SCO On the Rocks

Netromancer wrote in to alert us to a Businessweek Online article discussing the downward spiral in SCO's fortunes and luck. From the article: "The mouse that roared is barely squeaking these days. A string of recent setbacks raises grave questions about SCO's finances, its court case, and its management."

Comments

Whoa

[LFS.Morpheus]

Didn't see that coming. Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?

Re:Whoa

[KiloByte]

Well, well... that's a popular business strategy, and often, it works.

Re:Whoa

[stephenisu]

There is is nothing immoral about suing a large corporation. Now, suing them for something unfounded costing taxpayer money while simultaniously raising costs that get passed to the consumer, THAT is immoral.

I still feel kinda bad for the SCO employees who had nothing to do with the litigation and have faced an extra hard time getting employment after leaving because "They were there".

Re:Whoa

[hhlost]

Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation, scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?

I agree. They can't be so stupid not to understand that the courts would eventually figure out what they're doing and put an end to this. In my experience, judges are very down-to-earth people and really frown upon people/organizations who are trying to take advantage of the system. Of course, it seems that SCO & friends knew that it would take a ton of time and money to demonstrate to the non-technical folks (e.g. judges, corporate execs.) that their case is frivolous, and that the news of a lawsuit against Linux would strike fear in the hearts of corporate execs, whose job security depends on their ability to make decisions that help the company in the long run.

In that sense, SCO succeeded in buying (a) commercial OS maker(s) some time to fix their (its) flawed products. I take pleasure in the fact that it doesn't seem to have been enough time... I recently talked with an exec at a company that just switched to Linux and they're saving over $1 million annually! As long as Linux works for them---and it does---why wouldn't they make the switch. It's simple business. That's what has the big OS companies (company) shaking in their (its) penny loafers.

Re:Whoa

[tambo]

I still feel kinda bad for the SCO employees who had nothing to do with the litigation and have faced an extra hard time getting employment after leaving because "They were there".

First, they've had ample notice that the company was going down the tubes, so they should have been dusting off their resumes a year ago.

Second, I doubt that SCO's outcome will adversely any non-manager employee. Presumably, the HR reps/slave traders in the industry can tell the difference between an engineer and a corporate officer. (And, by that same token, I hope the business leaders over at SCO are seen as pariahs for the next decade.)

- David Stein

Re:Whoa

[morleron]

This is a bit off-topic, but your point about the exec who's saving over $1 million a year with Linux is important. Word of mouth, in the IT world as most other places, is the best advertising there is. That's something that MS hasn't figured out about its "Get The Facts" campaign. It isn't working because the people who make decisions about strategic Linux installations/conversions don't generally pay much attention to glitzy ads and websites. Instead, they have lunch with Joe down the street whose company just switched to Linux and is saving X dollars per year. To them, that's much more relevant than any amount of advertising.

That's also why the SCO suit failed to have much lasting impact on the adoption of Linux. After the initial flood of "the world of Linux is falling" stories, people realized that the SCO move is nothing but a blatant attempt to blackmail IBM and the Linux community for the benefit of MS. Once the facts of the MS involvement in backing SCO financially, combined with the utter lack of factual backing for SCO's claims, became known most people, except perhaps Laura Didio, understand that the whole SCO ploy is a sham and nothing to worry about.

I hope that the SEC starts looking into the stock manipulations that McBride and company have been pulling. It would be fitting to see all of them follow Martha into imprisonment. It would be even nicer if they ended up in someplace like Marion, in with the general population.

Just my $.02,
Ron

Re:Whoa

[TokyoBoy]

I used to work as an engineer on the Caldera server and desktop teams. I was part of the many layoffs which reduced the engineering forces there to nothing. It was sas seeing friends go and everyone knew it was only a matter of time before it was their turn.

However, also being a founding trustee memeber of the Salt Lake Linux Users Group and a Linux and OpenSource advocate for years, I am very grateful that I was able to leave before the name change to SCO and the "direction change" - I would have had to quit anyway.

I still have a couple friends there. The amazing thing is that I ran into one of them (Walt Hammond) yesterday (Fri. March 4, 2005) at lunch. I was amazed at his comments. The feeling inside the company is very positive! I couldn't beleive it. It seems that (from my stand point) that the co-workers are completely blind to what is really happening. Not only with reguard to what is happening but also related to the morality (or lack thereof IMO) of their actions. He was completely positive saying that (parapharasing) "things looks so good for us right now but if you read the press, you'd think we were a sinking ship" and (again, paraphrasing) "the press says we've had major set backs but if you look, we've been winning".

I don't know if it's the blind leading the blind or if he really believes what he told me. Of course, being at the director level or above, I'd think you'd have to tote the company line or you wouldn't be around very long at SCO. So, who knows what he really believes.

Re:Whoa

[jbolden]

One thing that's nice about this is that we get the unfairness in reverse. People think that Linux has been much more legally tested than it has been as a result of this case.

Re:Whoa

[hhlost]

That's a good point. It would be very interesting to see a break-down of what has been tested by this case, and any others. On the other hand, I don't think SCO is a bunch of idiots, as some people tend to believe. I think that if there was anything at all that they could have built a legitimate case on, they would have found it. Also, I'm sure that MS has taken apart Linux and looked at it carefully under a microscope. And SCO's case is the best thing that they could find to encourage/support? Seems like a pretty good test to me, but I really don't know. Thoughts?

Re:Whoa

[baomike]

If you spell it correctly it makes a lot more sense:
Gimme cracked corn and I don't care
gimme cracked corn and I don't care

The substance in question is corn whiskey.
White lignting, moonshine, mountain dew etc ...

Re:Whoa

[jbolden]

Nothing has been tested in court, that's what the judge means by "not a single disputed fact". However a great deal has been semi-tested in that SCO couldn't find anything:

1) The origins of Linux pan out
2) The multi-processor stuff that Alan Cox put in Linux came from where he says it did
3) Unix is solely a trademark
4) There isn't any SCO code in Linux.

Still to be tested will be SCO's theory of law
5) Free copyright licenses that encourage cooperation but not commerce have full force of law.

Re:Whoa

[timeOday]

Second, I doubt that SCO's outcome will adversely any non-manager employee.

Do you suppose it will hurt the executive officers? They're famous now! Check out Carly Fiorina who lead HP to a 50% reduction in value. They paid her 45 million just to go away, prompting an immediate 7% spike in HP stock. Her punishment? Serious consideration for the job of World Bank President!

Once you've "in," nothing matters anymore. In extreme cases you might get fired and be forced to retire in luxury.

Re:Whoa

[cgenman]

From the article:

McBride says that while his staff is small in numbers, it's high on engineering expertise.

Apparently his staff is high on something.

Re:Whoa

[barfomar]

Playing devils advocate:

Crazier things have happened on the last minute in this weird legal system we have.

If they can get it in front of a jury of Joe 12-packs, add the right spin, it could still go SCO's way.

There's nothing logical or rational about the present system. It's still a roll of the dice. Daryl could come out smelling like a rose.

In the mean time, the lawyers (on both sides) are trying real hard not to kill the job. It's to their benefit to drag it out as long as possible.

Re:Whoa

[trewornan]

the SCO move is nothing but a blatant attempt to blackmail IBM and the Linux community for the benefit of MS

No, I don't think that's what happened - there's only one explanation of this that makes sense to me:

SCO execs decided to sue IBM on the assumption that IBM would then buy them out just to shut down the case. Darl and cronies would then have made a nice killing on their stocks/options.

Instead, IBM decided to make an example of SCO to discourage other rats from trying the same thing.

SCO found themselves in a position where they couldn't back down and have been desperately trying to put off the inevitable with any slimy trick they can think of.

MS didn't get involved until things were already well advanced, at which point they saw a PR opportunity and slung a load of money to SCO but got caught and it backfired. I can't imagine MS are still funneling money to SCO since nobody takes them seriously anymore.

Re:Whoa

[flosofl]

Except this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, and therefore a jury does not come into it

Wrong.

There are juries in civil suits, also. The number of jurors is different, however. I beleive instead of 12, as in criminal court, there are only 6. What your referring to is a bench trial, and that has to be specifically requested (and I've also only heard of those in regard to criminal proceedings). When the news talks about juries awarding astounding damage claims to plaintiffs, they are talking about juries in civil cases.

Right now, the case is still in discovery, so the jury hasn't even been selected yet.

Re:Whoa

[blippy]

Or how about the case of Marconi, in the UK. It was run successfully by Lord Weinstock for years. The company had a large cash balance, but he was ousted by City-friendly management who then went on a high-tech spending spree in the late 90's. And we all know what happened to the tech industry come the turn of the century.

Result? The whole company gets flushed down the toilet, shareholders loose money, and normal employees loose their jobs. The directors, who's decisions led to this disaster in the first place, walk away with Big Cash Prizes.

Ugly face of capitalism, or what?

Re:Whoa

[hhlost]

If I write something and publish it, I'm not obligated to make a profit on it; I'm not even obligated to try. I can give it to anyone I want and, if I want, I can put restrictions on it's use for as long as I hold the copyright.

The GPL is a license. It says that the authors are permitting anyone who's willing to follow some rules can use the product that the author has the rights to. (IOW: The authors are forfeiting their exclusive rights over the product with some restrictions.)

There is nothing illegal about the GPL---at least not in its general concept---under any reasonable theory of law. The problem is that the idea of giving something away for free really undermines the whole concept of capitalism. Those who rely on bullying competitors with their almost limitless funds don't like this. But I do. :-)

Perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps SCO can sue itself to raise cash

Re:Perhaps

[AndroidCat]

Darl sued his last employer, so why not?

Re:Perhaps

[MatthewNewberg]

If SCO was going to sue SCO I would buy a Unix Lincense from SCO. I need to keep this lawsuit thing going. My life would be boring without the on going story of SCO sueing people. What does this mean for BBspot? Are they now going to go out of business without anythign to write about. Save SCO or my world is going to end!!!

Re:Perhaps

[EnronHaliburton2004]

This new business plan can go with their new name modeled after "GNU's Not Unix":

SCO = "SCO's Court Order"

Re:Perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Darl has a history of litigation. He's sued THREE of his employers, has taken legal action against one of his kid's schools, sued 2 financial advisors and one of his wives is involved in 2 lawsuits against neighbours.

It's a bit like the social situation where generations of families become dependent on welfare, and as it's all they know it's all they continue doing. With Darl, it's litigation.

Re:Perhaps

[2004.3]

Litigation? Welfare? Isn't that the same thing in this case?

Re:Perhaps

[timeOday]

Is he really a polygamist?

No, but it's funny how the word "polygamy" makes people's heads explode, even though they have no qualms with marrying and divorcing repeatedly, or even just sleeping around.

What? SCO needs money?

[DrEldarion]

Surely there must be someone else they can sue.

Re:What? SCO needs money?

[spac3manspiff]

Or they can devote their efforts towards something productive. But that's too obvious.

Re:What? SCO needs money?

[Ralph Yarro]

Surely there must be someone else they can sue.

Yes, we'll be suing Boies Schiller & Flexner next but don't tell them I said so.

well..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Who would have thought that basing a company on litigation,
> scare tactics, and spreading FUD wouldn't work?

Microsoft?

Another Dot Com Failure

[fm6]

So litigation isn't a reliable business model either. We're doomed!

uh huh..

[TheHawke]

The question is not as of when will the guillotine fall, it's how high will it be before it does.
Considering SCO's screwups and legal wranglings, i'd say that the height will be stratospheric and more than a few heads will be in the stocks when it falls.

Re:uh huh..

[KiloByte]

Wrong. If a company dies, it's the stockholders who lose, not the management. The managers simply need to find a new job -- and note that even during the company's agony they still get paid in full. Their pay is also orders of magnitude bigger than those of a common employee.

Re:uh huh..

[superpulpsicle]

Yeah management jobs are always a win-win situation in the U.S.

1.) They can do a good job and get paid x number of dollars.

2.) They do a bad job and get axed. But rewarded with a massive severance package.

It's unfair in every way to the share holders.

Re:uh huh..

[twiddlingbits]

SCOX does not own the UNIX source code base as they want you to think. Novell owns most of it, IBM and others who have contributed to the various versions own the code they wrote. All SCOX may own is anything special that did for SCOs UNIX offering.

Re:uh huh..

[InvalidError]

This depends... Enron and Nortel's management had quite a bit of trouble with the SEC and shareholder class-action suits when their suspicious accounting practices and stock manipulations came to light.

If the court concludes that SCO's IBM lawsuit was only a diversionary tactic meant to float stock prices before management dumped theirs, they will almost certainly get investigated by the SEC and get a class-action case from their shareholders seeking compensation.

So not all is lost for the loss-making shareholders yet.

The sad thing is

[argoff]

... isn't all the peoples lives who have been interrupted because of the lawsuit, but all the people who bought the propaganda that SCO was enterprise "material" back in the 90's while blowing off Linux.

Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?

[defile]

I've been trying since they were nearly $20/share but my broker said something about it not being available. Did Wall Street see them as being full of shit, too?

Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?

[sqlrob]

IIRC, something along the lines of 30% of the shares are shorted. That's a huge amount compared to what happens normally.

Unfortunately, I don't think Wall Street sees them as full of shit, otherwise the price of the stock would be much, much lower.

Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?

[Anonymous Coward]

In order for you to sell a stock short, your broker has to find someone who owns it and is willing to lend it to you. After all, whoever buys it from you is expecting to take delivery of the stock, and you don't have it to deliver.

Nowadays, most stock is held in so-called "street name": the owner doesn't actually hold certificates but rather leaves it in his broker's name. Stock held this way is available for borrowing. For example, every brokerage firm has *some* customer who is long, say, MSFT but has left it in street name; if you want to short MSFT, the firm can borrow the stock from that customer. (That right to borrow your stock is explicitly written into the terms and conditions of brokerage accounts.)

Stocks in a death spiral, such as SCOX / SCOXE, are often hard to locate for borrowing and subsequent short selling. Under such circumstances, the prices of put options (the right but not the obligation to sell the stock at a specified price until a specified date) can and do go through the roof.

Incidentally, the money to be made shorting SCOX / SCOXE has already been made. There's not much more room left for the stock to go down.

Re:Has anyone managed to short SCO stock?

[Zeinfeld]

To track the short ratio, follow this page: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SCOXE

SCOXE? Is that a link to scoatsex?

Hope they will last...

[tindur]

...til the judge hammers. I wouldn't like to see somebody else buying the case and starting it all over again.

Everyone knew it would happen..

[ElScorcho]

..especially the management at SCO. You think they're upset about this? It was obvious from the very beginning that they didn't have the long term benefit of the company in mind when they started all this garbage. The people in charge of SCO, like so many other dead corps of the past, don't care what happens to the company. If you think they haven't gotten fabulously rich while all this has been going on you're deluding yourself.

At this point they're probably running company affairs from their yachts, and when it implodes, so what? Won't hurt them at all, and in a year or two they'll be hired on by some other group of corporate leeches and they'll drain another company dry.

It's just a shame that in this case it impacts more than just the poor slobs working at the company in question (of course, if they're STILL there after all this they deserve it) but something that millions all over the globe care about. But, hey, it was good for business- after all no publicity is bad publicity, right?

Re:Everyone knew it would happen..

[defile]

At this point they're probably running company affairs from their yachts, and when it implodes, so what? Won't hurt them at all, and in a year or two they'll be hired on by some other group of corporate leeches and they'll drain another company dry.

If I were dumb enough to hold SCO stock until the bitter end, I would be pretty embarassed, and litigious.

Don't the execs face severe legal punishment for this?

Re:Everyone knew it would happen..

[Billly Gates]

Corporations were formed squarely to be immune officers from litigation. I do not know if this is still true but it was an early loophole in the 19th century.

Typically only companies and not their executives are responsible for their civil actions. Unless McBride clearly broke the law legaiily with a huge paper trail pointing to him it will be very difficult if not impossible to convict him.

Re:Everyone knew it would happen..

[defile]

This is out-and-out-fraud.

Granted, stockholders want to sue for damages whenever their shareholder value goes down, whatever the reason, but this is not a simple case of the market going sour.

Here's a company with a stable but not so very exciting future ahead.

Along come some executives who decide to sacrifice the stable future on a gamble and steer the company into a legal battle with highly dubious claims (on the order of a million to one that this will go favorably). They know this, their advisors know this, industry insiders know this, but that still doesn't stop them from hiring the most popular law firm possible, and launch an intensive PR campaign blitz to pretend that this is all legit.

The blitz momentarily convinces the market that the claim has merit, and before any of the bullshit can get debunked, the executives and the law firm have all cashed their chips and are left playing house and putting on a face to the remaining shareholders while it all goes flaming down the toilet.

Oh, hey, but David Boies & Family did their due dilligence right? The case had to have merit at some point for them to take it? Otherwise, you know, they could be disbarred!

Well, that might be believable if they didn't stand to gain from this charade too, the bastards took payment in stock.

I expect the pending shareholder suit will name Boies

If this isn't fraud, I'll... just sit here and keep whining on Slashdot.

Hey! The Republicans probably have a bone to pick with David Boies, what with representing Gore and all in the 2000 election dispute. This SCO thing would be a great way for them to pretend to be punishing Wall Street greed while getting back at an old foe.

I'll write my Congressman.

SCO on IRC

[Anonymous Coward]

Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell> /msg atnt haha. idiot.
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux f&#252;r IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI> :~(
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)

Re:To the Zealots

[wasted]

...according to Microsoft's Ballmer, there is no significant Linux deployment anywhere on earth...

I don't think that I would believe anything coming from Ballmer concering Linux.

IBM guerilla marketing reloads

[rifftide]

Word is that IBM will attempt to push the envelope with yet another guerrilla Linux PR campaign starting next month, replacing its current campaign, code-named "SCO", which appears to be running out of steam.

The SCO campaign, featuring a struggling UNIX vendor that was taken over by greedy executives claiming IP ownership of the entire GNU/Linux code base, was a stunning success. Major news sites such as those run by the Open Source Technology Group eagerly signed up to perpetrate the tongue-in-cheek hoax, which one editor called "the longest running April Fool's joke in the technology business".

Prior to SCO, IBM's PR experts tried hiring teams of college students to spray-paint logos and slogans on the sidewalks of San Francisco and Chicago. That campaign was acknowledged to be a flop.

I preferred them between a rock and hard place

[Anthony Boyd]

What once looked like a mortal threat to Linux appears to be fading. As a result, the suit has become a nonfactor in corporate buying decisions.

Yeah, but... but... I want them to flame out in a huge court loss. I want SCO's finances and future prospects to be devastated. I want a clear and definitive signal that Linux is safe and SCO was stupid to butt heads with Open Source.

This whole "fading" thing sounds like it just leaves too many doors open for other stupid companies to do bad things, because there is no jarring precedent burned into people's minds.

Thanks to heavy cost-cutting, SCO's core Unix-server-software business is generating an operating profit now and will continue to do so in 2005, he says.

Translation: "We pretty much fired everyone except for the accountant. After all, who needs developers on staff when the OSS guys work for free? Right?"

Re:I preferred them between a rock and hard place

[Sentry21]

Yeah, but... but... I want them to flame out in a huge court loss. I want SCO's finances and future prospects to be devastated. I want a clear and definitive signal that Linux is safe and SCO was stupid to butt heads with Open Source.

This has nothing to do with open-source. SCO was stupid to butt heads with IBM in the first place, and going up against Novell at the same time is a dangerous gambit. SCO doesn't have much of a case in either area, and a loss against Novell would (as I understand the situation) invalidate any claims they might have to the copyright, though I believe the IBM suit is more about contracts than copyright.

This has nothing to do with Linux being open-source and everything to do with an insignificant company trying to take on a behemoth (IBM) and a big player (Novell) at the same time, without having a case in the first place. It's about SCO beefing itself up and trying to bully everyone around, only the first 'victims' it chose were a quarterback and a karate student, and now the bully is telling everyone that it will be kicking their asses, while its targets are just going about their lives ignoring SCO's talk until things come to a head and they have no choice but to give SCO a taste of the harsh reality that SCO apparantly can't accept (or even see).

SCO will die a slow wasting death, consumed by its own greed and insecurity, and convinced that the rest of the world stole from it and they all must pay the price. Its death comes, not from challenging open-source, but from a descent into madness of which their challenge is merely a symptom.

SCO is going to die pathetic, and they are going to rot forgotten.

Re:To the Zealots

[MrResistor]

Remember one thing...after SCO, another will be minted.

Yes, I'm sure it will be similarly successful. Of course, depending on what happens to the ancestral Unix code when SCO dies, there may not actually be anything to sue over.

There hasn't been a successful suit against Linux yet, and I don't see one in the future. There's a good reason the GPL hasn't been tested in court: it's so strong that nobody has the balls to go up against it.

Also remember that according to Microsoft's Ballmer, there is no significant Linux deployment anywhere on earth.

Maybe Ballmer needs to remember how Microsoft got in it's position in the first place.

Re:Rule Number One - Customer First

[v1]

SCO does not have any "willing" customers - they are basically extorting people. Paying a company money so they DON'T sue you is not a people-friendly way to conduct business, but at least in the very short-term, it does work because people are paranoid or naive.

Why is it still in court?

[JPriest]

But considering the length of time this has dragged on, the 900 million lines of code provided to them, and the fact that there has not been a single shred of evidence to date, why is this even still in court? How much money do you suppose this has cost IBM and tax payers so far?

Doesn't the court have some basic responsibility to IBM to end this case now that SCO has come up short?

Re:Why is it still in court?

[k98sven]

But considering the length of time this has dragged on, the 900 million lines of code provided to them, and the fact that there has not been a single shred of evidence to date, why is this even still in court? How much money do you suppose this has cost IBM and tax payers so far?

Why is this still in court? Well, in part because the US legal system works at this speed. The average copyright case from filing to verdict is 2 years. And this is a larger-than average case.

It looks like this one will be resolved in 3-3.5 years.

SCO has a big pile of claims. IBM has a big pile of counterclaims. It's not just a question of the copyrights. SCO has contract claims too, IBM has licensing, trademark-infringement and patent counterclaims. And then there's the fact there's is a lot of code involved, with a lot of history behind it.

Add to that the fact that SCO has indeed been dragging their feet, and consistently been requesting more discovery.

Doesn't the court have some basic responsibility to IBM to end this case now that SCO has come up short?

That would be true if SCO had come up short. But in reality, the court hasn't determined that SCO has come up short. Yet. IBM filed for summary judgement and it was not granted. The case is still in discovery, and the court obviously felt it was more important to give SCO a long leash to produce anything it can during discovery, than it was to give IBM a quick trial.

Now, normally you would think SCO would put everything they had on the table in order to defeat the motion for summary judgement. They probably did, too, but the court decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and told IBM they could re-file their motion after the discovery phase is over. (When the court is certain it has all evidence in front of it)

FUD in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

While short on business, SCO held some potentially powerful copyrights.
The author treats SCO's ownership claims as gospel, but that has not been established in court. Novell has contested SCO's copyright ownership, a matter which is still in court. IBM has counter-sued SCO for copyright infringement and patent infringement. BSDi settled a suit against former Unix(r) owner USL which established that BSDi owned the major part of the unix(generic) copyrights, while USL held copyright on but a tiny historical remnant of the code base. SCO has a long way to go before they can be said to "hold" valid copyrights to any code that's still in use.

Nothing to fall back on, either

[theonetruekeebler]

Here we see what happens to companies with nasty and unsustainable business models:

Instead of building a good product, they tried to steal an existing one. Instead of getting ahead in the market with innovation, they sued their competitors and many potential allies. Instead of building a loyal client base, they sued their own customers.

They sued their own customers! And they sued their ex-customers. Who would do business with a company like that? Their customers are fleeing in droves. Their vendors and resellers are dropping them for what they are. Nobody trusts them. And since nobody has to do business with them, nobody will.

And at the risk of saying what's already been said: Good riddance.

Re:Nothing to fall back on, either

[theonetruekeebler]

For what it's worth, Mr. Gates bought most of those products fair and square. Buying out one's competition is not stealing---not from the sellers, anyway. Nor is expanding into a new market by buying into an existing player.

At least put a link to the original of this

[iONiUM]

It's a bash quote in case you didn't already know.

Re:My new boss used to work for them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Get back to work plebian, or I'm gonna come over to your and fart when I leave.

Then, I will report you to HR for smelling like ass. You were scared before, now feel the wrath of a former Caldera manager.

'On the Rocks'?

[Ed Avis]

The main thing that worries me about this article's headline is that it may boost SCO's score on the operating system sucks-rules-o-meter. Ah, I see it's not included in the list. A narrow escape.

Hard won advice from /.'s MichaelCrawford

[MichaelCrawford]

None of the following things guarantee your security, or even your success:

• Shipping a successful product
• Raising venture capital
• A successful IPO

Learn why in The Valley is a Harsh Mistress at GoingWare's Bag of Programming Tricks.

-- Mike

This is sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day, SCO stories usually attract tons of posting. Today, it could barly break 100 postings...

Darl & Co. is loosing touch!

Re:When SCO goes under...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have any IP assets. Novell sold them a cat in a bag years ago and has been laughing about it ever since.

I wrote a letter to the article's author

[shadow255]

I'd mod you up, but I thought it might be better to share the letter I just wrote to the author/editor instead. I took exception to the entire paragraph you quoted.

To: spencer_ante@businessweek.com
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 12:32:48 -0800
Subject: Article "A Linux Nemesis on the Rocks"

I read with interest your article concerning the legal battle waged by the SCO Group against IBM. While your opening paragraph paints with somewhat of a broader brush than is perhaps warranted for the present-day operating systems software landscape, it is further in that I question your grasp of the facts.

You write, "While short on business, SCO held some potentially powerful copyrights." I think it is either dishonest of you to state this, or you are genuinely unaware that there is substantial doubt over whether the SCO Group actually hold the copyrights they claim to hold. It appears that you are trying to present a balanced report drawing from various sources, so I would encourage you to consider as well the legal actions of SCO with Novell concerning those copyrights.

In the same paragraph you go on to say, "Partly funded by a hefty Microsoft license payment, SCO leveled a multibillion-dollar suit against IBM, charging that Big Blue had fed SCO-copyrighted software into Linux." You probably should have included Sun Microsystems when mentioning hefty license payments to the SCO Group. It is also putting a lot of water under the bridge to simplify the lawsuit against IBM the way you do here. The SCO Group have been trying very hard in court to claim that it is a case about contracts rather than copyrights, while making statements to the press to the contrary. In combination with the earlier "held some potentially powerful copyrights" line, this is simply misleading for readers unfamiliar with the case.

"This triggered fear and loathing in the fast-growing Linux community." I feel it is a mischaracterization of the Linux community to make this statement. While there have been some outspoken individuals who support Linux and have made strong statements in opposition to the claims of the SCO Group, the community as a whole neither fears nor hates the SCO Group per se. It would be more accurate to say that this triggered a vigorous response in the Linux community, with many advocates questioning the basis for the claims of the SCO Group.

"A court win for SCO, Linux fans feared, could bring its growth to a grinding halt." Again, while there have been some who have speculated this, I think it is inappropriate to put it in the context you have chosen. There are, for instance, many Linux advocates who have stated that they want the SCO Group to specify their infringement claims so that the offending code can be removed to end the infringement. The notion that a win for SCO spells the end of Linux is not one that originates within the Linux community, and should certainly not be stated as though it is an accepted fact.

"And so, SCO became one of the most vilified companies in the technology industry." The SCO Group certainly will not win any popularity contests with advocates of open source software, and there have been a lot of criticisms leveled against them, but stating that they are vilified conveys the notion that it is somehow not justified. I find this sentence to be gratuitous and irrelevant to the article in general. It does not do anything to inform your readers, but rather inspires them to consider the SCO Group somewhat of a victim and the open source community somewhat of a bully. I expect better from a column labeled as "News Analysis".

It's really rather unfortunate that you started the article with such a poor footing, because the rest of the piece is very good. If not for the overdramatization in the opening and the paragraph I've referenced above, I would recommend your article to friends and associates wanting to know more about the SCO v. IBM lawsuit.

My parents used to play this in the car.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sing to tune of Neil Diamond's "Love On The Rocks", even though I'm ashamed to post this.

SCO on the rocks
Ain't no surprise
Pour me a bribe
And I'll tell you some lies
Got nothin' to lose
So you just sue big blue all the time

Gave UNIX my heart
Gave UNIX my soul
UNIX left me alone here
With nothing to hold
UNIX is gone
Now all I want is a file

First, they say they'll crush you
How they'll really smash you
Suddenly they find they're out there
Delisted from the NASDAQ
When they say they have you
They don't really have you
Nothing they can do or say
They've got to leave, just get away
They haven't got long

They need $1 billion US
Money's all they want
But there's naught they can do
When their money is gone
May be lawsuits around
But it's cold when you're SCO on the rocks

First, they say they'll crush you
How they'll really smash you
Suddenly they find they're out there
Delisted from the NASDAQ
When they say they have you
They don't really have you
Nothing they can do or say
They've got to leave, just get away
They haven't got long

SCO on the rocks
Ain't no surprise
Pour me a bribe
And I'll tell you some lies
Employees are gone
And now all they want is your cash

To get a ruling

[teknomage1]

Without a ruling, there is no precedent to stop companies in the future trying this same sort of crap. It has to go to trial and a verdict has to be issued to stop this from happening again and wasting more of the court's time. Besides we might not be lucky enough to find another company stupid enough to sue IBM.

Re:To get a ruling

[carl0ski]

Microsoft has pubicly threatened to sue Linux users and advocates if they infringe on their patents. IBM is one of the largest Linux users and advocates. Hell SCo was sueing them on patent infringement related to linux. If Microsoft Windows Longhorn fails to sell well on release, in 2006, whoops meant 2009, 2010. 2022. I forsee they will issue actions against IBM, Will the largest Linux advocates& providers Novell, Redhat, Google, Intel, Sun provide support to IBM? or keep out of it

Forgot one

[dbIII]

3.) Pay huge amounts of the companys money to your own brother in the name of legal fees. It looks like IBM and linux was never the real target, it looks like a set up to lose, milk SCO dry and leave with the money and a reputation of trying to take on big blue from a tiny little company with less staff than the average high school.