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?"

8 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. 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."
  2. 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!
  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.