×

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!

Chapter 11 Trustee Appointed For SCO

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the why-not-a-trusty-instead dept.

The Courts 89

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The judge overseeing the SCO Chapter 11 bankruptcy case has issued an order appointing a chapter 11 trustee to oversee SCO's operations. However, the judge's reasoning is far from clear. While the judge believes that SCO has 'abandoned rehabilitation' to bet its future on litigation, he doesn't think it appropriate to convert their case to Chapter 7 liquidation. So SCO's management hasn't been fired yet, but they're no longer fully in charge either. It's not clear why the bankruptcy judge opted for this solution, when even the US Trustee was pushing to fire SCO's management and convert the case to Chapter 7. In short, SCO is still only mostly dead, rather than all dead, and in desperate search of a miracle worker."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

89 comments

Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28964751)

Please, whoever ends up acquiring SCO and their IP, set UnixWare and OpenServer free! Release the source code to both under a very liberal open source license. I hope Novell or whoever else has rights to the code could agree to that.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (4, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964779)

That would be the ultimate irony, for their code to all become open-source due to their attempts to claim they owned lots of source they didn't. It'd almost make all these years of SCO stories worth it...

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (5, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965385)

That's not likely to happen unless someone with deep pockets is willing to buy the source code and re-release it under an open source license. The job of the bankruptcy trustee isn't to punish SCO -- under a Chapter 7 his job is to maximize the value of SCO's assets so the creditors get as much of their money back as possible. Under a Chapter 11 his job is to see that they return to business as a viable entity while seeking the best possible deal for the creditors -- but seeing as how SCO has no viable business plan I'd say it's only a matter of time before it becomes a Chapter 7.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (3, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966527)

Unfortunately, I can't see WHEN it will become so. They should have been converted to a 7 filing and the Judge didn't do that much. While appointing an 11 Trustee is a step in the right direction, it's little more than a baby step really.

I can't see WHY the Judge is erring so far on the side of caution here- there won't be any appealing a 7 conversion at this point as SCO's clearly not restructuring to be profitable again. They're still hoping for the **BIG** litigation score- which will never happen as they didn't have a case in that regard to begin with.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (2, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967219)

They're still hoping for the **BIG** litigation score- which will never happen as they didn't have a case in that regard to begin with.

Interestingly enough, that lawsuit could be seen as an "asset" of sorts. When you file bankruptcy you have to list any causes of action or ongoing lawsuits that you are a party to. The theory is that if the cases have merit the US Trustee can take them from you, litigate them to the logical conclusion and use the proceeds to repay your creditors.

That the US Trustee hasn't already seized their ongoing cases is pretty telling of how much "merit" they have. Of course most of here already knew that. I am somewhat surprised that it hasn't been converted to a 7 as well. How much money do they owe? Maybe the creditors will eventually push it in that direction -- it will soon become bloody obvious to them that they aren't going to see a dime if the current crew gets to keep using Chapter 11 as a shield to wait for the big score that's never gonna come.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

durdur (252098) | more than 4 years ago | (#28975839)

That the US Trustee hasn't already seized their ongoing cases is pretty telling

The US Trustee's Office was present in the bankruptcy proceedings but has not up till now been acting as a trustee in charge of SCO's business. Now that the judge has ordered a trustee appointed to oversee the bankruptcy, that trustee will indeed be in charge of the litigation and can determine if it is worth pursuing or not.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (2, Insightful)

fendragon (841926) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968981)

I can't see WHY the Judge is erring so far on the side of caution here- there won't be any appealing a 7 conversion at this point as SCO's clearly not restructuring to be profitable again. They're still hoping for the **BIG** litigation score- which will never happen as they didn't have a case in that regard to begin with.

Possibly this: Either way the company will run into the ground and the judge knows that. If the judge ordered Chap. 7 Darl would spend the rest of his life telling everyone how he was cheated out of his litigation fortune and chance to save the company, and it would all be the judge's fault. By letting them carry on, the case will be lost or more likely SCO will run out of money (surely a matter of weeks now). Same result, but this way he can't complain that the court didn't let SCO give it their best shot.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970787)

If the judge ordered Chap. 7 Darl would spend the rest of his life telling everyone how he was cheated out of his litigation fortune and chance to save the company

Except that he wouldn't be cheated out of his litigation fortune. If the litigation results in a settlement larger than the debts that SCO owes to it's creditors than the Chapter 7 wouldn't be carried to conclusion and SCO could remain in business as a viable enterprise. If the settlement is smaller than those debts than SCO wasn't going to stay in business anyway.

The US Trustee would have no interest in shutting down the litigation because whatever money SCO gains from it would be used to pay back their creditors. Thus I don't see how Darl could claim that he was "cheated" out of anything if they were forced into a Chapter 7.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#28979315)

Except that the lawyers are going to be on the clock every second the lawsuit is in progress.

That has to be taken into account as well.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

PeelBoy (34769) | more than 4 years ago | (#28972487)

Really? The judge is supposed to care if Darl goes and cries to his friends how he was cheated?

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (2, Informative)

gdshaw (1015745) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968629)

You wouldn't need very deep pockets, and IBM could certainly afford it without blinking, but I don't think they will for the very simple reason that those particular copyrights are of little importance: at worst they can be used to threaten a few of SCO's ex-customers, but that's about all.

Of somewhat greater importance are the core System V copyrights, but according to the Utah ruling these are owned by Novell. All that needs to happen at this point is for the Utah ruling to stand.

(Of course, even with those copyrights it would be a huge uphill struggle to threaten Linux at this point, but better that no-one is given the opportunity to try.)

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28969941)

> "Under a Chapter 11 his job is to see that they return to business as a viable entity"

I would just add to this....there is a "liquidating 11" where the company stays in Chapter 11 but liquidates none the less.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28974823)

That's not likely to happen unless someone with deep pockets is willing to buy the source code and re-release it under an open source license.

SCO Does Not Own Unixware [wikipedia.org]. Keep reading that link to find out what they do own; parts of Unixware derived from SCO UNIX. Even if you bought SCO, the best you could do with that code is sell binary Unixware. You don't have the license to redistribute Novell's source code.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (4, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965417)

They can't.

Please see Ransom Love's comment [eweek.com]:

Indeed, at first we wanted to open-source all of Unix's code, but we quickly found that even though we owned it, it was, and still is, full of other companies copyrights.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28971083)

Please see the original poster's post:

I hope Novell or whoever else has rights to the code could agree to that.

Of course it will be a multi-party affair.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28977029)

They can't.

I'm sorry, but you and they FUD'ing. Open source is just another license. Just like every sale. No reason to treat open source differently in this context.

Indeed, at first we wanted to open-source all of Unix's code, but we quickly found that even though we owned it, it was, and still is, full of other companies copyrights.

So what? If they didn't have the rights to the code then they couldn't sell it, including selling the source. They sell it therefore presumably they have the rights.

Too many people FUD about open source licenses' mystical powers. It's just another license. A lot of companies like to claim they can't open source but they're just spin doctoring the business reasons they really don't want to open source.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#28979519)

No, they had rights to the code under various licenses. That allowed them to sell/resell it. It did not give them the right to relicense it under $FLOSS_LICENSE.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (3, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965451)

Would anyone use it even if it was free? I hear a lot about SCO suing people but I don't think I've ever heard someone say they were buying a SCO product..

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966845)

Couldn't you file a public notice that if any of the copyright holders are interested in maintaining their copyright, they should contact so-and-so by such-and-such a date.

After that date, open the code.

After all, you couldn't abandon your private property on a public highway and then just leave it there forever.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968419)

No, you couldn't. You seem to be confusing copyright with trademarks. You don't havce to do any maintenance to keep your copyright.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970897)

Couldn't you file a public notice that if any of the copyright holders are interested in maintaining their copyright, they should contact so-and-so by such-and-such a date.

No, Copyright doesn't change hands so easily as that. If it did, what's to stop, say, Microsoft from doing that with regards to the Linux code? In a VERY obscure newspaper (it's public, even if only 500 people read it). And then claiming the entire Linux codebase as their own, since its Copyright has obviously been abandoned.

Or if you don't like the MS/Linux example, use the works of any well known author, his publisher, and a similarly obscure journal....

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (2, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968595)

I hear a lot about SCO suing people but I don't think I've ever heard someone say they were buying a SCO product..

Some topics just aren't discussed in polite company.

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#28970653)

Slashdot is "polite company"? You must have your threshold set to "6"!

Re:Free UnixWare and OpenServer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968837)

I don't presume to be able to do mindreading, but I sincerely doubt that was what was what the parent was after. Presumeably he wanted the whole "Unix/SCOundrel" issue disarmed permanently by putting the whole shebang under say a BSD or MIT like license.

To Blathe! (3, Funny)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964807)

"Did you say to blathe? Well as everyone knows, to blathe means to bluff."

SCO bluffed, and got caught. Miracle Max only works for True Love, not To Blathe

Re:To Blathe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28971001)

The lawyers already got to the couch. There is no loose change here.

Suing people is *not* a valid business model... (4, Insightful)

johnthorensen (539527) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964819)

...unless you're a lawyer. Look at the RIAA, SCO, et al. Their 'businesses' are all suffering while the lawyers laugh all the way to the bank.

It's a damn shame that the trial lawyer lobby is so strong.

Re:Suing people is *not* a valid business model... (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965323)

In short, SCO is still only mostly dead, rather than all dead

Evil never dies...

Re:Suing people is *not* a valid business model... (2, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965803)

> Evil never dies...

Because nobody goes after the lawyers!

Re:Suing people is *not* a valid business model... (1)

qubezz (520511) | more than 4 years ago | (#28994627)

The T-Rex in Jurassic Park goes right after the lawyer!

Re:Suing people is *not* a valid business model... (2, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969437)

I have some bad news for you. Assuming that SCO don't appeal this Order and a chapter 11 Trustee is appointed, what are his options?
  1. Shut the company down and pay the last remaining cash to the creditors. Since there's not enough left in SCO's accounts (now, let alone after Darl & Co loot it) to pay the creditors, this is the option of last resort, and not what a Chapter 11 Trustee is meant to do anyway.
  2. Cut or sell off the loss making parts of the company to fund the profitable bits. But since SCO has systematically cannibalised everything except the litigation, there are no profitable bits left. As the bankruptcy judge has noted, the litigation is the only part of the company that might make money.
  3. Sell part of the company to fund the litigation. However, there's nothing of value left to sell. SCO have just been denied the opportunity to pull an incestuous "sale" of some nebulous "assets" to a sock-puppet (i.e. unXis), and I can't see an independent Trustee allowing any such shennanigans.
  4. Sell the whole company - i.e. the litigation - and make it someone else's problem.

I think option 4 is the only realistic one. This name on this litigation is about to change, but it isn't going anywhere.

Miracle Worker? (1)

mollog (841386) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964843)

"desperate search of a miracle worker." Well, we know who the 'miracle worker' would be; Ballmer. The question is, does he come to SCO's aid again?

Re:Miracle Worker? (3, Interesting)

rasper99 (247555) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964939)

There were stories that the CEO of Enron, Ken Lay called the Whitehouse after things collapsed. His call was not taken. Just a few years before he was Uncle Kenny at the BBQs in Crawford, TX. Probably be about the same here.

Re:Miracle Worker? (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965477)

There were stories that the CEO of Enron, Ken Lay called the Whitehouse after things collapsed. His call was not taken.

"Your call has been forwarded to an automated voice messaging system. 'IS THIS THING ON? *tap, tap, tap* HEY THIS IS GEORGE LEAVE A MESSAGE!' is not available. At the tone please record your message. When you are finished recording you can hang up or press '1' for more options. To leave a callback number, press '5'."

In other news... (5, Funny)

johnthorensen (539527) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964871)

3D Realms has announced post-reorganization merger plans with SCO Group. SCO shares were up $0.02/share for a gain of 10000% on the news that they would be suing themselves for non-performance.

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 4 years ago | (#28968069)

Verizon executives were said to be confused as to how two-thousandths of a cent could be a 10000% increase, even for SCO.

Sadly (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964935)

They are... too big to fail... And thus the undead will always walk among you, feasting upon your virgin flesh, forever hungry.. MUHaHaHa

Maybe to keep 'em from sneaking stuff out the door (4, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28964937)

However, the judge's reasoning is far from clear.

Maybe this is the judge's way of putting a watchdog on 'em to make sure they don't run out the door with or (further) destroy the value of some of the remaining assets before things get settled?

(Not only am I NAL but I'm especially NA bankruptcy L.)

Wikipedia is your friend. (3, Informative)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965223)

Looks like that might be it.

According to the Wikipedia article on chapter 11 [wikipedia.org], chapter 11 lets the company run either under a court-appointed trustee or the "debtor in posession", i.e. the original management acting as a trustee and operating under the same rules, behind the shield of the bankruptcy process. And:

Appointment of a trustee requires some wrongdoing or gross mismanagement on the part of existing management and is relatively rare.

Looks like the judge is saying that, while it isn't clear yet whether SCO will be able to emerge from chapter 11 as a viable business or will have to be liquidated under chapter 7, the current management is either grossly mismanaging the company or at least making it appear that they aren't doing as well for the interests of the creditors and stockholders as a trustee would.

Re:Wikipedia is your friend. (1)

darkonc (47285) | more than 4 years ago | (#28996561)

The judge indicated that he wasn't quite clear if SCO's legal claims were really worth chasing. (( I mean, why would someone be so pigheaded about it if there really was no chance of winning??? )) .... so he's suggested a trustee with strong litigation skills ( "...a litigator or former judge") who could go through the legal archives and figure out if SCO has a snowball's chance in hell at the litigation before the final decision to go to chapter 7 is made.

Re:Maybe to keep 'em from sneaking stuff out the d (4, Informative)

Artifakt (700173) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965783)

SCO petitioned at the last minute for an administrator, with less power than a real trustee, to handle only selected parts of a full Chapter 11 proceeding. That's what they liked best. From Groklaw, no one seems to know if such an arrangement was even a legal option.

A chapter 7 with appointed trustee is what they would like least. That presumes there's no chance of the company ever reorganizing, and the goal is instead to pay off as many of the creditors as possible.

The judge gave them something in the middle - a standard chapter 11 ,which means he is holding out the chance that some purchase offer might be legitimate and SCO just might rise again.

If I'm ever facing 20 years in maximum security, I plan to claim house arrest with an ankle bracelet is quite reasonable and customary for whatever I did, and see if the judge will split the difference and give me 5 in minimum security. Who knows, it could work.

Re:Maybe to keep 'em from sneaking stuff out the d (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966591)

I'm willing to give them a legit purchase offer. $100 for the whole thing. $200 if I can punch Darl in the face at closing.

Re:Maybe to keep 'em from sneaking stuff out the d (2, Funny)

Sanat (702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967691)

You focus on the purchase price.

I got you covered for the extra $100

Even if you can't purchase SCO the $100 is still yours for the punch.

Re:Maybe to keep 'em from sneaking stuff out the d (1)

drgould (24404) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966811)

However, the judge's reasoning is far from clear.

My impression is that on the one hand he has SCO telling that they could win billions and billions of dollars from their lawsuits if the judge will just give them a chance, and on the other hand he has IBM, Novell and the US Trustee telling him "let's stick a fork in this turkey and call it done." And he knows neither side is impartial.

He probably thinks that, unless he wants to research the merits of SCO's case against IBM, Novell and the rest of the world, he can't make a reasonable evaluation of SCO's chances, nor is that his responsibility.

Therefore he chose the middle road. Leave SCO in Chapter 11, but assign a Trustee to run the business and evaluate SCO's business and legal prospects in their lawsuits.

Of course we know any tech-savvy Trustee will laugh at SCO's lawsuit lottery and recommend conversion to Chapter 7, and indeed the current US Trustee recommended just that.

I wonder what incentivized or motivated that judge (0, Flamebait)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965023)

to keep that SCOkenstein (SCO Frankenstein) ventilated.

If he thinks the company is beyond rehabilitation, then if the effer is brain or lung dead (mostly dead, not fully dead per submitter?), pull the plug. Why keep SCOkenstein writhing or huckin' and buckin' on 5 amps and 200 volts when the skull-cracked hodge-podge needs (or wants) to neck-suckle on 40 amps and 50,000 volts. It's just keeping open doors to the court and a drain on public resources. (Tell them to go find a power transmission tower, bite it, & blacken their asses like toast. Maybe SCO should get into the energy deliver business?) What's SCO anyway these days? Seems like a twig or tumbleweed blowing around trying to snag something, or an alien husk awaiting seminal insemination to resurrection. Right now, they've got their damned terminals reversed.

incentivized (1, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965549)

incentivized? WTF? What language do you normally speak? Martian?

Re:incentivized (0, Offtopic)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#28974753)

To the mod who called this "flamebait":

Have you ever watched a group of children, who are working hard to learn communication skills? For want of a real word, they will make up a word, spur of the moment, and agree to it's meaning amongst themselves.

Incentivized is just such a word. A group of people were having a discussion, and none of them had sufficient knowledge of the English language to express themselves. One of the ignorant and juvenile individuals tried incentivized, and the rest of those ignorant individuals thought it sounded cool. Instant acceptance.

Groups of people all over the English speaking world do this, and those pretend words manage to get adopted into this niche or that. They look at technology fields, where jargon is essential, then claim to be following the example of scientists, engineers, and technicians. That is pure bullshit. The tech people make up words for concepts that don't EXIST, until they discover the concept. Incentivized is the mark of an ignorant, uneducated poser who is trying to pass himself off as a manager, or as an executive.

Stop sounding retarded, people. It's far more respectable to admit that you don't know the proper term, pull out a thesaurus, and FIND a term, than it is to make up idiot baby talk.

I have actually walked away from discussions in which one clown or another starts with the baby talk. If they don't have the decency to learn to speak their native language properly, they don't deserve the respect implied by listening to them.

Re:incentivized To whoeve moded Runaway off-topic (0, Offtopic)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 4 years ago | (#28980517)

Oh, well, have you looked for the word? Why is it that you get to use your dislike for the world to mod two people off topic? Are you a "player hater"? Or, are you a pro-sco person hiding behind the lazy slashdot code that allows hit-and-run modding?

Looking at sco's conduct, and splaying their ass up in the air for microsoft to do ms' bidding, sco is (after ms) the LAST company topic for which boo-hoo off-topic-modding should be tolerated. Downward-trending scoring, maybe, but a slam-dunk off-topic? HELL NO.

Judges rarely convert to chapter 7 (4, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965087)

I'm not a lawyer and by no means an expert on bankruptcy but as I understand it bankruptcy judges are generally very hesitant about converting Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcies unless pretty much everyone thinks they should. The general attitude of the American bankruptcy system is that companies should generally be given pretty close to every opportunity to get out to the wholes they've gotten into and that we shouldn't start filling the dirt in over them unless we've got really good reasons. Note also that this doesn't mean that SCO won't go through chapter 7. It just means it isn't going through chapter 7 right now. It could still convert later if things show no sign of improvement.

But ALL the creditors were asking for it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28966003)

Pretty much all of the creditors, as well as the US Trustee, were asking for Chapter 7. The judge said they had no viable business and the deals they've come out with were a sham.

So, basically, the judge's logic doesn't make any sense in this case. He realizes that they're betting the farm on litigation, which he says he's not competent to judge the viability of... so he hands that off to a trustee.

Hopefully, the trustee has some clue, but God only knows what will happen at this point. This is SCO. They have to be nuked from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Judges rarely convert to chapter 7 (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966311)

Are criminal proceedings against SCO's officers still a possibility? The SCO corporation may have more assets to work with than are currently in view if it can be shown that its officers have either improperly converted business assets to personal holdings, or contracts with lawyers were illegal and should be voided.

If there is any possibility like that still out there, the best thing for the stockholders and creditors would be to delay conversion to Chapter 7.

Re:Judges rarely convert to chapter 7 (1)

kilgortrout (674919) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971913)

Not true. The majority of Ch11 cases wind up either being converted into a CH7 or are ended by filing a liquidating plan under CH11, i.e. all the assets are sold off after which the business ceases. The reasons are pretty clear; a business winds up filing CH11 because they are in serious trouble. Most are not successful in finding a way out of their financial problems.

What is relatively rare is the appointment of a Trustee in a CH11 case which is invariably done over the objections of the debtor. It's an indication that the judge no longer has any confidence that the debtor's management is acting in the best interests of creditors. And that's usually prompted by some irrational or improper conduct by the debtor's management during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings. The appointment of a Trustee in a CH11 case is almost always a prelude to the conversion of the case to a CH7 or the liquidation of the debtor under CH11.

Day of the dead (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965263)

SCO "Cooooode.............I want to own your COOOOODE!!"

Re:Day of the dead (1)

lumenistan (1165199) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965355)

And not just any dead - EVIL DEAD! <Ash> Shop smart - shop at S(CO)-Mart! </Ash>

Re:Day of the dead (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966259)

And not just any dead - EVIL DEAD! Shop smart - shop at S(CO)-Mart!

Judge: All right, you litigious screwheads, listen up. This, is my BOOM STICK!

the reason is simple ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28965273)

... Follow the money!

UBS in Switzerland.

My Read (5, Insightful)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965327)

I think the first point about bankruptcy court is that the debtors are given time to reorganize and to become viable and the creditors are given an opportunity to get some of the money they are owed paid back.

The Judge is saying the guys who were running SCO were not taking bankruptcy seriously. The Judge called them out for bleeding cash, wasting time, requesting and missing multiple extensions on the deadline for them to produce a reorganizing plan, and coming up with the half-baked sales agreements all predicated on, after the particular assets are sold, creditors paid off, and attorneys funded, if, the big vaporous if, there's litigation proceeds, then SCO's owners and managers do very well. When he referenced "Waiting for Godot" and SCO's management "waiting for the dough" and betting the company on litigation, I think he chose the Chapter 11 Trustee plan so that when the appeals in Novell are decided (it is suggested that that will be by Aug. 31) someone with a clear eye can look at that decision and decide if there's truly money for the estate in pursuit of the litigation or whether it's time to turn out the lights. In the decision he repeats SCO's assertion that customers will miss them and I think he does that not as an endorsement of SCO's position but to signal that there is a profitable going concern in the server products and somebody will be glad to be in that business, i.e., there will be a serious buyer.

Between the lines, I think he does not like what SCO's management has done by following the litigation business model and I further think he sees that the only way for the smaller creditors to get their money back is to put less sue-happy people in charge. I'm sure the judge was not pleased with the way some bills got paid by subsidiaries and how Darl McBride paid for one suitor/rainmaker out of his own pocket. SCO was racing the clock and the clock ran out.

He should have said (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28965729)

"Waiting for SCOdot"

Re:My Read (2, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967643)

Another important thing to note is the "litigation business model" involves paying a lot in legal fees to Darl's brother. IMHO Darl deliberately drove the company into the brick wall that is IBM to direct a lot of SCO's money to his brother. Between the two of them they made a vast amount more from SCO than if Darl had successfully managed the company.

not only zombie-like, but completely inauthentic (3, Funny)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965339)

As a resident of Santa Cruz, I would expect any authentic "Santa Cruz Operation" to involve growing plants.

Close.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28965473)

This particular SCO outfit has been smoking plants, not growing them.

Re:not only zombie-like, but completely inauthenti (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965503)

SCO is not the Santa Cruz Operation.

The Santa Cruz Operation (aka oldSCO or Santa Cruz) sold their OS business to Caldera in 2001. Caldera then changed its name to "The SCO Group" (aka newSCO or the SCOundrels) allegedly to take advantage of the goodwill, but later events (the lawsuit) seem to indicate it was to sow confusion as to their identity.

Santa Cruz renamed itself to Tarantella after the sale. Tarantella was sold to Sun for $25M in July 2005.

It could be beneficial (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28965343)

The trustee has to investigate SCO's business. The trustee can decide that SCO's whole 'thing' is a fraud and has no chance of success. The trustee can settle all the cases out of court and on the terms that Novell and IBM dictate. That would put a quick end to the whole thing and Darl and company couldn't appeal the decision.

If SCO's assets were sold in chapter 7, there is a chance that the litigation would go on for years.

So, chapter 11 with a trustee might be better than chapter 7.

Re:It could be beneficial (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966997)

The trustee can settle all the cases out of court and on the terms that Novell and IBM dictate.

My understanding is that Novell already has a decision, no need to settle. Novell will get theirs first, then the creditors (and whatever IBM's Nazgul manage to squeeze, of course).

$599 please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28965893)

You cock-smoking tea-baggers!

This is the tale that never ends. (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28965903)

It goes on and on my friends. Darl started it seven years ago, how it stops noone will ever know because ... (Repeat)

Zombie Nazis vs Zombie SCO (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966051)

Some Germans may be relieved another boogie man is taking the roll of "safe to ridicule and attack". I expect to see Darl and company show up as targets in many FPS games in the future. Even in the world of PC, blowing out the brainz of SCO executives and lawyers will be acceptable if not glorified.

Advert: Amazing enemies SCO throws at you next as they bring their dark fantasies to life.
"thousands of lines of stolen code in Linux..." *budda budda boom*

Re:Zombie Nazis vs Zombie SCO (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969453)

"DO YOU WANT TOTAL WAR?"

"...fava beans and a nice chianti." *hiss*

"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

vs.

"thousands of lines of stolen code in Linux..."

Meh, pretty paltry for a villain.

Doesn't shout, I don't think he's ever cackled... does he even own a cat?

SCO is like a bad movie monster... (2, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28966085)

You can kill it, but as long as there is even a remote chace that money can be made it will be back in a sequel.

Vampires Running the Bloodbank (0, Flamebait)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#28967583)

" It's not clear why the bankruptcy judge opted for this solution..."

A great many of the gyrations of the case since the crack legal team that defended them came on board, as well as many to come, will make much more sense if you remember one salient point: the deal with the lawyers was that if SCO won, they'd get a cut of the winnings, but if SCO lost, they'd get a cut of the corpse.

What judge is going to order that his fellow court officers' income for a job well done get cut out of their deal? As long as it has the appearance of restructuring they can drain the coffers dry and force SCO to keep filling them as long as it has blood to let.

Re:Vampires Running the Bloodbank (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#28971095)

A great many of the gyrations of the case since the crack legal team that defended them came on board

I thought it was SCO's executives that were on crack?

SCO on the Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28968509)

SCO on the rocks
Aint no surprise
Gave them some cash
And they made up some lies
Had nothing to lose
So they just litigated all the time

Gave them my cash
For a Linux licence
They left me alone here
With nothing to hold
Vista went wrong
Now all I want is a trial

First, they say they want you
How they really need you
Suddenly you find you're out there
Throwing chairs in the storm
When they know they have you
Then they really have you
Nothing you can do or say
You've got to leave, just get away
We all know the song

Get writing (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969239)

Once SCO is finally dead and buried, the whole saga is going to make a cracking book up there with the Enron one (and film). I'd like to think it would be a warning to future CEO's on how not to look like a total idiot but I suspect that just goes with the job these days.

Die! Die! Why won't you die! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#28969411)

"Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea: The idea that open-source is free for the taking for any company that wishes to steal it and has deep enough pockets for litigating."

It's gavel-proof.

The only solution here.. (1)

Dr_Ken (1163339) | more than 4 years ago | (#28976599)

is to behead the entire management team and principal stock owners and then drive a stake through their hearts, and bury them at a crossroads under a full moon. Seriously it couldn't hurt.
Check for New 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...