the assets.

A substantial number of us thought the bankruptcy trustee would put an end to SCO's shenanigans. Sadly, this hasn't turned out to be the case. The bankruptcy judge (Gross iirc) seems quite happy to see the SCO management running the company and continuing the abuse of the judicial system.

Re:They don't want to be able to pay Novell/IBM (1)

GlennC (96879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408517)

The bankruptcy judge (Gross iirc) seems quite happy to see the SCO management running the company and continuing the transfer of funds to the judicial system.

Fixed that for you.

Re:They don't want to be able to pay Novell/IBM (4, Informative)

jbengt (874751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408727)

A substantial number of us thought the bankruptcy trustee would put an end to SCO's shenanigans. Sadly, this hasn't turned out to be the case.

That's one of the reasons so many companies incorporate in Delaware.

Utah is the biggest scam capital in the world (1)

Thrustworthy (1177055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408387)

Orrin Hatch can spring John Forte who's serving 14 years in prison for having $1.4M worth of cocaine in a suitcase at an International Airport because "he's not an addict." There must be something in the water.

What products? (4, Insightful)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408391)

What company would want to adopt or standardize on a product developed by a company that is, for all intents and purposes, dead? Everyone has moved on, be it server side apps or embedded, there are ample companies that have a superior product with a healthy roadmap and no indication that they will not be around in 5 years.

Re:What products? (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408441)

Heh. Heh heh. The telecomms guy at my workplace just bought an upgrade to the latest version of OpenSewer for his server.

Deck Chairs (5, Funny)

pcnetworx1 (873075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408409)

Darl has now gone from rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to throwing them overboard...

Re:Deck Chairs (4, Funny)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408695)

Darl has now gone from rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to throwing them overboard...

Queue incoming litigation against Balmer for the concept of 'throwing chairs' in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Deck Chairs (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408935)

Darl has now gone from rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to throwing them overboard...

Sounds like Balmer's approach to fishing.

Re:Deck Chairs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26409023)

Yeah, but those chairs are not his to throw, they are the property of the BK estate. I don't believe the courts will approve this.

Correction and prediction (4, Interesting)

OpenSourced (323149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408413)

Where is reads :

Jeff Hunsaker, president and COO of The SCO Group, said the litigation had been distracting to the company's efforts to market its products.

it should read :

Jeff Hunsaker, president and COO of The SCO Group, said the efforts to market its products had been distracting to the company's main litigation activity

There, that's it.

Now a prediction. I predict that they are going to find a very generous buyer, that will pay much, much more than the market value of the actives, allowing the new, rather hollowed-out SCO to keep on litigating for years. Call it a hunch.

...to customers, partners and shareholders. (4, Funny)

neonux (1000992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408419)

McBride said in a letter to customers, partners and shareholders.

ie.

McBride said in a letter to his father-in-law, his wife and his mistress, and his grand parents.

Genius. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408423)

Have SCO stocks reached zero value yet?

Re:Genius. (1)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409043)

Have SCO stocks reached zero value yet?

That's too high of a value; I predict SCO stocks will reach a new low of -$1 a share. Tim S

Re:Genius. (1)

bstone (145356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409203)

>>Have SCO stocks reached zero value yet?

Zero value was reached years ago, some idiots are still purchasing (very few) shares at about $0.15 though, so the stock isn't reflecting the true value, even though their new plan proposes paying stockholders perhaps $0.02/share if things go well.

   

Ok what do they have exactly now... (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408431)

Let's look at their IP most of which is centered around OpenServer and UnixWare, is anyone out there using those much anymore? Last time I checked we were all on any other Unix variant but those.

Other than IP we can look at their hard assets, I suppose they can just keep selling furniture and computers until it's just Darl working out of his garage again, but let's be real SCO doesn't have much left anywhere anyways...

Re:Ok what do they have exactly now... (3, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408543)

Hrm..

Perhaps IBM could buy them and write itself an unconditional irrevokable retroactive perpetual license to the products. And release them under GPLv3...

Re:Ok what do they have exactly now... (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408785)

I believe their biggest (dwindling) presence is in POS. (that's Point Of Sale, not the other meaning you may have reason to think of)

Re:Ok what do they have exactly now... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408921)

You might be surprised... they used to be common for running some software in financial organisations and due to regulations, that data has to be held for a large number of years. This is especially true on servers for mortgages, some of which may have a 25 year lifetime.

Obviously, the smart things is to migrate the mortgage book to something which is supportable, but that would be sensible...

Posted anonymously, because I work at one of said large financial institutions with some mortgage systems on SCO...

Captain Ahab (2, Insightful)

jjmcwill (3739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408443)

Seriously, does this not seem like Darl McBride is so obsessed with going after "the great white whale" that it's all he can think about, to the exclusion of everything else?

Where and when does it all end?

Re:Captain Ahab (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408509)

I was going to say "when the money's gone." But apparently the assets will have to be gone as well.

Pretty smart really (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408455)

1. Sell off your (eventually) worthless core business
2. Continue paying yourself a huge salary
3. Lose the case, the company goes bankrupt. Core business loses all value.
4. Use your previous huge salary to retire
5. Everyone else gets nothing

Assets (1)

pbailey (225135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408457)

Assets ????? - what assets. This is starting to become a really boring story. Maybe Darl can get a job flipping burgers and stop bothering the rest of us who are trying to create new technology!

Somehow, this reminds me ... (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408481)

... of the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.

"None shall pass!"

There are times... (1)

azav (469988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408491)

There are times to publicly execute your legal council. This is one of those times.

In other words, play hide the assets (4, Insightful)

Trekologer (86619) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408499)

It sounds like they're going to sell their assets off to someone else, leaving SCO as just a shell from which to continue the lawsuits and hide away the assets from future claims against them.

Re:In other words, play hide the assets (1)

QuasiEvil (74356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408573)

Exactly - that was my first thought, too.

I wonder if there's some way IBM/Novell can put a halt to this, arguing that given rulings against SCO, there's a likely chance they'll have to pay up and thus, they shouldn't be allowed to divest any assets of value.

if no sale, 10% cut in 280K salary (4, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408511)

Ah but if the sale fails to raise sufficient cash the company directors will take a 10% cut in their salaries.

Is $280k a year a good salary for a CEO of a company that is in bankruptcy and has so far burned through $0.25B of investor capital.

Oh and there are only 66 employees. I would bet your nearest grocery store is larger than that.

Re:if no sale, 10% cut in 280K salary (1)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408647)

Wow. Only 66 employees? I wonder how many are actually working on products they sell?

Re:if no sale, 10% cut in 280K salary (2, Funny)

richardbirks (898884) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409087)

Wow. Only 66 employees? I wonder how many are actually working on products they sell?

I expect most, if not all, of the employees that are capable of finding alternative jobs will be long gone. The remaining 66 are either in golden-handcuffs or are drooling morons.

Maybe they should produce their own, reality-tv, version of "The Office" to raise extra funds...

Re:if no sale, 10% cut in 280K salary (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408679)

Oh and there are only 66 employees. I would bet your nearest grocery store is larger than that.

Not taking away from the other stuff you said but a 66 employee tech company isn't that small. I mean there is a difference in paying 100 employees minimum wage versus $50k+ tech salaries. I have worked at several companies with as little as 30 employees but they probably made enough money that they could have bought several grocery stores every year.

Government Bailout for SCO (4, Insightful)

dustwun (662589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408541)

I'm actually a little shocked that they haven't requested government financial assistance. It seems to be all the rage for companies with poor products, insane leadership, and failing business models.

mod this flamebait if you want, it's still true.

Please don't give McBride any ideas . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408879)

. . . he'd probably try anything.

He'll have to stand in line behind the porn industry, of course.

Although, maybe he already got some money from the bank bailout pot. Who knows, since the banks aren't telling the government where it is being spent.

Gotta admire that singularity of 'Jackass' intent. (1, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408613)

Sure - it's a completely idiotic move, according to logic and ethics. But like watching a video of someone trying to badly imitate an episode of Jackass, there's just something odd about watching the single-minded drive towards something one knows is a stupid idea that oddly reinforces something about the human spirit.

Why? He knows he's marching towards a given horrible set of outcomes (damaging his own interests) - he knows he's mostly doing it to the entertainment of others - he even knows he's hurting those he works with (and seems to like that idea for some reason) - but through sheer will and bravado, he's picking up that damn skateboard, and he's going to jump all that freeway traffic, despite the fact that a little man just knocked his kneecap out of joint two minutes ago with a hammer.

Human drive can do so much - it can push us so far from reason that it can flip past tragedy back to comedy, even for 'successful' men like Darl. There's a twisted Catharsis in that - a fact about the human condition that we can use our focus towards any end, to just about any extent.

It reminds us why self-reflection, observing your own life from different perspectives occasionally can be so important too.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Gotta admire that singularity of 'Jackass' inte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408859)

say what ? darl is making $300K/yr ... i'd like to see you make that much. how is it damaging his own interests ?

Anything to keep the FUD rolling (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408651)

As has been very evident, SCO has been stretching this case out as long as it possibly can. It is not interested particularly in winning, just in not losing finally. Frighten away corporations who potentially would use Linux but with the lawsuit have to declare the risk on their SEC 10C filing.

The only player I can see with the motivation to continue the FUD is Microsoft, but they are probably hanging back since they are still and adjudged monopolist, and could be very severely penalized for interfering with a competitor. But never fear, they have a cloud of dependant VAR they can "motivate" to support SCO with a high-price asset sale.

Na man, Na, No Way... (1)

Abuzar (732558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408671)

... this can't be the real story, something else must be going on.
Stuff like this just doesn't happen.
It can't be all stupidity and ego, right? Something else is afoot.

Conspiracy theorists... where are you?

Not separable (?) (1)

rebel (27002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408711)

SCO proposal: split software business from litigation business.

BUT, doesn't the software side now owe Novell $2,547,817 as of July in unpaid royalties? Would not a suitor of the software business have to assume that liability (and any continuing appeals of that award)?

So... wait. I'm confused. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408713)

Didn't a court recently decide that SCO doesn't even own the copyright to UNIX? I mean, this case has always been ridiculous, but I'm confused as to how it's still running if SCO doesn't even own the copyright to the code that wasn't put Linux.

Silly question? (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408715)

Why does the Open Group stand for this since they are the trademark owner of Unix and one of SCO's major claims is that they "own" the Unix business? Am I missing something fundamental here?

Isn't filing lawsuits the SCO "core business" ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26408721)

I wasn't aware that SCO did much outside of filing lawsuits. They have allowed their Unix product to atrophy, and their licensing service flopped. It's pretty apparent that SCO amounts to little more than a lawsuit factory.

dismiss with predjuce? (1)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408773)

The judge should find a way to dismiss the new case with prejudice so new cases can't be filed.

Beyond Horrible. (3, Interesting)

misterjava66 (1265146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408813)

Imagine, a company selling off its primary assets to fund a shakedown lawsuit. If this is not proof that america is too litigious, what could be proof. This demonstrates just how sick this sue-for-profit legal system is. If sue-for-profit did not exist, SCO would be off trying make good products now and linux users would have never been intimidated. Sad sad day for our culture to see this continue yet again.

Hmm... how is this any different from... (2, Insightful)

Forbman (794277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26408895)

Bernie Madoff allegedly stashing millions of dollars in checks in his desk (and who knows where he's stashed all sorts of $$$ in international accounts), getting ready to send it somewhere where the System can't touch it when all is said and done?

I would really argue that SCO Group should not be allowed to do this, as it is in essence allowing them to transfer assets out of the company so that they cannot be used to pay the company's legal obligations when all is said and done.

If you or I do it, say, to shelter/shed/disburse assets prior to a divorce settlement, bankruptcy or other judgment action (i.e., we attempt to shed assets after filing for bankruptcy), we get pilloried.

The post misses the point (1)

technomom (444378) | more than 5 years ago | (#26409153)

Darl doesn't have any illusions that SCO will win.
Darl and the SCOites are trying to prevent the few pieces of SCO's value (it's product lines) from falling into IBM and Novell's hands.

The idea is to leave SCO an empty shell so that its creditors end up with nothing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...