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 Bankruptcy "Imminent, Inevitable"

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the quebrada dept.

The Courts 234

mattaw writes "From analysis by Groklaw it seems that SCO may owe Novell nearly all the SCOSource licensing fees, and has been hiding the fact for 3 years. Imminent. Inevitable. Bankruptcy. Those are the words from Novell's lawyers. Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

cancel ×

234 comments

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

Can they drop the suit? (3, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525616)

Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"
Unless a "plausible" suit would be considered an asset by a bankruptcy court? I know the court won't let you give away corporate property generally.. anybody know?

-GiH

Re:Can they drop the suit? (4, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525810)

Maybe SCO should sell bonds against the anticipated damages IBM will be paying once SCO wins the lawsuit... Ha ha ha ha.

Re:Can they drop the suit? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526820)

"Bonds against damages awarded in lawsuits" are effectively what shares in SCO have been for years. SCO has been loss making for years now, and makes little revenue, certainly when compared to their liabilities in lawyers' fees. So the only realistic sources of value in the company are the lawsuits: and thus the share price can be seen as the market's view of how likely a SCO win is. Its current share price is $1.19 [yahoo.com] , giving a market cap of $25M. Since it's requesting at least $5 billion in damages, the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race.

IBM counter claims unavoidable (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526394)

SCO can drop their claims against IBM.

But there is no way for SCO to avoid IBM's counter claims. Even in bankruptcy the trustee gets to decide to continue a case or just fold their side. The case still must have an outcome.

Overlords (-1, Offtopic)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525624)

I for one welcome our new (morally) bankrupt overlords, imagine a Beowulf cluster of those.

...and there was great rejoicing... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525626)

tra-la-la!

Opportunity for Novell (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525634)

Wait till death is at the door, buy them out for pennies and introduce existing SCO customers to SuSE!

Re:Opportunity for Novell (4, Funny)

Albanach (527650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526636)

introduce existing SCO customers to SuSE!
Both of them?

I'm excited (3, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525636)

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees. Like the software developers who actually worked to make a good product at one point in time.

Hopefully Novell and IBM can split the leftovers, I think it's owed to them.

Re:I'm excited (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525760)

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees. Like the software developers who actually worked to make a good product at one point in time.

I believe, that in it's current incarnation, SCO doesn't have any such employees. When they were the Santa Cruz Organization, they had such people. But, I believe the current SCO is a holding/IP company who doesn't actually do such mundane things as writing software. I think it's been about a decade since SCO had coders in its employ.

(If people have more accurate information, feel free to correct me.)

Cheers

Re:I'm excited (5, Informative)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526346)

The current SCO is not, and has never been the Santa Cruz Organization.

The current SCO (newSCO) is what used to be Caldera. Santa Cruz (oldSCO) became Tarantella, and was bought by Sun.

About 50 developers? (4, Interesting)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526642)

SCO's quarterly financial reports say different. They state about $2 million in research and development costs for the last reported quarter. If we assume that to be mostly salaries, then that's about 50 developers. SCO also makes software releases regularly containing many new feature. And now, a moment of silence in mourning over SCO's imminent demise ... that's long enough.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high (1)

zurtle (785688) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526868)

Dev salaries is only a small portion of the cost of R&D. These guys won't be self-managing - there will be support staff, secretaries, PAs, managers,... they may have an espresso machine that costs 1.5M to run. Once you bundle electricity, maintenance of the space where you stick them and other running costs you might be lucky to get 10 guys who actually do software.

And how many of those were porting Freecell and Minesweeper to the HC11?

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high (4, Insightful)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527338)

In software development, you may safely assume that developer salaries is the majority of the cost. I know - I'm a manager of software development.


You should go through the list and add up the costs. It's not that great. For example, it's hard to imagine having more than one manager and one secretary per 10 developers. Hardware is dirt cheap (a few thousand per year at most). Electricity and office space likewise, at least compared to a developer's salary. Health insurance is a serious expense, but still only a fraction of the cost.

And if SCO is paying $1.5 million for coffee, the management should be fired tomorrow. A dollar or two per day per employee, that's it.

Trust me, $8 million per year buys a lot more than 10 developers.

Re:About 50 developers? (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527020)

Unix/Linux - they do not do any development anymore. At least all people responsible for Caldera are not there anymore. Needless to say SCO never employed any Unix folks - they acuired rights only. Also SCO recently acquired "Vultus" or something like that - web services company (no need for guesses - internal shuffles in Canopy group).

Note, that SCO is R&D company. And it is also public company. If current management would mark itself with irresponsible management, they would be crossed as management forever. If you payed attention to news, you might have noticed that SCO though paused its business for some time (in the beginning of the IBM case) never actually stopped producing ... well at least press releases. They still support Unix, they still support Linux (though that hurt them in court) and they still try to develop something new - like web services.

Also, $2Mln/y is pretty humble figure. If you would take that every R&D employee on average costs $100k/y than it is only about 20 people. I bet they have even more lawyers by now.

Highlight. If you followed Novell case, you know that Novell means by bankruptcy here. SCO tried to stay the case - but Novell argues now that if SCO is allowed to stay and let to pursue IBM's case first it would very soon run out of money. And Novell wouldn't be able to collect due royalties from M$/Sun deals.

Re:About 50 developers? (1)

rumblin'rabbit (711865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527450)

Ahem. The $2 million is for the quarter. It's $8 million per year.

And I assumed about $160,000 per employee per year. $100,000 per developer is optimistic, although possible under some circumstances.

Re:About 50 developers? (1)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527376)

Lets see 2 million / 50 = 40K. Where are you from? India? Probibly closer to 20 employees.

Re:About 50 developers? (1)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527452)

Oh, they spend 2mil/quarter? OK, 50 employees sounds right.

They're Hiring! (2, Funny)

zesty42 (1041348) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527328)

You can check it out here. [sco.com]

Please have a look at their services too... looks fantastic.

Re:I'm excited (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525778)

LOL

Most of the best programmers at SCO have already left for greener pastures. I had some friends who used to work there and are now gainfully employed (and better paid) as a result. Most of SCOs problems has to do with management but that's another thread.

If Novell acquires SCO due to bankruptcy, they would be getting mostly intellectual property, administrative personel, and lawyers.

Re:I'm excited (1)

SCO_Shill (805054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526004)

Don't worry all of the executive types there will bleed it dry and walk away sitting pretty. I don't think there are too many real employees left, at least according to the latest rumors and management's refusal to discuss it. The ex-employees will probably just omit that they ever worked for SCO on their resumes...

Darl (2, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526390)

Alas, it's almost 100% certain that Darl will parlay this experience in the limelight into a cushy job at some other company when SCO's gone. Things are so screwed up...

I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.

Re:Darl (1)

goofyspouse (817551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526698)

I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.
Hear, hear!

Re:Darl (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526864)

Lay got lucky not having to face jail time.

Re:Darl (2, Insightful)

tehdaemon (753808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526996)

It may just be me, but, I don't think I want that kind of 'luck'. T

Re:I'm excited (1)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526622)

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees.
I don't waste much sympathy on mythological beings.
Anyone who hasn't left must be chained to their desk.

I know we can hope, BUT ... (1)

rblancarte (213492) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525644)

... I gotta say I will believe it when I see it.

SCO is like that bug that won't go away or die. When you considering how long they have waited this out, what makes this really any different.

Now, I hope it is true and these guys do go away. But I won't be holding my breath. Keeping my fingers crossed though.

RonB

I doubt it (4, Insightful)

thebdj (768618) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525664)

Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?
My understanding is the lawyers were paid in advance. Since filing bankruptcy is hardly the end for a company, I do not know that it would necessarily finish off SCO or the IBM case. Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.

Re:I doubt it (2, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525704)

IBM should buy SCO and dismantle them just for spite

Re:I doubt it (5, Funny)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526114)

IBM should buy SCO and dismantle them just for spite
How do you dismantle a company that consists of a box at Mailboxes, etc., some attorney's on retainer, Darl, and two hookers in a motel room?

In a word: Chainsaws (5, Funny)

no reason to be here (218628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527046)

(EOM)

Re:I doubt it (1)

VEGETA_GT (255721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526166)

I would love to see a aggressive take over of SCO by IBM. then any SCO staff that wish to remain employed get moved to the IBM whipping boy department.

Re:I doubt it (1)

hisstory student (745582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526200)

SCO owes way too many people and organizations way too much money for IBM to gain anything (spite has little if any monetary value) by buying SCO. No, IBM/SCO needs to run it's course and set a very strong and long-lasting precedent.

Re:I doubt it (2, Funny)

AlanS2002 (580378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526246)

Better yet IBM could buy SCO and then release SVRX under the GPLv2.

NO! (5, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526268)

SCO wanted to be bought by IBM. That would be a "good thing" for SCO. Their stock jumps and their executives all cash out more options.

IBM should crush SCO in court and be awarded whatever is left of the company as compensation.

If IBM gives up any money to SCO or SCO executives, IBM has lost and will be sued again over this same kind of crap.

Re:I doubt it (3, Insightful)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526842)

While I see the attractiveness, this would be a bad idea.

One, IBM would then face lawsuits from other two bit companies that might have even less of a case, leading to IBM spending even more money on legal fees. The more money they blow defending their linux ventures, the less profit their linux ventures make. This is less money for them, and for us... a greater likelihood that they will eventually pull out of linux entirely. Bad for IBM, bad for us. A decisive win now, good for IBM and good for us.

Two, it would appear to be an admission that SCO had a case. Technically it isn't, but people would see it that way even if the courts didn't. This is bad.

Three, this would encourage other people to go after potential copyright/contract problems related to Linux in courts, rather than approach Torvalds and his crew and say "We've got concerns about this code here" before resorting to a lawsuit.

Four... there are concerns about the GPL actually holding up in court. While I have heard vague references that it has held up a few times, this is a high profile case where one of the largest companies in the world has thrown down GPL violations in its countersuit. Winning on those counts will be a significant boost in public confidence about how well it will hold up, hopefully leading to more people who were considering it actually going with it.

Re:I doubt it (4, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525770)

Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.
Bill? What are you doing? He was only joking, honestly, don't do it!

Re:I doubt it (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525906)

Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.
Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.

Re:I doubt it (1)

Fractal Law (122229) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526886)


  My understanding is the lawyers were paid in advance.

From what I remember from when this whole mess began, SCO paid the lawyers for the IBM suit with SCO stock.

It's more than bankruptcy. (5, Informative)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527086)

Judge Kimball has ruled that the Novell case should go before the IBM case, so the Novell timeline [groklaw.net] is now more important than that of IBM. While it's SCO that sued Novell, the whole show (including IBM) is likely to be shut down by Novell's counterclaims [groklaw.net] . Boiled down, Novell's has nine "claims for relief" and, if granted, there is nothing left for SCO to sue about. You can read them yourself in the PDF, but the basics are:
  1. Novell owns the copyrights and not SCO.
  2. SCO needs to give Novell a full accounting of unreported money it owes Novell for SVRX licenses.
  3. Novell wants to court to order SCO to comply with their contract, which gives all the royalties from SVRX to Novell.
  4. Novell has the right to waive SCO's claims on UNIX code. Including those against IBM.
  5. Novell wants the court to issue a "declaratory judgment" that Novell has the right to audit SCO's performance to make sure that it doesn't take any more of Novell's money.
  6. SCO needs to put all the money it "converted" (i.e., "stole") from those licenses into a constructive trust. (This is the one they're fussing about now. Sun and Microsoft gave SCO a bucket of cash to carry on the lawsuit against Linux under cover of a UNIX license. But SCO is supposed to give UNIX license money to Novell.)
  7. Number seven repeats number six and asks for the trust again. Eh, lawyers. Go figure.
  8. Number eight asks for the trust again, but adds punitive damages for swiping the money in the first place. Since SCO has already spent most of the cash, this is pretty much just adding insult to injury.
  9. Finally, Novell wants a complete accounting of all SVRX agreements or "other agreements relating to royalty bearing products." That's because SCO was claiming that the Sun and Microsoft agreements weren't "real" SVRX agreements, so SCO didn't owe Novell any money. Novell wants an accounting to make sure SCO isn't hiding any more ill-gotten gains.
So, yeah, the cash is a big deal and it's going to bankrupt SCO. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of fellas. But read number four again. If Novell has it's way, the IBM case is gone too because SCO never had the right to sue in the first place.
 
Of course, there are always IBM's counterclaims, but it's unlikely there will be anything left after Novell is done.

IANAL.... (4, Insightful)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525674)

.... therefore almost nothing referenced here makes any sense to me. Someday lawyers will be forced to speak and write in NormalSpeak, preferably in English. Until such time, I am at the mercy of people like Cokie Roberts to explain these legal doings. Could /. maybe hire her to boil this down for us mortals?

Re:IANAL.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525756)

if (allegations ==true) { SCO = screwed; }

Re:IANAL.... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525782)

Cokie? I guess she was fun to hang out with in college.... :D

Re:IANAL.... (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525912)

.... therefore almost nothing referenced here makes any sense to me. Someday lawyers will be forced to speak and write in NormalSpeak, preferably in English.

Unfortunately, lawyers can't use NormalSpeak. The maze that is modern law requires a very large amount of terms with very specific meanings to convery what is being said. It's wrapped up in hundreds (if not thousands) of years of history and the like, and embodies a large vocabulary of concepts, precedents, and methods.

That's why we like Groklaw, becuase they do a very good job of summarizing the legalese, as well as explaining it in context of the issues as they relate to tech.

Sadly, I don't think you'll see your wish any time soon. Legalese is probably going to get more complex over time than less.

Cheers

Re:IANAL.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17527118)

It's really quite simple: the bigger government gets (measured both in revenue and power over the people), the more complex the law gets, and hence, the less understandable the law is by normal human beings.

History has proven over and over again that governments expand in power over time. No government in the history of organized coercion has ever significantly and permanently reduced its powers through the process of democracy. There's a reason for that: more government benefits the power elite. More laws, more crimes, more revenue, more red tape, more administration: it all benefits the ruling class.

Imagine if the law was simple, unambiguous, and concise, understandable by any normal human being -- as human nature intended -- what's in that for government? Imagine if citizens were overwhelmingly law-abiding and everyone had to take responsibility for themselves -- as human nature intended -- what's in that for government?

You can't profit from administration if you ain't got nothing to administer.

Government is destined to expand in power, the law is destined to become even more complex. Your prediction is therefore correct -- perhaps more correct than you ever thought. What's that quote about "when you don't have enough laws, you make them up"? That would certainly be a perfect fit here.

Re:IANAL.... (5, Insightful)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526072)

You have a couple of vague terms in your last message that I hope you could clarify:
Define NormalSpeak. New speech codec that only works on English?
Define "legal doings." Lawyer guano?
Define "boil this down." Are you talking about putting legal doings in a bubbling pot of water?
Define "us mortals." Presumably, it means that Cokie Roberts is immortal. Based upon past assumptions, this means that once Cokie Roberts boils down the lawyer guano, it's safe for everone else to use. Do you make bowls out of them or something? Or do you eat it to become immortal yourself?

To be serious, I know what you probably mean. The point is, though, that the language of the law will always be with us. It helps let one say exactly what they mean without room for interpretation, or to fit all interpretations that they want it to fit.

the short inaccurate version (1)

theonetruekeebler (60888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526594)

Novell has been saying for some time that SCO owes them money from royalties on System V Unix. After years of stalling, SCO finally handed over documents that said the licensing money they got from Microsoft and Sun was, in fact, for System V Unix, and not for a foosball table in the break room as SCO had originally claimed. Novell says they should get dibs on the money now because (a) it's theirs, and (b) not only is SCO going bankrupt, they're probably going to go bankrupt before the trial is even over.

This is an oversimplification and misses many nuances and may in fact be glaringly inaccurate.

It's called "being a professional" (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527500)

My (somewhat jaded) definition of a profession is a practice in which the practitioners (the "professionals") consipre so as to exclude others. Lawyers use legal speak, and in some countries still use Latin, programmers use C/C++/whatever jargon. Wassadifference?

Can anyone explain? (1)

iambarry (134796) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525684)

I guess I haven't been following this very closely - I'm confused.

What are SCOSource license fees? And why would SCO owe Novell money? What does this have to do with Microsoft and Sun license fees?

I tried to read the Groklaw FA but I'm not getting it.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks in advance.

Re:Can anyone explain? (1)

Delirium Tremens (214596) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525970)

Impossible. It's like asking for a 5-line summary of "Days of our lives".

You basically missed episodes #6, #8, #34 and #42. Given that we are today at episode #300 or something and that nobody knows how many more are to come, it is impossible to summuarize the whole issue to you.

You could actually consider yourself lucky not to know.

Re:Can anyone explain? (2, Informative)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526080)

Basically, SCO has to pay Novell royalties whenever they license the Unix System V code, it's part of the original contract.

Novell is basically saying that SCO hasn't given them all the royalties SCO owes them.

Re:Can anyone explain? (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526402)

No, not royalties... ALL fees received. For acting as Novell's agent, Novell then kicks back 5% of the those monies to the SCOundrels.

SCO fudged and didn't pay Novell the money from the Sun and Microsoft licenses.

Re:Can anyone explain? (1)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526508)

The way it was written in Groklaw it sounded like just royalties... My bad.

Either way, SCO owes Novell a lot of money...

Re:Can anyone explain? (4, Informative)

Scarblac (122480) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526260)

SCO has been acting as if they had bought some sort of IP rights to SysV UNIX from Novell, and sold licenses based on those rights to Sun and Microsoft ("SVRX licenses").

Novell is now pointing at the actual text of the contract, which says that all SCO acquired was the right to act as an agent of Novell - basically, they can sell licenses in Novell's place, then hand over all the money to Novell. After that, Novell will return them 5% of the money as an agent fee.

It all seems pretty undisputable, from following Groklaw. As Novell claims SCO did its job badly so they won't even have to give them the 5% back, they're basically claiming that those cash infusions from Microsoft and Sun belong to Novell. And it's asking the judge to make haste, since this is simply their money, SCO is wasting it, and they'll soon be bankrupt.

Re:Can anyone explain? (1)

nels_tomlinson (106413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526486)

All of this is from memory, and some of it may be wrong. I'm sure that folks who know a lot more, but were much too busy to answer your questions, will have loads of time to correct my mistakes, so here goes:

What are SCOSource license fees?
SCOSource license fees are the fees SCO charges to folks for [unix|linux] licenses. It seems very unlikely that they have the right to sell licenses for Linux (that is sort of what the lawsuits are about). They do have teh right to sell licenses for unix, which brings us to your next question:

And why would SCO owe Novell money?
Novel owns Unix. I don't remember the convoluted trail that ATT's rights in the name and source code followed to come to Novell, but it is theirs. SCO has the right to sell licenses to Unix source, acting as Novell's agent. That last bit is important, because Novell has the right to tell their agent what to do, and has the right to get some portion of the price of those licenses.

What does this have to do with Microsoft and Sun license fees?
MS and Sun paid SCO big bucks to either to get peace of mind (short-sighted selfishness), or to keep the suit against IBM/linux alive (far-sighted selfishness). Which you believe about each of them depends on which conspiracy theory you like today. As mentioned above, Novell has a cut coming. If they didn't get it from SCO, then SCO has yet more troubles. Like imminent bankruptcy. And, maybe like loss of their right to sell licenses. If I found that my agent was holding out on me, he wouldn't be my agent any more! No telling whether Novell will see this a a chance to terminate their agreement with SCO, though

It's only a spector (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525702)

Because /. keeps posting it.

Ease the cashflow (1)

Mipoti Gusundar (1028156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525708)

They can be rescue! All please to be paying you're 30,944 Indian rupees, cocksmoker teabbagging chappies!

where's the bleedin iPhone story already (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525714)

slashdot is so behind the times. :(

Their stock has actually gone up! (3, Interesting)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525716)

I just checked the stock ticker and SCOX has actually risen in price today! It started at about $1.15 a share and it's at $1.22 now, so while they may be in a world of trouble, Wall Street still amazingly thinks the stock has some value. I am amazed that this stock is still selling for over a dollar a share, but far be it from me to suggest that the stock market makes any sense.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525840)

Odds are those are sales being made by executives at SCO, trying to get what money they can out of the stock market, and essentially pulling money out of nowhere.

Sickening, no?

Re:Their stock has actually gone up! (1)

SCO_Shill (805054) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526130)

That's pretty typical. The price always seems to skyrocket on bad news, at the end of a quarter, or right before conference calls (coming up on Jan 17).

Someone's losing a lot of money trying to keep the price up at these levels.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up! (2, Interesting)

Explodo (743412) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526778)

Due to the amount of money owed Novell vs the amount of money SCO has, it's possible that the stock price is going up due to speculators looking for Novell to acquire SCO in the near future....thereby getting Novell stock. Just a guess.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up! (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526826)

Now would be a good time to short the SCO stock.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up! (1)

Not_Wiggins (686627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527240)

Hey! I think I got an email about that stock!
It was a little strange because it was mostly garbage text, but the included gif explained it all... time to start buying!
Woo!

Bankruptcy doesn't change anything (1)

tphb (181551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525722)

The lawsuits will proceed, so long as there is any chance of getting money. In fact, many companies live long after bankruptcy just in lawsuits -- witness Enron, for example.

Resolved by bunkruptcy? (4, Insightful)

Edward Ka-Spel (779129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525746)

I would be really disappointed if the Novell and IBM cases are finally resolved because SCO ran out of money. I would much rather see a final resolution on whether or not Linux has any sort of IP conflict with SCO. Bankruptcy skirts the issue. I would rather see a clean bill of health. Perhaps Microsoft now wants SCO to go bankrupt so that clean bill of health never comes.

Re:Resolved by bunkruptcy? (1)

BoneFlower (107640) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526450)

All bankruptcy means is you can't pay all yoru debts, a bankruptcy declaration is basically a court order that eliminates some of yoru debts and reduces others to an amount you can afford to pay.

While generally bad(though a properly timed bankruptcy filing can be the best decision under the circumstances), and sometimes the first sign of a dead company, it doesn't free them from their other legal obligations. The case will likely go forward unless SCO outright liquidates, and even then the bankruptcy courts might not let them go that far until the lawsuits are resolved.

Anyone dig up the number of Darl's dealer yet btw? I want some of that shit he's on. Gotta be some good stuff there.

Don't forget: the US vs IBM antitrust case (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526638)

Don't forget about that United States vs IBM antitrust case that ran on and on from 1975 until 1982 when it was finally dismissed. Basically, IBM out-litigated the staying power of three consecutive US federal executive administrations (Ford, Carter, Reagan) to the point the feds were no longer willing to spend any more money fighting the case.

IBM is the KingDaddyPawPaw of dragging a court case out forever whenever anyone picks a fight with them.

(it's also poetic and funny as hell that the captcha I have to type in to post this message as A/C is "victors" because that's what IBM will be in this case too)

Re:Resolved by bunkruptcy? (1)

ultraslacker (597588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526716)

Perhaps Microsoft now wants SCO to go bankrupt so that clean bill of health never comes.

Bankruptcy of SCO would not have that result, the lawsuit would continue until it reaches some resolution, say a negotiated surrender by a bankrupt SCO. SCO has already secured representation in this eventuality, but even without that, there would be counterclaims by IBM and Novell.

Ding! Dong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525750)

The witch is dead!

They've been doomed for how long now? (4, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525754)

I mean seriously. We've been hearing variations of the "OMG SCO is teh doomed!" now for so long my eyes just glaze over when I see another one.

Call me when Darl is in jail or flees the country.

Re:They've been doomed for how long now? (1)

Darth McBride (749942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526198)

So what is your number? I'll let you know how it turns out.

SCO: Just Go Away. Let the Adults Work. (1)

Salis (52373) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525772)

SCO is like that child who is constantly shouting, obnoxiously, "Look at me! Look at me!" as they do something stupid. It might be funny for the first ... hour? But when real work needs to get done and that child is pulling the same shit, it's time for a Time Out.

So hurrah for SCO's bankruptcy. Now the rest of us can finally get some proverbial litigation silence.

Re:SCO: Just Go Away. Let the Adults Work. (1)

Q-Cat5 (664698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527298)

Now the rest of us can finally get some proverbial litigation silence.


There'a a proverb about litagation silence?

Something like "Blessed are the mute lawyers, for they shall not poison the air with their heated breath." perhaps?

Wait, that's a beatitude . . . hmmm . . .

"A fool and his lawyer are soon to be silenced." That works.

Microsoft to the rescue? (1)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525780)

Anyone else think M$ will simply buy another boatload of SCOUnix licenses to keep the case going and the spectre of legal hullaballoo over the enterprise Linux community?

Re:Microsoft to the rescue? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526204)

Now that they've bought (out) Novell? No, one else thinks they'll dick around with SCO.

Re:Microsoft to the rescue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526650)

"No, no one else thinks they'll dick around with SCO", I meant.

Microsoft... where have I heard that name before? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526404)

Honestly... where have we heard that name before in relation to the SCO case?

First, wasn't Microsoft helping SCO in their lawsuit against IBM, financially?

Second, Microsoft has been cozying up to Novell lately. Mostly in its new XML Document format.

I have a 2, and I have a 2. Problem is, it's not simple addition to get 4. Are there any more numbers, and how do they related. Thoughts and/or comments?

Live Sacrifice Required (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525812)

After all this time, money spent by IBM defending/pursuing, and all the defining issues raised, I don't want SCO dying before a precedent verdict is set. The best justice will be for SCO to spend itself bankrupt pursuing this frivolous lawsuit, its frivolous lawyers getting stiffed and wasting more time as creditors in bankruptcy court, and Linux proven free of the FUD SCO has produced as its flagship product. Either way, watching the speculators betting on SCO's stock rising on blackmail is fun, but satisfaction lies in proving the facts about how Linux is free.

Really... (2, Funny)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525818)

"The Santa Cruz Operation" always sounded more like the name for a wise-guy scam than something you would name your company.

Re:Really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17527416)

"The Santa Cruz Operation" always sounded more like the name for a wise-guy scam than something you would name your company.

I see you knew both Larry and Doug Michaels.

Specter? (1)

MahariBalzitch (902744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17525894)

"Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

Specter? I was thinking sphincter...

yu0 Fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17525950)

volatile world of one common goal - move any equipment The gYay niggers nearly two years may well remain the deal with you on baby...don't comprehensive

egregious punctuation (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526002)

These. Are. Not. Sentences.

Rid of this specter (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526006)

Only to have the threat of Novell/MS looming over us.

Personally, I'd rather have to worry about SCO; they were never a serious threat.

unprecedented evile's demise Imminent, Inevitable (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526022)

as more&more folks join the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue/mandate.

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

like getting excited about the Ford presidency (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526060)

Both are history.

Don't die yet, SCO! (1)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526146)

Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

But I have been so enjoying the slow death - perhaps we could string it out a little longer?

This is just the preliminary. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526178)

Microsoft has just been using this to try out various fudding scenarios to see which worked best. Don't worry if it's real or not, the PHBs will panic at the thought of lawsuit.

Not so fast! (1)

kjs3 (601225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526180)

I'd much rather see them finally and conclusively defeated and the precedent on the books rather than having the inevitable group of trolls in the background mumbling "SCO would have put it to those evil OSS people if they hadn't run out of money...one day we'll show them".

Typo (5, Funny)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526194)

"Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

Shouldn't it be "sphincter"?

Next prediction.. SCO sues Tarantella/Sun (2, Interesting)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526296)

The executives/investors in SCO/Caldera either:
  1. Didn't understand what they bought from Santa Cruz (i.e. they thought they "owned" Unix, when they really didn't).
  2. Didn't read the Santa Cruz - Novell APA, in which case they are morons for not reading the fine print in a multi-million dollar deal.
  3. Understood the APA, but were greedy/crooked enough to try to get away with 'converting' Novell's royalties.
After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun (now owners of the old Tarantella/Santa Cruz) claiming that Tarantella/Santa Cruz mislead them and misrepresented the nature of what they were buying when Caldera bought the Unix assets.

Re:Next prediction.. SCO sues Tarantella/Sun (1)

a.d.trick (894813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526862)

Hey, don't give them any ideas

Blast from the past (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526356)

A little quote from the 1999 film says it all...

  CALVIN: My gosh, those Commies are brilliant! You've got to hand it to 'em! "No, we didn't drop any bombs! Oh yes, our evil empire has collapsed! Poor, poor us!" I bet they've even asked the West for aid! Right?!

I have one word for SCO: (1)

Mard (614649) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526400)

"LOL." [yahoo.com]

They've had it coming, and it should be no surprise to anybody that you'll go bankrupt fast if you're giving what little money you have left to lawyers. The RIAA and MPAA should take notice. Rampant legal action is not the solution to your failed business model, but it will certainly solve your company from the marketplace, so I guess in the end the consumer really does win!

Obligatory Agent Smith (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526532)

Agent Smith: You hear that Mr. McBride?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. McBride...

Re:Obligatory Agent Smith (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17527398)

Yes, excellent analogy. Agent Smith is a character who represents an out-of-control programmatic enforcer of the mechanized regime, designed to enslave humanity and on the verge of destroying it and the world as we know it. Neo is a freedom fighter, who despite dubious origins, is here to free humanity and bring peace. So, let's see, IBM, Novell, and the open source movement - genocidedly propping up terrible enslavement of humanity, McBride, SCO, Microsoft - plucky underdogs, here to free humanity. Well done.

Good work, Microsoft (1)

paniq (833972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17526872)

Good work Microsoft. The first company you turned into your puppet in the war on free software is close to self-destruction. How comfortable.

I'd rather like to see an executive-cleaned-up SCO to continue selling Linux products, perhaps in a partnership with other open source oriented companies. One Linux company less is not a day to party, no matter what it was done in its name.

predecessor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17526890)

After SCO, we will have Novell in the "specter".

Ability to look over all docs? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17527178)

Will this mean that Novell and IBM will soon have access to all the SCO docs? It would be interesting to see what they have WRT MS's and Sun's investment into them. I suspect that both companies will be found to be knowingly supporting SCO in this illegal endeavor.
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>