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 Wants To Destroy Business Records

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe dept.

Businesses 113

An anonymous reader writes "SCO, now calling itself TSG, has just filed a motion (Pdf) with the bankruptcy court in Delaware asking it to authorize 'the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of certain surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome, property, including, without limitation, shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.'"

cancel ×

113 comments

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

Small wonder. (4, Funny)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784581)

The rent to store all those court documents must be astronomic.

Re:Small wonder. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784739)

Maybe, but why should we let Microsoft dispose of the evidence that easily?

Re:Small wonder. (4, Informative)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784839)

I just wish someone would go ahead and pound a stake in SCO's heart and be done with them. If I never hear about those bastards again it'll be too soon.

Re:Small wonder. (1)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year and a half ago | (#42788617)

The stake is already in place. This is just the thrashing around before the body finally turns to dust and blows away.

Re:Small wonder. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42788869)

Sadly, as long as there's intellectual property which can be transferred to another company ... unless we see a definitive court ruling that amounts to something like "Consult Arvell v Pressdam" and a judge telling them they have to stop, this will keep coming back.

I think we're on the 2nd or 3rd legal entity since what was actually SCO.

Re:Small wonder. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785603)

What does V.I.C.I. have to do with this?

I have a cheaper plan... (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42787197)

perhaps they could, like, you know, let everybody else in the world take a whack at their crap...I'm sure they could get enough volunteers, especially if Darl stood at the head of the line as a test dummy.

Re:I have a cheaper plan... (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | about a year and a half ago | (#42787353)

I know I'd pay $5.00 to punch Daryl in his junk!

Re:I have a cheaper plan... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42788521)

That's actually a good business plan...

..but it balances out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42787407)

Having the past 7 years of sales records take up 3 sheets of paper helps
balance out the volume of legal papers stored.

They're bankrupt (5, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784593)

They ought to let us bid on them. I bid five hundred dollars.

I should think together we could get that number up to a substantial sum to help them be rid of these burdensome records they can no longer afford to store. Who here would chip in a bit to free SCO of this burden? I bet we could rally a sum worthy of the court taking notice, to salvage these valuable historical records from the shredder.

Re:They're bankrupt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784641)

no that's stupid

Re:They're bankrupt (2)

michrech (468134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785423)

no that's stupid

Thanks for your thoughts, Darl. Now, get on home -- adults are talking here...

Re:They're bankrupt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42786513)

Go home AC, you're drunk.

Re:They're bankrupt (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784643)

I'm interested, but I'm not interested in doing the hard parts. I'll chip in some money, though.

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

McGruber (1417641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784645)

They ought to let us bid on them. I bid five hundred dollars.

I will match your five hundred dollars, so we now have a bid of $1000.

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785487)

if this goes through, I'd be happy to double or even consider tripling that.

reality says it never will, though. Hell, groklaw offered to store the documents themselves. [groklaw.net]

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

Sabathius (566108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786183)

If groklaw is correct, and this is tantamount to evidence disposal, then IBM's lawyers should be all over this. I rarely side with IBM these days, but I'm really rooting for them to do the right thing (vaporize SCO).

Re:They're bankrupt (4, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784777)

They probably couldn't do that even if they wanted to. Some of the documents likely contain business records that can't just be 'sold to the highest bidder' (imagine how bad such a scheme would be for the consumer!) The costs associated with sorting the stuff they could sell from the stuff they couldn't would likely exceed whatever you're all willing to pay for them. Then you know, plus shipping...

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784803)

Their customers have probably clicked YES in some agreement box that let them do whatever they wish with the customer data.
As have we all clicked...

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42787659)

Businesses can't give away their rights like this. They can only do it by having someone with signing authority [duly vested by the board] show up in person and sign the legal agreement [reviewed by the corporations lawyers], which is counter-signed by the other party. Otherwise, it only binds the individual signing it.

Re:They're bankrupt (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784977)

Over at Groklaw, PJ said that they would buy them from SCO - we could have a bidding war on our hands here.

Re:They're bankrupt (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785053)

They ought to let us bid on them. I bid five hundred dollars.

I should think together we could get that number up to a substantial sum to help them be rid of these burdensome records they can no longer afford to store. Who here would chip in a bit to free SCO of this burden? I bet we could rally a sum worthy of the court taking notice, to salvage these valuable historical records from the shredder.

Why not start a kickstarter campaign to buy up SCO or whatever they call themselves this week? Then the people who pitch in are share holders or something. Priivy to the sorrid secrets of the company. Someone could be appointed CEO run the company in a crowdsourced manner. Turn it into what it once was. A UNIX (now better Linux) company. Just a thought. Good idea or bad it could work. Crowdsourced company vs the share holder system we have that kicks out employees to help shre holders make profits OR a crowdsourced comapny that is dependent on the community for its support to some degree.

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785533)

I'll chip in $100.

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

JeanCroix (99825) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785949)

So, no one's concerned they'd funnel any such money straight to their lawyers to start more litigation..? This is a corpse that needs no reviving.

Re:They're bankrupt (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786107)

Sorry, guys . . . no one will be able to outbid The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . . .

If Bill Gates wants redemption, by doing good works, instead of fighting disease in Africa . . . he should have stopped the disease that was SCO FUD.

Yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42787483)

The only trouble with that is that Gates doesn't seem to want redemption, he wants people to love him, or at least not loathe him, and playing like he gives a damn about other human beings has been key to that. Sorry, but every dollar he gives, no matter how worthy the cause, is TAINTED and STAINED with the villainy of how he obtained it, and the fact that he benefits from the good press he gleans from breaking off bits of chump-change here and there negates the benefit, which is of course why that braying jackass has to put his fucking name on everything. He wants to make sure people know it was HE who was doing this.

If Al Capone lived to taste freedom again, and became a philanthropist, and founded an organization with the aim of cleaning the graffiti off the mean streets of Chicago, he'd still be a thug and murderer or conspirator to commit murder, and no amount of shiny facades of buildings, free of tags and markings would make up for what he did.

If Gates ANONYMOUSLY, and without seeking aggrandizement for it, gave away ALL the ill-gotten gains he has, it STILL wouldn't make up for the permanent damage he did to the computer software industry, it still wouldn't fix all the aggravation he's caused with his company's shitty, inferior and unfairly uncompetitive garbage products that crushed the competition with illegal corporate leverage and underhanded backroom dealing, rather than by producing a product that was actually SUPERIOR to their competitors. They have been making (and continue to make) software that is deliberately buggy and insecure so that you would need to have your head examined if you were even considering running it on your computer without having it get updates automatically. Consequently, since you can only be assured of updates if your computer's software is properly registered, (the one part of the system that never seems to need to be fixed, you notice...) you MUST register it which means it MUST be a legitimate, legally purchased and PAID FOR copy (speaking specifically of Windows but who knows how many other of their "products" this is true of...) or you're vulnerable to attack.

Hence, if you want to be safe, you must register your software, which means you must purchase it legally, which means if you're using pirated Microsoft software, you're stupid. I normally wouldn't object, you have a right to be paid for your work if you want to be and if it's YOUR work, but they make their shit insecure deliberately just to FORCE you to pay them. Shitty.

Re:They're bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42786229)

I'll bid one hundred dollars. You win -- it's yours now.

Coincidentally, the captcha for this was "embalm".

asdasd (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784603)

asdaasd alsd jalskdj aklsjdqklhgaghlgkjh alkgh ajghlaghaljkgh

Costs (1)

symes (835608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784605)

I scan everything in and store it that way. Costs are a lot lower - and I would imagine that paying an organisation to scan existing paper work might seem costly, but a whole load less that long-term storage.

Re:Costs (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784695)

depending on the age of the documents, it is more likely to be far more cost effective to simply shred

Re:Costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784837)

Only if you're part of Microsoft's legal team.

Re:Costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785127)

Any large company produces literally truck loads of documents for everything from inventory to compliance and sales amounting to quite literally tons of paperwork a year. Scanning it in would be hideously expensive as is storing it. The firm is in bankrupty and has a legal obligation to recover as much money from the dead body as possible, like it or not that doesn't mean preserving reams of useless and expensive paper just on the chance someone may want to try and dig something out of it.

Let it go (1, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784615)

it's over. let it go

Re:Let it go (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784653)

Hell no, there may be evidence of collusion in those documents and thus crimes that have not yet been punished.

Re:Let it go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784713)

if anything was to be uncovered it would most likely be making the company liable, so you would be incurring hideous costs in order to be able to prosecute a company that no longer exists. hmmmm I think I prefer our courts were doing something other than using our money trying to punish a corpse. Let it go, they are dead and buried.

Re:Let it go (5, Insightful)

Brandano (1192819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784765)

What if what was uncovered is that this whole charade was sponsored by a third party that was not implicated in the various SCO trials?

Re:Let it go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785061)

sponsoring isn't a crime. While it might make for some get your pitchforks and burning torches stories it would still end up just being another huge waste of public money.

Re:Let it go (2)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785081)

Solicitation to commit a crime is itself a crime, as is conspiracy.

Re:Let it go (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785197)

Solicitation is a crime in most states.

Re:Let it go (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785573)

Solicitation is a crime in most states.

True as it might be, we have more serious state and federal crimes that need attention and prosecuting. You need to provide some tangible evidence that further at-public-expense dead horse beating is truly in the public interest. Without that, we are not pursuing justice, but a twisted game of Javertist masturbatory taxpayers' money fishing expedition without probably cause, for a cause that is no longer relevant to the times we currently live in.

Yes, that is no justice. It's a game. People can feel free to pursue, on their own dime however.

Re:Let it go (2)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785725)

Finding a way to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy is never irrelevant.

I just don't think they'll find anything, MS can do this w/o leaving a trail.

the late 90's wants its billwatch.org back (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786359)

Finding a way to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy is never irrelevant to me.

There. Fixed that for you.

I just don't think they'll find anything

So if you believe with utmost certainty that MS can pull a hocus pocus act, why exactly then should one spend taxpayers' money on said fishing expedition in the name of the public good (not your personal interest/infatuation/cause/whatever, but public good)?

, MS can do this w/o leaving a trail.

I can't prove it, but I can say it - Stephen Colbert

Re:Let it go (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786927)

I despise Bill Gates. I hate Microsoft. If we could find a way to break Microsoft up into a dozen smaller companies, I'd be shickled teatless. But, hatred can be irrational too. Purchasing all that crap that SCO has, just to spend millions of dollars worth of manhours poring over the contents, hoping to catch Microsoft doing something illegal seems irrational to me.

Then, if you actually find what you are hoping to find, then what? Spending yet more millions preparing to take Microsoft to court. Millions upon millions more, paying for all the legal counsel.

Phhhttt - all that money is better spent undermining Microsoft's current monopoly status. Go buy an Android and a Chromebook. Sign contracts with several companies that are in direct competition with Microsoft. Donate some Linux machines to a school near you. Hell, start a foundation that donates a few hundred Linux machines to schools in your state, annually.

Do something more useful than feeding the predatory lawyers who will swarm the case you bring against Microsoft.

Re:Let it go (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about a year and a half ago | (#42788885)

Finding a way to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy is never irrelevant.

I just don't think they'll find anything, MS can do this w/o leaving a trail.

If only they hadn't removed undelete....

Re:Let it go (4, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784893)

if anything was to be uncovered it would most likely be making the company liable, so you would be incurring hideous costs in order to be able to prosecute a company that no longer exists. hmmmm I think I prefer our courts were doing something other than using our money trying to punish a corpse. Let it go, they are dead and buried.

Actually, there's good reason to suspect the kinds of collusion and deliberate deception that could result in personal liability, including possibly criminal liability, for some of the players.

Re:Let it go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785085)

So you think they were evil enough to be acting criminally and dumb enough to not even hide the obvious evidence which IBM has already combed their documents for yet not found? don't get me wrong SCO are the lowest form of scum, but if you expect to get anything useful out of those documents that hasn't already been found then you are incredibly naïve.

Hiding behind AC ... (-1, Troll)

boorack (1345877) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785643)

... and trolling as usual. A Micro$oft mole or some $CO crook ?

Re:Let it go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784795)

Hell no, there may be evidence of collusion in those documents and thus crimes that have not yet been punished.

I think you're letting your imagination get the better of you. Typically you retain documents for things that you might like to have documentation of, should there ever be a need for such documentation (mostly accounting and compliance related stuff). Periodically this stuff is boxed and sent to storage until such time it is determined that it isn't going to be needed. This is likely to be such time.

Generally, no active measures are taken to preserve internal communications and any sensitive communications relating to litigation or negotiations with other companies are likely to be protected under attorney-client confidentiality.

News at 10 ... (4, Funny)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784627)

There is a fire at the SCO offices ....

Re:News at 10 ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784709)

Should've gave him back his stapler

Re:News at 10 ... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785873)

DO NOT EAT THE QUACAMOLE!

Re:News at 10 ... (1)

fatphil (181876) | about a year and a half ago | (#42787363)

salmon mousse, surely?

Commas (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784659)

'the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of certain surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome, property, including, without limitation, shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.'

Only a lawyer could make a sentence so hard to parse with the use of commas!

Re:Commas (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784731)

It's OK. Commas, are on, the list of, things, to be destroyed.

Re:Commas (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784763)

Tell me the point of a semi-colon; perhaps it's 50% less fattening than full colons

Re:Commas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785357)

Tell me the point of a semi-colon; perhaps it's 50% less fattening than full colons

No, but it produces 50% less shit.

Re:Commas (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year and a half ago | (#42786141)

Can't be; it has more pixels.

Re:Commas (1)

mekkab (133181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784749)

I'm considering hiring him or her to do some coding for me, not withstanding their current employment and career choice, should a need for new employment become an economic reality, or necessity.

Re:Commas (4, Funny)

chad_r (79875) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784859)

They missed one comma:

the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of ... business, records.

Re:Commas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785205)

also and/or is a hor.

Re:Commas (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785219)

Only a lawyer could make a sentence so hard to parse with the use of commas!

Not true, William Shatner, could, do,, it. And he could make it even more difficult if he's portraying his character Denny Crane.

Re:Commas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42787857)

William, Shatner!, would... use!, more exclamation! marks. Though.

Re:Commas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785589)

'the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of certain surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome, property, including, without limitation, shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.'

Only a lawyer could make a sentence so hard to parse with the use of commas!

'the (abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction) of certain (surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome,) property(, including, (without limitation,) shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.)
No, any LISPer can parse it just fine.

Re:Commas (4, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785821)

Sarten-X's guide to reading legal text:

First, ignore everything. Seriously, ignore anything anybody's ever told you about the legal document, because it doesn't mean anything. The exact written words don't mean anything, nor does anything verbal spoken about the document. What matters is what a judge would think about the document and the actions people take because of it. The written words are just to clarify what the writers want a judge to think about. This is why having a lawyer read documents is so important: The lawyer understands the legal history behind the words used, and can better predict what a judge will decide.

Next, start reading. Legal texts are usually long and complex, to clarify every mundane discrepancy that might lead to a disagreement, so skip over all of that. Also skip over any section headings, because they're usually ignored by judges (and remember, it's the judges that matter), being meant only to help find useful parts of the document for particular situations. Instead, pretend you're back in primary school first learning to read. Split each sentence into its basic parts: A subject and an action. That will tell you the main meaning of the sentence. Then look for what's not included - any exceptions or omissions that might be covered in other sections of the document.

Condense any synonyms. Exact word choice can make a huge difference on a judge's decisions, so lawyers will use multiple words with the same overall meaning to give their clients options. For example, simply getting rid of paperwork at the end of its useful life might involve shredding or incinerating it, which is "destruction". If some pages get lost or forgotten during shredding, they might be considered "abandoned". If someone picks up the forgotten pages and drops them in the trash can, that's "disposal". A well-written contract would specify which of those actions are allowed and which, if any, are not. While this verbosity makes the document much clearer if a judge needs to read it, the unfortunate side effect is that the document seems repetitive on cursory review.

Finally, consider consideration. Most contracts require that each side give up something, and without that mutual concession nothing would happen. For example, I give up my legal right to the exclusivity of publishing this comment, and Slashdot's corporate overlords agree to publish it, among various other services. When reading a legal document, keep an eye out for what obligations you're agreeing to, and what the other parties are agreeing to.

That's it. That's all there is to reading legal documents. As opposed to a literary work, legal documents are written for accuracy and precision rather than ease of reading. As opposed to a computer program, they aren't so much instructions as they are suggestions to the judge. Most justice systems are based around the notion that the law describes what's right or wrong, and judges determine whether particular laws apply to particular situations.

TL;DR: If you need a TL;DR version, hire a lawyer.

What did they do? (3, Funny)

tubs (143128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42784845)

Remind me, what did SCO do?

Re:What did they do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784963)

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away... they did very little.

Re:What did they do? (3, Informative)

cdrudge (68377) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785067)

It depends, which SCO are you referring to? The early version(s) that, at one time, had decent Unix OS offerings with OpenServer and Unixware? Or the scorched-earth-that-ultimately-blew-up-in-their-face litigious idiots that took on probably the absolutely worst company to get the Linux litigation ball rolling.

Re:What did they do? (5, Interesting)

spike1 (675478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785079)

You have either a terrible memory or you weren't around at the start of this...
back in about 2003, a Linux distribution by the name of Caldera bought the Unix part of SCO (the other part went on to continue trading under a different name)
Then. in a moment of utter insanity, they decided to sue IBM under allegations that IBM had included their UNIX "property" in the linux kernel...

Millions of man hours of searching later. people came up with about 5 lines of code that were so generic it was impossible to copyright them,..

So, the IBM trial went on and on and dragged other companies into the mess...
Microsoft "invested" in SCO, presumably to keep the trial going.
Novell disputed what SCO actually claimed to own...

Last year (or was it 2011) the novell case finally concluded that SCO didn't own any of the copyrights they were suing IBM over in the first place.
IBM have yet to countersue, but there's so little of SCO left now it's probably no longer worth it.

Re:What did they do? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785463)

I worked at Caldera when they bought SCO. I also left a few months after the acquisition. Prior to the SCO purchase, Calera was a fun Linux distribution company. We were doing really great things such as building the first GUI install, incorporating Webmin for a GUI admin utility, and having DRDOS to run all your DOS programs within Linux. They were great times. Then, the acquisition happened. Departments at Caldera began to be dismantled, and senior management replaced. I left, and took note as Ransom Love (who was a great person to work for with a great vision) sold his stake and left. Darl McBride didn't exist at the time, no idea where he came from. However, all the Caldera employees that worked hard to make the distribution what it was at the time left long before the litigation.

Re:What did they do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785755)

"Darl McBride didn't exist at the time, no idea where he came from"
Deathstar? Oh no, that was Darth Vader

Darl? Darl? I know not. poof! (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42787243)

the devil comes, the devil goes, the names are disposeable, the evil is not.

Re:What did they do? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42788289)

I remember that. Thanks for all the Tetris during the install. That was innovative.

Re:What did they do? (0)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785097)

They wrote the original Linux. And MS DOS. And Windows NT. And iOS and OSX. And the first Angry Birds. Some great programmers over there.

Re:What did they do? (1)

zm (257549) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785109)

IIRC they were a litigation business.

Re:What did they do? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785317)

IIRC they were a litigation business.

Correction: They were the puppets for Microsoft and Sun to destroy Linux, the free kernel that was taking over UNIX and threatening Microsoft's future control of the small computing platforms. What nether saw was Apple coming up in the rear view mirror.

Re:What did they do? (1)

bobstreo (1320787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785461)

IIRC they were a litigation business.

Correction: They were the puppets for Microsoft and Sun to destroy Linux, the free kernel that was taking over UNIX and threatening Microsoft's future control of the small computing platforms. What nether saw was Apple coming up in the rear view mirror.

And only one of them exists now.

How it all started (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42784923)

I do wonder if their attorneys one day thought to themselves, " This company really isn't paying us much for the little they need us for. What if we convinced them that we could sue others and make lots of money. Even if they never win, we get paid boat loads of money until they have nothing left. All in?"

No big deal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785001)

unless relevant to the court proceedings, etc, most businesses toss stuff older than 7 years anyways.

Lawyers are just perverting the corpse now. (1)

upuv (1201447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785005)

Seriously, Filing court documents so they can destroy documents. The lawyers are simply bleeding the corpse dry. Anyone with a claim is just being stolen from now. OK well continue to be stolen from.

It makes me ill to think how much of a complete and total waste this whole battle was.

There should be a new category of crime. Like War crime. Lets call it Corporate Crime. The instigators and the abusers should be brought to very public tribunal grilled and if found guilty convicted and sent for hard time. These legal blood sucking crooks could be viewed as looters, pillagers, atrocity co-conspirators.

If this were to happen I would think that litigation in the US and across the globe would suddenly drop. Hopefully leaving behind legitimate legal cases.

Who the hell is SCO? (-1, Offtopic)

scottbomb (1290580) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785063)

I know, I can Google it. My point is, unless a company's name is as well-known as Wal-Mart or Coca Cola, the author should always tell the reader what the company does.

I did some Googling. Is SCO a patent troll? A legitimate software company? Southern College of Optometry? Further research shows the first two guesses are probably correct. Readers shouldn't have to look up or guess these kinds of things.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785099)

Are you twelve?

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (2)

IMightB (533307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785221)

This was the first question that popped into my head as well.... GP didn't google too hard.

Here's the brief. SCO used to be a legit company. a while back thy sold off the legit part and split into two companies, Tarantella and SCO, SCO became a troll, trying to charge linux users a 600/server license fee and claiming patents/copyright violations on linux and suing IBM, Redhat and a few other companies using linux.

This is the series of lawsuits that created groklaw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Operation [wikipedia.org]

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785185)

How did you get internet access below that huge rock you've obviously been living under?

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (2)

Jerslan (1088525) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785187)

In tech circles (ie: Slashdot's core focus) SCO is infamous for crazy lawsuits claiming they own bits of the Unix/Linux kernel and that everyone was infringing their copyright... It was kind of a big deal for the better part of a decade.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (3, Insightful)

tazan (652775) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785203)

In this community SCO is as well known as Wal-Mart. It's been mentioned literally thousands of times on this site. (8300) vs. only 5000 hits for Wal-mart.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (3, Informative)

Arker (91948) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785209)

TSG (and I was way ahead of the curve calling them that a few years ago, when they were dragging the SCO name through the mud) is the zombified shell of what was once the Linux company Caldera Systems. Several years ago they purchased most of the assets of the company which was known for years before that as SCO - the Santa Cruz Operation hence SCO.

This purchase was technically structured as a merger with a holding company involved, to produce a 'new' business called "The SCO Group", which then went berserk, forgetting its own history entirely, and attempted to create a new business model by claiming to own Linux and shaking down companies using Linux for 'license fees' supposedly owed. They wound up suing IBM and eventually losing hard, then filing bankruptcy.

Since the original threats and claims were made, through the resulting court battles and judgements, many legions of articles have been posted on this subject. Most readers are well aware of who TSG is, although certainly taking the time to add a link to an overview of some sort would have been a good move. But, that would require an editor actually editting. If you think that will happen you are definitely new here. We get short blurbs that still manage to be wrong most of the time and we like it! If you want to more accurate and in-depth information about this story try http://www.groklaw.net/ [groklaw.net]

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (2)

jbengt (874751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785213)

On slashdot, readers aren't expected to look up or guess who SCO is - SCO is famous around here.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785243)

Google SCO McBride and you'll have your answer.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785315)

Oh hell, I'll throw you a bone.

Here are some other abbreviations that you will run across as you surf The Internet:

RAM: Random Access Memory
MB: MegaByte
LOL: Laughs Out Loud
RTFM: Read The Fucking Manual

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (1)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785413)

Welcome to Slashdot. Here's your background reading material on The SCO Group [wikipedia.org] -- pay particular attention to section 3, Litigation. And what discussion of The SCO Group's litigation would be complete without a mention of Groklaw [wikipedia.org] ?

Or instead of looking at Wikipedia, you could search Slashdot itself for "SCO" -- there are about 650 hits for stories related to SCO's lawsuits. One of particular interest is the original one: SCO Sues IBM for Sharing Secrets with Unix and Linux [slashdot.org] . [There are earlier stories that mention SCO, but that's the one that put them in the bullseye.] That one is technically still active AFAIK, though it's been stayed during the bankruptcy.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785837)

There were hourly slashdot articles about SCO once upon a time. They are well known enough for the audience here, those who missed that saga can google.

Re:Who the hell is SCO? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785841)

Wow, what are you even doing on this site dude? Not knowing SCO on /. is like being a member of the catholic church and not knowing how to fuck kids.

it's a reasonable request (4, Informative)

a2wflc (705508) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785215)

At least for most companies. Most nerds don't have a clue about the document management tools and processes that managers selected (especially 10+ years ago). And also don't understand the government regulations around documents.

It took me almost 8 years of training before I accepted that "copy it to a DVD" isn't a records management process for a large company. Everyone in my company has mandatory yearly "records management" training and as you move up in management, you have training to learn more and more about the reasons. And when you have a bogus (or legit) law suit against you requesting "every mention of X-Corp in all company documents", it makes sense why it's important to destroy records AND record the destruction so the lawyers can respond with "Here's ALL records and here's proof that we don't have anything else".

I know one company that keeps track of cost per document. The average per jpeg image is over $17,000 over it's lifetime. For some images, a lot of that is production or licensing. But most of it is managing the licenses. Even if a developer makes an image for a web site they keep a record of who/when/why/etc so the lawyers can respond when someone claims it was stolen. That all has to be stored, indexed, backed up, accessed, etc. A stack of DVDs in a warehouse somewhere does nothing but cost money. And takes a lot of time to find what you want if/when it's needed. Better to be able to say it doesn't exist for documents that you aren't required by law to keep or have a reasonable expectation that they will be involved in a law suit (in which case you maintain them in the records management system). As much as I dislike SCO, I'd guess they have a lot of records that shouldn't be involved in any lawsuit. If they destroy records that hide a crime, that's a different issue.

Re:it's a reasonable request (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785283)

For the SCO, I'm just gonna hazard a guess that they already shredded all of that stuff, and now they're just checking to make sure they won't get in trouble for it.

ITYM: Caldeda, now calling itself TSG (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785295)

TSG is not, and never has been, SCO.

Re:ITYM: Caldera, now calling itself TSG (1)

Eunuchswear (210685) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785303)

Urghm, typo of name of mickey-mouse company.
 

Kickstart to buy SCO!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42785397)

Somebody should start a kickstart to buy SCO (TSG). GPL all the source code (and open up all the records if possible). SCO has lots of software. Lots of history in its business records.

Re:Kickstart to buy SCO!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42788641)

Buying TSG would mean buying their liability. It would be better to directly buy the assets you want (any IP, etc) without actually buying TSG.

Hitchhiker's Solution (1)

gpronger (1142181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42787467)

The simple answer here is to transfer your records (legally) onto a planet just before it is demolished by the Vogans. The angle we need to work though is that the rest of SCO is on the planet too.

(Personally I always felt it wasn't the psychologists that wanted the Earth destroyed, but the Guide itself, remember the paltry entry for the Earth? Why waste precious electrons, if you're planning on destroying something?)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>