Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Darl McBride Takes the Stand In Novell v. SCO

Posted by timothy on Thu May 01, 2008 03:34 PM
from the utah's-own-information-minister dept.
UnknowingFool writes "Everyone's favorite CEO Darl McBride took the stand on Wednesday April 30 in Novell v. SCO. Chris Brown has posted his account on Groklaw of the 2nd day of trial. The first day's account can be found here. To refresh your memory in this ongoing case, Judge Kimball has already ruled that Novell owns the copyrights to Unix and has practically dismissed all of SCO's claims. This portion of the trial is about Novell's counterclaims that SCO never paid them the money from the Sun and MS deals. What is to be determined in this trial is how much of the money from the deals were for Unix licensing (SVRx) and how much were for SCO's server technology (Unixware)." (Read on for the rest, below.)
UnknowingFool continues:

"Reading the account, it seems that the SCO folks are currently trying to delicately separate Unixware and SVRx. However Novell's lawyers are quickly pointing out in the past where SCO made no distinction between SVRx and Unixware in their literature or press releases. In day 1's account, SCO's tree picture shows Unix as SCO IP (Unix).

Also SCO's position is that it owes Novell nothing because the deals to MS and Sun were Unixware deals and not SCOSource deals (the much despised Linux licensing program) or SVRx deals. Novell points out fatal flaws in SCO's arguments. Sun wanted the ability to open source some of their Solaris code (which became OpenSolaris). Solaris and Unixware both branched from SVR4 so they would need permission from the owner of SVRx copyrights, not the Unixware owner. That owner is Novell. The MS deal is a little different in that MS wanted Unixware rights AND rights to legacy Unix (SVRx).

The best part of the cross-examination was Darl refusing to admit that the MS and Sun deals were not SCOSource, but Novell showing SCO's financial statements (10Q) where both deals were listed under SCOSource and not Unixware revenue."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Linux: Darl McBride Leaving SCO? 126 comments
JoGiles writes "Linux-watch is reporting that while The SCO Group may go on to pursue its plans with a $100 million buyout, it will do so without its longtime CEO Darl McBride. Buried in the proposed MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Unix vendor and Linux litigator SCO and SNCP (Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partners) is the note that "upon the effective date of the Proposed Plan of Reorganization, the existing CEO of the Company, Darl McBride, will resign immediately.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I have (via Ars Technica) some interesting comments from his testimony [arstechnica.com] yesterday. He stated (under oath):

    ... many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers ... We have evidence System V is in Linux ... When you go to the bookstore and look in the UNIX section, there's books on 'How to Program UNIX' but when you go to the Linux section and look for 'How to Program Linux' you're not gonna find it, because it doesn't exist. Linux is a copy of UNIX, there is no difference [between them].

    This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day.

    Also, as to his book remark, he didn't [amazon.com] look very hard [amazon.com]!

    Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

    • This flies directly in the face of what SCO found in extensive investigations in 2002 and did not correspond with what SCO Senior Vice President Chrs Sontag just finished testifying earlier that day.
      Wait... you're going to claim that Darl McBride is a liar?!?!? I'm totally shocked!
    • Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

      I'm sure most of us would love to see McBride behind bars (I know I would), but I'm afraid it probably won't happen. In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.
      • But is he really all that rich now? I'm assuming most of his money was probably tied into company stock that's worth less than toilet paper at this point.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Actually, Darl managed to sell [korgwal.com] quite a few shares between the time the lawsuit was announced and when the stock tanked. That is, during the time when he was telling the press about the "rocket scientists" who found the "millions of lines of code".
      • In our plutocracy no rich, powerful man goes to prison unless a richer, more powerful man wants him there.

        When all is said and done most male slashdotters will qualify as richer and more powerful than McBride.

        Let's make this thing happen !
    • He was also grilled over statements in their 10-Q that were, shall we say, at odds with what he was trying to say on the stand.

      Novell confronted him and he angrily accused them of calling him a liar. Their rejoinder was that he had just claimed that he told the truth on their 10-Q.

      In other words, he was trapped by his own words :]

      I'm surprised his pants didn't burst into flames.
    • Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

      Ah, but it's not a lie if you believe it.

      See, he can be misinformed, stupid, confused, or just plain wrong ... none of which gets you convicted for perjury. He just has to believe what he's saying.

      You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says, and that he's merely operating on his understanding of legal and technical briefs provided to him. Hell, half of Slashd

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        You'd have to show that he deliberately lied -- I bet any half-way decent lawyer could convince a jury that Darl doesn't really understand half of what he says, and that he's merely operating on his understanding of legal and technical briefs provided to him. Hell, half of Slashdot has spent time pointing out how clueless he is.

        True, but thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as CEO he had to attest to the truthfulness of any financial statements. So as Novell pointed out, he was lying then or he's lying n

    • by ravenspear (756059) * on Thursday May 01 2008, @03:43PM (#23267212)
      Mmmmmm, that's some good perjury!

      Except, to prove perjury you would have to prove that he was knowingly making false statements, or in other worlds that he knew what he was talking about and just chose to say the opposite of what's true.

      So basically you would have to prove that Darl is not an idiot. Good luck with that ;)
      • So now we understand the motives behind his actions for all this time. He wanted us to all scream about how stupid he is, and then submit the comments from /. as evidence that he didn't perjure himself.

        My God, he is a genius.*

        * this is the first step of destroying this evil plan
  • by Hognoxious (631665) on Thursday May 01 2008, @03:45PM (#23267226) Homepage Journal
    Here's hoping he performs better than Hans Reiser ... no, on second thoughts cancel that.
  • can't you just strike them down and put an end to our misery?
  • Editors ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by garett_spencley (193892) on Thursday May 01 2008, @03:50PM (#23267282) Journal
    The section logos beside the article text, in order, read as follows:

    Caldera
    the Courts
    Unix
    Novel
    Tux

    All together now ... CCUNT.

    I guess you couldn't really leave this one out of "the courts". Either way, well done.
      • All together now ... CCUNT.


        You should really get out more often. Have you considered dating?

        With a stutter like that? The ladies would laugh.
  • by pak9rabid (1011935) on Thursday May 01 2008, @04:08PM (#23267496)
    ..UnixWars Episode V..Novell Strikes Back.
  • I'm not exactly sure how best to implement it; but it seems to me that more of our public social processes need a formal mechanism whereby blatantly factually incorrect statements can be challenged and amended. In situations like courtrooms, political debates, news shows, and whatnot, people can and do just say things that are trivially, demonstrably wrong all the time. Sometimes, their opponents call them on it; but that ends up degenerating into a game of "he said-she said". Surely it wouldn't be that har
  • So... (Score:3, Funny)

    by eno2001 (527078) on Thursday May 01 2008, @04:42PM (#23267888) Homepage Journal
    ...who's a cocksmoking teabagger now Darl?
    • Re:I Thought... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jason Levine (196982) on Thursday May 01 2008, @04:43PM (#23267896) Homepage
      The part where they determined whether or not (and how much) SCO owned Unix is over. Now that it has been determined that Novell owns the copyrights, the questions are:

      1. Did SCO sell Unix licenses and keep money that should have gone to Novell?
      2. If so, how much of this does SCO owe Novell?

      The main sales in this trial are the Microsoft and Sun ones. There's something like $20 million that SCO might owe Novell. (Money that SCO doesn't have even if they sold every last chair in the office.)

      SCO insists, however, that the licenses weren't SCOsource licenses and thus weren't ones that Novell would be owed money for. Darl testified to this on the stand. However, SCO's own SEC filing insists that the money was SCOsource. So either SCO lied in an SEC filing or Darl perjured himself. Either way, Darl and SCO have only the barest shreds of a case left. (Unfortunately for them, that "barest shred" relies on the past few years of case history vanishing magically.)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You're close, but you're overlooking one detail. The minute the judge in Utah uttered the word "conversion [law.com]", SCO went rushing off to the bankruptcy court as fast as they could scuttle in the hopes of more delay. Novell isn't going to get in line as a debtor. They are, basically, the victims of theft; the money in question was never SCO's to begin with. The resulting scenario will probably play out fairly close to the way you described, except that repaying Novell is going to be a much higher priority th