Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SCO Bankruptcy "Imminent, Inevitable"

Posted by kdawson on from the quebrada dept.

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?"

13 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Can they drop the suit? by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  2. I'm excited by digitalunity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  3. I doubt it by thebdj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    1. Re:I doubt it by BoneFlower · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  4. IANAL.... by drdanny_orig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... 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?

    --
    .nosig
    1. Re:IANAL.... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful
      .... 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
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:IANAL.... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  5. It's only a spector by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because /. keeps posting it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. Resolved by bunkruptcy? by Edward+Ka-Spel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Live Sacrifice Required by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  8. NO! by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:About 50 developers? - way too high by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

  10. Just for laughs by PingXao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.