SCO Bankruptcy "Imminent, Inevitable" 234
mattaw writes "From analysis by Groklaw it seems that SCO may owe Novell nearly all the SCOSource licensing fees, and has been hiding the fact for 3 years. Imminent. Inevitable. Bankruptcy. Those are the words from Novell's lawyers. Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"
Can they drop the suit? (Score:4, Insightful)
-GiH
I'm excited (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully Novell and IBM can split the leftovers, I think it's owed to them.
I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a spector (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Insightful)
Resolved by bunkruptcy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Live Sacrifice Required (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IANAL.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, lawyers can't use NormalSpeak. The maze that is modern law requires a very large amount of terms with very specific meanings to convery what is being said. It's wrapped up in hundreds (if not thousands) of years of history and the like, and embodies a large vocabulary of concepts, precedents, and methods.
That's why we like Groklaw, becuase they do a very good job of summarizing the legalese, as well as explaining it in context of the issues as they relate to tech.
Sadly, I don't think you'll see your wish any time soon. Legalese is probably going to get more complex over time than less.
Cheers
Re:IANAL.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Define NormalSpeak. New speech codec that only works on English?
Define "legal doings." Lawyer guano?
Define "boil this down." Are you talking about putting legal doings in a bubbling pot of water?
Define "us mortals." Presumably, it means that Cokie Roberts is immortal. Based upon past assumptions, this means that once Cokie Roberts boils down the lawyer guano, it's safe for everone else to use. Do you make bowls out of them or something? Or do you eat it to become immortal yourself?
To be serious, I know what you probably mean. The point is, though, that the language of the law will always be with us. It helps let one say exactly what they mean without room for interpretation, or to fit all interpretations that they want it to fit.
NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM should crush SCO in court and be awarded whatever is left of the company as compensation.
If IBM gives up any money to SCO or SCO executives, IBM has lost and will be sued again over this same kind of crap.
Darl (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.
Don't forget: the US vs IBM antitrust case (Score:1, Insightful)
IBM is the KingDaddyPawPaw of dragging a court case out forever whenever anyone picks a fight with them.
(it's also poetic and funny as hell that the captcha I have to type in to post this message as A/C is "victors" because that's what IBM will be in this case too)
Re:I doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)
One, IBM would then face lawsuits from other two bit companies that might have even less of a case, leading to IBM spending even more money on legal fees. The more money they blow defending their linux ventures, the less profit their linux ventures make. This is less money for them, and for us... a greater likelihood that they will eventually pull out of linux entirely. Bad for IBM, bad for us. A decisive win now, good for IBM and good for us.
Two, it would appear to be an admission that SCO had a case. Technically it isn't, but people would see it that way even if the courts didn't. This is bad.
Three, this would encourage other people to go after potential copyright/contract problems related to Linux in courts, rather than approach Torvalds and his crew and say "We've got concerns about this code here" before resorting to a lawsuit.
Four... there are concerns about the GPL actually holding up in court. While I have heard vague references that it has held up a few times, this is a high profile case where one of the largest companies in the world has thrown down GPL violations in its countersuit. Winning on those counts will be a significant boost in public confidence about how well it will hold up, hopefully leading to more people who were considering it actually going with it.
Re:Darl (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:About 50 developers? - way too high (Score:5, Insightful)
You should go through the list and add up the costs. It's not that great. For example, it's hard to imagine having more than one manager and one secretary per 10 developers. Hardware is dirt cheap (a few thousand per year at most). Electricity and office space likewise, at least compared to a developer's salary. Health insurance is a serious expense, but still only a fraction of the cost.
And if SCO is paying $1.5 million for coffee, the management should be fired tomorrow. A dollar or two per day per employee, that's it.
Trust me, $8 million per year buys a lot more than 10 developers.
Law should be open and accessible to all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overlords (Score:2, Insightful)
Just for laughs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I doubt it (Score:3, Insightful)
They should allow open-source supporters to make donations to them. Someone should start an organized "Adopt a lawsuit" campaign. It is in our best interest to keep SCO's doors open until it gets trounced in court.
Re:Can they drop the suit? (Score:3, Insightful)
I do not think it reasonable to equate current SCO shareholders with "an average broker". Any current SCO shareholder would be so far off the norm to make any rational evaluation impossible. That is not an anti-SCO-biased claim... that is a simple fact based on the stock price history. Any stock with that sort of price history simply would not be held in the portfolio of any average risk-adverse investor. A stock that has fallen from over $20 to approximately $1 would be primarily held by one of three investory types: (1) An extremely savy and extremely risk tolerant investor who has done a deep analysis looking for an entirely rational undervalued longshot payoff, or (2) an irrational investor emotionally drawn to the hope of making a fortune and overvaluing the stock based on that hope, or (3) an irrational or innattentive investor reluctant to sell already held stock at such a massive loss.
Depending on which NON-average investors are holding the stock and why, the current market price could be substantially overvalued or substantially undervalued. In my oppinion the actual value of SCO stock is just about zero. SCO's assets are depleted, and even in the extremely improbable case that SCO were to win in the IBM case they are not going to win anywhere near the massive figures they are claiming and such winnings would likely get devoured as damages in the Novel case and any remaining winnings would still get bled away in ongoing negative profit margins. The only hope for an investor-win would be to win in the IBM case AND not get wiped out in the Novel case AND to then quickly liquidate the entire company.
-
Re:Sorry, wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
In religious texts they have tried to tell stories, such as the Good Samaritan, which went through great lengths to make the reader actually experience the associated emotions and understand the concepts on an emotional and ethical level, yet these texts have been the subject of even fiercer debate than Clinton's infamous questioning of the definition of "sex".
In short, I'd say it's obvious that our current legal language is imprecise and not well-defined. If the supreme court can't unanimously agree on interpretations nobody else can be expected to.
There is hope that current and future research into neurolinguistics will allow us to fully understand exactly how language is comprehended by different people, and ultimately develop a system of communication that eliminates the possibility of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. If we manage to accomplish this, the supposed redeeming value of modern legalese will finally become a reality. Until then, we'll have people who genuinely disagree, people encountering new situations that weren't considered when the laws were originally conceived, and people who know damned well they're wrong but know they can win an argument without being right.