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 Zombie McBride's New Plan For World Litigation

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the problem-is-the-missing-braaaiiins dept.

Caldera 193

eldavojohn writes "Years after you thought it was all over, Groklaw is reporting that Darl McBride (ex-CEO of SCO) has formed a new company that is buying SCO's mobile business for peanuts — but he's also going to get 'certain Intellectual Property' with the deal. You may recall that McBride was the brains behind the Linux lawsuits that SCO launched and it appears he may be orchestrating an exit route where he escapes with some IP intact, in order to wreak havoc once again. Hopefully this is the part at the end of the movie where the zombie comes back to life one last time only to have the hero deliver the final final blow. When this news broke upon the investment world, SCO's stock skyrocketed a blistering 11%, bringing it up seven cents to a full seventy cents — a level which it has not achieved since 2007."

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

Math? (-1, Troll)

MasseKid (1294554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335054)

0.07$ to 0.70$ is 10 times or 1000%. It is not 11% no matter how good your accounts are at hiding numbers.

Reading? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335090)

$0.63 + $0.07 = $0.70

Re:Math? (4, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335098)

No, but $0.63 + $0.07 = $0.70 and .07/.63 is .111111 or about 11%. I think you misread.

Re:Math? (0, Offtopic)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335104)

Up 7 cents to 70... meaning it was at 63.

Not to be obnoxious... Just pointing out that I read it too fast to begin with as well. Just double-back next time and try a re-read... well... unless you're frist prosting...

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335106)

0.70 - 0.07 = 0.63 0.63 * 1.11 = 0.70 (rounded)

Re:Math? (0, Redundant)

One Louder (595430) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335124)

up 0.07$, not up *from* 0.07$

Re:Math? (0, Redundant)

Umuri (897961) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335136)

x + $.07 = $.70
x = $.70 - $.07
x = $.63

$.07 / $.63 = .111111
11% rise of 63.

Re:Math? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335160)

You need to take some reading comprehension classes. The summary says that it rose $0.07 to reach $0.70, not that it rose from $0.07 to $0.70. So before the increse the stock price was $0.63. And if you do the math $0.07 is indeed 11% of $0.63.

Re:Math? (1, Insightful)

MasseKid (1294554) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335162)

I think I need some more coffee this afternoon. :(

Re:Math? (3, Funny)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335992)

at least 11% more.

Re:Math? (4, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336238)

You know, it's morning here as I read this, and nothing makes me giggle more than a post by someone who misread the article, followed by ten or more posts showing the incorrect math used, examples and why the post is mislead.

I haven't worked out whether it's
a) Altruism - No my friend, you got this wrong, here is how you were meant to interpret the article.
b) Pack mentality - No brother, you need to read it correctly, if we all read it correctly, our slashpack will become the most powerful pack on earth and we will enjoy the good life.

(It starts going downhill from here)
c) Nitpicking - You silly slashdotter, you read it wrong, naaarrny naarny nar nar!
d) Douchebaggery - Check it out, I am so much smarter than you, I am like a million times smarter than you, I read it correctly! Here is how it's meant to be read. Now bask in my glory!

But whatever the case, it's amusing, and I don't think there are many other sites that give me both nerd news and giggles.

*sips coffee*

Re:Math? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336484)

Having read Slashdot since its first year, I'm pretty sure it's mostly (c) and (d).

Re:Math? (1)

zapakh (1256518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336552)

That is perhaps the most pretentious coffee-sip I have ever experienced in text form. My fedora is off to you.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336688)

My fedora is off to you

And look! The most pretentious tip-of-the-hat!

Re:Math? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335290)

Congratulations on getting First Fail.

Re:Math? (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335410)

Next time you want first post, just check the "post anonymously" button and say "frosty piss", or cut and paste a GNAA troll, or say something about CmdrTaco's gay sex orgies (with goatse link!) or something of that nature...you'll get less abuse that way.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335762)

I'm very disappointed... CmdrTaco has been having gay sex orgies, and he hasn't invited me?!?

Re:Math? (1)

lastgoodnickname (1438821) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336018)

His way is 11% better than that.

Re:Math? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336104)

yeah, but this post goes to 11%!

Re:Math? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336160)

sup darl?

Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335056)

Indicates that the McBride is interested in brains... He's not. He's interested in trying to exploit patents that he had nothing to do with and not contributing anything back.

Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (5, Insightful)

Garridan (597129) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335268)

If brains are equated to IP, then the comparison is apt. Zombies eat the brains of the living, to the detriment of the living, just to prolong the zombies' pathetic existence. McBride wants to harvest the IP of others, to the detriment of the originators of said IP, only to prolong his pathetic existence.

Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335898)

Someone get Woody Harrelson on the line. I've seen what he does to zombies.

Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (2, Informative)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335940)

If brains are equated to IP, then the comparison is apt. Zombies eat the brains of the living, to the detriment of the living, just to prolong the zombies' pathetic existence. McBride wants to harvest the IP of others, to the detriment of the originators of said IP, only to prolong his pathetic existence.

Perhaps not coincidentally, this also reads a lot like the theme of Atlas Shrugged... except, you know, no zombies and all that.

Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336446)

He will lose more money. The guy is a slow learner.

Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (1)

ipquickly (1562169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336514)

I think those who hire him are even slower.

Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336728)

Maybe that's why he needs the brains...

How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (2)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335058)

At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

Oh and the zombie you thought was the last one, usually is not the last one. History repeats itself, folks.

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335276)

At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

"How do you kill that which has no life...?"

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335446)

"How do you kill that which has no life...?"

Are you implying that Slashdotters are immortal?

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (1)

kev0153 (578226) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335576)

If it bleeds we can kill it

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336046)

If it bleeds we can kill it

Now Get To Da Choppp.. I mean Laawwyer

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336452)

Who took my cookies?!

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335792)

At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

"How do you kill that which has no life...?"

Sever the head or destroy the brain. The same solution should be effective with McBride.

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336190)

destroy the brain stem to stop future returns. then set the corpse on fire for good measure

Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? (1)

u-235-sentinel (594077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335564)

At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

Oh and the zombie you thought was the last one, usually is not the last one. History repeats itself, folks.

Not sure about that. You see I bought Left 4 Dead 2 and my combat shotgun works quite well against Zombies. So I think you can at least prevent it from moving after a couple blasts. The cool part is when the witch or a tank shows up. But then I'm getting ahead of myself ;-)

Urgent Legal Reform... (0)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335060)

I would urge that all members of the judiciary be issued the implements required for destruction of the undead as swiftly as possible; but I'm not quite sure whether requiring state officers to carry holy water violates the establishment clause or not... Stakes, garlic, and shotguns, at least, should be ok.

Re:Urgent Legal Reform... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336456)

Carrying the vials themselves would likely be a violation, unless they were doing so as a personal demonstration of their faith, which would likely be protected unless they did it in the courtroom, which likely would not be protected.

Another solution would be to provide funding for faith-based initiatives to carry the holy water instead of the judiciary, but leave the initiative open to all faiths and denominations. I'm not sure if others (Hindus, for example) use holy water, or if it any more effective than good ol' Catholic holy water, but by leaving participation open to all, you would likely solve the Constitutional issues.

Sigh... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335102)

Which is why the SEC should have gone after McBride and SCO. That this guy, after basically bilking investors (not that some of those investors didn't deserve it) in an obvious pump-and-dump isn't spending time in a Federal prison, but instead is free to start a new company that actually buys up some of SCO's alleged IP to start another round of "litigation as a business model" pump and dumps is beyond me.

Re:Sigh... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335788)

Eh, let him try to find investors. Anyone who is dumb enough to invest in his company needs to be separated from their money anyway.

Re:Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336420)

Maybe SCO can go back into the business of developing software for fast food restaurants again, while McBride feeds his last pennies to the lawyers. SCO's stock went up because they finally got some cash from the asshole who ran them into the ground confusing litigation with business.

I can't wait to see how much their stock goes up when McBride's new outfit sues them. If this new outfit's entire business model is still just litigation a good lawyer might be able to challenge the veil of corporate protection over McBride's wallet if they can demonstrate McBride started the company just to harass people he has grudges against. I am no lawyer, but looking at Enron and the prosecutions there it seems there are limits to how much protection a court will offer criminals through a corporation.

Re:Sigh... (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335954)

isn't spending time in a Federal prison, but instead is free to start a new company that actually buys up some of SCO's alleged IP to start another round of "litigation as a business model" pump and dumps is beyond me.

This will remain the status-quo as long as Corporate personhood is the law.

You can create a "person" for a few bucks, commit all the crimes you want, and then let that "person" take all the blame for it. You were merely a slave to the corporation. And as an added bonus, there is no criminal law for corporate persons, so they only ever have to cough up some money, and that only after they've killed a LOT of people. Just ask Toyota.

Choke! (5, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335110)

"You may recall that McBride was the brains behind the Linux lawsuits....."

The brains?!?!? Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

Re:Choke! (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335668)

Yes. Brains. McBride is surely doing pretty well, financially-speaking. Investors who bought into SCO probably lost their shirts (and the shirts of their clients) but I think he's doing just fine and appears to be in position to start it all over again.

Sure, he's a scumbag who drove a company into the toilet and pissed away investor's money but I'm sure his bank account will happily report that he's made some smart, if immoral decisions along the way.

Remember, executives rarely follow the same failure track of their companies...

Re:Choke! (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335936)

Remember, executives rarely follow the same failure track of their companies...

I hate to admit it, but it's true. Rarely do you see an exec walk away from crap like this without his/her shirt on their back. Hell, most of them get rewarded with a new position in another company.

Look at what Sol Trujillo did here in Australia. Ran Telstra into the ground and walked away with a huge pay out. While all the mum & dad investors ended up losing their retirement nest egg, he sits there counting the millions he walked away with.

Re:Choke! (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335928)

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

That's what he did all the way to the bank, yes. You're assuming he bought into what he was saying, while I suspect that he and his lawyer brother riled each other up trying to find the most absurd but plausible-sounding legal fillings and PR statements to inflate the stock price over killing a bottle of scotch and released everything they managed to say with a straight face. No player ever announces himself as such, the whole "poor victimized CEO that's been screwed over by IBM and had his precious IP stolen" is playing the act. His apparent ignorance that the whole lawsuit was basically a sham based on IP rights they didn't own is more of the same. He misled people, got lots of money and got away with it. In my book that's a very successful and intelligent con man, despite the faulty moral compass. I suspect if he read your post he'd go "lok, I got you soooooooo fooled".

Re:Choke! (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336698)

Form the zombie guide to management (Z.E.O): Use yours, eat theirs.

*sigh* (1)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335116)

Honestly, this guy should not be allowed to hold any intellectual property. Any IP this guy holds will have lawsuits attached to it.

SCO Unix was not a bad operating system, but he literally destroyed the company with all the lawsuits against linux in the name of defending their IP.

Re:*sigh* (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335242)

Honestly, this guy should not be allowed to hold any intellectual property.

Actually considering the amount of money he has wasted or caused to be wasted, I would venture to say that the sociopath that he is should not be allowed to breed or to breath. But we don't always get what we want...

Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (2, Interesting)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335120)

So it isn't legal to kill him, or have him killed. (So don't try this kids.)

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (3, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335328)

"McBride isn't a Zombie so it isn't legal to kill him, or have him killed. (So don't try this kids.)"

Is killing a zombie legal outside of self-defense?

Won't someone think of the zombies???

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335502)

Is killing a zombie legal outside of self-defense?always self-defense.

Even if you make a game out of it like "zombie head t-ball" or "see how many times you can shoot the zombie's limbs before it has to start dragging itself after you with its lips". After your thousandth self-defense zombie killing, you start to want to take the edge off the monotony!

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336678)

It's a legitimate question given the existence of laws against desecrating the dead.

Well, I guess zombies are technically *un*dead rather than the conventional meaning of "dead", but I don't think the law draws that distinction. Clearly the law needs to be amended before the zombie apocalypse rather than waiting until the catastrophe happens. :-)

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335386)

On the flip side it is only illegal if you get caught.

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335660)

It's illegal either way. There are only direct consequences if you get caught.

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335706)

No, it's illegal no matter what. You only get government/society-imposed consequences if you get caught. An act does not become illegal because you were found out.

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336222)

No, it's illegal no matter what.

Well coming from a state where "He needed killin' yer honor." is an affirmative defense might just color my perception of that a wee, little bit.

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335438)

So it isn't legal to kill him, or have him killed. (So don't try this kids.)

I'm suddenly feeling like this thread has turned into a Mafia conversation. "Yes. Please don't hire a hit man. Please don't call Freddy at 555-0129. That's Freddy at 555-0129. His services cost $5,000 per hit plus expenses, so he is quite affordable, but again, I repeat, do *not* call Freddy at 555-0129. After all, that would be illegal. That's Freddy at 555-0129. Don't call him today."

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336378)

Freddy? Oh you forgot the area code - it's 888-555-0129 but yeah,don't kill 'em ... That would be illegal... A slow death wouldn't be looked upon kindly by the courts ya'know... Don't call him at all. Please don't call Freddy at 888-555-0129.
Thanks,

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335662)

Its not Illegal if you truly believe he is a Zombie.

OK kids lets all believe real hard!!!!!!!

Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335834)

Its not Illegal if you truly believe he is a Zombie.

OK kids lets all believe real hard!!!!!!!

Way ahead of you. In fact I have trouble believing McBride isn't a Zombie.

wait wait wait... (1)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335974)

"Video games warped my mind and I truly believed Mr McBride was a zombie when I decapitated him with the chainsaw. As such I am not responsable for my actions as my lawyer Mr Jack Thomson will clearly show."

Don't forget.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335134)

the double tap.

Zombies (1)

ZipprHead (106133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335264)

Having a habit of scanning headlines. I first read this as:

"Zombies Plan For World Liquidation"

Maybe I've been playing Left for a Dead a little too much. FML

Darling McBride (1)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335356)

"Darl McBride" just isn't a real name, people. You gotta come up with a more convincing villain name, like, say, "Gorgeous McRib."

Re:Darling McBride (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335480)

Or "Big McLargehuge"? [youtube.com]

Re:Darling McBride (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335802)

Too bad he is neither named Ken nor has an affinity for forklifts.

Re:Darling McBride (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336078)

This is the song, right after the lawsuit,
it's the return of Darl McBride!
Let's try-y-y-y-y to kill him with a forklift!
Ole!

Here we go again.. (1)

Skatox (1109939) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335394)

..at least we can still reading SCO vs Linux information again. I'm bored without seen news like that

Time to take him out back... (1)

M5Hosting (859117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335414)

Somebody just needs to put this guy out of his misery.

If the business model works.... (4, Insightful)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335488)

No, not the SCO business model. I mean the Darl McBride business model, which is to swindle investors into believing that he can accomplish something in the long run, pocketing as much money as he can, and moving on to the next busload of Wall Street suckers. As long as it keeps incrementing the value in his bank account fast enough, he'll keep doing it. Short of marooning him on a desert planet somewhere -- which entails its own risks [wikipedia.org] -- there's not a lot anyone can do to keep him from grabbing the occasional headline with his latest antics.

Just be thankful that he isn't working that business model at the same scale as AIG, Bank of America, or Citibank.

Re:If the business model works.... (2, Insightful)

shadowofwind (1209890) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335644)

I think you just described the business model for the entire American economy.

Re:If the business model works.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335814)

...
“My friends”, he announced in a voice clear and clean,
“My name is Darl McMonkey McBride.
And I’ve heard of Your troubles. I’ve heard you’re unhappy.
But I can fix that, I’m the Fix-It-Up Chappie. ...

Re:If the business model works.... (0, Offtopic)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336548)

there's not a lot anyone can do to keep him from grabbing the occasional headline with his latest antics.

What was that the Anonymous Coward mentioned a little further up the page? The double tap? What was that in reference too? =P

Pumping again (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335508)

He's just pumping SCO again so he can make up for his losses. There's always a pool of sucker gamb... investors who will lap this shit up.

No Volume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335602)

Up 11% on sub 20k volume. So in other words less than $15k of stock was bought/sold today. nothing to see here

I do not understand (2, Funny)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335636)

...who is the zombie: SCO, Mc Bride, or both ?!?

You thought you were safe (1)

trurl7 (663880) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335670)

You thought it went away forever. That they would never come back.

You Were Wrong.

I Still Know Whom You Sued Last Summer.
Coming in 2010 to a courtroom near You.

Re:You thought you were safe (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335734)

"The Return of The Son of The Litigator - McBride Rides Again"

Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of (1, Flamebait)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335720)

I am sure McBride has probably made quite a bit of money out of this little scam. This is an example of Ayn Rand greed ideology at its finest, and shows how someones wealth has little to do with how hard they work, otherwise people like Gates or McBride would be broke and Chinese factory workers would be millionaires. Your wealth depends on your ability to exploit others, and generally most millionaires have made their money that way, including legalised forms of this kind of exploitation of the working class. Ayn Rand ideologies are thinly veiled propogation fo ideas which are meant to allow corporate elites to exploit the working class to enrich the rich further and to drive the poor further into poverty. They then dupe ignorant rednecks into electing Randists into power, such as Republicans who proceed to do this. Thus we see in the US a shrinking middle clas, ruined economy while the elites make billions of dollars. THis is why it is time for major reforms of corporatoins to turn them into employee owned democracies foxued on the public good rather than enriching wealthy elites, and establishing maximum salaries for the employees of these corporations.

Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335958)

Well, at least when your socialist utopia is realized your neighbor will lend you a newline.

Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335964)

You haven't read Atlas Shrugged, have you? If you have you clearly did not understand it. Do not confuse what some people do today to twist Objectivism to their own benefit.

Re: Ayn Rand (1)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336256)

McBride is obviously one of Rand's "Looters" who destroyed or drove out all the producers and innovators, thereby bankrupting the country. Wall Street, government and people like McBride are making a "prophet" out of Rand alright.

There ought to be a law (4, Insightful)

TRRosen (720617) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335824)

Really it should be illegal for principals in a bankrupt company to purchase any of that companies assets. In this case he is profiting from running the company into the ground by purchasing assets at cut rate prices with the money he syphoned off from the company.

Re:There ought to be a law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336280)

Capitalism! Ain't it grand?

Nothing was stopping you from making an offer on SCO's assets... it's just that you didn't see any value in them (BTW: you == anybody else too).

The problem isn't that this can be done. Part of the problem is that loose ends remain loose ends after a company goes down, and nobody is aware of those more than the principles in that company.

This IP loose-end is a copyright issue, and we all know where that is heading.

PDP-11 Out the 5th Floor Window: (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31335866)

Zombie Kill of the Week.

Put him in carbonite for 25 years (1)

lotho brandybuck (720697) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335968)

How much would it take to put this guy in deep freeze or drug induced coma while all the so-called patents run out... oh.. yeah copyright, oh shit. I hope the cryopumps hold out for awhile..

No, No, NO! (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31335986)

You have to use the shotgun and shoot them in the head! Shooting them with a handgun just pisses them off.

Outbid him and send him packing (4, Interesting)

joelgrimes (130046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336054)

It's only $35k!

I'll personally commit $100 to create a fund to outbid him.

Who's with me?

Re:Outbid him and send him packing (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336228)

Who's with me?

[sound of crickets]

Re:Outbid him and send him packing (2, Funny)

joelgrimes (130046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336352)

[sigh]

Should have known better.

Rule No. 4 (2, Funny)

DWIM (547700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336096)

Gahhh!!! Never forget Rule No. 4: Doubletap!

Re:Rule No. 4 (1)

gurudyne (126096) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336386)

Is two to the chest and one to the head the Mozambique Drill or the Mo' Zombie Drill?

Re:Rule No. 4 (1)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336392)

Preferably with .45 250 grain silver hollow points. Following up with 5 gallons of gas and a hurled Zippo would only be prudent.

Oh for the love of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336246)

Just die already McBride! You've had everything but a stake shoved through your heart and beheading plus soaking in holy water dammit!

Just die die die!

Re:Oh for the love of... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336658)

His parent just forgot to join him. Now we have to wait for his parent to die, so init can inherit and join him.

Timing (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31336294)

Hmm, Windows 7 Mobile edition is coming out soon. And the McBrideinator in moving into position for another attack - with mobile patents, perhaps partly based around the use of UNIX in a mobile platform.

Coincidence?

Is it trollish to conflate two internet memes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336460)

...when we're taking the piss out of Darl McBride?

Darl McBride is my hero! http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1267501606195RA33 [tackfilm.se]

Warning: Definitely NSFW.

Darl rewind....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31336542)

Darl has but one innovation
Which is ill conceived litigation,
It's a shame he can't find
Work made for his kind
But who'd pay him for masturbation?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?