Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Linux Business News

SCO Bankruptcy "Imminent, Inevitable" 234

Posted by kdawson
from the quebrada dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Bankruptcy "Imminent, Inevitable"

Comments Filter:
  • by GodInHell (258915) * on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @01:55PM (#17525616) Homepage

    Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"
    Unless a "plausible" suit would be considered an asset by a bankruptcy court? I know the court won't let you give away corporate property generally.. anybody know?

    -GiH
    • by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:07PM (#17525810)
      Maybe SCO should sell bonds against the anticipated damages IBM will be paying once SCO wins the lawsuit... Ha ha ha ha.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:46PM (#17526820)
        "Bonds against damages awarded in lawsuits" are effectively what shares in SCO have been for years. SCO has been loss making for years now, and makes little revenue, certainly when compared to their liabilities in lawyers' fees. So the only realistic sources of value in the company are the lawsuits: and thus the share price can be seen as the market's view of how likely a SCO win is. Its current share price is $1.19 [yahoo.com], giving a market cap of $25M. Since it's requesting at least $5 billion in damages, the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race.
        • by GodInHell (258915) *

          Its current share price is $1.19, giving a market cap of $25M. Since it's requesting at least $5 billion in damages, the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race.

          That's an interesting way of looking at it.. but it downplays the degree to which the market is risk-averse. Even if many stock brokers were to look at SCO and find them likely to win, such an award would be on the other side of several years of highly variable legal practice (the result can turn with new laws, new SC rulings, even if IBM were to find a new line of argument) - thus much more risk than an average broker would be willing to absorb.

          I think. I am not a stock broker.

          -GiH

          • Correction (Score:5, Funny)

            by Zenaku (821866) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @03:33PM (#17527866)
            I think. Therefore, I am not a stock broker.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Alsee (515537)
            thus much more risk than an average broker would be willing to absorb

            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
    • SCO can drop their claims against IBM.

      But there is no way for SCO to avoid IBM's counter claims. Even in bankruptcy the trustee gets to decide to continue a case or just fold their side. The case still must have an outcome.
    • by Burz (138833)
      Are not Daryl McBride and his brother lawyers? It seems to me they are prolonging the suit in order to drain SCO's coffers (and those of anyone with an anti-Linux interest willing to fund them) into their own pockets.
  • Wait till death is at the door, buy them out for pennies and introduce existing SCO customers to SuSE!
  • I'm excited (Score:4, Insightful)

    by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunityNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @01:56PM (#17525636) Homepage
    But I feel bad for SCO's real employees. Like the software developers who actually worked to make a good product at one point in time.

    Hopefully Novell and IBM can split the leftovers, I think it's owed to them.
    • by gstoddart (321705)

      But I feel bad for SCO's real employees. Like the software developers who actually worked to make a good product at one point in time.

      I believe, that in it's current incarnation, SCO doesn't have any such employees. When they were the Santa Cruz Organization, they had such people. But, I believe the current SCO is a holding/IP company who doesn't actually do such mundane things as writing software. I think it's been about a decade since SCO had coders in its employ.

      (If people have more accurate informati

      • Re:I'm excited (Score:5, Informative)

        by Amazing Quantum Man (458715) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:25PM (#17526346) Homepage
        The current SCO is not, and has never been the Santa Cruz Organization.

        The current SCO (newSCO) is what used to be Caldera. Santa Cruz (oldSCO) became Tarantella, and was bought by Sun.

      • About 50 developers? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rumblin'rabbit (711865) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:38PM (#17526642) Journal
        SCO's quarterly financial reports say different. They state about $2 million in research and development costs for the last reported quarter. If we assume that to be mostly salaries, then that's about 50 developers. SCO also makes software releases regularly containing many new feature. And now, a moment of silence in mourning over SCO's imminent demise ... that's long enough.
        • Unix/Linux - they do not do any development anymore. At least all people responsible for Caldera are not there anymore. Needless to say SCO never employed any Unix folks - they acuired rights only. Also SCO recently acquired "Vultus" or something like that - web services company (no need for guesses - internal shuffles in Canopy group).

          Note, that SCO is R&D company. And it is also public company. If current management would mark itself with irresponsible management, they would be crossed as manageme

          • Ahem. The $2 million is for the quarter. It's $8 million per year.

            And I assumed about $160,000 per employee per year. $100,000 per developer is optimistic, although possible under some circumstances.

      • You can check it out here. [sco.com]

        Please have a look at their services too... looks fantastic.

        • You can check it out here. [sco.com]

          Please have a look at their services too... looks fantastic.

          Hiring in India at that, so the above speculation on how much the developers are being paid is probably inaccurate... they probably have a couple hundred developers if they're paying $2mil/qtr and employing folks in New Delhi.

          Looking at their services, I'm considering recommending the company I work for immediately employ their consulting services... I've no doubt these boys really know what they're doing. heh.

    • Darl (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634)
      Alas, it's almost 100% certain that Darl will parlay this experience in the limelight into a cushy job at some other company when SCO's gone. Things are so screwed up...

      I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.
  • ... I gotta say I will believe it when I see it.

    SCO is like that bug that won't go away or die. When you considering how long they have waited this out, what makes this really any different.

    Now, I hope it is true and these guys do go away. But I won't be holding my breath. Keeping my fingers crossed though.

    RonB
  • I doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thebdj (768618) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @01:58PM (#17525664) Journal

    Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?
    My understanding is the lawyers were paid in advance. Since filing bankruptcy is hardly the end for a company, I do not know that it would necessarily finish off SCO or the IBM case. Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by j00r0m4nc3r (959816)
      IBM should buy SCO and dismantle them just for spite
      • by soft_guy (534437) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:16PM (#17526114)

        IBM should buy SCO and dismantle them just for spite
        How do you dismantle a company that consists of a box at Mailboxes, etc., some attorney's on retainer, Darl, and two hookers in a motel room?
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by AlanS2002 (580378)
        Better yet IBM could buy SCO and then release SVRX under the GPLv2.
      • NO! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:23PM (#17526268)
        SCO wanted to be bought by IBM. That would be a "good thing" for SCO. Their stock jumps and their executives all cash out more options.

        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.
      • Re:I doubt it (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BoneFlower (107640) <(george.worroll) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:47PM (#17526842) Journal
        While I see the attractiveness, this would be a bad idea.

        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.
    • by Bastard of Subhumani (827601) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:05PM (#17525770) Journal
      Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.
      Bill? What are you doing? He was only joking, honestly, don't do it!
    • by timeOday (582209)
      Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.
      Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.
      • Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.

        The whole point of the article is that the "millions" that Sun and Microsoft paid for "precious SCO software licenses" are likely to end up -- in large part -- in Novell's pocket. If they did it again I'm sure Novell would demand the court impound the money immediately before SCO got a chance to fritter it away again. Kimball might throw in a contempt of court charge to top it off, since they're re

      • by Fred_A (10934)
        Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.
        Imagine how much those will be worth to collectors in the 24th century !

    •   My understanding is the lawyers were paid in advance.

      From what I remember from when this whole mess began, SCO paid the lawyers for the IBM suit with SCO stock.
    • by Jaywalk (94910) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:58PM (#17527086) Homepage
      Judge Kimball has ruled that the Novell case should go before the IBM case, so the Novell timeline [groklaw.net] is now more important than that of IBM. While it's SCO that sued Novell, the whole show (including IBM) is likely to be shut down by Novell's counterclaims [groklaw.net]. Boiled down, Novell's has nine "claims for relief" and, if granted, there is nothing left for SCO to sue about. You can read them yourself in the PDF, but the basics are:
      1. Novell owns the copyrights and not SCO.
      2. SCO needs to give Novell a full accounting of unreported money it owes Novell for SVRX licenses.
      3. Novell wants to court to order SCO to comply with their contract, which gives all the royalties from SVRX to Novell.
      4. Novell has the right to waive SCO's claims on UNIX code. Including those against IBM.
      5. Novell wants the court to issue a "declaratory judgment" that Novell has the right to audit SCO's performance to make sure that it doesn't take any more of Novell's money.
      6. SCO needs to put all the money it "converted" (i.e., "stole") from those licenses into a constructive trust. (This is the one they're fussing about now. Sun and Microsoft gave SCO a bucket of cash to carry on the lawsuit against Linux under cover of a UNIX license. But SCO is supposed to give UNIX license money to Novell.)
      7. Number seven repeats number six and asks for the trust again. Eh, lawyers. Go figure.
      8. Number eight asks for the trust again, but adds punitive damages for swiping the money in the first place. Since SCO has already spent most of the cash, this is pretty much just adding insult to injury.
      9. Finally, Novell wants a complete accounting of all SVRX agreements or "other agreements relating to royalty bearing products." That's because SCO was claiming that the Sun and Microsoft agreements weren't "real" SVRX agreements, so SCO didn't owe Novell any money. Novell wants an accounting to make sure SCO isn't hiding any more ill-gotten gains.
      So, yeah, the cash is a big deal and it's going to bankrupt SCO. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of fellas. But read number four again. If Novell has it's way, the IBM case is gone too because SCO never had the right to sue in the first place.
       
      Of course, there are always IBM's counterclaims, but it's unlikely there will be anything left after Novell is done.

      • by PitaBred (632671)
        Now we just need a way to make the execs and people who orchestrated these shenanigans held personally liable and responsible. Take their nice houses and stuff. They don't deserve them.
      • by Fred_A (10934)
        But read number four again. If Novell has it's way, the IBM case is gone too because SCO never had the right to sue in the first place.
        Aww, and just when it was starting to get fun !
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.

      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.

  • IANAL.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drdanny_orig (585847) * on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @01:59PM (#17525674)
    .... therefore almost nothing referenced here makes any sense to me. Someday lawyers will be forced to speak and write in NormalSpeak, preferably in English. Until such time, I am at the mercy of people like Cokie Roberts to explain these legal doings. Could /. maybe hire her to boil this down for us mortals?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      if (allegations ==true) { SCO = screwed; }
    • Re:IANAL.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gstoddart (321705) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:10PM (#17525912) Homepage
      .... therefore almost nothing referenced here makes any sense to me. Someday lawyers will be forced to speak and write in NormalSpeak, preferably in English.

      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)

      by fireboy1919 (257783) <rustyp.freeshell@org> on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:15PM (#17526072) Homepage Journal
      You have a couple of vague terms in your last message that I hope you could clarify:
      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.
    • Novell has been saying for some time that SCO owes them money from royalties on System V Unix. After years of stalling, SCO finally handed over documents that said the licensing money they got from Microsoft and Sun was, in fact, for System V Unix, and not for a foosball table in the break room as SCO had originally claimed. Novell says they should get dibs on the money now because (a) it's theirs, and (b) not only is SCO going bankrupt, they're probably going to go bankrupt before the trial is even over.
    • My (somewhat jaded) definition of a profession is a practice in which the practitioners (the "professionals") consipre so as to exclude others. Lawyers use legal speak, and in some countries still use Latin, programmers use C/C++/whatever jargon. Wassadifference?
      • The difference is that the internal complexities of other professions rarely bite the common man in the ass the way the internal complexities of law do. The language of law should be open and accessible to all but the most mentally deficient. That is not as important with even the medical, electrical, plumbing or mechanic's professions.
    • What everybody agrees on is:
      • Novell and SCO signed a countract where "certain rights" to UNIX (specifically System V, Release X - SVRX for short) were transferred to SCO.
      • In exchange, SCO would give the royalties for SVRX (minus a 5% handling fee) to Novell.
      • Novell claims that the "rights" transferred to SCO do not include the copyrights and that Novell still owns those copyrights. SCO claims that the contract does transfer the copyrights.
      • SCO is suing IBM claiming that IBM's contributions to Linux infringe S
    • by couchslug (175151)
      "NormalSpeak" is imprecise.
      "Could /. maybe hire her to boil this down for us mortals?"
      Not as well as Groklaw.
  • I guess I haven't been following this very closely - I'm confused.

    What are SCOSource license fees? And why would SCO owe Novell money? What does this have to do with Microsoft and Sun license fees?

    I tried to read the Groklaw FA but I'm not getting it.

    Anyone care to explain?

    Thanks in advance.
    • Impossible. It's like asking for a 5-line summary of "Days of our lives".

      You basically missed episodes #6, #8, #34 and #42. Given that we are today at episode #300 or something and that nobody knows how many more are to come, it is impossible to summuarize the whole issue to you.

      You could actually consider yourself lucky not to know.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BoneFlower (107640)
      Basically, SCO has to pay Novell royalties whenever they license the Unix System V code, it's part of the original contract.

      Novell is basically saying that SCO hasn't given them all the royalties SCO owes them.
      • No, not royalties... ALL fees received. For acting as Novell's agent, Novell then kicks back 5% of the those monies to the SCOundrels.

        SCO fudged and didn't pay Novell the money from the Sun and Microsoft licenses.
        • The way it was written in Groklaw it sounded like just royalties... My bad.

          Either way, SCO owes Novell a lot of money...
    • by Scarblac (122480) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:23PM (#17526260) Homepage

      SCO has been acting as if they had bought some sort of IP rights to SysV UNIX from Novell, and sold licenses based on those rights to Sun and Microsoft ("SVRX licenses").

      Novell is now pointing at the actual text of the contract, which says that all SCO acquired was the right to act as an agent of Novell - basically, they can sell licenses in Novell's place, then hand over all the money to Novell. After that, Novell will return them 5% of the money as an agent fee.

      It all seems pretty undisputable, from following Groklaw. As Novell claims SCO did its job badly so they won't even have to give them the 5% back, they're basically claiming that those cash infusions from Microsoft and Sun belong to Novell. And it's asking the judge to make haste, since this is simply their money, SCO is wasting it, and they'll soon be bankrupt.

    • All of this is from memory, and some of it may be wrong. I'm sure that folks who know a lot more, but were much too busy to answer your questions, will have loads of time to correct my mistakes, so here goes:

      What are SCOSource license fees?
      SCOSource license fees are the fees SCO charges to folks for [unix|linux] licenses. It seems very unlikely that they have the right to sell licenses for Linux (that is sort of what the lawsuits are about). They do have teh right to sell licenses for unix, which br

    • "SCOSource" was SCO's shakedown plan where Linux users would buy an intellectual property license to pay SCO for the UNIX code which IBM (and others) "improperly" put into Linux. It never really went anywhere, but SCO was trying to posture for the media and pretend it was a raging success. Microsoft and Sun gave SCO money, ostensibly as UNIX licensing fees, but more likely to encourage the lawsuit and damage Linux. SCO put those fees in their books as SCOSource profits to create the illusion that the sca
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:01PM (#17525702) Homepage Journal
    Because /. keeps posting it.

  • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:02PM (#17525716)
    I just checked the stock ticker and SCOX has actually risen in price today! It started at about $1.15 a share and it's at $1.22 now, so while they may be in a world of trouble, Wall Street still amazingly thinks the stock has some value. I am amazed that this stock is still selling for over a dollar a share, but far be it from me to suggest that the stock market makes any sense.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Explodo (743412)
      Due to the amount of money owed Novell vs the amount of money SCO has, it's possible that the stock price is going up due to speculators looking for Novell to acquire SCO in the near future....thereby getting Novell stock. Just a guess.
      • If Novell bought SCO, it'd have to deal with the IBM counter-claims. When you factor out the money that SCO owes Novell, they're in debt. They're also likely to lose the IBM case. They have basically zero assets. Any IP they have is either GPL'd or rightfully belongs to Novell. Novell wouldn't have to buy them, because it gets everything worthwhile about them if it wins the suit anyways.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        If Novell wins its counterclaims, SCO will cease operations, having no IP to speak of, especially in light of Counter claim 4, which says that Novell sold NOTHING to SCO, but only authorized them to sell licenses for Novell for an agent's fee.

        This would mean that SCO falsely represented ownership claims to IBM in that lawsuit, and would have a huge liability regarding that fraud. In addition to all the other IBM counter claims, there is no way either Novell nor IBM would buy anything of SCO, if only to avoi
    • Now would be a good time to short the SCO stock.
    • Hey! I think I got an email about that stock!
      It was a little strange because it was mostly garbage text, but the included gif explained it all... time to start buying!
      Woo!
    • by Rimbo (139781)
      What you're seeing might be short covering.

      People who expect a stock price to drop "sell it short;" that is, they sell shares they don't yet own, with a promise to buy later. Later, when the price (hopefully) drops, they actually pay for the shares they sold -- covering their sale. If they do enough of it, the price actually goes up a bit with all of the demand to buy the shares.

      Most stock price day-to-day/week-to-week/month-to-month movement comes from this kind of game-playing, not from actual value-m
    • Re: Look again. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jaywalk (94910)

      SCOX has actually risen in price today!

      According to Yahoo [yahoo.com] it closed yesterday at $1.24 and spent the day bouncing around between $1.15 and $1.25, finally closing the day $1.17. That's down seven cents. It's a pretty volatile stock, but the trend has definitely been down as the case wound its way through the courts.


      Wall Street still amazingly thinks the stock has some value.

      This is not exactly true. I haven't seen a "buy" recommendation on this stock in a long time. I think that the reason for the c

  • by Edward Ka-Spel (779129) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:04PM (#17525746)
    I would be really disappointed if the Novell and IBM cases are finally resolved because SCO ran out of money. I would much rather see a final resolution on whether or not Linux has any sort of IP conflict with SCO. Bankruptcy skirts the issue. I would rather see a clean bill of health. Perhaps Microsoft now wants SCO to go bankrupt so that clean bill of health never comes.
    • All bankruptcy means is you can't pay all yoru debts, a bankruptcy declaration is basically a court order that eliminates some of yoru debts and reduces others to an amount you can afford to pay.

      While generally bad(though a properly timed bankruptcy filing can be the best decision under the circumstances), and sometimes the first sign of a dead company, it doesn't free them from their other legal obligations. The case will likely go forward unless SCO outright liquidates, and even then the bankruptcy court
    • by tkrotchko (124118) *
      I thought SCO has pulled the Linux IP claims and now it's down to a straight "IBM didn't live up to the contract" kind of dispute?
  • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:04PM (#17525754)

    I mean seriously. We've been hearing variations of the "OMG SCO is teh doomed!" now for so long my eyes just glaze over when I see another one.

    Call me when Darl is in jail or flees the country.

  • SCO is like that child who is constantly shouting, obnoxiously, "Look at me! Look at me!" as they do something stupid. It might be funny for the first ... hour? But when real work needs to get done and that child is pulling the same shit, it's time for a Time Out.

    So hurrah for SCO's bankruptcy. Now the rest of us can finally get some proverbial litigation silence.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:07PM (#17525812) Homepage Journal
    After all this time, money spent by IBM defending/pursuing, and all the defining issues raised, I don't want SCO dying before a precedent verdict is set. The best justice will be for SCO to spend itself bankrupt pursuing this frivolous lawsuit, its frivolous lawyers getting stiffed and wasting more time as creditors in bankruptcy court, and Linux proven free of the FUD SCO has produced as its flagship product. Either way, watching the speculators betting on SCO's stock rising on blackmail is fun, but satisfaction lies in proving the facts about how Linux is free.
    • by wrook (134116)
      Unfortunately the lawyers have already been paid. I seem to remember a $32 million cap. From what I can tell, they seem to have been paid with about 10 million shares of stock (yay! shareholder pays!).

      And, if my intuition is correct, they intend to run themselves into insolvency in order to avoid being sued by their shareholders.

      The insiders in the company have already made millions in either stock options, or (in the case of Baystar) selling long stock at a profit.

      Everyone is happy in SCO land. The only
  • Really... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Y-Crate (540566) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:08PM (#17525818)
    "The Santa Cruz Operation" always sounded more like the name for a wise-guy scam than something you would name your company.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:13PM (#17526002)
    These. Are. Not. Sentences.
  • Only to have the threat of Novell/MS looming over us.

    Personally, I'd rather have to worry about SCO; they were never a serious threat.
  • Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

    But I have been so enjoying the slow death - perhaps we could string it out a little longer?

  • I'd much rather see them finally and conclusively defeated and the precedent on the books rather than having the inevitable group of trolls in the background mumbling "SCO would have put it to those evil OSS people if they hadn't run out of money...one day we'll show them".
  • Typo (Score:5, Funny)

    by lbmouse (473316) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:20PM (#17526194) Homepage
    "Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

    Shouldn't it be "sphincter"?
  • by HighOrbit (631451) * on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @02:24PM (#17526296)
    The executives/investors in SCO/Caldera either:
    1. Didn't understand what they bought from Santa Cruz (i.e. they thought they "owned" Unix, when they really didn't).
    2. Didn't read the Santa Cruz - Novell APA, in which case they are morons for not reading the fine print in a multi-million dollar deal.
    3. Understood the APA, but were greedy/crooked enough to try to get away with 'converting' Novell's royalties.
    After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun (now owners of the old Tarantella/Santa Cruz) claiming that Tarantella/Santa Cruz mislead them and misrepresented the nature of what they were buying when Caldera bought the Unix assets.
    • by a.d.trick (894813)
      Hey, don't give them any ideas
    • After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun (now owners of the old Tarantella/Santa Cruz) claiming that Tarantella/Santa Cruz mislead them and misrepresented the nature of what they were buying when Caldera bought the Unix assets.

      Very much doubt it. If any stone would fall - it would fall on heads of Caldera's management.

      Caldera really never wanted to sell Unix - it were acquiring rights so that it can easily migrate users o

  • A little quote from the 1999 film says it all...

      CALVIN: My gosh, those Commies are brilliant! You've got to hand it to 'em! "No, we didn't drop any bombs! Oh yes, our evil empire has collapsed! Poor, poor us!" I bet they've even asked the West for aid! Right?!
  • Will this mean that Novell and IBM will soon have access to all the SCO docs? It would be interesting to see what they have WRT MS's and Sun's investment into them. I suspect that both companies will be found to be knowingly supporting SCO in this illegal endeavor.
  • by seebs (15766)
    So what happens when someone buys their assets and pursues the case?
  • Hope I spelled that right. Anyway, I can't think of a group of people more deserving of their fate.
  • Just for laughs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PingXao (153057) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @04:38PM (#17529506)
    When the SCO fiasco is all wrapped up here's a number I'd like to see: How much money did all the lawyers involved earn apiece? There are hundreds involved, to be sure, but the Top Ten would be enough. Then I want to contemplate whether the fucked up Copyright laws in the U.S. make it all worthwhile. SCO's complaint was worthless from day 1 and it should have taken no more than 6 months to get it laughed out of court.
  • Ummm.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by rm69990 (885744) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @04:41PM (#17529590)
    Ummmm...I'm the one who submits the vast majority of SCO news lately to Slashdot, and I didn't even bother submitting this. Novell has been saying this, either word for word or using different words, since they filed their counterclaims in July 2005. Novell said this directly in their motion for summary judgment a month or 2 ago. Novell is now just repeating itself in a second filing on the same motion (reply memorandum). I never thought I would tag something on Slashdot as slownewsday on the same day as Macworld....
  • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Tuesday January 09, 2007 @05:59PM (#17531140)
    Maybe we could hold a fund raiser and hire Hans Reiser.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...