Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Caldera News

US Trustee Asks To Send SCO Into Chapter 7 259

Posted by kdawson
from the long-dark-teatime-drawing-to-a-close dept.
Several readers including Pop69 inform us that the US Trustee's office has asked to convert SCO's Chapter 11 bankruptcy to Chapter 7 — a.k.a. liquidation. Groklaw has the text of the filing: "...not only is there no reasonable chance of 'rehabilitation' in these cases, the Debtors have tried — and failed — to liquidate their business in chapter 11."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Trustee Asks To Send SCO Into Chapter 7

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

    by symbolset (646467) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:35PM (#27841529) Journal

    That's the fat lady clearing her throat.

    Strangely enough, now I want to hear from Enderle and D'Idiot. I want to hear them whine about the unfainess of it all, how these saints were ridden out of town on a rail when their cause was just. I want to hear them tell the tale of the briefcase with millions of lines of copied code was pilfered from SCO's case in the thick of night.

    And then I want them to vanish into ignominy.

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

      by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <<shadow.wrought> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:37PM (#27841545) Homepage Journal
      Yep. It'll be fascinating to see how O'Gara twists this into an SCO victory, and helps further their appeal.
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:42PM (#27841573) Journal
      "Strangely enough, now I want to hear from Enderle and D'Idiot. I want to hear them whine about the unfainess of it all, how these Latter Day [wikipedia.org] Saints [wikipedia.org] were ridden out of town on a rail when their cause was just. I want to hear them tell the tale of the briefcase with millions of lines of copied code was pilfered from SCO's case in the thick of night."

      They'll probably have to drive a stake through the corporate charter to make SCO stay dead.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by russ1337 (938915)
      the funny thing is..... SCO is like a zombie. Just when you think it's dead, a hand reaches from under the bed and grabs your leg.

      It'll take a shotgun to the face to get rid of SCO. (a.k.a buy the trademark and all SCO's IP and release it all under creative commons / GPL / public domain....)
      • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @03:04AM (#27842659)

        But be honest, you KNOW this hand comes, don't you? I mean, how many zombie movies have you seen? You're actually pissed when it doesn't come. It's like sex without an orgasm when you're sitting there, the hero has his love interest in his arms and that fuckin' zombie stays just DEAD. "C'mon! Move!", you scream at the screen, "how can you let him get away with this without a last, feeble attempt to claw at him!"

        I'd feel cheated if zombie Darl didn't at least try to move and lift four fingers to make that chapter 7 an 11 again.

        I feel there's a 7-Eleven joke in there somewhere, if someone finds it, please inform me. Thanks.

    • While she's clearing her throat, those of us in the audience are singing...

      Sing with me now...

      Na na na na. Na na na na. Hey hey hey! Goodbye!

  • Liquify what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LoRdTAW (99712) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:39PM (#27841557)

    Seriously. What assets do they have left that are worth selling? Patents? Software? I am sure there are still SCO shops around so there might be some interest in Unix Ware, Open Server etc. But how profitable will it be after everyone jumps the SCO ship to other platforms that aren't in danger of becoming unsupported?

    All in all, good riddance.

    • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:46PM (#27841611)

      Liquify what?

      Their lawyers? Chief Officers? A company might be able to make some soylent green and make a profit.

    • Re:Liquify what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by nairnr (314138) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:47PM (#27841613)
      Everything! Furniture, chairs, computers, bookcases. You name it, it goes. This is not so anyone can reorganize it into anything meaningful, this is so creditors get every last stinking dime out of them.

      If you have ever been to a liquidation of a store, after they sell you what is left on the racks, they sell you the racks,display cases, lights, left over toilet paper...

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @03:08AM (#27842673)

        And guess who is going to buy all the chairs...

      • If you have ever been to a liquidation of a store, after they sell you what is left on the racks, they sell you the racks,display cases, lights, left over toilet paper...

        If anyone is at a loss for useful examples, I should think Circuit City ought to be a recent memory of exactly this.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Circuit City was mostly an excuse to sell resources at normal prices to suckers. I looked: those "closing" prices were the same as other commercial retailers, with perhaps a 5% discount, at least in my neighborhood.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by elrous0 (869638) *

        THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS, YOU HEARD CORRECTLY! Everything! Furniture, chairs, computers, bookcases. You name it, it goes! We've got office supplies, filing cabinets, computers! Heck, we'll even sell you the carpet if you want it! Come on down THIS WEEKEND to the SCO Liquidation Sale, at our liquidation warehouse right off the I-75 Encino Road Exit. Free financing available! Free cotton candy for the kids available!

        C O M E O N D O W N !!!!!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Don't be so mean: SCO has an iPhone App! [fcmobilelife.com] and an e-postcard service! [shoutpostcard.com] That would have been worth, like, a billion dollars in VC play money back before the bubble burst...
    • by rts008 (812749) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:24AM (#27841845) Journal

      Seriously. What assets do they have left that are worth selling? Patents? Software?

      Well, sometimes you have to consider that the 'best' return on your investment is to 'render that horse' into dog food and glue. SCO has seemingly passed up both of those viable options in the hope of a MS type miracle, and failed.

      Haul that dead horse to the rendering plant, and finally put it out of 'all of our miseries'!

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Why all of Unix... could be your for cents in the US$. :)
      In theory they might have some old tapes to some .mil projects too.
      Its like an ex president keeping all the 'stuff' from airforce one.
      A $699 part of computing history could be yours.
      Be a fun challenge, get your SCO asset sale total to read $699 :)
      Computer, box of mystery backup tapes, SCO notepad, SCO binder and 3 SCO pens :)
    • It becomes a steal. They can buy back much of the "IP" at fire-sale prices, while still holding a priority claim on what is left.

    • Re:Liquify what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Animats (122034) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @02:11AM (#27842379) Homepage

      Seriously. What assets do they have left that are worth selling? Patents? Software?

      The way this works is that the Bankruptcy Trustee brings in an auction house. [go-dove.com] Assets like intellectual property and lawsuits are usually handled directly by the Trustee. The auction house handles the physical assets.

      There's a whole food chain in Silicon Valley for disposing of defunct companies. Action Computer buys up many of the old PCs, the ones that work. Weird Stuff Warehouse buys up old networking gear and miscellaneous electronics. Consolidated Office Distributors buys much of the furniture (Their warehouse in San Jose looks like the one from Raiders of the Lost Ark, only bigger. That's where many of the Aeron chairs from the dot-com boom ended up.) There's a place in San Jose that buys steel shelving. Quickly, the office buildings and factories are cleaned out, cleaned up, and put on the market.

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      I'd be willing to shell out a few bucks for the vital organs of its officers...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Service contracts and customer lists. There are a stack of fiscal and paperwork handling companies that used OpenServer for relatively inexpensive x86 based servers, for years, and wrote very important in-house toolkits on which their companies are founded. I had a long chat with a corporate partner 3 years ago about exactly this, because SCO hardware compatibility seriously lagged anything that wasn't in bankruptcy. They chose to stay with their existing software environment rather than do a complete datab

  • And I was hoping this year's lawsuit would be the bestest one ever!
  • Where's Darl now? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZosX (517789) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .suivaxsoz.> on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:47PM (#27841619) Homepage

    Don't worry. The SCO execs still made their money and are most likely very comfortable. Shame they never got investigated for insider trading when they started dumping their own stock, while filing waves of lawsuits, or is that legal? IP was the last leg their company had to stand on, and that was a shaky one at best. It is kind of sad that it took them this long to finally burn through all their cash on lawyers. Couldn't they have just called it a day and given the money to charity or something or maybe tried to reinvest in a new venture? Clearly they didn't see any sort of long term future for SCO. Does any still even actively license their craptacular "Unix" from them?

    • by lgftsa (617184) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:07AM (#27841731)

      It is kind of sad that it took them this long to finally burn through all their cash on lawyers.

      That would be Novell's money you smell burning...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rts008 (812749)

      IP was the last leg their company had to stand on, and that was a shaky one at best.

      That's the inherent nature of 'IP' to start with...we see how it ended here.
      Get a clue. Wake the fsck up. 'IP' applied to anything but Internet Protocol, is just a spurious money grab, based on smoke and mirrors.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by evilviper (135110)

      Does any still even actively license their craptacular "Unix" from them?

      Damn. How lazy can one person possibly be? You didn't even TRY visiting their website to look at their marketing hype, vis-a-vis SCO Unix market share?

      http://sco.com/products/openserver6/
      * SCO UNIX has more than 40% market share among U.S. pharmacy retailers
      * Six of the top 10 global retailers are SCO UNIX customers
      * Seven of the top 10 U.S. retaile

      • SCO UNIX helps the German train system run on time

        Ok, I could maybe have believed you 'til here, but this is for SO many reasons SO hilarious.

        In a nutshell, if SCO UNIX helps the German train system to run on time, they should stop. Maybe the delay is then a full 24 hours instead of the usual 1-2, so the customers won't notice.

      • by Moraelin (679338) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:55AM (#27843353) Journal

        I'm sorry, but the question was if anyone still actively goes and buys a license.

        E.g., given the state of IP in Russia or China, I can't possibly imagine that the Bank Of Russia (or for that matter the China Post) actually bought full price licenses for those 22,000 branches. Most likely they had copied it lots, and if they even have a license in the meantime, they probably got some _massively_ discounted blanket license as most companies sell for Russia, China, etc. That or it was some scam in which it was imported through the CEO's brother's ghost company and it was just a way to siphon some money into their private pockets.

        E.g., those BMW service centres or the Deutsche Bahn, I don't imagine they still pay anything for that SCO Unix or designing new systems around it. Most likely they still have some legacy stuff from the 80's or early 90's, and it stays there just because nobody can be arsed to replace it with something newer. Or maybe it's the same I'll get to for McDonald.

        Running McDonald restaurants? Now that really gets me thinking. It's not like a McDonald restaurant has its own computing centre at all. If they're that big on SCO Unix, why only in restaurants? And why not in all restaurants? Does McDonald have anything against a homogenous and easy to administrate network?

        What this last one gets me to suspect is that it's really more along the lines of "whatever embedded OS came with those cashier machines." Roll that around in your head a bit.

        What that really tells me is that McDonald doesn't actually give a flying fuck about SCO Unix as such. They just have a bunch of cashier machines which incidentally came with SCO on them. But they wouldn't give a rat's arse about whether it's SCO or Linux or some embedded version of Windows or some refurbished thing based on OS/2, as long as it still talks the same protocols to the rest of their network.

        And they probably won't shed one tear for SCO. Whoever manufactures those terminals will just switch to something else and McDonald won't even notice, nor care.

        And it makes me wonder how many others on that list are essentially the same misleading claim. E.g., pharmacies? I don't imagine many either (A) actually implementing any meaningful computer centre in the back, or (B) actually choosing SCO for that. Most likely, again, it was whatever embedded crap came with their cashier machines. They'll keep them happily untilt they stop working at all, then replace them with some other machine that talks to the same protocol, and probably don't even know they run SCO at all.

        Same for probably a lot of other retailers, since SCO seems to hype that.

        I'm sorry, but that doesn't equal "actively licensing their craptacular Unix." In reality the only ones who actually actively licensed SCO there were the one or maybe two manufacturers of those cashier machines, and even those probably just because they got some old 16 bit version for peanuts.

        And I'd be surprised if any of those would _still_ go and license SCO for a new machine, since the word "still" was in the GP's question too. Most likely it's something they licensed a decade or two ago, and never thought about it ever since.

    • Re:Where's Darl now? (Score:5, Informative)

      by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @03:26AM (#27842775)
      An important thing to remember is that Darl McBride's brother was one of those lawyers getting truckloads of cash. I still see it as a two man scam where the company was deliberately driven into the brick wall of IBM and then the repair work contracted out to the driver's brother.
  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:48PM (#27841625)
    Allow me to say, it's about damn time.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:49PM (#27841637)

    One year, four months since I submitted this frontpaged Slashdot article about SCO being delisted from NASDAQ: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/27/1438204 [slashdot.org]

    I must ask again... is the wicked witch finally dead, YET?!

    (Captcha: Circus. How. Very. Appropriate.)

  • I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday May 05, 2009 @11:54PM (#27841661) Homepage

    ...where would SCO be today if it hadn't started filing lawsuits? Sure, it wouldn't have had that cash infusion from Microsoft, but what was the state of that company and where was it headed prior to the suits? Would SCO still be a respected Unix vendor?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jk379 (734476)
      As they were a Linux company they might be making $$$'s. Even at 3rd place linux company would be in a much better place than SCO is today...
      • As they were a Linux company they might be making $$$'s. Even at 3rd place linux company would be in a much better place than SCO is today...

        How do you figure? The top three linux distros these days seem to be Ubuntu, RedHat and SuSE, probably in that order since Ubuntu has grown so fast. In terms of revenue, it's probably RedHat, SuSE, Ubuntu but it's hard to tell since Ubuntu is a private company that doesn't disclose revenues.

        Profit wise, it's also not easy to tell. RedHat makes a fairly small margin for a software company, Novell still makes most of their money from non SuSE stuff and Ubuntu seems to be breaking even.

        For RedHat, profit to re

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Brian Gordon (987471)
          Ubuntu does not break even. Canonical is still burning through Shuttleworth's money, although it's starting to fight its way against its downward spiral and could become profitable in the future. It still has plenty of assets though.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          For RedHat, profit to revenue is about 14% compared to Oracle which is 25% and Microsoft at 29%

          It seems to be difficult for people to understand Red Hat's business model, they are not a software company like Oracle or Microsoft. Oracle and Microsoft provide both software licensing and service, Red Hat provides service. The profit margins on software licensing are insanely high for any mass deployed application as the reproduction cost is virtually zero. Red Hat does not license software so they do not benef

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hardburn (141468)

      When were they ever a respected Unix vendor? SCO Unix never stood out from any of the dozen other Unix variants, and Caldera was the same way on the Linux side. All they had was some tenuous rights to the Unix name and code, but original Unix has been carved up so badly that it's impossible to know who really owns what.

      • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by countach (534280) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:27AM (#27841853)

        Sure they were a respected UNIX vendor. They were the only serious choice at one time for Intel, and then they "owned" (sort of) the original UNIX rights. Doesn't mean they were the best or most wonderful or impressive vendor, but they were a serious vendor.

        • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by PCM2 (4486) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:44AM (#27841945) Homepage

          ...and it had customers. Even if SCO's products and services were worthless, its customer base alone would still have been valuable enough for some other Unix vendor (say, HP) to buy it out.

        • by belmolis (702863)

          Indeed, there's a famous story about a guy calling SCO from his tank during the first Iraq War and downloading a patch.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anne Thwacks (531696)
          Sure they were a respected UNIX vendor. They were the only serious choice at one time for Intel,

          No they were not. This is a completely different company who bought the name. You are talking about the Santa Cruz Operation. Their "Unix" was not very good, but it was not likely to be until the invention of the 386, cos the 286 MMU was not up to the job. (Both MMUs were reworks of earlier DEC ones, so experienced Unix users knew what the issues were.)

      • Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rackserverdeals (1503561) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:50AM (#27841979) Homepage Journal

        When were they ever a respected Unix vendor?

        SCO had the lead in Unix on x86 hardware and apparently were used widely in certain sectors.

        Unline, IBM, HP and Sun, SCO didn't have their own processor architecture so they weren't resistant to having their OS run on commodity hardware like the other big Unix vendors did.

        This whole SCO lawsuit thing confuses me. At least the reaction to it and SCO going after Linux users.

        SCO was under the Canopy Group and every time Ray Noorda [wikipedia.org] spun a company out of Novell, it usually resulted in an IP lawsuit. Usually against Microsoft. Strange or ironic that SCO and Novell would go head to head this time.

        I can understand why SCO sued IBM. IBM, SCO and Sequent got together to work on Project Monterey. SCO's role in that was providing their leading Unix on x86 work. Then the project fell apart, IBM bought Sequent and SCO got nothing for their efforts.

        Then all of a sudden, IBM puts more effort into Linux, an alternate Unix like OS that can run on x86.

        If you were SCO, had spent a lot of time with IBM showing them your Unix/x86 secrets, then they ditch your work and all of a sudden put a big push into a competing unix like os on x86 that could benefit from the knowledge you shared with IBM, you'd probably want to sue too. I would.

        Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but you'd have to go to trial to get to the bottom of it.

        Somehow it all turned into a giant circus and SCO seemed to start it by going after licensing fees for Linux users, but people on the sidelines, in either camp really made a mess of things. I think it's probably one of the most ridiculous moments in technology history.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by countach (534280)

          I don't see why you need to go to trial to get to the bottom of it. Linux development is out in the open and the code is out in the open. If there was anything to it, they could have shown us the code on day one.

        • Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @07:29AM (#27843659)
          Your points are well taken. But discovery, months of discovery, showed that there was no stolen code. There were also some other trigger events that eventually released IBM from the partnership (I can't remember all the details, but they include change of ownership, expiration dates, etc.). In the end, there was really no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of IBM. In fact, well before the lawsuits, IBM made many statements of its intentions and followed through with no objection from SCO.

          This is all very well documented at www.groklaw.net and available for your reading.
        • You're wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by schon (31600) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @08:55AM (#27844233)

          SCO had the lead in Unix on x86 hardware and apparently were used widely in certain sectors.

          No, they most certainly did not.

          Santa Cruz Operation had the lead in Unix on x86 hardware.

          "The SCO Group", which is the company we're talking about, was a failed Linux vendor who called itself "SCO" after they decided to file baseless lawsuits.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by UnknowingFool (672806)

          I can understand why SCO sued IBM. IBM, SCO and Sequent got together to work on Project Monterey. SCO's role in that was providing their leading Unix on x86 work. Then the project fell apart, IBM bought Sequent and SCO got nothing for their efforts.

          First of all, Project Monterrey fell apart not because of anything that IBM, Sequent, or SCO did. Project Monterrey fell apart because it relied on the presumption that Intel Itanium would become the defacto and prevalent server CPU. Intel was late and that ne

    • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:32AM (#27841887)

      I wonder...where would SCO be today if it hadn't started filing lawsuits?

      Same place, chapter 7.

      They knew they were tanking and that's why they did this hail mary "let's sue IBM" nonsense. Their UN*X product was not spectacular. They didn't really offer anything unique or give any compelling reasons to do any business with them.

      People do this sort of thing all the time. There is something nearly universal in the human psyche that says that it makes sense to spend your last five bucks to buy a lottery ticket.

      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:44AM (#27841941) Journal

        ... when they started suing everybody who did anything SONET (including our company) over potential infringements of their patents. (I got dragged in because a chip I had co-architected included a SONET-like framer and some other telecom carrier framer stuff.)

        When the company is sinking and the management is grabbing any floating debris that might keep their heads above water, the patent portfolio that USED to be just for protection against suits from others suddenly becomes a potential cash cow. (Or an inflatable life raft to continue the previous metaphor.) And a technology company starts taking on the appearance of a patent troll operation.

        Of course in SCO's case it looks like the patent trolls bought into the sinking company so they could use it for trolling...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by failedlogic (627314)

      On the opposite, I wonder what would have happened if they actually *won* the suit. I'm not sure if anything of this nature was ever discussed. The business was failing anyways - so they would have had to significantly improve or diversify their product and/or go after new markets.

      They were claiming damages in the 100's of millions of dollars. Would they have invested their riches in new developers, sales, marketing folks? I don't know that even with the riches in hand they would buy out the Linux/Unix tale

  • I dont understand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by onyxruby (118189) <{onyxruby} {at} {comcast.net}> on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:00AM (#27841693)
    I don't understand, their reality distortion field has got to be worth millions in it's own right. Nice thing about chapter 7 is they have to auction /everything/. I wonder if you can buy their data and load up their servers to see what they were really thinking. Perhaps someone can buy whatever rights they thought they had and donate everything to the FSF.
    • by rts008 (812749)

      I wonder if you can buy their data and load up their servers to see what they were really thinking.

      Most people/businesses cannot afford the price of LSD-25 to attain this level of understanding...'try at your own risk' would seem to apply here, YMMV.

      Daryl McBride could 'school' Dr. Timothy Leary here...*cue Jimi Hendrix: "Are you experienced?...Well I am..."[guitar riff]*

      Caustic? Well, yes, but I am experienced, so....

  • I'm taking bets on how much bailout money they will get from the federal Gov. Gotta keep a politician's palm greased for a rainy day, you know?

  • Seems like the office supplies, the inventory of their soda machine, and the desk chairs might the most valuable assets the company has. DIAF, SCO.

  • Constructive Trust (Score:3, Interesting)

    by shentino (1139071) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:28AM (#27841859)

    Hey, didn't judge kimball have novell's money set aside in a constructive trust?

    I hope someone at SCO gets nailed for contempt.

    Novell has probably got to be mega POed right now.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Todd Knarr (15451)

      No, he didn't. He found he could rule on summary judgement that SCO owed money, but exactly how much involved questions of fact that he had to defer to the trial. Since he couldn't pin down an amount, he couldn't order a constructive trust until after the trial. And of course SCO filed for bankruptcy the day before the trial was to start. Later the bankruptcy judge unstayed the case as far as determining the amount SCO owed went, and Judge Kimball finally ruled on the matter last August.

      Novell did ask durin

  • by Anenome (1250374) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:30AM (#27841873)

    Today's top story: In a bid to stave off bankruptcy, SCO Inc. has decided to sue everyone. That's right, everyone. SCO spokesman Seth Tuller says that 'everyone' will be served with court papers during lunch-time tomorrow. Tuller is quoting as saying, "Everyone owes us money, and everyone must pay." Stockholders are up in arms over this last minute bid to serve the entire world with a reverse class-action lawsuit, saying that the estimated $100 billion cost of doing so is just the latest in a long line of terrible decisions by company management.

    In other news, the dancing penguin video has become the latest sensation to hit the web...

    • by Skapare (16644)

      And they are financing all this legal work how? Taxpayer bailout? Oh, yeah, sue the people that are paying them to sue people. Nice work.

  • by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:32AM (#27841885) Homepage Journal

    Let's not forget to archive the materials they have published (mostly as Caldera). There is some useful information there.

  • Chapter 7 probably makes sense for a company like SCO, but they have one argument against it: liquidate what?
  • by Timbotronic (717458) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @12:51AM (#27841985)
    I think a sharpened wooden stake is called for at this point.
    • I was thinking more along the lines of holy water, submerge the execs in the liquid and keep them there for an hour or so for good measure. That should solve all the problems. Holy water has that power. It cleanses companies, provided you have enough of it to drown the whole management floor.

  • ... I sure had to do one this evening.

  • I miss the old SCO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostMyBeaver (1226054) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @02:54AM (#27842623)
    There was a point in time when there was an SCO (probably prior to 7 buy outs and name transfers) that actually focused on technology. I remember when their product, in my opinion was the best UNIX desktop if for no other reason, but they had a control panel while everyone else still used configuration files. It was a dream being able to change screen resolution without having to restart X.

    They also made some products in their Tarentella line which was a port of the Microsoft SMB stack and therefore was a MUCH MUCH better solution than the Samba of the time. In fact, management-wise, it might still be better. After all, when you can spend less time reverse engineering and hacking with compatibility problems you can spend more time on usability.

    I guess that company is long gone and what's going bankrupt now is just some predators who attempted to capitalize off the accomplishments of the old SCO.

    But Goodbye SCO. I miss you
  • I wonder when they will come banging on the door of senior SCO managers who performed insider trading. Also, it wouldn't amaze me if they follow the cash donation (that $500.000.000 they got from Microsoft) back to the source and start asking some very nasty questions over there.

    SEC's arguments: competition fraud, misleading shareholders, inciting forgery of papers, inciting abuse of the judicial system.

    When will that RICO act be invoked against Microsoft by the SEC?

  • being able to drag SCO out, cut off its head, stake it through the heart and bury it face down at a crossroads.

    Then I'd like to take off and nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

% A bank is a place where they lend you an umbrella in fair weather and ask for it back the when it begins to rain. -- Robert Frost

Working...