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!

Stay Lifted, Novell Vs. SCO Can Go Forward

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the please-turn-to-chapter-seven dept.

Caldera 161

A number of readers suggest we check out Groklaw, where PJ is reporting that a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay so that its trial against SCO can proceed in Utah. The judge concluded that Judge Kimball is the best one to decide how much SCO owes Novell, and that SCO cannot make any "reorganization" plans — including any "fire sale" of assets — until it knows this figure.

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

So... (4, Funny)

phoenixwade (997892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498007)

The system works..... it works slowly, it costs huge amounts of money, but it does work......

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498099)

IMHO it took way too long and cost way too much, considering SCO never presented any evidence. It's the "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" of the intellectual property world.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

Drishmung (458368) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498529)

"The wheels of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine" (Sextus Empiricus) I think that when this started, certain people wanted to make absolutely certain that SCO could not wriggle out of it. Every "i" dotted, every 't' crossed. Their fate was sealed some time ago. Now they face destruction. Certain, total and prolonged destruction. I suspect that SCO will be held up as a lesson of what not to do for a very long time.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498819)

Worth mentioning that mill,rather than chariot wheels are being referred to here. You are interested in the product and speed is of secondary importance.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498933)

Why would they be a lesson in what not to do? sure the shareholders got screwed but afaict the bosses and the lawyers (who IIRC have family connections to darl) have done pretty well out of this whole fiasco.

This is IMO a perfect example of how to make lots of personal profit while totally screwing your shareholders.

Patience, Mr. Plugwash (3, Interesting)

HiggsBison (678319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499957)

... but afaict the bosses and the lawyers (who IIRC have family connections to darl) have done pretty well out of this whole fiasco.

The matter of disbarment and other "lying through your teeth when there was no evidence at all" sort of lawsuits is yet to come.

Then again, many may play the Ken Lay Gambit, and simple die out from under the charges.

Re:So... (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500059)

I don't feel too sorry for any shareholders who stayed with them during all this. It looks like they were trying to cash in also. Plenty of greed to go around.

Re:So... (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500053)

Those people would be IBM's Nazgul and the Novell equivalent, primarily. And of course me, and thousands of other Linux users...

Grind 'em fine, Nazgul and Novell, grind 'em *very* fine.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498187)

Had SCO chosen an opponent with shallower pockets, the system would probably have failed. Having said that, it's still good news :-)

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498333)

"Had SCO chosen an opponent with shallower pockets, the system would probably have failed."

The system HAS failed.

Pump-and-dump for McBride and his cronies, FUD-fest for Microsoft, and Novells' money being illegally converted to fund all this. Justice? Only when McBride is in an orange jump-suit, and rats on those behind the "corporate veil".

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499603)

corporation - noun
1. an ingenious device for creating personal profit without personal responsibility

Re:So... (5, Interesting)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498275)

About the huge amounts of money part... I honestly wonder what the *real* economic impact of SCO's saga of scare tactics has been to the open source community at large, specifically employees and customers of leading Linux vendors. How many purchases of Linux-based products were shelved or cancelled based on SCO's claims of infringement?

How many businesses were on the verge of trying out a Linux distro at their office, but became became convinced that open source software was some kind of "poison?" How many might still think that way due to a lack of education or a residual feeling of unease? On the plus side, the old saying is "there's no such thing as bad advertising", right? :(

Re:So... (4, Interesting)

bstone (145356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498883)

On the plus side, the old saying is "there's no such thing as bad advertising", right?

In this case, the connections to Redmond are there for anyone to see. The advertising comes from the desperation efforts of MS continuing from all angles, regardless of how it reflects on them. We have the SCO funding, the "Get the FUD" campaign, the efforts to subvert the standards organizations, the patent suits from Acacia, licensing "deals" with Linux vendors, and now the patent suit in Nigeria against OLPC [marketwire.com] .

Those are the things that scream loudly that MS believes in FOSS enough that everybody ought to take a look at it.

Re:So... (4, Interesting)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498889)

To the best of my knowledge, Telstra (the enormous half govt telco here in Australia) were about to start the process of choosing between Linux and Windows for umpteen-thousand desktops right when the SCO saga hit.

Needless to say, Telstra are still predominantly Windows based, and many Telstra employees blame the SCO scaremongering.

Re:So... (1)

sr180 (700526) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499455)

Telstra were only threatening to go to Java to negotiate massive discounts out of Microsoft.

Re:So... (1)

dns_server (696283) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500545)

After seeing the occasional error message from their websites they do use a lot of j2ee.
If you crash the web pages and it will print a stack trace that indicates that the pages are running under tomcat.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498895)

My reaction to the whole thing was similar to my reaction to our fair president's Iraq/WMD claims. I couldn't believe, right from the start, that anyone would take them seriously.

SCO's attempts to claim ownership of so much Linux IP seemed like the sleaziest of technicality-mongering I've ever seen. To use another governmental parallel, it wasn't much better when Cheney tried to claim that, since he's the VP, he is a member of congress when people say he's beholden to executive branch rules, and he's an exec when people try to hold him to congressional rules. You may be able to twist and turn the text of a law to fit your needs when talking to some people, but there are a lot of good judges out there, and they'll hold your feet to the fire. IANAL, but my wife is, and she's told me some stories about judges that make me want to sit up straight and say, "Yes, your honor" right here in my office.

I'm sort of glad that this took so long, although the cost to innocent parties has been higher than it should have. But the good news is that these folks tried just about everything to wrest Linux from the hands of the people who created it; someone will have to have a pretty good case to make a serious challenge in the future (I hope).

And the good news is that some pretty big guns got on the OSS wagon just in time. Without dual threat of IBM, RedHat and Novell--and all the money that they were willing to throw at it--plus a lot of smaller players, a lot more people might have rolled over, and without a good legal team, it would have been hard to protect the Linux chicken coop from the SCO weasels.

It is a shame that nobody is going to jail. I haven't personally looked behind the corporate veil, but I can't help but think that Darl and his buddies would better serve the world making license plates in the state pen than they would in a board room anywhere. If they caused as much trouble driving their cars as they did at SCO, they'd have their licenses taken away; it'd be nice to see them at least being prohibited from working for any organization other than a sole proprietorship.

Last, but not least, I know it's been said before, but we've got to tip our (red) hats to PJ over at Groklaw. Her tireless analysis and commentary kept a nice, geek-friendly spotlight on this issue for the duration; the world's a better place for people like her.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499843)

Without dual threat of IBM, RedHat and Novell

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

Re:So... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499897)

It brought attention to the open source community, Linux and Linus Torvalds. There really wasn't much media interest in Linux until Microsoft started throwing FUD and chairs at Linux; mostly at the time, the only mention was Red Hat for servers. Then everyone wants to know what scares Microsoft so much that they have to do this...

Now newspaper columns are much more aware; listing where to download liveCD's, the different releases (Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix, etc... ) and the different desktops (KDE, Gnome).

The system is b0rked! (5, Informative)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498293)

"The system works..... it works slowly, it costs huge amounts of money, but it does work......"

Three simple reasons to say "the system" does NOT work:

  1. justice delayed is justice denied - and it was obvious a LONG time ago that this was a frivolous case
  2. justice might be blind, but its even MORE blind if you don't have $$$$
  3. justice's slow wheels allowed Darl and Co to pocket a LOT of money over the last 5 years, enabling their dump-and-pump scheme.

Justice my arse! If the software industry worked as slowly as justice, and as expensively, we'd be using a $5,000 abacus instead of a computer.

Think of it - there's still all the BS appeals. Justice isn't looking all that appealing now, is it, unless you, like justice, are blind AND slow.

Justice is blind, slow and dumb (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499191)

It shouldn't even be called justice, but whatever it is, it is blind, deaf, slow, dumb and expensive.

Re:The system is b0rked! (3, Interesting)

brass1 (30288) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500073)

justice delayed is justice denied - and it was obvious a LONG time ago that this was a frivolous case
It stopped being about SCO's case a long time ago. The Judge Kimball ruled on almost the entirety of SCO's case in August. Read Judge Gross's (part of) order:

... allow Novell to proceed with the Lawsuit at the convenience of the District Court [...] on the following issues: (1) the amount of the royalties to which Novell is entitled from certain SCOSource licenses that the District Court determined to be SVRX Licenses and any additional licenses that are determined to be SVRX Licenses; and (2) whether SCO had the authority to enter into licensing agreements with Microsoft Corporation and Sun Microsystems.
The judge ruled that this can go to trial so the court can figure out how much money SCO stole from Novell. I'm not saying the system is working here, but it's important to remember that Novell's goal is to strangle SCO to death. It's working.

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498367)

The system works..... it works slowly, it costs huge amounts of money, but it does work......

Keep in mind that although the system works slowly, this case has been exceptionally slow. SCO has been able to drag this one out far more than is normally possible.

The reason SCO was able to do that is that while the system is designed to thwart foot-dragging by defendants, it doesn't do as much to prevent foot-dragging plaintiffs. The theory is that the guy who files the suit is motivated to push the issue -- or else why would he have file the suit? So, the system largely puts the plaintiff in the driver's seat, and SCO has taken every opportunity to stand on the brakes.

Re:So... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499851)

Foot dragging work for defendants if they have so much money that they can buy elections and eventually appoint pro-oil Supreme Court justices who will void their punitive damages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill [wikipedia.org]

In bankruptcy, that's reversed. (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499867)

The reason SCO was able to do that is that while the system is designed to thwart foot-dragging by defendants, it doesn't do as much to prevent foot-dragging plaintiffs.

Right. But in bankruptcy court, that's reversed. The debtor isn't in charge. The court, the U.S. Trustee, and the creditor's committee are. Notice how, since SCO declared bankruptcy, their wierd legal moves have been shot down fast. SCO's "emergency motion" for a quick sale - deferred by judge without even asking SCO. Quick asset sale to York under wierd conditions - withdrawn once the creditors objected. Novell lawsuit - unstayed.

Judge Kimball's calendar has an open day on December 11.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498375)

If by "works" you mean "drags the thing out endlessly and brings lots of many into the lawyers' pockets" then I have to agree.

there is no PJ (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499419)

PJ is an amalgam of IBM lawyers and pr hacks. If no one... absolutely no one can say they met her in person, she does not exist. I haven't seen anyone saying even "yes I talked to her in person but no I won't tell you her real name or where". Biggest snow job in history. But the people here are dying to believe that she exists. Sure, and she's blowing Santa.

Re:So... (1)

blind monkey 3 (773904) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499629)

If it costs huge amounts of money to get justice, it it doesn't work it is decidedly unjust.
Then again, "legal system" and "justice" is an oxymoron

don't lose your head over it (4, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498013)

a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay

Yes, he's lifting the stay, much like one would lift the active portion of a guillotine.

Re:don't lose your head over it (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498033)

Yes, he's lifting the stay, much like one would lift the active portion of a guillotine.
Now if only you could actually get Daryl into a guillotine...

Re:don't lose your head over it (3, Funny)

explosivejared (1186049) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498057)

Why does Darl even need a head? I think his business model tells he has clearly forgone its use.

Re:don't lose your head over it (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498697)

I think the question is not whether Darl has a head but where he has it stuck...... Although after SCO he does have a head start on a promising career in Proctology.

Re:don't lose your head over it (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498755)

since he fears the truth he probably lacks the other head too

Re:don't lose your head over it (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498853)

What business model? Let your product line atrophy and then blame everyone else?

Re:don't lose your head over it (1)

The Breeze (140484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498927)

Chopping off Darl's head is clearly a logistical nightmare, as how do you chop off his head when it's firmly inserted up his own ass?

"A walking penis capable of intelligent speech! You know, a dickhead!" - Eve, Blast From the Past

Re:don't lose your head over it (1)

BacOs (33082) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498059)

Now if only you could actually get Daryl into a guillotine...
Who's Daryl? The CEO of SCO is Darl [sco.com] McBride.

Exactly! (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498065)

I remember a quote where one of SCO's own lawyers said they were under a "death sentence" in Utah, so that's very appropriate. In fact, I was about to submit this exact story under the title "SCO's Stay of Execution Lifted" but I was obviously too late.

Now it will get REALLY interesting when we see how Darl's comments about the Utah judge come back to haunt him when they all have to go back there...

SCO has been a dead man walking for a long time now. It's just that we're finally about to watch their cremation. Anyone remember to bring marshmallows?

but .... (1)

taniwha (70410) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498191)

doesn't Utah still use firing squads? the whole 'footbullet' thing makes more sense

Re:Exactly! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498297)

Isn't it the opposite? Before, they were going to be able to sell things off and keep the cash, but now they will (hopefully) be executed by Novell, with Novell keeping what's left of them.

SCO's next step? (4, Funny)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498051)

Trying to derail the main case by running to bankruptcy court failed. So what's next?
  • Try to sidetrack the case in traffic court by claiming IBM jaywalked in front of the bankruptcy court?
  • File a motion to move everything to small claims court since by the end of this all they'll likely have less than $2,000 in their pocket?
  • Risk moving the whole thing in front of Judge Judy [judgejudy.com] and hope to confuse her?

Re:SCO's next step? (1)

myrdos2 (989497) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498557)

Darl McBride in front of Judge Judy... sounds like good watching. She always handles cases the same way - she starts off speaking softly and slowly, as if she's making a deliberate effort to be calm. She then gets worked up into a rage as she's presented with multiple transparent lies.

It'd be perfect, as long as she understood the technical jargon. I especially look forward to the part where the plaintiff and defendant comment on the verdict at the end of the show.

Re:SCO's next step? (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499289)

No, he wouldn't use technical jargon, he would start with how Linux is distributed over the internet, a series of tubes....

Judge Judy... Re:SCO's next step???? (0)

infonography (566403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500061)

TV Judges are Like Televangelists look the part, thats ALL.

Want to see a real Judge in action go watch the DVD set of the OJ trail, not the current one the Judge Ito [wikipedia.org] one. Long grueling boring and accurate. if "Judge Judy" who is as much a Judge as Judge Reinhold [imdb.com] , were to act that way in a court room she would be rightly disbarred (i.e. Benched).

Re:Judge Judy... Re:SCO's next step???? (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500463)

if "Judge Judy" who is as much a Judge as Judge Reinhold, were to act that way in a court room she would be rightly disbarred (i.e. Benched).

WTF are you talking about? "Judge Judy" was very much a "real" judge up until her retirement in 1996, albeit a small claims judge. She got her television show thanks to a large amount of press about her outspoken nature in real courtrooms. While the "court" in her show is merely an agreed-upon arbitration session, she is demonstrating much of the same behavior that she became famous for when in public service.

More to the point, Judith is not the only judge known for rather outlandish behavior. Judge Samuel B. Kent [wikipedia.org] is also well-known in the legal community for his humorous and razor-sharp wit, especially in his written orders. One of his more famous incidents was when he dismissed a case for being "asinine tripe".

Last but not least, you do not "disbar" a judge to remove him/her from office. Judges are either elected or appointed officials. Disbarring means they can't practice as a lawyer anymore. (Annoying, but not a huge problem for someone not appointed by the Bar.) Judges must be impeached or dismissed from office like most other government officials. Disbarment usually follows impeachment or dismissal to prevent the Judge from continuing to practicing law after being dismissed.

Re:SCO's next step? Not a chance (1)

WillRobinson (159226) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499619)

You do not realize the puddle of stuff they have stepped in the BK court. They are now in a position that if its deemed their not acting in the best interest of their creditors, the management will be replace. They will then be replace with people who will determine the best path for a orderly shutdown into chapter 11 after the ruling in Utah. That you can be sure of.

Stealth Jewish did WTC 9/11 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498055)

Don't waste your life on something simply worthless. Your son and husband is dead in Iraq and Afganistan in war for Israeli stealth jewish George 'Rockefeller' Bush, same also responsible for planning and executing precision military strikes on World Trade Center Towers in New York City.

Well good. (2, Insightful)

Simple-Simmian (710342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498067)

Almost restores my belief that the US Justice System is worth salvaging. Would fewer lawyers mean justice was served? This whole fandango has taken way too long.

Re:Well good. (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498257)

And that's exactly where I think this has indeed been a fiasco. SCO never, not for one moment, in court or out of it, actually justified its claims. There's something desparately wrong with a legal system that takes four years to work its way through absolutely nothing at all. It's repugnant that discovery can take this long. The minimum threshhold for any litigation ought to be showing some evidence for your claims immediately after filing, not using discovery and countless motions and countermotions to keep it going for years and years.

People call all of this a victory. It's not, it's a goddamned shame that crooks like McBride can use the court system like this. I'm not saying you should have all the evidence for your claims, but SCO did claim to have all these lines of code, which they never actually produced, and so far as I'm concerned day one before the judge should have gone something like this:

SCO Lawyers: We have all these lines of code demonstrating that our intellectual property was stolen.

Judge: Please provide the code.

SCO Lawyers: Well, we don't actually have it, so to speak. You know, it's code, and it's a lot of pages, and we want IBM to release their code so we can compare it to our code to show what we claim.

IBM Lawyers: Your honor, here's the complete Linux source code, as well as a complete revision history. We downloaded it off the Net just like SCO can.

Judge: So, provide the infringing code.

SCO Lawyers: Well, we can't at this moment...

Judge: Case dismissed.

Re:Well good. (1)

Arguendo (931986) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499889)

It's repugnant that discovery can take this long. The minimum threshhold for any litigation ought to be showing some evidence for your claims immediately after filing, not using discovery and countless motions and countermotions to keep it going for years and years.


The things is, you gotta put your money where your mouth is. My state, California, has had a court system begging for money for years just for basic services (like so court houses won't fall down in the next earthquake). And the feds aren't any better with Chief Justice Roberts continuing to beg Congress for money. Like everything, the system would be a lot faster if they had more personnel. But most of these courts are so backed up, you're lucky to get to trial in two years even if both sides push as hard as they can. And if one side really doesn't want to go... well then it's going to be a while.

There's an old saying in the legal community: you can have good, fast, or cheap. Pick any two.

Re:Well good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21500211)

See, we should have put this in front of Judge Judy. She would have bunted it in two commercial breaks.

As it is, I have nightmares where I hear a kid's voice saying to me, "Grandpa, how did this SCO trial start?"

Justice is served! (2, Insightful)

coppro (1143801) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498071)

I'm really glad. :) This means that SCO (and its investors) will actually have to atone for their ridiculous claims and the resources they have caused supporters of Unix and OSS to squander. Finally, they can pay back the world what they owe, rather than selling everything and making out with what they can. It almost seems as if SCO is working for some anti-FOSS organization... I'm going to avoid any potential flaming by avoiding that topic... but they certainly seem like their first priority is not allowing Novell to acquire their assets, even when they will lose them anyway.

Re:Justice is served! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498345)

I'm not sure if it materially makes SCO's investors' situation any worse. It delays everything else, to be sure, but when Novell wins, what exactly are they going to get? Any given percentage of 0 is still 0. I guess Novell could walk away with some or all of SCO's IP, but at this point the investors are screwed no matter what happens.

Re:Justice is served! (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498353)

"This means that SCO (and its investors) will actually have to atone for their ridiculous claims and the resources they have caused supporters of Unix and OSS to squander. Finally, they can pay back the world what they owe"

Do you really believe that? They're not "paying back" Jack Shit. They don't have any money of their own - all they have left is Novell's money. Chapter 7. End of story.

Re:Justice is served! (1)

coppro (1143801) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499341)

Do you really believe that? They're not "paying back" Jack Shit. They don't have any money of their own - all they have left is Novell's money. Chapter 7. End of story.
Well, I consider money in Novell money that goes towards open source. Novell wants to recover what it's lost as a result of this frivolous suit, and they should. Novell should get claim on SCO's assets, because they've wasted money. SCO is, in effect, paying back the money that they've lost due to this suit, both in terms of direct expenses and of the business loss due to bad publicity (IIRC, the legal term is 'damage to title', though I'm probably wrong). And in the US of A, one must always consider the punitive damages, which could be a major windfall for FOSS development. And of all the places the money could go, I'm actually happy it's Novell (staying away from the sticky topic of the patent agreement), because it means that Moonlight development will get a boost, and Moonlight is something that benefits just about everyone (except maybe Adobe).

Re:Justice is served! (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499429)

The problem is that SCO doesn't have enough money to "make Novell whole." If the bk judge can claw back money from thse fraud artists at BFS, from the corporate officers who fed like pigs at the trough, from the PIPE Fairy, etc., THAT would be justice.

My money is on IBM to pierce the corporate veil vis. Microsoft.

Re:Justice is served! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499453)

If Novell becomes the chief creditor, then they can sue the SCO executive and its lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty because SCO did not do enough due diligence before starting the lawsuit. Hopefully that allows them to seize all the assets that Darl and his cronies financed with their illegal stock manipulations. Even if the SEC never does anything about it, I'll be happy if Novell puts Darl and co. in the poorhouse.

Re:Justice is served! (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499745)

the investors can sue the management personally for running the company down... and then Novell can sue the shareholders for THAT money to as it represents shares interest and stock holders would owe that money to Novell if it was to show up. I wonder how that would fly?

As Porky Pig always said.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498083)

...ebbidee ebbidee ebbidee That's all folks!" [wikipedia.org]

What type of champagne? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498087)

What type of champagne would you like? PJ should start taking orders now. I think a nice, private labeled bottle of Dom would be in order. Of course, when they do die, it will not be "news" and will be swept under the rug.

Of course, M$ could get a lot of milage out of this ifwhen SCO dies by "showing" that open source is poison and kills companies....

The REAL question... (3, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498171)

Of course the real question is how Maureen O'Gara spins this to favor SCO.

Re:The REAL question... (2, Insightful)

Corporate Drone (316880) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498281)

Of course the real question is how Maureen O'Gara spins this to favor SCO.

"We're happy that we'll be able to demonstrate that we owe nothing to Novell, put this speculation to rest, and get on with the daily tasks of maintaining 'business-as-usual' here at SCO."

She'll talk about the constructive trust. (3, Informative)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498711)

From the court decision:

However, while the stay will be lifted in order to enable the District Court to determine the License Issues, this Court will determine whether a constructive trust is appropriate because it is the very essence of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to decide what is property of the estate.
The constructive trust is a big deal because it would immediately remove a chunk of money from SCO's hands, handicapping SCO's ability to pursue the lawsuits. However, in practical terms, it probably doesn't make a difference. If Kimball sets the dollar amount SCO owes Novell anywhere near the amount expected, it means Novell becomes SCO's chief creditor and head of the creditor committee [usdoj.gov] . From there, Novell largely calls the shots in any "reconstruction" plans SCO proposes. One of Novell's options would be to request to convert the bankruptcy from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 based on the fact that SCO has never been able to make money, aside from what they "converted" (a.k.a., "stole") from Novell.

In any case, just because Judge Gross is reserving the right to order a constructive trust for himself doesn't mean he won't decide to order one once Kimball rules anyway.

I think she already has (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499377)

I believe O'Gara is claiming that Gross made a gross mistake, and that his decision will be overturned.

Re:The REAL question... (1)

ImprovOmega (744717) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499833)

"All along we've said we wanted our day in court. Well now we're getting FIVE days in court. That's 500% better than our first expectations!"

Horrible things? (3, Informative)

steveha (103154) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498211)

PJ ended the article with:

So it's back to Utah they go. I'm sure SCO's lawyers can't wait to see Judge Kimball again, after all the horrible things SCO's CEO Darl McBride said about Judge Kimball to the press.

I'm interested to read just what Darl McBride said. I just Google searched for it and didn't find anything.

Could someone please post links to some of the "horrible things"?

Re:Horrible things? (1)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498349)

At a minimum, they told the bankruptcy court that they thought Kimball's decision against them was wrong...

Re:Horrible things? (3, Informative)

Col. Klink (retired) (11632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498377)

He said that Kimball was overruled on appeal two thirds of the time. It is, of course, not exactly true [investorvillage.com] .

Re:Horrible things? (2, Funny)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498399)

"So it's back to Utah they go. I'm sure SCO's lawyers can't wait to see Judge Kimball again, after all the horrible things SCO's CEO Darl McBride said about Judge Kimball to the press."

More like lyin' lyons - the fake steve jobs [arstechnica.com] , or pretenderle (Ron Enderle), or the MogTroll. [slashdot.org]

Here's a link (4, Informative)

DrJimbo (594231) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498435)

I'm interested to read just what [horrible things] Darl McBride said. I just Google searched for it and didn't find anything.
Here is a link to Computer World Malaysia [computerworld.com.my] :

Behind the scenes, though, McBride said SCO's legal team has unearthed some details about Kimball's rulings that may provide a glimmer of hope for his company's ongoing fight.

"There's one little tidbit that we came across just a few days ago," he said. "Whereas the popular press has said, O.K., this thing is now over, there is an appeal process, and the other fact is that if you look inside that appeals process and you take a microscope and look at the record of Kimball's summary judgement rulings that have gone to appeals, he gets overturned the vast majority of the time. It's nearly two-thirds of the time. That was something I was a little curious about myself.

"This apparently is a [judge] who very regularly, the majority of the time, gets [overturned] when it goes to the replay booth. That's the one sort of a news fact that's not out there today that [could] maybe temper some of this enthusiasm out there" about SCO's troubles. "He certainly has a dismal record on appeals."
Like most other things coming out of Darl McBride's mouth, these words would have been less "horrible" had they been true. I swear, if that man says it is a clear day you'd best bring your umbrella. He seems incapable of telling the truth.

Re:Here's a link (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498957)

I'm curious--how often does a lower-court judge get overturned normally? From what I've seen, lower courts tend to defer to blind obedience to existing case law without considering all the facts; they don't like making waves. The higher courts set everything right on appeal. But my dataset might be skewed. Does anyone have some hard statistics on this matter?

Re:Here's a link (1, Interesting)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499707)

First level judges get over turned a lot, because there are many, many recourses available after the first set of trials... EXCEPT.. in this case SCO has used up every single discovery and process exception... the appeals court has kicked them BACK to this judge over and over, so when he rules, there won't be much of an appeal left to make to anybody. And the Marshals will seize their assets more or less immediately, so there will be no more appeals!

Re:Here's a link (2, Insightful)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500141)

I think that part of the reason this whole fiaSCO took so long to play out is just so that SCO *does not stand a chance at appeal*, due to the thoroughness of what has been brought to trial, and how Judge Kimball allowed them to draw themselves out at every opportunity by allowing them to state every reason for everything, and then some.

In short, there won't be anything to appeal *on*. It's all been said, it was all allowed them, they had every chance to make a real case.

They never proved anything substantive.

Nothing.

Good riddance!

PJ has stated basically this same opinion several times (tho' it's been in the years past and I can't cite).

Beyond bankruptcy? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498291)

So, it seems fairly clear to this non-economist that SCOX is royally screwed. However, are there fates worse than bankruptcy? There have been a lot of (mostly wishful thinking) suggestions that SCO's board was doing all this as a big pump-and-dump and that it's only a matter of time until the SEC folks move in. As I'm wholly ignorant of such things, how likely is something like that to happen? I mean, it certainly appears to me that they committed a long list of sins, but are any of those likely to translate into criminal charges?

Re:Beyond bankruptcy? (1)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498617)

...are any of those likely to translate into criminal charges?

You betcha. The SEC is going to have a field day with the pump-n-dump aspect of this, at some point - unless Darl and friends are politically connected, and get protection from prosecution - which is VERY unlikely.

Re:Beyond bankruptcy? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21499025)

Brent Hatch, counsel for the SCO Group is the son of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch. [wikipedia.org] Darl and Yarrow are obviously well connected, or else NASDAQ would have delisted the SCOX long ago and the SEC would have swooped in to clean house.

If they can't get Bush/Cheney et. al for torching Plame, what hope is there to get justice in this "piddling" technology case? Really, the outing of a CIA agent's name, Libby's pardon, and no impeachment may be off topic for this thread, but it speaks volumes about the state of justice in the US today. Can you say, "disillusioned," boys and girls?

Re:Beyond bankruptcy? (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500541)

Complaining they didn't get "Bush/Cheney et. al for torching Plame" is like complaining they didn't get Hillary Clinton for Vince Foster's murder. Richard Armitage is the guy who told Novak Plame's name, he had no axe to grind, and he was unaware that Plame was undercover. The real scandal is that Fitzgerald knew all that on day one, and still wasted people's time and money on an investigation.

Microsoft vs. Microsoft? (2, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498519)

Didn't Microsoft pay for SCO to do sue IBM? And didn't Microsoft make a deal with Novell? So in some sense, Microsoft is battling itself! And only one will prevail... Microsoft!

Microsoft will buy SCO (2, Interesting)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498589)

I've said it for months now, and I'll wildly guess again:
1. SCO will owe Novell a bunch of money (money that it doesn't have)
2. Microsoft will purchase the remaining 'assets' from SCO. It doesn't really matter if they pay $1 or $1Million
3. Microsoft will do so to get closer to the following goals:
3a. MS now has a hand in the Linux game (possible bump in their stock)
3b. MS can now renegotiate/strengthen their position with Novell
3c. MS can now possibly resurrect the lawsuit or dredge up other scary FUD-alicious items out of what they get (remember it's the appearance of a problem, not an actual problem that makes corporate lawyers CIOs think twice about going open source)
3d. MS pisses off some open source zealots that already hated them (meh)
4. ???
5. Profit!

Re:Microsoft will buy SCO (2, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498637)

but certain Unix rights revert back to Novell since SCO broke contract. it'll continue to be a grand mess, that's for sure

Ain't gonna happen. (4, Interesting)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498951)

Microsoft wouldn't touch SCO with a pole, regardless of length. First of all, it's SCO's creditor committee -- soon to be headed by Novell -- which gets to determine what happens with SCO's assets. Secondly, SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. Kimball's decision made it perfectly clear that SCO's rights could not be used the way SCO was attempting to use them. Finally, Microsoft tries to leave the impression that any FUD is not coming from them, preferring to fund a cat's paw like SCO to do their dirty work. It would be far more likely for Microsoft to fund a patent troll to attempt to pull off an "emergency" purchase of assets from the bankruptcy.

Oh, wait . . .

Re:Ain't gonna happen. (1)

LPrecure (835868) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499337)

Agreed. What MS bought when they bought those "licenses" was a sock puppet. Something that can walk into court, or before the press, and squeak a lot, but who's immune to the consequences of it's actions because of it's complete disposability.

Frankly, if I were IBM or Novell, I'd LOVE for MS to buy that company, because then those things like the Lanham act actually have the potential of putting Bill Gates in jail.

Re:Ain't gonna happen. (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500013)

Microsoft funneled money beyond the licenses to SCO. This whole affair was beneath the dignity of a professional company. Getting in bed with a company like SCO...what does that say about MS?

If Microsoft put the effort into providing value to their customers that they put in trying to undermine competitors they wouldn't need to worry about their market.

Pathetic.

Re:Microsoft will buy SCO (4, Interesting)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499261)

No one will buy SCO, because there will be nothing left to buy. SCO will end up owing Novell more than they are worth, and since it's Novells money that was supposed to be a pass-thru, i.e., never SCO's to begin with, they cannot bring it into the bankruptcy to pay other creditors.

Novell will end up taking the remains of SCO in payment, including getting Unix back (the rights to sell it, since they already own the IP). They may even end up open-sourcing Unix just to forever lay such claims to rest. After all, Unix now has no real value, as recent (lack of) sales indicate.

Since this is in Bankruptcy Court, the Bankruptcy Judge will determine if SCO has enough cause to justify spending someone else's (Novell's) money (which, when put in a Trust pending appeals, would kill SCO by itself) to spend on lawyers for an appeal. Since by this time SCO will have no operating capital, and no future, the Judge will say no, hand the remaining assets to Novell and tell everyone else, "Sorry, there's nothing left for you!"

Constructive trust? though (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499767)

It's not clear that the bankruptcy judge is going to allow a constructive trust to be imposed.

OTOH, since SCOx can no longer dispose of it's assets without approval by the bankruptcy court, a constructive trust may be less needed...perhaps.

Re:Constructive trust? though (2, Interesting)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500523)

No, the reason for the Constructive Trust is so that SCO won't "convert", or use for their own purposes, the money owed to Novell. Although the Bankruptcy Judge doesn't allow Kimball to impose one, and reserves that right to himself, the law requires that money NOT belonging to the bankrupt company be separated and given to whom it belongs BEFORE the rest of the funds are divided up. Since there won't be any other funds left by that time, there will be no bankruptcy. Or rather, no division or remaining assets, it SCO is being truthful about liabilities vs assets.

In other words, if I have 50K (cash) of the 100K I stole from you, and declare bankruptcy with 75K of total assets and 200K of debts, You get your money first, and my creditors get nothing. Anything else and YOU end up paying for my bankruptcy, not fair at all.

Can Darl find work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498835)

I often wonder if Darl would be able to find work again after this little drama winds down. The optimist in me says no. Unless they want the same thing to happen to their company. But I have this feeling that somehow someone like this always finds a place.......

Re:Can Darl find work? (2, Insightful)

HexaByte (817350) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499465)

Are you kidding? There's always a lot of big corporations that want someone who can lie with a straight face! Too bad Enron is already under, they would have LOVED him!

Now I get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498891)

"Stay Lifted." I was wondering what that meant. For a minute I thought it meant, "Remain Intoxicated."

This is beneficial for SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498937)

8 Lifting the stay may also benefit Debtors who have made it clear that they will appeal the District Court's decision. Until the Lawsuit can proceed to final judgment, the adverse ruling is a "Sword of Damocles" over Debtors.


It warms my heart to see the care that Judge Gross has for SCO. Lifting the stay was to SCO's benefit. Judge Gross said so. In fact, he has said the same thing in other circumstances like, for instance, when he made it clear that he had no intention of letting the sale to York proceed.

Of course, Judge Gross doesn't think SCO's present management are acting in the corporation's best interests. If they were, they wouldn't be in his court would they?

The fat lady sings (1)

earthforce_1 (454968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21498943)

Finally, it looks like SCO has played and lost its final hand. They can delay no more, and Judge Kimball is going to burn them to a cinder. They aren't just toast, they are carbon.

Good. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21498961)

It's like a horny 800 lb gorilla being doped up with aphrodisiacs being let loose to rape a guy with broken legs forced to wear a gorilla suit.

this is going to be entertaining.

the irony is McBride looks like he's one generation away from being a gorilla.

Employment at SCO (5, Interesting)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499021)

Oddly enough, they are looking for .NET programmers here [sco.com] . Also note that their development is in New Delhi. Perhaps the Indians don't realize the type of company they are working for?

Damn it... (0, Offtopic)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499815)

Pamela Jones turns me on but I can't find her picture anywhere on the net, post if you have one please ! ;-)

Re:Damn it... (1)

operato (782224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21499925)

there's probably a reason why there's no pic...

Re:Damn it... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500041)

Hehe... I know, apparently, some even ask if Pamela is a boy or a girl. [informationweek.com] I am thinking of setting up a web page with, say, ten pictures where people can vote on what they think Pamela looks like. Could be funny... I just found out now that PJ was a kind of anonymous way to publish stuff. Apparently she gives interviews. [linux.org] although !
Cheers,

Re:Damn it... (1)

operato (782224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500095)

perhaps it's a name of someone's right hand. you never know lol.

Darl (2, Funny)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500307)

How tough are you now, Darl? You thought you could play the lawsuit lottery against anyone who's ever said the word "Linux" but guess what? Linus has more resources at his disposal than even the Borg up in Regmond. So do the dozens of international corporations and governments that are using, developing, or otherwise supporting Linux. Not to mention that all your lawsuit succeeded in doing was generating lots and lots of press for Linux. And as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. So I guess there's only one thing left to say: Nanny nanny boo boo!

Stay lifted. Waaaay ahead of you (1)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500381)

Am I the only one who read "stay lifted" and immediately took a bong rip?

This may be unfair to SCO's other creditors! (1)

anwyn (266338) | more than 6 years ago | (#21500429)

The payments that Microsoft and Sun paid to SCO were nominally license fees, but actually were covert payments to fund SCOs lawsuits. By the terms of the SCO Novell deal license fees all belong to Novell and were never SCO's property. Judge Kimball has ruled that SCO converted (the civil word for stole) these fees.

Thus when Judge Kimball decides how much of the fees were for SVRX, that amount will be Novell's property that SCO never had title to.

So Novell will get priority for that amount over all other creditors for that amount.

But it is all based on a lie! The lie that the payments were for license fees!

In the action in Judge Kimball's court, no party has motivation to tell the truth about these fees. Novell does not want to say that the payments were not really license fees, because Novell wants that money. SCO can not tell the truth about those payments, because it would expose SCO executives to Lanham act charges. Thus, no party has motivation to tell the truth about those payments! The people that will be hurt by the judgment that the fees are not license fees (the other creditors) are not parties to the suit and hence have no right to speak!

Once the legal system gets to IBM's case (if it ever gets there), IBM may find itself in this category. But IBM is not interested in the money per-se, it wants to kick the $^&* out of SCO so that no one else ever wants to try to extort IBM again. Since Novell is helping kick the @#$% out of SCO, IBM is probably happy!

But what about SCO's other creditors? What about the poor programmers that work for SCO? What about the electric company for that matter? What about SCO's non-management witnesses? These people should not be punished for Microsoft and SCO's lie!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?