Slashdot Mirror
SCO Caps Legal Expenses At $31 Million
uniqueCondition points to a story on News.com, writing "With SCO's legal costs reaching $7.3 million in their most recent quarter, nearly half of the $15 million it has spent in the last five quarters, SCO can't afford this kind of litigation. They have therefore limited their payment to $31 million for the entire case and is giving their legal team a larger slice of any settlement SCO achieves. Under the current agreement, the firm's contingency payment is 20 percent of a settlement. Under the new agreement, that increases to a range of 20 to 33 percent." uniqueCondition links also to coverage at Techrepublic.com, InformationWeek and The Inquirer.
I'd say that their legal team would probably bail under this new contract (given that they probably don't expect to win), but then I read the "capped" number. 31 million dollars?!? Isn't that a bit like capping baseball players? i.e. They already make so much money that the cap doesn't matter in many ways other than principle.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
31 Million Dollars might buy you a few hours lawyer time nowadays....sheesh.
Momma told me that sigs are for the devil
of total annihilation?
Sounds like a sound investment to me!
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
Them lawyers are gunna starve!
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
...of nothing is still *nothing*.
What I want to know is: who is paying them 660K in sco source licensing reveunue last quarter? Did Microsoft make another payment, did they recategorize other income into that program; what's the deal? It can't possibly be real income.
"What do you want?"
"I want to get the hell out of here!"
"Oh, I'm sorry, we're fresh out of that. I'm afraid all we have left is untimely death!"
I kinda wish I was a SCO lawyer. They're making phat bank and they must know it's all going to fall apart in the end. They'll walk away with pockets full of cash and they won't be liable for anything I bet. (IANAL)
You mean that the lawyers will get 33% of nothing instead of 20% of nothing? What a deal!
Having watched the carnage from the first, IANAL, but it seems to me that it isn't likely that SCO will recieve a settlement in this case. It seems far more likely that they'll be stumped.
Ah well, atleast the lawyers will be well taken care of.... Probably the execs too...
Might as well invest in losing lottery tickets.
I was a layer in this case I would ask just for the 31 M Dollars and leave the building.
What power has law where only money rules.
*suprise*
*shock*
IBM, luckily is on Linux's side, and has the coffers to litigate with SCO into the next century
*sigh*
Error 407 - No creative sig found
A bigger slice of nothing is still nothing.
Reminds me of fly by night dot-bomb executives trying to appease their employees by giving them tantalizing (restricted) stock options.
Then pumping, dumping, and running like hell.
To blog is sublime
So if they are limited to $31 million and they have already gone through $15 million that means I got about 2 quarters left. So at least 6 more months of this drama. Fun eh?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Judge: You may go ahead with your closing statement.
SCO: Yes, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a case about intellec... (looks at watch abruptly) Oh, sorry, I guess the fund ran out just now. Another day, another trial. (Picks up briefcase, then bolts.)
As someone pointed out over at groklaw, 31 million is almost exactly all SCO is now worth in reserves, assets, etc. Team Boise ain't exactly sacrificing much here.
Everyone talks about SCO running a sleazy poorly executed shakedown (I agree), but I'm wondering if Boise and Crew have just shown us how to run a sleazy *brilliantly* executed shakedown - of SCO.
And from reviewing all the filings, it's clear Boise et al weren't exactly working overtime with their best and brightest in putting the case together.
Boise: "Hey look, it's a moron with tons of money. Let's string him along and see where it takes us."
The would-be con men have been conned, and damn well I'd say.
Does anyone know why after making a post, your IP is contacted by a Slashdot-server (in my case 66.35.250.150), which makes a "GET /" request, and on success further requests to the links in the directory-index.
Try it: post something, then watch your access_log.
No, money down!
/I move for a bad... court... thingy.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Does this means that if the judge "settles" that Darl spends his next 10 years in jail, he actually gets 4 years, and the lawyers get 6 years?
Sounds good to me...
Once the 32 Million is billed out I think you will see a quick resolution of the SCO lawsuits. As pointed out in the conference call yesterday several IP legal firms have offered an opinion that the SCO suits have no legs (I think one of the callers adviced them to get a second opinion instead of relying only on the firm you just promised $31 Million). So once the money is gone so will the motivation.
These high rate of expenditures are interesting as quality of legal work so far has been sophmorphic and low quality.
When they spend all $31 Million and a settlement is still not coming what will the lawyers do then? I highly doubt they are going to keep working. My bet is the second that $31 mil is gone the lawyers are going to walk away and watch the company die. Perhaps SCO just dictated how and when it will fall.
I think every slashdotter should chip in $100, and WE buy SCO!
Do lawfirms have stock? I want to buy stock in SCO's legal representatives. They are certainly having a banner year. And then I want to sell that stock as soon as the last legal fee payment has been made by SCO. At that point, I expect they won't really have a great reputation in the legal community; so they won't be in much demand as lawyers after this case has been decided. I mean, who wants to hire a lawfirm that has a reputation for tying up the courts with a nonsense case, just to bill their client into bankruptcy?
And before you ask... no, I'm not an idiot. I just like piling absurd "what if's" onto our sometimes absurd reality.
Astronauts in weightlessness of pixilated space, exchange graffiti with a disembodied race. - Rush
Imagine what $31 million dollars could have done had they given it to various open source projects. Money in this world could really be put to better use.
Then SCO has to fend off Novell, RedHat and Autozone on any counterclaims they may have. Then they all could sue SCO for slander of title, abuse of process. If the GPL holds up in court, everyone that has code in Linux (including IBM, SUSE, RedHat, etc) could sue for damages. The only winners for SCO are the execs that have cashed out. But the SEC is looking into that.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Is how the memo read. Malnutrition, where this particular company is concerned, makes me smile.
and 0 future earnings comes out to approximately... zero freakin' nothing. sounds like these lawyers need to chase another ambulance, this one is rusted in the ditch and full of dead people. good call, champs! maybe they can take possession of the SCO letterhead and let their kids practice writing demand letters on it. even in purple crayon, they'd make more sense than ol' buddy darl's quest.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Sounds like "stock options" WOO...
"We expect our stock to valuate at $50 per share in two years, so we'll pay you until then in stock shares..."
"We expect our lawsuit to end favorably in two years, so we'll pay you until then..."
I need to start a company called Big Time Corperation so I can pull some of that shit. I'll go around town with a few hundred bucks, buying everything I see, telling every store clerk that my payment will not exceed 31 dollars!
Saving face?
SCO: Hello Mr. Lawyer, will you take on our surefire case against Linux?
Lawyer: Surefire? Ha ha... *ahem*
(SCO hands lawyer large wad of cash)
Lawyer: Of course I will, my good man.
Many large wads of cash later:-
SCO: Mr. Lawyer, we cannot afford to pay you any more. Will you continue the battle if we divide the spoils with you?
Lawyer: What spoils?
SCO: When we win our case
Lawyer: Win? Have you been smoking crack again?
SCO: We paid you all that money.... please go along with this.
Lawyer: We'll *continue* to go along with this if you pay us more money. Why do you think we took this on in the first place?
SCO: Do you work for magic beans?
Lawyer: No, fuck off.
Press release issued where Darl McBride mentions something about "focusing on our core business of selling Unix". Everyone laughs.
I kinda wish I was an IBM lawyer. They're making phat bank and they must know it's all going to fall apart in the end. They'll walk away with pockets full of cash and they'll get to keep their jobs I bet. (IANAL)
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
that's got to be what they've been angling for all along. why reward these fumduckers with a buyout? let 'em go at auction and let linus buy the contracts and rights for 15 dollars.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
They still believe they can win and are in the right... I live in Provo UT (student at BYU; yes yes I know crazy mormons blah blah blah, i totally agree)... Anyways I go to the same church ward as Ralph Yarro (Chairman of the Board of SCO, and CEO of Canopy Group)... Every Sunday I love to slam Ralphie with questions about what's going on on the SCO Titanic... He tells me over and over that they (SCO) have the moral highground and are in the right... He also says that in his heart of hearts he believes they will win the lawsuite against IBM... And after a win against IBM, he thinks the lawsuites like the ones against Chysler and AutoZone, will all just start to drop in... Whatever crack that guy's smokin'... I want some...
Isn't 33 percent of 0 still the same as 20 percent of 0?
Nothing to see here; Move along.
Just to show my age...
The first thing that popped into my mind was an episode of the Muppett Show I was when I was but a wee lad.
Fozzee Bear wanted a raise and brought in his agent (a rat) to negotiate w/Kermit the Frog. Kermit worked the rat into a frenzy (100% raise...no, 200%...no, 300%!) getting everyone all hype.
Then Kermit left and the rat asked Fozzee what he made before. $0. The rat was, well now you get 300% of that! And remember, I get 30% of THAT!
Sad.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
SCOX has been in the $3.50 to $4 range all week, with light trading. Six months ago, it was at $14.
Next court date: September 15, Judge Kimball. Motions in both the Novell vs. SCO and SCO vs. IBM cases will be heard. SCO has been stalling to put off this date, but it looks like the judge won't tolerate any more delay and some major issues will be decided in two weeks.
SCO is in a unique position...On one hand, they can't afford to keep paying their lawyers to drag out the case, which they must do because they don't have one. On the other hand, they can't wrap it up either because then they will be exposed.
And what happens when they reach this $31 million cap? Lawyers don't work well when you stop paying them, and IBM can afford to sit around until SCO runs out of money. This would certainly not please BayStar Capital.
-R
By putting a cap on the legal expenses, what this really means is that Microsoft has decided to abandon ship on this approach, and wants to move on to different attacks on Open Source.
My bet is that their next avenue of attacks are a combination of abusing the Patent System, along with trying to effectively make Open Source illegal in the U.S.. Of course, that's pretty obvious, as they really have no other options left at this point.
Without Microsoft putting in more money to feed the attack lawyers, this battle is all over. The only thing left now is mop-up action, as far as the SCO attack goes.
SCO Halted.
Please reboot underhanded business practices, or better yet, install Linux.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Other issues that are relevant. The above figures are a month old and last quarter SCOG was burning about 2.4 million a month in legal fees. Also, outstanding legal fees that had not yet been paid as of 31st July were unclear.
Who is SCOG's auditor and will they need to insist that SCOG presents a truthful balance sheet? And when?
20 to 33 percent
Well here is evidence SCO knows its going to lose and the lawyers think they are going to win.
Offer them a bigger fatter portion of the zero dollars they will end up with and continue to drag the case on nice and cheap.
I see it now, IBM buys SCO, so now they're suing themselves. They "settle" for, say $1B, which they pay to themselves AND deduct it too. Brilliant scheme!
I find it pretty amazing that SCO has the cajones to believe that anybody would be interested in taking them over. I believe that their stock is as high as it is right now (if under $4 a share is high) only because SCO has been buying it's own stock. What do they own? They have some money in the bank, much of which they owe to their lawyers and to others; they also own a UNIX distribution that that people are not busting down the doors to buy. SCO seems to believe that they own the copyright to System V, Linux and UNIX in general; they may actually own some sort of rights to System V, but SCO's copyright claims are being contested by somed of the current owners. SCO has a number of pending lawsuits, and so far the verdicts in their lawsuits have been against them. Their anti-takeover defense is as useless as any of their other claims.
.. almost 18 hours ago. See this page.
The following is my speculation about how the cap came about.
I am not a lawyer, and I don't know anything you don't know.
I'm just guessing. Having said that...
I suspect it was the law firm's idea.
I'm sure by this time Boise & Co realize that they're just "taking
the dog for a walk" (that is, they know, based on the facts, the law,
and their opponents, that they're gonna lose). They're experienced
at losing. Unless they're idiots, they recognize that the value of their
contingency upside potential is pretty close to $0. They also know
the depth of SCO's pockets, and how much they can pump out of
the well before it goes dry (there's a mixed metaphor). They know
that, when it's all over, SCO will be worthless and just a dry corpse.
They've calculated how long they can continue to delay the inevitable,
and how much SCO needs to stay alive until then. I don't know what
they think the final date will be, but obviously they think SCO will need
$12M to stay alive that long. SCO has $43M, and Boise & Co can do
simple arithmetic. Presto! Boise & Co offers to cap their expenses at
$31M.
Boise & Co knows what needs to be done (billable hours), and what they
can skip in order to save their client money (billable hours that would
extend beyond $31M). I predict that the final gavel will fall with a thud
at just about the same time that the legal invoice reaches $31M, and at
the same instant that SCO's $12M is exhausted.
With their track record for losing cases, I suspect that this is the
kind of thing the Boise & Co is GOOD at!
Seems attractive to Microsoft, who could buy them up then migrate all customers to Windows servers and really milk them.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
BWAHAHAHAHA!
As many have quipped here already, there isn't likely to be a settlement in this case. So assuming that the lawyers themselves are not stupid, this cap agreement would seem to indicate that SCO has not yet racked up $31M in billing charges. And again, if the lawyers are not stupid, they probably already know, perhaps better than anyone else, that there isn't going to be a settlement. So it seems likely that when the $31M cap is reached, the lawyers will bail out. There's probably some kind of contract clause that will allow them to do this. If one knows how much has been billed already and the rate of billing, then it is possible to estimate how long it will be before the lawyers bail given the cap.
It all sounds pretty slimy when you think about it. I mean, how many millions were made on the SCO share run-up for largely baseless litigation? And one can bet that the lawyers aren't taking a loss on this deal. So they all do okay. To borrow a Chinese expression, its a sharing pork world!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
The problem is that if IBM buys SCO, then every two-bit scammer will try the same thing (sue IBM hoping IBM will settle/buy them out). IBM knows this and is in the process of driving SCO into the ground to make an example of them.
In the long run, it is (far) cheaper for IBM to fight this case to the bitter end rather then trying to deal with hundreds of similar cases that could arise if IBM buys SCO.
Besides the point, it is not even clear that SCO owns anything at all. SCO claims to have the rights to sub-licence UNIX System V for Novel (its not clear if this agreement is still in effect, for various reasons). From this, SCO claims to have the rights to enforce licencing deals for Novell (via copyrights that may or may not have been transfered) And so on and so forth. With so many ambiguities, it would be sheer madness for IBM to buy SCO just to make the lawsuit go away.
It was on Slashdot too.
Worse, it was also on the Yahoo boards!
... and on IRC!!
Got a point?
33% of nothing is nothing.
What the hell, let's make it 50%!
Just so it's clear, the $31M cap does not include payments that have already been made; the "total" in "total legal costs" refers to the fact that the cap would apply to all the firms representing SCO, not just Boies, Schiller and Flexner.
This is all made a bit more complicated by the facts that SCO currently owes something like $8M in unpaid bills for legal services already rendered--which apparently is covered by the cap; that the detailed terms of the deal haven't been released yet; and that in fact the details haven't been agreed upon yet (so far there's only a signed letter of intent). But the bottom line, confirmed at yesterday's conference call, is that SCO currently has ~$43M of cash on its balance sheet, and that assuming their future legal expenses hit the cap, they have ~$12M left to run the rest of their business--roughly 4 months of operating expenses at last quarter's burn rate.
In other words, barring some last minute capital infusion, SCO will run out of cash well before they hit the spending cap--unless, of course, they plan on dropping the pretense of running a business outside of their lawsuits.
If you all started paying for your unix/linux, instead of pirating them. Then poor SCO wouldn't be in this situation.
Why not pool together an LLC with Slashdot readers who contribute enough to do the hostile takeover? From what they're saying 15% of the company is enough...
Hmm, so a 31 mill cap buys another 6-12 months of sco fudware, just about long enough to fill the fud gap until longhorn.
33% of 0 is...?
From the conference call, one is left with the impression that the top Execs at SCO believe that they can win; or at the least, drag things out for a while.
Therefore, I challenge Darl and the other top Execs at SCO to put their money where their overly large mouths are.
Namely, allow me to short the entire amount of stock that they currently own. I will pay them interest for it of course.
If they truly believe that they have a chance with their case, this would be a no-brainer for them. Indeed, it's a situation whereby they can't lose money.
I, on the otherhand, don't believe they have a case. And I think the stock is going to take a serious nosedive after September 15th (SCO's next Big Day in Court).
So, Darl, here's a chance for you to make some real money. Either put up, or shut up.
Of course, if he really knows that he doesn't have a case, and is just trying to con everyone else, he won't take up this offer. Nor do I expect him to.
A pity no one brought this up at the conference call.
Just finished reading SCO's quarterly report, and it irks me that their licensing program is still generating cash flow from companies who may be too cowardly to admit that they paid real money for SCO's FUD.
Here is an idea that is more in the spirit of the aforementioned movie than anything else:
We could start an "I Am A Linux User" movement, and it works pretty simply by gathering signatures from Linux users. We could then send this to SCO and deliberately contrast our "I Am One Of Them And Darn Proud Of It" attitude with that of those shadowy companies who keep pumping money into their coffer but refuse to come out and take a stand.
Like I said, just an idea. I would appreciate some feedback, though.
This example suggests, even the "bigger guys" can suffer...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why don't we all kick in $1, and send SCO packing?
stuff |
let's see, 33 percent of nothing, is.... umm, let's see... nothing! Whoohoo! Another lawyer gets screwed! What a country!
Through lawyers the courts Darl has mocked
Jail is where he will be locked
It will not be funny
When Darl's out of money
Then he'll pump more than just stock
It looks like they are planning to go on the road to spread their FUD:
http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/2004/
It might be a good idea to organize groups of people to show up and voice some opposition. Handing out free GNU/Linux distros would be fun too!
Looking at SCO's SEC filing you can see that their $7.3 million loss is roughly equal to the " Cost of SCOsource licensing revenue" (i.e. legal fees). Their Unix business itself is still (marginally) profitable. I'm willing to wager that some of their other costs (like marketing) are also related to the ScoSource FUD campaign. Now factor in the cost of lost goodwill and lost sales. If SCO would just quit the ScoSource business and stop alienating potential customers, it would actually make a profit. They are being killed by their own FUD machine.
The ScoSource unit managed to make $678K while costing $7.3M. I wonder how much of that $678,000 was from the IP-in-Linux scam versus licencing actual UNIX technology to third parties.
I think that Darl & company are finally starting to wise up to the fact that they are killing their own company. That is why they are starting to de-emphasize the legal strategy and cut their losses. The whole lawsuit was nothing more than a get-rich-quick crap shoot. Now finally they are realizing (at least I hope they realize) that few people get rich quick and they should instead concentrate on growing their UNIX business to make a (modest) profit.
When you read the press releases that SCO sends out every second week or so, you see how they fool (themselves and others) to believe that they are a strong company with strong products. One example here
This is totally insecure, but very convenient.
So they'll now be getting 33% of $0 instead of 20% of $0? What a deal!
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
But you need to look at this over the longer-term to see the true picture. SCOX stock was way over a hundred dollars back in 2000. Take a look at this chart:
5 year chart of SCOX
Notice how the stock plummeted to essential valuelessness after the bubble burst, and stayed there right up until Darl and company announced the lawsuits early in '03? That right there was a profit bubble that I believe was part of the motivation for this lawsuit. A lot of people had to buy in at elevated prices, and were left high and dry as the truth became more widely known.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
They would corner the market on Unix, Linux, AND IBM's magic server pixie dust! (Oh, and self-important criminal assholes, too; hi, Darl!)
But I have 52 million shares! What's 52 million times zero? AND DON'T TELL ME IT'S ZERO!
I work for IBM and SCO's main lawyer (Hatch) signed my second-to-last recommend.
Lasers Controlled Games!
They have therefore limited their payment to $31 million for the entire case and is giving their legal team a larger slice of any settlement SCO achieves. Under the current agreement, the firm's contingency payment is 20 percent of a settlement. Under the new agreement, that increases to a range of 20 to 33 percent.
But the way things are shaping up, any settlement between SCO and IBM is going to require SCO to pay large amounts of money to IBM in order to get IBM to drop the copyright infringement claims, the patent infringement claims, the Lanham Act claims, etc., because IBM's attorneys are quickly demolishing all of SCO's claims.
IMO, the lawyers should have to pony up 20% to 33% of *that* settlement. They should get a "slice" all right...
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
At the end of FY 2003, SCO president McBride got a $755,000 bonus, more than triple his salary, for his excellent performance.
oh man...that's the funniest thing I've read in a while.
Them: Argh! A cyclist in a necktie - run!
Unfortunately, the Lizards will continue submitting billable hours until SCO runs out of cash or the court throws out the case.
Any bets as to which comes sooner?
One phone call to Microsoft should fix this, no?
Please, IBM, oh please, BUY OUT SCO!!! *maniacal laughter*
You mean "cojones" (Balls in Spanish)
"cajones" = "drawers"
I constantly get corrected by English grammar nazis, I guess this is my revenge. :)
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
It is obivious that they won't be paying the layers in stock. The layers are smarter that that.
This is directed to the investors so they should not start dumping the stock so that SCO would not show image of failing before running out of money, in which point the will just put out the lights.
M$ might fund another round, since $34M is change for them, if they would see it would benefit them, but honestly they failed to raise panic in the scale they wished, so keeping this going is unlikely benefiting them enough, so why whould they continue this? They are violating the antitrust case setlement too, and the more money they put the more likey it is that someone will find the evidence.
-- Joonas Kekoni
So the court system gives you the benefit of the doubt most of the times. A case can only be thrown out in extreme circumstances. If there is even a small possibilty that the case has merit people need to be allowed to present their case.
That is what happened here. Sadly the millions paid so far seem to have not produced anything intresting.
I don't know what is going on but whoever is in charge of the legal team is doing an extremely bad job at it. Well you can already see this because the first thing any good lawyer does is to get his client to shut the fuck up.
But even being fought by McBrides big mouth every step of the way the lawyers have been doing very poor work. Poorly written documents, contradicting statements, incomplete complaints, even plain mis-understanding of the legal system. Biggest beauty was the christmas holiday delay. What the fuck was that about. What kind of experienced lawyer would expect a judge to swallow that? Rookie mistake.
There have been a few articles about boise and his company suggesting that with their extremely fast growth they have been letting standards slip as to who they hire. Poor SCO that they got the bottom of the barrel. I could cry.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
(And please consider that I know this sound like a trolling bait but please please:
- Consider that my comment is related to the parent comment.
- I wasn't insulting someone or anything.
- Just thinking outside of the box, we are here to have a discussion after all. I am not affiliated in anyway with that website I just found it googling)
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
You forgot Duke Nukem Forever.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
And imagine what $800 billions dollars each year could have done had they given it to various peace and development projects. Money in this world could really be put to better use.
(And please consider that I know this sound like a trolling bait but please please:
- consider that my comment is related to the parent comment.
- I wasn't insulting someone or anything.
- Just thinking outside of the box, we are here to have a discussion after all. I am not affiliated in anyway with that website I just found it googling)
Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
Yes, IBM could have bought out SCO the day the lawsuit was started, and, in fact, they would have spent less to buy the company at that point than they've probably spent on legal fees in the case so far. But it's more than just the precedent involved here. SCO is claiming that IBM violated their contracts, and stole SCO's "intellectual property". They've threatened IBM's reputation and smeared their good name.
It may shock some of the cynics here, who think that businesses only ever care about maximizing the profit on each nickel that flies by, but IBM actually cares about their reputation. They care about it for good, solid business reasons, but they still care. They know something that MS has yet to learn - if your customers (and partners) feel they can trust you, they're going to be a lot more willing to do a lot more business with you. SCO has accused IBM of being untrustworthy, and that's not something IBM will take lying down.
This kind of thinking has got to be completely alien to Darl and Ralph, who are probably still in shock that their "buy me, buy me!" scheme didn't work. They may well have studied the odds, and found that IBM only fights a certain percentage of nuisance lawsuits (chosen at random), and figured their chances were pretty good. I don't think they realized that this was a case that IBM would never roll over for, because that kind of thinking (ethical) is not something they're equipped for.
They want to avoid people posting through open proxies since open proxies are the standard method of ban evasion by trolls. So I assume when you post, they do some quick checks to check for evidence your computer has any sort of open or web-based proxy on it.
I assume if they hit anything, they'll either block you from posting further, or just flag you as a potential "problem user" or something. I suppose the thing to do here would be set up an open proxy on your computer and then attempt to post from it, and see if antyhing happens.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
In February 2003, as an example, SCOX was trading at about $1.21 / share. Today, SCOX is trading at around $3.72 / share. Looks like the sandwich-heavy investment portfolio loses this one!
Darl "Pump & Dump" McBride has done a fantastic job. You could still dump now and double your money if you were into SCOX before they started their little song and dance.
This is the surest indication that the public hasn't decided that their case has no merit. It's even better than a poll showing that over half the public believes Iraq attacked the Word Trade Center, because these people actually paid to exhibit their belief, whereas the drooling moron in a public poll doesn't have to take out his wallet.
ERROR: divide by 0
Think about it. If you were a lawyer, and you had a client who you thought wouldn't be able to pay you after a lawsuit, what would you do?
Answer: You'd ask them for money up front.
This is SCOX putting $31M aside (which, incidentally, is almost everything they've got right now) to make sure that Boise continues to represent them. The 'increase' in contingency is just window dressing so that Darl can crow about it.
When this started, SCOX probably approached them and said "we want you to help us sue IBM - we have an ironclad case against them, but we don't have much money. How about you give us a discount, in exchange for 20% of our winnings?" (They then show the printouts of SysV and Linux to show that they have a case - Boise takes them at their word that the copying went from SysV to Linux, and not the other way around.)
After the case has wound on, Boise realises that they've been had - there's no infringing code in Linux, it turns out that SCOX didn't have the copyright *anyway*, and SCOX is about to have their ass handed to them because of IBM's counterclaims. Boise decides that SCOX is gonna lose, and lose BIG - and after IBM takes them to the cleaners, SCO will have no money left.
So Boise hedges his bet - it doesn't matter how much he'd get 'if' they win - he knows they're gonna lose, so he accepts a fixed sum, as long as it's guaranteed. SCOX then says "umm, this makes it look like you've got no faith in our case", so Boise agrees to an 'increase' in the contingency.
Actually, he was listening to Alice's Restaruant. They found an open copy of the LP after Ford left office. True story.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
"...and is giving their legal team a larger slice of any settlement SCO achieves."
Let's see... 20% of 0 = 0 and 33% of 0 = 0
Seems the same to me...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If they have given the legal team an additional 13% from the settlement, we can easily calculate how high considers its probability of success to be.
If we estimate that the payment cap to the lawyers deprive them of... say $30 million, and they are trying to get $5bn from IBM settlement, they consider their chances to be:
$5bn * p = $30 million
=> p = 4.6%
http://codeandlife.com
Now that presents an interesting business plan...split the two companies forming a large law firm specializing in IT lawsuits (demand seems to be growing) and a smaller IT compaony that meters out software licenses.
... profit?!!
no better than 20 percent of nothing, but hey, i suspect it's the 31 million that's really doing the talking here. I suspect that as soon as that money is used up we're going to hear a lot less noise from SCO's lawyers.
They decided to gamble on a long-shot payout in the hundreds of millions and had to settle for 31 million. Those poor bastards.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Sounds like your friend didn't hire a very good lawyer, and should have just gone with a public defender if he couldn't afford a decent lawyer.
I had a situation where I was attacked in an alleyway by someone who had been arguing with a friend. Now, admittedly, I probably shouldn't have butted into the argument, but I didn't think the guy would come at me swinging. I ended up putting him in the hospital and only received a few scratches. The police showed up, interviewed us, took pictures. Neither of us wanted to press charges, and I thought that was the end of it.
Four months later, I received a summons. I was accused of felony assault and battery. No, the guy hadn't changed his mind about pressing charges, although he had originally told police that I had attacked him. It was the city prosecutor, and he made the decision based on the photos the police took. Based on the photos alone, it looked pretty bad. (Some notes to potential brawlers: If you don't want to bleed like a stuck pig, protect your head and don't repeatedly rush your target with your arms swinging like a windmill. Also, if you tackle someone over broken glass, try to end up on top. Oh, and if your opponent outweighs you, like I did this guy, it's probably not a good idea to tackle them in the first place.)
Anyway, at the time I received the summons, I was between jobs, so I availed myself of the Public Defender (PD). I really had to ride herd on him and manage the case myself, but he did his job. My friend turned out to be an unreliable witness, so there went my slam dunk jury trial. Eventually I did a deal (after seemingly countless delays). I pled guilty to misdemeanor disturbing the peace, and sentencing was stayed while I completed somethings that the judge wanted: anger management, staying out of trouble for 6 months, and paying for the victims broken glasses. (It's interesting to note that when this guy began hitting me, I was able to remove my own glasses and safely hide them on a window ledge in the alleyway. It would have been a nice bit for the jury, but oh, well.) Once these things were completed, I was able to ask for a further reduction from misdemeanor to infraction, and the judge even said that could be stricken from my record in a year's time.
So I got to be the sausage in the sausage factory. It was highly frustrating and highly educational. While things didn't work the way I wanted them to, eventually, they did work, and without a high priced lawyer. I blame the city prosecutor for being over zealous, but honestly, I'd rather that he be over zealous than slack. It just sucked to be me in this specific instance.
So, despite the frustrations, I think the process works. You just have to take responsibility. If your lawyer sucks, get another lawyer. If you're forced to use the PD, and you aren't lucky enough to get a good one, ask to have a different PD. On one day, my regular PD was unavailable because he was in trial. The substitute was horrible and argued with me in front of the judge. The PD kept trying to get me to enter a guilty plea before the above mentioned deal had been set, saying it would all be taken care of afterwards. It was obvious she just wanted to clear me off of her docket. When it became clear she wasn't going to get what she wanted, she asked for a continuation. I called the PD office to complain and to beg that she not be my lawyer. At my next appearance, my regular PD was there, thank god.
A total side note: During a recess, I was able to meet Mark Geragos in the hallway. My father knew his father way back when, so I introduced myself to him. Whatever you think about his clients, the man himself is a class act as a person as well as a brilliant attorney. Now, if I could have afforded him as an attorney, I'm sure that not only would have I been cleared of all charges, but the other guy would have been ordered to pay me for a boxing lesson.
Lawyers can and will work for free. It's called Pro Boner.
I know what I said...
Lets see here, nothing, plus nothing, carry the nothing...
Bugger.
The 18.5 minutes of silence finally explained: Richard Nixon was reading "My Pet Goat".
I'm really sick of this myth that Bush was reading "My Pet Goat" to the school children after the 9/11 attack. The only evidence they have is that his lips were moving while he was staring intently at the pages.
Sue the Mormon church for using Linux on a S390 mainframe to run one the world's largest Genological database and getting excomunicated.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Yep company who say to IBM I think you have oppsed that is mine and I will take you to court and here the evidence disprove it if you can. If they cannot they pay.
Note using the media claiming licences on products IBM uses without backup. Now IBM will not settle they stuffed it.
Now the nice big class action will flow from here.
If I was a SCO share holder sell out now because there is going to be nothing left IBM takes the building and money and fires the board. Linux takes source code.
History repeating itself IBM almost destoryed themself the last time to achive simlar.
Hold those law-weasels accountable for 20% of any damages IBM, Red Hat or others might be awarded in return salvos at SCO. That might teach lawyers to be a bit more selective about which idiotic cases they bring to the courts.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Do I get Karma for being repetetetetetive???
d =10122509
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120056&ci
Mod me down. I dare you. I double dare you. I have Karma to *burn*
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
I think it's yet another scam - a way to get the SCO money into the pockets of the McBride family with minimal effort. They don't have to win - they may be losers but it looks much better to be a loser against someone big like IBM, despite the fact they probably would have lost even against the Iraqi information minister by their current performance.
Wait untill after they file Chapter 11. Then they ge t pennies to the doller. Making them even more tastey to take over. Hope MS does so. lets see 31million devided by 1/31 is...9610- lawyer fees. is 9610 -(x-y) assume x is converts the same way then...5.6k left- credit and assets 3k left. I think I make that in a month now as is. I'll sell that to IBM in a heart beat, make 100 times that and at my rate is great.
Ok, they capped the legal expences. This means ALL legal expences, right? So, if linux kernel contributors sue SCO for infriging on their copyright (not honoring GPL) then SCO needs lawyers for these cases too, or not? And there is no money to be made in these cases, so the lawyers will probably bail out earlier since they see that the capped money will be reached earlier, before the IBM case can even come close to being ended. Ergo: SCO has no more money AND no lawyers and the IBM case simply ceases to exist
We need someone with too much money on their hands to perform an agressive buy of SCO, take a hold of the majority stock share, and then initiate a vote to dismantle the company. Take this as my appeal to the rich /.ers out there, if there are any. The Linux community would probably have a statue built for you in Germany somewhere.
-Vendal Thornheart
Is that true?
*Fuck*
That means it works in reverse too.
As the author of that +5 Funny post, I didn't see the point in risking Karma on a post that (if the 'funny' karma bug didn't exist) should only ever have been moderated 'Funny'.
Plus, I was looking at it and trying to figure if it was funny anyway, or just an overblown attempt at humour.
Next time I post something funny under my own name, I bet it gets "overrated" and "troll"ed. You'll see...
$31M is just the limit of how much they are willing to voluntarily spend harassing other people.
There is no limit to how much they could be liable for (defense and settlements) in counter suits.
i'd love to have SCO defending me! ...what? software company? don't be non-sense. they're in law business for years
I was just joking! Hence the humorous title.
-Vendal Thornheart
ok troll,
Do you really think it would be about getting darl in trouble? No, it would be to find out what other enemies they have and wether or not they are entitled to compensation for unfair business competition. I'm not sure about all the U.S but here in ohio, it would be ilegal for microsoft to conspire with SCO just to hurt IBM's business model. Furthermore i believe there are criminal penalties associated with that act too.
Your right IBM Is a business and they would act as such. If they did go after darl or any other SCO exec, it would be to aviod some enron type scandal in the future, It is called covering thier ass. They would have somewhat of an obligation to pursue any maters comming from somethign like that just to remain legit in the eyes of thier sharholders. To dismiss actions like this so easily, it really intelectualy shortsighted on your behalf. IBM would definatly be interested in the real intent of the SCO action as well as who else was behind it.