SCO Bankruptcy "Imminent, Inevitable"

mattaw writes "From analysis by Groklaw it seems that SCO may owe Novell nearly all the SCOSource licensing fees, and has been hiding the fact for 3 years. Imminent. Inevitable. Bankruptcy. Those are the words from Novell's lawyers. Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

Comments

Can they drop the suit?

[GodInHell]

Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?" Unless a "plausible" suit would be considered an asset by a bankruptcy court? I know the court won't let you give away corporate property generally.. anybody know?

-GiH

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[timeOday]

Maybe SCO should sell bonds against the anticipated damages IBM will be paying once SCO wins the lawsuit... Ha ha ha ha.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bonds against damages awarded in lawsuits" are effectively what shares in SCO have been for years. SCO has been loss making for years now, and makes little revenue, certainly when compared to their liabilities in lawyers' fees. So the only realistic sources of value in the company are the lawsuits: and thus the share price can be seen as the market's view of how likely a SCO win is. Its current share price is $1.19, giving a market cap of $25M. Since it's requesting at least $5 billion in damages, the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[GodInHell]

Its current share price is $1.19, giving a market cap of $25M. Since it's requesting at least $5 billion in damages, the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race. That's an interesting way of looking at it.. but it downplays the degree to which the market is risk-averse. Even if many stock brokers were to look at SCO and find them likely to win, such an award would be on the other side of several years of highly variable legal practice (the result can turn with new laws, new SC rulings, even if IBM were to find a new line of argument) - thus much more risk than an average broker would be willing to absorb.

I think. I am not a stock broker.

-GiH

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making the incorrect assumption that the "5 billion" number means anything. Even if SCO were to have a total court victory over SCO/Novell/Redhat (yeah, right!) the court still would assign damages based on what SCO had actually "lost". It doesn't work like "well, the plaintiff asked for a million-zillion dollars, so here you go"

So by your analysis, the stock market would be giving SCO a much greater chance of winning *something*. However, I don't think that's really accurate, either. It's probably more that the investors who have already lost a lot of money off the stock's highs are figuring "well, might as well hold on and wait". I think SCO is close enough to death that their share price just isn't reflective much of anything. It still has *some* reaction to negative news about their legal saga but not in proportion to the damage that seems to being done to their case(s).

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor a stockbroker)

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Burz]

Are not Daryl McBride and his brother lawyers? It seems to me they are prolonging the suit in order to drain SCO's coffers (and those of anyone with an anti-Linux interest willing to fund them) into their own pockets.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Citizen of Earth]

the market's view is that this outcome is a 40/1 shot. That's long odds in a 2 horse race.

The odds would need to be infinity:1 for me to lay money on a dead horse.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[nomadic]

Are not Daryl McBride and his brother lawyers? It seems to me they are prolonging the suit in order to drain SCO's coffers (and those of anyone with an anti-Linux interest willing to fund them) into their own pockets.

That would be assuming they were acting as SCO's lawyers and pocketing the money as legal fees. I don't think they are.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Physics Dude]

Unless a "plausible" suit would be considered an asset ...

I fail to see how what would be relevant in SCOs case. ;)

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Alsee]

thus much more risk than an average broker would be willing to absorb

I do not think it reasonable to equate current SCO shareholders with "an average broker". Any current SCO shareholder would be so far off the norm to make any rational evaluation impossible. That is not an anti-SCO-biased claim... that is a simple fact based on the stock price history. Any stock with that sort of price history simply would not be held in the portfolio of any average risk-adverse investor. A stock that has fallen from over $20 to approximately $1 would be primarily held by one of three investory types: (1) An extremely savy and extremely risk tolerant investor who has done a deep analysis looking for an entirely rational undervalued longshot payoff, or (2) an irrational investor emotionally drawn to the hope of making a fortune and overvaluing the stock based on that hope, or (3) an irrational or innattentive investor reluctant to sell already held stock at such a massive loss.

Depending on which NON-average investors are holding the stock and why, the current market price could be substantially overvalued or substantially undervalued. In my oppinion the actual value of SCO stock is just about zero. SCO's assets are depleted, and even in the extremely improbable case that SCO were to win in the IBM case they are not going to win anywhere near the massive figures they are claiming and such winnings would likely get devoured as damages in the Novel case and any remaining winnings would still get bled away in ongoing negative profit margins. The only hope for an investor-win would be to win in the IBM case AND not get wiped out in the Novel case AND to then quickly liquidate the entire company.

-

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

... you do understand that even at infinity:1 you still lose when your horse is dead, right?

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[bagsc]

Or on a bet that IBM might buy them out to cease paying >$25 mil in legal fees... In a no arbitrage argument, the lower bound of SCO's value is the cost of the next best option for IBM. This implies that SCO has a maximum of 40:1 odds...

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Fordiman]

Yes, but I've only invested a buck, and have a near zero chance of getting infinite cash. It's like the lotto. No chance of an extremely high payoff.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[stfvon007]

Id be willing to buy stock in SCO,

One share to be precise so that I can be there to laugh in the face of the companies executives at the last stockholder meeting. Now if thats not worth $1.17, I don't know what is!

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[JoshJ]

I believe if you own a company you (company owner) still pay yourself (individual) a salary, but IANAL.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good riddance!

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Fordiman]

Hmmm... that does sound like it's worth the price of admission...

Though, I bet they charge $50 at the door to 'cover seating costs'.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Dabido]

I don't know. $1.19 for the whole of SCO seems a little pricey to me at present. :-)

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[bytesex]

You forgot (4): a stockbroker who hedges a stake in IBM with a stake in SCO. It's officially called 'risk spreading' and it's a tactic deployed by people who want to profit from the general upward trend of stock-markets, but still want to trade on the middle-short term. You buy on both sides of stocks that generally behave like they're on both sides of a scale. So you buy airlines _and_ oilcompanies (if that's your area of expertise); that way, when the price of oil goes up, the oilcompany-stock goes up, but the airlines go down. You win a little, or lose a little, and if you're smart, you make sure that your portfolio is heavy on the side you're expecting to win.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[aug24]

I may be wrong, but I make 5.10^9 / 25.10^6 to be 200.

So 200 to 1 shot? Or am I missing something about how this works? I know very little about share dealings and such.

Cheers,
J.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[Citizen of Earth]

even at infinity:1 you still lose when your horse is dead, right?

At infinity:1 it's sensible to bet a buck that horse might spontaneously come back to life and win the race.

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[GodInHell]

At infinity:1 it's sensible to bet a buck that horse might spontaneously come back to life and win the race. That is approx. Pascal's Wager, if I have everything to gain in trying, and trying costs me so little as to be nothing, then no matter how odd or unlikely, Logic demands that I try.

Of course the wager involved belief in God instead of horses and bullshit lawsuits - but the correlation is amusing.

Yehp, I used to be a philosophy student..

-GiH

Re:Can they drop the suit?

[nomadic]

Right, but whether the lawsuit existed or not they'd still be paying themselves. Just saying the fact that they're suing doesn't necessarily put money directly in their pockets.

Opportunity for Novell

[N8F8]

Wait till death is at the door, buy them out for pennies and introduce existing SCO customers to SuSE!

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[Albanach]

introduce existing SCO customers to SuSE!

Both of them?

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

I beat them down with my pennies!

P.S. Sorry for my poor English.

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[hunterkll]

Brooks/Eckered Pharmacies and McDonalds both run SCO UnixWare systems ... both as central store processing servers/interfaces

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

I beat them down with my penis!

P.S. Imagine Darl being discpilined by a beowulf cluster of GNAA trolls in prison!

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[bhiestand]

introduce existing SCO customers to SuSE!

Both of them? Brooks/Eckered Pharmacies and McDonalds both run SCO UnixWare systems ... both as central store processing servers/interfaces I know this is nitpicking, but it might have sounded better if you had mentioned a third customer to refute the argument...

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[Anonymous Coward]

If any twit did buy it for pennies, or even one peppercorn, there would be millions in in outwards bound, not revenue generating legal costs for years to come, plus the risk other entities sue the shit out of you. It is a liability. IBN's all seeing 'eye' is strong.

Valid reasons for buying would be to stop evidence and future witch-hunting seeing daylight, and some forensic experts reconstructing events. Those disk arrays, and archives need an accident, and an angry creditor to turf offsite data/evidence.

Thus, time gives one the chance to hock off all infrastructure. INAL, but no idea why IBM did not mention insolvency risk.

Re:Opportunity for Novell

[RabidMonkey]

it's funny .. we're in the middle of replacing a thousand or so SCO Unixware servers with SLES9

Sadly, we're two years from completion ... it takes a long time to get rid of a 1000 servers from production ... but still!

I'm excited

[digitalunity]

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees. Like the software developers who actually worked to make a good product at one point in time.

Hopefully Novell and IBM can split the leftovers, I think it's owed to them.

Re:I'm excited

[gstoddart]

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees. Like the software developers who actually worked to make a good product at one point in time.

I believe, that in it's current incarnation, SCO doesn't have any such employees. When they were the Santa Cruz Organization, they had such people. But, I believe the current SCO is a holding/IP company who doesn't actually do such mundane things as writing software. I think it's been about a decade since SCO had coders in its employ.

(If people have more accurate information, feel free to correct me.)

Cheers

Re:I'm excited

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL

Most of the best programmers at SCO have already left for greener pastures. I had some friends who used to work there and are now gainfully employed (and better paid) as a result. Most of SCOs problems has to do with management but that's another thread.

If Novell acquires SCO due to bankruptcy, they would be getting mostly intellectual property, administrative personel, and lawyers.

Re:I'm excited

[SCO_Shill]

Don't worry all of the executive types there will bleed it dry and walk away sitting pretty. I don't think there are too many real employees left, at least according to the latest rumors and management's refusal to discuss it. The ex-employees will probably just omit that they ever worked for SCO on their resumes...

Re:I'm excited

[Amazing Quantum Man]

The current SCO is not, and has never been the Santa Cruz Organization.

The current SCO (newSCO) is what used to be Caldera. Santa Cruz (oldSCO) became Tarantella, and was bought by Sun.

Re:I'm excited

[AndroidCat]

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees.

I don't waste much sympathy on mythological beings.
Anyone who hasn't left must be chained to their desk.

Re:I'm excited

[callmetheraven]

And wasn't the "Old SCO" the Santa Cruz Operation? (Implying that it was the only thing going on in Santa Cruz, don't tell the head vampire!)

Re:I'm excited

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Yes it was. Thank you.

When I was at UCSC, I had friends who worked at oldSCO.

Re:I'm excited

[merc]

But I feel bad for SCO's real employees.

I feel the opposite as you. I feel that any employee that stayed during this course of action (especially into 2004) must condone what the company is doing, and is part and supporter of the "Caldera FUD movement" (for a lack of a better term I guess). As I recall many of them volunteered to make anti-Linux signs on the behest of a SCO executive on the day when the Provo Linux Users' group held a "protest SCO" day (original Slashdot story)

I imagine one day should I notice any of the current 166 alleged SCO employees standing on freeway on-ramps with "will work for food" signs would be better off to stand clear of my car or any adjacent puddles in my path. At the very least they should have the sense to omit Caldera/SCO from their resumes -- they can mitigate this work history by claiming to have been in prison.

Re:I'm excited

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

Well, a subset of the old employees. As others have said, SCO you see now is nee caldera, it's realy not much more than a holding company for IP and really only exists to sue. The original SCO, with the actual engineers was forked off into Tarantella, a web app company that never really did much business, and eventually was bought.

But even in the old days, OriginalSCO didn't do much. Their OS was the result of a contract to make a UNIX for Microsoft, called Xenix. MS never sold it, so SCO did. It wasn't pretty to look it, but at the time it was one of the cheaper x86 UNIX variants and became part of many a Point Of Sale system. They never really improved upon it, and it was a pain to use. They eventually bought the UNIX(tm) license from Novell, and released SVR5, but again, never really amounting to much new stuff. I know their old OpenServer product (the Xenix derived line) never ever got to multiprocessir, i think UnixWare (what they got from Novell) was. Apart from some half hearted efforts to get device drivers from OpenServer to UnixWare, they didn't do much but rely on their cash cow for years. One Linux undercut "cheap x86 UNIX" AND had better features, their days were numbered.

Re:I'm excited

[CmdrGravy]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in SCO Central so I'd certainly consider the enjoyment of hanging around to watch it all implode against the possible damage it might do to my earnings.

I know we can hope, BUT ...

[rblancarte]

... I gotta say I will believe it when I see it.

SCO is like that bug that won't go away or die. When you considering how long they have waited this out, what makes this really any different.

Now, I hope it is true and these guys do go away. But I won't be holding my breath. Keeping my fingers crossed though.

RonB

Re:I know we can hope, BUT ...

[mjwx]

Cockroaches do not die when you spray them with raid, rather the bug spray paralyses them and it takes them 9 days die of starvation. The same thing happens when you cut off their heads.

I doubt it

[thebdj]

Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all? My understanding is the lawyers were paid in advance. Since filing bankruptcy is hardly the end for a company, I do not know that it would necessarily finish off SCO or the IBM case. Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.

Re:I doubt it

[j00r0m4nc3r]

IBM should buy SCO and dismantle them just for spite

Re:I doubt it

[Bastard of Subhumani]

Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.

Bill? What are you doing? He was only joking, honestly, don't do it!

Re:I doubt it

[timeOday]

Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.

Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.

Re:I doubt it

[soft_guy]

IBM should buy SCO and dismantle them just for spite How do you dismantle a company that consists of a box at Mailboxes, etc., some attorney's on retainer, Darl, and two hookers in a motel room?

Re:I doubt it

[VEGETA_GT]

I would love to see a aggressive take over of SCO by IBM. then any SCO staff that wish to remain employed get moved to the IBM whipping boy department.

Re:I doubt it

[hisstory student]

SCO owes way too many people and organizations way too much money for IBM to gain anything (spite has little if any monetary value) by buying SCO. No, IBM/SCO needs to run it's course and set a very strong and long-lasting precedent.

Re:I doubt it

[AlanS2002]

Better yet IBM could buy SCO and then release SVRX under the GPLv2.

Re:I doubt it

[BoneFlower]

While I see the attractiveness, this would be a bad idea.

One, IBM would then face lawsuits from other two bit companies that might have even less of a case, leading to IBM spending even more money on legal fees. The more money they blow defending their linux ventures, the less profit their linux ventures make. This is less money for them, and for us... a greater likelihood that they will eventually pull out of linux entirely. Bad for IBM, bad for us. A decisive win now, good for IBM and good for us.

Two, it would appear to be an admission that SCO had a case. Technically it isn't, but people would see it that way even if the courts didn't. This is bad.

Three, this would encourage other people to go after potential copyright/contract problems related to Linux in courts, rather than approach Torvalds and his crew and say "We've got concerns about this code here" before resorting to a lawsuit.

Four... there are concerns about the GPL actually holding up in court. While I have heard vague references that it has held up a few times, this is a high profile case where one of the largest companies in the world has thrown down GPL violations in its countersuit. Winning on those counts will be a significant boost in public confidence about how well it will hold up, hopefully leading to more people who were considering it actually going with it.

Re:I doubt it

[Fractal Law]

  My understanding is the lawyers were paid in advance.

From what I remember from when this whole mess began, SCO paid the lawyers for the IBM suit with SCO stock.

Re:I doubt it

[Fred_A]

Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.

Imagine how much those will be worth to collectors in the 24th century !

Re:I doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop paying for the motel and the mailbox at Mailboxes, etc. and fire Darl. Keep the attorneys and the hookers. One set lets you screw others and one set screws you.

Re:I doubt it

[Infernal Device]

Pay someone to have Darl and the lawyers "dismantled"?

I'd contribute.

Re:I doubt it

[Citizen of Earth]

Actually, someone could come in and purchase SCO with the intentions of keeping the lawsuit alive.

They should allow open-source supporters to make donations to them. Someone should start an organized "Adopt a lawsuit" campaign. It is in our best interest to keep SCO's doors open until it gets trounced in court.

Re:I doubt it

[amcdiarmid]

I wonder, could IBM buy sco - then sue the "current" board of directors for mismanagement?
EG: Suing IBM

Re:I doubt it

[RobertLTux]

No what the Nazgul want to do is when this is all said and done convert TSCOG campus into a Hardsuit required for short term survival HAZMAT zone with a few scattered bones and bits that if you connect the dots reveal that teh suits are Dead ,Deceased, Blooming (or not) DEMISED.

Re:I doubt it

[mikelieman]

How do you dismantle a company that consists of a box at Mailboxes, etc., some attorney's on retainer, Darl, and two hookers in a motel room?

In all fairness, there's more than that. You remembered the whores, but you forgot to mention the pitbulls, crack, and taxi rides...

IANAL....

[drdanny_orig]

.... therefore almost nothing referenced here makes any sense to me. Someday lawyers will be forced to speak and write in NormalSpeak, preferably in English. Until such time, I am at the mercy of people like Cokie Roberts to explain these legal doings. Could /. maybe hire her to boil this down for us mortals?

Re:IANAL....

[Anonymous Coward]

if (allegations ==true) { SCO = screwed; }

Re:IANAL....

[Jaysyn]

Cokie? I guess she was fun to hang out with in college.... :D

Re:IANAL....

[gstoddart]

.... therefore almost nothing referenced here makes any sense to me. Someday lawyers will be forced to speak and write in NormalSpeak, preferably in English.

Unfortunately, lawyers can't use NormalSpeak. The maze that is modern law requires a very large amount of terms with very specific meanings to convery what is being said. It's wrapped up in hundreds (if not thousands) of years of history and the like, and embodies a large vocabulary of concepts, precedents, and methods.

That's why we like Groklaw, becuase they do a very good job of summarizing the legalese, as well as explaining it in context of the issues as they relate to tech.

Sadly, I don't think you'll see your wish any time soon. Legalese is probably going to get more complex over time than less.

Cheers

Re:IANAL....

[fireboy1919]

You have a couple of vague terms in your last message that I hope you could clarify:
Define NormalSpeak. New speech codec that only works on English?
Define "legal doings." Lawyer guano?
Define "boil this down." Are you talking about putting legal doings in a bubbling pot of water?
Define "us mortals." Presumably, it means that Cokie Roberts is immortal. Based upon past assumptions, this means that once Cokie Roberts boils down the lawyer guano, it's safe for everone else to use. Do you make bowls out of them or something? Or do you eat it to become immortal yourself?

To be serious, I know what you probably mean. The point is, though, that the language of the law will always be with us. It helps let one say exactly what they mean without room for interpretation, or to fit all interpretations that they want it to fit.

Re:IANAL....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really quite simple: the bigger government gets (measured both in revenue and power over the people), the more complex the law gets, and hence, the less understandable the law is by normal human beings.

History has proven over and over again that governments expand in power over time. No government in the history of organized coercion has ever significantly and permanently reduced its powers through the process of democracy. There's a reason for that: more government benefits the power elite. More laws, more crimes, more revenue, more red tape, more administration: it all benefits the ruling class.

Imagine if the law was simple, unambiguous, and concise, understandable by any normal human being -- as human nature intended -- what's in that for government? Imagine if citizens were overwhelmingly law-abiding and everyone had to take responsibility for themselves -- as human nature intended -- what's in that for government?

You can't profit from administration if you ain't got nothing to administer.

Government is destined to expand in power, the law is destined to become even more complex. Your prediction is therefore correct -- perhaps more correct than you ever thought. What's that quote about "when you don't have enough laws, you make them up"? That would certainly be a perfect fit here.

Re:IANAL....

[couchslug]

"NormalSpeak" is imprecise.
"Could /. maybe hire her to boil this down for us mortals?"
Not as well as Groklaw.

Re:IANAL....

[MindStalker]

Imagine if the law was simple, unambiguous, and concise, understandable by any normal human being

Those requirements are impossible to meet, the law is hard to read because it is unambiguous and concise. Sure sometimes lawyers purposefully make the law confusing. But if laws were written in plain English there would be multiple interpretations of them leading to more confusion. Though I do agree all laws should include an English translation.

Re:IANAL....

[Anonymous Coward]

To summarize your answer: "If lawyers weren't such slippery pieces of shit, we wouldn't have this language problem."

Re:IANAL....

[falconwolf]

law is hard to read because it is unambiguous and concise

If laws were concise and unambiguous then they would be easy to understand seeing as how if something is UNambiguous it is NOT having an obscure or double meaning and concise is brief (but comprehensive).

Falcon

Re:IANAL....

[MindStalker]

What I mean is plain english often has multiple meanings. Take a look at our constitution, its a GREAT document but thinkgs like the 4th amendment are constantly argued about because its not written to be exact its written for the common reader of the time. Maybe our laws should be like that, but they would lead to multiple interpretations by multiple courts.

Re:IANAL....

[falconwolf]

What I mean is plain english often has multiple meanings. Take a look at our constitution, its a GREAT document but thinkgs like the 4th amendment are constantly argued about because its not written to be exact its written for the common reader of the time. Maybe our laws should be like that, but they would lead to multiple interpretations by multiple courts.

I see what you mean, but perhaps the answer is to include a definition of the meaning of the words in a law or regulation, or at least some sort of word usage guide. Actually each law should be plainly understood, ie the average person can clearly understand it. If it's not clear what it means then how in the world can anyone follow it?

BTW, I believe the lawbooks, federal law, should be gone through and if the Constitution says nothing about it then it should be stricken from the books.

Falcon

Re:IANAL....

[Calinous]

Even doctors can not use NormalSpeak - and their medical tradition comes from the imperial Rome time (just look at all the names there, most of them are in Latin).
      Also, you could be hard forced to explain what you do at work to your grandmother, or so.

Can anyone explain?

[iambarry]

I guess I haven't been following this very closely - I'm confused.

What are SCOSource license fees? And why would SCO owe Novell money? What does this have to do with Microsoft and Sun license fees?

I tried to read the Groklaw FA but I'm not getting it.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks in advance.

Re:Can anyone explain?

[Delirium Tremens]

Impossible. It's like asking for a 5-line summary of "Days of our lives".

You basically missed episodes #6, #8, #34 and #42. Given that we are today at episode #300 or something and that nobody knows how many more are to come, it is impossible to summuarize the whole issue to you.

You could actually consider yourself lucky not to know.

Re:Can anyone explain?

[BoneFlower]

Basically, SCO has to pay Novell royalties whenever they license the Unix System V code, it's part of the original contract.

Novell is basically saying that SCO hasn't given them all the royalties SCO owes them.

Re:Can anyone explain?

[Scarblac]

SCO has been acting as if they had bought some sort of IP rights to SysV UNIX from Novell, and sold licenses based on those rights to Sun and Microsoft ("SVRX licenses").

Novell is now pointing at the actual text of the contract, which says that all SCO acquired was the right to act as an agent of Novell - basically, they can sell licenses in Novell's place, then hand over all the money to Novell. After that, Novell will return them 5% of the money as an agent fee.

It all seems pretty undisputable, from following Groklaw. As Novell claims SCO did its job badly so they won't even have to give them the 5% back, they're basically claiming that those cash infusions from Microsoft and Sun belong to Novell. And it's asking the judge to make haste, since this is simply their money, SCO is wasting it, and they'll soon be bankrupt.

Re:Can anyone explain?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

No, not royalties... ALL fees received. For acting as Novell's agent, Novell then kicks back 5% of the those monies to the SCOundrels.

SCO fudged and didn't pay Novell the money from the Sun and Microsoft licenses.

Re:Can anyone explain?

[nels_tomlinson]

All of this is from memory, and some of it may be wrong. I'm sure that folks who know a lot more, but were much too busy to answer your questions, will have loads of time to correct my mistakes, so here goes:

What are SCOSource license fees?
SCOSource license fees are the fees SCO charges to folks for [unix|linux] licenses. It seems very unlikely that they have the right to sell licenses for Linux (that is sort of what the lawsuits are about). They do have teh right to sell licenses for unix, which brings us to your next question:

And why would SCO owe Novell money?
Novel owns Unix. I don't remember the convoluted trail that ATT's rights in the name and source code followed to come to Novell, but it is theirs. SCO has the right to sell licenses to Unix source, acting as Novell's agent. That last bit is important, because Novell has the right to tell their agent what to do, and has the right to get some portion of the price of those licenses.

What does this have to do with Microsoft and Sun license fees?
MS and Sun paid SCO big bucks to either to get peace of mind (short-sighted selfishness), or to keep the suit against IBM/linux alive (far-sighted selfishness). Which you believe about each of them depends on which conspiracy theory you like today. As mentioned above, Novell has a cut coming. If they didn't get it from SCO, then SCO has yet more troubles. Like imminent bankruptcy. And, maybe like loss of their right to sell licenses. If I found that my agent was holding out on me, he wouldn't be my agent any more! No telling whether Novell will see this a a chance to terminate their agreement with SCO, though

Re:Can anyone explain?

[BoneFlower]

The way it was written in Groklaw it sounded like just royalties... My bad.

Either way, SCO owes Novell a lot of money...

It's only a spector

[geekoid]

Because /. keeps posting it.

where's the bleedin iPhone story already

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot is so behind the times. :(

Their stock has actually gone up!

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I just checked the stock ticker and SCOX has actually risen in price today! It started at about $1.15 a share and it's at $1.22 now, so while they may be in a world of trouble, Wall Street still amazingly thinks the stock has some value. I am amazed that this stock is still selling for over a dollar a share, but far be it from me to suggest that the stock market makes any sense.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Odds are those are sales being made by executives at SCO, trying to get what money they can out of the stock market, and essentially pulling money out of nowhere.

Sickening, no?

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[SCO_Shill]

That's pretty typical. The price always seems to skyrocket on bad news, at the end of a quarter, or right before conference calls (coming up on Jan 17).

Someone's losing a lot of money trying to keep the price up at these levels.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Explodo]

Due to the amount of money owed Novell vs the amount of money SCO has, it's possible that the stock price is going up due to speculators looking for Novell to acquire SCO in the near future....thereby getting Novell stock. Just a guess.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[electrosoccertux]

Now would be a good time to short the SCO stock.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Not_Wiggins]

Hey! I think I got an email about that stock!
It was a little strange because it was mostly garbage text, but the included gif explained it all... time to start buying!
Woo!

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Rimbo]

What you're seeing might be short covering.

People who expect a stock price to drop "sell it short;" that is, they sell shares they don't yet own, with a promise to buy later. Later, when the price (hopefully) drops, they actually pay for the shares they sold -- covering their sale. If they do enough of it, the price actually goes up a bit with all of the demand to buy the shares.

Most stock price day-to-day/week-to-week/month-to-month movement comes from this kind of game-playing, not from actual value-minded investors.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[ZachPruckowski]

If Novell bought SCO, it'd have to deal with the IBM counter-claims. When you factor out the money that SCO owes Novell, they're in debt. They're also likely to lose the IBM case. They have basically zero assets. Any IP they have is either GPL'd or rightfully belongs to Novell. Novell wouldn't have to buy them, because it gets everything worthwhile about them if it wins the suit anyways.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Janacek]

There are at least one or two quite large institutional bagholders who have an interest in not letting the price slip down too much. Upwards movements have generally been on low volume which can be easily achieved by these bagholders buying after selling the stock to themselves just to prop up the price.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now would be a good time to short the SCO stock.

There simply isn't any available to short. Plus, short positions are for a limited time -- you are not just betting the stock will fall (anyone would make that bet on these guys) but that it will fall within X days.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[MyHair]

Wall Street still amazingly thinks the stock has some value. I am amazed that this stock is still selling for over a dollar a share, but far be it from me to suggest that the stock market makes any sense.

What you and all the responders have missed so far is that this stock is very thinly traded. Volume was 39,626 today, but from the graphs it appears to be maybe roughly 30 trades of varying blocks of stock. Look how today's price chart looks like a connect-the-dot diagram. Compare to Google's chart.

I'm pretty far from a stock expert, but I'd say that SCOX is too thinly traded to compare price swings to more liquid stocks. Few people are trading, and it looks several of the ones who are trade blocks of thousands at a time.

23.8% of outstanding shares are sold short. Perhaps the short holders are covering after getting tired of waiting for the stock to go down?

Sidebar gripe about stock charts: Charts should start at zero, and generally speaking they should be a logarithmic scale. That way you could make somewhat meaningful comparisons based on the shape of the plot. Chopping the Y axis and using a linear scale make a more dramatic plot, but you have to really think about it to extract any meaningful information from it. Anyone know a decent free place that lets you see charts with 0 as the base line and a logarithmic scale?

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Archangel Michael]

If Novell wins its counterclaims, SCO will cease operations, having no IP to speak of, especially in light of Counter claim 4, which says that Novell sold NOTHING to SCO, but only authorized them to sell licenses for Novell for an agent's fee.

This would mean that SCO falsely represented ownership claims to IBM in that lawsuit, and would have a huge liability regarding that fraud. In addition to all the other IBM counter claims, there is no way either Novell nor IBM would buy anything of SCO, if only to avoid the taint. Novell likes IBM here, at least partially, on a professional level.

My prediction is that SCO will simply disolve, having no IP, and no cash, and no value whatsoever. Whatever unencumbered assests (If any) and IP (If any) SCO has, will probably be split somehow between IBM and Novell, and probably down the lines of Unix IP / Other assets, IP. With the Unix IP going to Novell, and everything else going to IBM.

The only other option is a firesale of all the assets/IP SCO has, and the money split between IBM and Novell, along some agreed upon number.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of it this way. Imagine what a few hundred shares of SCO stock would be worth on EBay in ten years?

I don't believe that is what is happening, as it just looks like business as usual on Wall Street. However, to have a few shares of SCO stock on your wall would make for an interesting conversation piece in a decade. They do still send you paper certificates of the stock you buy, right?

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[jamstar7]

Due to the amount of money owed Novell vs the amount of money SCO has, it's possible that the stock price is going up due to speculators looking for Novell to acquire SCO in the near future....thereby getting Novell stock. Just a guess.

Depends on if they have to pick up SCO's liabilities as well. I don't think even Novell is stupid enough to want to take the liabilties along with what's left of any questionable assets. Hell, better to wait til the sheriff comes and auctions everything off, that way you get clean title to it.

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[pyrrhonist]

Anyone know a decent free place that lets you see charts with 0 as the base line and a logarithmic scale?

Does this look better to you? Probably not, but what the hey...

Re:Their stock has actually gone up!

[Technician]

However, to have a few shares of SCO stock on your wall would make for an interesting conversation piece in a decade.

With most conversations starting with "Boy were you a fool!".

Bankruptcy doesn't change anything

[tphb]

The lawsuits will proceed, so long as there is any chance of getting money. In fact, many companies live long after bankruptcy just in lawsuits -- witness Enron, for example.

Resolved by bunkruptcy?

[Edward Ka-Spel]

I would be really disappointed if the Novell and IBM cases are finally resolved because SCO ran out of money. I would much rather see a final resolution on whether or not Linux has any sort of IP conflict with SCO. Bankruptcy skirts the issue. I would rather see a clean bill of health. Perhaps Microsoft now wants SCO to go bankrupt so that clean bill of health never comes.

Re:Resolved by bunkruptcy?

[BoneFlower]

All bankruptcy means is you can't pay all yoru debts, a bankruptcy declaration is basically a court order that eliminates some of yoru debts and reduces others to an amount you can afford to pay.

While generally bad(though a properly timed bankruptcy filing can be the best decision under the circumstances), and sometimes the first sign of a dead company, it doesn't free them from their other legal obligations. The case will likely go forward unless SCO outright liquidates, and even then the bankruptcy courts might not let them go that far until the lawsuits are resolved.

Anyone dig up the number of Darl's dealer yet btw? I want some of that shit he's on. Gotta be some good stuff there.

Re:Resolved by bunkruptcy?

[ultraslacker]

Perhaps Microsoft now wants SCO to go bankrupt so that clean bill of health never comes.

Bankruptcy of SCO would not have that result, the lawsuit would continue until it reaches some resolution, say a negotiated surrender by a bankrupt SCO. SCO has already secured representation in this eventuality, but even without that, there would be counterclaims by IBM and Novell.

Re:Resolved by bunkruptcy?

[mellonhead]

...there would be counterclaims by IBM and Novell.

There already are counterclaims by IBM and Novell, and a bankruptcy filing does not make them go away.

Re:Resolved by bunkruptcy?

[tkrotchko]

I thought SCO has pulled the Linux IP claims and now it's down to a straight "IBM didn't live up to the contract" kind of dispute?

Ding! Dong!

[Anonymous Coward]

The witch is dead!

They've been doomed for how long now?

[Weaselmancer]

I mean seriously. We've been hearing variations of the "OMG SCO is teh doomed!" now for so long my eyes just glaze over when I see another one.

Call me when Darl is in jail or flees the country.

Re:They've been doomed for how long now?

[Darth McBride]

So what is your number? I'll let you know how it turns out.

Re:They've been doomed for how long now?

[Weaselmancer]

Oops, how embarrassing! I forgot to provide my number. You can call me at work. 1-800-986-8378. Ask for Weaselmancer, or "That Weasel guy".

SCO: Just Go Away. Let the Adults Work.

[Salis]

SCO is like that child who is constantly shouting, obnoxiously, "Look at me! Look at me!" as they do something stupid. It might be funny for the first ... hour? But when real work needs to get done and that child is pulling the same shit, it's time for a Time Out.

So hurrah for SCO's bankruptcy. Now the rest of us can finally get some proverbial litigation silence.

Re:SCO: Just Go Away. Let the Adults Work.

[Q-Cat5]

Now the rest of us can finally get some proverbial litigation silence.

There'a a proverb about litagation silence?

Something like "Blessed are the mute lawyers, for they shall not poison the air with their heated breath." perhaps?

Wait, that's a beatitude . . . hmmm . . .

"A fool and his lawyer are soon to be silenced." That works.

Microsoft to the rescue?

[fragMasterFlash]

Anyone else think M$ will simply buy another boatload of SCOUnix licenses to keep the case going and the spectre of legal hullaballoo over the enterprise Linux community?

Re:Microsoft to the rescue?

[RLiegh]

Now that they've bought (out) Novell? No, one else thinks they'll dick around with SCO.

Re:Microsoft to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, no one else thinks they'll dick around with SCO", I meant.

Live Sacrifice Required

[Doc Ruby]

After all this time, money spent by IBM defending/pursuing, and all the defining issues raised, I don't want SCO dying before a precedent verdict is set. The best justice will be for SCO to spend itself bankrupt pursuing this frivolous lawsuit, its frivolous lawyers getting stiffed and wasting more time as creditors in bankruptcy court, and Linux proven free of the FUD SCO has produced as its flagship product. Either way, watching the speculators betting on SCO's stock rising on blackmail is fun, but satisfaction lies in proving the facts about how Linux is free.

Re:Live Sacrifice Required

[wrook]

Unfortunately the lawyers have already been paid. I seem to remember a $32 million cap. From what I can tell, they seem to have been paid with about 10 million shares of stock (yay! shareholder pays!).

And, if my intuition is correct, they intend to run themselves into insolvency in order to avoid being sued by their shareholders.

The insiders in the company have already made millions in either stock options, or (in the case of Baystar) selling long stock at a profit.

Everyone is happy in SCO land. The only people hurt are the morons who invested in them (or the even stupider morons who sold them short on the way up). Oh... and the employees :-(

The *only* justice that we can expect is an SEC investigation. But even if there is one, I expect nothing other than a slap on the wrist (the investigation is probably unlikely too).

Really...

[Y-Crate]

"The Santa Cruz Operation" always sounded more like the name for a wise-guy scam than something you would name your company.

Re:Really...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Santa Cruz Operation" always sounded more like the name for a wise-guy scam than something you would name your company.

I see you knew both Larry and Doug Michaels.

Re:Really...

[neurojab]

"The Santa Cruz Operation" always sounded more like the name for a wise-guy scam than something you would name your company.

Actually the Santa Cruz Operation (now Tarantella) had nothing to do with this. These lawsuits were started by The SCO Group (formerly Caldera).

Specter?

[MahariBalzitch]

"Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

Specter? I was thinking sphincter...

egregious punctuation

[Anonymous Coward]

These. Are. Not. Sentences.

Re:egregious punctuation

[spun]

Why. Must. YouDenigrate. The. WilliamShatner. School. OfActing?

KHHHhhhhaaaaaannnnnn!

Re:egregious punctuation

[Citizen of Earth]

These. Are. Not. Sentences.

Yes, Mr. Shatner.

Re:egregious punctuation

[jamstar7]

These. Are. Not. Sentences.

What can I say? Shat happens.

Re:egregious punctuation

[Random BedHead Ed]

Wrong! One. Word. Sentences. Disagree?

Rid of this specter

[RLiegh]

Only to have the threat of Novell/MS looming over us.

Personally, I'd rather have to worry about SCO; they were never a serious threat.

like getting excited about the Ford presidency

[peter303]

Both are history.

Don't die yet, SCO!

[FuzzyDaddy]

Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

But I have been so enjoying the slow death - perhaps we could string it out a little longer?

This is just the preliminary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has just been using this to try out various fudding scenarios to see which worked best. Don't worry if it's real or not, the PHBs will panic at the thought of lawsuit.

Not so fast!

[kjs3]

I'd much rather see them finally and conclusively defeated and the precedent on the books rather than having the inevitable group of trolls in the background mumbling "SCO would have put it to those evil OSS people if they hadn't run out of money...one day we'll show them".

Typo

[lbmouse]

"Perhaps we can finally be rid of this specter once and for all?"

Shouldn't it be "sphincter"?

Re:Typo

[kalpaha]

I think SCO has to be the internal anal sphincter, because they just won't let go voluntarily.

From wikipedia:
At the anus, there are two sphincters which control the exit of feces from the body (see internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter). The inner sphincter is involuntary and the outer voluntary.

Talking of spinchters, did you know that there are at least 42 different sphincters in the human body, some of them microscopic in size. I didn't. I know now. Don't you just love wikipedia.

Re:Typo

[lalleglad]

No, it should be Spectre, and James Bond will come and save us all, when he is done with (whatever kind of) poker game he is in on right now.

NO!

[khasim]

SCO wanted to be bought by IBM. That would be a "good thing" for SCO. Their stock jumps and their executives all cash out more options.

IBM should crush SCO in court and be awarded whatever is left of the company as compensation.

If IBM gives up any money to SCO or SCO executives, IBM has lost and will be sued again over this same kind of crap.

Next prediction.. SCO sues Tarantella/Sun

[HighOrbit]

The executives/investors in SCO/Caldera either:

1. Didn't understand what they bought from Santa Cruz (i.e. they thought they "owned" Unix, when they really didn't).
2. Didn't read the Santa Cruz - Novell APA, in which case they are morons for not reading the fine print in a multi-million dollar deal.
3. Understood the APA, but were greedy/crooked enough to try to get away with 'converting' Novell's royalties.

After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun (now owners of the old Tarantella/Santa Cruz) claiming that Tarantella/Santa Cruz mislead them and misrepresented the nature of what they were buying when Caldera bought the Unix assets.

Re:Next prediction.. SCO sues Tarantella/Sun

[a.d.trick]

Hey, don't give them any ideas

Re:Next prediction.. SCO sues Tarantella/Sun

[ThePhilips]

After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun (now owners of the old Tarantella/Santa Cruz) claiming that Tarantella/Santa Cruz mislead them and misrepresented the nature of what they were buying when Caldera bought the Unix assets.

Very much doubt it. If any stone would fall - it would fall on heads of Caldera's management.

Caldera really never wanted to sell Unix - it were acquiring rights so that it can easily migrate users off Unix. Nothing else. It was Darell McBride who changed the course.

It was reported that SCO case (I mean coming of McBride & conversion from Caldera to SCO) is tied to internal Canopy group stockholders/management relationship problems. Check out the Yarro case.

Re:Next prediction.. SCO sues Tarantella/Sun

[Citizen of Earth]

After Novell smacks down SCO/Caldera into bankruptcy, I would bet to see a lawsuit from Caldera's investors against Sun

I would expect to see Microsoft funneling more money to Novell and Novell launching lawsuits against Linux.

Blast from the past

[syousef]

A little quote from the 1999 film says it all...

  CALVIN: My gosh, those Commies are brilliant! You've got to hand it to 'em! "No, we didn't drop any bombs! Oh yes, our evil empire has collapsed! Poor, poor us!" I bet they've even asked the West for aid! Right?!

Darl

[Mateo_LeFou]

Alas, it's almost 100% certain that Darl will parlay this experience in the limelight into a cushy job at some other company when SCO's gone. Things are so screwed up...

I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.

Re:Darl

[goofyspouse]

I personally think Darl should get jail time. I consider him no better than Lay or Skilling.

Hear, hear!

Re:Darl

[SpaceLifeForm]

Lay got lucky not having to face jail time.

Re:Darl

[tehdaemon]

It may just be me, but, I don't think I want that kind of 'luck'. T

IBM counter claims unavoidable

[RichMan]

SCO can drop their claims against IBM.

But there is no way for SCO to avoid IBM's counter claims. Even in bankruptcy the trustee gets to decide to continue a case or just fold their side. The case still must have an outcome.

Re:IBM counter claims unavoidable

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL...

As I understand it, once the other side has responded, it is too late to simply "drop the suit", counter-claims or no. SCO would have to settle. And would still face the counter-claims, unless IBM was willing to settle on those.

I think a settlement is unlikely...

IBM will want to set the precedents involved in the case (which settlement wouldn't do).
SCO doesn't have the cash to simply buy its way back out of the case if it wanted to. I don't think SCO has a lot else (IP) that IBM would be interested in, that SCO could release without going out of business anyway.

But the lawyers have already been paid... for now.

Re:IBM counter claims unavoidable

[GodInHell]

IBM will want to set the precedents involved in the case (which settlement wouldn't do). The precedent will be of limited value unless the loser chooses to appeal up to at least an appelate court. If SCO loses after bankruptcy - an appeal is less likely I'd think.

But then again.. how much did they pay their lawyers?

I am not a lawyer (I *am* a law student).

-GiH

I have one word for SCO:

[Mard]

"LOL."

They've had it coming, and it should be no surprise to anybody that you'll go bankrupt fast if you're giving what little money you have left to lawyers. The RIAA and MPAA should take notice. Rampant legal action is not the solution to your failed business model, but it will certainly solve your company from the marketplace, so I guess in the end the consumer really does win!

Re:I have one word for SCO:

[Kalriath]

Never mind that, check out http://reports.finance.yahoo.com/w0?r=37519868:1

Title: SCOX: RATING ALERT -- HOLD -- Dangerous (4) Risk/Reward Rating

Microsoft... where have I heard that name before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly... where have we heard that name before in relation to the SCO case?

First, wasn't Microsoft helping SCO in their lawsuit against IBM, financially?

Second, Microsoft has been cozying up to Novell lately. Mostly in its new XML Document format.

I have a 2, and I have a 2. Problem is, it's not simple addition to get 4. Are there any more numbers, and how do they related. Thoughts and/or comments?

Obligatory Agent Smith

[Anonymous Coward]

Agent Smith: You hear that Mr. McBride?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. McBride...

Re:Obligatory Agent Smith

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, excellent analogy. Agent Smith is a character who represents an out-of-control programmatic enforcer of the mechanized regime, designed to enslave humanity and on the verge of destroying it and the world as we know it. Neo is a freedom fighter, who despite dubious origins, is here to free humanity and bring peace. So, let's see, IBM, Novell, and the open source movement - genocidedly propping up terrible enslavement of humanity, McBride, SCO, Microsoft - plucky underdogs, here to free humanity. Well done.

the short inaccurate version

[theonetruekeebler]

Novell has been saying for some time that SCO owes them money from royalties on System V Unix. After years of stalling, SCO finally handed over documents that said the licensing money they got from Microsoft and Sun was, in fact, for System V Unix, and not for a foosball table in the break room as SCO had originally claimed. Novell says they should get dibs on the money now because (a) it's theirs, and (b) not only is SCO going bankrupt, they're probably going to go bankrupt before the trial is even over.

This is an oversimplification and misses many nuances and may in fact be glaringly inaccurate.

Don't forget: the US vs IBM antitrust case

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about that United States vs IBM antitrust case that ran on and on from 1975 until 1982 when it was finally dismissed. Basically, IBM out-litigated the staying power of three consecutive US federal executive administrations (Ford, Carter, Reagan) to the point the feds were no longer willing to spend any more money fighting the case.

IBM is the KingDaddyPawPaw of dragging a court case out forever whenever anyone picks a fight with them.

(it's also poetic and funny as hell that the captcha I have to type in to post this message as A/C is "victors" because that's what IBM will be in this case too)

About 50 developers?

[rumblin'rabbit]

SCO's quarterly financial reports say different. They state about $2 million in research and development costs for the last reported quarter. If we assume that to be mostly salaries, then that's about 50 developers. SCO also makes software releases regularly containing many new feature. And now, a moment of silence in mourning over SCO's imminent demise ... that's long enough.

Re:About 50 developers?

[ThePhilips]

Unix/Linux - they do not do any development anymore. At least all people responsible for Caldera are not there anymore. Needless to say SCO never employed any Unix folks - they acuired rights only. Also SCO recently acquired "Vultus" or something like that - web services company (no need for guesses - internal shuffles in Canopy group).

Note, that SCO is R&D company. And it is also public company. If current management would mark itself with irresponsible management, they would be crossed as management forever. If you payed attention to news, you might have noticed that SCO though paused its business for some time (in the beginning of the IBM case) never actually stopped producing ... well at least press releases. They still support Unix, they still support Linux (though that hurt them in court) and they still try to develop something new - like web services.

Also, $2Mln/y is pretty humble figure. If you would take that every R&D employee on average costs $100k/y than it is only about 20 people. I bet they have even more lawyers by now.

Highlight. If you followed Novell case, you know that Novell means by bankruptcy here. SCO tried to stay the case - but Novell argues now that if SCO is allowed to stay and let to pursue IBM's case first it would very soon run out of money. And Novell wouldn't be able to collect due royalties from M$/Sun deals.

Re:About 50 developers?

[mdozturk]

Lets see 2 million / 50 = 40K. Where are you from? India? Probibly closer to 20 employees.

Re:About 50 developers?

[rumblin'rabbit]

Ahem. The $2 million is for the quarter. It's $8 million per year.

And I assumed about $160,000 per employee per year. $100,000 per developer is optimistic, although possible under some circumstances.

Re:About 50 developers?

[mdozturk]

Oh, they spend 2mil/quarter? OK, 50 employees sounds right.

Re:About 50 developers?

[jamstar7]

SCO's quarterly financial reports say different. They state about $2 million in research and development costs for the last reported quarter.

That's an awful lot of l*wy*rs researching more ways to stir the pot...

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[zurtle]

Dev salaries is only a small portion of the cost of R&D. These guys won't be self-managing - there will be support staff, secretaries, PAs, managers,... they may have an espresso machine that costs 1.5M to run. Once you bundle electricity, maintenance of the space where you stick them and other running costs you might be lucky to get 10 guys who actually do software.

And how many of those were porting Freecell and Minesweeper to the HC11?

Good work, Microsoft

[paniq]

Good work Microsoft. The first company you turned into your puppet in the war on free software is close to self-destruction. How comfortable.

I'd rather like to see an executive-cleaned-up SCO to continue selling Linux products, perhaps in a partnership with other open source oriented companies. One Linux company less is not a day to party, no matter what it was done in its name.

predecessor

[Anonymous Coward]

After SCO, we will have Novell in the "specter".

In a word: Chainsaws

[no reason to be here]

(EOM)

It's more than bankruptcy.

[Jaywalk]

Judge Kimball has ruled that the Novell case should go before the IBM case, so the Novell timeline is now more important than that of IBM. While it's SCO that sued Novell, the whole show (including IBM) is likely to be shut down by Novell's counterclaims. Boiled down, Novell's has nine "claims for relief" and, if granted, there is nothing left for SCO to sue about. You can read them yourself in the PDF, but the basics are:

1. Novell owns the copyrights and not SCO.
2. SCO needs to give Novell a full accounting of unreported money it owes Novell for SVRX licenses.
3. Novell wants to court to order SCO to comply with their contract, which gives all the royalties from SVRX to Novell.
4. Novell has the right to waive SCO's claims on UNIX code. Including those against IBM.
5. Novell wants the court to issue a "declaratory judgment" that Novell has the right to audit SCO's performance to make sure that it doesn't take any more of Novell's money.
6. SCO needs to put all the money it "converted" (i.e., "stole") from those licenses into a constructive trust. (This is the one they're fussing about now. Sun and Microsoft gave SCO a bucket of cash to carry on the lawsuit against Linux under cover of a UNIX license. But SCO is supposed to give UNIX license money to Novell.)
7. Number seven repeats number six and asks for the trust again. Eh, lawyers. Go figure.
8. Number eight asks for the trust again, but adds punitive damages for swiping the money in the first place. Since SCO has already spent most of the cash, this is pretty much just adding insult to injury.
9. Finally, Novell wants a complete accounting of all SVRX agreements or "other agreements relating to royalty bearing products." That's because SCO was claiming that the Sun and Microsoft agreements weren't "real" SVRX agreements, so SCO didn't owe Novell any money. Novell wants an accounting to make sure SCO isn't hiding any more ill-gotten gains.

So, yeah, the cash is a big deal and it's going to bankrupt SCO. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of fellas. But read number four again. If Novell has it's way, the IBM case is gone too because SCO never had the right to sue in the first place.
 
Of course, there are always IBM's counterclaims, but it's unlikely there will be anything left after Novell is done.

Re:It's more than bankruptcy.

[PitaBred]

Now we just need a way to make the execs and people who orchestrated these shenanigans held personally liable and responsible. Take their nice houses and stuff. They don't deserve them.

Re:It's more than bankruptcy.

[Fred_A]

But read number four again. If Novell has it's way, the IBM case is gone too because SCO never had the right to sue in the first place.

Aww, and just when it was starting to get fun !

Re:It's more than bankruptcy.

[koh]

Of course, there are always IBM's counterclaims, but it's unlikely there will be anything left after Novell is done.

10. Novell recently engaged in a partnership with Microsoft.

Go figure.

Re:It's more than bankruptcy.

[AutumnLeaf]

Keeping in mind I'm a noob about this law stuff in general....

Why wasn't Novell doing all of this monitoring and watching in the first place? And why didn't they realize they were getting scammed sooner? While I'm happy to see Novell drop the hammer on SCO, it seems like a reactive "Hey... wait a minute" type of hammer. I wonder if Novell would have been taking these court actions without the IBM/SCO suit pushing the issue of the UNIX license into the headlines?

Ability to look over all docs?

[WindBourne]

Will this mean that Novell and IBM will soon have access to all the SCO docs? It would be interesting to see what they have WRT MS's and Sun's investment into them. I suspect that both companies will be found to be knowingly supporting SCO in this illegal endeavor.

They're Hiring!

[zesty42]

You can check it out here.

Please have a look at their services too... looks fantastic.

Re:They're Hiring!

[deathy_epl ccs]

You can check it out here.

Please have a look at their services too... looks fantastic.

Hiring in India at that, so the above speculation on how much the developers are being paid is probably inaccurate... they probably have a couple hundred developers if they're paying $2mil/qtr and employing folks in New Delhi.

Looking at their services, I'm considering recommending the company I work for immediately employ their consulting services... I've no doubt these boys really know what they're doing. heh.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[rumblin'rabbit]

In software development, you may safely assume that developer salaries is the majority of the cost. I know - I'm a manager of software development.

You should go through the list and add up the costs. It's not that great. For example, it's hard to imagine having more than one manager and one secretary per 10 developers. Hardware is dirt cheap (a few thousand per year at most). Electricity and office space likewise, at least compared to a developer's salary. Health insurance is a serious expense, but still only a fraction of the cost.

And if SCO is paying $1.5 million for coffee, the management should be fired tomorrow. A dollar or two per day per employee, that's it.

Trust me, $8 million per year buys a lot more than 10 developers.

It's called "being a professional"

[EmbeddedJanitor]

My (somewhat jaded) definition of a profession is a practice in which the practitioners (the "professionals") consipre so as to exclude others. Lawyers use legal speak, and in some countries still use Latin, programmers use C/C++/whatever jargon. Wassadifference?

You monster, I can't believe you'd do that

[Chris Burke]

to those two innocent hookers.

Re:You monster, I can't believe you'd do that

[jamstar7]

to those two innocent hookers.

I sure would do it to the whore in the front office.

I love the Google Ads!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just got a "Buy SCO UnixWare" ad when I viewed this page! Yeah! Who wouldn't want to buy a license to a junk operating system from a company whose bankruptcy is imminent and inevitable?

Death of the Undying Monstrosity.

[Shinmizu]

Does this mean Duke Nukem Forever's finally coming out?

Correction

[Zenaku]

I think. Therefore, I am not a stock broker.

Re:Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a stock broker, but I slept at a Holiday Inn last night.

Re: Once more (in English).

[Jaywalk]

What everybody agrees on is:

• Novell and SCO signed a countract where "certain rights" to UNIX (specifically System V, Release X - SVRX for short) were transferred to SCO.
• In exchange, SCO would give the royalties for SVRX (minus a 5% handling fee) to Novell.
• Novell claims that the "rights" transferred to SCO do not include the copyrights and that Novell still owns those copyrights. SCO claims that the contract does transfer the copyrights.
• SCO is suing IBM claiming that IBM's contributions to Linux infringe SCO's copyrights in UNIX.
• Since suing IBM for infringing SCO's copyrights doesn't make any sense if SCO doesn't even own those copyrights, SCO had to sue Novell as well for "slander of title" (i.e., claiming you own something you don't).
• Microsoft and Sun gave SCO a ton of cash, theoretically for UNIX licenses, but those with a suspicious turn of mind think it was to fund the anti-Linux lawsuit.

What's happened now is that Novell has gone to the court and said that, no matter who owns the copyrights, SCO owes us 95% of the SVRX royalties. But SCO didn't give us 95% of the money that Sun and Microsoft gave them. Worse still, SCO is spending money like water on the IBM suit. They're asking the court to set up a "constructive trust" to prevent SCO from spending any more of Novell's money. SCO is trying to tell the court that those deals weren't "really" SVRX licenses but something else. Unfortunately the documents available to the public have been so heavily editted that there's no way to tell what the Sun and Microsoft agreements actually say.

It's kind of an end run around the basic issue (who owns the copyrights) but -- if the court finds in Novell's favor -- it will effectively bankrupt SCO and (possibly) bring this ridiculous lawsuit mercifully to an end. For those of us with with suspicious minds, it also has the feel of poetic justice in that the money Microsoft and Sun spent to kill Linux winds up going to a Linux distributor (Novell owns SUSE) to defend a major Linux contributor (IBM).

stock price

[bcrowell]

Interesting, thoough, that SCO's stock has been sitting constant at just over a dollar for the last month. Maybe this news isn't so new and significant, or maybe the news just didn't have time to hit the market, and we'll see SCOX at 50 cents tomorrow morning? Oh please, oh please :-)

Re: Novell would love that.

[Jaywalk]

Or that "someone" could (again) buy millions worth of precious SCO software licenses to keep things afloat.

The whole point of the article is that the "millions" that Sun and Microsoft paid for "precious SCO software licenses" are likely to end up -- in large part -- in Novell's pocket. If they did it again I'm sure Novell would demand the court impound the money immediately before SCO got a chance to fritter it away again. Kimball might throw in a contempt of court charge to top it off, since they're repeating the same misdeeds already being heard in his courtroom.

Before They Go . . .

[hduff]

Before they go, perhaps they could release all their code? That could be fun.

Re: Once more (in English).

[Anonymous Coward]

has the feel of poetic justice in that the money Microsoft and Sun spent to kill Linux winds up going to a Linux distributor (Novell owns SUSE) to defend a major Linux contributor (IBM).

Or they see it as a cost of doing business. Do you think vista would have even the remote chance of being successful if the past few (many?) years of fud against linux weren't being spread around by this and studies and other such things?

Yeesh.

[seebs]

So what happens when someone buys their assets and pursues the case?

Die, already, die!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just can't believe how long this has gone on!

Damn, what a bargain Microsoft got for the $50 mill they invested in SCO! Hell, anybody else would have wasted this money by starting a new company or something!

Dumb asses!

Law should be open and accessible to all.

[spun]

The difference is that the internal complexities of other professions rarely bite the common man in the ass the way the internal complexities of law do. The language of law should be open and accessible to all but the most mentally deficient. That is not as important with even the medical, electrical, plumbing or mechanic's professions.

Re:Law should be open and accessible to all.

[Anonymous Coward]

has anyone ever tried to define a percentage of words (or, more accurately, sound groups) which have to have had their meanings changed for what's being said to be considered a different language? If you don't understand the language, you're entitled to a translator (in criminal cases at least, but there, I suppose, you're entitled to a lawyer too)

Re:SCOSource

[Jaywalk]

"SCOSource" was SCO's shakedown plan where Linux users would buy an intellectual property license to pay SCO for the UNIX code which IBM (and others) "improperly" put into Linux. It never really went anywhere, but SCO was trying to posture for the media and pretend it was a raging success. Microsoft and Sun gave SCO money, ostensibly as UNIX licensing fees, but more likely to encourage the lawsuit and damage Linux. SCO put those fees in their books as SCOSource profits to create the illusion that the scam was paying off. But Novell's contract with SCO required SCO to give Novell 95% of any UNIX royalties. So, since SCOSource is a UNIX license, they must owe Novell 95% of the take, right? If you're following Groklaw, it shows up in Novell's Amended Counterclaims.

Since the counterclaims have been filed, SCO has been backpedaling like mad. They've claimed that these weren't really SCOSource fees, they were just licensed through the SCOSource division. And they weren't really about SVRX, they were about UnixWare and the SVRX was "incidental". I'd love to see the actual contracts, but SCO, Sun and Microsoft are all pleading that the documents are confidential.

I probably would too if I got involved in a mess like this.

166 Employees

[hopbine]

This (http://moneycentral.msn.com/companyreport?Symbol= SCOX) says 166 employees.

Re:Overlords

[DonnieD701]

Don't we already have that, the US Congress?

Schadenfruede

[iPaul]

Hope I spelled that right. Anyway, I can't think of a group of people more deserving of their fate.

Re:Schadenfruede

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost. It's Schadenfreude. And what a good feeling it is!

We're rooting for Novel and IBM??

[MagikSlinger]

Man, what a difference 20 years can make. I remember when real hackers and geeks thought Novel and IBM were the enemy of independent, freedom-minded programmers. :-)

Re:We're rooting for Novel and IBM??

[meringuoid]

Man, what a difference 20 years can make. I remember when real hackers and geeks thought Novel and IBM were the enemy of independent, freedom-minded programmers. :-)

So true. Last couple of years on /., watching hackers cheer on the Nazgul, it's been strange. But there's a terrible thrill to it. It's Satan's own legal team, but for once it happens to be on our side, and it's fascinating to watch...

It all becomes clear now...

[BumpyCarrot]

The reason behind the deal between Novell and Microsoft? Maybe Microsoft's figured out where all their money's gonna end up ;) Not that I'm bashing either party in this case, it just jumped out at me :)

Hang in there SCO!

[UED]

These stock holders are crazy! http://finance.google.com/finance?q=SCOX

Re:Hang in there SCO!

[mysqlrocks]

I have not been watching SCOX and have no idea why it's up. However, there are a lot of factors that go into a stock price on any particular day. My guess is that SCOX is heavily shorted by people betting SCOX will go down in price. If a stock is heavily shorted, it can be subject to a short squeeze. Basically, a money manager with a lot of cash can throw money at the stock, causing the price to go up slightly, which causes shorts to cover, which causes a short squeeze and drives the price up even higher. The money manager then cashes out at the higher price and the stock goes back down again. I have no idea if this happened with SCOX, just giving one scenario that could cause a bad stock to go up in price.

Re:Hang in there SCO!

[UED]

Interesting. Quite a nasty way of making money though.

Re:Hang in there SCO!

[mysqlrocks]

You know what they say, it takes money to make money. Those with lots of money can manipulate the market in lots of "interesting" ways to make even more money. Typically it's money managers with lots of other-people's-money to play with that can manipulate the market. Us little investors are just along for the ride :-)

Just for laughs

[PingXao]

When the SCO fiasco is all wrapped up here's a number I'd like to see: How much money did all the lawyers involved earn apiece? There are hundreds involved, to be sure, but the Top Ten would be enough. Then I want to contemplate whether the fucked up Copyright laws in the U.S. make it all worthwhile. SCO's complaint was worthless from day 1 and it should have taken no more than 6 months to get it laughed out of court.

Re:Just for laughs

[Anonymous Coward]

From reading the filings and transcripts, it is clear the IBM's lawyers have earned their pay. Caldera's lawyers have managed to drag the case out a lot but are utterly incompetent otherwise.

Ummm....

[rm69990]

Ummmm...I'm the one who submits the vast majority of SCO news lately to Slashdot, and I didn't even bother submitting this. Novell has been saying this, either word for word or using different words, since they filed their counterclaims in July 2005. Novell said this directly in their motion for summary judgment a month or 2 ago. Novell is now just repeating itself in a second filing on the same motion (reply memorandum). I never thought I would tag something on Slashdot as slownewsday on the same day as Macworld....

Sun probably did buy a *real* Unix license

[Anonymous Coward]

Note how OpenSolaris showed up shortly after Sun bought that license from SCO.

Since Solaris is largely based on SysV Unix, it'd be hard to open source all that code without totally free and clear ownership to do so. And SCO was the only place to go for that.

Of course, that probably means Sun's money was supposed to go to Novell.

And SCO would have told Sun "You have to take all this other SCOSource crap also if you want clear ownership over all your code that is derivative works of SysV Unix. We'll even give you a discount if you do."

Heck, maybe Sun even thought that money would wind up with Novell.

Sorry, wrong.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

To summarize your answer: "If lawyers weren't such slippery pieces of shit, we wouldn't have this language problem."

Sorry, wrong.

To summarize the answer:
  - The legal language is exact and well-defined.
  - It must be, so that people can understand what the law means and apply it correctly.

And to add a corollary:
  - Your inability to understand it is the result of the failure of your school system's administrators when they chose not to teach it to you. They have kept you ignorant of it, and thus of how to read the laws you are expected to obey.
  - This is convenient for them and their masters in government: It makes you easier to control.

The perceived "slipperyness" of lawyers is a side-effect of their function: To help their employers present effective arguments for the most-favorable-to-them interpretations of legal matters in dispute. This means they're often stuck with trying to put a shine on a pig.

Re:Sorry, wrong.

[bhiestand]

The legal language is exact and well-defined. Ok, I'll follow along...

The perceived "slipperyness" of lawyers is a side-effect of their function: To help their employers present effective arguments for the most-favorable-to-them interpretations of legal matters in dispute. You mean to say that the job of a lawyer is to exploit the fact that laws, as written, are open to interpretation? That doesn't really sound very "exact" or "well-defined" to me. Certainly there is a lot of technical jargon involved, and some terms are very specific but, overall, I can't think of a single law, article of the constitution, or amendment which hasn't resulted in someone in the legal system having to interpret exactly what it means. And those interpretations often change over time as society's morals change. I think there is ample evidence to say that our current systems of law and language are unable to precisely define meaning such that they will be honestly interpreted by everybody in the same way.

In religious texts they have tried to tell stories, such as the Good Samaritan, which went through great lengths to make the reader actually experience the associated emotions and understand the concepts on an emotional and ethical level, yet these texts have been the subject of even fiercer debate than Clinton's infamous questioning of the definition of "sex".

In short, I'd say it's obvious that our current legal language is imprecise and not well-defined. If the supreme court can't unanimously agree on interpretations nobody else can be expected to.

There is hope that current and future research into neurolinguistics will allow us to fully understand exactly how language is comprehended by different people, and ultimately develop a system of communication that eliminates the possibility of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. If we manage to accomplish this, the supposed redeeming value of modern legalese will finally become a reality. Until then, we'll have people who genuinely disagree, people encountering new situations that weren't considered when the laws were originally conceived, and people who know damned well they're wrong but know they can win an argument without being right.

Bankruptcy leaves issues unresolved

[roc97007]

I'd rather see SCO lose the court battle first, laying their spurious claims forever at rest, and *then* go bankrupt. I'm concerned that some black hat might buy-out their IP and renew the harassment, perhaps with greater resources. (Not naming any naMeS here...)

SPECTRE ...

[KingKaneOfNod]

I knew it had to take a villain of the calibur of Blofeld to come up with such a diabolical plan as SCO!

Post fixed

[merc]

Those are the words from Novell's lawyers. Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this sphincter once and for all?

Typo fixed in original message, no charge.

Someone needs to take these guys out

[Sponge Bath]

Maybe we could hold a fund raiser and hire Hans Reiser.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, $8 million per year buys a lot more than 10 developers.

5 lawyers?

Put your fake money where your mouth is?

[inventric]

Anyone care to wager on SCO's bankruptcy for some valuable fake cash: the inkle. http://home.inklingmarkets.com/market/show/3018/

Re:I don't think they knew.

[Jaywalk]

Why wasn't Novell doing all of this monitoring and watching in the first place? And why didn't they realize they were getting scammed sooner?

Believe it or not, I don't think Novell knew. The original press releases read like something you'd expect from the Three Stooges. First Novell accepted SCO's version and assumed they had sold the copyrights. Then they said they said they didn't sell the copyrights. Then SCO found a piece of paper in their files that Novell couldn't find in their version and sent it to Novell. Novell read the paper and agreed that it looked like they had sold the copyrights. Then Novell's lawyers looked at the paper and said that they didn't. Eventually, somebody dug up the minutes of a meeting for the Board of Directors from something like a decade ago and decided they definitely did not sell the copyrights.

Keep in mind that nobody was much interested in UNIX by this point. The original deal was between the original Santa Cruz Operation and Novell because Novell wanted out of the UNIX biz while Santa Cruz wanted some stuff so they could do a joint project with IBM. That project didn't pan out, so they renamed themselves Tarentella and sold the UNIX business to Caldera. Novell didn't much care who owned the business as long as they got their checks, which both Santa Cruz and Caldera sent them as per the contract.

Caldera didn't want the UNIX business either. They were a Linux business and thought they could convert SCO's UNIX distribution network to selling Linux instead. That didn't work out either; apparently the UNIX resellers didn't want to switch to Linux and Caldera was making more selling UNIX than distributing Linux. So they ditched Linux (and their CEO) and switched to concentrating on UNIX and changed their name to SCO for the name recognition.

But there was no scam -- at least with the UNIX royalties -- until the whole Linux shakedown started. Santa Cruz and Caldera sent Novell the checks and Novell pocketed the money. The Linux shakedown was just supposed to get IBM to buy them out, in which case it would have stayed business as usual. Things didn't hit the fan until after SCO tried to up the ante by threatening to sue Linux users over UNIX rights. And even then it took a while.

I'd have loved to have been in the Novell staff meeting when someone (I've always pictured a balding accountant with a slight paunch) looked up from his notes and said, "Hey, isn't SCO supposed to be giving most of the UNIX money to us?"

Re: Look again.

[Jaywalk]

SCOX has actually risen in price today!

According to Yahoo it closed yesterday at $1.24 and spent the day bouncing around between $1.15 and $1.25, finally closing the day $1.17. That's down seven cents. It's a pretty volatile stock, but the trend has definitely been down as the case wound its way through the courts.

Wall Street still amazingly thinks the stock has some value.

This is not exactly true. I haven't seen a "buy" recommendation on this stock in a long time. I think that the reason for the current valuation lies in three things. First of all, there are the day-traders. They like volatile stock because they believe they can time their buying and selling to take advantage of the price swings. If you check that Yahoo link you'll see 39,626 shares changed hands today, compared to the average of 171,160 over the past three months. To me that says that most of the trading is done by day traders trying to outguess the market. If they judged it right today -- buying at $1.15 and selling at $1.25 -- they would have made ten cents a share (minus fees). Of course, they could just as easily have been wrong and lost ten cents a share (and still have to pay the fees).

Then there are the current shareholders or, as they are called on the financial boards, the bagholders. They bought the stock before anybody notice the emperor was naked. The big players are in an awkward position. If they start to sell their large holdings in bulk it will create a run on the market as everyone tries to get out. They might as well hold on to them as not. Maybe a miracle will bail them out as they eye each other nervously hoping nobody else makes the first move.

Then there are the short sellers. These happy souls borrowed some shares and sold them off with a promise to buy them back later and return them. Short-selling can be risky because the stock might skyrocket and leave you stuck with a huge bill. Or there might be a "short squeeze" when a bunch of short sellers are forced to redeem their shares at whatever the current market rate might be, causing an artificial spike in price. But neither of these two occurrences have happened with SCO so they're just grinning and cheering for a bankruptcy. In which case they never have to pay back that loan. SCO is currently the most heavily shorted stock on the market.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[wiredlogic]

Trust me, $8 million per year buys a lot more than 10 developers.

This is Canopy Group we're talking about here. You're forgetting about the corporate jet, the corporate yacht, the corporate island, the secret underwater base, etc.

What about companies that need SCO's products?

[Ritchie70]

There are a number of companies out there that have systems that depend on SCO operating systems, and that need to deploy new systems based on those platforms. Any good guesses who will own OpenServer and UnixWare after this all winds up, and whether they'll still be selling licenses?

Re:What about companies that need SCO's products?

[demon]

I would say if there's anyone still depending on SCO's product base, they would probably do well to have a migration plan in place - if not start migrating ASAP. SCO is certainly not long for this world, and who knows where their assets will go when the corpse of SCO is chopped up.

Re:What about companies that need SCO's products?

[shadowknot]

Absolutely, we have many customers with SCO servers and we have offered a migration path to Linux for years. The reason we still have so many customers on SCO is that they are, basically, tightwads who aren't willing to pay for the migration of their data/system. I can say, having experience of administrating both SCO and Linux systems on a daily basis, that aside from the silly lawsuits and bad business practices SCO will fail because it has a shoddy product. I can't tell you the amount of segfaults I have encountered just from changing the clock or making trivial system changes in SCO Admin. From where I stand, the end can't come soon enough.

Re:Overlords

[Fordiman]

But would it run Linux?

Doesn't matter. itsatrap. or fud. or notfud. or whatever.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[Fordiman]

... in a well management devel farm. This is SCO we're talking about. I'll bet about 75% of that R&D has gone to the CEO's R&R.

Re: Once more (in English).

[jamstar7]

For those of us with with suspicious minds, it also has the feel of poetic justice in that the money Microsoft and Sun spent to kill Linux winds up going to a Linux distributor (Novell owns SUSE) to defend a major Linux contributor (IBM).

Which Microsoft will get back over the years as part of the Novell/Microsoft agreement in which Microsoft fronted Novell a pile of cash and gets a chunk back every year. This whole SCO/IBM/Novell/Microsoft/Sun thing is almost as confusing as watching the Three Stooges in Esperanto.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[dbIII]

And if SCO is paying $1.5 million for coffee

I think that would happen if Darl had another brother who was selling coffee and not a lawyer. The current state of SCO looks like a classic two man scam - Darl and his brother will both come out of the smoking ruin of SCO with very large amounts of money and with a reputation of being the underdogs that took on IBM and could have done it (if it wasn't for those kids and their pesky penguin).

Some places use "R&D" as a slush fund for executive expenses - may not work in the long term but SCO won't be around for long.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[jobsagoodun]

Not any more, the canopy group ditched SCO some time back and its now owned by Ralph Yarro and a group of investment trusts AFAIK.

Re:About 50 developers? - way too high

[Chrisq]

And if SCO is paying $1.5 million for coffee, Nah, the reporter didn't understand Java licensing ;-)

Re:Both of them?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both?? who is the other guy?

short SCO

[cdn-programmer]

A friend and I have been looking for shares to short for about 3 years now. Alas. No luck.

The biggest issue with the share price is that many investors are not computer software or legally informed and I say ditto with the press given the pathetic musing that I see in the papers. Sooo... they unfortunately do not see much of the real picture and they certainly for the most part don't read slashdot and groklaw.

Thus, they and much of their money will soon be parting.

Its too bad that IBM will probbaly not see their day in court. They certainly will likely not be able to even recover costs. I intend to buy IBM products in the future. Maybe if enough people do this will add to their bottom line. It won't be measureable of course. But what else can we do?

Re:Overlords

[Anomolous Cowturd]

Every democracy has a congress or parliament or council of corrupt bastards, that's just the natural way of things... but the US congress blows the most BIPS - billions of dollars per second.

I was walking down the street today (in Australia) and marvelling at how comfortable and safe life is compared to how bad it could be if we didn't have a legitimate government and an enlightened citezenry. So notably not nasty, brutish and short like in Iraq or Somalia.

Err.. anyway back on topic. Die, SCO, die! Death by lawyer is too good for them. I would like to beat Darl to death with a cricket bat, starting at the feet and working my way up.

Trust a manager?

[Anonymous Coward]

In software development, you may safely assume that developer salaries is the majority of the cost. I know - I'm a manager of software development.

True as the first sentence may be, it is in no way related to the second sentence. I'm a software developer, and I assure you that you don't need any knowledge or qualifications to achieve the title "manager of software development".

I have known people who would complete "In software development, you may safely assume %s. I know - I'm a manager of software development" with any number of random phrases that may turn out to be true, false, or violate more than one law of thermodynamics.

Re:Trust a manager?

[rumblin'rabbit]

Whether or not I have any knowledge or qualifications for the job, I do have to understand, propose, and keep to budgets. That gives me expertise about the cost of things not found with most employees.