Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 29th Dec 2007 21:54 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware The Nasdaq market has delisted The SCO Group, the Linux-seller-turned-Linux-litigant now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company's shares were taken off the Nasdaq because of the bankruptcy proceedings, the company said Thursday in a statement. The company had appealed Nasdaq's decision to do so but lost its appeal on December 21, the company said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Order by: Score:
ax work
by antik on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:24 UTC
antik
Member since:
2006-05-19

If you sit there on the same branch you are cutting off you are going to fall down and be killed.

R.I.P.

Reply Score: 14

RE: ax work
by hollovoid on Sat 29th Dec 2007 22:52 UTC in reply to "ax work"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

Very true. *Cracks a beer*

Reply Score: 5

RE: ax work
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:52 UTC in reply to "ax work"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Or - put less elegantly - don't shit where you eat.

Edited 2007-12-30 05:01

Reply Score: 3

They are still in business.
by theTSF on Sat 29th Dec 2007 23:05 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

They are now LIsted as SCOXQ.PK their stock price is now at $0.065 a share. Chapter 11 doesn't mean their out of business yet. But they will need to do something absolutely major in order to come back. My bets they will not make it to the end of 2008 but I have seen other companies come back from the brink of death.

Reply Score: 1

RE: They are still in business.
by lemur2 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 00:36 UTC in reply to "They are still in business."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

but I have seen other companies come back from the brink of death.


In order to come back from the brink of death, a company has to be able to do business. In order to do business, a company has to do something or other that will produce revenue.

SCOG has no hope whatsoever of getting their $699 scam fee out of Linux users. That is because there is and always was unequivocally NOTHING in Linux that SCOG could lay any sort of legitimate claim to.

SCOG has absolutely nothing else that can possibly raise revenue. Even Microsoft are clearly now averse to PIPE any more anti-Linux attack funds to them, lest the trail of "follow the money" provably leads back to Redmond.

SCOG are toast. It is just that it has taken a surprisingly long time for that bread to finally become charcoal.

Edited 2007-12-30 00:39

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: They are still in business.
by Belial6 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 08:45 UTC in reply to "RE: They are still in business."
Belial6 Member since:
2007-06-07

In order to come back from the brink of death, a company has to be able to do business. In order to do business, a company has to do something or other that will produce revenue.


I don't know, Amiga Inc. is still around. Maybe SCO can be sold to them. SCO could be a valuable addition to Amiga Inc's SOLUTIONS FOR DIGITAL LIVING.

Reply Score: 3

SCOX
by Xaero_Vincent on Sun 30th Dec 2007 01:17 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

SCO as a Unix vendor was doomed even without their litigation spree against Linux. Proprietary Unix is quickly losing relevance to it's open source cousins and Windows.

SCO could make a come-back but not as a Unix vendor, or perhaps even as a software vendor because of the repuation they've gained.

Brainstorm: Maybe SCO can find buisness success as a competitor to Linux laundry detergent? You never know...

Reply Score: 2

RE: SCOX
by libray on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:38 UTC in reply to "SCOX"
libray Member since:
2005-08-27

SCO Group was not the original SCO. They were Caldera and they swooped down on Santa Cruz Operations in corporate power play.

Reply Score: 3

RE: SCOX
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Dec 2007 11:18 UTC in reply to "SCOX"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

SCO as a Unix vendor was doomed even without their litigation spree against Linux. Proprietary Unix is quickly losing relevance to it's open source cousins and Windows.


I disagree. Now, it is a lost cause. 6 years ago, had they done something, sure, they wouldn't be big and profitable like Microsoft, but they would at least have a viable product. Look at the cost of their current product line up; they charge for the base system, then they charge for components which come standard in their competitors operating systems.

I think it was over 3-4 years ago I said that SCO could have turned around, for a flat rate of a one off fee of $999 + 50 free support calls, or $699 per year and unlimited calls per year - they could have easily priced their product within what one would consider reasonable.

The problem is, they were stuck in the 1980s. Whilst Microsoft was launching an operating system which undercut in price, delivered a boot load of features within a single package - SCO continued pricing themselves out of the market. Linux provided the final nail in the coffin in the form of an operating system UNIX like enough to allow easy migration from SCO UNIX product line to Linux.

Can they make a viable business model? nope. They had the opportunity over 4-5 years ago. Solaris is now opensourced, Linux is mature and stable, *BSD is going through a rebirth, and customers are expecting more from their software vendor than simply being a provider of operating systems - hence the reason why Red Hat, Sun, and the likes are investing heavily in improving their middleware line up.

What do they do now? close up shop, sell of what ever assets remain, and any remaining share holders sue management for running the company into the ground - failing to take advantage of competitors mistakes when they occurred - but hey, what else do you expect when you promote people to managerial positions based on qualification rather than what they can actually accomplish.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SCOX
by lemur2 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE: SCOX"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

close up shop, sell of what ever assets remain, and any remaining share holders sue management for running the company into the ground


Before ordinary shareholders get to have a go at any SCOG funds remaining, SCOG already have a judgement aginst them that of the license money that SCOsource raised from Microsoft, Sun, EV1 and others, up to 95% of that money actually belongs to Novell. It isn't SCOG's money at all. There is to be a trial soon to determine the exact percentage of that Novell money that SCOG are illegally holding.

After that ... when you sue anybody, those parties have a "free shot" at suing you back. Virtually all of the claims that SCOG have made against Autozone, Daimler-Chrysler, IBM and Novell have failed in court (because SCOG essentially have no IP rights in UNIX). OTOH, none of the counterclaims by Novell, IBM, Autozone or Daimler-Chrysler have gone away, nor has the Lanham act claim by RedHat against SCOG. All of those claims against SCOG would be pretty much a slam dunk.

AFAIK, all of those issues have to be resolved, if not by SCOG then by the bankruptcy court, before any payments to shareholders can even begin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy

SCOG have applied for "Chapter 11" - reorganisation.

It is however most likely IMO to end up as "Chapter 7" - liquidation.

I don't know the exact order in which creditors & others get paid out, but from what I can gather the shareholders would be at the end of a long, long line.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: SCOX
by walterbyrd on Sun 30th Dec 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: SCOX"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

Scog has never been profitable. Not one day in their entire existence. Even when msft gave scog all those millions, not was really profitable because all that money belonged to Novell.

Their may have money to make in proprietary UNIX. But scog was never the company to make that money.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SCOX
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Dec 2007 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCOX"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Scog has never been profitable. Not one day in their entire existence. Even when msft gave scog all those millions, not was really profitable because all that money belonged to Novell.

Their may have money to make in proprietary UNIX. But scog was never the company to make that money.


I am talking about way back when SCO was Santa Cruz Operations; everything went down hill the moment they failed to step up and provide a competitive product to Windows 2000 - as mentioned in the previous post. The buy out by Caldera was their lifeline. That lifeline, itself, needed a lifeline.

Their lifeline started to question the logic of continuing to pump money into the Caldera given its years of losses - and no light at the end of the tunnel. Red Hat slipped into profitability, Caldera continued to lose money. A new CEO takes over and so the litigation games begin.

Like I said, the issues regarding SCO were before Caldera's purchase.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SCOX
by gfx1 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE: SCOX"
gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

I think it was over 3-4 years ago I said that SCO could have turned around, for a flat rate of a one off fee of $999 + 50 free support calls, or $699 per year and unlimited calls per year - they could have easily priced their product within what one would consider reasonable.

Do you really want to use a product where you can make a support call every week?
That's not good advertising, some trust in your own product.

Edited 2007-12-30 16:28

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: SCOX
by kaiwai on Sun 30th Dec 2007 16:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCOX"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you really want to use a product where you can make a support call every week?
That's not good advertising, some trust in your own product.


What the hell are you going on abut? providing telephone support does mean 'teh product sucks' - it means that the company is standing behind their product, that they're so confident in their product quality, they'll provide you an insane amount of support which you'll most likely never need!

Dear god, learn some marketing skills before you post - I can smell your ignorance down my DSL line.

Reply Score: 4

SCO
by hitest on Sun 30th Dec 2007 01:39 UTC
hitest
Member since:
2006-10-28

The sad thing is their version of Linux, SCO Openlinux wasn't too bad, I ran it on a P166 with 32 MB RAM.
SCO made a critical error taking on IBM and Novell with a less than compelling case.
This is a good day for Linux. Time for another beer:-)

Reply Score: 2

RE: SCO
by raver31 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 02:10 UTC in reply to "SCO"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

On the contrary, it is NOT a good day for Linux.
The court case should have gone ahead, at least that way, all these insane charges against Linux would be heard once and for all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SCO
by lemur2 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The court case should have gone ahead, at least that way, all these insane charges against Linux would be heard once and for all.


In four years of trying, SCOG came up with not one shred of evidence of infringement in Linux. Not a single line.

In Germany, where the rules are different, SCOG were ordered either to come up with some actual evidence, or cease and desist with any accusations of infringement. SCOG chose the latter.

SCOG provided no evidence because there is none. There is no infringement of any kind in Linux. In fact it was revealed (by an old email) that an internal investigation by SCOG itself found exactly that.

That is the abundantly clear outcome from the case.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: SCO
by eosp on Mon 31st Dec 2007 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO"
eosp Member since:
2005-07-07

Oh, they had lines. Most started with #define or /*.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: SCO
by RIchard James13 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO"
RIchard James13 Member since:
2007-10-26

You only say that because you want all the IP lawyers on the IBM Novell side to die of laughter.

Seriously though their charges were all made up how would it work if it came to court and the judge says no you don't have a case? That is not going to help anyone, since the evidence is obvious it is not like you are going to make a thingy out of it.

swap thingy for that legal word that means what applies in this court case applies in others.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: SCO -- The court case should have gone ahead
by glarepate on Mon 31st Dec 2007 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

The bankruptcy judge has lifted the stay in SCO v. Novell and as soon as they can set a date for the hearing the trial will proceed so that SCO's assets and liabilities can be determined and then the BK can proceed on sound footing, i.e. conversion to Ch. 7 liquidation.

The hearing was supposed to start the day after the BK was declared and last several days, less than a week. It only remains to drag them, kicking and screaming, back into the courtroom in Utah so that Judge Kimball can determine how much they owe Novell for suing them. OK, it's not quite that simple but that is the net outcome ; the suit against Novell will kill them and the IBM suit may simply proceed with the Trustee (once one is appointed) simply admitting to all counterclaims so that a ruling may be entered upon the ashes of the corporate corpse. After that they (IBM, maybe the stockholders, maybe others) may seek to nail the execs (and their lawyers too!!).

Reply Score: 2

RE: SCO
by unreal on Mon 31st Dec 2007 07:13 UTC in reply to "SCO"
unreal Member since:
2007-04-12

SCO Openserver is actually based on AT&T's version of the Unix OS. Alot of Unix flavors combine a mix of AT&T's original features and BSD's. Linux is considered the most BSD like of the Unix clone OS's. I had to run SCO Openserver at my former place of work, and have to say it is a complete piece of sh*t. You pay for everything (especially the developer/compiler software) and it took my days to successfully compile an up-to-date Apache/Perl on it (don't even try any other software.) They had some open source GNU software (Skunkware) that installed nicely with their SCO installer app but that quickly halted when SCOG pissed off Stallman and he didn't make anymore releases. They release new patches every few years and just milked any company that was willing to have Openserver on their system.

Openserver was indeed an OS that has some potential maybe a decade ago but the SCOG quickly torpedo'd that. They even tried going into the Linux biz themselves with propietary software apps alongside (Tarantalla I think?) but that didn't pan either. Who would pay for packaged Linux when they can get it for free? Dumbasses!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: SCO
by fithisux on Mon 31st Dec 2007 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

They can open source their OS and sell support. Though I think they are dangerous making their software GPL is a logical movement because this way all the man hours spent into programming will not be lost. It is a shame. At the end I think they will have to short a lot of legal thing so I do not think it is possible. Otherwise it would be a great open source addition.

Reply Score: 1

Awwwwww...
by yakirz on Sun 30th Dec 2007 02:18 UTC
yakirz
Member since:
2006-05-11

*sniff*

Reply Score: 2

SCO
by mind!dagger on Sun 30th Dec 2007 03:59 UTC
mind!dagger
Member since:
2007-06-26

In the sign-off of comedian Carol Burnett ...

"I'm so glad we had this time together,
Just to have a laugh or sing a song,
Seems we just get started and before you know it,
Comes the time we have to say, 'so long'."

mind!dagger says goodnight and goodbye to SCO

Reply Score: 1

Soliloquy
by elsewhere on Sun 30th Dec 2007 04:48 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Nah nah nah nah
Nah nah nah nah
Hey hey hey
Goodbye

(and good f***ing riddance, to boot ;) )

Reply Score: 3

w00t
by Bit_Rapist on Sun 30th Dec 2007 05:33 UTC
Bit_Rapist
Member since:
2005-11-13

Buh-bye dickheads.

Reply Score: 1

It's a bad end for the SCO name
by SamAskani on Sun 30th Dec 2007 06:53 UTC
SamAskani
Member since:
2006-01-03

Before 2001, SCO was synonymous of a driving force for the evolution of the Unix OSs.

Then SCO sold the Unix trademark to Caldera, who renamed itself into SCO Group. The old SCO was renamed to Tarantella Inc.

The SCO Group, wanting to make believe everyone that they have the rights over the copyrighted source code of Unix, started its catastrophic legal battles against IBM and others. Very soon, Novell clarified the situation indicating that the Unix OS itself was not part of the deal for Caldera.

And now this, my condolences for the remaining people in Tarantella of the old SCO who never guessed that its old name would be finish so deep in the mud.

Reply Score: 2

RE: It's a bad end for the SCO name
by lemur2 on Sun 30th Dec 2007 07:23 UTC in reply to "It's a bad end for the SCO name"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Then SCO sold the Unix trademark to Caldera, who renamed itself into SCO Group. The old SCO was renamed to Tarantella Inc.


The Unix trademark belongs to the Open Group.

http://www.opengroup.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group
"The Open Group's best-known service are their certification programs, including certification for the Common Operating Environment (COE) Platform, CORBA, Directory, POSIX, Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF), UNIX, and Wireless Application Protocol (WAP). The Open Group is also the owner of the UNIX trademark."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix#Branding
"In October 1993, Novell, the company that owned the rights to the Unix System V source at the time, transferred the trademarks of Unix to the X/Open Company (now The Open Group),[9] and in 1995 sold the related business operations to Santa Cruz Operation."


...

"The present owner of the trademark UNIX® is The Open Group, an industry standards consortium."


Neither SCO, Caldera nor SCOG at any time owned the UNIX trademark. Novell transferred the UNIX trademark to the Open Group in 1993. By the time SCO was involved in 1995, the Open Group already had the UNIX trademark, so it could not have been any part of the deal between Novell and SCO.

Neither, as it turned out, were the UNIX copyrights involved in that 1995 deal. There is no "transfer of title writing" of the UNIX copyrights held by either SCO nor SCOG after them. Novell still own the UNIX copyrights to this day. The recent rulings in the SCO vs Novell case has determined all this.

SCOG own no copyrights to UNIX, no patents, and no trademark of the UNIX name. They totally lack any standing to sue anyone over UNIX. Furthermore Novell, who do have standing, instructed SCOG to drop this case very soon after SCOG started it.

It is all moot anyway. There is no UNIX code in Linux.

Edited 2007-12-30 07:35

Reply Score: 8

Delisted
by sonic2000gr on Sun 30th Dec 2007 08:30 UTC
sonic2000gr
Member since:
2007-05-20

They should be delisted off the planet if you ask me...

Reply Score: 1

Novell should GPL System V
by madcrow on Sun 30th Dec 2007 21:32 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

That way, it wouldn't matter if there WAS any UNIX code lurking in Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Novell should GPL System V
by glarepate on Mon 31st Dec 2007 03:56 UTC in reply to "Novell should GPL System V"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Will you volunteer to contact all of the copyright holders and negotiate the acceptance of the GPL for their code?

That way Novell could then sell the UNIX business to someone else once SCOG is dead.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
Will you volunteer to contact all of the copyright holders and negotiate the acceptance of the GPL for their code?
"""

Not necessary. They only need to GPL the parts that they own if there are pieces of System V the copyrights to which they do not hold. It would mainly be a "putting to rest" move, for good measure, with the added benefit of actually making that creaky old code available in case some of it still has technical value. Plus a needed PR boost to Novell's image within the OSS community, still somewhat tarnished by their deal with Microsoft.

They would, of course, have to go to the trouble and expense of auditing the code base to determine what they could, in fact, relicense. Something I'm not sure they would be willing to spend money on in view of their recent and sudden laying off of the AppArmor guys, while still intending to base SLES's MAC framework upon their work.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Novell should GPL System V
by lemur2 on Mon 31st Dec 2007 04:13 UTC in reply to "Novell should GPL System V"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That way, it wouldn't matter if there WAS any UNIX code lurking in Linux.


There is no UNIX code lurking in Linux, so it doesn't matter anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Novell should GPL System V
by sbergman27 on Mon 31st Dec 2007 23:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell should GPL System V"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

There is no UNIX code lurking in Linux, so it doesn't matter anyway.

"""

Prove it. Prove it beyond the shadow of any doubt. Of course... you know and I know that there is almost no likelihood of it. But just look at how the press bought into SCO's claims, silly as we knew them to be even at the time. SCO's claims were taken quite seriously by the mainstream press for a year or two.

And all the informed ridicule of SCO by those of us familiar with the situation was generally summarized in those news stories as something like "Linux fans are up in arms" or "online Linux chat rooms are abuzz with posts denying the allegations", or "the move has set freeware groupies on the war path".

The more things change... the more they stay the same. It could happen again in some other, slightly modified guise.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Prove it. Prove it beyond the shadow of any doubt.


The burden of proof goes in the other direction.

Accusers such as SCOG actually have to prove that there IS infringement, rather than there being any burden on FOSS to prove that there isn't.

With a five billion dollar lawsuit riding on the outcome, with complete access to AIX development history and source code, and complete access to UNIX source code and to Linux source code, SCO came up with not one line that they could even mount an effective challenge over, in four years of looking.

When people contribute to FOSS code, the primary motivation is often to gain kudos and respect. The code is made public and heavily scrutinised. It would be the height of silliness to offer up plagiarised code to a FOSS project under that scenario. You would be almost begging to get caught.

For at least these two reasons, and actually many others, including independent reviews by several parties, we do know without any doubt whatsoever that there is no UNIX code in Linux. The SCOG case has brought that fact out in mile-high letters.

It could happen again in some other, slightly modified guise.


Only if the accusing party, who has the burden of proof, wants to suffer a fate similar to SCOG.

Right now, the UNIX copyrights have been found by a court of law to belong to Novell. You think that Novell are going to sue for copyright infringement by Linux, after all that? Who are they going to sue?

Fat chance.

No, I'd go even further. No chance.

But just look at how the press bought into SCO's claims, silly as we knew them to be even at the time. SCO's claims were taken quite seriously by the mainstream press for a year or two.


I think that after that experience, being taken for absolute suckers for over two years, and having to save face or lose all credibility, even the clueless mainstream press might possibly have learned a thing or two.

One can live in hope, anyway.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

The burden of proof goes in the other direction.

"""

In the courts, perhaps. But not in the world of the media. Crisis and conflict sold then, it sells today, and it will sell again.

"""
I think that after that experience, being taken for absolute suckers for over two years, and having to save face or lose all credibility, even the clueless mainstream press might possibly have learned a thing or two.
"""

It's not about learning. It's not about saving face. It's about selling an interesting idea to people who only pay a certain amount of attention to the topic in question.

And yes, Novell, someday, when backed into a corner, might very well play their Unix card. Especially if encouraged to do so by some other player with a reason to want to see them do so. (It's not like Novell has demonstrated any immunity to such types of persuasion.) SCO's downfall was that they did not own the copyrights. That question has, conveniently, been settled. Novell owns the "violated" copyrights free and clear.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And yes, Novell, someday, when backed into a corner, might very well play their Unix card. Especially if encouraged to do so by some other player with a reason to want to see them do so. (It's not like Novell has demonstrated any immunity to such types of persuasion.) SCO's downfall was that they did not own the copyrights. That question has, conveniently, been settled. Novell owns the "violated" copyrights free and clear.


... and Novell has already given its waiver to Linux.

Novell gave a waiver to IBM in accordance with the understanding in the echo newsletter.

Novell has also given patent waivers to Linux and FOSS:

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php
"Open Invention Network is an intellectual property company that was formed to promote the Linux system by using patents to create a collaborative ecosystem."

http://www.patent-commons.org/
"The Patent Commons Project is dedicated to documenting the boundaries of The Commons -- a preserve where developers and users of software can innovate, collaborate, and access patent resources in an environment of enhanced safety, protected by pledges of support made by holders of software patents."

Look at that. Novell logos.

"Novell ... might very well play their Unix card."


1. The USL vs BSD settlement was made public under freedom of information during the SCOG case. There is no UNIX card.

2. Novell have already played their UNIX card ... against Microsoft. They got millions for it.

3. SuSe has essentially the same codebase as other variants of Linux. This is not however Novell's copyright ... and the terms from the actual copyright holder's are such that if Novell tries to sue any Linux distribution, then Novell loses all rights to SuSe codebase. Talk about (a) being an Indian giver, and (b) shooting yourself in the foot, and (c) alienating all your customers and potential customers.

"might very well play their Unix card"? Not going to happen. Cannot happen, legally.

Edited 2008-01-01 03:19

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I'm content to wait and see. Until then, feel free to keep living in hope. But remember that SCO didn't have a legal leg to stand on in 2003... and we are still talking about them on the eve of 2008. You seem to think that something has changed and that directing millions of dollars at a desperate third party to encourage them to spread misinformation and attack a competitor won't work anymore.

But then again, you probably believe that groklaw.net brought SCO down.

Edited 2008-01-01 04:02

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm content to wait and see. Until then, feel free to keep living in hope. But remember that SCO didn't have a legal leg to stand on in 2003... and we are still talking about them on the eve of 2008. You seem to think that something has changed and that directing millions of dollars at a desperate third party to encourage them to spread misinformation and attack a competitor won't work anymore.

But then again, you probably believe that groklaw.net brought SCO down.


Gee, there is no cause whatsoever to have a go here.

Firstly, groklaw didn't bring SCOG down (despite SCOG's apparent belief that it did). No, what brought SCOG down is SCOG's utter lack of a case.

On the topic of Novell ... they have just spent a fortune defending against the bogus claims of SCOG. Their license to distribute their own product depends on them not suing Linux. They have committed their own older patents, and provided money to buy up new patents, for the use of and in defense of Linux. They have given waivers to parties contributing code to Linux.

And finally, in relation to Novell suing anyone else over Linux, there is this legal principle solidly in Novell's way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

So, how about instead of spreading wild and baseless speculations, and trying desperately to imply there is some legal approach here that the court-decalred owner of UNIX copyrights could somehow conceivably yet use them against Linux, and trying back-handed implied insults against other posters ... how about coming up with even one solid point for your argument? It would be a refreshing change, let me tell you.

You seem to think that something has changed and that directing millions of dollars at a desperate third party to encourage them to spread misinformation and attack a competitor won't work anymore.


Pfft. They tried it already. It was a dismal and unmitigated failure. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'll tell you what, I'll give you an indication of the utter hopelessness of your argument here ... by asking you who now holds the copyrights to VMS? They would have a far, far better chance suing Microsoft over Windows being similar to VMS right now than anyone (even Novell) would have any chance at a successful legal attack against Linux.

That is to say ... no chance. Give it up, you are flogging a long dead horse.

Edited 2008-01-01 04:44

Reply Score: 2

Wow
by hackus on Mon 31st Dec 2007 02:26 UTC
hackus
Member since:
2006-06-28

Merry Freakin Xmas Mc Bride.

You suck.

-Hack

Reply Score: 2

They're Still Listed Until.....
by Ranger on Mon 31st Dec 2007 16:59 UTC
Ranger
Member since:
2006-05-03

Even though they're on the hook to be de-listed, they haven't been as yet.

The entire de-listing action is a process within NASDAQ. SCO received the letter from NASDAQ in September and have until late March to appeal the action. When a company is to be de-listed, it doesn't happen right away. The company is given a 180-day period to appeal and try to reverse the decision.

I find it interesting that they changed they're symbol from, 'SCOX,' to, 'SCOXQ.PK.' This was done pretty recent because I was checking their stock prices & watching it plummet.

They're still listed and I'm sure they'll be trying to pull something before the March deadline.

If they do get de-listed, we could be seeing;

"Hi, I'm Darl. Welcome to Wal-Mart. Here's a sticker for your child. I own the trademark for the design on this sticker and have lawsuits pending against Wal-Mart & many others for using it without paying me to do so."

We haven't seen the last of these folks, yet......

Unfortunate but true.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
The company is given a 180-day period to appeal and try to reverse the decision.
"""

I thought they'd had their appeal already and lost earlier this month.

Anyway, good thing Thom is working on the OSNews Comic Strip project. Otherwise, when The SCO Group finally *is* over and done with, what would we do for laughs around here?

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Replying to myself... I was right. It's mentioned in the linked story, but here is the quote from SCO's 8k filing:

"""
The Company filed for an appeal of the Determination. On November 8, 2007, the Company had a hearing before the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel (the “Panel”) to review the Determination.

On December 21, 2007, the Company received a letter from the Panel, informing the Company that the Panel had determined to delist the Company’s securities from The Nasdaq Stock Market and will suspend trading of the securities effective at the open of business on Thursday, December 27, 2007.

"""

The fat lady has sung. :-)

Reply Score: 2