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!

Novell to SCO - Pay Up

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the they-want-money-that's-what-they-want dept.

Novell 151

gosherm writes with word that, now that the dust is beginning to settle on the long-running SCO case, Novell wants to get paid. Now. They're requesting that the customary stay on SCO's finances (as a result of their bankruptcy) be lifted so that Novell can begin recouping some of its losses from the protracted legal battle. "'We need to adjudicate if this is money owed to Novell or if it is Novell's property,' said Bruce Lowry, spokesman for Novell. That could determine how quickly Novell can recover those funds. And time is of the essence since there's a possibility SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize,' Novell said in court documents filed Thursday. Novell is also trying to protect royalties SCO collects from Unix and Unixware software licensees and remits annually to the software developer. SCO is required to continue to remit between $500,000 and $800,000 annually to Novell -- the next payment is due Nov. 14. SCO remitted $696,413 to Novell between the third quarter of 2006 and the second quarter of this year."

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

First thing that comes to mind (4, Funny)

ZiakII (829432) | about 7 years ago | (#20883569)

Re:First thing that comes to mind (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20883629)

Amen to that!

SCO just got crushed by the steamroller of justice.

Re:First thing that comes to mind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884855)

Well, the company and its employees did. As far as I'm aware, the board's made out like - well.. bandits. To the tune of.. well, you remember SCOX's high? They've reaped in millions, on the basis of a suit any intelligent observer could tell was frivolous, but plausible enough to be warranted the attention of the courts.

SCOX SUX (3, Funny)

Bananatree3 (872975) | about 7 years ago | (#20884217)

Well, literally. Or more correctly, SCOX got sucked down the drain.

out of money (4, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | about 7 years ago | (#20883611)

there's a possibility SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize,
We can only hope.

Re:out of money (1, Insightful)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 7 years ago | (#20884513)

SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize

Microsoft should give them another 66 million [zdnet.com] .

Re:out of money (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 years ago | (#20884585)

Except the big problem is they are focused or reorganising all the cash that is left into Darl's pocket. It'd say get security to escoprt him out and call in the liquidators.

Re:out of money (5, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | about 7 years ago | (#20884751)

there's a possibility SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize,
We can only hope.


Actually, that's the last thing we want. If SCO goes Chaper 7 (gets dismantled) before Novell gets a ruling against it, then they've won a partial victory.

Right now, SCO hasn't yet been defeated completely in the courts. They're mortally wounded but still standing. SCO needs to be an instance where they're made brutal example of. The result can't be "SCO ran out of cash arguing its claims", but rather "SCO's claims were baseless and found so by the courts". Given the power of the spinmeisters, the issue isn't resolved until the Novell case and ideally the IBM case are decided against SCO.

Then there's the SCO execs themselves. Personally, I think that they need to be brought to justice for their perversion and mockery of the US judicial system, and also for their stock antics. People like Darl McBride have gotten rich off of this whole thing. I want their butts behind bars, or at least under suit for malpractice or whatever. If they can walk out profiting from riding SCO into the ground and attacking Linux, it'll just encourage other trolls.

SCO is using this bankruptcy time to spend their money in a way that either enriches them or enriches their partners. They're trying to steer their allies onto the bankruptcy committee, and giving huge bonuses to their execs, and hiring temps at exorbitant fees.

Finally, if they run out of money, they can't pay Novell and IBM anything. They owe Novell millions of dollars, with only the amount now in dispute. Essentially, this is Novell's money they're burning through, according to the Novell v. SCO judge. They probably owe IBM some money too on the counterclaims (if they ever get to them).

Re:out of money (2, Interesting)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#20885055)

Lawsuits these days aren't finished until they've had at least one appeal. Its doubtful SCO can hold on for an appeal so no, there won't be any rulings that the spinmeisters can't spin away.

Trolls making money out of attacking Linux... (1)

LinDVD (986467) | about 7 years ago | (#20885655)

Isn't Microsoft the biggest troll already doing this?

Re:out of money (1)

fiendie (934679) | about 7 years ago | (#20886241)

The result can't be "SCO ran out of cash arguing its claims", but rather "SCO's claims were baseless and found so by the courts".
If they had a case in the first place, they wouldn't have had to "argue" that long ;)

Re:out of money (1)

atmurray (983797) | about 7 years ago | (#20886269)

This reminds me of the stupid rule in monopoly where if a person bankrupts another player for even the most smallest amount, they get all of their properties. So the game becomes a race to bankrupt someone before someone else (or the bank) does...

Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Funny)

timmarhy (659436) | about 7 years ago | (#20883631)

Haven't heard from you in a while McBride, cat got your tounge?

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20883697)

Well, actually the guy wrote a funny interview a few days ago, on Computerworld. Here it is: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=operating_systems&articleId=9040239&taxonomyId=89&intsrc=kc_top [computerworld.com] On October 1, McBride claimed that the rumors of SCO demise are greatly exaggerated.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (3, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 7 years ago | (#20884877)

On October 1, McBride claimed that the rumors of SCO demise are greatly exaggerated.

And on September 18, McBride claimed [yahoo.com] that "[a]s 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. " He has a lithe relationship with reality.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 years ago | (#20885915)

At least now it's reality's turn to hold the whip and shove the ballgag in his mouth.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Informative)

debilo (612116) | about 7 years ago | (#20883749)

Haven't heard from you in a while McBride, cat got your tounge?
You must have missed this recent interview [wired.com] where Darl once again confirms that most assholes take pride in their self-righteousness and delusion. I especially enjoyed this part:

WN: You knew you'd be vilified?

McBride: In this particular case we're talking about, I joined the company, and we had problems with our intellectual property.... I said we should protect our rights.... The former CEO said, if you do that, you will be vilified by the Linux community. The Linux community will attack you. You will be hated. Don't go down that path.

Well that's not a reason to not step up and defend your property. That's not a reason to stand back and say, "I'm not going to fight." We got attacked, vilified and we got branded as pariahs. When you pay 149 million dollars for a property, do you have the right to defend it or not? I think it's a matter of principle. I think anybody in their right mind who was in my position would have done the same thing if they had half a backbone.

Beautiful, innit?

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Insightful)

heinousjay (683506) | about 7 years ago | (#20883953)

(This is not a defense of Darl, although I'm sure many of you will take it as such in a blind nerdrage.)

So basically, he's saying he did what he believes is right in the face of opposition, and you call him a self-righteous asshole.

Tell me, when RMS does what he believes is right in the face of opposition, what is he?

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Funny)

tmjr3353 (925558) | about 7 years ago | (#20883961)

A smelly, hippie, self-righteous asshole? ;-)

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (2, Informative)

debilo (612116) | about 7 years ago | (#20884043)

Tell me, when RMS does what he believes is right in the face of opposition, what is he?
Controversial. As usual. What's your point?

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (5, Insightful)

Ostsol (960323) | about 7 years ago | (#20884479)

I believe his point is that there's is nothing wrong with McBride's statement. This is, of course, assuming that SCO did in fact truely believe that they owned what they claim to have owned and that said intellectual property was indeed being infringed upon. Ultimately, the conclusion was that both were false and that they knew it. If anything, it is the latter that they should be villified for. One should not be attacked for simply protecting what one owns as long as one does so in an honest manner. Once again, though, it appears that SCO wasn't exactly being honest. . .

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884105)

So basically, he's saying he did what he believes is right in the face of opposition, and you call him a self-righteous asshole.

The question is did he believe it? What was his so called belief based on? The evidence is that he knew that his belief was not backed up by facts and proceeded anyhow.

He had reports from his own company specialists saying there was nothing yet he gave interviews stating he had a team of MIT deep divers that has found millions of lines of evidence but he couldn't produce either the evidence or the deep divers in court. Why was that?

I and many others don't think he had a belief in the justice of his cause. I think as do others that he was trying to get IBM and others to pay them off without having to prove anything. It obviously didn't work.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 7 years ago | (#20884883)

I think as do others that he was trying to get IBM and others to pay them off without having to prove anything. It obviously didn't work.

It DID work.

Microsoft gave them $66 million.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (2, Insightful)

speaker of the truth (1112181) | about 7 years ago | (#20885093)

Microsoft shilled out $66 million to someone to produce a FUD campaign. I'd hardly call that working, although I'm sure everyone involved thought and still think it was money well spent.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | about 7 years ago | (#20884145)

So basically, he's saying he did what he believes is right in the face of opposition, and you call him a self-righteous asshole.
Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased. What SCO purchased was the exclusive right to license and rent UNIX, as well as decide what OSes can and cannot be referred to as UNIX. What SCO did not purchase, were the copyright or the patents for UNIX. It is fairly clear to anybody that has read up on copyright, that one cannot buy copyright once it has been established, one can buy exclusively world wide rights to a copyright work, just not the copyright itself. The closest thing is paying somebody to create the work, making it a work for hire, but still not transferable later on.

And as such, SCO never had the authority to claim infringement on the copyrights or patents that go along with UNIX. SCO could however sue Linux or anybody else if they claimed that their OS was UNIX, as SCO has the legal right to decide which OSes are or are not UNIX. They could also sue anybody that was selling copies or licenses of UNIX without their say so.

I don't know how an attorney, especially an IP attorney, wouldn't know that you can't buy a copyright. It just seems like one of those things that you should know before you set forth to buy something. Worse still for SCO was that it was explicitly stated in the terms of the contract that the neither the copyright nor the patents were included with the exclusive trademark and licensing rights.

(-1, Wrong) (4, Informative)

cduffy (652) | about 7 years ago | (#20884415)

Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased. What SCO purchased was the exclusive right to license and rent UNIX, as well as decide what OSes can and cannot be referred to as UNIX.
No, they didn't get that -- The Open Group held (and holds) the UNIX trademark, and they decide what is and isn't a UNIX. And you're quite wrong in stating that a copyright can't be purchased -- they can indeed be transferred, but that transfer needs to be explicit, and the APA didn't qualify.
(IANAL)

Re:(-1, Wrong) (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | about 7 years ago | (#20884693)

And you're quite wrong in stating that a copyright can't be purchased -- they can indeed be transferred, but that transfer needs to be explicit, and the APA didn't qualify.
(IANAL)


While you're correct that he's wrong and that a copyright is purchasable, the APA not only doesn't qualify as a copyright purchase, the APA itself specifically says that it did not include a transfer of copyright. It had a list of things that it did grant SCO (and copyright was not on that list at all) and a list of things it specifically DID NOT grant SCO (and the UNIX copyright was at the top of that list).

This has always been the retard thing about the "APA grants copyrights" claim - the APA would have to be wrong twice, and have had no-one notice for years. And if the APA actually sold SCO the copyrights, then it wouldn't have made SCO pay Novell the royalties it collected. So it's not a question of SCO saying there's a typo or misconstrual in the APA, but rather a dispute of every aspect of the APA.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (1)

Courageous (228506) | about 7 years ago | (#20884505)

Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased

It could be that while he was mistaken, he genuinely believed otherwise.

Delusional belief in the idea that one's way of thinking is superior
to the beliefs of others; well, this kind of thinking is practically
universal amongst narcissists.

C//

SCO, M$ and Vista are failures. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884399)

Tell me, when RMS does what he believes is right in the face of opposition, what is he?


Can't you idiots be a little more creative in your roll reversal lie? The same old shit gets boring.


You can compare RMS to SCO when RMS tells you he owns your software and you owe him $700 a year to run it. Generally, it's the other way around. RMS tell you that you own your computer and that you should help yourself to run it so that others can't fuck you over.


There was nothing but offense in what SCO did and it's hard to imagine any of them believed what they were doing was right. Not even a troll like you can see this any other way than M$ sending SCO to attack the GNU/Linux community.


None of them won. It made some of them money for a while, but the risk for such fraud is jail time. In the end M$ will betray their little would be assassins. The company, which they hated from the get go, was destroyed and used as a weapon against other foes. Sooner or later even M$ will repudiate them to save their own face. That is the fate of all evil tools, but we should remember who wielded that tool when it's time to punish them. In the mean time, GNU/Linux is the only growth market in town. Vista is a failure [slashdot.org] and so is this silly FUD attack.

Re:SCO, M$ and Vista are failures. (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 years ago | (#20885931)

You can compare RMS to SCO when RMS tells you he owns your software and you owe him $700 a year to run it. Generally, it's the other way around. RMS tell you that you own your computer and that you should help yourself to run it so that others can't fuck you over.

No, RMS tells me I'm antisocial because I get paid for writing software that doesn't fit his drug-induced idealism. He's an asshole, too.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (3, Insightful)

nuzak (959558) | about 7 years ago | (#20884509)

Certainly, bringing out that quote would seem only to support Darl. The big problem is that Darl kept talking, about "wholesale theft" and "millions of lines of code", and that as a successor-in-interest to apparently ALL things AT&T, how they'd be going after C++ next -- no kidding, he actually said so. That's the kind of hubris that has us all rubbing his comeuppance in his face.

Basically, he kept lying and his lies got more and more grandiose. Timed in fact quite well to his very sizeable scheduled sales of SCO stock. And it's not just the "nerd rage" afflicted making the implicit claim here -- Redhat's complaint (which hasn't even been heard yet; they're literally lining up to take a chunk out of SCO) actually used the words "pump and dump scheme".

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 7 years ago | (#20884527)

"So basically, he's saying he did what he believes is right in the face of opposition, and you call him a self-righteous asshole. "

Self-righteous arsehole, delusional arsehole, or just plain greedy arsehole - still an arsehole.

"Tell me, when RMS does what he believes is right in the face of opposition, what is he?"

The choices would seem to be: Boringly obvious arsehole, pedantic arsehole or just plain ineffective arsehole.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 7 years ago | (#20885579)

He's not self-righteous or delusional. He's a con-man. He hoped he could extort a bunch of cash out of a big company like IBM to save his failing company. I have no doubt that getting quick cash from Microsoft made him believe he had his own big supporters, but as soon as the sheer dishonesty of SCO's claims became obvious, I suppose he knew at that point he would lose, but he kept that stock going for a helluva long time, so you've got to give him some credit.

You also have to give a lot of the credit for this scam to these lying fuckers on Wall Street, including worthless journalists who I wouldn't give a job licking shit off a toilet bowl let alone let them within a mile of a computer that could connect them to printing presses. What should happen is those journalists should be publicly exposed, openly ridiculed and fired. They let a con-man like McBride get away with a helluva lot, and some of the late-coming petulant "apologies" we've seen of late only confirm to me that there is not a worthwhile man or woman on Wall Street reporting anything.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20885613)

So basically...
You hate Slashdot.
You hate RMS.
So what the fuck are you doing here? Oh yeah, trolling, as usual.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (4, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about 7 years ago | (#20886665)

"Tell me, when RMS does what he believes is right in the face of opposition, what is he?"

Usually he's right.

See the difference?

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (2)

timmarhy (659436) | about 7 years ago | (#20883999)

I guess i stand corrected - his big mouth is still running at any and every oppertunity.

Funny though that he is taking some kind of high ground. still even though it's been proven in court that nothing belonging to SCO has been infringed on.

i guess when you bankrupt a multi million dollar company you look for any excuse you can find...

Darl your not some crusader for IP rights, your just a greedy slob who thought OSS was a soft target and inspite of being warned against it, went on the attack and got your ass handed to you.

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20883827)

Maybe the lawyers should ask about *cough* million dollar bonus McBride received from SCO's board *cough*

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 7 years ago | (#20884891)

It's kind of unfortunate that the people that run a company into the ground are only rarely held accountable. I think a lifetime of indentured servitude as a pool boy at a Holiday Inn would probably be justice for Daryl McBride.

Darl's fate (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#20885929)

I think a lifetime of indentured servitude as a pool boy at a Holiday Inn would probably be justice for Daryl McBride.

That's not good enough for Darl. Instead Holiday Inn should pimp his ass with them getting all the income. Then again maybe not, he might enjoy being fucked in the ass.

Falcon

Re:Where is Darl's big mouth now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20885747)

What's a tounge?

Novell should just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20883681)

Novell should just become the owner of SCO, or be given a majority stock position and full corporate control. What future does SCO have anyway?

Re:Novell should just... (1, Informative)

dosius (230542) | about 7 years ago | (#20884203)

Ironically, SCO was a spinoff of Novell, back when its name was still Caldera.

-uso.

Re:Novell should just... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20885379)

No. SCO's history is confusing. SCO were founded in 1978 (before the PC!) in Santa Cruz, CA, USA. Caldera (Linux) was formed by Novell people, outside of Novell, around 1993. Also in 1993 Novell bought Unix System Laboratories from AT&T (THE Unix.) In 2000 Caldera bought most of SCO. In 2002, Caldera then changed their name to SCO Group, who are the ones in all the mess.

Novell owns Unix- SCO had liscensed Unix code (and so had Microsoft)- that's why Novell has won and the whole thing is amazing stupidity by SCO Group, who would do best to just run a pest and rodent control business. Maybe.

Check the wiki pages- it's confusing, but the history info is all there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Operation [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldera_OpenLinux [wikipedia.org]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group [wikipedia.org]

which bankruptcy? (1)

mangu (126918) | about 7 years ago | (#20883727)

Excuse me if I haven't RTFA assiduously, but I see that SCO market value is now at $0.17 or so [yahoo.com] . Last time I checked, it had dropped $1.50 to less than $0.50 because SCO had lost a significant something at the law court. Is there a timeline somewhere? I want to gloat.... BWHHAHA!

Re:which bankruptcy? (1)

mangu (126918) | about 7 years ago | (#20883803)

OK, answering to myself, All Hail Wikipedia! I now realize that SCO filed for bankruptcy [wikipedia.org] in the same day their stock value dropped from $0.60 tp $0.17.

Re:which bankruptcy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884103)

not like va linux is worth a lot more.

Re:which bankruptcy? (1)

bigberk (547360) | about 7 years ago | (#20884305)

Here's as good a history as anything [google.com]

Those who bought SCOX during the ridiculous days of $15 to $19 a share have lost -99% of their money. The company used to be worth around $400 million, now less than $4 million

Re:which bankruptcy? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#20885957)

Those who bought SCOX during the ridiculous days of $15 to $19 a share have lost -99% of their money. The company used to be worth around $400 million, now less than $4 million

What would of been nice was to sale short. An option to sale a 1000 shares of SCO at $15 would net $14,000 plus now.

Falcon

Re:which bankruptcy? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 7 years ago | (#20886343)

but I see that SCO market value is now at $0.17 or so

That's about right. You can get a better company for 20 cents after all.

The title is misleading (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20883745)

SCO collects fees for Novell. There is no disagreement about that. What Novell is asking for is that those fees be paid through to Novell. This has nothing to do with the major claim, tens of millions, about the Microsoft and Sun licenses. This is just about the routine license fees that continue to roll in.

AllParadox described it best. He likened SCO to a store clerk. The money the clerk collects belongs to the store owner. The clerk has no claim to it at all. If the clerk goes bankrupt, the trustee can't claim that it is part of the bankruptcy estate.

The reason that SCO jumped (or tried to jump, it hasn't been granted yet.) into chapter 11 was that the Utah court was about to apportion the amount of money it had to pay Novell for the Microsoft and Sun licenses. Because of that, Novell has warned that it is going to file something claiming that SCO acted in bad faith. My WAG is that the bankruptcy judge will allow the Utah case to go forward so as to determine the amount of money SCO owes Novell. Since SCO has little chance of being a successful business, I am also guessing that they will be put in chapter 7. In other words, they won't be re-organizing, they will be liquidating.

Liquidation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884119)

Oh the image, eww, that is nasty, Darl in an industrial food processor. Be nice if Novell had similar plans for Microsoft.

Novell to SCO: Will it blend? (2, Funny)

elronxenu (117773) | about 7 years ago | (#20885965)

N/T

Re:The title is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884537)

AllParadox described it best. He likened SCO to a store clerk. The money the clerk collects belongs to the store owner. The clerk has no claim to it at all. If the clerk goes bankrupt, the trustee can't claim that it is part of the bankruptcy estate.

I really rue the day that PJ "banned" AllParadox. For all the good that PJ does, it was really nice to get the insight of a real attorney every now and then.

Offtopic...I have the Karma to burn.... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 7 years ago | (#20885521)

"My WAG is that..."

I would class this as a 'SWAG' (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) instead of just a WAG just due to the fact that you backed up your claims to somewhat in your delivery. Not actually scientific in the true, but basically equates to an 'educated guess', which you fulfilled.

In spite of your AC posting, I'm glad the current Moderators are giving you some love.
Usually I never see (thus reply) to AC posts, but you bring up some interesting points that I'm appreciative of reading and now am able to think about.

I'm sure you have your reasons for posting AC, but you could set up several /. accounts to use if your normal one could be a problem at work, home, etc.

If your 'insight' only applies to this topic...that's cool, it was some good thinking and you asked good questions. (don't ask me for the right answers!-I don't have the brains or the time to be on top of everything that shows up on /,!)

If this is more typical of your insight in general, then set up an account so you can be seen by more people- that's the beauty of how a diverse online community like /. thrives and gives to it's users: different, informed, thoughtful, creative ideas, and viewpoints on many subjects.

Yeah, there's some noise too, but that's humans for you!

Affiliation with Microsft brings doom (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 7 years ago | (#20883767)

Okay, perhaps that's not a fair generalization, but after reading story after story about people who do business with Microsoft and later getting shafted.

It's generally accepted that Microsoft put SCO on their path. And no sooner does it become generally accepted that SCO's death is imminent than Novell and Microsoft shack up. The jury's still out on whether or not this will end badly for Novell, but no one expects anything "good" to come of it.

But, given that even Microsoft is recognizing that it has seriously lost the trust of consumer and industry alike, I suspect there will also be a growing reluctance to "partner" with Microsoft any longer.

Development of MS-Novell relationship (5, Funny)

maiki (857449) | about 7 years ago | (#20883787)

Emporer Ballmertine to Novell: "Good! Use your aggressive feelings, boy! Let the hate flow through you"

Re:Development of MS-Novell relationship (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884499)

Use your dictionary! Let the correct spelling flow through your fingers!

Re:Development of MS-Novell relationship (1)

Glowing Fish (155236) | about 7 years ago | (#20886493)

Didn't Palapatine throw a chair in one of the movies? At the end of Episode III, when he was fighting with Yoda?

Negative value reorganization? (3, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | about 7 years ago | (#20883797)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this scenario. SCO's total market cap is now under $4 million. If that roughly represents the total value of the company, then where are they supposed to get the money to pay Novell? My understanding is that they owe Novell quite a bit more than that.

Anyway, the good part of this fiasco seems to be that it shows that IP blackmail is a lot riskier SCO thought it would be. I'm expecting IBM to pile on soon, just to make sure that SCO goes away and stops bothering them. Either that, or the guy with the wooden stake.

Re:Negative value reorganization of moderation? (-1, Offtopic)

shanen (462549) | about 7 years ago | (#20883905)

After posting that /. sent me the famous and fabulous reminder:

For Slashdot's moderation system to function properly, we need as many users as possible to Meta-Moderate. You are currently eligible... why not hop over and help?

The premise of this question is that the moderation system has functioned properly. May I ask when that was? What I want now is a configuration setting so /. will stop asking me about meta-moderation. I've already expressed my meta-moderation opinion about the anonymous and elitist moderation system: It sucks. Quit bothering me about your god-d@mned worthless moderation system. I'd be unsurprised if 90% of the regular users would select such an option (excluding the moderating gamesters and the newbie suckers).

Go ahead and mod it off-topic--but it is *NOT*. Bad moderation pervades the entire /. system and therefore the topic of moderation (and meta-moderation) is never off-topic. Better some of the moderators should at least try to moderate some of the actually funny posts as funny, though such posts are far and few between these years.

My own pattern of /. usage is that I visit for a few weeks, get disgusted and bored and then I go away for a few months. This gives me a view of /. that is sort of like slow-motion photography. My main impression over the years is that "funny" mods are much less funny. Perhaps that's being imposed by external Bushevikian realities, but I think it's probably an internal thing, in that the funny people have mostly gotten disgusted with /. and quit using it. The second most likely hypothesis is that the mods are so bad that there are still some funny posts, but they aren't marked that way. Whatever the case, I still like humor--but /. is no longer a source.

Re:Negative value reorganization of moderation? (1, Interesting)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | about 7 years ago | (#20883993)


I've already expressed my meta-moderation opinion about the anonymous and elitist moderation system: It sucks.

Do you really read at -1, then? I've tried. I tried the first couple of times that I moderated, to make sure I wasn't missing any hidden gems. And basically it made the comments unreadable. If you do this too, I don't wonder that you leave on a regular basis.

On the contrary, I find the moderation system to be rather genius. It made a system of open posting readable. I too well remember the days of having each of my favorite Usenet groups made unreadable through spam, and I was glad to find a system that prevented that.

Re:Negative value reorganization of moderation? (1)

shanen (462549) | about 7 years ago | (#20884081)

Do I know you, sir? You're handle is certainly familiar enough... Actually, if I do know you, then I retract the "sir".

And no, I do not read at -1 when I moderate because I do NOT play the game of moderation. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." (Not sure I got the quote right, but not feeling motivated to check for /.'s sake.)

As regards the newsgroups, I sadly agree with you, whoever you are.

Re:Negative value reorganization of moderation? (1, Troll)

Aranykai (1053846) | about 7 years ago | (#20884083)

Thats funny, cause with my customized mod options, your post ended up at -8. Gratz, your a douche.

Re:Negative value reorganization of moderation? (1)

shanen (462549) | about 7 years ago | (#20884301)

Thats funny, cause with my customized mod options, your post ended up at -8. Gratz, your a douche.
--
We need a new moderation option: -1 n00b

So why did you [Aranykai (1053846)] want to expose your stupidity? I'm not going to waste a foe ranking on you, but please feel free. In other words, a 7-digit user wants to criticize newbies in his sig (though you also meant "you're" for "your" in your inane body). That's almost as funny as Dubya trying to explain why blocking health insurance is somehow helpful to the affected children. (I included the quote just in case someone tells you how to make yourself look less stupid post facto.)

Frankly, based on your previous post, I'm quite honored to be in disagreement with you. I thought it was just a spineless third-rate lawyer on the theory that there are probably some lawyers on /. and that law-related threads might attract them. However, if you actually are a lawyer, then please add "stupid" to the list after "spineless". If you are actually a lawyer working for SCO, then I'd have to think up some new negative adjectives to include. So far only "witless" has come to mind...

If I thought the moderation system were curable by the current staff of /., I'd add a suggestion about using additional dimensions to make the ratings more meaningful. In this case, the hypergraph should be peaking in the flame dimension.

Re:Negative value reorganization of moderation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20886593)

For Slashdot's moderation system to function properly, we need as many users as possible to Meta-Moderate. You are currently eligible... why not hop over and help?
The premise of this question is that the moderation system has functioned properly.
No it isn't. Since it's unlikely that as many users as possible have ever meta-moderated, the implication of the statement is that Slashdot's moderation system has never functioned properly.

Re:Negative value reorganization? (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | about 7 years ago | (#20883967)

SCO was expendable. Corporations are not people, and may be thrown away where expedient.
The people who expended SCO will remain wealthy.

Novell to become the new SCO? (3, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | about 7 years ago | (#20883801)

Am I the only one a bit concerned about Novel taking on the self-assumed role of being the new "corporate stewards" of Linux? Especially since the slashdot community seems to accept them and IBM in that role...

Yes, you are. (2, Informative)

Sturm (914) | about 7 years ago | (#20883877)

Now, go away or I will taunt you a second time.

Re:Yes, you are. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 years ago | (#20884615)

Just a minute here ... That's my line!

Oh, wait.

Ain't no SysV code in Linux (3, Insightful)

DrJimbo (594231) | about 7 years ago | (#20884343)

You must have missed the very public SCO v. IBM lawsuit. This is where SCO demanded (and got) all the source code for all the versions of IBM's AIX and Dynix operating systems in their search for a link connecting the ancient SysV code with code in Linux. They came up with zilch, nada, zero.

SCO repeatedly claimed that there were millions of infringing lines in Linux. But unfortunately for SCO in addition to the delusion that they owned the SysV copyrights, they also suffered from the delusion that they somehow had control over IBM's own home-grown code.

Linux is clean regardless of who owns the SysV copyrights.

Re:Novell to become the new SCO? (5, Insightful)

Meltir (891449) | about 7 years ago | (#20884407)

i don't think your looking at this from the right angle.
just for a second, lets assume that novell isn't a linux distro company, and that they don't want to make it up to the linux community out there for the microsoft deal, and lets forget that sco is the personification of evil.
they have a company that they've sued and won.
whatever the reasons:

1) sco owes novell money.
2) sco is going broke.
3) novel wants their money before sco goes down.

id imagine the phb's in novell are looking at the situation exactly this way.
its cool that they come out to be the linux advocates, and taking down the bad guy - free good publicity and so on.
but that's just a side-effect, they would go after sco regardless of the circumstances.

aside from that - i wouldnt consider novell to be the new 'stewards' of linux.
i don't have all the data - so this is just my impression, but....

we have all seen IBM fight the good fight with sco for more than just a few months... i mean - its been years, and lets face it - it would have been cheaper for them to just buy sco, instead of fighting them.
novell noticed whats going on with this linux thing, and they manage to make a profit while creating contributing back to the linux community.
but IBM is investing a lot more then their getting back (i may be wrong here, as we(i) don't know whats in their agenda for the years to come - this could be one of those investments where you loose money for 10 years, and start making money in 20 - IBM is a company that can afford a business plan like this), and novell is just doing business like everyone else (it may sound cold, but there is no shame here - we all benefit from what they do, so cudos to them).

what's IBM's plans? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#20885995)

IBM is investing a lot more then their getting back (i may be wrong here, as we(i) don't know whats in their agenda for the years to come - this could be one of those investments where you loose money for 10 years, and start making money in 20

For the past few years at least IBM has been shifting it's business focus on providing services, and software, instead of hardware, this could explain it's sale of the PC division to Lenovo. Commodity hardware venders operate on razor thin margins.

Falcon

Comical Ali lives? (4, Interesting)

Epsillon (608775) | about 7 years ago | (#20883839)

if you look inside that appeals process and you take a microscope and look at the record of Kimball's summary judgment rulings that have gone to appeals, he gets overturned the vast majority of the time. It's nearly two-thirds of the time.
Um, Darl, this isn't the sort of thing you say about someone holding the contents of your codpiece in his hands. He's already ruled that your company, of which you are CEO, with responsibility for the company's actions, has committed conversion and you may just have annoyed him a touch with that quote. I really do hope the Honourable Dale A. Kimball sees what you said. The result could be rather interesting.

Not to mention the ratio of appealed to non-appealed cases might have some bearing on the soundness of his judgments. Sometimes it helps to know just how many of these summary judgments have people "banged to rights" before we start looking at the appeal successes.

But best of British to you, old son. You really are quite, quite funny. Erm, is that a tank in the background?

Re:Comical Ali lives? (2, Informative)

Epsillon (608775) | about 7 years ago | (#20883919)

Damn it! Quote [computerworld.com] your sources, man! (page 2) We really need an "edit this half-arsed post" button.

SCO got that wrong, too (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 7 years ago | (#20884025)

Somebody went through Judge Kimball's entire summary judgement appeal record and posted it. [investorvillage.com] No, he doesn't get reversed two-thirds of the time.

Re:SCO got that wrong, too (1)

Epsillon (608775) | about 7 years ago | (#20884161)

Oh, very nice! I suppose a statistical 20% chance of even a partial reversal, without even considering the merit of the case, is "nearly two-thirds" - in an alternate universe. Thank you for an even longer laugh.

Re:Comical Ali lives? (1)

lordshipmayhem (1063660) | about 7 years ago | (#20884341)

Um, Darl, this isn't the sort of thing you say about someone holding the contents of your codpiece in his hands.
Darl doesn't have all that much to worry about...

Any chance for SCO to appeal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20883853)

Settle for 2 cents if they agree not to appeal.

Microsoft (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | about 7 years ago | (#20883871)

At Microsoft, they're really good though. You gotta give them that. They're really, REALLY good.

Play everyone on the market like pawns. I wish I met the well spoken, kind gentlemen show explained both the people in SCO and Novell, why they had to do what did, so they accepted their scenario as inevitable and Microsoft was looking for their best interest.

Imagine what it will be to have that one guy in your company, pulling the strings around and making magic happen.

Oh, man.

So, does this mean Novell owns them? (1)

jcr (53032) | about 7 years ago | (#20884057)

They're far and away the biggest creditor, at least until IBM's counterclaims are adjudicated. They should be able to get the court to appoint a receiver to liquidate SCO, shouldn't they?

-jcr

So, does this mean Novell owns them? No. (3, Interesting)

DrJimbo (594231) | about 7 years ago | (#20884283)

Not yet. The Sun and Microsoft "license" royalties are worth $25 million on face value and $37 million with interest. But first the trial in Utah must be unstayed so Judge Kimball can decide exactly how much of that money is actually Novell's. Before the bankruptcy, if that was a substantial sum then it would have been game over for SCO. But now with the bankruptcy, after Judge Kimball decides the amount in Utah, the action swings back to Delaware where it will be up to Judge Gross to decide whether to give Novell the constructive trust or not.

Novell has already asked Judge Gross for a constructive trust but he refused (which was very reasonable IMO) saying that there might be other creditors on the same footing as Novell that he has not heard from yet. In other words, if it is discovered that SCO stole money from other people in addition to Novell then the victims of those thefts get to join Novell at the front of the line of creditors.

The first thing that has to happen though is the November 6th hearing in Delaware where Judge Gross gets to decide whether to lift the stay or not.

Re:So, does this mean Novell owns them? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884351)

They're far and away the biggest creditor,

Technically, Novell isn't a creditor. SCO is acting as an agent for Novell; collecting license fees and forwarding them to Novell (and receiving a 5% administration fee). That means, legally, that it's not SCO's money to begin with.

Someone used the analogy of a person robbing a bank then declaring backruptcy and then trying pay the bank back 10 cents on the dollar because they're a creditor. No, it doesn't work that way.

Just as the bank robber's money still belongs to the bank, the SVRX license fees belong to Novell. Novell is not a creditor to be paid 10 cents on the dollar.

Re:So, does this mean Novell owns them? (3, Interesting)

Ritchie70 (860516) | about 7 years ago | (#20884555)

But this isn't about Novell being a creditor; this is about SCO having in their posession $ that belongs to Novell.

Re:So, does this mean Novell owns them? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#20886057)

They're far and away the biggest creditor, at least until IBM's counterclaims are adjudicated. They should be able to get the court to appoint a receiver to liquidate SCO, shouldn't they?

Novell is not a SCO creditor. Repeat after me, NOVELL IS NOT A SCO CREDITOR. The money SCO owes Novell is Novell's property, Novell owns it but SCO collected it and was supposed to give it to Novell but didn't. Then Novell would pay SCO a commission of, I believe it was 5% of the money. This is very important distinction for this case, in bankruptcy property owners get their property first, only after property owners get their property does the creditors get paid, if there are assets left.

Falcon

They can say anything they want (3, Interesting)

John Jamieson (890438) | about 7 years ago | (#20884193)

Novell can ask for anything they want, what the judge says is what counts.

SCO CANNOT win in the long term, but boy are they good at playing the legal system. If this Bankrupcy judge remains as nieve as he appears... the money will be gone by the time he wakes up. We will see.

How SCO's law firm (BSF) avoids being on the hook for millions, and how the SCO executive tries to stay out of jail will be as interesting as this whole saga... Groklaw has many years of material left just with SCO alone.

SCO should go to prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884531)

The whole fucking corrupt company.

Re:SCO should go to prison (1)

the_greywolf (311406) | about 7 years ago | (#20884739)

Not the engineers, though! Some of them are decent folk. It's the execs that are crooked beyond all comprehension.

Re:SCO should go to prison (1)

emurphy42 (631808) | about 7 years ago | (#20885923)

I have to wonder about any engineers who are still at SCO at this point. Surely the good ones jumped ship long ago, or at least tried like hell to do so?

Knowing Novell's history with BBS busting... (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about 7 years ago | (#20884625)

Why not just seize SCO's assets, and then go for any personal assets held by top management to pay the rest of the bill?

Darl, that's what you get for fucking with linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#20884637)

Darl, why did you net get the point that your Linux-FUDding would bite you in the wallet?
Why?
Still, you deserve to get your wallet pwned

SCO= Third Reich effort (1)

postmortem (906676) | about 7 years ago | (#20884655)

... and Devil has to pay.

It will be pretty soon conquered and divided by the allies.

Ya know what this appears to be... (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | about 7 years ago | (#20884793)

death by litigation. It's glorious, isn't it?

Take down the seaside-view with the little palm tree. Put up the big "N" and we'll call it even. :)

Corporate veil about to get shredded (2, Insightful)

m0nkyman (7101) | about 7 years ago | (#20884903)

Anyone else think that Novell and IBM are going to get through the corporate veil and start going after the corporate officers personally?

Re:Corporate veil about to get shredded (2, Interesting)

HexaByte (817350) | about 7 years ago | (#20885547)

I do. There is the issue of conversion - stealing someone else's money and using it as your own. The way SCO has spent money on bonuses the day before the bankruptcy filing, the hiring of a temp CFO at $150/hr ($105 wages and $45 to the temp agency), along with various other things that have happened in this case does not make them look too good.

I especially like telling Judge Kimball there's no need for a constructive trust because they won't be going bankrupt, then turning around and filling Chapter 11.

Add to that announced plans to burn thru their money with overpriced lawyers, and whatnot, knowing it's someone else's money your spending, and the behavior becomes criminal. That's a good reason to pierce the corporate veil! However, IANAL.

Who Will Get Unix? (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 7 years ago | (#20885133)

One issue of the SCO/Novell suit is whether SCO owns the Unix System V code (by owning its copyrights), or whether Novell still does instead. Novell didn't seem to be doing any business depending on owning the Unix copyright, so even if this suit is settled (probably by the judge, in a binding decision) specifying that Unix belongs to Novell either because SCO never owned it, or that SCO did own it but must surrendered it to Novell as compensation for damages, Novell will probably own it. But what will they do with it?

Will they sell it "again", this time retaining their rights to use it that will prevent any attempt at the kind of extortion SCO attempted (whether or not it was legitimately based)? Will they keep it and use it themselves, other than to protect their right to include it in Linux? Will they kill it so it doesn't cause any problems in the new market Novell is in (maybe because Microsoft wants it out of the way once and for all)? Or will they perhaps kill just the copyright, and put it all into the public domain, or under GPL - perhaps just including it in a revised Linux kernel?

Will Novell perhaps release a Linux compatible layer made of Unix that interoperates with only the Novell distro, and with Vista?

The SCO/Novell suit could turn out to be just a preliminary battle. The next chapter of Unix's history could turn out to be the really interesting one. Which, with that kind of relativity, could be extremely interesting.

Re:Who Will Get Unix? (2, Informative)

elronxenu (117773) | about 7 years ago | (#20885979)

Judge Kimball already ruled that Copyrights did not transfer with the Asset Purchase Agreement, and so SCO does not own the Unix System V Copyrights. He also found that the Microsoft and Sun licenses were in part SysV licenses, so some part of the revenue belongs to Novell. SCO claims it owns all the revenue. Therefore, SCO has converted (stolen) Novell's property.

The 5-day trial which was suspended due to SCO's application for Ch11 bankruptcy was all about finding how much of that revenue was Novell's. SCo petitioned for bankruptcy on the last business day before the scheduled start of the trial.

Re:Who Will Get Unix? (1)

falconwolf (725481) | about 7 years ago | (#20886129)

One issue of the SCO/Novell suit is whether SCO owns the Unix System V code (by owning its copyrights), or whether Novell still does instead.

The judge has already ruled Novell owns System V, the only thing needed is to decide how much Novell money SCO owes.

Falcon

Re:Who Will Get Unix? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 7 years ago | (#20886181)

Enforcing the SysV copyrights that Novell owns (see other comments) would be tricky, since Novell has contributed code to several key open source projects, including the Linux kernel.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?