I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The day many have been waiting for has finally arrived, the day SCO gets torn apart in court by Novell. Each side gets 10 hours, and Novell managed to get them to agree to a stipulation (PDF) that should make things go a lot faster. With any luck, we will soon have an official ruling that SCO does not own much of anything and then we just have to wait for SCO to exhaust its appeals. This would've been over a long time ago, but SCO filed for bankruptcy on the eve of trial, stopping the clock. One can only wonder what trick they will try to pull this time."
SCO ain't dead yet. They've proven time and again that no tactic is too outrageous to let this thing drag on as long as they possibly can. If anybody can find a way to postpone the inevitable even further it's the SCOundrels.
And have you ever tried to find a minister to perform a duck marriage? You say you want to make an honest duck of her and they look at you like you're crazy.
Weird guy: I want to marry this duck!
Minister: We don't marry ducks here!
Weird guy: I'll make a $10,000.00 donation to the church.
Minister: Why didn't you tell me the duck was a "born again" christian?
Why? After having seen one decision after another AGAINST SCO, how anything resembling investment money still flowing to SCO? Are these investors so over-powered with greed that they are failing to use common sense? Why? Why? Why? Somebody with no common sense needs to explain this to me.
Maybe it's like those folks who fall for the Nigerian schemes. Once you're in you can either admit that you've been scammed and have lost thousands of dollars or you can ignore all of the blaring warning signs, press on, and construct an elaborate fantasy world to live in where friendly Nigerian e-mailers will be shipping you your pile of cash any day now. The investors, instead of cutting their losses and moving on, are just hoping against hope that some magical evidence fairy will visit SCO overnight, l
Maybe. But I still think something fishy is going on here. Investors (good and bad ones) lose money on what turn out to be bad investments all the time - they don't sulk like the amateurs who fall for spam schemes. And really, at the initial onset I could see it making sense to buy some SCO stock. Most major corporations pay money to make lawsuits like this just go away. Even if there's only a 10% shot at it, the rise on stock afterwards may be worth it. Now it's just weird. I hate bashing Microsoft just fo
Because quite often hedge fund managers don't care whether each individual investment will make money. If I loan money to SCO I can tell my investors the funds is now grown by the inflated value on paper that SCO agreed to and the bigger numbers brings more investors and hopefully by the time SCO tanks I'll have made the money back elsewhere.
how anything resembling investment money still flowing
If it doesn't look like investment money, then perhaps it isn't. There are a lot of non-investment related reasons that one might want to give money to SCO. Pro-lawyer, pro-Microsoft, pro-time-wasting, and pro-evil groups are probably all interested in seeing SCO continue its lawsuits.
I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case here, but it couldn't hurt to check out Stephen Norris Capital Partners: maybe they are infusing SCO with money on behalf of some [evil] third party.
Your confusion is easily explained by stepping back and inspecting your premise. That premise is that people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through sales and licensing. In that context there is no sense in pouring more money into them.
Assuming that those investors are not total nitwits, we must therefore look for another premise. I propose this one: "people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through delay of Linux take up". You see, that makes sense: SCO casts a shadow of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt over all things Linux (and by extension, over all things Open Source). That shadow is highly beneficial to some parties, since Linux represents a serious threat to their business model.
No one has invested in them in years. They have floated several "rescue" schemes since they filed fo Ch. 11 bankruptcy last year but all have fallen through at the last minute.
Ahem, what [yahoo.com] money [yahoo.com]? All the trades this year seem to be $50,000 and they're going both directions.
Maybe it is something as simple as assets being sold off, generating income for the defunct company? I don't know anything about trading in bankrupt companies, but this was the first idea that I thought of. The other possibility that crossed my mind is shady stock market tricks being played.
Maybe it's a slightly more sophisticated pump-and-dump?
If I buy at.10 and sell at.13 (which someone did a few days ago) I make 30% in three hours.... Not a bad return, and someone has been doing that every since the first of the year....
Yeah but the volumes are tiiiiiiny and you just as easily risk buying at.10 and selling at.08, losing 20% in 3 hours. You can play the penny stock game, but I wouldn't bet more than a few thousand at a time. You'd probably have similar returns playing red or black streaks at the roulette tables in Vegas.
Just remember one key phrase: litigation risk. This is the risk that you run, given that all the facts are on your side, that you'll lose in court for no predictable reason. Most lawyers like to ballpark this number around 10-20%.
And no, "corporate shell gets disassembled by cheated creditors while the criminals in charge of it get away" is not a happy ending. That's an improvement over the ridiculous threats they were making to scare off Linux interest and lure in Microsoft "investment" money, but a real happy ending for the SCO scammers would involve more pitchforks and fire.
"Ladies and Gentleman of the supposed court, I know my clients lawsuit has been rendered ashes by you fine people; but you see here this is Chewbacca..."
"Ladies and Gentleman of the supposed court, I know my clients lawsuit has been rendered ashes by you fine people; but you see here this is Chewbacca..."
"Damn, Johnny Cochran is dead. Now what will we do?" -- Darl McBride
Interesting is in this trial SCO is the defendant and Novell is the claimant. I thought it was SCO who is suing everyone.
It looks like via the stipulation and the way the trial is organized that SCO expects to lose. It appears that Novell simply wants to assert its claim to UnixWare and SCO is ready to close up shop. That's why the stipulation and the short trial and the fact that SCO isn't going to call up witnesses.
Interesting is in this trial SCO is the defendant and Novell is the claimant. I thought it was SCO who is suing everyone. Afaict it is quite normal to countersue when you get sued. Especially when the organisation suing you is a company that likes to lie about you in public.
The summary is a little misleading. The judge *already* ruled that SCO Group does not own much of anything, including the UNIX SYSV copyrights, in a summary judgment motion last year.
The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product. Given the non-dizzying speed at which SCO's products have been improved and maintained, Novell argues that the vast majority of those millions was due to Novell.
In the mean time it has been entertaining to read the SCO Group's arguments for why they should keep the money to which they have no right, or at least how they should not be required to turn the swag over to Novell. As if our opinion of them could have previously been lower.
The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product.
Actually, SCO has the right to license Unix on behalf of Novell; however, they have to give 100% of all revenue to Novell as per their agreement. Novell remits 5% to SCO for their trouble. SCO does not have the right to create new types of licenses (which it appeared to do
> With any luck, we will soon have an official ruling that SCO does not own much of > anything...
Kimball ruled that SCO does not own the SysV copyrights last year. This trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO pocketed when they sold SysV licenses to Sun and Microsoft without Novell's permission. The case will then go back to the bankruptcy court where Judge Gross will decide what to do about it. Note that this trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO took, not whether or not they did so. The latter has already been decided.
If Kimball awards more than a small fraction of the $37M maximum (likely) it is hard to see how SCO can avoid Ch. 7 liquidation.
GOD DAMN IT! Look, mods, when someone posts a link to a fucking virus "offtopic" is NOT sufficiant. The object or moderation isn't just to make the comment invisible and take away karma. It's to let the rest of us know WHY it's a bad post.
Jesus, as bad as the comment was, the moderation was just as bad.
Great Day (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great Day (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Great Day (Score:4, Funny)
Well, to be fair, we are talking about Utah here...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most morally-conservative states in the nation -- duck fornication is definitely illegal.
Re:Great Day (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great Day (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Great Day (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Weird guy: I want to marry this duck!
Minister: We don't marry ducks here!
Weird guy: I'll make a $10,000.00 donation to the church.
Minister: Why didn't you tell me the duck was a "born again" christian?
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody give that fat lady the sheet music, ok?
Why do people continue to give them money? (Score:2)
Sorry. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Short sighted? Yep. Evil conspiracy? Not so much.
Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered why no geek has made this into a recursive joke
Department of Redundancy Department's Redundancy Division, Department of Redundancy Department.
Okay, that might be stretching it too far. Never Mind
Re:Why do people continue to give them money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming that those investors are not total nitwits, we must therefore look for another premise. I propose this one: "people pour money into SCO with the expectation of profit through delay of Linux take up". You see, that makes sense: SCO casts a shadow of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt over all things Linux (and by extension, over all things Open Source). That shadow is highly beneficial to some parties, since Linux represents a serious threat to their business model.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What a lot of people don't understand is the amount of wealth the wealthy now have. Seriously, it is sickening how rich the rich have become.
$10 million, $100 million, is nothing to some of the people with a vested interest in eliminating Linux.
There is no ROI from SCO's software, but the on-going court battle drains money from Novell, BM, and still creates fear.
While no one seriously think
No One Is Giving Them Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem, what [yahoo.com] money [yahoo.com]? All the trades this year seem to be $50,000 and they're going both directions.
Maybe it is something as simple as assets being sold off, generating income for the defunct company? I don't know anything about trading in bankrupt companies, but this was the first idea that I thought of. The other possibility that crossed my mind is shady stock market tricks being played.
Maybe it's a slightly more sophisticated pump-and-dump?
.10 and sell at .13 (which someone did a few days ago) I make 30% in three hours.... Not a bad return, and someone has been doing that every since the first of the year....
If I buy at
Re: (Score:2)
Spectacular error (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt I have ever seen the random /. quote ever be more appropriate:
"If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error."
Yeah, that about sums it up.
McBride and Yarro to do the perp walk? (Score:4, Interesting)
They called me a criminal for using Linux.
I'm calling them criminals for running an extortion/stock pump and dump/fraud scheme.
They were wrong. I'm not. When will the SEC finally put these all hat, no cattle rustlers behind bars?
Oh, and by the way, if you had the UNIX copyrights, why did you insist on asking Novell for them - repeatedly?
Bunch of lying scumbag bastard pricks - every single supporter of this fiaSCO. (Yes, that includes you, too, Rudy de Haas. Fucking asshat.)
Re: (Score:2)
The SCO Story Was Much More Fun... (Score:2)
We still don't know exactly how it will end up (Score:2)
What trick they will pull this time... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
-- Darl McBride
Stipulation is normal (Score:2)
SCO is the Defendent? (Score:3, Informative)
It looks like via the stipulation and the way the trial is organized that SCO expects to lose. It appears that Novell simply wants to assert its claim to UnixWare and SCO is ready to close up shop. That's why the stipulation and the short trial and the fact that SCO isn't going to call up witnesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Afaict it is quite normal to countersue when you get sued. Especially when the organisation suing you is a company that likes to lie about you in public.
The Judge already ruled (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest issue remaining to be resolved by this trial is how much of the "license" monies given to SCO Group by Microsoft and SUN were for that which SCO Group had no right to license (SYSV), and how much was for SCO Group's product. Given the non-dizzying speed at which SCO's products have been improved and maintained, Novell argues that the vast majority of those millions was due to Novell.
In the mean time it has been entertaining to read the SCO Group's arguments for why they should keep the money to which they have no right, or at least how they should not be required to turn the swag over to Novell. As if our opinion of them could have previously been lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, SCO has the right to license Unix on behalf of Novell; however, they have to give 100% of all revenue to Novell as per their agreement. Novell remits 5% to SCO for their trouble. SCO does not have the right to create new types of licenses (which it appeared to do
Kimball Already Ruled That SCO Doesn't Own SysV (Score:3, Informative)
> anything...
Kimball ruled that SCO does not own the SysV copyrights last year. This trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO pocketed when they sold SysV licenses to Sun and Microsoft without Novell's permission. The case will then go back to the bankruptcy court where Judge Gross will decide what to do about it. Note that this trial is about how much of Novell's money SCO took, not whether or not they did so. The latter has already been decided.
If Kimball awards more than a small fraction of the $37M maximum (likely) it is hard to see how SCO can avoid Ch. 7 liquidation.
So, Prediction time (Score:2)
My guess is that they will, because converting to Chapter 7 following the ruling against them shows "good faith" and keeps Darl and Co. out of jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dont forget ... TROJAN TROLL (Score:2)
Jesus, as bad as the comment was, the moderation was just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would say no, there's no corresponding UNIX 03 certification for 10.5 on PPC.