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 Blames Linux For Bankruptcy Filing

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the comment-write-themselves dept.

The Courts 321

Stony Stevenson writes "SCO Group CEO Darl McBride is now claiming that competition from Linux was behind the company's filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy. 'In a court filing in support of SCO's bankruptcy petition, McBride noted that SCO's sales of Unix-based products "have been declining over the past several years." The slump, McBride said, "has been primarily attributable to significant competition from alternative operating systems, including Linux." McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is "aggressively taking market share away from Unix.""

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

Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (5, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656733)

Okay, I'll grant that competition from Linux distributors probably has taken business away from their Unix offerings. (Not that there's a problem with that, it's just the way markets work.) Of course, I'm sure their "we'll sue our customers!" antics didn't help, as the distributors behind such Unix varieties as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX etc. don't seem to be in quite such dire straits.

But let's not forget that a few years back, this SCO was known as Caldera. They were a Linux distributor. They were a founding partner in UnitedLinux [unitedlinux.com] . Then they bought Unix -- well, they bought something -- and changed their name to sound like the old SCO (Santa Cruz Operation), and refocused their business on Unix and lawsuits.

Anyone want to bet that if they'd stuck with Caldera Linux as their primary business, they'd be doing a lot better today?

To pull out an old analogy, it's like they started out as an automobile company, and then decided to switch to the buggy-whip business -- and now they're blaming the automobile companies for their business failures.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656917)

I don't know that if they'd stuck with the Caldera name and business model that they would have succeeded. After all, how much space is there really for commercial support in the Linux space. Maybe they'd have succeeded, maybe not - but their legal antics and operatic press releases made them look like maniacs. And that is entirely their own fault.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (3, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656945)

Anyone want to bet that if they'd stuck with Caldera Linux as their primary business, they'd be doing a lot better today?

The old line about polishing a turd comes to mind. Caldera was one of the poorest distributions around.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (1)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657127)

Still, it's hard to be doing worse than SCO is doing these days, isn't it? Even with a turd of a distro, they might have done something better.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (3, Insightful)

vthokie69 (549779) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657439)

They would at least have the cash that they used on the lawyers.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (4, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657493)

When Caldera first came out it was actually pretty interesting. It just died on the vine over time. Heck I really thought Red Hat was over rated and it has managed to do well. I think Caldera could have been a big hit if they had managed it correctly. They had DR-DOS so they could have bundled a Dos runtime environment. While by 96 DOS was pretty dead that would have been a nice feature for some users.They could have been a contender but failed to find any focus.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657315)

Okay...I've been reading the comments, and I am not sure if everyone is on the same page. I'll do a summary super quick for some, and don't blast me is any of it is wrong, its just want I remember. Bell Labs created Linux a while ago, then it sold to AT&T, which in turn sold their Linux stuff to SCO. So for the past few years SCO went on a Suing spree trying to file a suit against anyone who was using Unix or Linux. They are even claim that anyone(yes, even end users) who has ever used Linux owes them $750 for a license. They claim that Linux was created from stolen code of their Unix. They went after IBM, Chryster, Sun, anyone with deep pockets. And how were they getting the money for this....Microsoft gave $50million to another company (i forget what the name was), who in turn, gave it directly to SCO. It was in Microsoft's best interest because a company was suing all of their competitors.

In one of their court cases, the court order SCO to release SCO's code to the court so the court could compare it to the Linux code, ect..., SCO claimed that Unix was propietary, and that they couldn't release it to the court without hurting themselves, so they withheld their code, and the case was thrown out. I think everyone knows that SCO is a big joke, that is looking to make money from nothing. I know a few years ago, when they were making money, it was from their stock, and people getting into the hype. I'm sure the SCO execs all the majority of the ppl who bought the stock, and they probably sold it already while it was high a few years back.

From above, I forget who Caldera was, I am too lazy to look it up. I wrote a paper two years back on this, I can probably find it and upload some of it when I get home from work.

Just my two cents...and a little clarification about a few thing.

Re:Caldera to SCO: Backing the wrong source (1)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657519)

AT&T sold their UNIX to Novell not SCO

Typical whine of the loser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657695)

"It's Micros... er... I mean... Lunix's fault my company is going out of business!!"

Typical whine, just a different target. Yes, we've heard it all before. Your programmers don't stink, your product is not sub-par, and your customers don't hate you. It's all Microso... er, I mean Lunix's fault you can't compete in the marketplace.

The day people stop blaming Microsof... er, I mean Lunix for their lack of quality and coding skill is the day they can actually successfully compete in the same marketplaces as Microso... um, sorry, I mean Lunix.

first "SUCK IT SCO" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656739)

suck it till it's as empty as your coffers

Tough noogies (4, Funny)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656741)

I fail to see the part of law where he's guaranteed to have a business model that works no matter what may compete with him.

Re:Tough noogies (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656809)

I fail to see the part of law where he's guaranteed to have a business model that works no matter what may compete with him.

I fail to see where he's claiming that he's guaranteed one. All he's describing in the bankruptcy filing is why SCO failed.

Re:Tough noogies (1, Insightful)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656845)

I wish someone could explain that to the RIAA.

Re:Tough noogies (2, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656991)

Nobody's said otherwise. A bankruptcy filing is a statement of "here's why this company went under." And "we got outcompeted by X, Y and Z" is a pretty damn common reason.

Re:Tough noogies (5, Insightful)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657211)

And "we got outcompeted by X, Y and Z" is a pretty damn common reason.
Sure sounds better than "We abandoned product X to sell product Y. Then other companies proved that selling product X was more profitable than selling product Y. We then spent a whole bunch of money suing those companies for selling product X and our own customers for using product X without paying us for our product Y, only to be told we didn't actually own product Y, and owed ass-loads of money to Company Z."

Re:Tough noogies (5, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657369)

Oh, I agree. Bankruptcy filings get written by the soon-to-be-outgoing board. Unsuprisingly, they rarely say "This company folded because the outgoing board is almost completely incompetent and abandoned its core business in order to give all the company's assets to its lawyers."

Funny, that.

Re:Tough noogies (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657459)

only to be told we didn't actually own product Y, and owed ass-loads of money to Company Z."

Actually they knew they owed ass-loads of money to Company Z, but they were hoping if they closed their eyes and imagined really hard that they didn't, that it would just sort of go away.

Baring that I'm sure they had some sort if twisted idea that after they won two metric fuck-tons of money from suing company A, and B, that they could then turn around and figure out some way to sue company Z, or at least annoy them enough that they forgot about all that money.

Re:Tough noogies (1)

ivanmarsh (634711) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657033)

No Kidding... SCO sold Linux for quite a while. They couldn't make it work so it's the rest of the industry's fault?

Perhaps they should have been working on their business model rather than sueing everyone... who do they think they are, Microsoft?

Re:Tough noogies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657431)

Obviously you have read the federal legal code where in the MPAA and RIAA backed changes which do just that. The problem was that SCO wasn't in the "creative content" business (other than fabricating truths for legal briefs).

If only Darl had positioned SCO differently... (2, Interesting)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657445)

I fail to see the part of law where he's guaranteed to have a business model that works no matter what may compete with him.

The folks in the music and movie industries have done a pretty good job of making the law work that way [wikipedia.org] .

Developers vs. Lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656749)

What if they spent all that money on development instead of on lawyers?

He will blame... (3, Insightful)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656759)

...everyone but himself. What an ego.

Re:He will blame... (1)

CaseCrash (1120869) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656951)

Yeah, he's got to have a pretty low opinion about himself to think he couldn't possibly have enough of an influence for it to be his fault

Re:He will blame... (3, Interesting)

Cheesey (70139) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657359)

I'm impressed to hear him speaking the truth for a change. Paraphrasing: "we're out of business because Linux does what we did, but for less money, and more flexibly."

But I still think he's a dick for trying to solve that problem by suing. Adapting to Linux would surely have been cheaper than all this legal action. They might even have made a profit...

Translation: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656761)

I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!

--Darl McBride

Microsoft distributing Linux? (3, Insightful)

querist (97166) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656765)

Since when have Microsoft been distributing Linux? I suspect that Mr. McBride is mistaken or perhaps this is simply a despirate grab at anyone who has money. (Note he did not go after Ubuntu, etc. - only "deep pockets")

Re:Microsoft distributing Linux? (1)

glop (181086) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656835)

Microsoft has an agreement with Novell to distribute Suse Linux. They are therefore in the business of distributing Linux (see the whole GPL3/Microsoft/Novell/Patent deal controversies). Of course, I wouldn't bet that they really push hard to distribute Linux.

Re:Microsoft distributing Linux? (4, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656837)

I did a double-take too, but if you look at it more closely, he doesn't say Microsoft distributes Linux. What he says is that other OSes including Linux took away their marketshare. Then he lists a bunch of companies that provide OSes, including Microsoft. So he's talking about Windows in that case.

Re:Microsoft distributing Linux? (1)

gosand (234100) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657327)

(Note he did not go after Ubuntu, etc. - only "deep pockets")


Not to mention that Ubuntu wasn't really any kind of force at that time.

Re:Microsoft distributing Linux? (1)

Shuntros (1059306) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657339)

What are you smoking?

Microsoft have been distributing Linux since 2003! Get with the program.

http://www.mslinux.org/ [mslinux.org]

Re:Microsoft distributing Linux? (1)

mringenb (754022) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657543)

It is not important to SCO if Microsoft is actively distributing Linux or a UNIX derivative, Microsoft was one of the first big companies to pay SCO for a UNIX license. There was some suspicion that Microsoft was not really interested in doing anything with the license but was interested in legitimizing SCO's claim to have the right to license UNIX which in turn could harm the UNIX and Linux communities. From todays vantage, it is easy to see that Microsoft could not loose if it bought a license, either SCO beats down Linux and more people turn to Microsoft or SCO goes under and has to refund the money.

"Staying the course" eh ? (3, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656769)

STILL stiff neck and scheming up until the end.

lawyers of this company should be hanged in order to prevent more exploits in u.s. legal system.

oh yeah? (4, Funny)

zsouthboy (1136757) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656777)

I, horse-and-buggy manufacturer, am being put out of business by those damn dirty car manufacturers!

Competition killed SCO. (4, Funny)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656779)

McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is "aggressively taking market share away from Unix."

So ..... McBride is blaming competition?

Re:Competition killed SCO. (2, Funny)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656989)

My God.. STOP PRESS.. There are companies out there competing for market share..

If SCO couldn't see this is it any wonder that they are filing for bankruptcy???

Really indeed imagine that competors trying to put each other out of business. What is the world coming to??

Re:Competition killed SCO. (1)

MCO-C (1158583) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657059)

Give the man a break, Linux just killed SCO, you insensitive clod!

Re:Competition killed SCO. (1)

cpaalman (696554) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657151)

Had they spent a little of the lawyer money on coming up with ways to stay *relevant* in a changing and evolving market they might have noticed that their competition has not stopped innovating. good bye, good riddance

baghdad bob of the year (1)

heson (915298) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657183)

I nominate Darl for this years Baghdad Bob Prize, Im not sure if a Pinocchio doll is a good statyette or if a plain wooden stick symbolizing the nose is enough.

Re:Competition killed SCO. (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657261)

So ..... McBride is blaming competition?
Yes, apparently nobody ever told Darl that competing was a viable business model, he thought litigating was the only way.

Stop complaining! (5, Insightful)

mce (509) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657283)

Indeed. And what's wrong with that? They filed for chapter 11, so now they naturally have to explain why. Competition that they cannot beat is the reason. The real one. What's wrong with little Darl saying that, other than that it probably is the first accurate business related statement coming out of his mouth in years and that he should have said it a long time ago?

I truely don't understand why you guys are screaming so much about this one. What McBride said is true amd he has to say it: Linux is the thing that ruined their business. It was doing that back in 2003 already. The fact that SCO used the dirty method they did to try to escape from the inevitable, does not change the basic facts. Get over it. You should all be happy, for $YOUR_DEITY_HERE's sake! So stop wasting time on such blahblah and get back to work, making Linux even better. SCO is history.

Damn Microsoft (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656781)

Damn Microsoft and their support of Linux!

Excuse me... (3, Funny)

curmudgeous (710771) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656787)

...while I laugh maniacally.

Re:Excuse me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657487)

And I will do the pointing [google.com] ! .... Okay some laughing too! BAHAHAHHAHAH!

So he admitted (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656789)

..the motive behind the baseless lawsuit: to hurt the competition?

Oh that Darl McBride! (3, Informative)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656791)

McBride noted that SCO's sales of Unix-based products "have been declining over the past several years."

I suppose that's why they pay the Darl McBride the big bucks -- nothing gets by him.

The incredible Darl in action! [vi411.org] Does anyone worry his next job will be working for their company?

The slump, McBride said, "has been primarily attributable to significant competition from alternative operating systems, including Linux." McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is "aggressively taking market share away from Unix.""

Seems the logical approach would be for them to develop Unix and market it aggressively in return, rather than count on hitting the jackpot through the Lawsuit Lottery.

Seems they should have learned something from this example [wikipedia.org] , but it does seem to strike everyone that there really never was an interest in growing the Unix market. It was all about suing IBM and other Linux distro makers.

In Other News: Br'er Rabbit informs us he's certain he can defeat the Tar-Baby if he could just get one foot free long enough to take another kick at it.

Re:Oh that Darl McBride! (5, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657321)

Does anyone worry his next job will be working for their company?

Citing his vast experience, General Motors has announced Darl McBride is being named CEO, in hopes of ramping up flagging sales of GM products by suing Honda and Ford.

Re:Oh that Darl McBride! (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657663)

You joke, but that's exactly what's going to happen; Once darl is out of SCO, he'll stay low for a year or so, then back into the lime light he'll go, driving some other company head first into the ground.

Translation for those who don't know... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656795)

corporate cop-out speak:

McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is "aggressively taking market share away from Unix."


We would like to blame other entities for our inability to make a quality product that can compete in a competative marketplace. Simple put they are responsible for our incompetance.

...and why are they behind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656817)

Might have to do with the fact that they've been litigating instead of coding in the past few years.

SCO could have been with Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656823)

SCO is actually Caldera (actually they have nothing to do with the company Santa Cruz Operation which owned a version of Unix, apart from having bought some licensing rights from them). They were once one of the main distributors of Linux. They could have stuck with it. The only people to blame for this failure are the SCO management.

Or Maybe, Just Maybe... (2, Insightful)

StickyWidget (741415) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656825)

..the bankruptcy had something to do with the de-emphasis on the marketing, development, support, and other attributes of OpenServer and UnixWare, and the emphasis on filing lawsuits. Surprisingly enough, they didn't start doing this till Darl McBride became CEO.

Cause -> Effect.

~Sticky
/Just a thought, just a thought.

got to change with the times... (2, Interesting)

mytrip (940886) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656841)

This is as stupid as horse drawn buggy makers blaming automobile makers for going out of business. SGI didnt adjust. They went poof. IBM adjusted well to linux and is reaping benefits are oracle and other companies. SCO could have done well with linux by shifting an existing customer base and applications over a long time ago.

Re:got to change with the times... (2, Funny)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657157)

SGI didnt adjust.

Sure they did - they're called Nvidia now.

Ah poor McBride needs a Waaaambulance (0, Offtopic)

Trauma_Hound1 (336247) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656843)

Would he like some cheese with that whine?

SCO's reason for lawsuits? (4, Interesting)

mhollis (727905) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656849)

Wasn't the reason why SCO started suing everyone who was using Linux due to their assertion that the code in Linux was "stolen" from SCO Unix? So now they're claiming that competition from Linux (now that the courts see that the code was not, after all, stolen from them) is forcing them into Chapter Eleven?

And their assertions of this poverty are not due to the enormous amounts they have paid lawyers to prosecute ostensibly innocent companies?!

From now on, when I think of the term "pinhead" I'll think of the people at the soon-to-become-defunct SCO.

Re:SCO's reason for lawsuits? (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657205)

To be fair to them, SCO Unix was heading towards extinction, largely because of the competition from Linux, all the BSDs and Microsoft. Heck, IBM knew this and that's why they started putting so much effort into Linux and moving away from their own *nix operating system (AIX). That being said, guys like Sun seem to be doing alright, so it really comes down to business model, period. Caldera/SCO got taken over by a rather litigous bastard who altered the business model from "produce, maintain and sell support of operating system" to "try to extort licensing fees from IBM, or even better, simply get bought out so we can all get out of this mess".

I'll wager SCO was finished with or without the lawsuit. Without the lawsuit they may have a few more years, but SCO Unix died the death that some operating systems do; better and/or cheaper alternatives.

Competition is GOOD (1)

extremescholar (714216) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656863)

It's good for consumers and it's good for the economy. This is why we have anti-trust legislation!

Yep..probably (1)

Doonga2007 (1049016) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656867)

"SCO Group CEO Darl McBride is now claiming that competition from Linux was behind the company's filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy."
Too bad you didn't adjust your business model to compensate. Enjoy bankruptcy court, at least you you'll be comfortable on the inside of a courtroom considering how much time you've spent suing your customers in the past few years.

I would be led to beleive... (2, Interesting)

dexomn (147950) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656871)

It was the public debacle, wild accusations, circular logic, legal threats, loss of face, change of business model from products and services to litigation based, etc. that caused this. Not to mention an outrageously overpriced and stale product line. Call me a dreamer...

Sun sells Unix (2, Insightful)

khb (266593) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656879)

As best I can tell, and it's certified http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/802-1953/6i5uv2sif [sun.com] . I'll bet HP-UX and AIX are too. So is Daryl's claim t that his Unix isn't as marketable as other people's Unixes??

SCO Blames Linux For Bankruptcy Filing (1, Funny)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656887)

Darl McBride is a loser, and a bad one...

Blaming Sun Microsystems? (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656899)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sun Solaris IS UNIX, so, how can UNIX be competing against UNIX?

Re:Blaming Sun Microsystems? (1)

BugAttack (624234) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657697)

because they're two different companies?

Carriage Makers Blame Automobile for Slump (0, Offtopic)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656905)

How about some real news?

Re:Carriage Makers Blame Automobile for Slump (0, Offtopic)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657273)

"Off-Topic" ???
It migh be sarcastic, but it is very much on-topic! I hope in the future I can expect better moderation than that!

Satire Is Dead? (0, Offtopic)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657659)

Must be... or maybe some modder has no sense of humor.

Because (1)

sdkramer (411640) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656907)

it couldn't possibly be that SCO's entire business model was premised on suing everyone on the planet, and frankly that market's already been cornered by the RIAA.

Sun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20656923)

I'm sorry but unless I am missing something, isn't solaris Unix? Isn't HP still selling HP-UX ? I think that is Unix too. Sounds like Unix still sells as long as you are servicing your customer's needs.

Re:Sun? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656973)

No, Solaris is Solaris, HP-UX is HP-UX, and Unix is Unix. They are "similar". But they are not the same. One might argue over what the "real" differences are... and believe me, they have.

Re:Sun? (2, Informative)

notthe9 (800486) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657139)

HP-UX and Solaris comply with the Single UNIX Specification and are thusly properly called Unix.

Re:Sun? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657229)

My bad, then. But I must ask: If that is so, how do they get away with being separately branded?

waaaaaa (2)

CraniumDesigns (1113153) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656931)

cry me a river SCO. it's called the market. adjust or die.

Other choice quotes (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656935)

My favorites:

As a result of both the Court's August 10, 2007 ruling and our entry into Chapter 11, there is substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

and:

Revenue from the UNIX business decreased by $2,704,000, or 37%, for the three months ended July 31, 2007 compared to the three months ended July 31, 2006 and revenue from the UNIX business decreased by $5,103,000, or 23%, for the nine months ended July 31, 2007 compared to the nine months ended July 31, 2006.

and:

Revenue from our SCOsource business decreased from $31,000 for the three months ended July 31, 2006 to $0 for the three months ended July 31, 2007. Revenue also decreased from $95,000 for the nine months ended July 31, 2006 to $23,000 for the nine months ended July 31, 2007.

Ouch. To their credit (heh, I are teh funny), they managed to only lose $4.6M during that 9-month period, down from $12.9M a year earlier. Unfortunately, it looks like they're also out of things to cut.

Re:Other choice quotes (3, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657003)

Oops! At first glance I thought the article was linking to their 10-Q filing [yahoo.com] that I'd just finished reading. Those quotes and numbers are taking from that form, not from the article.

Blame Everyone Else (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656977)

Blame everyone and everything else for your failures. Couldn't possibly be your own decisions that are at fault for a now failing business model.

I say this... (1)

securityfolk (906041) | more than 7 years ago | (#20656987)

I say this with complete understanding of what a lowlife Darl McBride is. May he one day get a clue and join the rest of us who have evolved a cerebellum.

And now, without further ado:

Darl who?

SCO Could Have The Last Laugh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657035)

SCO doesn't get that Linux is just a patsy for IBM & Co. The Slashodot crowd fap themselves silly when big business sucks on their teat but it's all flim flam. Linux is a great way of locking out other vendors and having a ready made community kiss your ass. Google are playing the same trick but their whipping boy is Microsoft.

I'd put the SCO brand up front and kiss some ass, milking Linux code and community for every goddamn cent I could screw. Chuck in a few proprietory applications and drivers down the line so the GPL squad are totally fucked when they try and piggy back your efforts, and gently carve them out of the action. He who laughs last?

Go on SCO. Rape the ass of these whining ladymen. You know you want to.

Magnificently flawed business model (4, Interesting)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657039)

Assuming for the moment that the whole thing wasn't simply a Microsoft sock puppet, Darl McBride would seem to have failed very basic economics. SCO's competition was not Sun, HP, Red Hat etc. It was Microsoft. If he had actually wanted to grow the business, he would have known that when a type of product has relatively low market share, increasing the number of suppliers tends to increase that market share. If it's perceived that "everybody is doing Linux these days", cio and ceo are more likely to buy Linux.

So, reverting to the original argument, I suspect that McBride is not stupid, and that the whole thing is indeed a sock puppet. However, as a scam it is probably too arcane to be explained in a fraud trial. Expect McBride to turn up in a Microsoft advert before too long, explaining that it is the fate of all Linux companies to go bankrupt, so best stick with Windows.

Who needs a cookie??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657047)

Poor Mr McBride, the whole IT business must be out to get him.

Somebody call the WAAAAAHHHHmbulance for him please!!!

Cue Scooby-Doo ending (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657105)

"and it would have gone perfectly if it wasn't for these meddling kids!"

Oh, so it was nothing to do with.... (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657107)

Darl's decision to try and extort money from customers based on FUD and false claims that they owned Unix, Darl's decision to bet the company on a lawsuit against IBM despite having no evidence, Darl's decision to give up on Caldera's profitable Linux business, or indeed any other decisions that Darl may have made.

Oh, that's all right then Darl, we'll let you off then.

So, let me get this straight.... (4, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657125)

You dropped your Linux support, now you're complaining that Linux is beating you? Would that not be akin to trading your ticket from a steam transport for a luxury suite on the Titanic?

Pfft, whatever. (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657135)

In the immortal words of Heavy Weapons Guy [steampowered.com] , Cry Some More.

Which goes to show, kids, (1)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657143)

that suing that pants off people is not a winning business model. (**AA, take a hint)

So when... (1)

TemporalBeing (803363) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657153)

...are they going to can McBride and get a CEO that will turn around the company, get them out of the mess they are in, and get them back to products? McBride has been bad for Caldera/SCOG since day one.

Question: Could Caldera/SCOG sue McBride for his inept leadership? And causing them to lose market due to his governance, deceptions, etc? He is liable for the company as an executive officer, especially as CEO.

Re:So when... (2, Interesting)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657299)

Question: Could Caldera/SCOG sue McBride for his inept leadership? And causing them to lose market due to his governance, deceptions, etc? He is liable for the company as an executive officer, especially as CEO.
If by "Caldera/SCOG" you mean "shareholders in Caldera/SCOG", then yes. See Enron for more details.

From the COtGMBC (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657167)

Dear Daryl McBride,

We never much cared for you or your company's shenanigans. In fact, we made an example of what happens to whining patent trolls like you who don't know the law.

Shame on your ass and shame on your lawyers asses for wasting our time and money. Our customers don't buy your products because, quite frankly, you suck. We found a way to use Linux and Unix to get a leg-up on our competition. Our customers just so happened to like our products better. Such is capitalism.

Sincelrely,
The Companies out to get McBride Consortium

P.S. Gates wants to know how the kids are.

Karma (1)

jointm1k (591234) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657169)

The slump, McBride said, "has been primarily attributable to significant competition from alternative operating systems, including Linux." McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is "aggressively taking market share away from Unix."

Yeah, I remember that one Linux distributor that started to charge random Linux users sixhundred and ninetynine american dollers per CPU that ran the Linux operating system. I mean, no wonder they prefered that over SCO's Unix.

Er. . . wait.

Note to Darl... (2, Interesting)

Ang31us (1132361) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657195)

Darl, YOU who chose to get rid of the Caldera Linux distribution after you were hired in late June 2002 [wikipedia.org] . Then, you spit in the face of the community that made your company rich and took on the Nazgul. [slashdot.org]

You, not your competitors, are the reason why SCO is the joke of the IT industry.

Daryl, that is what we call "Loosing." (1)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657207)

What your witnessing is simply the market choosing the superior aggregation of technology, support, and price, and it looks like SCO lost. Daryl, go find another job.

Re:Daryl, that is what we call "Loosing." (1)

pigs,3different1s (949056) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657499)

Fat chance! Who would hire him? Better yet, who would work with him?

Would you like to "Biggie Size" that?

Ice storms in Texas (2, Interesting)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657285)

When there are ice storms in South Texas (a very rare event), me and a couple of buddies like to get some lawn chairs and a cooler and go sit at the end of an off-ramp of a freeway and watch people freakout while going >5mph and skidding uncontrollably. Everyone knows they are not suppose to be out, but there they are wrecking their cars anyway. To bad there is nothing like that for the SCO board room.

Slashdot is a fortune teller (0, Redundant)

Karem Lore (649920) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657393)

If only McBride had read Slashdot before embarking on this most ridiculous litigation of IBM et al. then he would of realise way back then that this was the case. Yes, Linux is taking market share...There is a very GOOD reason behind this and it is not because SCO Unix is very good!

What do I want ? (1)

DrStrangeLug (799458) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657407)

I would like to see Mr. McBrides head notice stuck on a spike and left out in Wall Street as a warning to the next ten generations of CEO's that some lawsuit gambles come with too high a price.

What Darl does (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657479)

is complaining about that it's windy instead of starting up the mill and grind some...

They couldn't find an effective business model (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20657483)

The problem for a company operating in the Linux environment is finding a way to make money off free software. SCO used to be Caldera. Caldera had one of the first Linux distros. Their business model was to sell the distro. There were a couple of problems: 1 - their distro 'wasn't ready for the desktop' and 2 - you can't make money selling free stuff.

Red Hat was in a similar situation to Caldera and it has become profitable. Its business model is to sell services. That's also IBM's model. It is very profitable.

So, in the face of a non-working business model, Caldera decided to do something else. Remember that there was recent experience suing Microsoft over DOS. Lots of money was made. It seemed logical to sue IBM over Unix. Oopsie, IBM wasn't Microsoft. Now Caldera/SCO had a tiger by the tail and we have all been entertained by a few years worth of brouhaha. The grand finale is upon us (well sometime in the next year anyway) and I'm not sure what we will do for entertainment when it's all over.

its an all too obvious way to end his career (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657491)

McBride -- "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those damned meddling competitors."

Somehow I suspect he will be commenting on the embarrassing failure of Caldera/SCO for years to come.

Ayup (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657517)

It quite conceivable that Linux is really to blame for SCO's imminent demise... but then NASA's Apollo program is to blame for being the first to put a man on the moon.

Moglen called it... (1)

AetherBurner (670629) | more than 7 years ago | (#20657581)

"...the creative destruction potential of capitalism...".

SCO, welcome to Business 101. Linux is a better mousetrap in terms of customer perceived value than your product. You can't blame Linux for your misfortunes, only yourself.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?