Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Government The Courts Caldera IBM News

SCO Admits They Might Just Not Win - Maybe 126

Posted by Zonk from the it-tolls-for-thee-sco-it-tolls-for-thee dept.
inetsee writes "According to Groklaw, SCO has admitted in a 10K filing that if the court grants any or all of IBM's six motions for summary judgement, 'We can not guarantee whether our claims against IBM or Novell will be heard by a jury.' The site goes through a statement by statement run-down of SCO's filing, noting things like the absence of employee numbers (a piece of information they told investors they would disclose). Elsewhere in the document, it is revealed that SCO's stock is in danger of being delisted from NASDAQ, they may come under further litigation from an unrelated legal matter, and SCO is now claiming that OSes like HP-UX and Solaris are derivatives of code that they 'own'. Despite the dire pronouncements throughout the filing, if everything else runs according to plan their 10K indicates they could keep fighting the good fight for another 12 months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Admits They Might Just Not Win - Maybe More

SCO Admits They Might Just Not Win - Maybe

Comments Filter:

  • SCO should skip Trial by Jury (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @09:59AM (#17812832)
    ...and demand Trial by Combat.

    And I'm not just saying that because I want Darl whacked by a sword.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wrook ( 134116 )
      SCO Executives vs IBM Lawyers in a battle royal. A no lose situation for the spectator! I like it :-)
    • And I'm not just saying that because I want Darl whacked by a sword.

      IBM: What are you going to do, bleed on me?

      SCO: I'm invincible!

      IBM: You're a looney.

      SCO: SCO always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop]

      [IBM chops SCO's last leg off]

      SCO: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw.

      IBM: Come, Patsy.

      SCO: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

      • Re:SCO should skip Trial by Jury (Score:4, Funny)

        by shadowknot ( 853491 ) * on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:38AM (#17813256) Homepage Journal
        One small correction

        SCO: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You blue bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

      • More like this (Score:5, Funny)

        by splatterboy ( 815820 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @12:11PM (#17814628)
        SCO Lawyer: Our motion to compel was denied by the judge
        Darl McBride: Denied? Inconceivable!
        SCO Lawyer: Our sealed motion for reconsideration, which tossed out 187 of SCO's items of allegedly misused materials by IBM, was also denied by the judge
        Darl McBride: Denied? Inconceivable!
        SCO Lawyer: Most recently, our motion for Motion for Relief for IBM's Spoliation of Evidence was denied by the judge
        Darl McBride: Denied? Inconceivable!

        IBM Lawyer: You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means...

    • I'm in the SCA, and would love the opportunity. Only problem is, once we smashed them on the field they'd sue us. Clearly we're a derivative work. Two out of three of our letters are the same.

      • Ah, an SCAer? I didn't think anyone else on /. were interested. Though I used to go years ago I'm not a member. I have been thinking of joining the local kingdom, The Kingdom of Northshield [northshield.org].

        Falcon

        • I'm sure there's probably a lot of folks on here who do the SCA thing. Usually if you're a geek in one way, you're a geek in other ways too. ;^)

          As for joining, if it seems like it would be fun you should give it a shot. I did and I'm hooked. It's really the most fun collection-of-hobbies-all-rolled-into-one there is. Plus it's nice to get away from the computers and cellphones for a while, and sit by a campfire under some trees every so often. Good for the blood pressure, y'know?

          • As for joining, if it seems like it would be fun you should give it a shot. I did and I'm hooked. It's really the most fun collection-of-hobbies-all-rolled-into-one there is.

            I had a lot of fun attending the meetings I went to. Part of that is that I love to study different cultures. One of the hobbies I'd like to tryout is metalurgy, I want to learn to make blades, knives and swords. At one tyme I wanted to study with a samori sword maker. I'm also interested in making bows and arrows.

            Plus it's nic

    • And I'm not just saying that because I want Darl whacked by a sword.

      Not fatally, mind. He'll be up against one of the Nazgul. They go in for Morgul-blades, slow poisoning leading to hideous wraithform undeath... wait, how would we know the difference?

  • Stock price... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eggoeater ( 704775 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @09:59AM (#17812834) Journal
    Isn't SCOs stock price/equity low enough to where IBM could just buy them outright?
    Or at least 51%.


    • Re:Stock price... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Spad ( 470073 ) <slashdot.spad@co@uk> on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:01AM (#17812866) Homepage
      Which is exactly what SCO want - to be bought up rather than to lose the case and end up bankrupt.

      Not to mention the precedent it would set for other low-lifes to start legal action against IBM with the hope of being bought.

      • Re:Stock price... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by eggoeater ( 704775 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:09AM (#17812948) Journal
        Yes, but unlike other low-lifes, SCO does have some
        IP (NO I'm not talking about Linux) and other non-lawsuit related
        revenue sources that could make it a good buy.

        You make a good point though. IBM should wait until there's a judgment against SCO and the stock will plummet.

        IBM could make arrangements with some of the larger private (non-employee)
        stock holders to buy the stock at a higher price so the upper management doesn't
        reap the rewards of a buy out. Once they get 51% they can dissolve the company
        and absorb the assets.


        • Re:Stock price... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:32AM (#17813220)

          ...IBM could make arrangements with some of the larger private (non-employee) stock holders to buy the stock at a higher price so the upper management doesn't reap the rewards of a buy out...
          Besides the posion pill plan there are other problems: According Yahoo Finance 44.5% of the shares are held by insiders. I would be very very surprised if at least 6% of the shares is held by some non-insider that is very close and comfy with the insiders. Indirect indications of this is were the keeping up of the share price by somone who bought sizeable chunks (relative to the days trade) of stock near the end of the day.

          But here is the real kicker... about riskfactors from their 10Q:

          The right of our Board of Directors to authorize additional shares of preferred stock could adversely impact the rights of holders of our common stock. Our Board of Directors currently has the right, with respect to the 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock, to authorize the issuance of one or more additional series of our preferred stock with such voting, dividend and other rights as our directors determine. The Board of Directors can designate new series of preferred stock without the approval of the holders of our common stock. The rights of holders of our common stock may be adversely affected by the rights of any holders of additional shares of preferred stock that may be issued in the future, including without limitation, further dilution of the equity ownership percentage of our holders of common stock and their voting power if we issue preferred stock with voting rights. Additionally, the issuance of preferred stock could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock.
          Now isn't that a nice (in the most cynical manner) way to have pretty much full control over what happens with your stock - 45% is held by insiders... who can choose to dilute the voting power of common stock holders. (Bold emphasis added by me)

        • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

          by Fordiman ( 689627 )
          So....
          SCO: *attack!*
          IBM: No...
          SCO: *die*
          IBM: Rifles through wallet

        • Yes, but unlike other low-lifes, SCO does have some IP (NO I'm not talking about Linux) and other non-lawsuit related revenue sources that could make it a good buy.

          What IP is that? The Unix IP is owned by Novell, SCO just has the right to sale it however they haven't been giving Novell the money from sales.

          IBM could make arrangements with some of the larger private (non-employee) stock holders to buy the stock at a higher price so the upper management doesn't reap the rewards of a buy out. Once they g

      • it was once observed by Israel that going to war with the USA and losing resulted in massive investment by the USA into your country... and senior politicians jokingly debated declaring war and rapidly losing... but then decided there was a risk of winning!

        Or that's how that bit of urban legend came to me.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by MrNiceguy_KS ( 800771 )
          Check out a great movie called "The Mouse That Roared" starring Peter Sellers (in several roles). It's a very funny movie based on this premise. I stumbled on it in my local library back in college.

          A tiny European country with a failing economy declares war on the U.S. planning to lose and then collect millions in post-war aid. Unfortunately they win.

          • I've heard this (no reference, sorry) about a very poor city or county in one of the Dakota states as means to get federal funds (or enough publicity to the same effect).

    • Re:Stock price... (Score:5, Funny)

      by stanmann ( 602645 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:02AM (#17812884) Journal
      IBM could have bought them any time they wanted. They haven't because they're going to kill them, burn them, stomp the ashes, salt the earth, burn the salted earth, burn the salty earthy ashes, stomp that out, pour gasoline around, burn the remaining mess, and then piss on it to put it out.

      • IBM could have bought them any time they wanted. They haven't because they're going to kill them, burn them, stomp the ashes, salt the earth, burn the salted earth, burn the salty earthy ashes, stomp that out, pour gasoline around, burn the remaining mess, and then piss on it to put it out.
        "And then, Vir, he would have gotten nasty..." (paraphrase from Dust to Dust, Babylon 5 (Season 3)
    • SCO did some procedural jiggling to make sure they're not 'undervalued' during any procedure (i.e. the directors get more money than they're worth).

      Take a look at this Groklaw article for a bit more detail. [groklaw.net]
    • That may have been the original purpose of the lawsuit. But IBM has the cash and the legal expertise to make anyone who threatens them like this very sorry. Case in point: SCO is very sorry. Those of us who have been reading about this lawsuit from day one have been grinning from ear to ear from day one as well, but the past few months have been particularly entertaining. Here's hoping no one buys SCO. Ever.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ZorbaTHut ( 126196 )
      Another issue is that, if IBM buys them, they probably end up having to deal with SCO's various madcap lawsuits. It's quite possible SCO is worth literally less than nothing right now, considering all the reverse lawsuits they're liable for.

    • Re:Stock price... (Score:5, Informative)

      by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:14AM (#17813020)
      Short answer: No

      First: The board of SCOX has adopted a poison pill plan which pretty much allows them to set any price regardless of what the company is worth on the stockmarket, should anyone be as daft as want to buy it. If you buy a company you also buy their liabilities. (And remember that some 45% of the shares is still held by insiders in the company) Darl McBride said in 2004:

      In an apparent response to industry rumors that SCO may become the target of a hostile takeover bid, SCO's Board of Directors has implemented a "shareholders rights plan" designed to deter unsolicited takeover attempts, McBride said. "We believe that this will basically keep any outside offers or potential takeovers that are not in the best interest of the shareholders at bay," he said. The plan, which was adopted by the board on Aug. 10, gives SCO's board the right to determine the "fair value" of the company in the event of a takeover attempt, McBride said.
      And that fits pretty well with the suspicion that their original plan was to force a buyout from IBM (Source http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/08/31/HNscocap s_1.html [infoworld.com])

      Second: as many others have pointed out - give in to extortion tacticts and they will just keep coming again and again and again.
    • No, IBM could have bought SCO long ago. Right now, it's about punishment. IBM recognizes this extortion scheme for what it is. If IBM paid up, many companies would try this stunt. IBM must make an example of SCO. It would serve as a warning: Do not mess with IBM. Do not mess with the Nazgul. They will crush you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I am now of the belief that the best thing would be some VC to buy them out, and then sue management for something like gross incompetence, recover funds, and cut the golden parachute.

      There might be enough funds in company and management assets to bring a significant profit.

      IRC, the big problem with a buyout is the lack of readily available stock.

    • Isn't SCOs stock price/equity low enough to where IBM could just buy them outright?

      No. While the cost to simply purchase the company outright may seem cheap there are going to be some hidden expenses. tSCOG owes Novell more cash than they actually have on hand so whoever buys up tSCOG will also inherit that debt. And on top of that there is the Red Hat lawsuit resulting from the lies tSCOG representatives were spreading in the press when they started this fake crusade. And, who knows what kind of new lawsu

      • tSCOG owes Novell more cash than they actually have on hand so whoever buys up tSCOG will also inherit that debt.

        Huh? Since when does buying any number of shares in a company overturn limited liability?

    • I'm waiting for SCO's price to drop low enough that I can buy them out.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by BigFire ( 13822 )
      What IBM wants to do with SCO can best be sum up in Conan the Barbarian quote:

      "To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women"

    • Isn't SCOs stock price/equity low enough to where IBM could just buy them outright?
      Or at least 51%.

      Why would anyone want to buyout SCO? That's all this lawsuit was about, their business model wasn't working so they decided to be bought out by a big company. They should go down in flames, and the execs like Darl taken to the cleaners.

      Falcon

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )
      Now that would be bright. Buy SCO and pick up all of those legal liabilities. A lot of companies don't see the value in suing SCO because SCO won't have the money to pay up.

      However, even if IBM was a partner in the drubbing of SCO, turning around a suing the new owner with deep pockets would be sorely tempting.

      Even M$ is unwilling to touch SCO because of the SCO legal liabilities, what corporations or individuals that were harmed by the SCO lies could resist suing M$.

      • However, even if IBM was a partner in the drubbing of SCO, turning around a suing the new owner with deep pockets would be sorely tempting.

        Eh? What about limited liability?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          You buy a company you gain it's assets and it liabilities, when that companies liabilities send your company broke, then the limited liabilities protect your directors and share holders from having to pay 'extra' out of their own pockets to cover those losses (unless they broke the law then theor personal assets are pursued).

          Your thinking of a fire sale, when the liquidators step in and sell the remaining assets of a company at bargain basement prices and pay out to the creditors from what little is avail

          • You buy a company you gain it's assets and it liabilities, when that companies liabilities send your company broke,

            That seems absurd. Mutual fund companies that have SCO stock aren't going to be liable for anything more than the value of their stock SCO does. Sure, if you merge with another company, you take on its assets and liabilities, but I doubt very much that merely being a majority shareholder in another company is enough to pierce the corporate veil.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by FFFish ( 7567 )
      SCO's price has always been where IBM could buy it outright. Several times over. IBM has more money than God.

      IBM plays hardball. Purchasing SCO would let the perps off the hook.

      Although, come to that, I'm sometimes IBM didn't decide it'd be cheaper to purchase SCO and simply snuff the bastards who were behind this stupid debacle.

  • Nothing New (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ALL public companies say things like this in 10k filings. They ALWAYS state the possibility of failure. This is another "non-story".

    • Yeah, I think companies must present the worst case scenario for prospective investors. If you look at extremely profitable companies like MS and Apple and read about their potential liabilities in their 10K, you'd think they could go under.
    • I'm not an accountant, and I'm only taking my second accounting course.

      Your statement is correct. If a company is involved in litigation where loss is likely they must report it in the annual report. If the chance of loss is indeterminate, they must also make a note. However, if they are certain that they will win, then you don't make a note at all. Clearly they aren't going to win, so they made a note in their report.

      Now I haven't read the report, but I'm going to assume they didn't put a monetary value on

  • HP-US? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @09:59AM (#17812850)
    Didn't know HP made a special patriotic release. Is it any better than that shithole HP-UX?
  • SCO should have hired her. She could have told them their scam's chance was slim.
    • Worse yet, she could have suggested a better scam. I hear she's pretty damned good at those.

      SCO: The Unix what Knows Your Future!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gbobeck ( 926553 )

      SCO should have hired her.
      Why should they hire her? The could just call her and get a free reading instead. :-)

  • I thought that was standard for 10K... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:07AM (#17812922) Homepage Journal
    I thought 10K filings are supposed to have that type of information, on the forseeable risks. I don't care what sort of PR bravado a company has, a 10K filing is not the place to pretend you are guaranteed a win everything.

    In short, nothing to see here, move along.

    • Re:I thought that was standard for 10K... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tverbeek ( 457094 ) * on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:37AM (#17813244) Homepage
      Mod parent up. These kinds of filings always contain statements of potential doom that you'll never find in any press release. If they're in a legal dispute, they have to say what the consequences will be if they lose... even if they sincerely and correctly expect to win. So it's not an admission that their case is weak, only of the fact that they are involved in litigation whose outcome is still pending.
      • Down to the bitter end.

        If they were to change their stance, or their doggedness, they'd be crushed in a heartbeat-- and end of story. Instead, what they don't reveal is that they launched a lot of litigation that was fruitless, because their basis of injury didn't exist, because their rights to Unix code were bogus. They exacerbated their problem by sending out their letters of injury to large corporations. Then they took money in license fees that would be owed to Novell, who in turn, immediately stanched

  • What would become of UnixWare and OpenServer? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Were SCO to go under, what would become of UnixWare and OpenServer? I would imagine they'd be sold off to the highest bidder in some sort of liquidation proceedings. Hopefully a company like IBM or Sun would buy whatever rights SCO held, and then negotiate with Novell to release the source code to both products, ideally under a liberal open source license (BSD, MIT, zlib/libpng).

    While UnixWare and OpenServer are of limited practical use these days, especially with Linux, *BSD and OpenSolaris, there would st

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by peragrin ( 659227 )
      Since 95% of the money MSFT and Sun paid SCO goes back to Novell and Since SCO itself list Unixware and Open Server at values of less than 5 million dollars. Novell will end up with both product lines.

      Nope the only thing left will be the fraud trials for Ralph Yarro and Darl Mcbride. Since it is obvious to all that this has been a buyout scam from the beginning. Darl is on record as saying that unless they launched the lawsuits(and got financing from MSFT, Sun and Baystar) SCO would have been bankrupt by

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by nuzak ( 959558 )
        > Since 95% of the money MSFT and Sun paid SCO goes back to Novell

        Actually Novell claims that SCO has forfeited their 5% cut due to mismanaging it. They want the whole enchilada.

        It's really interesting to see how the tactics of IBM's legal team (Swain, Cravath & Moore) and Novell's (Morrison & Foerster) differ. The former is satisfied with not asking for too many sanctions, and patiently lets the wheels of justice grind slowly and finely. The latter goes right for the jugular -- they're not ca

  • and SCO is now claiming that OSes like HP-US and Solaris are derivatives of code that they 'own'.

    Okay, if the entire point of this 10K filing is that your claims are in danger of being summarily thrown out of court why in the world would they then publically publish paperwork laying the same claims against two new large behomoth companies?

    Oh wait... Pump 'N Dump. I remember, now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ebuck ( 585470 )
      Technically both HP-UX and Solaris are derivatives of code that SCO somewhat controls. The thing to remember is that they are LICENSED derivatives, which have paid thier royalties and have permission to call themselves UNIXes.

      They're probably enhanced versions of System V, but they might have done even better than that. System V has been around the block a few times, and there's a lot of room for enhancement. That means that assuming SCO has some claim of ownership of the System V code, all other UNIXes

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by StormReaver ( 59959 )
        "Technically both HP-UX and Solaris are derivatives of code that SCO somewhat controls."

        Both IBM and SUN bought out their royalty obligations years ago, and neither owes royalties to anyone. SCO has no control over either (even if we accept SCO's fantasy-land theory that it bought UNIX).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ebuck ( 585470 )
          Of course SCO doesn't have control over anyone, well maybe they have control over the workload of a few dozen lawyers, but that's about it.

          Just because they state that other UNIXes are derivaties of System V doesn't mean that they are in a position to profit from it. Sure, the way they present it makes it look like they could profit, but that's just corporate spin to make the best out a bad situation.

          SCO's just hoping that nobody notices that all of the UNIXes are permitted derivatives of System IV / V cod

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by DavidTC ( 10147 )

            Remember what SCO said: Contracts are things you use against people.

            Sadly for SCO, not only did Sun not purchase their rights from SCO, they didn't even purchase them from Novell, the actual current owners of Unix, they purchased them from AT&T. In fact, they were in a joint Unix venture with AT&T way way back when.

            HP, OTOH, has two licenses to use the Unix source, one via HP and one via DEC. DEC was part of the joint venture mentioned above, and HP, while not part of the joint venture, also licen

  • Hooray Pamela Jones (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darth Cider ( 320236 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:16AM (#17813034)
    SCO deserves all the bad press it can get on Slashdot, but Groklaw has led the way. What a fantastic job they've done over there! Kudos, you fine folks.
  • Don't they have a board? Is it really possible that the board members are just as dumb as the CEO?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by 1mck ( 861167 )
      "Don't they have a board? Is it really possible that the board members are just as dumb as the CEO?" It has never been about proving if SCO owns the code or not, but that the board members, including Darl are making millions off of this. They even said in one of their e-mails that they were rich. They aren't stupid, and they don't care what they say or do as long as they ride this pony for as long as possible...remember, they make sure that they are paid first, and then the rest goes into the lawsuits. The

  • Darl's next employer... (Score:5, Funny)

    by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:20AM (#17813088) Homepage
    ...will have him wearing a blue apron with the white letters and yellow smiley-face. He'll look wistfully upon the computers in the center aisle that are pre-loaded with "his" operating system.

    And he'll mutter to himself: "ahh, what might have been"...

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Really? I thought that the collective sentiment here wanted that next "employer" to have him wearing an orange boiler suit, looking wistfully for a tube K-Y jelly.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Vaxgod ( 688790 ) *
      Actually... he'll probably retire on a beach somewhere. Why would he be doing this if he wasn't making money at it?
    • What's in it for Wal-Mart to hire Darl?
  • If SCO have developed the opinion that "OSes like HP-US (sic) and Solaris are derivatives of code that they 'own'", then wasn't there something in US law (laches?) that they're obliged to make efforts to remedy the situation as soon as possible, rather than just sit around?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by p3d0 ( 42270 )
      I think you're thinking of trademark law.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Secrity ( 742221 )
      "If SCO have developed the opinion that "OSes like HP-US (sic) and Solaris are derivatives of code that they 'own'"

      SCO IS right about HP-UX and Solaris containing derivatives of the code that they claim to own; and HP and Sun pay license fees to SCO to use that code. Almost all of the license fees that SCO collects are supposed to be turned over to Novell, which is the real owner of the code formerly known as UNIX.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by DavidTC ( 10147 )

        HP and Solaris don't pay license fees. They outright purchased the right to use Unix code decades ago. (HP did it twice, thanks to DEC.)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Secrity ( 742221 )
          In 2003 Sun licensed software from SCO's Unix System V Release 4 for use with Intel processors. Sun acquired a System V license for Sparc processors in 1994 (which was first used by Sun with Solaris 2.5). When Sun "outright purchased the right to use Unix" in 1994 they had actually been granted a perpetual license when AT&T sold USL to Novell. At one time AT&T owned a significant share of Sun and Sun had a hand in developing System V.
  • It was posted somewhere that the lawsuit could potentially run through 2005, and I thought, "Holy crap, that's slow justice."

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by chrwei ( 771689 )
      IP infringment is not a criminal offence, so there is no right to a speedy trial here. Speedy Trial Act [usdoj.gov] only applies to criminal trials.

      this case is the equivelent of SCO telling the playground monitor that IBM stole their hacky sack and IBM saying it wasn't SCO's but Novells and they have the right to use it. Even if SCO were to win, IBM did not commit a "crime".
  • This is just SCO meeting SEC requirement of disclosure to stockholders. They have to disclose all things that may seriously affect the company performance.

  • From 09 June *2003* (Score:3, Informative)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @10:42AM (#17813316) Homepage Journal
    Read this posting from back in 09 June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL [slashdot.org] - Caldera/The SCO Group were F**ked from the beginning.

    In other words ( from Wednesday, March 10, 2004 A plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics. [blogspot.com] ):

    The SCO Group has entered into a series of essentially inherently flawed lawsuits and fraudulent license claims against users of the Linux operating system. Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa Cruz Operation have been accepting, profiting from and distributing software developed by hundreds of independent developers under the terms of the GPL and LGPL license. The SCO Group has failed to put forward any sustainable legal theory why it should not abide by the terms of the GPL license. Detailed investigation into other facts and evidence which regularly conflict with the SCO Group's various legal claims, filing, press and public statements, raises serous questions which can no longer be explained away by a lack of competence in either the SCO Group's CEOs or the SCO Group's legal representation.
  • I for one sincerely hope that SCO won't have the excuse of going bankrupt before the trial actually starts. I seriously want to see IBM's lawyers destroy them in front of a jury! It would really be a pity if Darl & Co. could go on whining about how they would have won if they hadn't had to quit for financial reasons.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rkhalloran ( 136467 )
      I agree I'd prefer they not go bankrupt too soon, but I expect that IBM's motions for summary judgment, Novell's claims the copyrights never went to SCOX, Red Hat's Lanham Act claims (false advertising that Linux infringed UNIX) will torpedo them well before anything gets to a jury.

      THEN they can go bankrupt, and we can all watch the principal parties doin' the perp walk.

      SCOX DELENDA EST!!
  • because SCO is goin' DOWN. the company is a shell game played with pyramid schemes. totall bogus.
  • Does SCO have dormant legal rights on this lawsuit? If I am on the jury on this I will vote for SCO. "Twin Turbine Race Car Driver of the Year "TM" "
  • Reminds me of the time that the CEO of Atari said "The Playstation is a little bit more powerful than the Jaguar. ... a little, little bit." First rule of business: never show weakness!
  • I mean, what's next? MS announcing that Vista might not be doing what its owner wants? Bush telling us he thinks that US might not get the upper hand against the terrorists in Iraq? Me admitting my comments are neither funny nor witty?

    What will this world come to if people get rid of their delusions and start living in reality? What will happen to second life? What to Hollywood? And does anyone here think of the lawyers?

    C'mon, it ain't fair. I want my SCO back the way they were. It was the best meme since a

  • Scox has already won (Score:5, Interesting)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Tuesday January 30, 2007 @11:36AM (#17814118)
    When Darl was hired as CEO, just before the scam began, about four years ago. Scox's market cap dropped below $6M. Scox was on the brink of delisting and bankruptcy. Now scox's market cap is over $20M.

    Kevin McBrid pulled in $885K in the last two years. Darl probably made about $2M since the scam began. Not bad for small time scammers. Scox's law firm, BSF, has made over $30M. And the company that financed the entire scam, MSFT, is getting five years of top quality FUD for a meager $50M.

    Scox never expected a victory in court, scox expected either a quick settlement, or scox would just loot as much msft FUD money as possible.

    Scox was just given more delay - yet another scox victory.

    • This guy has actually understood what's going on. Cynical and sad, but I believe obvious too.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bmo ( 77928 )
        "This guy has actually understood what's going on. Cynical and sad, but I believe obvious too."

        For those of us who know and love Walter on other fora(ums, ae, i?!) (Y! Scox and IV Scox) he has been the most cynical of all of us, and he's been right more often than is comfortable sometimes.

        If you ever get it in your head that IBM is going to FiNaLlY CrUsH Scaldera, all you have to do is read one of Walter's posts, and you're back to reality and more delay.

        --
        BMO

    • 1) Yes, Darl and his brother probably pulled $3+ million from this scam, and a few other insiders sold their stock and walked with some cash early on, but Darl will never be CEO of another IT company again. He is a suicide pill for anybody who would even consider hiring him in the IT field. He can no longer attract investor money and he is an outcast. That three million will have to last him quite some time. Here is to hoping his lifestyle is used to higher income. Say mortgage, car payments, alimony.
  • As SCO is penniless maybe they should tell McBride to give back some of the 1/4 million dollar bonusses he keeps taking.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2005 053100093171 [groklaw.net]
    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2006 1118000708715 [groklaw.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close