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's "Least Supported Idea Yet"

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the another-shipment-from-crazy-town dept.

Caldera 134

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Unsurprisingly, all of SCO's creditors have objected to the plan to reimburse York for the failed 'emergency' deal. Novell's tiny seven page objection (PDF) is hilarious and very readable. They don't hold back at all, saying that 'all that happened is that the Debtors spent money needlessly on a proceeding that was, to all intents and purposes, stillborn had it not been for the stubbornness of the Debtors' management and the avarice of York,' and that it was 'another really bad deal they have chased in ceaseless pursuit of their dreams of a litigation bonanza.' They top it off by concluding with the line, 'for the reasons explained above, the Court should deny the Motion as the Debtors' worst and least supported idea yet in these cases.' One can only wonder how SCO will respond to this."

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

SCO to hire more lawyers (5, Funny)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881734)

Commentators note this is the first example of vermin joining a sinking ship.

a dream come true for SCO (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881820)

yes, they had a nightmare using these exact same words.

Sue!

Sue!!

Sue!!!

Goatse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882014)

Goatse. [twofo.co.uk] [goatse.ch]

You nerds love it.

Re:Goatse (1, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882646)

Offtopic may not be fair for this particular Goatse link. Consider the GP: SCO hiring more lawyers is like rats going to a sinking ship. The AC was just trying to point out SCO's position, that hiring more lawyers may just be facilitating the outcome we all know is coming (ie "opening wide").

You nerds love it.
I do indeed love SCO facilitating its own eventual outcome, yes.

Re:Goatse (0, Offtopic)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883056)

It doesn't send me to goatse... Sounds like a failed troll.

Re:Goatse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22883206)

this guy is trying to generate hits on his pathetic site. he's been doing this for about a month now. just don't click links by ACs and you're on the safe side.

i see it differently (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883550)

It is vultures descending on a carcass.

SCO's response? (5, Funny)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881808)

That's easy. They'll sue Novell for defamation!

Re:SCO's response? (1)

Dr Caleb (121505) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883860)

"That's easy. They'll sue Novell for definition!"

Fixed that for ya.

This guy again?!?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22881814)

Someone needs to investigate "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property".

He's gotta be blowing the editors of Slashdot. Check out how many of his stories make it to the front page versus everyone else!

He's got like a 97% approval rate.

Re:This guy again?!?! (1, Offtopic)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882244)

Well, before the firehose broke in IE (I'm at work. I'm on break.) I voted most of his stuff up. Note that most of what I submit gets voted down or is credited to someone else, even though most of my comments get modded up.

I'm modding myself down for this offtopic comment with the "no karma bonus" box.

Re:This guy again?!?! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882630)

I'm modding myself down for this offtopic comment with the "no karma bonus" box.


I *never* use my karma bonus when posting!

Re:This guy again?!?! (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884162)

The karma bonus is opt-out. You get the karma bonus as a method of modding yourself up. If you didn't think your comment was worth modding up, why would you comment in the first place? The "no karma bonus" checkbox is for times you are making an off-topic response to someone's comment ("ot- your sig") or, well, like this comment here.

It should be assumed (but unfortunately can't be) that someone with excellent karma won't be deliberately trolling of baiting for flames.

And if you never use the karma bonus, why is your comment at 1 when there's no moderation for it?

Re:This guy again?!?! (1)

jtev (133871) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884948)

Because registered users start at 1. Only AC starts at 0, or very low karma users.

I'd be more apathetic if I weren't so lethargic (4, Funny)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881850)

Really? I feel like Peter Griffin standing outside the newsstand for 48 hours trying to understand the New Yorker comic.

(closes PDF)

kill -9 (4, Funny)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881870)

I am convinced that SCO and their lawyers are a zombie process at this point. The bankruptcy was an attempt to kill the pid with some hope of clean up, but i fear we are to the stage of kill -9. I don't know what the legal equivalent of this is, except to get the sheriff in his off-hours to go in and lock the doors and just physically seize everything.

MAKE IT STOP!!!!

Re:kill -9 (5, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881928)

And what if that fails to work? Will we have to reboot the world?

Re:kill -9 (3, Funny)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882242)

And what if that fails to work? Will we have to reboot the world?


Well, technically, init could do the job just as well, too. After all, it spawned off (eventually) the process that spawned the zombie (and forgot to reap them). Now, we just need to telinit to reap some zombie processes.

Things are easier if one of those processes was a shell spawned by init... kill the shell, and init will respawn it, reaping any zombies that the shell was an eventual parent of.

Surprised there's no silver-bullet gun utility to go alongside with kill. Or that kill doesn't have a --wooden-stake option.

Re:kill -9 (5, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882504)

Surprised there's no silver-bullet gun utility to go alongside with kill. Or that kill doesn't have a --wooden-stake option.

That would be for vampire processes. --fire or --headshot would be a better option.
Thank heaven that there are no Basilisk processes.
 

Re:kill -9 (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882598)

Disk mirroring defeats basilisk processes.

Re:kill -9 (1)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883090)

And Manticores? [penny-arcade.com]

Re:kill -9 (3, Interesting)

mikeee (137160) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883050)

I've had Basilisk processes!

Anything that opened /proc/[procid] would freeze. As you might guess, this was a huge PITA.

Re:kill -9 (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884738)

Thank heaven that there are no Basilisk processes.

You mean like img class="31337" src=langford_fractal_basilisk.png>?

Re:kill -9 (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882676)

I'm thinking the right approach is to sic the Crimson Permanent Assurance on them.

That would be terrible (2, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882720)

And what if that fails to work? Will we have to reboot the world?
I sure as hell hope not, that's a crapload of work. First you have to build a tunneling machine out of a newly invented ultra-strong super-insulating metal that can somehow convert heat into electricity (which can be extracted by soldering a couple of bigass leads to any point on the hull), then set off a chain reaction of nukes in the earth's core to get it spinning again, 'cuz you know if the earth's core isn't spinning the whole planet will explode or something.

Well actually, since it would be spinning to begin with, I guess we'd have to use two nuke chain reactions, one to stop the spinning and one to start it.

I saw a documentary on it once...awful, I don't recommend it.

Re:That would be terrible (1)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882878)

Nah, just fire a couple of slugs made out of McBridenium (one of the densest materials known to mankind) at their head.

(I'd say aim for their heart or brains, but the existence of either is questionable.)

Then salt their remains with something even more toxic than calcium - O'Garanic Acid.

Then invoke the same spell that successfully cast out the demon Pretenderle - say "linux linux linux".

Re:kill -9 (4, Informative)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881942)

I don't know, maybe it's nit-picking, but any kill signal (including -9) will have no effect on a zombie process, pretty much by definition. A "zombie" process is just an entry in the process table that can't be removed for some reason (usually because the parent process hasn't read its exit code). There isn't any actual process associated with it, so no signals have any effect.

Re:kill -9 (5, Funny)

domatic (1128127) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882150)

Killing the parent process will get rid of a zombie. The problem here is that the system has been pwned and the hidden parent process is "msdirtytricks".

Re:kill -9 (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882234)

pwned by local root exploit? Time to find the user who started the process and kill the user's account.

(pwned by remote root exploit in this case is just too bizarre to think about.)

Why stop there? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22883538)

Sometimes I think it would be easier to just kill the user...

But that's *usually* where morality kicks in. Well, that and I don't keep a firearm at my desk. This is probably the reason that I never became a police officer. "That guy didn't merge properly - I'ma' shoot him..." - Yeah, good thing...

[I can resist anything. Except temptation...]

Re:kill -9 (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882898)

Some zombies can hang around even after the parent is dead.. The D state zombies, for which the only cure is a reboot.

Re:kill -9 (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883898)

I thought processes which could be killed by killing its parent were vampire processes.
Kill the master, kill the whole nest.

Re:kill -9 (5, Funny)

Volanin (935080) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882152)

Just use kill -NERFGUN [zombie process] ... if your OS doesn't ban it, of course.

Re:kill -9 (4, Funny)

erc (38443) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882298)

kill -9 1 ;)

Re:kill -9 (4, Funny)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883408)

We have already established that rebooting the universe is a bad idea. How is killing it a better solution?

Re:kill -9 (2, Informative)

bheekling (976077) | more than 6 years ago | (#22885476)

/me shakes head. Kids these days.

You need: `kill -9 -1`
`kill -9 1` won't work because killing init would cause kill to kill itself. And kill doesn't have suicidal tendencies
Unless of course you're using Mac OS X

Re:kill -9 (0, Offtopic)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882290)

I don't know, maybe it's nit-picking, but any kill signal (including -9) will have no effect on a zombie process, pretty much by definition. A "zombie" process is just an entry in the process table that can't be removed for some reason (usually because the parent process hasn't read its exit code). There isn't any actual process associated with it, so no signals have any effect.

Maybe we need to cold boot the legal system?

Re:kill -9 (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883972)

Insightful as always SM62704...

Re:kill -9 (1)

avronius (689343) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884442)

From sig:

"God is dead" - Nietzsche, 1882
"Nietzsche is dead" - God, 1900
I certainly hope that this isn't rewritten to state:
"SCO is dead" - Novell, 2007
"Novell is dead" - SCO, 2008

But if the lawyers have their way...

- Avron

Re:kill -9 (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882452)

It would be more fun with the Doom interface to pstat and kill.

Re: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22881954)

Heh. I'm one of the weird people. Pro-SCO, pro-Microsoft, pro-GameSpot, pro-Guiliani, etc.

If I weren't already a registered Slashdotter... (5, Funny)

Tsar (536185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881966)

...I'd want "The Avarice of York" as my alias. Who'll bet that it's taken by the end of the day?

Re:If I weren't already a registered Slashdotter.. (5, Funny)

The Avarice of York (1263262) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882044)

orly?

Re:If I weren't already a registered Slashdotter.. (2, Funny)

o'reor (581921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882202)

Thanks for taking the time to show us how many Slashdot user accounts were created to this day ;-)

Re:If I weren't already a registered Slashdotter.. (1)

Tsar (536185) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882264)

Quoth The Avarice of York [slashdot.org] :

orly?
Good grab there, Avarice! It has a ring of nobility to it--the sort of Imperial title to which Greedo might have aspired had it not been for that incident in the bar.

Re:If I weren't already a registered Slashdotter.. (5, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882458)

You must be new here.

Sort of turns the Bard on his ear (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882130)

Now is the sunset of our glorious SCO
Made winter by the discontent and avarice of York...

It's Shakespeare (almost) (5, Funny)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 6 years ago | (#22881996)

SCO: Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York.

Novell: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow creeps in this petty case from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time.

IBM: SCO's but a walking shadow.

Groklaw, chorus of Slashdot readers and industry analysts: Out, out brief candle!

Re:It's Shakespeare (almost) (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882642)

Greatest... Slashdot... post... evvvvvverrrrrr.

Re:It's Shakespeare (almost) (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884572)

Second greatest. In Soviet Russia, SCO York's with you!

Re:It's Shakespeare (almost) (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884010)

Now we only need people to die... stabbed, preferrably

Re:It's Shakespeare (almost) (1)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884516)

Bravo, sir. And encore.

SCO's "Least Supported Idea Yet" (2, Funny)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882058)

I read the headline and feared this was a new revenue-generating plan from the mind of Darl McBride. "There's this completely untapped market! All we need is a basket of kittens and a commercial-grade deli slicer...no no, listen! When it doesn't make money, we sue Quizno's!"

Re:SCO's "Least Supported Idea Yet" (2, Funny)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882326)

I read the headline and feared this was a new revenue-generating plan from the mind of Darl McBride. "There's this completely untapped market! All we need is a basket of kittens

Did someone say kittens? [uncyclopedia.org]

"On the streets these days, a dime bag of kittens costs a pretty penny." ~ Oscar Wilde

150,000K (5, Informative)

esocid (946821) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882084)

From TFM:

the Debtors nevertheless now seek an expense reimbursement for York of $150,000 (or $50,000, as an alternative) as a "business and moral matter."
So SCO is trying to pay off York because they want to entice them again at a later date? It also states that this is in violation of bankruptcy laws since it wasn't an approved as what they call a "breakup fee" meant to preserve the value of the estate to the other party or other potential buyers. No one actually signed any contract, and in this case they argue that the "contract" didn't even list any specifics as to what York would be purchasing.

What exactly the Debtors proposed to sell to York was not entirely clear - which was one of the fatal defects of the Sale Motion in the end - because the Sale Motion attached only a nonbinding term sheet rather than a definitive sale agreement.
I'm not sure what SCO is trying to do here, but it sure smells fishy.
As a side not the motion really is pretty readable and worth it.

Re:150,000K (5, Interesting)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882718)

What they're trying to do is grab as much as possible on the way out. If I were Novell, I would have the court appoint an independent auditor to go in, and inventory everything; The computers, keyboards, mice, chairs, desks, carpeting, the fucking complimentary snacks in the employee lounge fridge. Everything! I would want to know how many staples were left in each stapler, every single pen, post-it notes sitting on the desks, used file folders, paper in the photocopier, and anything else I can think of.

That's how you play hard-ball while still coming across as the nice guy who just wants to protect your own interests. If they object to how unreasonable it is, you just tell the judge that you wanted it to be thorough, but left it up to the auditors discretion, and have a clause where you pay a bonus for work done in a timely manner. That's the auditor's hush money, and you just debate what timely means afterward.

Re:150,000K (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883374)

You forgot the copper wire in the walls.

Re:150,000K (2, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884082)

There you go. You should apply for the job!

Wow (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882138)

And I thought the Nazgul played rough..

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883422)

The law firm representing Novell doesn't have the domain mofo.com for nothing.

Quick Summary (5, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882146)

After Novell won partial summary judgement against SCO that SCO owed them money for the MS and Sun deals, SCO declared Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy means that the debtor (SCO) needs time to reorganize and some temporary protection from creditors (Novell, etc) while they figure a way to get back to solvency. This was Sept. 2007 and, the bankruptcy stopped the Novell trial.

SCO then tried to broker an emergency sale of assets to York Management. Well, under bankruptcy, all deals must be approved by a bankruptcy court. Novell and other parties objected because SCO failed to disclose (like usual) exactly what assets were being sold and how it would help SCO recover and get out of Chapter 13. The court agreed and SCO withdrew the proposed sale motion in Nov. 2007 without really disclosing what were the terms of the sale. So now SCO wants to pay York $150,000 for their less than 2 months worth of work for a failed deal.

IANAL but Novell had a reason to object to the sale. Among the things that SCO alluded to selling (but never fully disclosed) were obligations and assets that it owed to Novell in their case. If the deal would have gone through, Novell might have to battle it out for years between York and SCO to determine which one owed them the money. SCO could point to York and vice versa. It appears the SCO tried to scam their way out of paying by using a shifty sale.

Re:Quick Summary (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882256)

I was a bit mistaken. SCO filed for Chapter 11. Chapter 13 is for individuals. Chapter 11 is for business. Both have the same purpose: Time for reorganization and temporary protection from creditors.

Re:Quick Summary (1)

lysse (516445) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884664)

Well, if SCO now have everyone thinking that Novell is just another creditor (rather than the legal owner of - well, probably more of SCO's cash than SCO has at this point) they've already achieved precisely what they set out to do.

Thanks (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882594)

Thanks for the summary and saving me hours digging through the details!

At the corporate level Evil is often complicated.

Re:Quick Summary (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883026)

> After Novell won partial summary judgement against SCO that SCO owed them money for the MS and Sun deals, SCO declared Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy means that the debtor (SCO) needs time to reorganize and some temporary protection from creditors (Novell, etc) while they figure a way to get back to solvency. This was Sept. 2007 and, the bankruptcy stopped the Novell trial.

Someone else already mentioned that it was Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but I thought I'd point out that in those Summary Judgment motions, Novell requested a constructive trust (i.e. we want our money) because they thought that SCO would declare bankruptcy. SCO denied that it was going to do that, then did so on the eve of trial, hoping they could get the bankruptcy court to bail them out...

So far, it's not working. The PDF has a good summary in it, too, BTW. Very entertaining to read all this from Novell :]

Bad day, Zonk? (-1, Offtopic)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882180)

Novells tiny seven page objection

There's more than one Novell? =)

IINM there should be an apostrophe [angryflower.com] there, shouldn't there? Or are you joining the movement to ban the apostrophe [angryflower.com] ?

Less pedantic and more on topic, who is "York"? I thought that this too was a typo and that it meant the state of New York, so I actually clicked the link and discovered that TFA did, indeed say "York". Is that the air conditioner manufacturer, the city in England, or what?

No, I didn't RTFA (eye muss knot bee knew hear). I just searched for "York". Now to rtfa...

Re:Bad day, Zonk? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882200)

Sorry to respond to myself, but it's York Capital Managent.

And since it's Thursday I deduce that Zonk must be related to Arthur Dent, who had trouble with Thursday as well!

Of Course IBM and Novell are going to object (3, Insightful)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882192)

Other reply other than a rejection would be saying something akin to: "We approve of SCO continuing to attempt to sue us."

SCO should be torn up for parts, Chapter 11 is not the right state from them to be in, they are unsalvagable, Chapter 7 time.

Re:Of Course IBM and Novell are going to object (2, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882854)

Actually, they are objecting to SCO throwing away money which can now be used to continue sueing them. Really, IBM and Novell want to see this through to the end, who doesn't?

Re:Of Course IBM and Novell are going to object (3, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883464)

SCO's executives should be torn up for parts

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Of Course IBM and Novell are going to object (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884148)

SCO's executives should be torn up for parts
Unfortunately, we will need something other than zombies to complete this task since zombies need brraaaaiiinnsss...

SCO sane? (5, Insightful)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882276)

I think it's been widely established that SCO's case is a bunch of hogwash, but this has gone too far for too long. I now question the sanity of SCO's people and of those who keep investing in SCO. And I feel sorry for the judge who has to put up with this nonsense.

for all intensive purposes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882334)

It's nice to see the phrase "to all intents and purposes" actually being used correctly for a change. Considering it's originally a legal term, it makes sense that it would be the lawyers who know when and how to use it.

I got yer.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22882658)

I got yer intensive purpose hangin' right here (points downward)

Best line in a legal document ever (4, Insightful)

Seakip18 (1106315) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882520)

Page 4, half way down...

"Heads I win, Tails you lose" does not pass muster in courts of equity such as this Court


If only I could pull that line off with my coworkers...

The proposed buyer, SNCP, has no money (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882530)

That's a very funny collection of filings. It doesn't stop with the comments about SCO, either. Remember, the proposed deal now is that Steven Norris Capital Partners (SNCP) proposes to buy SCO's assets for $5 million plus a "loan guarantee" of $95 million at somewhere around 20% interest to cover future claims by IBM, Novell, Red Hat, SuSE, etc. So who is SNCP? The filings tell us.

In filing 412, Novell says "The Disclosure Statement says that SNCP was founded by Steven Norris and & Co. Capital Partners for the purposes of this transaction". So SNCP is a shell corporation. "It has a brief statement about SNCC's partners, Steven Norris and Mark Robbins, and sweeps breezily through a short statement of some of their past activities, making some very general grand claims about their past successes."

In filing 408, IBM points out, "the Partnership (SNCP) does not seem to have any operational or investment history."

Filing 414 points out, "Also, SNACCPLP failed to pay its annual tax assessments, and it thereby allowed its status to lapse to "CEASED GOOD STANDING" back in June 2006 (see Ex. 7). Thus, it is unlikely that the Florida LLC, formed in July 2007 (see Ex. 7), was truly "formed by Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partners, L.P. for the purposes of this transaction." (Incomplete Disclosure Statement at (V)(B), p. 18)."

This is not looking good.

Steven Norris himself had a great reputation in finance until this month. His big claim to fame was the Carlyle Group. They created Carlyle Capital, which just went spectacularly broke, [carlylecapitalcorp.com] losing about $21 billion. If the main asset of SNCC is the reputation of Steven Norris, it's worth far less than it was a month ago.

And the Novell trial is approaching (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882760)

For those of you not following the SCO debacle, the SNCP deal was being pushed as a last desperate attempt to head off what's coming next month:

U.S. District Court - District of Utah Court Calendar
Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Room 220. Tuesday, 04/29/2008 08:30 am. SCO Grp v. Novell Inc 2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW Bench Trial

This is SCO's upcoming Really Bad Day. The issue of whether SCO owns the UNIX copyright has already been decided - they lost on that issue. The only issue for trial is how much money SCO owes Novell. Which may be more than SCO has left.

SCO went into bankruptcy late last year to stall that trial, the Friday before the trial was to start on Monday. That didn't work; the bankruptcy court un-stayed the Novell trial. SCO tried the York deal to transfer their assets to York. That didn't work. Now they're trying the SNCP deal, which looks very unlikely at this point.

Re:And the Novell trial is approaching (1)

YaroMan86 (1180585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883328)

And I, along with many FOSSies, tech folks, and anyone who was all around pissed off by SCO looks forward to seeing SCO get undressed in court on that day. I only wish it could be televised. I'd gladly record that on my DVR and watch with popcorn and soda. Great entertainment value!

Re:The proposed buyer, SNCP, has no money (4, Informative)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882780)

Parent was lifted verbatim from this post [groklaw.net] .

Maybe Animats is the Anonymous, but give credit where credit is due.

Re:The proposed buyer, SNCP, has no money (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883164)

give credit where credit is due.

Yes, I posted that on Groklaw too, in slightly different form.

Re:The proposed buyer, SNCP, has no money (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883526)

No prob, Animats. I wasn't sure if you were the Anonymous on GL or not.

Re:The proposed buyer, SNCP, has no money (4, Funny)

MrNiceguy_KS (800771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22885584)

They also attempted to broker a deal with Chuck Norris Capital Partners. Chuck Norris responded by laughing, then roundhouse kicking the SCO lawyer through a plate glass window, then laughing even harder, because there's nothing funnier than a lawyer being kicked through a plate glass window.

What's Left? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882546)

Seriously, what I want to know is exactly what is left of SCO that is worth anything to anyone at this point. Dragging this whole thing out in court is just delaying the inevitable death that we all know is coming.

If there is anything wrong our system right now, its that we allow a company in its death throws to file Bankruptcy to delay the inevitable. Just do a freaking organ transplant already and kill the brain dead child of Darl.

Re:What's Left? (2, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882694)

No, letting people have an appeal is critical to a good legal system, the fact that an occasional SOB misuses it is far better then not having it.

Most rational people would have stopped by now; which indicates to me that either Darl is:
A) Crazy
B) In a panic
C) Has an undisclosed motivator for going forward
D) Two of the above.
E) All of the above.

A company filing bankruptcy helps get it's creditors paid. Usually in hope of continuing. It does work.

Re:What's Left? (2, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882850)

Bankruptcy by itself isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about bankruptcy as a means of stalling the inevitable conclusion of another court process.

The fact that SCO is in a court battle, which it is about to lose, should be enough to send the bankruptcy filing back to SCO. The Bankruptcy judge should have said that filing for re-org or whatever is impossible until the other major litigation is completed, which it is. While there is such a huge uncertainty in the long term viability of SCO, Bankruptcy cannot be finalized.

In other words, the Bankruptcy filing is nothing more than a stalling attempt to keep from conclusion the civil matter. However, the civil matter needs to be concluded before any decisions on Bankruptcy claims can be decided.

I have no doubt that there will be nothing left of SCO once the IBM and Novell civil matters are finalized, to declare bankruptcy with.

Re:What's Left? (2, Insightful)

ArtDent (83554) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883960)

Exactly. All the Bankruptcy filing has achieved is delaying the trial by seven months. Absolutely nothing has been resolved while SCO has been in Chapter 11. They've just been able to burn through more of Novell's money.

I don't know how, but I hope this can be used against SCO when judgement day comes. Any attempts to use accounting trickery to argue that Novell's money is gone should be rejected immediately. After all these brazen maneuvers to delay the Novell case, not a single penny left at SCO should be safe. And if that's not enough, then those who have been enriched by this fraud (including the lawyers) should be made to pay.

Re:What's Left? (2, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882880)

The problem is that SCO, as it stands, doesn't have much of a product. It's got some customers (mainly Point-of-sales) who would continue to feed it relatively small amounts of cash in support, but other than that, its product line is past prime. Instead of trying to improve and innovate, to actually compete, they pretty much gave up and formulated a new plan to litigate themselves into some sort of pot of eternal gold.

What's there to come back to now? Have they even get any developers and engineers left? Even if they could manage to survive bankruptcy, how would they attract anyone?

What's Left? Smoking Boots, that's what. (1)

OmniGeek (72743) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882934)

Plus a pile of unpaid bills and judgements, assorted countersuits, and a management team either being sued out of their shorts, or on the lam to the Seychelles, or both. SCO's assets aren't worth anything to speak of at this point.

Re:What's Left? (3, Informative)

rkhalloran (136467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883150)

With the ruling that Novell owns what copyrights are left in UNIX, all SCOX has left are some x86-based drivers and utilities for Unixware, that still need the SysV base to be useful. The only other useful item might be the customer lists for The Next Guy to use to promote their migrate-to-Linux consultancy...

They also "own" the liabilities of IBM & Novell's countersuits, and the Red Hat Lanham Act suit for interfering in its doing business by casting doubt on Linux' legitimacy. Potential amount of these, especially in the IBM case, dwarfs the budget of many developing countries.

SCOX DELENDA EST!!

Still not as good as this ruling ... (4, Funny)

Ravensfire (209905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22882794)

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document073001.shtml [nationalreview.com]

Anytime a Judge uses the words "most amateurish pleadings", "bumbling", or "a pig is still a pig" to describe the efforts of the attorneys, it's going to be a bad day for someone. Or in this case, both someones.

"Now, alas, the Court must return to grownup land." - priceless! We need more people as judges with a biting sense of humor (and the nerve to use it liberally!) like this!

-- Ravensfire

Perhaps not a good idea (4, Informative)

edremy (36408) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883104)

I got a kick out of reading that, then looked the judge up [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia to see if he had any more gems.

He's not exactly who we want on the bench

  1. Complaints about bullying lawyers
  2. Many complaints about favoritism towards certain lawyers, especially his best friend. Has been removed from cases involving this lawyer
  3. Suspension from the bench following sexual harrassment claims that apparently have been ongoing for years.
  4. Ongoing DOJ investigation that may lead to his impeachment over the harrassment claims.

Acid toungue, funny as hell, complete jackass in RL.

Re:Still not as good as this ruling ... (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883696)

You (or more likely, the Hon. Judge Kent) owe me a new keyboard. I always thought the law was dry and boring. Judge Kent's courtroom must be a fun place indeed (as long as you're not an idiot, like the plaintiff's lawyer)

Re:Still not as good as this ruling ... (4, Funny)

Darby (84953) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884724)

I always thought the law was dry and boring. Judge Kent's courtroom must be a fun place indeed (as long as you're not an idiot, like the plaintiff's lawyer)

I was in court once for a speeding ticket, and there was some guy in there for a noise violation (playing his car stereo too loud). The judge had him walk to the back of the courtroom with a measuring tape, said "can you hear me?". The guy said, "yes" and the judge said, "that's too loud" (based on the law and the distance).

So the guy comes back to the stand, the judge tells him that since it's his first offense that if he pleads guilty he'll most likely just get the charges dropped. So after a few times of the judge leading him along that course he finally said "guilty".

The judge banged his gavel and said, "30 days in jail".

The kid's face dropped, a wave of "holy shit" went across the courtroom and then the judge started laughing and said "just kidding, charges dropped".

Re:Still not as good as this ruling ... (1)

Deadstick (535032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883734)

Damn, and I thought "breathtaking inanity" was a zinger.

rj

Typos (1)

immcintosh (1089551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883252)

Novell's legal team needs to hire better proofreaders.

corporate euthanasia? (2, Insightful)

dgbillotte (1204568) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883622)

As comical as the SCO proceedings have been to read over the last couple of years, it is time to put this beached whale out of its (and ours) misery.

Indeed hiliarious! (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883636)

I highly recommend reading the motion.

On a related note, it fills me with great satisfaction that SCO management is continuesly shown to be the scum they are.

I hope (3, Funny)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 6 years ago | (#22883764)

Someone writes a script. This could be funnier than Office Space and be 100% true! Great movie idea!

Re:I hope (3, Funny)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884334)

this could be funnier than Office Space and be 100% true! Great movie idea! And we could call it OpenOffice Space.org

Morrison and Foerster (1)

wickerprints (1094741) | more than 6 years ago | (#22884982)

After reading through the uncharacteristically informal language of the motion, I was not at all surprised to see that it was authored by Morrison and Foerster LLP. They're known for being rather...unconventional. After all, their web address is http://www.mofo.com/ [mofo.com] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?