Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Businesses The Courts

SCO Wants To Destroy Business Records 113

An anonymous reader writes "SCO, now calling itself TSG, has just filed a motion (Pdf) with the bankruptcy court in Delaware asking it to authorize 'the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of certain surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome, property, including, without limitation, shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Wants To Destroy Business Records

Comments Filter:
  • Let it go (Score:2, Insightful)

    by js3 ( 319268 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @09:16AM (#42784615)

    it's over. let it go

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2013 @09:46AM (#42784739)

    Maybe, but why should we let Microsoft dispose of the evidence that easily?

  • Re:Let it go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brandano ( 1192819 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @09:49AM (#42784765)
    What if what was uncovered is that this whole charade was sponsored by a third party that was not implicated in the various SCO trials?
  • by Miros ( 734652 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @09:51AM (#42784777)
    They probably couldn't do that even if they wanted to. Some of the documents likely contain business records that can't just be 'sold to the highest bidder' (imagine how bad such a scheme would be for the consumer!) The costs associated with sorting the stuff they could sell from the stuff they couldn't would likely exceed whatever you're all willing to pay for them. Then you know, plus shipping...
  • Re:Let it go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sribe ( 304414 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @10:06AM (#42784893)

    if anything was to be uncovered it would most likely be making the company liable, so you would be incurring hideous costs in order to be able to prosecute a company that no longer exists. hmmmm I think I prefer our courts were doing something other than using our money trying to punish a corpse. Let it go, they are dead and buried.

    Actually, there's good reason to suspect the kinds of collusion and deliberate deception that could result in personal liability, including possibly criminal liability, for some of the players.

  • by tazan ( 652775 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @10:45AM (#42785203)
    In this community SCO is as well known as Wal-Mart. It's been mentioned literally thousands of times on this site. (8300) vs. only 5000 hits for Wal-mart.
  • Re:Commas (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @11:58AM (#42785821) Homepage

    Sarten-X's guide to reading legal text:

    First, ignore everything. Seriously, ignore anything anybody's ever told you about the legal document, because it doesn't mean anything. The exact written words don't mean anything, nor does anything verbal spoken about the document. What matters is what a judge would think about the document and the actions people take because of it. The written words are just to clarify what the writers want a judge to think about. This is why having a lawyer read documents is so important: The lawyer understands the legal history behind the words used, and can better predict what a judge will decide.

    Next, start reading. Legal texts are usually long and complex, to clarify every mundane discrepancy that might lead to a disagreement, so skip over all of that. Also skip over any section headings, because they're usually ignored by judges (and remember, it's the judges that matter), being meant only to help find useful parts of the document for particular situations. Instead, pretend you're back in primary school first learning to read. Split each sentence into its basic parts: A subject and an action. That will tell you the main meaning of the sentence. Then look for what's not included - any exceptions or omissions that might be covered in other sections of the document.

    Condense any synonyms. Exact word choice can make a huge difference on a judge's decisions, so lawyers will use multiple words with the same overall meaning to give their clients options. For example, simply getting rid of paperwork at the end of its useful life might involve shredding or incinerating it, which is "destruction". If some pages get lost or forgotten during shredding, they might be considered "abandoned". If someone picks up the forgotten pages and drops them in the trash can, that's "disposal". A well-written contract would specify which of those actions are allowed and which, if any, are not. While this verbosity makes the document much clearer if a judge needs to read it, the unfortunate side effect is that the document seems repetitive on cursory review.

    Finally, consider consideration. Most contracts require that each side give up something, and without that mutual concession nothing would happen. For example, I give up my legal right to the exclusivity of publishing this comment, and Slashdot's corporate overlords agree to publish it, among various other services. When reading a legal document, keep an eye out for what obligations you're agreeing to, and what the other parties are agreeing to.

    That's it. That's all there is to reading legal documents. As opposed to a literary work, legal documents are written for accuracy and precision rather than ease of reading. As opposed to a computer program, they aren't so much instructions as they are suggestions to the judge. Most justice systems are based around the notion that the law describes what's right or wrong, and judges determine whether particular laws apply to particular situations.

    TL;DR: If you need a TL;DR version, hire a lawyer.

  • Re:Let it go (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Monday February 04, 2013 @01:50PM (#42786927) Homepage Journal

    I despise Bill Gates. I hate Microsoft. If we could find a way to break Microsoft up into a dozen smaller companies, I'd be shickled teatless. But, hatred can be irrational too. Purchasing all that crap that SCO has, just to spend millions of dollars worth of manhours poring over the contents, hoping to catch Microsoft doing something illegal seems irrational to me.

    Then, if you actually find what you are hoping to find, then what? Spending yet more millions preparing to take Microsoft to court. Millions upon millions more, paying for all the legal counsel.

    Phhhttt - all that money is better spent undermining Microsoft's current monopoly status. Go buy an Android and a Chromebook. Sign contracts with several companies that are in direct competition with Microsoft. Donate some Linux machines to a school near you. Hell, start a foundation that donates a few hundred Linux machines to schools in your state, annually.

    Do something more useful than feeding the predatory lawyers who will swarm the case you bring against Microsoft.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner