Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:36 UTC, submitted by dylansmrjones
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Yahoo reports that SCO has filed [.pdf] for bankruptcy in order to protect assets. "The SCO Group today announced that it filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. SCO's subsidiary, SCO Operations, Inc., has also filed a petition for reorganization. The Board of Directors of The SCO Group have unanimously determined that Chapter 11 reorganization is in the best long-term interest of SCO and its subsidiaries, as well as its customers, shareholders, and employees." Groklaw has a story on it, too.
Order by: Score:
Halleluja!
by mcduck on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:42 UTC
mcduck
Member since:
2005-11-23

Halleluja!

Reply Score: 14

RE: Halleluja!
by oferkv on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "Halleluja!"
oferkv Member since:
2005-08-09

:)))))))))

Reply Score: 9

RE: Halleluja!
by aaronb on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "Halleluja!"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

Ironic for SCO!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Halleluja!
by steampoweredlawn on Sat 15th Sep 2007 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Halleluja!"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

Ironic for SCO!


I think the word you're looking for is sardonic.

Edited 2007-09-15 00:14

Reply Score: 1

RE: Halleluja!
by flanque on Fri 14th Sep 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "Halleluja!"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

They deserve this.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Halleluja!
by shykid on Sat 15th Sep 2007 03:58 UTC in reply to "Halleluja!"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

Completely unrelated to anything, but your avatar and name are awesome. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Halleluja!
by Kroc on Sat 15th Sep 2007 06:36 UTC in reply to "Halleluja!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

*Nelson Laugh*

Reply Score: 3

Comment by stestagg
by stestagg on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:48 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

Linux FTW

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by stestagg
by pr0c on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by stestagg"
pr0c Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux FTW my ass. Deep pocketed service providers FTW.

Reply Score: 4

haha
by poundsmack on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:51 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

my god! I am shocked! I figured SCO with a long standing backround of great products and customer service...... lol

oh who am i kidding i cant even say any of this with a straight face. I think i speak for everyone when i say "SCO, you will not be missed. goodbye"

Reply Score: 8

RE: haha
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:56 UTC in reply to "haha"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think i speak for everyone when i say "SCO, you will not be missed. goodbye"


I obviously won't miss CEO either, but I do want to add the nuance that I do feel sorry for the people that work there - they might lose their jobs and that's a very sad thing for those people and their families and friends.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: haha
by mcduck on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
mcduck Member since:
2005-11-23

I obviously won't miss CEO either, but I do want to add the nuance that I do feel sorry for the people that work there - they might lose their jobs and that's a very sad thing for those people and their families and friends.

Its a workers market. They can get new jobs. Jobs where they are paid to do what they do best, Code, instead of searching the Linux kernel for possible infriging code.

For the CEO, it think it will be a little harder for him to get a new job. Maybe the register at Wall-mart.
Oh wait that involves money. Sweeping the floors then.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: haha
by rhyder on Sat 15th Sep 2007 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: haha"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

"For the CEO, it think it will be a little harder for him to get a new job. Maybe the register at Wall-mart. "

This is the computer industry. He's mucked things up for a massive company. I'm sure he'll soon have a new, cushy position. I hear they need some help over at Amiga Inc, for example.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: haha
by meianoite on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

I obviously won't miss CEO either, but I do want to add the nuance that I do feel sorry for the people that work there - they might lose their jobs and that's a very sad thing for those people and their families and friends.


Thom, anyone who still worked there should have jumped boat aeons ago and find some place else to work, instead of sticking with a company which put its whole future and very existence at stake in a FUD gamble.

I sympathise with the workers as a humane gesture, but I feel no pity given their choice to remain there.


Edit: *no* pity, I mean

Edited 2007-09-14 22:03

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: haha
by SReilly on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Yea, I hope all the employees that get laid off find another job soon. I'd hate to think that more people than necessary have to lose out because of one bad apple.

As for Mr. McBride, he should have taken the advice of SCO's former CEO and left well enough alone.

I don't think it will take long for the board to realize that hiring an individual with a long history of patent trolling does not a good CEO make. Let's hope they don't take too long in coming to that conclusion.

Considering the future of SCO, I really don't mind if they come back as long as they quit it already with the lawsuits.

Well, it just goes to show that those old sayings often prove to be more relevant than expected, i.e. there is no such thing as a free lunch. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: haha
by sbergman27 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Thom, that's a nice sentiment. Seriously. In fact, I posted something similar about it being the employees of SCO who were suffering, some years ago. But it's not like today, in 2007, they haven't had over 3 and a half years to find work with a less morally bankrupt company... before it went financially bankrupt as well. The handwriting has been on the wall for some time; You don't have to be a Kreskin... ;-)

I, personally, find it difficult to have much sympathy for them at this late date.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: haha
by abraxas on Sat 15th Sep 2007 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

I obviously won't miss CEO either, but I do want to add the nuance that I do feel sorry for the people that work there - they might lose their jobs and that's a very sad thing for those people and their families and friends.

I wouldn't be too worried. They are just a shell of a company at this point. Most people left long ago. It's just too bad that it had to end this way because SCO actually had a decent amount of software that still needed support when they decided to become litigators instead of software developers. They've lost their customers now and I don't think they have a chance of getting them back now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: haha
by theTSF on Sat 15th Sep 2007 21:00 UTC in reply to "haha"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

Their products and service are OK. It is just the fact they company decided to go Evil, Lie to the public all for ill gotten gains. And now it backfired on them. To bad SCO CEO isn't a religious fellow, his religion would say such activities are wrong and bad.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: haha
by sbergman27 on Sun 16th Sep 2007 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

To bad SCO CEO isn't a religious fellow, his religion would say such activities are wrong and bad.

"""

No need to bring the gods into it. Basic human decency should cover this. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

Wrong chapter
by emarkp on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:52 UTC
emarkp
Member since:
2005-09-10

They should be filing unter chapter 7. That's when the court sells off your assets. Chapter 11 might allow them to stick around.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Wrong chapter
by mcduck on Fri 14th Sep 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "Wrong chapter"
mcduck Member since:
2005-11-23

They should be filing unter chapter 7. That's when the court sells off your assets. Chapter 11 might allow them to stick around.

After Novell makes it claim, thats whats going to happen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Wrong chapter
by justin.68 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 10:00 UTC in reply to "Wrong chapter"
justin.68 Member since:
2006-09-16

They should be filing unter chapter 7. [...] Chapter 11 might allow them to stick around.

If they ever were to stick around after that their name would be a memento.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wrong chapter
by Geoff Gigg on Sat 15th Sep 2007 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong chapter"
Geoff Gigg Member since:
2006-01-21

Isn't SCO doing this as a legal ploy? By filing under Chapter 11, the lawsuit is postponed. The only issue left was to determine how much SCO owes Novell from the money they withheld from licencing fees they got from Sun. Microsoft, etc.

So doing this allows SCO to delay the day of reckoning. I bet it was recommended to their board by their legal team. Pretty smart move on their part.

I'm afraid we'll be hearing from SCO for quite a long time yet, given their expertise at delaying tactics. Don't pop those champagne corks yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong chapter
by sbergman27 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong chapter"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
The only issue left was to determine how much SCO owes Novell from the money they withheld from licencing fees they got from Sun. Microsoft, etc.
"""

Which, if I understand correctly, must now be the primary issue that the bankruptcy court will need to see determined. How can the bankruptcy proceedings go forward until it is determined just how large SCOX's largest debt actually is?

And of course it is a delaying tactic. That's what bankruptcy *is*. No matter who files for it. And it's standard practice when one is backed up against a wall, financially.

People who are painting this as some brilliant legal tactic are giving SCO far to much credit.

FUD-time is over, you see. And this is all about SCOX making whatever desperate gambits they are able, to try to salvage what they can out of the burning wreckage that's left since Judge Kimball firebombed their building in August.

Edited 2007-09-15 15:36

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wrong chapter
by Geoff Gigg on Sat 15th Sep 2007 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wrong chapter"
Geoff Gigg Member since:
2006-01-21

Check Groklaw. The trial won't go ahead until the bankruptcy is concluded. Ergo the bankruptcy can't properly include SCO's obligations to Novell because it hasn't been adjudicated. It's a Catch-22 that allows SCO to continue as long as they can keep the bankruptcy in place. Given the state of their business, that could be a long time.

Note that their to-be-determined obligations to Novell are not on list of 20 largest unsecured creditors or list of debts. It just doesn't exist in legal reality yet.

I don't know what sort of miracle they might be expecting in order to use the time this gives them - perhaps an appeal of the August 10 ruling to a higher, more favourable court.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wrong chapter
by sbergman27 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wrong chapter"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Check Groklaw.
"""

Could you cite a reliable legal source? I'm not certain how a bitter and grudge-holding paralegal on a vendetta ever achieved the status of the community's Oracle of Delphi. A paralegal, and in particular, an openly hostile and biased one, is just as much "not a lawyer" as the rest of us. Let me know if and when she ever passes the Bar.

That SCO owes Novell money has already been decided. The actual amount owed was never within the scope of these proceedings. The fact that SCO fails to mention it in their filing does not make it go away. The bankruptcy court will not turn a blind eye to it. That court has a solemn responsibility to *all* of SCO's creditors over the course of their bankruptcy.

As to a SCO appeal to a more favorable court... it's hard to imagine a more favorable court than was Judge Kimball's. Kimball and Wells went to great lengths to give SCO every opportunity to make some sort of case. They showed a patience with SCO which went far beyond what SCO might have expected from some other judges.

It would be astounding if that was *not* the first thing that any judge reviewing the case, on appeal, would notice.

IANAL, of course. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wrong chapter
by Geoff Gigg on Sun 16th Sep 2007 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wrong chapter"
Geoff Gigg Member since:
2006-01-21

Groklaw is more than PJ's opinions. It is also a convenient repository of the legal filings. There you will see SCO's motion in the Novell case in which they quote Chapter 11 law to support their contention that the Novell trial should be postponed until the bankruptcy situation is concluded. I don't know if that's ironclad, but it's definitely their intent.

As stated, Novell is not yet a creditor, and won't be until the trial is concluded because it's in dispute.

I agree with you on the probable merits of SCO's appeal. But that won't stop them trying. It's all they've got!

Reply Score: 1

RE[8]: Wrong chapter
by sbergman27 on Sun 16th Sep 2007 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Wrong chapter"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Geoff,

May I suggest lamlaw.com? The nice thing about LamLaw is that Lewis A. Mettler is a real, honest to god, attorney. He's not just a paralegal pretending to be one.*

http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=363

The stays on the current court cases are automatic, yes. But the bankruptcy court can lift them. I (as a citizen, not a lawyer!) cannot imagine it *not* ascertaining what is owed to Novell as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

* Oddly enough, there are no real legal qualifications for a paralegal. There are no educational requirements. Not even a high school diploma, so far as I can tell. No state or federal licensing. Just an optional certification. And no experience requirements. I guess I could call myself a paralegal, buy a domain name, pay my monthly hosting fees, and do my own blog. How about DellaStreet.com? Has a nice ring to it, don't you think? ;-)

Edited 2007-09-16 03:12

Reply Score: 2

Let this be a lesson
by Bit_Rapist on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:01 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

Hopefully this will help send a message to others in the industry who might be thinking of dropping real products and living off of IP fees and lawsuits that its not all peaches and cream!

I don't even know what they have to reorganize here, I'm pretty sure any *real* customers they had are long gone at this point. Might as well sell off the office furniture and shut the doors for good.

Reply Score: 7

sco
by happycamper on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:02 UTC
happycamper
Member since:
2006-01-01

it's terrible to see that once a great company is being ruin by a bunch of fools.

Reply Score: 5

RE: sco
by meianoite on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:07 UTC in reply to "sco"
meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

it's terrible to see that once a great company is being ruin by a bunch of fools.


Ditto.

Since Ray Noorda become incapacitated to run the companies it's been only downhill to Caldera (and later SCO, when one bought the other).

Alzheimer's sucks big time.

Reply Score: 5

Nasdaq
by mcduck on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:10 UTC
mcduck
Member since:
2005-11-23
Sad thing is....
by Ikshaar on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:29 UTC
Ikshaar
Member since:
2005-07-14

..McBride is probably not going to be the one suffering from this...

Thanks for the stock link... let's hope it makes shareholders realize that the FUD business is not profitable.

Reply Score: 4

Best news all week-
by SReilly on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:30 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

But I have to say, I'm kinda saddened by this turn out.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see that a group of greedy leeches fail to ripoff the hard labor of others, and I'm happy that all those economists that claimed patent trolling was the business model of the twenty first century eat humble pie, but I'm saddened that Linux could not have it's day in court.

Sure, this could have gone badly, but did anyone actually believe that SCO's claims where valid? Certainly not Novell, nor IBM for that matter.

It's nice to see Linux clean up ownership and copyright issues, it's certainly a lesson learned but I for one would have liked to see Linux, and by proxy the GPL, gain a solid legal win.

All in all, it's great news and after all, I guess I shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth now, should I? :-)

Reply Score: 2

Fallout
by SEJeff on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:31 UTC
SEJeff
Member since:
2005-11-05

Under the Landam Act, SCO CEO Darl Mcbride will likely go to jail for False Advertising.

Now is the part where things get ugly.

Reply Score: 5

Not really over....
by Phloptical on Fri 14th Sep 2007 22:59 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Just because a company files Ch.11 doesn't mean it shuts it's doors and disappears. 9 times out of 10 (in US, at least) all that changes is the name outside on the building. All bankruptcy protection means is that SCO doesn't have to pay the creditors it owes.

I worked for a company that filed Ch. 11 three times before being forced into receivership by the board of directors, and having the IRS go after them for tax evasion. That was the only thing that kept them gone.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not really over....
by Xaero_Vincent on Sat 15th Sep 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "Not really over...."
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

SCO shouldn't be applicable for Ch.11 if they can manage to fund it's lawsuits but cannot manage to pay other bills.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not really over....
by Phloptical on Sat 15th Sep 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Not really over...."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Yeah, you would think the court would take that into consideration....unless that particular funding was made available by an outside source....micro-**cough**-soft.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not really over....
by kaiwai on Sat 15th Sep 2007 03:39 UTC in reply to "Not really over...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because a company files Ch.11 doesn't mean it shuts it's doors and disappears. 9 times out of 10 (in US, at least) all that changes is the name outside on the building. All bankruptcy protection means is that SCO doesn't have to pay the creditors it owes.

I worked for a company that filed Ch. 11 three times before being forced into receivership by the board of directors, and having the IRS go after them for tax evasion. That was the only thing that kept them gone.


I think that is the flaw in the US system - and the reason why there is such a big build up of bad debt in the US; companies making stupid decisions, filing chapter 11 and not take responsibility for the decisions they make. Most countries don't have that sort of system in place - the risk to the banking system and investment environment is far to great to allow it.

As for SCO; the decline started at around 2000, I remember the last filing I had a look at, they lost $13million on declining revenue. The last interview with the, IIRC CEO, he berated Microsoft over Windows 2000 having 35million lines of code. That was the moment to take radical action, reduce the price, bundle everything together rather than charging for each component individually. 6 years ago, they had that opportunity to rescue their business, but they failed to wake up and face reality.

Like SGI, they thought it was still the 80s, that paying $3000 per operating system component was acceptable, that paying $14,000 for an under performing workstation was a norm. They failed to wake up and realise that the days of expensive proprietary UNIX systems was a dead end.

Reply Score: 5

But but but...
by A.H. on Fri 14th Sep 2007 23:36 UTC
A.H.
Member since:
2005-11-11

But what about their mobile initiative? I was looking forward to that.

Reply Score: 2

Re: Groklaw has a story on it, too.
by Oliver on Sat 15th Sep 2007 00:57 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/359

"For quite a while I have heard, read, and been personally told stories about messages that have been deleted from Groklaw's comment section. Specifically these are posts that do not agree with Pamela Jones' opinions and conclusions, or seek to debate or clarify issues that are not clear-cut or obvious."

Groklaw was never a trustworthy source.

There isn't much to discuss about the filthy behaviour of SCO, but I do trust people who have the real knowledge and capability like ESR or Greg Lehey.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The funny thing is that he wrote he would come with evidence. But he never did. There is no evidence - only claims. Of course some posts have been deleted, but not just because they disagreed with PJ.

Besides that, Groklaw is - in regard to legal analysis - one of the most trustworthy sites around. There is a reason why lawyers frequently visits the site, and that's because of the information available.

I'm aware a BSD-zealot like you doesn't like PJ's view on FLOSS. She's way too GPL-happy for your taste. Personally I think she's going too far on occasion, but her legal analysis in the SCO-cases are second to none. And in regard to the SCO-cases nobody can correctly claim that Groklaw isn't trustworthy.

ESR and Greg Lehey are irrelevant in regard to the SCO-cases. I hold ESR in some regard yes, but he is no God in my eyes. Nor are Greg Lehey (gifted Unix-hacker) or PJ for that matter. They are "just" human beings. Treat 'em as such.

Reply Score: 7

Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I'm aware a BSD-zealot

No just liberal and no hypocrite - that's a big difference.

Exactly *human beings*, we don't know whether PJ is really one (of course this is just an urban legend of SCO ;-) ). But maybe this is BSDish thinking too according to your opinion. Why I prefer the opinions of Lehey for example? Because he actually knows UNIX, BSD and Linux.

> She's way too GPL-happy for your taste.

I'm not 16 anymore and I did follow the Linux 'way of life' for about eleven years since the 90s, then I migrated to BSD. But that's offtopic in this context, but it's nice to have a watchdog at OSNews.

Fight for free speech I see in your data? Nice, it's my credo too, freedom of knowledge for *everyone*. And with a copyleft you're abusing this freedom. Of course you will not learn this in computer science, but history and philosophy. I'm not a BSD zealot, but a 'freedom zealot'. I blame the GPL and RMS in the public for their abuse of real freedom, but I would never oppress other people - that's the difference. Telling people something about dictatorship is your free speech, but actually building some dictatorship is something I would confront.

Cheers,

Oliver

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Liberal? You mean Libertarian, right? ;)

Edited 2007-09-15 01:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

Fight for free speech I see in your data? Nice, it's my credo too, freedom of knowledge for *everyone*. And with a copyleft you're abusing this freedom. Of course you will not learn this in computer science, but history and philosophy. I'm not a BSD zealot, but a 'freedom zealot'. I blame the GPL and RMS in the public for their abuse of real freedom, but I would never oppress other people - that's the difference. Telling people something about dictatorship is your free speech, but actually building some dictatorship is something I would confront.


Bull. The freedom to steal and cheat is not legitimate freedom. All the GPL does is prevent theft. It's nothing more than reciprocal altruism.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

All the GPL does is prevent theft. It's nothing more than reciprocal altruism.


I'd agree, but I would just use the term "collaboration".

The bulk of Scientific knowledge is built up by collaboration. Scientists working off each others discoveries.

The GP simply allows the same methods of collaboration applied to software development. It uses the power of copyright law to prevent anyone subverting the ability to collaborate on the software so being developed.

Reply Score: 3

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Besides that, Groklaw is - in regard to legal analysis - one of the most trustworthy sites around. There is a reason why lawyers frequently visits the site, and that's because of the information available.


Spit that kool-aid out right now. Groklaw is not an authority consulted by legal experts, let's be serious.

Groklaw gained cred because PJ was able to use her paralegal expertise to dissect the original SCO legal documentation train, and she provided a brilliant service in doing so. Most of the community rallied around her because it was a common cause. But don't confuse that with actual legal expertise; Groklaw is a ridiculously biased opinion site that selectively uses legalese to re-assert it's opinion, and she doesn't even try and hide that fact. It is hardly authoritative and there's no way in hell that actual real-world lawyers are researching cases based on groklaw.

Groklaw is a blog, not a news site.

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You are spewing bullshit based on your own flawed bias.

Fact is - and this has been acknowledged openly - that lawyers actually do use Groklaw. Not to get legal advice, (which I have never claimed btw), but because of the analysis of the SCO-cases.

that actual real-world lawyers are researching cases based on groklaw.


They are using her analyses very much. Also in education. Of course she's not authoritative. She's not the Court after all. But her methodology is being copied and her analyses are also being dissected. Not that it is particularly original (apart from being a first timer for using the internet to rally behind a case like that).

Groklaw is a news site about the SCO-cases. AND a blog about FLOSS in general. And so what? OSNews are tenfold worse. Take a look at CNN. Or whatever media you can find. I guarantee that none of the mainstream media are half as independent as Groklaw is.

Reply Score: 6

llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24


http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/359

"For quite a while I have heard, read, and been personally told stories about messages that have been deleted from Groklaw's comment section. Specifically these are posts that do not agree with Pamela Jones' opinions and conclusions, or seek to debate or clarify issues that are not clear-cut or obvious."

Groklaw was never a trustworthy source.

There isn't much to discuss about the filthy behaviour of SCO, but I do trust people who have the real knowledge and capability like ESR or Greg Lehey.


Oh, get over it already. Groklaw got it right -- the analysis was spot on, and the predictions were accurate.

It's not because PJ is a genius -- of course she isn't. But she DID create a space where the Open-Source "many eyes" model could be applied to the legal system, and that model made all the bugs in SCO's case shallow.

You should thank her, instead of just spouting sour grapes because she got it right and you didn't.

And BTW, I've posted comments there that disagreed with her on several occasions, and mine were never removed. And I've seen others do the same. As long as your disagreement is well-reasoned, respectful, and not personal, it's safe.

Reply Score: 6

I wonder...
by systyrant on Sat 15th Sep 2007 01:17 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

I wonder how long before they reorganize McBride out of SCO. I wonder what numb nut will hire him to be an executive.

Mostly I wonder what SCO plans to do now. They can't really continue the lawsuit. It would be in the best interest of the stockholders (what few remain), their customers, and the business itself to boot McBride, make an apology to the Linux community, and embrace Linux (not that it would probably do them any good at this point).

At the end of the day SCO is probably going to be just another dead business. A small note in the computer history book. At least we probably got a new term to use when somebody does something similar in the future. We can just call it a McBride.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I wonder...
by raver31 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 09:00 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

At least we probably got a new term to use when somebody does something similar in the future. We can just call it a McBride.

No, "doing a Darl" sounds much better !

Reply Score: 3

All I have to say is...
by jgotsch on Sat 15th Sep 2007 02:19 UTC
jgotsch
Member since:
2006-06-01

THIS...IS...SPARTAAAAAA!!

Reply Score: 2

RE: All I have to say is...
by NxStY on Sat 15th Sep 2007 07:15 UTC in reply to "All I have to say is..."
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

*Kicks SCO down a well*

Reply Score: 2

Happiness and fulfullment!
by sbergman27 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 03:00 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I've already made one reasonable, if callous post. Now for the fun one:

I'm... So... Happy!!! ;-)

Too bad the whole SCO thing is irrelevant, and has been for some time, though. And it's *really* too bad that the current problem, in reality, is Microsoft and patent FUD.

I fear it will be a while before MS files for Chapter 11. :-(

But... we have to take our pleasures where we can. And watching The SCO Group sink beneath the waves is satisfying enough, for now.

I don't see them emerging from Chapter 11. Protection from their creditors will likely not be enough. Their business is dead. And it's not coming back.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Happiness and fulfullment!
by SReilly on Sat 15th Sep 2007 12:42 UTC in reply to "Happiness and fulfullment!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I don't see them emerging from Chapter 11. Protection from their creditors will likely not be enough. Their business is dead. And it's not coming back.

I can't see them emerging from chapter 11 either. All they're current products are outdated and as I have stated before, I don't know where they are going to find the money to foot the bill for either revamping openserver or development of this mobility platform Darl McBride was talking about.

The only people I see actually buying any newly released updates for openserver are existing customers and frankly, If they aren't migrating away at the speed of greased lightning following this news, then those customers need a new technology manager/director.

Even if they do manage to develop this mobility platform McBride is talking about, who the hell would buy a product from a company mired in debt and losing lawsuits against two of the industries heavyweights? They are going to get they're rear end sued off big time and will probably have to go into receivership.

There are a few things that make perfect sense for SCO right now. Drop McBride and drop the IBM lawsuit. They might just survive the wrath of Novell.

About MS, could you imagine the amount of money they would have to be hemoraging before they needed to file for chapter 11? Wow, now that would be a sight to see for years and years and years...! ;-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Happiness and fulfullment!
by lemur2 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Happiness and fulfullment!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Drop McBride and drop the IBM lawsuit. They might just survive the wrath of Novell.


Even if SCO completely drops the lawsuit against IBM, it does absolutely nothing to remove IBM's counterclaims against SCO.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051008121353992&query=ib...

Nor does it do anything to stop RedHat's suit against SCO.

Edited 2007-09-15 13:18

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Happiness and fulfullment!
by SReilly on Sat 15th Sep 2007 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Happiness and fulfullment!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

...it does absolutely nothing to remove IBM's counterclaims against SCO.

Nor does it do anything to stop RedHat's suit against SCO.


Very true, I forgot all about them. Thanks for pointing that out and refreshing my memory. :-)

It looks like its crunch time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Happiness and fulfullment!
by Coral Snake on Sun 16th Sep 2007 08:36 UTC in reply to "Happiness and fulfullment!"
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

Maybe shorter than you thank. Most of Microsoft's vaunted wealth is in over inflated stock issues ("as told by Bill Parish years ago when the "stock options" inflation began) an an operating system that with "Vista" has finally become bloatware to self defeating proportions ending its "upgrade treadmill"

Reply Score: 1

RE: Happiness and fulfullment!
by Coral Snake on Sun 16th Sep 2007 08:41 UTC in reply to "Happiness and fulfullment!"
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

Their business should have been updating and selling what they had purchased when they abandoned the name Caldera and Linux (the proprietary SCO open server version of *nix), NOT making lawsuits and playing financial footsie
with Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

McBride's Next Possible Work Statements:
by Ranger on Sat 15th Sep 2007 03:10 UTC
Ranger
Member since:
2006-05-03

McBride's next possible work statements:

"Would you like fries with your order?"

or

"Welcome to WalMart. Here's a sticker for your child."

Reply Score: 2

shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

McBride's next possible work statements:

"Welcome to WalMart. Here's a sticker for your child."


Wonder if he'll try to claim he has patents on and owns the copyrights to stickers and smiley faces.

Edited 2007-09-15 03:54

Reply Score: 4

Caldera
by hitest on Sat 15th Sep 2007 04:05 UTC
hitest
Member since:
2006-10-28

I find it rather ironic that my first foray into the Linux/Unix waters five years ago was with Caldera Openlinux 2.3. Who would have thought that Caldera would transform into SCO?
I'm glad that SCO has had the living crap beaten out of them.....please crawl away and die.
I sincerely hope that SCO is not able to survive for too long under chapter 11 protection.
Linux wins:-)

Reply Score: 1

A Sucker born every minute...
by StychoKiller on Sat 15th Sep 2007 05:31 UTC
StychoKiller
Member since:
2005-09-20

What I don't comprehend is the people that are/were still buying SCO stock after the court decision last month. All those schmoes that bought into SCO at $.70US only lost half their money (so far), since the stock closed at $.37US. Even so, how far out of your right mind do you have to be to buy into a company that bet the farm and watched not one but at least three tornadoes bear down on said farm? I can only surmise that P.T. Barnum was right. I think I'll buy 100 shares at a limit order of $0.05US for SCO. But make no mistake, this is not an investment on my part -- I'm going to "Ask Chuck" to send me the stock certificates and use them as gag gifts, because that's all they're worth! :-))

Reply Score: 1

RE: A Sucker born every minute...
by sbergman27 on Sat 15th Sep 2007 05:54 UTC in reply to "A Sucker born every minute..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
What I don't comprehend is the people that are/were still buying SCO stock after the court decision last month. All those schmoes that bought into SCO at $.70US only lost half their money (so far),
"""

And those who bought SCOX two days after the ruling and sold a couple of weeks later made a 90% profit in just 16 days.

Reply Score: 2

Scraping for cash?
by Lousewort on Sat 15th Sep 2007 06:09 UTC
Lousewort
Member since:
2006-09-12

Guess they couldn't find a buyer for the truckloads of paper that accumulated during the IBM fact finding which happened earlier in the trial...

Reply Score: 1

Enderle
by MamiyaOtaru on Sat 15th Sep 2007 09:04 UTC
MamiyaOtaru
Member since:
2005-11-11

The man hasn't been in the news much lately, but I really want to know what Rob Enderle thinks about this.

Anyone remember that whole mess with his pro-SCO speech where he so much as called Linux users Nazis? (I can only assume that's what he was doing when he referred to the nonexistent "Nuremberg experiments")

With luck, he's depressed that it's effing winter for SCO and Enderle [/The Producers, sorta]

Edited 2007-09-15 09:12

Reply Score: 3

RE: Enderle
by oxygene on Sat 15th Sep 2007 10:32 UTC in reply to "Enderle"
oxygene Member since:
2005-07-07

(I can only assume that's what he was doing when he referred to the nonexistent "Nuremberg experiments")


Nuremberg.. SuSE had its headquarter there before they were bought by Novell - maybe that was a reference to something SuSE did?

Reply Score: 1

omg
by Gregory Isaacs on Sat 15th Sep 2007 09:14 UTC
Gregory Isaacs
Member since:
2006-06-30

McBride - there goes the last real cowboy.

Reply Score: 1

Go SCO!
by Replaced on Sat 15th Sep 2007 09:50 UTC
Replaced
Member since:
2007-05-06

As a Unix enthusiast, I really hope they can make it and be able to stay in the Unix business (which is unfortunanetely dying).

Edited 2007-09-15 09:52

Reply Score: 1

RE: Go SCO!
by Coral Snake on Sun 16th Sep 2007 08:46 UTC in reply to "Go SCO!"
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

If you prefer an non Linux *nix go for Sun's Open Solaris
or one of the BSDs they are a lot more modern and better updated.

Reply Score: 1

Hope not to state the obvious here...
by Googol on Sat 15th Sep 2007 11:45 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

... but someone please not forget to sue B&S's asses over their bad faith conduct and make sure they loose their licences to practice for good measure.
Novell, do you read me? Please do set up a Paypal account and I will be the first one to contribute to this noble cause, no kidding.

Reply Score: 1

Oh, get over it already.
by mind!dagger on Sat 15th Sep 2007 12:40 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

Amen.

SCO gambled and lost. Hope Microsoft can read the legal tea leaves. I doubt it since the company admits they are not bound by licenses.

Reply Score: 1

What a waste...
by anomie on Sat 15th Sep 2007 17:25 UTC
anomie
Member since:
2007-02-26

of money and effort.

Reply Score: 1

mickrussom
Member since:
2006-05-13

HAHAHAHAHAAHA. SCO. Die in hell, SCO, Die in hell.

Reply Score: 1

Everybody sing...
by wakeupneo on Sun 16th Sep 2007 05:12 UTC
wakeupneo
Member since:
2005-07-06

Badum badum bum bum...

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead.
Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is deeaaadd...

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft To bail Sco
by Sabz on Sun 16th Sep 2007 11:57 UTC
Sabz
Member since:
2005-07-07

Just Announced, Microsoft Bails Out Sco For a Billion Dollars

Reply Score: 0

Its not fair, but...
by srhardy on Sun 16th Sep 2007 21:58 UTC
srhardy
Member since:
2007-07-11

Its odd that consumer laws on bankruptcy have been tightened to the point you DO have to pay back your creditors (usually loans & credit cards) but companies under chapter 11 get away with it. How you ask? Easy they do a dead of arrangement & offer to pay back everyone (inc tax) a few cents on the greenback! Now you try getting away with that, good luck!

Toxic debt is funding the booming US debt to amazing records, the merry go round of margin lending & on selling debt will in the next year reach crisis point (you have seen nothing yet!), but back to SCO...

Investors were never told how bad things were, no new products or clear direction, just US patent trolling, but i have a question??

All the dills that made payments to SCO, they were basically mafia'ed into paying money they didn't owe, why dont they sue to get it back, then chapter 11 can be chapetr 7 & i will know that justice was not only done but seen to be done! Amen, here endth the quest.

Reply Score: 1

Thank God and ...
by hackus on Mon 17th Sep 2007 01:05 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

I think each and everyone of you for NOT purchasing SCO.

In my case I played a small part getting rid of 2 SCO based installations from my customers.

Replaced them with GNU/LINUX.

I will be tracking what McBride does and where he goes too, because as I have stated before, ANY company that hires McBride is NOT getting a DIME of my money or my customers in the computing sector.

Let the guy work in fast food, or be the McDonald's President or something.

STAY OUT OF MY %&%^# INDUSTRY McBride!!!

-Hack

Reply Score: 1

not the end just yet
by pixel8r on Mon 17th Sep 2007 03:57 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

although I wish it was...

Mandrake (now Mandriva) filed for chapter 11 some years back. They are still with us and doing reasonably well I think, which is good news in this case.

I do feel that SCO will become little more than a faint memory after a few years however...

Reply Score: 1

For your Monday viewing pleasure
by sbergman27 on Mon 17th Sep 2007 22:42 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

The chart doesn't show it, but they dropped to 15 cents at one point today. By comparison, I just bought a 4 pack of the *really* cheap ($ave brand) toilet paper for 88 cents. :-)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=off&z=m&q=l&c=

Reply Score: 2