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 On the Rocks

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the shaken,-not-stirred dept.

The Almighty Buck 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."

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

Whoa (5, Funny)

LFS.Morpheus (596173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853400)

Didn't see that coming. Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?

well.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853411)

> Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation,
> scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?

Microsoft?

Re:well.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853816)

From what i've been seeing on the net, that company is based on insecurity and buggy software. I've seen a lot of people stand up for them so they are probably doing one or two things right but still.

Re:well.. (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853858)

You mean Apple? In most of Microsoft's court cases it is usually them being attacked.

Re:Whoa (0)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853452)

Didn't see that coming. Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?
SCO? (sorry, that was just too easy)

The Mouse that Roared (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853462)

Now THAT was a good book. Quite hilarious.
I recommend that you find it in a library.

Re:Whoa (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853472)

Well, well... that's a popular business strategy, and often, it works.

Why is it still in court? (5, Insightful)

JPriest (547211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853908)

But considering the length of time this has dragged on, the 900 million lines of code provided to them, and the fact that there has not been a single shred of evidence to date, why is this even still in court? How much money do you suppose this has cost IBM and tax payers so far?

Doesn't the court have some basic responsibility to IBM to end this case now that SCO has come up short?

Re:Whoa (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853473)

More important, suing such a big fucking company as IBM was a very bad business decicion (and an immoral one too).

Re:Whoa (4, Insightful)

stephenisu (580105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853574)

There is is nothing immoral about suing a large corporation. Now, suing them for something unfounded costing taxpayer money while simultaniously raising costs that get passed to the consumer, THAT is immoral.

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 (2, Insightful)

tambo (310170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853730)

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".

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 officer. (And, by that same token, I hope the business leaders over at SCO are seen as pariahs for the next decade.)

- David Stein

Re:Whoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853814)

> Presumably, the HR reps/slave traders in the industry can tell the difference between an engineer and a corporate officer.

Given what I've seen of hiring 'professionals' [1] you give them waaaaay more credit than deserved.

[1] replies to an email with a text resume of 'we did not receive your resume springs to mind. Just to top it off the entire text (including the resume) are in the reply.

Re:Whoa (1)

stephenisu (580105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853921)

MODS: sorry, yes this is OT, Mod as appropriate.

[1] replies to an email with a text resume of 'we did not receive your resume springs to mind. Just to top it off the entire text (including the resume) are in the reply.

If you are emailing your resume out, many times they are fed to HR by a script of some kind that looks for an attatched MS Word *.doc file. While I am not a fan of the format myself, this could be the source of your problem.

My new boss used to work for them. (1)

Patheos (865163) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853853)

Back when the company was Caldera he was pretty high up there. Now he is my boss and uses scare tactics to try and make me work harder.

Re:Whoa (2, Interesting)

baomike (143457) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853913)

If you spell it correctly it makes a lot more sense:
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 (3, Insightful)

hhlost (757118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853598)

Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?

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-technical folks (e.g. judges, corporate execs.) that their case is frivolous, and that the news of a lawsuit against Linux would strike fear in the hearts of corporate execs, whose job security depends on their ability to make decisions that help the company in the long run.

In that sense, SCO succeeded in buying (a) commercial OS maker(s) some time to fix their (its) flawed products. I take pleasure in the fact that it doesn't seem to have been enough time... I recently talked with an exec at a company that just switched to Linux and they're saving over $1 million annually! As long as Linux works for them---and it does---why wouldn't they make the switch. It's simple business. That's what has the big OS companies (company) shaking in their (its) penny loafers.

Re:Whoa (2, Interesting)

morleron (574428) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853736)

This is a bit off-topic, but your point about the exec who's saving over $1 million a year with Linux is important. Word of mouth, in the IT world as most other places, is the best advertising there is. That's something that MS hasn't figured out about its "Get The Facts" campaign. It isn't working because the people who make decisions about strategic Linux installations/conversions don't generally pay much attention to glitzy ads and websites. Instead, they have lunch with Joe down the street whose company just switched to Linux and is saving X dollars per year. To them, that's much more relevant than any amount of advertising.

That's also why the SCO suit failed to have much lasting impact on the adoption of Linux. After the initial flood of "the world of Linux is falling" stories, people realized that the SCO move is nothing but a blatant attempt to blackmail IBM and the Linux community for the benefit of MS. Once the facts of the MS involvement in backing SCO financially, combined with the utter lack of factual backing for SCO's claims, became known most people, except perhaps Laura Didio, understand that the whole SCO ploy is a sham and nothing to worry about.

I hope that the SEC starts looking into the stock manipulations that McBride and company have been pulling. It would be fitting to see all of them follow Martha into imprisonment. It would be even nicer if they ended up in someplace like Marion, in with the general population.

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:Whoa (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853916)

That's something that MS hasn't figured out about its "Get The Facts" campaign. It isn't working because the people who make decisions about strategic Linux installations/conversions don't generally pay much attention to glitzy ads and websites

Had any of you Linux Zealots had actually bothered to "Get the Facts", you'd see that it's very much targetted towards Oracle, BEA, and IBM customers.

These PHBs very much love slick salesmen and free golf games before they drop millions of dollars on (Linux-based) software. They are not listening to the stinking hippies who think the world begins and ends with "LAMP".

Re:Whoa (2, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853786)

One thing that's nice about this is that we get the unfairness in reverse. People think that Linux has been much more legally tested than it has been as a result of this case.

Re:Whoa (2, Interesting)

hhlost (757118) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853846)

That's a good point. It would be very interesting to see a break-down of what has been tested by this case, and any others. On the other hand, I don't think SCO is a bunch of idiots, as some people tend to believe. I think that if there was anything at all that they could have built a legitimate case on, they would have found it. Also, I'm sure that MS has taken apart Linux and looked at it carefully under a microscope. And SCO's case is the best thing that they could find to encourage/support? Seems like a pretty good test to me, but I really don't know. Thoughts?

Re:Whoa (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853607)

You misunderstand... read the title again. They're celebrating!

They've invented a new drink called "SCO on the rocks", add one $699 Linux license fee, a splash of Stoli vodka, and top with ice, serve ice cold like their lawyers hearts...

Re:Whoa (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853617)

Damn !

(tears up business plan)

Now I need to find another idea.

Re:Whoa (5, Interesting)

TokyoBoy (217214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853760)

I used to work as an engineer on the Caldera server and desktop teams. I was part of the many layoffs which reduced the engineering forces there to nothing. It was sas seeing friends go and everyone knew it was only a matter of time before it was their turn.

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.

oblg. Diamond? (1)

bhsx (458600) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853780)

SCO on the rocks, ain't no big surprise.

Perhaps (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853402)

Perhaps SCO can sue itself to raise cash

Re:Perhaps (3, Informative)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853468)

Darl sued his last employer, so why not?

Re:Perhaps (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853569)

Darl has a history of litigation. He's sued THREE of his employers, has taken legal action against one of his kid's schools, sued 2 financial advisors and one of his wives is involved in 2 lawsuits against neighbours.

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853585)

LOL, "one of his wives..."

Is he really a polygamist, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Either way, it's fscking hilarious (esp. to an ex-Mormon), and I would have modded you up if I had the points.

Re:Perhaps (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853677)

Is he really a polygamist, or are you just talking out of your ass?

He might be one of those serial monogamists.

Re:Perhaps (2, Funny)

MatthewNewberg (519685) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853485)

If SCO was going to sue SCO I would buy a Unix Lincense from SCO. I need to keep this lawsuit thing going. My life would be boring without the on going story of SCO sueing people. What does this mean for BBspot? Are they now going to go out of business without anythign to write about. Save SCO or my world is going to end!!!

Re:Perhaps (2, Funny)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853487)

This new business plan can go with their new name modeled after "GNU's Not Unix":

SCO = "SCO's Court Order"

Re:Perhaps (1)

freakmn (712872) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853621)

I've heard that it may be a possibility [bbspot.com] .

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853405)

fp

OMG LINUX ROX)RS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853408)

Open source blows. Microsoft forever!

Re:OMG LINUX ROX)RS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853964)

Er, title "OMG LINUX ROX)RS" and text "Open source blows. Microsoft forever!"

Care to explain that one?

What? SCO needs money? (3, Funny)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853409)

Surely there must be someone else they can sue.

Re:What? SCO needs money? (2, Informative)

spac3manspiff (839454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853441)

Or they can devote their efforts towards something productive. But that's too obvious.

Re:What? SCO needs money? (1)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853475)

They could try suing God [imdb.com] .

Re:What? SCO needs money? (1)

spektr (466069) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853801)

Whose G [miraclesalad.com] O [xemacs.org] D [time.com] ? [srichinmoy.org]

Re:What? SCO needs money? (2, Informative)

Ralph Yarro (704772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853515)

Surely there must be someone else they can sue.

Yes, we'll be suing Boies Schiller & Flexner next but don't tell them I said so.

Re:Whom will SCO sue next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853867)

I've predicted since june 2003 that SCO will eventually sue Tarentella (formerly known as Santa Cruz Operation) for selling them damaged goods - i.e. Unix assets which turned out to be a pile of crap.

Pun Intended (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853437)

"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."

"Grave" questions, dying company... How apropos.

Re:Pun Intended (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853498)

They've been dead for quite some time. Those zombies [primus.ca] certainly haven't found any brains, so they need to lie down and shut up.

Another Dot Com Failure (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853446)

So litigation isn't a reliable business model either. We're doomed!

Re:Another Dot Com Failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853591)

Thats slander, I'll see you in court!

Re:Another Dot Com Failure (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853745)

You missed an apostrophe, I'll see you in court!

Re:Another Dot Com Failure (1)

mersy (857867) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853719)

Give 'em time, I'm sure sombody will find a way to make it profitable.

Double check (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853447)

Is Netcraft going to confirm it finally then?

Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853449)

I prefer my SCO neat with a splash of water.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853566)

Shaken, not stirred.

Re:Neat (1)

mankey wanker (673345) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853769)

Neat means undiluted, moron.

Another 3 points down... (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853453)

Going down [yahoo.com]
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... (1)

JimmytheGeek (180805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853866)

Still not at 52 week low. YET

Die, sleazoids, die!

uh huh.. (2, Interesting)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853459)

The question is not as of when will the guillotine fall, it's how high will it be before it does.
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.. (2, Informative)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853563)

Wrong. If a company dies, it's the stockholders who lose, not the management. The managers simply need to find a new job -- and note that even during the company's agony they still get paid in full. Their pay is also orders of magnitude bigger than those of a common employee.

Re:uh huh.. (4, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853797)

Yeah management jobs are always a win-win situation in the U.S.

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.

Re:uh huh.. (1)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853899)

The real question is: what happens to the Unix source when they die. In the long run, I think that's really the only question that matters.

The sad thing is (4, Interesting)

argoff (142580) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853482)

... isn't all the peoples lives who have been interrupted because of the lawsuit, but all the people who bought the propaganda that SCO was enterprise "material" back in the 90's while blowing off Linux.

To the Zealots (1, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853483)

This is to the [Linux] zealots: You must be celebrating this news somehow. Of course you wish for even better news. Remember one thing...after SCO, another will be minted. Also remember that according to Microsoft's Ballmer, there is no significant Linux deployment anywhere on earth. One wonders where those revenues are coming from.

Re:To the Zealots (2, Funny)

wasted (94866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853713)

...according to Microsoft's Ballmer, there is no significant Linux deployment anywhere on earth...

I don't think that I would believe anything coming from Ballmer concering Linux.

Yes, yes, we know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853808)

Yes, round 2 in Microsoft's attack strategy is with Software Patents. That's why they are pushing so astoundingly hard to get them in place in Europe right now.

And the ONLY thing which is holding Microsoft back from attacking in the U.S. is that they don't want to reveal their hand while the Politicians are debating software patents in Europe.

We know Microsoft isn't done here with attacking Linux. We expect them to keep attacking. But we've narrowed their attack front to legal manuvers which are of questionable success.

And we're prepared and fighting. Yes, this battle will go on for some time. But if Microsoft loses the Patent game, then their monopoly is doomed.

Re:To the Zealots (2, Insightful)

MrResistor (120588) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853824)

Remember one thing...after SCO, another will be minted.

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 significant Linux deployment anywhere on earth.

Maybe Ballmer needs to remember how Microsoft got in it's position in the first place.

Re:To the Zealots (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853840)

Nobody who relies on Copyright for revenues wants to fight a Copyright battle in court against someone else's rights to do the same.

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.

Re:To the Zealots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853936)

Exactly. The FSF's hypothesis of "If you link to our DLLs, we 0wn your warez" is a much more expansive definition of copyright that Bill Gates has ever imagined.

Microsoft would love it the FSF's world view was ratified in court because it would give them effecitive control over competing software from Apple, Real, WordPerfect, Sun, and even GNU.

Re:To the Zealots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853829)

Well if ballmer says so it must be true as he's clearly a reliable and neutral observer with no vested interest what so ever. Of course he's ignoring insignificant deployments such as Google, IBM, Novell and so on and so on...

Personally I do feel sorry for SCO's employees as I do for anyone whose likely to loose their job through incompetant management.

uh (0, Troll)

suezz (804747) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853489)

who is this sco?

Has anyone managed to short SCO stock? (4, Interesting)

defile (1059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853494)

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? (2, Informative)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853554)

IIRC, something along the lines of 30% of the shares are shorted. That's a huge amount compared to what happens normally.

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? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853934)

In order for you to sell a stock short, your broker has to find someone who owns it and is willing to lend it to you. After all, whoever buys it from you is expecting to take delivery of the stock, and you don't have it to deliver.

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.

SCO on the rocks? (1)

BasculeTheFule (621387) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853497)

Hmmm, that reminds me, time to get the champagne on ice.

SCO = Such Crummy Opposition (1)

Killer Eye (3711) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853509)

So only now there is this worry that SCO is sinking? The act of a small company suing over Linux should long have sent the signal that SCO is having troubles. The suit seemed desperate (and still does), a way to get press and cash while sending markets into a spin. The fact that they have not produced evidence shows that SCO was not only betting the farm on FUD, but really is Such Crummy Opposition: to IBM, and to Linux.

Hope they will last... (2, Insightful)

tindur (658483) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853513)

...til the judge hammers. I wouldn't like to see somebody else buying the case and starting it all over again.

How much time do you give them? (1)

birdowner (635361) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853518)

Do you think they'll make it through the 30 days easily? How much time do you give SCO before it implodes amidst much celebration? I give it about two months.

Everyone knew it would happen.. (5, Insightful)

ElScorcho (115780) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853524)

..especially the management at SCO. You think they're upset about this? It was obvious from the very beginning that they didn't have the long term benefit of the company in mind when they started all this garbage. The people in charge of SCO, like so many other dead corps of the past, don't care what happens to the company. If you think they haven't gotten fabulously rich while all this has been going on you're deluding yourself.

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.. (4, Interesting)

defile (1059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853570)

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.. (0, Flamebait)

jbolden (176878) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853812)

Don't the execs face severe legal punishment for this?

If Harry Truman were president yes, with George Bush no.

ahem (0, Redundant)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853528)

I'll have my SCO on the rocks shaken, not stirred...

First Post Said It all... (1)

JawzX (3756) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853537)

You were expecting maybe SCO would turn into a profitable, stable company with a viable product? Especialy given the recent past...

I hope they sort things and don't get delisted... (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853540)

I was waiting for things to get ugly (heading under a buck) before picking up my SCOX stock certificates. Four dollars + additional fees is too much. It cost me more to have paper stock certificates issued than it did to buy the stock when pets.com went tits up, but framed up they rocked as a white elephant gifts. Them screwing around with the SEC get the symbol changed to SCOXE before I though they would. Grrr. Once again, I squarely shoot my foot trying to predict the stock market.

Rule Number One - Customer First (1)

6800 (643075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853553)

SCO, it seems to me, has violated every rule in the book, especially that long forgotten one about the customer being right.

A company cannot possibly stay in business without happy, returning customers.

My dad was in business and his dad before him also operated several small businesses. He once told a salesman who was asking for a job that he did not need one because his customers were his best salesman.

Re:Rule Number One - Customer First (2, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853850)

SCO does not have any "willing" customers - they are basically extorting people. Paying a company money so they DON'T sue you is not a people-friendly way to conduct business, but at least in the very short-term, it does work because people are paranoid or naive.

SCO Not only one on the rocks, look here (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853559)

Maureen O'Gara, who hitched her wagon for whatever reason to the SCO star, looks to be in all sorts of trouble too by the look of this feedback thread [linuxbusinessweek.com] .

YUO FAIL IT (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853564)

Everyday...Redefine Very sick and its his clash with found out about the to look into and reports and THAT *BSD 0WNED. prima donnas, and And has instead long time FreeBSD are inherently The future holds poor priorities, Satan's Dick And Let's keep to deeper into the off the play area can no longer be a change to You all is to let FreeBSD's that has lost Slashdot 'BSD is corpse turned over from the FreeBSD a BSD box (a PIII fastest-growing GAY by fundamental Don't walk around world's Gay Nigger DECLINED IN MARKET 'You see, even At this point show that *BSD has get how people can AGO, MANY OF YOU the latest Netcraft and as BSD sinks guys are usually short of a miracle Troubles of those who sell another Need your help! worse and worse. As It racist for a

When SCO goes under... (1)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853565)

Who do you suppose will buy whatever IP assets they have remaining? Oh, to be sure, there's serious questions about what those might be... but they did buy some kind of rights from Novell. Will they go to someone even slimier, or someone who will place them in some open domain?

Maybe it's time to set up a fund to bid on them?

In that _cooler_ reality (1)

Soat (863792) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853568)

I think this would be a different story had SCVs been behind all these lawsuits.

SCO on IRC (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853597)

Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell> /msg atnt haha. idiot.
<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 f&#252;r 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.)

Re:SCO on IRC (1)

drsmack1 (698392) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853742)

This is simply brilliant. Good work

They Said This About Martha Stewart Online (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853643)

Just because one has broken the law and betrayed the public trust, lying for personal gain, doesn't mean you can't make a few billion dollars from others ...

So, maybe they lied about Linux owing them money. Since their patron saint Bush will probably pardon them, they'll get another chance to lie about some other thing and make money the old-fashioned way - by stealing it from others.

Perhaps they should investigate the patent process in the EU? I hear it's a buyer's market...

The good guys win one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853649)

Finally...

Oh no! (1)

klovn (761128) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853657)

This means there'll be no future support for Linux!

How I like my SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853731)

SCO on the rocks!?!

Please, you forgot the most important part.

SCO should be shaken, not stirred.

Or stirring for that matter. And goodness knows, we're all doing our best at shaking SCO. ;)

RE: SCO on the rocks... (1)

rob_squared (821479) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853739)

...with a twist, please.

IBM guerilla marketing reloads (5, Funny)

rifftide (679288) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853748)

Word is that IBM will attempt to push the envelope with yet another guerrilla Linux PR campaign starting next month, replacing its current campaign, code-named "SCO", which appears to be running out of steam.

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.

What the fuck? (0, Troll)

supmylO (773375) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853756)

I just had the worst case of deja vu reading the first three comments in this thread.

I preferred them between a rock and hard place (3, Interesting)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853758)

What once looked like a mortal threat to Linux appears to be fading. As a result, the suit has become a nonfactor in corporate buying decisions.

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.

Thanks to heavy cost-cutting, SCO's core Unix-server-software business is generating an operating profit now and will continue to do so in 2005, he says.

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?"

Does this mean... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853761)

... that I should sell my shares of SCO?

Forget The Celebration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853798)

We all knew SCO was nothing more than a walking corpse for a long time now.

The important thing is to not let the scumbags responsible just walk away when the the rotting body of SCO stops twitching. Everyone knows Darl, but there are many others at SCO who are going to have made hundreds of thousands to millions and just walk away.

These people's names should be made public, like sex offenders, so they can't just get away with this sick and sleazy assault on Linux and go on with normal lives.

SCO On the Rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853817)

Maybe so, but Darl and his brother Darl got theirs while the getting was good.

Remember when... (0)

kiwidefunkt (855968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11853942)

...some people thought SCO stood a chance? Yeah, you guys were wrong. Sorry. Go Linux.

FUD in the article (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11853951)

While short on business, SCO held some potentially powerful copyrights.
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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?