Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SCO Preps Appeals Against Novell and IBM

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the harder-to-kill-that-the-tarrasque dept.

Linux Business 163

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like SCO will be emerging from the almost dead soon, with new owners and $100 million on board. SNCP is adjusting the business strategy, according to this report on TG Daily, SCO is saying goodbye to CEO Darl McBride and is also preparing to appeal the summary judgments in the cases against Novell and IBM. If you have thought the chapter was closed, think again. Those $100 million can go a long way (even if SCO has to pay 17% interest on it)."

cancel ×

163 comments

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

Now that's a deal. (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659452)

Use your bail-out money to dig the hole deeper.

Don't forget... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22659744)

to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!

Re:Now that's a deal. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22659950)

Damn, SCO is like a villain in a horror movie where you can never kill them. Maybe a wooden stake through the heart or silver bullet will do the trick?

Re:Now that's a deal. (5, Insightful)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660274)

Exactly. How much longer can this go on?
We've determined that:
  1. They never ponied up the code that supposedly infringed, strongly suggesting that it doesn't exist.
  2. They didn't even have the right to the copyrights of the Unix code they claimed Linux infringed upon.
  3. They (probably fraudulently) collected license money for "protection" against the non-existent claims in #1 on the inelligible code in #2.
  4. They did it all while making themselves rich and the stockholders poor through pump-and-dump.
Shouldn't people like this be in jail?

Re:Now that's a deal. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660602)

How much longer can this go on?

Indefinitely... It is a wonderful mockery

Re:Now that's a deal. (0)

livewire98801 (916940) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660780)

This could be a little more involved class of embezzlement. If Novell ends up owning the tattered remains of SCO, wouldn't Novell end up being liable for debts SCO is responsible for? Including the ones to SNCP?

It's about five hours before I have to get ready for work, so I'm not real clear, but it sounds fesable to me. $100m would be enough for key people to bail out with some cash and leave the sinking ship to IBM and Novell since there is obviously no cash left in the beast to pay a settlement or judgment with. Then SNCP comes in and starts collecting payments from IBM and/or Novell.

[shrug] Obvously they are better scammers than I am, but it sounds fun anyway :)

What the hell? (1, Interesting)

ctishman (545856) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659474)

Who keeps giving/lending these clowns money?

The Wizard of Oz (5, Insightful)

killmenow (184444) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659570)

Who keeps giving/lending these clowns money?

Pay no attention to the largest proprietary software company in the world behind the curtain.

Re:What the hell? (4, Funny)

Smackheid (1217632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659594)

Who keeps giving/lending these clowns money?

Wouldn't it be more correct to call them zombies at this point? Vampires? The undead?

Something like that.

Re:What the hell? (5, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659914)

Undead clown lawyers... I'm not gonna be able to sleep tonight.

Re:What the hell? (5, Informative)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659788)

Serious answer: Apparently this is Saudi money.
However the jury is still out on weather this is another Microsoft thing like BayStar
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Whats-Behind-the-SCO-Buyout/ [eweek.com] SJVN's oppinion incase you are interested

Re:What the hell? (3, Insightful)

Thyrteen (1084963) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660132)

Yeah, but notice the bottom line. They're only giving SCO 5 million. The other 95 million is available to SCO as a loan, but not actually given. I thought the blurb was a little misleading.

Re:What the hell? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660518)

It could be legit. The company only cost them $5m and they are loaning SCO $100m at 17% on which they will make sure SCO makes minimum payments for as long as the SCO roller coaster can be run. They may figure they can float SCO long enough to make a profit before it sinks.

Re:What the hell? (3, Interesting)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660754)

This seems like the most sensible way of funding them to me, I'm not an expert on these matters at all but it seems to me that by loaning SCO the money as and when they request it they have ensured that when SCO loses ( first of all to Novell ) in court and has to pay massive damages the only money Novell will be able to claim is that 1st 5 Million because SCO would not then request any more loan money.

Re:What the hell? (1)

marafa (745042) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661186)

i m sorry but where does it say saudi in the article? it says arabian

Re:What the hell? (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661304)

There's something missing from that link.

It said "click here to skip, or wait 6..5..4..3 seconds". Fair enough. er. shouldn't there be an advert?

Or some wag has just decided to waste my time for the hell of it.

Dear Novel and IBM (5, Funny)

Strange Ranger (454494) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659482)

It looks like SCO will be emerging from the almost dead soon, with new owners and ... is also preparing to appeal the summary judgments in the cases against Novell and IBM.

This time please use holy water and lawyers made of silver.

Re:Dear Novel and IBM (3, Informative)

frostband (970712) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659966)

These aren't your typical undead.

They are SCOmbies and their weaknesses are still unknown (their mortal weaknesses that is--I think plenty is known about their legal weaknesses).

Re:Dear Novel and IBM (4, Funny)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660120)

The logistics problem with that is lawyers can't survive exposure to the holy water either.

Re:Dear Novel and IBM (3, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660598)

So what you're saying is, with one well placed spray of holy water, they have the ability to mow down SCO and a pack of (their own) lawyers at the same time? And this is bad how?

Re:Dear Novel and IBM (3, Funny)

number11 (129686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660728)

with one well placed spray of holy water, they have the ability to mow down SCO and a pack of (their own) lawyers at the same time? And this is bad how?

The problem is, we're dealing with technology. Holy water has salt in it (I suppose to keep it from getting moldy or something). Salt water is corrosive. Spray salt water over your keyboards and servers and stuff, and bad things happen.

I know, I had a client who did that. But at least when it was all over, the gear wasn't possessed any more.

I don't think that will be enough for SCO.

Re:Dear Novel and IBM (5, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660860)

But at least when it was all over, the gear wasn't possessed any more.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to uninstall Windows?

Re:Dear Novel and IBM (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661346)

This time please use holy water and lawyers made of silver.

They'd tarnish too quickly :)
Maybe instead all the lawyers opposing SCO should change their last name to "Summers".

Doesn't the sale have to be approved first? (5, Informative)

MintMMs (909563) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659492)

Doesn't the bankruptcy trustee have to approve the sale first? The article sounds like this is already a done deal.. Dang, I need to start reading Groklaw again.

Re:Doesn't the sale have to be approved first? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660234)

Dang, I need to start reading Groklaw again.

No kidding. And here we all thought PJ was going to have to start looking for a new job soon.

Re:Doesn't the sale have to be approved first? (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661242)

Seems to me that about half of the articles on Groklaw are now about things other than SCO. Groklaw has already been moving into other areas, typically ones under threat from Monkey Boy and The Thugs (new hit boy band), but not always. Groklaw will be around for a long time.

Gerry

Re:Doesn't the sale have to be approved first? (4, Funny)

Captain Nitpick (16515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661244)

No kidding. And here we all thought PJ was going to have to start looking for a new job soon.

Obviously PJ arranged the new funding so Groklaw could continue operating.

I seriously doubt they will appeal to anyone (1)

Crashmarik (635988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659504)

But who knows stranger things have happened. Do they still have the money to bribe a judge ?

The lost cause (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22659506)

Never attribute to conspiracy what you can ascribe to stupidity.

Why? I just wanna know why? (3, Funny)

gmac63 (12603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659520)

This is like a bad Ed Wood movie. "Plan 10 from SCO"

Re:Why? I just wanna know why? (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659662)

I think it's Plan 11 from Outer SCO.

Re:Why? I just wanna know why? (2, Funny)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660508)

Plan 10 ... Yeah, cause Plan 9 from SCO would certainly suck much more than the real deal [bell-labs.com] .

Re:Why? I just wanna know why? (2, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660700)

Careful. They will be claiming that plan 9 [wikipedia.org] infringes their copyright in hundreds of unspecified places.

Bad summary (5, Informative)

schon (31600) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659530)

They won't be emerging from the almost dead, and they won't have $100M, and it's not 17%

They're still almost dead - this deal doesn't change anything about the fact that they owe a ton of cash to Novell, and will soon owe more to IBM.

The $100M is really $5M, plus a LOAN of *up to* $100M.

And the loan's interest rate is 17% plus prime (so closer to 21%.)

This is like you claiming that MBNA invested $50,000 in you when you signed up for a new credit card.

I can live with that (5, Insightful)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659750)

Using this 21% loan to file appeals is a lot like using your credit card to buy lottery tickets.

They're that desperate, and I can live with that.

Re:I can live with that (5, Funny)

jk379 (734476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659848)

At least with a lottery ticket you have some odds of winning...

Re:I can live with that (2, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660300)

Heay, there's always the possibility that the judge will get a brain tumor and rule in favor of SCO before running off to New York City to take up naked mime breakdancing.

Investor Brochure:
Invest in SCO, a New Businessplan for the New Economy.
Give us money and we'll make all your dreams come true.

-

Re:I can live with that (2, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660338)

using your credit card to buy lottery tickets

Remember kids, never commit suicide....

until after you've maxed out your credit cards and triple checked all your lottery ticket results.

-

Re:I can live with that (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660430)

a lot like using your credit card to buy lottery tickets.

Dammit, there goes my retirement plan.

Re:I can live with that (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661362)

Using this 21% loan to file appeals is a lot like using your credit card to buy lottery tickets.

Can you have a credit card if you are bankrupt?

Inaccurate subject (5, Informative)

EssenceLumin (755374) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659540)

First of all this is at least a few weeks old. Check Groklaw. Second they are not giving SCO $100 mil outright. They are giving $5 mil with an option to loan another $95 mil over 5 years.

Re:Inaccurate subject (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659800)

First of all this is at least a few weeks old. Check Groklaw. Second they are not giving SCO $100 mil outright. They are giving $5 mil with an option to loan another $95 mil over 5 years.

... and they're even backtracking on the whole deal now, saying it depends on due diligence, etc ...

It's YASPS - "Yet Another Stock Pump Scheme". Darl, contrary to his public protests, is VERY happy to be getting out/cashing out.

Re:Inaccurate subject (2, Interesting)

YaroMan86 (1180585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659908)

Sure is. I couldn't imagine a more ideal time:

1. Take control of a second-rate UNIX distributor 2. Squander all the products that were being made to the point there is no actual product development taking place. 3. Hire your lawyer brother and go after giant technology companies *and* customer companies simultaneously for copyrights you *know* you don't have. 4. Tie up the court system for more than five years. 5. Go bankrupt. 6. Get bought out. 7. ??? 8. Profit!!!

Step seven might multiply into numerous more steps for Darl. Only an idiot would stick around after nearly killing a company and letting it get bailed out of a shithole he dug it into. Joking aside, for me, I only see up as a direction for SCO with a moron like Darl out of the picture. With the UNIX copyright clearly not in their hands, I don't see any way they can make much more out of the FUD they've been doing. So yeah, Darl has made an ass of himself in the industry, but I doubt he's anywhere near penniless because of it.

Well (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659544)

Enron tried this I think, don't really know if they do much anymore though.

Re:Well (3, Informative)

DaveAtFraud (460127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660086)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EOG [yahoo.com]

Read the business summary and note the previous name. Bankruptcy, especially Chapter 11, doesn't mean a company disappears. If there are parts of the company that are viable, a reorganization means these parts get a new lease on life.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660928)

If there are parts of the company that are viable, a reorganization means these parts get a new lease on life.

But in this case, there are no legitimate viable parts of the business. Suing your customers is NOT a viable business, and suing your suppliers for owning stuff you stole from them isn't either.

poetic justice (5, Insightful)

peektwice (726616) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659550)

In a way, it's kind of poetic that these trolls are going to get raped by a loan shark (SNCP) at 17% interest. 95 million times 17% times 5 years is 80.75 million dollars, not compounded. That's an ass raping if I ever heard of it. Plus, they're going to have to pay 37 million to Novell, if they lose their appeal. It feels like something much deeper and more sinister is going on here, and it stinks. I just can't put my finger on it yet.

Re:poetic justice (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22659820)

It feels like something much deeper and more sinister is going on here, and it stinks. I just can't put my finger on it yet.

1. The U.S. legal system lets you fuck around if you have enough cash.

2. Microsoft has enough cash.

Re:poetic justice (4, Interesting)

clem.dickey (102292) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659878)

Don't forget that the loan shark gets a controlling interest in the company. What are the chances the shark (acting as SCO) is going to ask itself (SNCP) for millions of dollars to pay a judgment to Novell? If/when that happens, the shark needs to ask itself whether its worth the risk, even at 21%. It only makes sense if SNCP really believes that SCO can get the Novell judgment reversed on appeal and win some money from IBM. That could be a big, risky bet.

The deal appears to be that SNCP is committed to loaning SCO $95 million, but only once. If the SNCP loans SCO $95 million on Monday and SCO repays the loan on Tuesday, it appears that the commitment has been fulfilled.

Re:poetic justice (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660556)

What are the chances that SNCP is running a distinct risk of being considered to be embezzlers. Especially since SCO has no income and that interest they expect to return a profit over the principle and the $5m buyin is coming directly out of the other shareholder pockets.

Re:poetic justice (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660884)

The deal appears to be that SNCP is committed to loaning SCO $95 million, but only once. If the SNCP loans SCO $95 million on Monday and SCO repays the loan on Tuesday, it appears that the commitment has been fulfilled.

Hmm...
If SCO has the $95 million in its bank account, even for just one day, which debt must be paid first? In other words, would they maybe have to pay Novell first?

I think there are a lot of open questions here, and even an experienced lawyer might find it difficult to predict the outcome.

Re:poetic justice (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659918)

I think the deeper and sinister bit is that Darl created a corporate train wreck and funneled a lot of the legal fees directly to his brother. IMHO that was the plan all along - IBM was the wall to audaciously run into and linux was the excuse, and whatever cash fell off SCO was the goal. I think it's worth paying attention to where he goes next and what happens there. To some people he would look like the underdog that got the share price up, took on IBM and he would have beat them too if it wasn't for those darn educated communist geeks and their penguin. He'll have an opportunity for a bigger scam next time.

Re:poetic justice (2, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660486)

Ok Tux, you lead the way into SCO headquarters while I look for clues in this refrigerator!
Ruh-uh, Reejay! Roo rarey!
Not even for a Tuxsnack?
Roh-ray!

-

Re:poetic justice (2, Insightful)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660750)

I'd find it more "poetic" if McBride served some prison time.

Scorched earth (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660806)

Basically, after the loan shark and their lawyers are done, they are going to be so far in debt that Novell will never see a dime. That might in fact be their strategy.

100% PURE AFRICAN NIGGER (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22659568)

eye yam that eye yam and thats all that eye yam

PJ must be relieved... (1)

mr_majestyk (671595) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659624)

...as long as SCO has a pulse, Groklaw has a reason to exist.

Re:PJ must be relieved... (4, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659694)

Actually, Groklaw [groklaw.com] has begun to deal with other cases of dubious IP claims and attacks on free software, open standards, and so forth, so it will still have a reason for existence once SCO is kaput. The current top article, for example, is about the ISO BRM on OOXML.

Re:PJ must be relieved... (4, Interesting)

TropicalCoder (898500) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661338)

The current top article, for example, is about the ISO BRM on OOXML.

I am really amazed that Slashdot hasn't picked up this story yet. I mean, I just can't believe it! This is the story of the week. This is a huge thing, as those who have been following it are well aware. The process at the BRM was so flawed as to bring into serious question the integrity of the ISO/IEC JTC-1. I won't add to the tens of thousands of lines of text that have been written about it here, in fear of being ruled off-topic. I only want to question why this hasn't been aired on Slashdot.

Beginning on Friday, I was scanning the news anxiously to see how the BRM went, and shortly the first reports began to emerge. By Monday, the first report from an actual BRM participant [robweir.com] came out. By Tuesday, the available information was growing exponentially. I was following all this on Groklaw, and kept flipping back and forth from Groklaw to Slashdot to see if they had picked it up yet. When a second blog by Andy Updegrove [consortiuminfo.org] became a resource of links to every report by BRM participants, I could wait no longer. I wanted to see how this story was viewed by my fellow Slashdotters, naturally. I was so concerned that this still hadn't reached Slashdot that I reluctantly submitted the story myself. Then I started backtracking on the Firehose and discovered that there had already been 6 submissions at that point, and that was on Monday. I'll bet there have been dozens by now, besides thousands of people people clicking on those "Submit to Slashdot buttons all over the place". I just can't imagine why the editors haven't put this important story in front of Slashdot readers yet.

Please forgive me for interrupting the current story. I just had to get this off my chest.

SCO doesn't have anything yet (5, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659628)

They don't have squat until the BK court approves it. Even then they only get 5 million and 95 million in flash cash. If the trustee tells them to put the money in escrow against potential judgments from IBM and Novell, that will flush this deal. This is all show but I haven't figured out who the audience is supposed to be. The BK court isn't going to be impressed.

I'm not sure what they're going to appeal. SCO dug themselves a really deep hole, an appeal is a long shot.

No one with a brain would loan SCO a nickel. It would take a cash cow like Microsoft to convince anyone to get in bed with SCO. Maybe that answers who the audience is supposed to be. Like there are serious players who think SCO's IP claims have merit. Ooooo, scary. If that's the case this is to business strategy what the Zune is to Apple.

Re:SCO doesn't have anything yet (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660172)

Like there are serious players who think SCO's IP claims have merit.
Maureen O'Gara?

Re:SCO doesn't have anything yet (1)

JLF65 (888379) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660702)

The BK court isn't going to be impressed.
Burger King has a court? ;) :)

Re:SCO doesn't have anything yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22661486)

Hmm. BK court? The BitKeeper guy Larry McVoy is behind this? That kind of makes sense. He takes his toys away, Linus goes off and writes a better SCM, he gets angry and funds SCO to sue Linux back. I didn't know he had that much money on hand. Will wonders never cease?

Not so fast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22659668)

First the offer is 10 million and then loans for the rest. The other thing is that the bankruptcy judge has to approve the deal. Creditors can object. So could stock holders.

Darl could learn from the Monkey Dancer (3, Insightful)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659680)

Why in the world would someone take $100 Million perfectly good dollars and just throw them into this worthless money pit? Incidentally, if you write SCO as $C0, and then move the C to the front, you've got, "See? $0." And it seems to me that's what everyone ends up with who touches this thing with a 100 million foot pole! Who in the heck wants SCO's OS anymore? You know what? Even if they do want it, does anybody really want software from a company that might disappear at any moment due to all this litigation drying up it's well of money? Where will they get support?

Especially, why would they do this when Linux and the *BSDs are so far superior at this point due to the efforts of millions and the incredible amount of support, mindshare, and money behind them from individuals, small businesses, large businesses, and even governments. Not to mention that all modern Apple Macs are running a UNIX operating system that can accomplish all, or at least nearly all, of the functions that can be accomplished by any other UNIX or UNIX-like system out there. Not to mention further that all of the aforementioned OSes are superior in an uncountable number of ways to SCO's OS. Not to mention that the entire code to Linux and the *BSDs is available for your perusal or participation, as with a tremendous variety of programs that are run on these systems, from Apache to something that starts with a Z. Why would anybody pay good money to SCO for it's stuff when SCO is acting like the bully at the playground and when all of this is available for free, both libre and if you want to download and build stuff yourself, gratis...

In my opinion, SCO is no longer a software company, but a litigation company.

Re:Darl could learn from the Monkey Dancer (2, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660618)

In my opinion, SCO is no longer a software company, but a litigation company.

They have been for years. Did you just now notice this? Or are you stating this for the benefit of the few people who don't know? (Obviously, that would include some fairly wealthy people... or people with ulterior motives.)

Re:Darl could learn from the Monkey Dancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660896)

Incidentally, if you write SCO as $C0, and then move the C to the front, you've got, "See? $0."

Mm.. I See Reserve Of $0. Fuck This

Penny Arcade (4, Funny)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659728)

I think this [penny-arcade.com] comic applies here too...

money doesn't cure everything (2, Interesting)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659754)

Even a large infusion of cash is unlikely to do SCO any good. They have no income to speak of and no product likely to generate any. Their lawsuits have no chance of succeeding given the ruling that they never acquired the Unix copyrights from Novell. Even in the extremely unlikely event that this is overturned on appeal, they still have to prove infringement of their copyrights, which, with discovery complete, they have still been unable to do, and they have to overcome the problem that they themselves distributed Linux under the GPL, which is a huge problem for them. Finally, no matter what happens, they are going to have to pay millions to Novell since they failed to pass on to Novell the income from their franchise to sell Novell's Unix property, for which they (SCO) were merely to receive a 5% fee. Money will pay the lawyers a little bit longer, but it isn't likely the lawyers can postpone the end very much.

Re:money doesn't cure everything (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660578)

This won't win their case. This is nothing more or less than SNCP attempting to float SCO long enough to embezzle a profit from the other shareholders with a loan. Of course the other shareholders have no say in the matter since SNCP now has a controlling interest. In other words, its simple fraud.

Even if they have no income, as long as they sell stock they have cash flow and you can bet that case flow will go back into paying the 21% interest and minimum payment on whatever SNCP loans them. I'm sure they've projected the numbers and determined that at the rate they loan versus the incoming cash flow they will turn a tidy profit before the ship sinks. I bet they even have a projected date to stop loaning. Hell, it might even work out that $95m is what they have determined it will take to float the company long enough to embezzle the most out of it.

Re:money doesn't cure everything (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660670)

What makes you think SCO can sell stock? Nobody will buy it other than kooks or anti-Linux folks willing to pay to harass Linux. SCO has already been delisted! And what assets do you think they have? Nothing much. I don't think there's anything worth stripping.

Re:money doesn't cure everything (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22661560)

I bet their offices have some lovely throwable chairs which Microsoft might be interesting in purchasing

Not over yet (1)

RockMFR (1022315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659808)

Everyone knows that the final boss is supposed to have three forms. We're not even halfway through the battle yet.

Personally, I'm expecting some sort of cyborg octopus as SCO's final form. 9999 HP? You better believe it.

Put SCO down (4, Interesting)

TopSpin (753) | more than 6 years ago | (#22659836)

SCO is a penny stock now. Somewhere between $0.17 and $0.20 [pinksheets.com] a share. Market cap is $4.3 million.

How many of you would contribute $50 to take a controlling interest in this festering pimple of an "IP" company? If the next ~80,000 /. regulars that read this were willing the company could be taken over and put down, permanently.

Create a non-profit (name it SLASHX, perhaps) or some other legal entity, raise funds and buy shares. The percent of ownership remaining appears on a sidebar with a link to some collection agency. Make Stallman or some other credible figure chairman and just keep buying shares till "we" hold 51%.

I'm no financial guru. Perhaps the idea is naive. However, you can damn well bet I'd contribute.

Re:Put SCO down (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660064)

You do know that large share-purchases pushes the value of the shares up right ? The moment anybody tries your plan - lots of people will want to have a ride-along and they will buy more - and the price will skyrocket (for a while anyway).

The current execs will sell just before/as it peaks and cash in nicely while leaving us with a worthless company.

Yep, sounds like a great business plan to me. How about when we're done, we use the company's remaining cash and "invest" it in high-stakes roulette ?

We have the technology (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660802)

Thats what would happen if every individual made their purchases independantly but what would happen if you kept the money from each individual purchase in a safe place and didn't buy any shares until there was enough cash to buy your 51% all at once ?

Re:We have the technology (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661568)

You couldn't because

(a) The directors will own 51% as insurance against this anyway,
(b) the remainder of the shares will be split between maybe thousands of investors and you can't buy them all at once
(c) Because of (b) it will take long enough to be recognised as a hostile takeover attempt, and people will stop selling to you.

Re:Put SCO down (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660074)

You're right - your idea is naive. As soon as people start buying the stock, the price will go up.

Re:Put SCO down (4, Interesting)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660198)

IBM could have bought them out at a couple of points cheap--when they started this lawsuit they weren't trading for that much more than they are now. They didn't because it's more important to make an example of these idiots, and therefore to the larger group of potential future intellectual property trolls, as to what happens when you mess with companies because you think using Linux makes them vulnerable. No one should even consider spending a penny to buy them out, they need to die the hard way to make that lesson stick.

Also, it's quite possible Novell will own them anyway before this has finished playing out, because of the $37M SCO owes them. This shell game with loans won't necessarily change that. While they're posturing hard now, I have my doubts as to whether these "angels" will really cough up all that money when the courts force the company to do that.

Re:Put SCO down (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661384)

IBM could have bought them out at a couple of points cheap--when they started this lawsuit they weren't trading for that much more than they are now. They didn't because it's more important to make an example of these idiots, and therefore to the larger group of potential future intellectual property trolls,

Most likely too SCO never had any assets worth anything to IBM. Thus IBM shareholders would not approve IBM buying SCO.

Re:Put SCO down (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661444)

you know that might be the whole plan with this $95 million loan at 21%. Make the company so toxic Novel won't demand it for payment, else take on this massive debt.

Re:Put SCO down (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661502)

You mean if I borrow money from A to pay a debt to B, then B owes all that money back to A and I'm off the hook? Cool!!

Re:Put SCO down (2, Interesting)

lysse (516445) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661572)

In fact, as I understand it it's not so much "SCO owes Novell $37m", more "SCO is holding Novell's $37m hostage".

Re:Put SCO down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660388)

Eh, why waste 50 bucks? Just give it a year or two and it'll keel over on its own.

Re:Put SCO down (4, Informative)

neurojab (15737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660442)

How many of you would contribute $50 to take a controlling interest in this festering pimple of an "IP" company? If the next ~80,000 /. regulars that read this were willing the company could be taken over and put down, permanently.

It's too late for that. SCO is in bankruptcy court, in chapter 11 proceedings. This means that the current stockholders have effectively no say in what goes on at this point. It's up to the SCO to come up with a reorganization plan that will allow it to continue to operate. Generally a reorganization plan includes cancelling any and all common stock, as does theirs "On the Effective Date, the existing common stock and common stock equivalents of SCO Group shall be cancelled and extinguished." Anyone buying the stock now is hoping for a miracle and that SCO will somehow continue to operate without completing chapter 11 reorganization.

In summary, doing this would neither give you control of the company now, nor when they exit chapter 11. ... not a financial expert either, but did own WCOM stock :)

Re:Put SCO down (1)

SEE (7681) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660648)

Yeah. The only reason to buy shares of SCO now is if you want SCO stock certificates to ritually burn, use as toilet paper, or the like.

Re:Put SCO down (1)

daffmeister (602502) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661426)

Why buy it and put it down, when they are quite comfortably burying themselves?

Sure, this is taking more time, but each defeat is another reminder that their original case had no merit. That's a good thing for the world to know.

Re:Put SCO down (3, Interesting)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661496)

Guess I'll answer this question again: it can't be done. The value of the common stock has nothing to do with how much it will cost to take over the company since they have had a so called "poison pill"-plan in place for years exactly for that reason. It's all in the hands of the board of directors. If you take a look at their 10-K you'll see the following under "Risk Factors"):

We have adopted a stockholder rights plan. The power given to the Board of Directors by the stockholder rights plan may make it more difficult for a change of control of our company to occur or for our company to be acquired if the acquisition is opposed by our Board of Directors.
And the following from the 10-K clearly illustrates exactly how little control the common stock owners have over the company:

Our Board of Directors currently has the right, with respect to the 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock, to authorize the issuance of one or more additional series of our preferred stock with such voting, dividend and other rights as our directors determine. The Board of Directors can designate new series of preferred stock without the approval of the holders of our common stock. The rights of holders of our common stock may be adversely affected by the rights of any holders of additional shares of preferred stock that may be issued in the future, including without limitation, further dilution of the equity ownership percentage of our holders of common stock and their voting power if we issue preferred stock with voting rights. Additionally, the issuance of preferred stock could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock.
Bold is my added emphasis.
So as soon as anyone acquires anywhere close to enough stock to make a voting difference the board of directors will just issue more voting stock which they will control. Source:http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0000891020-07-000020&Type=HTML [edgar-online.com]

I am so tired of hearing about SCO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660018)

Man, I am so tired about hearing about SCO, if I ever meet the CEO of SCO, I'm going to stab him in the face (using my words), for flooding Slashdot with boring news.

Any takers? Silly old money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660028)

Since the future is zero moving parts... (M$-partnership) The effort of defense gets sucked down by 'sheltered' money. Want to talk about killing off American businesses? And the lawyers get fatter after taking the food from our childrens mouths... (Does Hillary ever come off to you as a special needs village idiot to you?). Is this the globalism 'dream' we've all been promised. LOL.

They could or probably resolved you at least three miles away. And you may have walked through 3 scrimmage lines, untouched (2 guys had to move out of your way or you would have run right into them). Peace bro... no tazing required...
Yes, but it was meant for a seige (cold war remember?). Not cool shit to say out loud (especially if you work in one).

Come on people, a little growing up is in order.

Won't stick (4, Interesting)

Frantactical Fruke (226841) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660048)

I had the impression that in both cases the judges have been extremely scrupulous in framing their judgments to rule out successful appeals. It's not as if SCO had any facts to present for consideration, let alone new ones. Appeals to clearly shut cases get dismissed, right?

Stephen Norris Capital Partners (SNCP) (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660108)

I wonder if there's any way to find out who else this firm has invested in? I'd like to contact those companies and explain that I'm boycotting them and their products out of spite.

Re:Stephen Norris Capital Partners (SNCP) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22660158)

Ooooh! Nice! Modded down!

Who would have guessed there are private equity firm shills with modpoints on /.

Will they even get an appeal (5, Informative)

dmgxmichael (1219692) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660154)

I don't care how slick the lawyer is, SCO had a summary judgment against them. Provided the judge in the case dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's those things are damn near impossible to successfully appeal. I'd put the odds against successful appeal at 20 to 1. More likely than not the appeals court will simply say, 'No' and that will be the final whimper of SCO.

The only thing SCO needs to prep (2, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660180)

is a death will.

I... (1)

Wienaren (714122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660226)

I want to be SCO's attorney. These 100M are mine, mine, mine. All of them. 'nuff said.

who cares yet? this is not factual. (5, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 6 years ago | (#22660310)

Just a FYI, this deal has not been approved. So all this "SCO is going to be saved" stuff, has no factual basis whatsoever. Bankruptcy court would have to approve of it, and that is not likely at all. So the slashdot article here = incorrect.

What about Darl? (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661176)

Darl just walks away?

Appeal != win (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661404)

If I were NOVELL and IBM I'd be having a party, thats a 100 million dollars that can they can collect in damages. Before there was basically nothing to collect. Now they can win AND get some $$$.

Really I wonder... (1)

GNUPublicLicense (1242094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22661454)

... which collective did provide 100 million to keep SCO alive and keep its Linux harseling... no really, I cannot see it, but how are they? :p
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>