Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Caldera Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

Stay Lifted, Novell Vs. SCO Can Go Forward 161

Posted by kdawson
from the please-turn-to-chapter-seven dept.
A number of readers suggest we check out Groklaw, where PJ is reporting that a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay so that its trial against SCO can proceed in Utah. The judge concluded that Judge Kimball is the best one to decide how much SCO owes Novell, and that SCO cannot make any "reorganization" plans — including any "fire sale" of assets — until it knows this figure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stay Lifted, Novell Vs. SCO Can Go Forward

Comments Filter:
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by phoenixwade (997892) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:15PM (#21498007)
    The system works..... it works slowly, it costs huge amounts of money, but it does work......
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209)
      IMHO it took way too long and cost way too much, considering SCO never presented any evidence. It's the "Duke Lacrosse Rape Case" of the intellectual property world.
      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Drishmung (458368) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:00PM (#21498529)
        "The wheels of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine" (Sextus Empiricus) I think that when this started, certain people wanted to make absolutely certain that SCO could not wriggle out of it. Every "i" dotted, every 't' crossed. Their fate was sealed some time ago. Now they face destruction. Certain, total and prolonged destruction. I suspect that SCO will be held up as a lesson of what not to do for a very long time.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by petermgreen (876956)
          Why would they be a lesson in what not to do? sure the shareholders got screwed but afaict the bosses and the lawyers (who IIRC have family connections to darl) have done pretty well out of this whole fiasco.

          This is IMO a perfect example of how to make lots of personal profit while totally screwing your shareholders.
          • ... but afaict the bosses and the lawyers (who IIRC have family connections to darl) have done pretty well out of this whole fiasco.

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

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

            • by billsoxs (637329)

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

              This only works in Texas. In other states, the claims hold after death.

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:29PM (#21498187)
      Had SCO chosen an opponent with shallower pockets, the system would probably have failed. Having said that, it's still good news :-)
      • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:42PM (#21498333) Homepage Journal

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

        The system HAS failed.

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

        • Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CodeBuster (516420) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @08:47PM (#21499603)
          corporation - noun
          1. an ingenious device for creating personal profit without personal responsibility
        • I think that it only works if it includes those that funded this. It was not mcBride. It was MS and Sun. Once we see those at MS and SUN in prison with McBride, then and only then can you say that this works. Until then, it will show that all you need to do is not get your hand dirty.
          • I prefer to believe that the license Sun bought was, as they later claimed, in preparation to making Solaris free software. They even hinted at it at the time.
            • I could believe it except that the "license" that Sun bought was overvalued by 19 million (a few USB drivers code was worth less 1 million) and it included a bunch of stock in SCO that was later sold. McNealy has always been a sleaze bucket. He is no different than gates or ellis.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by palegray.net (1195047) <philip@paradis.palegray@net> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:37PM (#21498275) Homepage Journal
      About the huge amounts of money part... I honestly wonder what the *real* economic impact of SCO's saga of scare tactics has been to the open source community at large, specifically employees and customers of leading Linux vendors. How many purchases of Linux-based products were shelved or cancelled based on SCO's claims of infringement?

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

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bstone (145356) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:30PM (#21498883)
        On the plus side, the old saying is "there's no such thing as bad advertising", right?

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

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

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by _Hellfire_ (170113) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:31PM (#21498889) Homepage
        To the best of my knowledge, Telstra (the enormous half govt telco here in Australia) were about to start the process of choosing between Linux and Windows for umpteen-thousand desktops right when the SCO saga hit.

        Needless to say, Telstra are still predominantly Windows based, and many Telstra employees blame the SCO scaremongering.
        • by sr180 (700526)
          Telstra were only threatening to go to Java to negotiate massive discounts out of Microsoft.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          That may be unfair. I'd blame Telstra for being a huge, slow, dumb, Dilbert-esque dinosaur. SCO scaremongering may have made it easier to camouflage the lack of a decision to choose something outside the status quo, but few large conservative anti-competitive monopolies really want to bother with something different -- and why should they? It's easier not to. No cushy middle-management jobs will be lost for not doing things differently.

          And remember, we're talking about the same lumbering flat-footed behemot
        • by TeraCo (410407)
          The total Telstra investment in linux was a 10 man team being formed to go off and do 'stuff' while Steve Ballmer flew over to give us massive discounts on everything.

          I worked with the Telstra architects for almost 3 years and there was never a serious push to do linux for anything but serverside.
        • by a.ameri (665846)
          No they did not. Telstra's decision to drop their vaporware Linux drive had nothing do to with SCO, and IIRC was made public a couple of months before the Sco fiasco. Telstra only threatened to move to Linux once it didn't get the deal it wanted from MS. The plan worked and Microsoft promptly came back to them (this was a time when XP's adoption was in doubt) with a much better offer, which killed the Linux process.

          Even assuming that Telstra might have had better intentions... is wierd for a fellow Aussie!
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by bennomatic (691188)
        My reaction to the whole thing was similar to my reaction to our fair president's Iraq/WMD claims. I couldn't believe, right from the start, that anyone would take them seriously.

        SCO's attempts to claim ownership of so much Linux IP seemed like the sleaziest of technicality-mongering I've ever seen. To use another governmental parallel, it wasn't much better when Cheney tried to claim that, since he's the VP, he is a member of congress when people say he's beholden to executive branch rules, and he's an

        • I personally wouldn't be surprised if someone didn't go to jail, it's almost as if the judge just gave Novell the "go ahead", I would be surprised for instance if Novell didn't go after individuals, what else is left?
      • by mikael (484)
        It brought attention to the open source community, Linux and Linus Torvalds. There really wasn't much media interest in Linux until Microsoft started throwing FUD and chairs at Linux; mostly at the time, the only mention was Red Hat for servers. Then everyone wants to know what scares Microsoft so much that they have to do this...

        Now newspaper columns are much more aware; listing where to download liveCD's, the different releases (Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix, etc... ) and the different desktops (KDE, Gnome).
        • by leonbev (111395)
          I don't know where you get your news, but my local news outlets are still trying to figure out how to keep their Hotmail account from getting hacked.

          Seriously... that was a lead story in the local news today. If you asked these bozos what Linux was, they would probably do AOL keyword search and think that they made stuffed penguins or something.
      • by bytesex (112972)
        You _could_ go and account for that. However, it would make you no better than the RIAA claiming hundreds of bucks per download per song. I'm sure that we don't want to go down that route. Live and let live, I say.
    • by trolltalk.com (1108067) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:39PM (#21498293) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

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

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

      • It shouldn't even be called justice, but whatever it is, it is blind, deaf, slow, dumb and expensive.
      • by brass1 (30288) <SlrwKQpLrq1FM AT what DOT net> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @09:45PM (#21500073) Homepage

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

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

        • With the ruling taking that many years, that many millions of dollars, and that much invested time, only a major multinational like IBM or Novell could survive long enough for "justice" to be served. The reality is that ordinary people like those kids and grandmothers the RIAA is suing can't afford to defend themselves so they either settle immediately or, after going bankrupt with a legal war of attrition, settle later.

          Obviously the good guys won here, but could you imagine if it had been startups or midsi
      • If the software industry worked as slowly as justice, and as expensively, we'd be using a $5,000 abacus instead of a computer.

        The software industry works exactly that slowly and expensively. Where's my reliable handwriting recognition, voice recognition, artificial intelligence, robot maid, and automatic car? Software is still so primitive that keyboards are a wide-spread input device and buffer-overruns are a major security risk. What has saved us is the great work by the hardware industry, improving pow

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swillden (191260) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:46PM (#21498367) Homepage Journal

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

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

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

      • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @09:19PM (#21499867) Homepage

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

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

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

        • by swillden (191260)

          Right. But in bankruptcy court, that's reversed. The debtor isn't in charge. The court, the U.S. Trustee, and the creditor's committee are. Notice how, since SCO declared bankruptcy, their wierd legal moves have been shot down fast.

          Yep, and both the IBM and Novell cases have already been dragged out about as far as they can -- Kimball was just about ready to empanel a jury in SCO v Novell when the stay was ordered, and it won't take long to get that trial back on track.

          Things will move quickly now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tom (822)
      If by "works" you mean "drags the thing out endlessly and brings lots of many into the lawyers' pockets" then I have to agree.
  • by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:16PM (#21498013) Homepage
    a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay

    Yes, he's lifting the stay, much like one would lift the active portion of a guillotine.
    • Yes, he's lifting the stay, much like one would lift the active portion of a guillotine.
      Now if only you could actually get Daryl into a guillotine...
    • Exactly! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:21PM (#21498065)
      I remember a quote where one of SCO's own lawyers said they were under a "death sentence" in Utah, so that's very appropriate. In fact, I was about to submit this exact story under the title "SCO's Stay of Execution Lifted" but I was obviously too late.

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

      SCO has been a dead man walking for a long time now. It's just that we're finally about to watch their cremation. Anyone remember to bring marshmallows?
  • by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:20PM (#21498051)
    Trying to derail the main case by running to bankruptcy court failed. So what's next?
    • Try to sidetrack the case in traffic court by claiming IBM jaywalked in front of the bankruptcy court?
    • File a motion to move everything to small claims court since by the end of this all they'll likely have less than $2,000 in their pocket?
    • Risk moving the whole thing in front of Judge Judy [judgejudy.com] and hope to confuse her?
    • You do not realize the puddle of stuff they have stepped in the BK court. They are now in a position that if its deemed their not acting in the best interest of their creditors, the management will be replace. They will then be replace with people who will determine the best path for a orderly shutdown into chapter 11 after the ruling in Utah. That you can be sure of.
    • by mpe (36238)
      Risk moving the whole thing in front of Judge Judy and hope to confuse her?

      That would be a very big risk considering she dosn't suffer fools gladly and attempting to confuse her is more likely to just annoy her...
  • Well good. (Score:2, Insightful)

    Almost restores my belief that the US Justice System is worth salvaging. Would fewer lawyers mean justice was served? This whole fandango has taken way too long.
    • Re:Well good. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:36PM (#21498257) Journal
      And that's exactly where I think this has indeed been a fiasco. SCO never, not for one moment, in court or out of it, actually justified its claims. There's something desparately wrong with a legal system that takes four years to work its way through absolutely nothing at all. It's repugnant that discovery can take this long. The minimum threshhold for any litigation ought to be showing some evidence for your claims immediately after filing, not using discovery and countless motions and countermotions to keep it going for years and years.

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

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

      Judge: Please provide the code.

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

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

      Judge: So, provide the infringing code.

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

      Judge: Case dismissed.
      • by zentec (204030) *
        ..dismissed with prejudice!
      • by gtall (79522)
        That isn't the code IBM handed over. They handed over all the AIX builds going back to 5000 BC. They told the Court if SCOX wanted the Linux code, they could download it from SCOX's own servers since SCOX is a Linux provider.

        Gerry
  • Of course the real question is how Maureen O'Gara spins this to favor SCO.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

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

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

    • by Jaywalk (94910) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:15PM (#21498711) Homepage
      From the court decision:

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

      In any case, just because Judge Gross is reserving the right to order a constructive trust for himself doesn't mean he won't decide to order one once Kimball rules anyway.
    • I believe O'Gara is claiming that Gross made a gross mistake, and that his decision will be overturned.
  • Horrible things? (Score:4, Informative)

    by steveha (103154) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:32PM (#21498211) Homepage
    PJ ended the article with:

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

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

    Could someone please post links to some of the "horrible things"?
    • by rewt66 (738525)
      At a minimum, they told the bankruptcy court that they thought Kimball's decision against them was wrong...
    • Re:Horrible things? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Col. Klink (retired) (11632) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:47PM (#21498377)
      He said that Kimball was overruled on appeal two thirds of the time. It is, of course, not exactly true [investorvillage.com].
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

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

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

    • Here's a link (Score:5, Informative)

      by DrJimbo (594231) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @06:53PM (#21498435)

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mabhatter654 (561290)
        First level judges get over turned a lot, because there are many, many recourses available after the first set of trials... EXCEPT.. in this case SCO has used up every single discovery and process exception... the appeals court has kicked them BACK to this judge over and over, so when he rules, there won't be much of an appeal left to make to anybody. And the Marshals will seize their assets more or less immediately, so there will be no more appeals!
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by capnkr (1153623)
        I think that part of the reason this whole fiaSCO took so long to play out is just so that SCO *does not stand a chance at appeal*, due to the thoroughness of what has been brought to trial, and how Judge Kimball allowed them to draw themselves out at every opportunity by allowing them to state every reason for everything, and then some.

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

        They never proved anything substanti
  • So, it seems fairly clear to this non-economist that SCOX is royally screwed. However, are there fates worse than bankruptcy? There have been a lot of (mostly wishful thinking) suggestions that SCO's board was doing all this as a big pump-and-dump and that it's only a matter of time until the SEC folks move in. As I'm wholly ignorant of such things, how likely is something like that to happen? I mean, it certainly appears to me that they committed a long list of sins, but are any of those likely to tran

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

      You betcha. The SEC is going to have a field day with the pump-n-dump aspect of this, at some point - unless Darl and friends are politically connected, and get protection from prosecution - which is VERY unlikely.
  • by the_humeister (922869) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:00PM (#21498519)
    Didn't Microsoft pay for SCO to do sue IBM? And didn't Microsoft make a deal with Novell? So in some sense, Microsoft is battling itself! And only one will prevail... Microsoft!
  • by davejenkins (99111) <slashdot&davejenkins,com> on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:05PM (#21498589) Homepage
    I've said it for months now, and I'll wildly guess again:
    1. SCO will owe Novell a bunch of money (money that it doesn't have)
    2. Microsoft will purchase the remaining 'assets' from SCO. It doesn't really matter if they pay $1 or $1Million
    3. Microsoft will do so to get closer to the following goals:
    3a. MS now has a hand in the Linux game (possible bump in their stock)
    3b. MS can now renegotiate/strengthen their position with Novell
    3c. MS can now possibly resurrect the lawsuit or dredge up other scary FUD-alicious items out of what they get (remember it's the appearance of a problem, not an actual problem that makes corporate lawyers CIOs think twice about going open source)
    3d. MS pisses off some open source zealots that already hated them (meh)
    4. ???
    5. Profit!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by iggymanz (596061)
      but certain Unix rights revert back to Novell since SCO broke contract. it'll continue to be a grand mess, that's for sure
    • Ain't gonna happen. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Jaywalk (94910) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:37PM (#21498951) Homepage
      Microsoft wouldn't touch SCO with a pole, regardless of length. First of all, it's SCO's creditor committee -- soon to be headed by Novell -- which gets to determine what happens with SCO's assets. Secondly, SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. Kimball's decision made it perfectly clear that SCO's rights could not be used the way SCO was attempting to use them. Finally, Microsoft tries to leave the impression that any FUD is not coming from them, preferring to fund a cat's paw like SCO to do their dirty work. It would be far more likely for Microsoft to fund a patent troll to attempt to pull off an "emergency" purchase of assets from the bankruptcy.

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

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

        Pathetic.

        • A brief look at Microsoft's behavior over the last twenty years indicates to me that they would sell out their proverbial mother if it meant wrecking competition and building their monopoly. But Microsoft has moved on to bigger and better schemes, like destroying international standards bodies.
    • by HexaByte (817350) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @08:08PM (#21499261)
      No one will buy SCO, because there will be nothing left to buy. SCO will end up owing Novell more than they are worth, and since it's Novells money that was supposed to be a pass-thru, i.e., never SCO's to begin with, they cannot bring it into the bankruptcy to pay other creditors.

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

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

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

        OTOH, since SCOx can no longer dispose of it's assets without approval by the bankruptcy court, a constructive trust may be less needed...perhaps.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by HexaByte (817350)
          No, the reason for the Constructive Trust is so that SCO won't "convert", or use for their own purposes, the money owed to Novell. Although the Bankruptcy Judge doesn't allow Kimball to impose one, and reserves that right to himself, the law requires that money NOT belonging to the bankrupt company be separated and given to whom it belongs BEFORE the rest of the funds are divided up. Since there won't be any other funds left by that time, there will be no bankruptcy. Or rather, no division or remaining a
    • by Pecisk (688001)
      And there is why you should carefully read PJ article again: It's all what was stay about. SCO hoped that they will go to bankruptcy court and say, well, let's sell our assents and IP (All unresolved court cases are automatically stayed in such scenario). BUT Novell said "Hey, you can't do that, judge still have to decide if it's really your money and IP!" and filled motion to lift the stay. Bankruptcy court judge said "Yes, this objection is reasonable" and lifted the stay.

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

  • Employment at SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mu51c10rd (187182) on Tuesday November 27, 2007 @07:44PM (#21499021)
    Oddly enough, they are looking for .NET programmers here [sco.com]. Also note that their development is in New Delhi. Perhaps the Indians don't realize the type of company they are working for?
  • Darl (Score:2, Funny)

    How tough are you now, Darl? You thought you could play the lawsuit lottery against anyone who's ever said the word "Linux" but guess what? Linus has more resources at his disposal than even the Borg up in Regmond. So do the dozens of international corporations and governments that are using, developing, or otherwise supporting Linux. Not to mention that all your lawsuit succeeded in doing was generating lots and lots of press for Linux. And as the saying goes, there's no such thing as bad publicity. So I g
  • Am I the only one who read "stay lifted" and immediately took a bong rip?
  • I see the MS/SCO parrots are not quite dead yet... Pining for the salt lakes, maybe ?

We are Microsoft. Unix is irrelevant. Openness is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Working...