×

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!

A Discussion of SCO's Fate With Groklaw's Pamela Jones

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the going-down-the-tubes dept.

The Courts 84

An anonymous reader writes "The SCO Group's current fate can be neatly summarized by the title of Pamela Jones' very first article on the case, back in May 2003 — 'SCO Falls Downstairs, Hitting its Head on Every Step.' In the intervening years PJ and Groklaw can be credited with unearthing and exposing many of the flaws in SCO's case, most notably, obtaining and publishing the 1994 settlement in the USL vs BSDi case. An article at the ITPro site interviews PJ about SCO, the impact of Groklaw and future of free software and the law."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

84 comments

PJ vs SCO... (4, Funny)

MrAndrews (456547) | more than 6 years ago | (#21493839)

Perhaps the most notable contribution PJ made to the SCO case was when it became clear Darl McBride was directing company strategy based on doing the opposite of what Groklaw contributors wanted [pttbt.ca]...

However, the strategy appeared to backfire when, on September 14, 2007, CEO Darl McBride saw a comment that read, in part: "God, I hope they don't declare bankruptcy to try and get out of this mess."

Re:PJ vs SCO... (0, Troll)

pravuil (975319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494399)

I like the sentence after that one.

"The very next day, we declared bankruptcy," said the executive source, "Darl thought he'd won some major victory. He was dancing around the office chanting 'Neener neener, you're a wiener!' all by himself. I think it was around this point that we realized we may have made a mistake."

What scares me is if someone would say, "he shouldn't kill himself" he just might do the opposite. Who the fuck takes legal advice by doing the opposite of what some groklaw website comments say. There should be some sort of Darwin award for this.

You're stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21494507)

And you should feel bad.

Re:You're stupid (1)

pravuil (975319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21497511)

It's hypothetical. What's stupid is that he did something like that. I'm just making a point of stupidity. It's like the old saying where "if your friends jump off a cliff would you do it too just to be cool" kind of thing. Anybody that's involved inside a court case should be aware of laws and the flexibility of those laws to make it work for them. If they weren't smart enough to effectively defend themselves why then would they waste taxpayers time and money? The whole thing is an embarrassment and I'm sorry if I'm not sympathetic but what do you expect.

Re:PJ vs SCO... (1)

FredDC (1048502) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494515)

What scares me is if someone would say, "he shouldn't kill himself" he just might do the opposite. Who the fuck takes legal advice by doing the opposite of what some groklaw website comments say. There should be some sort of Darwin award for this.
If he kills himself because of a "he shouldn't kill himself" comment, he could win the actual Darwin award!

Give her credit (5, Interesting)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494011)

Pamela Jones deserves a lot of credit. She challenged big corporations with deep pockets, which was personally risky to her. SCO did try to get her involved in the lawsuit.

Interesting also in the article: she mentions she saw what's underneath the corporate media and analysts. Yes, there is a lot of corruption there: you can "buy" favorable reviews with quid pro quo. And no one seems to object, that's just the way business is done. It's not so easy to fight: when you are young, you don't have the power to be different, and if you object, you are out on the street. As you get older (and more senior), you finally can object, except by then you have been doing it for years. So that makes you either an hypocrit, or at a minimum people will be able to come after you for past actions. Any solutions?

So just say thanks to Pamela for what she did.

Re:Give her credit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21494111)

Don't you mean IBM's writers? To date, no one has ever seen or talked to her by non-electronic means...

That's one theory... (5, Insightful)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494463)

Circumstantial evidence suggests, though, that she's just obsessive about her privacy, in a way that puts even the tin-foil hat crowd at Slashdot to shame. Certainly Maureen O'Gara went far enough to publish her address, after which the Pamela Jones living there moved suddenly... so there is a real privacy-obsessed Pamela Jones, who may or may not be the same as the one on Groklaw.

Mostly, though, I'm surprised to see SCO employees posting on Slashdot- you'd think they'd be too busy looking for new jobs to troll here. Of course, if they are still 'working' for SCO, they might as well be browsing Slashdot during the day...

Re:That's one theory... (5, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496059)

...and all that privacy paranoia is justified. Just look at the lengths that SCO went to (still going through, based on the AC's post) to try to discredit her/ruin her life/etc., etc. Something like this just happened in Atlanta with a guy who fought off a gang who tried to rob him at gun point -- a reporter identified him as a hero and next thing you know the gang members friends were camped outside his door step. He had to move too.

Re:That's one theory... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498661)

and next thing you know the gang members friends were camped outside his door step. He had to move too.

Because you can get all the restraining orders in the world and all the video footage of thefts and all the lazy prosecutors and police will say is to move. If you don't want to move or can't afford it, they'd rather have you show up in a bodybag at which point the problem goes away for them.

It's sad that the victims, and not the thugs, are always the ones required to move.

No tinfoil required. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499019)

Circumstantial evidence suggests, though, that she's just obsessive about her privacy, in a way that puts even the tin-foil hat crowd at Slashdot to shame.

Given that she was sticking pins in a corporation full of lawyers that felt competent to take on IBM and would love to have killed the message by discrediting or ruining the messenger, being obsessive about her privacy seems rational to me. No tinfoil required.

Re:That's one theory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499381)

No. O'Gara reported that the person, whether it was or was not PJ was never established,
had already moved *before* O'Gara arrived.

Re:Give her credit (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495061)

Ah yes, invoke a conspiracy theory. Whether there is a Pamela Jones or Groklaw is a front from IBM's legal team or it's Jesus Christ himself, the fact was that it demonstrated the lies and deceits coming out of SCO.

Re:Give her credit (2, Funny)

blueskies (525815) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495245)

Maybe she is an SCO writer who was supposed to convert to backing SCO at a key moment and decided to double-cross SCO! Or they wanted to try to make it look like she was an IBM writer to make IBM look bad, but it backfired!!

Re:Give her credit (1)

Runesabre (732910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494761)

This post has been one of the most insightful things I've seen written on Slashdot for a long time.

Yes, give her credit ... (2, Insightful)

golodh (893453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21497165)

I couldn't agree more. Pamela Jones contributes things that seem to be increasingly scarce and out of fashion in the US of A:

- actual knowledge of what she is writing about (legal proceedings) and the self-restraint to stay inside her area of expertise (Groklaw is something that professional lawyers read to obtain information. Can you imagine *any* lawyer reading Slashdot for information? I cannot.)

- a willingness to actually do research, read source material instead of press releases, and to piece various tidbits of information together in an open and documented way (compare that to the mainstream press who can't seem to do anything but print press-releases)

- a deep commitment to and interest in discovering the truth

- a refusal to be intimidated by legal bluster

- old-fashioned correctness in speech and demeanor

For displaying these qualities in public, over a period of years, I feel she deserves a medal.

I can easily imagine. (3, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498979)

Groklaw is something that professional lawyers read to obtain information. Can you imagine *any* lawyer reading Slashdot for information? I cannot.

I can. Easily. B-)

Seriously, though. I can also imagine a GOOD lawyer reading Slashdot - for leads, ideas, arguments, legal theories, and inspiration (just for starters). But then he'd CHECK them - with dependable source and reference documents, credible witnesses, traceable, certified experts, etc.

Slashdot is a rumor mill. Sometimes it's mostly mist and mirrors. But often where there's smoke there's fire.

Well ... I still cannot. (2, Insightful)

golodh (893453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500509)

The reasons I cannot imagine any lawyer reading Slashdot are:

- Slashdot if far too diffuse: it doesn't focus on any single topic and covers that really well. In the words of Cmdr Taco it tries to present an appealing mix of stories. There you go ... you cannot ever *count* on Slashdot covering anything well. It does however focus on IT-oriented stories.

- Slashdot itself possesses zero editorial expertise. The expertise (if any) is all with the people who post here. Posts vary from garbage to insightful and you can't tell which is which without actually reading them all (despite the moderation system).

- Slashdot posts usually carry a substantial bias and are almost always strongly opinionated. No lawyer can afford getting caught up in that for any professional research. He might use it to get a quick sample of opinions though.

- Because Slashdot's valuable insights are so diffuse, trying to get at them is like mining gold from seawater. There's an awful lot of gold in the oceans but it really isn't worth your time to try and extract that. The gold content in IT-related topics might just be high enough to take a look at, as opposed to any business related or legal topics.

- A lawyer might just let a paralegal sift out the more obvious rubbish before taking a look at it, but then only when he already knows that Slashdot actually has something on the subject he wants to know about. And he generally wouldn't know that from visiting Slashdot, but from a search engine like Google.

Re:Yes, give her credit ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21501589)

the self-restraint to stay inside her area of expertise

Obviously not a regular reader. Every few weeks she goes off on some hairbrained rant, often loaded with conspiracy theories and paranoia.

Groklaw is really good when it sticks to what its good at though.

Re:Yes, give her credit ... (1)

mvdwege (243851) | more than 6 years ago | (#21510715)

Can you imagine *any* lawyer reading Slashdot for information?

I can: Ray Beckerman, aka NewYorkCountryLawyer.

And he has used Slashdot as an information source, e.g. his Ask Slashdot for leads into questions to pose a RIAA expert witness.

I don't think however that Ray takes everything here on first sight. I do imagine he does checking on the leads he gets here. Still, he is an active participant in copyright discussions.

Mart

I enjoy slamming the SCO but... (2, Interesting)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494031)

That's cool and all, but the essay is four years old and the interview barely brushes the surface of the SCO case. This is hardly a story to be billed as a discussion of SCO's fate. This is trying to hard to create an anti-SCO bash fest (which is cool and all, but it's hardly news).

On the other hand the majority of the interview about Groklaw and Jones' feelings about it was quite interesting, especially the part discussing democracy and the nature of Groklaw.

so... (2, Funny)

yorugua (697900) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494047)

is SCO still alive? What it is up to? I'm going to check in netcraft to see if the rumor has been confirmed....

Just covering SCO is enough for now. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494049)

The SCO cases could drag on for years, or they could end next month. It's hard to say. Groklaw just covering SCO is enough for now.

As SCO management is discovering, they have far less control in bankruptcy than they could before. They were able to control the pace of the pre-bankruptcy cases because they were the plaintiff in most of them. It's different in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy judge, the U.S. Trustee, and the creditors are in charge. The bankruptcy judge keeps shooting down SCO management's wierd legal ideas.

Yahoo Finance says it all: "SCOX is deficient and bankrupt."

Won't last years (1)

toxic666 (529648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495427)

It won't last for years, at least with current SCO management in charge.

The reason they tried to push through a super-duper must have it now sale of every asset to that troll company was to avoid having anything left for the creditor's committee to object to. You see, once that committee is established, everyone will have to agree or object to any attempt that SCO tries to keep its plaintiff litigation cases alive (Autozone) alive and take all the guaranteed-liability counterclaims (Novell, IBM) with the SCO shell. And then certain creditors (MS) will have to show their hands in a vote.

SCO wants to end this ASAP, while keeping the FUD alive through another party. But the trustee, Novell and IBM will fight tooth and nail any outrageous attempt and it will soon be forced into Chapter 7 because it is dissipating its remaining assets so quickly. Now, the Chapter 7, THAT will go on for YEARS if the appointed BK Trustee (not US Trustee) decides to follow the money back to BSF, MS and Sun.

An educated public (5, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494081)

This is an excellent example of the power of an educated public. Groklaw would try to educated the public, not just grab a headline. As more people notice this, and it becomes popular / profitable, perhaps media can start to have more depth than a puddle. I think it is awfully nice to get more then a biased cursory glimpse at a story once and a while...

Re:An edumacated public (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21494121)

Sorry to do this, but when you put educated in the subject line: Groklaw would try to educated the public

Re:An educated public (1, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494853)

This is an excellent example of the power of an educated public.

How? The public had about zero effect on the SCO/Novell case.

Re:An educated public (1)

VP (32928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495021)

This is an excellent example of the power of an educated public.

How? The public had about zero effect on the SCO/Novell case.
At least some of the GrokLaw analysis was used by both sides in the IBM case.

Re:An educated public (4, Insightful)

blueskies (525815) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495263)

[quote]How? The public had about zero effect on the SCO/Novell case.[/quote] Because it wasn't about the case anyway. It was all about the secondary effects and reducing Linux mindshare in corporations.

Re:An educated public (2, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496099)

The public had about zero effect on the SCO/Novell case.
Keep in mind that this was more than SCO vs. Novell. It was more than SCO vs. IBM (or Chrysler or Autozone). There was also the court of public opinion. It is very possible that the later was the real target of SCO's actions.

Once in awhile the water cooler talk around my area turns to SCO (among the IT crowd - I've yet to meet any non-IT folks who know about SCO). It's rather interesting that the conversation about SCO's legal wrangling includes a lot of details that never surfaced in any court of law. People have readily confused the court cases with press releases and public statements made by SCO and its agent(s).

This is where Groklaw affecting public perception is important. SCO's outlandish claims have been mostly nullified by information dug up by the efforts of Groklaw. And while people may confuse exactly what is being said where - I've yet to meet anyone who takes any SCO claim seriously.

That Groklaw has surfaced in the actual legal cases in question and is very likely being used as a reference by agents of the court is an additional bonus. Even those agents are part of the "public".

Re:An educated public (0, Troll)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496801)

Lack of reading comprehension FTL. Redefining terms to the point of meaninglessness FTL.

Re:An educated public (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 6 years ago | (#21497445)

Lack of reading comprehension FTL. Redefining terms to the point of meaninglessness FTL.
Very gracious of you to admit being mistaken. :P

Or perhaps you can make a point with more depth than the campy nonsense "FTL" phrase that's so popular with the twitchy ADD set these days?

Re:An educated public (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495247)

As more people notice this, and it becomes popular / profitable, perhaps media can start to have more depth than a puddle.

Hmmmph... as the rest of the news networks mimic Fox. Yeah, that's gonna happen. Face it, the same sociopathic greedheads that run the likes of Fox, SCO, Enron, and Microsoft also run and own ALL media outlets. As well as "your" government*, who these same greedheads have bought lock, stock, and barrell.

The only way a rich powerful man in the US goes to prison is if a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

-mcgrew

*it doesn't matter what country you live in

Grass roots (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494095)

The rise of the Internet in the late 90s was promised by pundits to be a grand revolution of ideas and information. Frankly, it has turned into Eternal September more than naught. :P With Groklaw, it has shown what the promise of what the Internet could be. One person with an opinion and information could share with the rest of the world. With grass roots aid and collaboration, a personal blog has become THE resource of one case and, in some cases, a source of information about Intellectual Property law. Vivà la revolución!

Old SCO stuff (1, Funny)

mknewman (557587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494103)

I've got boxes of old SCO licenses and manuals. ODT 3.0 and later. If anyone wants them let me know.

Re:Old SCO stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21495523)

You should put them up on eBay with an opening bid of $6.99.

Re:Old SCO stuff (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495543)

Save it, then ebay it some day. People collect some pretty crazy stuff. People probably buy nazi stuff because they are fascinated by evil. Same might go for SCO stuff. Orders of magnitude different, but still on the wrong side of the scale.

One battle "won" (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494229)

Currently one battle is won, but the war against those who want to cripple Linux and other open source software is far from over. SCO isn't really on the map anymore, but there are others that can go in sneakier and use other methods to try to spread FUD and increase the value of the competition (read Microsoft).

Just watch your back!

PJ's status in the Corporate world (5, Interesting)

Cryophallion (1129715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494257)

PJ - also known as the person who IBM loves since they don't have to pay to give them a big helping hand...

Although she does deserve a nice bonus from all the companies that were aided by her efforts.

She made a place where people could discuss and analyze the case, thus enabling many different minds to come together and put their different strengths to greater benefit. You give people access to the info and let them think for themselves, and you give them power. You also get people lining up to try and help.

Both her and Ray (for the RIAA cases) deserve a lot of credit for putting together a compendium of info that would be way too time consuming for people to get for themselves. They see what is going on in different cases, and can connect the dots. While we were in a sense helping out corporations, we were also helping out ourselves, and without the place to go to get the info and a safe place to discuss it, it wouldn't have happened.

So Thanks PJ, you helped open the window to what SCO was trying to do, and showed what they were hiding. And this is why people are afraid of the open source and info movements - they don't want people able to see what they are up to (such as borrowing code, not disclosing hard to find info, etc).

Re:PJ's status in the Corporate world (3, Insightful)

INT_QRK (1043164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494769)

"She made a place where people could discuss and analyze the case, thus enabling many different minds to come together and put their different strengths to greater benefit." -- sounds like Open Source justice to me!

Someone forgot to mention: hero (5, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494269)

Dogged determination. Referential integrity in the face of astounding, if typical, high-priced FUD.

Three Cheers to a friend of the open source community, diligent, tenacious, and gleeful in that determination.

Integrity counts. Pamela Jones is a champion of the OSS community and the values it stands for.

SCO Falls Downstairs, Hits Head on Every Step (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494341)

You know, now that I think about it, SCO's case does seem like that classic Simpsons episode where Homer winds up on a skateboard in an attempt to jump Springfield Gorge. He's in midair declaring that he's going to make it, but then hits every single rock and tree on the way down. Then, after the ambulance loads him up, the ambulance crashes into a tree, his gurney rolls out, and he plummets down the gorge once again. SCO's case is about as tattered as Homer's body must have been after that second plummet. Only, unlike Homer Simpson, SCO won't have a fantastically impossible recovery in time for next week's episode.

Re:SCO Falls Downstairs, Hits Head on Every Step (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494831)

Isn't that the episode where Homer says "Why does all the things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?"?

It would make a good ending to the SCO case as you described it.

PJ...does...not...exist (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21494405)

when will people realize, "Pamela Jones" is a pen name for some unknown person(s) who have an axe to grind with SCO. whether it's a team of IBM lawyers, as some have suggested, I don't know. but NOBODY has ever actually met her, and no picture exists of her. every single contact with her has been through email.

every time an occasion comes up when she might HAVE to make an appearance she suddenly "gets sick" and disappears (like when SCO threatened to subpoeana her [forbes.com], and even when she won the Knowledge Masters Award for Innovation [groklaw.net] and had to accept it in absentia because she "got royally ill").

even the authors of her wikipedia page are debating [wikipedia.org] whether she should be treated as a real person.

Re:PJ...does...not...exist (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494535)

Does it matter?

Even if that is a pseudonym for a real person or not it really doesn't matter because the result is what counts. An important part is that what Groklaw did in this case was to bring out some of the nastier parts in the clear. There was no need for Groklaw to mess things up or go around spreading FUD - SCO did that well enough already so it was just a question of pricking their FUD balloons with a sharp needle now and then.

Alan wrote the test... (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499119)

Does it matter?

Even if that is a pseudonym for a real person or not it really doesn't matter because the result is what counts.


I don't care who or what she is. PJ passes the Turing Test.

(On the internet nobody can tell you're a 'bot. B-) )

Re:PJ...does...not...exist (2, Informative)

sproot (1029676) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494651)

And that same Wiki page notes that OSRM [osriskmanagement.com] employed [eweek.com] her once.
I guess they think she's real.

Someone exists (1)

paladinwannabe2 (889776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494825)

There's nothing particularly wrong about using a Pseudonym- everyone on slashdot does it. Even you, Mr. Anonymous Coward, aren't posting as "Darl McBride". Even if you were, we still wouldn't believe it was you.

Honestly, though, if 'Pamela Jones' is really a Pseudonym for Patricia Johnson, a agoraphobic paralegal who used to work for Microsoft, would that really matter? I confess I'm curious, but for the most part it doesn't matter to me who PJ is- I don't read her articles to find out about her personal life, I read it to find out relevant legal information. As long as the information is good it doesn't matter who she is.

Re:PJ...does...not...exist (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495121)

Good grief Darl, get off the Internet and start trying to figure out how you're going to flee the country before SEC comes after you.

Re:PJ...does...not...exist (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496333)

when will people realize, "Pamela Jones" is a pen name for some unknown person(s) who have an axe to grind with SCO.

That's pretty bold worlds coming from someone who calls himself Anonymous Coward, eh Darl? So she wants to remain anonymous, so what? Her information (like court documents) is beyond reproach. And yes SCO threatened to subpoena her, but IBM and the judge quashed that as a diversion that had nothing to do the case. SCO doesn't like her because she publishes damaging information that they don't want published. Her and her volunteers have taken apart their court case from the beginning and exposing it as the sham that it is. Four years later, SCO has yet to disclose any real evidence that IBM (or Linus) has done anything wrong as noted by Judge Kimball. There have been only unsupported, public accusations from SCO.

If so, so what? (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 6 years ago | (#21511423)

I don't really care if it is a pen name, or even if she has some past event that would lead her to grind an axe against SCO. Nothing she has posted is made up or a forgery, and her predictions as to how things would go have been spot-on. Yeah, sometimes her editorial comments are a bit much, but she does know how to explain the law to mere mortals.

OTOH, Rob Enderele has an obvious axe to grind against IBM, (he worked for Rolm during a botched acquisition by IBM), and he has been shown to be full of a steaming pile of dung and consistently wrong about SCO's case, except at the end after the disasterous court rulings, where he said essentially "SCO never had that strong of a case". Yeah, too bad that is the opposite of what he said earlier, when he talked about "Open Source and the Fools Who Use It" at SCOForum.

Or maybe we could look to the collected works of Maureen O'Gara for opinions on the SCO case. Whoops! She has been flat-out wrong with her facts, stating things that were demonstrably not true. In addition, she decided to go stalking after PJ. Legal? Yes. Relevant to the correctness of her information, no.

Laura DiDio? She was easily taken in when SCO showed her that some code happened to be the same in UNIX and Linux. Too bad it was likely public-domain code, and part of the POSIX standard. Google could have answered that question.

That clown at Forbes? You could fairly accurately predict how the SCO case was going to go by assuming that the judge would rule the opposite of whatever he said.

Who am I going to believe? The person who gets the facts right and interprets them correctly, or those other Tools?

Lastly, PJ, if she exists (and I think she does) is almost certainly Agoraphobic. This is not a secret. She vividly described an oncoming panic attack at LinuxWorld near the start of this whole mess, when Groklaw was just getting started.

In any case, I really don't care if "PJ" is actually some secret cabal of IBM lawyers in a basement somewhere in New York. PJ has been right, the Main Stream Media largely hasn't. Period. (I don't think IBM is colossally stupid enough to pull off such a stunt. The truth is bound to come out eventually, and it would be a PR disaster for PJ to be an IBM plant.)

SirWired

Too Gracious? (2, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494409)

She is too kind. I think the matter is that "sco" JUMPED up at the top of the stairs, aiming on PURPOSED for the bottom. But, they jumped so hard, it broke mandibles, fractured the nose, shattered the eye socket, and snagged balls along the baluster and then had not enough breath to say, "Help, I've fallen (after JUMPING) down the stairs, and my legs are twisted. But, that's OK, because I think I have shagged myself. OK, I can feel my anus dripping, but maybe that's my teeth just passing through... Oh, wait, Why didn't we file in Texas, where we could WIN for sure... Damn, we should have reincorporated there BEFORE suing..."

"SCOX is deficient and bankrupt." (2, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494533)

So, what's this [honeypot.net] all about? The SCOX page in Yahoo! Finance is the only Google result for that phrase. Is this a prankster at Yahoo!, or something more entertaining?

Re:"SCOX is deficient and bankrupt." (2, Informative)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495207)

It's one the financial status classifications that NASDAQ uses. Deficient means that they don't live up to NASDAQs conditions for continued listing and in this case it's most likely that they've been trading to long under $1 (and perhaps that their market capitalisation is to small as well). Bankrupt, well, if you're in chapter 11 you're certainly bankrupt.

Some other classifications are: "deficent and delinquent", "delinquent and bankrupt" and "deficent, delinquent and bankrupt".

See: http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader/News/2005/vendoralerts/nva2005-021.stm [nasdaqtrader.com]

Re:"SCOX is deficient and bankrupt." (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495927)

Why does that phrase [google.com] only show up in conjunction with SCOX? I didn't see any news [yahoo.com] that looked like it would have triggered that warning. I admit that I'm glad to see it, but don't have the financial knowledge to really understand what it all means, or who decided that it was so. From your link it appears that someone at NASDAQ said that it's a required message, but what triggers it?

Re:"SCOX is deficient and bankrupt." (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496659)

Why does it show up only with SCOX? Most likely because it's quite rare for a wellknown company to become deficent and even more rare to be bankrupt at the same time. Just think about it... it really sends up a big warning flag all over the market if it happens to your company. Better to take the bull by the horns and delist yourself than being rapped over the fingers where everyone can see you. This search: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Afinance.yahoo.com+%22is+deficient%22+-scox+-messages [google.com] only for me turns up 4 other companies that are also deficent. There's bound to be more since Google doesn't index everything.

The 19th September newsitem is the SEC filing informing that the have recieved the delisting notice but it doesn't go into why they got the notice. Guess they didn't have to give a reason to SEC and didn't want to fan any flames.

The triggering events for delisting notices usually is either that the stock has been trading under $1 for more than 30 days or that their market capitalization is under $5 million. The reason NASDAQ doesn't want that kind of stocks to be traded is that they become easy to manipulate. (see http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/032002.asp [investopedia.com] )

Re:"SCOX is deficient and bankrupt." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21496027)

Bankrupt, well, if you're in chapter 11 you're certainly bankrupt.
Apparently, actually SCO were, and are, solvent before, and whilst, being in Ch 11; their assets certainly exceed their liabilities, except: they would only actually be bankrupt if the Novell case continued and the judge decided that SCO actually did have in their possession Novell's cash and that it should be [re]paid - then they would become bankrupt. [Follow through the BK court documents.]

Re:"SCOX is deficient and bankrupt." (1)

ral315 (741081) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496707)

It appears to be a technical term for certain types of stock. MarketWatch [marketwatch.com] says that it means NASDAQ has listed them as a type "G" stock, meaning "Deficient and bankrupt" -- deficient meaning that it doesn't meet NASDAQ listing requirements, and bankrupt meaning that the company's currently in bankruptcy. A third term, delinquent, is also possible -- that's when the company missed regulatory filing deadlines.

Something has to be done to fix the system (4, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 6 years ago | (#21494589)

Darl Mcbride not only managed to drive a somewhat successful company totally into the ground in the space of 3 or 4 years but also managed to totally alienate them from the entire industry and turn the company name into a pariah. Nevertheless he has been personally rewarded in salary and performance benefits in millions of dollars in that time.

We badly need to fix the system where incompetent shysters like him can't even get into that position, let alone be personally rewarded for catastrophic failure.

I mean, what on earth were the SCO board thinking when they agreed his last performance bonus?

Re:Something has to be done to fix the system (2, Funny)

phrostie (121428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21495319)

yeah, it was like Enron, only everyone was watching the train go off the cliff this time.

Re:Something has to be done to fix the system (1)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496329)

Darl Mcbride not only managed to drive a somewhat successful company totally into the ground in the space of 3 or 4 years but also managed to totally alienate them from the entire industry and turn the company name into a pariah.

Yup. It seems some people will go to any lengths to win a bet.

But man is he ever enjoying that $20.

Re:Something has to be done to fix the system (1)

jambarama (784670) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498031)

That's how CEOs and Board or Directors work - they're the same people. The BoDs for one firm are CEOs of others. They all reward each other with bonuses and fat paychecks. Until one of them screws up really bad that is, then they reward that guy with a golden parachute, expecting no less in return.

What were they thinking?They were thinking that he owns stock in the companies they work at/run, and he can respond in kind.

Re:Something has to be done to fix the system (1)

SlowMovingTarget (550823) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499329)

Errrmmmm, has no one considered the idea that he did precisely the job he was paid to do? Linux was becoming very hot in IT when SCO launched the lawsuit. Linux-oriented business cooled off for a while, long enough for Microsoft to suspend vendor drift toward Linux (to some extent). They waved the promises of the glories the turd that is Vista, and the uncertainty of the legal standing of GNU/Linux in front of businesses.

Microsoft launched their FUD campaign around that time, pumping 2 million dollars into SCO by buying licenses. Then Microsoft does that bizarro-world lawsuit thing with Kodak and Sun. MS settles for 2 billion (!) dollars with Sun [news.com], Sun turns around and settles with Kodak for 92 million dollars [regdeveloper.co.uk]. I believe PJ did some dot-connecting at one point showing that MS was behind a lot of this, in an effort to pump up the notion of "Intellectual Property," strengthening software patents, in particular, through precedent in the courts.

SCO was simply the the blunt instrument wielded by the Canopy Group to distract from the behind-closed-doors stuff. So, in theory, Scott did what he was paid to do.

Disclaimer: I enjoy conspiracy theories involving MS.

How has scox failed? (5, Insightful)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21496559)

Scox was as good as dead before the scam - look at their financials, it's a verifiable fact. If not for the scam, scox would have been gone three years ago.

Darl is making $34K a month, which is not bad for a small-time Utah scammer.

Msft got 4.5 years of premium Linux FUD, for about $50 million - hardly pocket change for msft.

BSF pocketed, at least, $50 million.

Riamondi sold his shares in the high teens.

None of the guilty have been punished in any way, and they are not likely to ever be punished.

IBM has probably spent about between 50 and 100 million defending itself against the bogus lawsuit.

Msft has sent this stern warning: "if you want to contribute to Linux, you better be ready to spend tens of millions in lawyer fees, and spend the next five years in court." Can you say "chilling effect?"

People like PJ feel that they need to cheerlead. But, if you objectively examine the facts, I think you will find that in most respects, scox has already won.

Re:How has scox failed? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21497747)

People like PJ feel that they need to cheerlead. But, if you objectively examine the facts, I think you will find that in most respects, scox has already won.

Actually, only certain members of SCOX "won", and you could likely count them on one hand with fingers to spare. The rest of SCOX' employee roster lost... hard. At level best they managed to make it through the dot-bust (and I do agree that they would've likely died in 2004 otherwise), but with 'SCO-Under-Darl's-reign' on the resume? It has to be damned tough to get an interview in the tech industry... and Utah isn't exactly a hotbed of tech hiring (unless you're shooting for, say, call-center work). Remove the higher-ups, and SCOX came out of this in a sorry state indeed.

MSFT didn't get too much out of it, as they're still too busy fighting mass defections to Linux in the server space (where that FUD would've counted the most), and now they've got increasing defections to Apple in the home user space. I will submit that MSFT possibly delayed what now seems to be inevitable, but not by much... the SCOX FUD lost its potency by ~ mid-2004 at best.

Also, MSFT's warning is largely falling on deaf ears, judging by their inaction beyond SCOX and with the likes of Dell, HP(?), and Wal-Mart selling Linux pre-load consumer computers nowadays (something which would've been completely unheard of in 1998...)

IBM spent $100m, yes... but I'm willing to wager that, to date, they've made at least 30x as much dough off of utilizing Linux ever since they plunged in back in 2001 or so. Spending 1/30th (or less, prolly less) of your profits-to-date (amortized) to insure their continuity makes sense. IBM sent one hell of a message to boot: 'Fuck with us, and your corp will die.' I'm willing to wager that even MSFT got that message loud and clear, at least judging by Steve Ballmer's recent mumbling about Linux and software patents, but fearing outright to name any specifics.

As for Darl... if I were him I'd worry about former employees filing a group lawsuit, followed closely by pissed-off stockholders doing the same. While a lot of folks made some hellish bank off of SCOX during its ride, those who bought in late (or still have some) will likely be dying to rake McBride over the coals.

/P

Re:How has scox failed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21497905)

I'll bite - examining the facts, it seems SCO did indeed fail.

Some individuals and other companies did undoubtedly benefit.

SCO, the company, did not.

Now about these facts.....

Re:How has scox failed? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504437)

> Some individuals and other companies did undoubtedly benefit.

The people who won, are the scammers. Yes, just a few people. The entire company is not behind behind the scam, just a few execs, and they are winning.

> SCO, the company, did not.

Scox, in fact, did. As I mentioned, scox was dead anyway. The scam was planned January 2003, or earlier. In that time, scox share went from $1 to $3 before scox actually filed the lawsuit in March 2003. Scox was *never* profitable - not one profitable quarter ever, and scox was gushing red-ink, and scox did not have much money left. No way in hell could scox have stayed in business this long without the scam.

> Now about these facts.....

Which facts? If you want to challang me on some fact, please be specific. As to scox's financials, I believe those are a matter of public record.

Re:How has scox failed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499307)

Every time there is any positive news about Groklaw, you say something like this.

I find it suspicious.

Re:How has scox failed? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21504319)

I don't know who modded you down, but as I far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to your suspecions. All kinds of cr@p is going on in this little scam, I wear my own tin-foil hat all the time.

And you observation is correct. IMO: I am trying to be the voice of reason here. I have to roll my eyes every time I read what I consider brain-dead cheer-leading: "Yay!! We win!! We *always* win." If you can support that view, fine. But, although you are critical of my point of view, you have not answered my question: how has scox lost? Really, think about it.

Re:How has scox failed? (1)

memrob (1144041) | more than 6 years ago | (#21501505)

Follow the money - and follow the money behind the money. Betcha Darl has another source of cashflow besides dregs of SCOX...

And now, back to Utah: BK judge lifts stay (2, Interesting)

PSaltyDS (467134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498337)

The bankruptcy judge in New Jersey has lifted the stay on SCOX's suit in Utah. [groklaw.net]

Remember how that went down:
1. Utah judge agrees with Novell in Summary Judgements that SCOX did not get the copyrights, that they owe Novell money, and are guilty of conversion.
2. Novell tells the judge that SCOX is about to go bankrupt and that he should put the money in constructive trust.
3. SCOX successfully convinces the judge that they are NOT about to go bankrupt, and the judge says there is no need before the trial.
4. On the Friday before the trial was to start Monday, 17 September, 2007, SCOX declares bankruptcy in New Jersey, causing an automatic stay in Utah.
5. Novell asks the BK judge to lift the stay.
6. Today, the BK judge agreed.
7. Now the SCOX v. Novell case in Utah will go before that judge, who may not be happy with the way he was very publicly suckered and made to look foolish by SCOX's bankruptcy ploy.

It will be interesting to watch... on Groklaw.

:-)

Re:And now, back to Utah: BK judge lifts stay (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21510609)

"7. Now the SCOX v. Novell case in Utah will go before that judge, who may not be happy with the way he was very publicly suckered and made to look foolish by SCOX's bankruptcy ploy." Suckered? Try "blatantly committed perjury" and you'll be more on. I'm am so SICK SICK SICK of big fatcat companies like the RIAA, and now SCO, thinking they can bluff their way through a lawsuit. Pinnochio got off easy, methinks. In the *real world*, a "little white lie" can ruin things faster than anything. If even little kids can't get away with fibbing, then why should big companies, who are made of ADULTS and who should definitely know better? Yeah, go groklaw! Seeing a new slashdot headline "SCO lawyer gets 20 years for lying in court" would make my day quite nicely.

FREE - Daylight saving time patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21501165)

I went to sco.com, and couldn't help but notice the huge banner advertising a "FREE daylight saving time patch."

1. Why wouldn't it be free? Oh yeah...
2. A DST patch is the best they've got for a prominent front page advertisement?
3. When you click to the page itself, it contains a link to Wikipedia. By linking to Wikipedia, I believe they are infringing on Wiki's intellectual property rights. Furthermore, I do not see a notice that the Wikipedia moniker is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia foundation. A user could clearly be unaware that he/she is visiting an external site, which could be construed as a derivative work not licensed by SCO.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...