SCO On the Rocks 255
Netromancer wrote in to alert us to a Businessweek Online article discussing the downward spiral in SCO's fortunes and luck. From the article: "The mouse that roared is barely squeaking these days. A string of recent setbacks raises grave questions about SCO's finances, its court case, and its management."
Whoa (Score:5, Funny)
well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
> scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?
Microsoft?
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it still in court? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't the court have some basic responsibility to IBM to end this case now that SCO has come up short?
To get a ruling (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:To get a ruling (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why is it still in court? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this still in court? Well, in part because the US legal system works at this speed. The average copyright case from filing to verdict is 2 years. And this is a larger-than average case.
It looks like this one will be resolved in 3-3.5 years.
SCO has a big pile of claims. IBM has a big pile of counterclaims. It's not just a question of the copyrights. SCO has contract claims too, IBM has licensing, trademark-infringement and patent counterclaims. And then there's the fact there's is a lot of code involved, with a lot of history behind it.
Add to that the fact that SCO has indeed been dragging their feet, and consistently been requesting more discovery.
Doesn't the court have some basic responsibility to IBM to end this case now that SCO has come up short?
That would be true if SCO had come up short. But in reality, the court hasn't determined that SCO has come up short. Yet. IBM filed for summary judgement and it was not granted. The case is still in discovery, and the court obviously felt it was more important to give SCO a long leash to produce anything it can during discovery, than it was to give IBM a quick trial.
Now, normally you would think SCO would put everything they had on the table in order to defeat the motion for summary judgement. They probably did, too, but the court decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and told IBM they could re-file their motion after the discovery phase is over. (When the court is certain it has all evidence in front of it)
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. They can't be so stupid not to understand that the courts would eventually figure out what they're doing and put an end to this. In my experience, judges are very down-to-earth people and really frown upon people/organizations who are trying to take advantage of the system. Of course, it seems that SCO & friends knew that it would take a ton of time and money to demonstrate to the non-t
Re:Whoa (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Whoa (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The origins of Linux pan out
2) The multi-processor stuff that Alan Cox put in Linux came from where he says it did
3) Unix is solely a trademark
4) There isn't any SCO code in Linux.
Still to be tested will be SCO's theory of law
5) Free copyright licenses that encourage cooperation but not commerce have full force of law.
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
(tears up business plan)
Now I need to find another idea.
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Interesting)
However, also being a founding trustee memeber of the Salt Lake Linux Users Group [sllug.org] and a Linux and OpenSource advocate for years, I am very grateful that I was able to leave before the name change to SCO and the "direction change" - I would have had to quit anyway.
I still have a couple friends there. The amazing thing is that I ran into one of them (Walt Hammond) yesterday (Fri. March 4, 2005) at lunch. I was amazed at his comments. The feeling inside the company is very positive! I couldn't beleive it. It seems that (from my stand point) that the co-workers are completely blind to what is really happening. Not only with reguard to what is happening but also related to the morality (or lack thereof IMO) of their actions. He was completely positive saying that (parapharasing) "things looks so good for us right now but if you read the press, you'd think we were a sinking ship" and (again, paraphrasing) "the press says we've had major set backs but if you look, we've been winning".
I don't know if it's the blind leading the blind or if he really believes what he told me. Of course, being at the director level or above, I'd think you'd have to tote the company line or you wouldn't be around very long at SCO. So, who knows what he really believes.
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
Tell your friend not to drink the kool-aid.
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Funny)
McBride says that while his staff is small in numbers, it's high on engineering expertise.
Apparently his staff is high on something.
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
There are juries in civil suits, also. The number of jurors is different, however. I beleive instead of 12, as in criminal court, there are only 6. What your referring to is a bench trial, and that has to be specifically requested (and I've also only heard of those in regard to criminal proceedings). When the news talks about juries awarding astounding damage claims to plaintiffs, they are talking ab
oblg. Diamond? (Score:2)
Re:oblg. Diamond? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
I still feel kinda bad for the SCO employees who had nothing to do with the litigation and have faced an extra hard time getting employment after leaving because "They were there".
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Insightful)
First, they've had ample notice that the company was going down the tubes, so they should have been dusting off their resumes a year ago.
Second, I doubt that SCO's outcome will adversely any non-manager employee. Presumably, the HR reps/slave traders in the industry can tell the difference between an engineer and a corporate o
Re:Whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you've "in," nothing matters anymore. In extreme cases you might get fired and be forced to retire in luxury.
Re:Whoa (Score:3, Interesting)
Result? The whole company gets flushed down the toilet, shareholders loose money, and normal employees loose their jobs. The directors, who's decisions led to this disaster in the first p
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
Re:Whoa (Score:2, Interesting)
Gimme cracked corn and I don't care
gimme cracked corn and I don't care
The substance in question is corn whiskey.
White lignting, moonshine, mountain dew etc
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
my sig is an experiment to see if people understand what we teach our kids... Nursery rimes and songs have some sick and twisted meanings. I love it.
Re:Whoa (Score:2)
Re:My new boss used to work for them. (Score:2, Funny)
Then, I will report you to HR for smelling like ass. You were scared before, now feel the wrath of a former Caldera manager.
Perhaps (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a bit like the social situation where generations of families become dependent on welfare, and as it's all they know it's all they continue doing. With Darl, it's litigation.
Re:Perhaps (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Funny)
SCO = "SCO's Court Order"
Re:Perhaps (Score:2)
That may seem like a good idea to them, given their poor judgement which Linus said best, "They must be smoking crack." (or something to that effect).
Gives new meaning to "SCO on the rocks"
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What? SCO needs money? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What? SCO needs money? (Score:2)
Re:What? SCO needs money? (Score:2)
Re:What? SCO needs money? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, we'll be suing Boies Schiller & Flexner next but don't tell them I said so.
Re:What? SCO needs money? (Score:2)
Also I tip my hat to moderators. You've made my day.
Another Dot Com Failure (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another Dot Com Failure (Score:2)
Another 3 points down... (Score:2)
Still waiting for reaching the level from before the bubble though. (but as you watch the quotes history, the Linux lawsuit was a start of the downward spiral...)
Re:Another 3 points down... (Score:2)
Die, sleazoids, die!
uh huh.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering SCO's screwups and legal wranglings, i'd say that the height will be stratospheric and more than a few heads will be in the stocks when it falls.
Re:uh huh.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:uh huh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) They can do a good job and get paid x number of dollars.
2.) They do a bad job and get axed. But rewarded with a massive severance package.
It's unfair in every way to the share holders.
Forgot one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:uh huh.. (Score:2)
Re:uh huh.. (Score:2)
Not likely to happen, but I think it would be a hoot if IBM bought UNIX at the SCO bankruptcy auction for peanuts.
Re:uh huh.. (Score:3, Informative)
The sad thing is (Score:5, Interesting)
Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been trying since they were nearly $20/share but my broker said something about it not being available. Did Wall Street see them as being full of shit, too?
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, I don't think Wall Street sees them as full of shit, otherwise the price of the stock would be much, much lower.
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:2)
Looks like the short ratio is either 34% or 43.86% as of January 10, depending on how you count shares.
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:3, Funny)
SCOXE? Is that a link to scoatsex?
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nowadays, most stock is held in so-called "street name": the owner doesn't actually hold certificates but rather leaves it in his broker's name. Stock held this way is available for borrowing. For example, every brokerage firm has *some* customer who is long, say, MSFT but has left it in street name; if you want to short MSFT, the firm can borrow the stock from that customer. (That right to borrow your stock is explicitly written into the terms and conditions of brokerage accounts.)
Stocks in a death spiral, such as SCOX / SCOXE, are often hard to locate for borrowing and subsequent short selling. Under such circumstances, the prices of put options (the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at a specified price until a specified date) can and do go through the roof.
Incidentally, the money to be made shorting SCOX / SCOXE has already been made. There's not much more room left for the stock to go down.
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:2)
Incidentally, the money to be made shorting SCOX / SCOXE has already been made. There's not much more room left for the stock to go down.
Thank you for the helpful explanation. I suspected it was something like this for larger transactions, but wondered if market makers could provide some kind of virtual liquidity for wannabe big-shot daytraders (I wasn't planning to risk more than some change on it.)
Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (Score:2)
It was a bit nervewracking as for a few months after I shorted it, it went up in price. But I held steady and about doubled my money.
Hope they will last... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hope they will last... (Score:2)
Re:Hope they will last... (Score:2)
Having IBM burn you the CD-ROM that makes up SCO's true Intellectual Property would help (I think).
Everyone knew it would happen.. (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point they're probably running company affairs from their yachts, and when it implodes, so what? Won't hurt them at all, and in a year or two they'll be hired on by some other group of corporate leeches and they'll drain another company dry.
It's just a shame that in this case it impacts more than just the poor slobs working at the company in question (of course, if they're STILL there after all this they deserve it) but something that millions all over the globe care about. But, hey, it was good for business- after all no publicity is bad publicity, right?
Re:Everyone knew it would happen.. (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point they're probably running company affairs from their yachts, and when it implodes, so what? Won't hurt them at all, and in a year or two they'll be hired on by some other group of corporate leeches and they'll drain another company dry.
If I were dumb enough to hold SCO stock until the bitter end, I would be pretty embarassed, and litigious.
Don't the execs face severe legal punishment for this?
Re:Everyone knew it would happen.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Typically only companies and not their executives are responsible for their civil actions. Unless McBride clearly broke the law legaiily with a huge paper trail pointing to him it will be very difficult if not impossible to convict him.
Re:Everyone knew it would happen.. (Score:2)
Corporations were formed squarely to be immune officers from litigation. I do not know if this is still true but it was an early loophole in the 19th century.
Judgements against a corporation can only seize assets that are owned by the corporation.
An owner of this corporation is not usually personally liable for the corporation's debts.
This does not immunize any individuals representing or owning the corporation from any crime, civil or criminal. They may claim that they did it in carrying out the w
Re:Everyone knew it would happen.. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is out-and-out-fraud.
Granted, stockholders want to sue for damages whenever their shareholder value goes down, whatever the reason, but this is not a simple case of the market going sour.
Here's a company with a stable but not so very exciting future ahead.
Along come some executives who decide to sacrifice the stable future on a gamble and steer the company into a legal battle with highly dubious claims (on the order of a million to one that this will go favorably). They know this, their advisor
I hope they sort things and don't get delisted... (Score:2)
Re:I hope they sort things and don't get delisted. (Score:2)
When SCO goes under... (Score:2)
Maybe it's time to set up a fund to bid on them?
Re:When SCO goes under... (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO on IRC (Score:5, Funny)
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
At least put a link to the original of this (Score:5, Informative)
IBM guerilla marketing reloads (Score:5, Funny)
The SCO campaign, featuring a struggling UNIX vendor that was taken over by greedy executives claiming IP ownership of the entire GNU/Linux code base, was a stunning success. Major news sites such as those run by the Open Source Technology Group eagerly signed up to perpetrate the tongue-in-cheek hoax, which one editor called "the longest running April Fool's joke in the technology business".
Prior to SCO, IBM's PR experts tried hiring teams of college students to spray-paint logos and slogans on the sidewalks of San Francisco and Chicago. That campaign was acknowledged to be a flop.
I preferred them between a rock and hard place (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but... but... I want them to flame out in a huge court loss. I want SCO's finances and future prospects to be devastated. I want a clear and definitive signal that Linux is safe and SCO was stupid to butt heads with Open Source.
This whole "fading" thing sounds like it just leaves too many doors open for other stupid companies to do bad things, because there is no jarring precedent burned into people's minds.
Translation: "We pretty much fired everyone except for the accountant. After all, who needs developers on staff when the OSS guys work for free? Right?"
Re:I preferred them between a rock and hard place (Score:3, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with open-source. SCO was stupid to butt heads with IBM in the first place, and going up against Novell at the same time is a dangerous gambit. SCO doesn't have much of a case in either area, and a loss against Novell would (as I understand the situatio
FUD in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
The author treats SCO's ownership claims as gospel, but that has not been established in court. Novell has contested SCO's copyright ownership, a matter which is still in court. IBM has counter-sued SCO for copyright infringement and patent infringement. BSDi settled a suit against former Unix(r) owner USL which established that BSDi owned the major part of the unix(generic) copyrights, while USL held copyright on but a tiny historical remnant of the code base. SCO has a long way to go before they can be said to "hold" valid copyrights to any code that's still in use.
I wrote a letter to the article's author (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing to fall back on, either (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of building a good product, they tried to steal an existing one. Instead of getting ahead in the market with innovation, they sued their competitors and many potential allies. Instead of building a loyal client base, they sued their own customers.
They sued their own customers! And they sued their ex-customers. Who would do business with a company like that? Their customers are fleeing in droves. Their vendors and resellers are dropping them for what they are. Nobody trusts them. And since nobody has to do business with them, nobody will.
And at the risk of saying what's already been said: Good riddance.
'On the Rocks'? (Score:3, Funny)
Hard won advice from /.'s MichaelCrawford (Score:3, Interesting)
-- Mike
This is sad... (Score:2, Funny)
Darl & Co. is loosing touch!
My parents used to play this in the car. (Score:2, Funny)
SCO on the rocks
Ain't no surprise
Pour me a bribe
And I'll tell you some lies
Got nothin' to lose
So you just sue big blue all the time
Gave UNIX my heart
Gave UNIX my soul
UNIX left me alone here
With nothing to hold
UNIX is gone
Now all I want is a file
First, they say they'll crush you
How they'll really smash you
Suddenly they find they're out there
Delisted from the NASDAQ
When they say they have you
They don't really have you
N
Absurd (Score:2)
Go. Hunt. Kill SCOls. (Score:2)
(Internal City of Heroes humor, if you don't get it.)
Re:To the Zealots (Score:3, Funny)
I don't think that I would believe anything coming from Ballmer concering Linux.
Re:To the Zealots (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I'm sure it will be similarly successful. Of course, depending on what happens to the ancestral Unix code when SCO dies, there may not actually be anything to sue over.
There hasn't been a successful suit against Linux yet, and I don't see one in the future. There's a good reason the GPL hasn't been tested in court: it's so strong that nobody has the balls to go up against it.
Also remember that according to Microsoft's Ballmer, there is no sign
Re:To the Zealots (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't want Copyrights defeated for its own sake, and the GPL is just a "take it or leave it" implicit license; if you violate it, assume that you've broken Copyright law and are doomed.
How? (Score:2)
Honestly, is your aim in life to spoil the happiness of others or were just having a bad Saturday?
Re:To the Zealots (Score:2)
not really. you don't really celebrate the inevitable events. there are simply far too many.
> Remember one thing...after SCO, another will be minted.
nobody said "world dominance" came uncontested.
> Also remember that according to Microsoft's Ballmer...
what's ballmer going to say about GNU/linux? that even MS has deployed it in their labs to see what they can learn and copy from it? by the same token, the iraqi informat
Re:Neat (Score:2)
Re:Neat (Score:2)
Seems they are there!
Re:Rule Number One - Customer First (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rule Number One - Customer First (Score:2)
Then explain why there are countless lawyers in every phonebook?
Ain't no surprise... A song for Anti-SCOers! (Score:2)
'Love on the rocks' by Neil Diamond
SCO on the rocks
Ain't no surprise
Just give them some cash
And they'll tell ya some lies
Yarro is gone
Now all that they want
Is a stay
Boies gave it his heart
And he gave it his soul
But there's not much of that
When you're evil and cold
Canopy's gone
Now all that they want
Is their cash
CHORUS:
First Caldera wants you
Said how they really need you
Suddenly Linux finds it's out there
Showing all it's code
Then SCO says they'll sue you
"Buy a license or we'll do you"
Noth