Beta
×

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 Springs a Prospective Buyer

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the from-what-dark-orifice dept.

The Courts 89

clemenstimpler sends a link to Groklaw, which has been following the proceedings dealing with the conversion of SCO's bankruptcy to Chapter 7 (i.e., liquidating the company). SCO has announced a prospective buyer. "...SCO has suggested it has a buyer. That doesn't mean it will avoid Chapter 7 of course, nor does it mean that the bankruptcy court will OK the suggested sale. But it likely does mean more delay, which is what this is likely all about. SCO very much wants to wait until the appeals court rules in SCO v. Novell. ... Hearing set for July 16 with backup for July 27. SCO has already moved to make it July 27. combo hearing on convert and sale. Frankly, it would not totally amaze me if the three entities that filed motions to convert were to appeal this. If not, SCO got its desired delay."

cancel ×

89 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For our Benefit (5, Funny)

nametaken (610866) | more than 5 years ago | (#28344945)

They're dragging it out so we can savor it.

Re:For our Benefit (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345333)

Sounds like an 11 hour art noir film. Those that made it might think so, the few still paying attention might think so but must people would like it to have ended five hours ago.

Re:For our Benefit (2, Interesting)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346147)

As Willy Wonka said, "The suspense is killing me. I hope it lasts."

Re:For our Benefit (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348625)

Actually, if I had to guess they're probably dragging it out so Darl et al can continue to draw salaries.

Paging Buffy Summers... (2, Interesting)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28344947)

This article's title gave me the mental image of a decomposing zombie clawing its' way up out of the ground.

Hopefully as the article suggests, the sale will be forestalled, and some judge will finally put a stake in this monster once and for all. ;)

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (4, Funny)

SonOfFlubber (14544) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345011)

"decomposing zombie clawing its' way up out of the ground" ....

.... Darl of the Dead?

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (1)

scotsghost (1125495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345493)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

quiet you fool! you'll give some groklaw fanboy ideas...

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345739)

Oh, great, now Maureen O'Gara will run a ZOMFG Linux Zealots Plot To Kill Darl - I Have Proof!!!!! article.

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (1)

iCodemonkey (1480555) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345113)

why cant we come up with the legal equivalent of a shotgun. shotguns ALWAYS work against zombies, or im i wrong?

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (1)

Thoughts from Englan (1212556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345877)

why cant we come up with the legal equivalent of a shotgun. shotguns ALWAYS work against zombies, or im i wrong?

Think Geek [thinkgeek.com] agrees.

That would be Glenn Reynolds (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346203)

Re:That would be Glenn Reynolds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346483)

What does the Ole heh-indeedy Perfesser have to do with anything?

Re:That would be Glenn Reynolds (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28347245)

"legal equivalent of a shotgun"

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (2, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346587)

We should go all in and just bring in Bruce Campbell, he's only a hundred, I'm sure he can still fight off a horde of IP attorneys and zombies.

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (4, Informative)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345469)

Hopefully as the article suggests, the sale will be forestalled, and some judge will finally put a stake in this monster once and for all.

I doubt it. A bankruptcy judge's job is essentially to ensure that SCO's creditors get the maximum amount of money back under the law. From that perspective, liquidation tends to be a fairly lousy solution, particularly for companies deeply in debt. A buyer is, of course, the best solution: Somebody willing to assume that debt and, hopefully, turn the company around to making some money again. Then it can start to pay back its creditors and if it falls apart again, well, you're just right back at the liquidation stage -- little lost but time.

So unless the judge can determine this is nothing but a bullshit stalling tactic on the part of SCO--and I doubt any judge would do so without at least a hearing or two on the matter--they're almost certain to let it pass.

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (0)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346909)

Why would anyone want to buy SCO? Maybe 10 years ago when it was one of the better UNIX OS's out there, but with the development of so many stable Linux distro's, there's no reason to have a high-priced UNIX system out there anymore.

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (3, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346955)

I doubt it. A bankruptcy judge's job is essentially to ensure that SCO's creditors get the maximum amount of money back under the law. From that perspective, liquidation tends to be a fairly lousy solution, particularly for companies deeply in debt.

Right now, realistically, the best the creditors can hope for is liquidation and for someone to buy up "substantially all the assets" of the company. That probably amounts to zero, but at least it allows them to finally write off the bad debt and be finished with the litigation. Zero all they can expect in any case, the only question is whether it is zero now or zero later.

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28349723)

I think you're wrong. My advisers have assured me that my bid of $24.38 will almost certainly be successful.

My first action as the new owner will be to fire everybody in a senior management position, then invite the underlings, excluding the legal team, to take what they want of the remaining office equipment.. Everything else on eBay by the weekend.

Seriously, is this not another example of why companies go the litigious route? Why bother actually doing anything when all you need to do is sue a load of people, followed by more legal pontification when you lose?

Re:Paging Buffy Summers... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348017)

The only sure-fire way to "put a stake in it" is to aim straight for the heart: Darl McBride. Lock him up in a windowless cell with no Internet access, or better yet castrate him to make sure there will never be a Darl 2.0. Darl McBride is one of the true "useless eaters" that eugenicists were debating in the early part of last Century.

Why Won't You Die? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28344949)

Beneath this balance sheet there is more than cash. Beneath this balance sheet there is a fraud, Your Honor, and frauds are lawyerproof.

- With apologies to Alan Moore.

Buyer for who? Richard Matthew Stalman owns Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28344971)

If there is ever a human that would embrace and extend any property more than Microsoft's Bill Ghates, then it was the attempt of RMS to in-effect overwork Linux to the point running all theologies and distributions out of the arena by over-competition. [anonymouse.org]

Is there even a Linux outside of GNU/Linux anymore? Can anyone even assemble a Linux From Scratch, Slackware, or RedHat system without GNU and it's GPL'd tools? I know RedHat Fedora was trying to make way for itself to carve it's own Opensource proprietary service market, but has since failed because of the pre-occupation of free-minded developers to GPL. I mean, Open Source Initiative had all kinds of great things going for it until it became evident this decade that GNU has over-competed the marketable distributions of Linux with all kinds of useless flavors that fail in their design to scale.

The first Linux I even owned was Caldera 1.3 and RedHAT 5.4 that I bought from LinuxMall through eBay for U$5 each. Even came with a free SuSE version. I remember of all the distributions, SuSE wouldn't allow it to run for more than a year due to it's vendor lock-in, while Caldera and RedHAT were in the game and looked lovely with Calera's KDE 1 desktop and RedHat's FVWM. Caldera wasn't as bad as everyone said they were, and they would've been better if they were in RedHAT's position at the time. It would've been RedHAT slinging lawsuits at everyone if they were secondary to Caldera in this matter. Doesn't anyone remember the IPX network code that even Caldera devoted to Linux?

I hope Caldera kicks someone's ass, even if it had to be Darryl's for sitting on their product for too long with no development. It should've been awesome having accounted customers like Sun, Novell, and Microsoft to your code.

While I agree with what you said, not the image (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345037)

This image, http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5233c6cac0.jpg [freeimagehosting.net] was a little un-called for.

Richard has done quite a good job, imo. I met him once at an "overnighter" kind of rally for political refugees when we both entered this country almost at the same time. I never could quite figure-out his political views beneath all the "free software" senses that he advertised using all his "free labor" methods of devoting all that time to such strategy. It appeared effective at a fiscal scale, but not at a family one.

I must say, though Caldera was a completely different company these past years since Darryl gave direction, the true Caldera Linux lives-on in the servers that still run it. I fondly remember administering Caldera 2.2 and 2.3 using their excellent-at-the-time Novell Netware extensions for IPX disk shares and this eased integration with existing Novell-dominated environments in the civil service sections of the government institutions whose documents I helped archive and maintane with complete satisfaction. Somtimes I sit and think just what happened to such a great company, it having the only Linux distribution with DOSEMU to Caldera's DR DOS at the time as would seem the perfect replacement for a Windows For Workgroups, NT, and 95/98 installation while all the other distributions leached off it's tuned perfection.

It will sadly be missed, but still runs on my old 486 network gateway with a IPX Meridian SCSI 14-drive CDROM array.

Wrong - just advertising on someone else's work (2, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345319)

Bullshit.

You have been conned by stupid MIT staffroom politics which has escaped onto the net. Linux is not a GNU project, the GNU operating system is called HURD. I think the whole gnu/linux thing and the LiGnuX thing before it was just a response to people asking RMS what he had done lately. He has done a lot of worthwhile things but linux was put together by others. The gnu tools are incredibly useful but make up only a small portion of most linux distributions and are not there at all in some of the embedded distributions (which use a different C library and use busybox).
There is a linux distibution called is "Debian gnu/linux", but all the packaging has been done by Debian without involvement by gnu.
It also seems you have confused GNU with the GPL and seem to think the GPL restricts commercial activity - keep in mind that not even Halliburton are afraid of it since all it really means is telling people where you got your free code from. It isn't 1995 anymore, and even then anyone that took the time to actually read the thing wouldn't have been that worried about it.

To my perception, you are in the wrong on this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28352929)

That post never exclaimed to be a GNU project. Linux was borne in concept on the flowcharts expanded to pseudocode long before it was ever posted on a message board or BBS. Consider the fact that o' Lineus retains the controlling interest in all of those periphernalia and effects and then conditionaly granted its use through GPL. It looks like Linux was always under his control at the beginning, and for those of us that think that is condescending then we must first realize that absolute control begot those conditions to its conditional liberation and restricted to said freedoms until another day comes that Linus with his companyions decide to rescind. GPL is not free, and "Free" from Free Software by RMS is a proprietary notion of doublespeak. Apogee is more free than Richard S's "Free Software" compaction in our minds; materialy so, but not logically endowed as a public-domain release. You see, RMS is trying to bring his doublespeak into a backwards society of kings that behave like slaves to one-another. Rather than dispel the myths and acknowledge that every branch grafted onto that Linux kernel to it's rightful king, RMS continues the ploy through GPL that completely skews the interpretation of it as "copyleft." Whatever machinery looks to uphold that license, it is tainted in such a way that RMS is trying to pre-empt the rights of the owners to rent it from the creator, yet that is all I can say about that.

You are realy behaving silly in this manner you've exposed your approach onto this subject. There is a fiscal matter being accounted that RMS is trying to dispel, as though the author is in receivership to a bankrupty that prevents himself from unaccounting his works to such a thing as Linux. Why can't an author relieve himself of these properties to contribute to this effort, or is he not in liberty and freedom himself? Stalman's phylosophies only throw gas on the fire in this regard, and in the end none benefit because it draws a proprietary manner outside of the Public just to call "Free Software" as not being free, but with restrictions.

You got to be joking if GPL and LGPL means otherwise. You and everyone else is on "the clock", their time is worth money to someone else at all times and here comes the delusion to avert from the effort to relieve themselves of this miserable state of work ethic with an alleged "Free Software" GPL'd from another alphabet corporation that is just waiting to be seized by SEC for conversion and accounting fraud. Great. Lovely... I'll remind you that the creators of Unix back in ATT (prior to AT&T) are using Microsoft Windows NT of some flavor to this day. Don't you think you are missing somthing about the population you're trying to touch?

Next thing you know, RMS will have a unique DRM key to sign all "Free Software" so it wouldn't run on GNU operating systems without the GPL key. Great. Lovely... Despite wherever the software goes, on the paper we still 'have and own NOTHING because of the encumbrances of our nationalities going back into whatever country we are from. If we want to change this, the best abbet would be to write software on a micronation benched upon an oceanic Well stage or interfaced to a international vessel that does not make berth to a port of entry on land, or a ship independent from the plane or planet it unhails from. Yet, whoever holds the bench to negotiate a dispute, he is sovereign; why would a developer dare unconditionally submit to such foreign standard of authority for adjustments that could lead to abandonmnet or change in direction?

Welcome back to Linux island. That's all we need. :-)

RMS wrote his licence but doesn't run things (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28355437)

Try actually reading the GPL, it's actually fairly simple.
However remember that RMS had nothing whatsoever to do with the development of linux apart from writing a licence that Linus liked. All the wailing about gcc by those that want to shove the gnu/linux label down people's throats is irrelevant since if gcc was not there another compiler would have been used. I was replying to the above bullshit that RMS owns linux, not about the other things you have there and although I cannot actually understand a large portion of it you have certainly written a large amount of text. While there are a large number of impressively long words their meaning doesn't fit in context so I suggest using shorter and simpler sentences until you have a better understanding of English. I have the advantage of English as a first language but would still not use such a style. Mark Twain wrote "If I Had More Time I Would Write a Shorter Letter" and it's a good principle to keep in mind even with technical writing. If you have a firm understanding of English and use such a deliberately florid style as a joke homage to barely remembered 19th century fiction please play it on someone else because it just comes out as an unreadable pile of crap full of words that do nothing but waste the time of the reader - and God's sake read something better to inspire you. The only place I've seen a style like that work is in Brian Aldiss' "Barefoot in the Head" but only because the point was that the reader was not meant to understand and to be as confused by the text as if they had a drug addled brain.

Undead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345155)

SCO the UnDead.

But actually, this is what one should normally expect from a litigation company. The US legal system makes it easy for this sort of harassment (in this case, of Linux supporters IBM/Novell/etc) to continue virtually forever.

This is obvious. But the takeaway message is worth posting clearly... Just because you're in the Right, you cannot assume the courts will vindicate you. Once accused in civil court, you are mired for as long as the other side wants (or can afford). Don't. Get. Sued. In. The. USA. Broken System.

Re:Undead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345907)

I think Stallman should buy it, and rename it as SNU

I get it (5, Funny)

Starlon (1492461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345157)

They're getting a bailout! The government will now own Linux.

Re:I get it (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348379)

Unless something funky happens with Kimball's ruling during appeal, Novell has that card.

Re:I get it (1)

La_Boca (201988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28352927)

Prove it.

Idle speculation... (1)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345165)

...would that suitor be based in Redmond, WA?

Re:Idle speculation... (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345535)

What would Eddie Bauer or Nintendo of America want to do with SCO?

Microsoft, duh... (2, Interesting)

MsGeek (162936) | more than 5 years ago | (#28349969)

Anyway, the suitor has been announced: Gulf Capital Partners [h-online.com] . Which raises the question: is there a Microsoft connection to these guys? The only company with any discernible reason to keep Sweet Zombie SCO alive is Microsoft.

I have answered my question: yes there is a definite MS connection [boycottnovell.com] . "The issue is not if you're paranoid, it's if you are paranoid enough." -- Max, "Strange Days"

How many hops to M$ ? (2, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345173)

How far do we need to follow the money to find Microsoft ?

Re:How many hops to M$ ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345253)

As far as it takes to create a conspiracy.

Re:How many hops to M$ ? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345643)

uh, one hop? (hey - this is slashdot :))

Re:How many hops to M$ ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345539)

Yeah... these SCO versus Novell epics always confuse me, after all, it's Micro$oft vs. Micro$oft after all.

Re:How many hops to M$ ? (1)

FithisUX (855293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345661)

If Microsoft is behind I suggest Microsoft to opensource it and base Windows8 on Unixware ala Apple.

Chinese? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345177)

Far out. With the current financial situation I wouldn't have thought anyone would want to part with $10 just for SCO! It must be the Chinese...

Justice (2, Funny)

davro (539320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345211)

Give the judge a trench gun and be done with these pesky zombies.

No appeal of the delay (4, Interesting)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345219)

I very much hope the Office of the US Trustee, IBM, Novell and others do not appeal the delay. Of course, they have excellent grounds for doing so, but the result would likely just be a longer delay. SCO has successfully gamed the system, and will probably gain a six week delay in the process. If this is appealed, it will probably take longer than six weeks just to argue and get a decision. Meanwhile, SCO will argue that the purchase agreement cannot go forward with the Chapter 7 conversion hanging over their head (BS, of course, but prove it).

Re:No appeal of the delay (2, Insightful)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346047)

The ideal arrangement is to have the purchase go through before the appeal. Then have the appeal denied. That way the estate is refreshed with big bucks just in time for the hoovers to move in.

Hmm... (0, Troll)

eugene2k (1213062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345227)

Now, imagine the appeals court rules SCO has the rights to Unix! Won't that be fun!

That's not how an appeal works (3, Insightful)

gavron (1300111) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345845)

The Court can rule that the case goes back to the Utah Court or not. It will not rule on the merits of the case, so it will not ever in any way, shape, or form rule that SCO has the rights to Unix or any other pipe dream.

There is no indication that the decision of the appeals court will occur in the next six weeks. SCO is stalling because that is the tactic they've adopted from the very first "suitcase of proof" and "millions of lines of code" and "MIT deep-divers."

FUD works when it lasts for a very long time, not when it's immediately dispelled.

E

IMPORTANT INFORMATION (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345247)

GOATSE http://goatse.asia/

Hiding the money (4, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345277)

From another article (I can't access groklaw right now, so I don't know if the same is stated on groklaw):

The remaining SCO company will also continue to enforce its appeal of U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball's ruling in August 2007 that found Novell, not SCO, rightfully owns the copyrights on the Unix operating system, he said.

So this is an attempt to get the remaining cash and Unix assets out of reach of Novell, and leave the shell of SCO (plus some mobile products that most likely have no value) to continue the lawsuit, with no money left over for Novell and IBM when they eventually run out of appeals.

Re:Hiding the money (1)

kaaposc (1515329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345435)

<sarcasm>

It (FCMobileLife) costs $29.95 [groklaw.net] so there should be some value!

</sarcasm>

Re:Hiding the money (2, Funny)

jrumney (197329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345585)

Yes, divide that by the number of sales per annum, and you'll quickly see that SCO has infinite value.

remeber (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345639)

That MS funds *both* SCO and Novel

what other trademarks -- Novell/SCO thing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346093)

Here's the deal, as many may remember. (I'll probably get flamed for this BTW)
------------

1.1(a)
1. All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare
1.1(b)
V. Intellectual Property:
A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.
B. All Patents
-------------

In terms of 50/50 -- civil, not criminal.

What other trademarks? 1.1a is "all rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare", then 1.1b is except "all copyrights and trademarks", except UNIX and UnixWare.

What other trademarks? Do you see what I'm getting at? Why even mention it?

In other words, could you actually list the copyrights in UNIX and Unixware? How hard is it to take the kernel GPL3? What's Sun's "excuse" (3rd parties) why they can't go GPL?

Define UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. List them. File by file, author by author, owner by owner. Stuff sneaks in.

Here's what it is -- it seems to me now, having stumbled upon some ideas (and again, I'm talking 50/50 preponderance here, not criminal (tell me SCO is not viewed as criminals :)

Novell sold all "UNIX and UnixWare" copyright. They excluded all other copyrights.

Novell retains all copyrights they didn't actually own until they find out they don't own them. (they're just protecting themselves) .

But they sold all "UNIX and Unixware" copyrights.

Again, what other trademarks if all that was sold was UNIX and UnixWare? Why even bring it up? Why would going GPL3 be such an undertaking for the Linux kernel?

It's a type of confusion. So many files, so many authors, so many contributions -- stuff sneaks in. They HAVE to say that. They retain the copyrights, but that's the "other" copyrights, copyrights that aren't UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.

In a 50/50 preponderence situation, I'd be thinking like that.

sorry -- should probably have included the other (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346157)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Assets to be so purchased shall not include those assets (the "Excluded Assetsâ) set forth on Schedule 1.1(b)

----------------

so my relatively new theory is that "excluded assets" would include patents, all trademarks that aren't UNIX and UnixWare, and all copyrights (in my 50/50 preponderance of the evidence opinion (that aren't UNIX and UnixWare copyrights - or at some point turn out to not be UNIX or UnixWare copyrights).

Re:what other trademarks -- Novell/SCO thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346437)

Darl, just STFU. Everybody knows you're full of it.

The court has already ruled that the asset sheet doesn't say what you're claiming it does. Just go away.

Re:Hiding the money (2, Interesting)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346115)

Perhaps, but with the current administration, and the new legislation winding it's way through, it could conceivably get easier to pierce the corporate veil. This lawsuit represents the height of corporate avarice. What makes it all the more interesting is that the only newspaper willing to continue to run stories on it seems to be the Salt Lake Tribune. Yet the lawsuit will have worldwide influence once the appeals have run their course.

I'm really looking forward to the trial of IBM's counterclaims [wikipedia.org] , and the damages decided from them. At that point, we're very likely to see where the money for the suit came from.

Re:Hiding the money (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28349627)

So this is an attempt to get the remaining cash and Unix assets out of reach of Novell, and leave the shell of SCO (plus some mobile products that most likely have no value) to continue the lawsuit, with no money left over for Novell and IBM when they eventually run out of appeals.

Sounds bout right. As long as Darl gets paid, who really cares?

in this day and age? (2, Informative)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345429)

in this day and age...after the credit implosion and GM's bankruptcy..after Madoff....there's someone still stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hbold enough to buy SCO?
Man....can someone get me his number? I've got a few dozen bridges and landmarks to sell him, not to mention a few automobiles.

Re:in this day and age? (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345711)

in this day and age...after the credit implosion and GM's bankruptcy..after Madoff....there's someone still stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hbold enough to buy SCO? Man....can someone get me his number? I've got a few dozen bridges and landmarks to sell him, not to mention a few automobiles.

Yes sure, he's the guy that's managing your retirement account.

Re:in this day and age? (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28350943)

wait...I'm the one managing/using up my retirement account....this is the first I'm hearing that I'm buying SCO

Re:in this day and age? (2, Interesting)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348233)

I would buy SCO if I had the money. Not because I think it is a gold mine or anything but because of all the people claiming rights to Unix, SCO is the only company trying to claim Linux is a derivative and do something about it.

If a few geeks, maybe backed by Novel, IMB, or some other companies using linux in their products purchased SCO at the liquidated price, they could operate their own distro, are large enough to demand Unix drivers and could open enough specs to allow OSS drivers, and put an end to this saga once and for all. We could call this pack, GLOSCO or Geeks for Linux and getting Over SCO.

I'm seriously wondering why we have seen talk of something like that. SCO or SCOGQ is trading for around 15 cents a share now, if every geek in the world contributed $100, that would be 666 shares. With 15.2 million shares outstanding, it shouldn't take much more than 22 or 23 thousand people to buy it outright at $100 plops. Get IBM, Hitachi, Motorola, Novels, perhaps a few of the distros to donate and that number drops fast. All the IP gained could be placed into a trust account and SCO can operate as a commercial development platform with OSS driver access and open improvements for the rest of us.

Re:in this day and age? (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348573)

Wow, SCO and 666 in the same post - who'da thought?..

Re:in this day and age? (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28349713)

That's all very well and good, except for two things.

1. The cash would go directly into Darl's pocket. Yeah, we might be finally rid of him, but still...

2. The company would get stuck with all the debt from the lawsuit & such, with no income being generated. Remember, SCO is running on fumes, and what little comes in goes right back out to Darl & the lawyers.

Re:in this day and age? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28350297)

The answer to 1 is simply, don't care. Money going to Daryl on his terms is bad, on your terms is not, especially when you get what you want. Plus we would have the books and could look at Daryl's practices then report any illegal activity to the feds for prosecution. I think Giving him money to end his idiocy as well as having a chance at seeing him locked up is more then acceptable.

As for 2:The company would get stuck with all the debt from the lawsuit & such, with no income being generated. Remember, SCO is running on fumes, and what little comes in goes right back out to Darl & the lawyers.

This isn't as much of a problem as you might think. First, you would be buying by shares of a corporation, it isn't like you would assume this debt yourself personally. At best, your out your $100 or whatever. But this is where companies like IBM and Novel and others come into play. They can carry the debt for when profit being made isn't enough to cover it as well as we can sell off aspects of the Unix license or open source it in the process of "reinventing the business model" to make it profitable. Then the official statement would be that releases before X is open to anyone, even if the strategy backfires and bankrupts the company.

That last part can be done in several ways, one could be an indefinite contract to every major (or minor) distribution for a one time payment that allows them, they customers, and any down stream client to do whatever with the Unix code in whole or in part (basically follow the intents of the GPLv3 but without applying it and leaving the final license to the contracting parties other then SCO.

Re:in this day and age? (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28350923)

it would definitely have to be renamed to avoid the pitchforks and torches, especially of those who went into hiding due to the economy imploding (that and H1N1)

Re:in this day and age? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348507)

I wouldn't be surprised if they received their share of the economic stimulus package.

I mean, look at all the people they keep working. Lawyers, grocklaw, shashdot posters, Microsoft's anti-linux commissions, Novell, IBM, ...

Sure, they produce nothing useful, beyond the entertainment value, but don't you want to "save" all those jobs?

Re:in this day and age? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348537)

"in this day and age...after the credit implosion and GM's bankruptcy..after Madoff....there's someone still stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hbold enough to buy SCO?
Man....can someone get me his number? I've got a few dozen bridges and landmarks to sell him, not to mention a few automobiles."

Sure - his number is 202-456-1414.

Re:in this day and age? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28350933)

Hey!!!!! How'd you get my number? Who are all these weirdo's calling me.

Re:in this day and age? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28356305)

Man, I've CALLED Darl's house before. D: Don't throw that phony shit up. :x The number was floating around on Freenet back in 2004. I'm sure someone could find it if they looked.

Tagging 'diealready' (n/t) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28345449)

It is time to die, SCO. Die in peace, but die already (and never come back)!

The REAL reason (2, Funny)

Linker3000 (626634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345455)

I understand they just need a bit more time to conclude their purchase of the Duke Nukem Forever codebase and issue a call for investors to fund completion of this vital work.

Oh, there won't be a game coming out of all this - SCO will have a pile of algorithms and methods specific to the gaming world stretching back as far as the first annoucement of DNF and so they can then start to examine games produced since that date from all the big players to see if they have 'pinched' anything.

3. Profit

Re:The REAL reason (2, Funny)

forgotten_my_nick (802929) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345847)

"I understand they just need a bit more time to conclude their purchase of the Duke Nukem Forever codebase and issue a call for investors to fund completion of this vital work."

Based on previous experience I suspect they would be more likely to buy that codebase, then claim others had stolen that code in their own FPS games and offer to allow end users to license to use a product for a small fee. Then sue EA, pump shares, dump shares, lose and then file for bankruptcy.

Re:The REAL reason (1)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 5 years ago | (#28349791)

Based on previous experience I suspect they would be more likely to buy that codebase, then claim others had stolen that code in their own FPS games and offer to allow end users to license to use a product for a small fee. Then sue EA, pump shares, dump shares, lose and then file for bankruptcy.

Good plan. We oughta patent it as a business method.

Oh, wait...

What if it is Microsoft?! (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345617)

What if the prospective buyer is Microsoft?! Who could object to that, and on what grounds?!

Scary.

Re:What if it is Microsoft?! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346243)

We don't want Microsoft owning Linux, and every Unix out there. Then they will own all the OS's that have a marketshare that can be represented with up to 2 decimal points.

Rest of the deal (1)

parcanman (933838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28345681)

I wonder if SCO told their buyer that Linux (all of it) is part of the sale? They probably said "yea, this guy with a blue blanket and a red and black striped shirt who calls himself Linus is gonna try to tell you that Linux isn't ours to sell, yea, just ignore him".

zzzz (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346039)

I'm not dead! I feel fine! I think I'll go for a walk! I'm getting better! ..

Honestly, its like the monster that will not die, nothing works - garlic, holy water, silver bullets, stake, decapitation, fire and even the BFG9000 could not finish it.

Just stay down, everybody will be much happier and we are all waiting for the party.

Potential buyer (5, Funny)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346241)

I almost bought SCO. But I spent the $10 at McDonalds instead.

Re:Potential buyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28348881)

They were going to let me pay $5... SUCKER

Red Dwarf quote?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28346317)

"He's like a blind old, incontinent sheep dog. Take him out to the barn with your shotgun and blow the mutha away! It's the kindest thing!"

"Potential" is the key word here (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#28346881)

I don't really think there is any serious buyer. Previously SCO tried to launch an emergency sale to York management [linux-watch.com] only to have the bankruptcy court and all its creditors object to the deal. What SCO never made clear (or tried to hide) in that deal was who would get the liabilities from the Novell judgment against them. If the sale had gone through, Novell would have had to spend years figuring out who owed them the money. This is just another ploy to stall for time.

Why won't they die?????? (1)

motherpusbucket (1487695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348135)

If this keeps up, we'll have to add SCO to the nuclear attack survivor list currently including cockroaches and Cher.

Erm....guys? (2, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348171)

Hang on.

So they lied about linux containing unix code.
Then they lied about owning full unix rights.
Then they lied constantly about their ability to handle it in court.
Then they lied to the court by using stalling tactics pretending they needed information.

Maybe they're lying? You know, flat-out, bald faced shameless lying? They're already so badly in trouble in the courts, what's one more lie if it helps stave off death a bit longer?

Re:Erm....guys? (1)

BabyDuckHat (1503839) | more than 5 years ago | (#28354951)

Lying isn't immoral if it's done in the course of business or litigation.

/leaves to wash self with lye and a wire brush

buyer: the Devil. consolidating his assets. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#28348751)

your next general release of SCO Unix will run on the Mattel Aquarius and Coleco Adam only. please to transfer your databases to cassette tape.

more time wasting cobblers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28348801)

Why the hell does the American leagal system just stop fingering their collective fannys and kill this bunch of ambiguos twats off once and for all end dead terminated you will NOT be back this is now getting a little tiring a few months yes but years do me a favour hello are you awake F**K them off will ya be done with it

Sheessh

Just another case of msft backed corruption? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28349283)

This is 4th "prospective buyer" in 19 months

Whenever scox's bankruptcy comes to trial, scox tells the judge about some mysterious prospective buyer, and scox gets another delay. Scox has been playing this game for nearly two years, and there is no end in sight. Of course, the dubious buyouts never materializes.

Either the judge falls for the same trick every time, or there is corruption involved. Considering that msft has been behind the scox-scam every step of the way since the beginning of the scam (over six years ago), the possibility of corruption is real. After all, msft is the company that admitted to bribing public officials in the OOXML scam.

Just another case of msft backed corruption? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 5 years ago | (#28349373)

Just another case of msft backed corruption?

This is 4th "prospective buyer" in 19 months

Whenever scox's bankruptcy comes to trial, scox tells the judge about some mysterious prospective buyer, and scox gets another delay. Scox has been playing this game for nearly two years, and there is no end in sight. Of course, the dubious buyouts never materializes.

Either the judge falls for the same trick every time, or there is corruption involved. Considering that msft has been behind the scox-scam every step of the way since the beginning of the scam (over six years ago), the possibility of corruption is real. After all, msft is the company that admitted to bribing public officials in the OOXML scam.

Did this prospective buyer KNOW of SCO? (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28351167)

Maybe its like those crappy telephone "bait and switch" scams and somebody just thought they were just buying "Naughty Nurses" porn.

Suddenly instead of a DVD of said "Naughty Nurses" they suddenly open a box full of SCO stock.

Is it me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28359709)

I hope it wasn't from when I said, 'I'd give them a dollar', here on slashdot, because I was only joking!!!!

y do u think so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28512169)

Why do you think that bankruptcy court will not OK the suggested sale?
i mean is there any clear logic behind your prediction?
70-270 exam [exam-builder.com]

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?