Slashdot Mirror


US Trustee Asks To Send SCO Into Chapter 7

Several readers including Pop69 inform us that the US Trustee's office has asked to convert SCO's Chapter 11 bankruptcy to Chapter 7 — a.k.a. liquidation. Groklaw has the text of the filing: "...not only is there no reasonable chance of 'rehabilitation' in these cases, the Debtors have tried — and failed — to liquidate their business in chapter 11."

40 of 259 comments (clear)

  1. Ahem. Ahem. by symbolset · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's the fat lady clearing her throat.

    Strangely enough, now I want to hear from Enderle and D'Idiot. I want to hear them whine about the unfainess of it all, how these saints were ridden out of town on a rail when their cause was just. I want to hear them tell the tale of the briefcase with millions of lines of copied code was pilfered from SCO's case in the thick of night.

    And then I want them to vanish into ignominy.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  2. Re:Ahem. Ahem. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep. It'll be fascinating to see how O'Gara twists this into an SCO victory, and helps further their appeal.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  3. Liquify what? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously. What assets do they have left that are worth selling? Patents? Software? I am sure there are still SCO shops around so there might be some interest in Unix Ware, Open Server etc. But how profitable will it be after everyone jumps the SCO ship to other platforms that aren't in danger of becoming unsupported?

    All in all, good riddance.

    1. Re:Liquify what? by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Liquify what?

      Their lawyers? Chief Officers? A company might be able to make some soylent green and make a profit.

    2. Re:Liquify what? by nairnr · · Score: 5, Informative
      Everything! Furniture, chairs, computers, bookcases. You name it, it goes. This is not so anyone can reorganize it into anything meaningful, this is so creditors get every last stinking dime out of them.

      If you have ever been to a liquidation of a store, after they sell you what is left on the racks, they sell you the racks,display cases, lights, left over toilet paper...

    3. Re:Liquify what? by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sell the patents to another patent troll company. Duh.

    4. Re:Liquify what? by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Seriously. What assets do they have left that are worth selling? Patents? Software?

      The way this works is that the Bankruptcy Trustee brings in an auction house. Assets like intellectual property and lawsuits are usually handled directly by the Trustee. The auction house handles the physical assets.

      There's a whole food chain in Silicon Valley for disposing of defunct companies. Action Computer buys up many of the old PCs, the ones that work. Weird Stuff Warehouse buys up old networking gear and miscellaneous electronics. Consolidated Office Distributors buys much of the furniture (Their warehouse in San Jose looks like the one from Raiders of the Lost Ark, only bigger. That's where many of the Aeron chairs from the dot-com boom ended up.) There's a place in San Jose that buys steel shelving. Quickly, the office buildings and factories are cleaned out, cleaned up, and put on the market.

    5. Re:Liquify what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And guess who is going to buy all the chairs...

  4. Re:Ahem. Ahem. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Strangely enough, now I want to hear from Enderle and D'Idiot. I want to hear them whine about the unfainess of it all, how these Latter Day Saints were ridden out of town on a rail when their cause was just. I want to hear them tell the tale of the briefcase with millions of lines of copied code was pilfered from SCO's case in the thick of night."

    They'll probably have to drive a stake through the corporate charter to make SCO stay dead.

  5. Where's Darl now? by ZosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't worry. The SCO execs still made their money and are most likely very comfortable. Shame they never got investigated for insider trading when they started dumping their own stock, while filing waves of lawsuits, or is that legal? IP was the last leg their company had to stand on, and that was a shaky one at best. It is kind of sad that it took them this long to finally burn through all their cash on lawyers. Couldn't they have just called it a day and given the money to charity or something or maybe tried to reinvest in a new venture? Clearly they didn't see any sort of long term future for SCO. Does any still even actively license their craptacular "Unix" from them?

    1. Re:Where's Darl now? by lgftsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is kind of sad that it took them this long to finally burn through all their cash on lawyers.

      That would be Novell's money you smell burning...

    2. Re:Where's Darl now? by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While I'm certainly no fan of SCO, in The Real World you use what works. If it still works, there's no need to replace it. Here's the thing about IMS about related systems: they solve what's largely understood to be a "known domain" of problems. You can still use third-party systems to link the central DBs to more modern systems if your business rules change, but the basics of managing inventory and keeping sales records haven't changed since pencil-and-paper ledgers.

      Short version: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.

    3. Re:Where's Darl now? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To hell with Zales' POS systems. McDonalds is a MAJOR user of SCO Unix, and they just keep growing.

      Maybe they'll buy-up the IP rights for in-house development, or spin-off a small company to maintain it for their own needs and make a bit of money off selling to others at the same time...

      Or maybe their contract works out better if they go out of business, then McD gets the software, with full source code, and unlimited rights, automatically. Who knows?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    4. Re:Where's Darl now? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      An important thing to remember is that Darl McBride's brother was one of those lawyers getting truckloads of cash. I still see it as a two man scam where the company was deliberately driven into the brick wall of IBM and then the repair work contracted out to the driver's brother.

    5. Re:Where's Darl now? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the real world it's also incredibly fun to watch the scramble when some ancient system nobody knows, supports or maintains goes postal, if you're not responsible for fixing it. Maybe it's nothing more than the inventory hitting more than MAX_INT items or whatever, but the day production is down and keeps going down every time you bring it up someone will wish they had a vendor to scream at.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Allow me to say... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3

    Allow me to say, it's about damn time.

  7. How long has it really been? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One year, four months since I submitted this frontpaged Slashdot article about SCO being delisted from NASDAQ: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/27/1438204

    I must ask again... is the wicked witch finally dead, YET?!

    (Captcha: Circus. How. Very. Appropriate.)

    1. Re:How long has it really been? by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 4, Funny
      The wicked witch may not be dead yet, but she has pneumonia, gangrene, a wicked case of uncontrolled syphilis, and a lazy eye. And H1N1 influenza. And no health insurance or VA benefits. Medicare has its limits. And her good eye is infected from pickin' at it...

      ...but I think she's more like the Annoying Witch really, as she was too inefective and irrelevant to ever really be all that wicked.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    2. Re:How long has it really been? by shentino · · Score: 3, Informative

      My mistake, Gross hasn't signed the second pdf yet.

  8. I wonder... by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...where would SCO be today if it hadn't started filing lawsuits? Sure, it wouldn't have had that cash infusion from Microsoft, but what was the state of that company and where was it headed prior to the suits? Would SCO still be a respected Unix vendor?

    1. Re:I wonder... by countach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure they were a respected UNIX vendor. They were the only serious choice at one time for Intel, and then they "owned" (sort of) the original UNIX rights. Doesn't mean they were the best or most wonderful or impressive vendor, but they were a serious vendor.

    2. Re:I wonder... by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and it had customers. Even if SCO's products and services were worthless, its customer base alone would still have been valuable enough for some other Unix vendor (say, HP) to buy it out.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re:I wonder... by rackserverdeals · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When were they ever a respected Unix vendor?

      SCO had the lead in Unix on x86 hardware and apparently were used widely in certain sectors.

      Unline, IBM, HP and Sun, SCO didn't have their own processor architecture so they weren't resistant to having their OS run on commodity hardware like the other big Unix vendors did.

      This whole SCO lawsuit thing confuses me. At least the reaction to it and SCO going after Linux users.

      SCO was under the Canopy Group and every time Ray Noorda spun a company out of Novell, it usually resulted in an IP lawsuit. Usually against Microsoft. Strange or ironic that SCO and Novell would go head to head this time.

      I can understand why SCO sued IBM. IBM, SCO and Sequent got together to work on Project Monterey. SCO's role in that was providing their leading Unix on x86 work. Then the project fell apart, IBM bought Sequent and SCO got nothing for their efforts.

      Then all of a sudden, IBM puts more effort into Linux, an alternate Unix like OS that can run on x86.

      If you were SCO, had spent a lot of time with IBM showing them your Unix/x86 secrets, then they ditch your work and all of a sudden put a big push into a competing unix like os on x86 that could benefit from the knowledge you shared with IBM, you'd probably want to sue too. I would.

      Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but you'd have to go to trial to get to the bottom of it.

      Somehow it all turned into a giant circus and SCO seemed to start it by going after licensing fees for Linux users, but people on the sidelines, in either camp really made a mess of things. I think it's probably one of the most ridiculous moments in technology history.

      --
      Dual Opteron < $600
    4. Re:I wonder... by Techman83 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually Canonical Close To $30M Critical Mass; Should Microsoft Worry? If anything, I'd say the spiral is going up, not down.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    5. Re:I wonder... by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your points are well taken. But discovery, months of discovery, showed that there was no stolen code. There were also some other trigger events that eventually released IBM from the partnership (I can't remember all the details, but they include change of ownership, expiration dates, etc.). In the end, there was really no evidence of wrong-doing on the part of IBM. In fact, well before the lawsuits, IBM made many statements of its intentions and followed through with no objection from SCO.

      This is all very well documented at www.groklaw.net and available for your reading.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  9. I dont understand by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't understand, their reality distortion field has got to be worth millions in it's own right. Nice thing about chapter 7 is they have to auction /everything/. I wonder if you can buy their data and load up their servers to see what they were really thinking. Perhaps someone can buy whatever rights they thought they had and donate everything to the FSF.

  10. Re:Taking bets by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's too big to fail, but SCO's too fail to bail.

    Totally different.

  11. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!

  12. Sell to the 'glue factory' is the only option... by rts008 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously. What assets do they have left that are worth selling? Patents? Software?

    Well, sometimes you have to consider that the 'best' return on your investment is to 'render that horse' into dog food and glue. SCO has seemingly passed up both of those viable options in the hope of a MS type miracle, and failed.

    Haul that dead horse to the rendering plant, and finally put it out of 'all of our miseries'!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  13. Today's top story by Anenome · · Score: 4, Funny

    Today's top story: In a bid to stave off bankruptcy, SCO Inc. has decided to sue everyone. That's right, everyone. SCO spokesman Seth Tuller says that 'everyone' will be served with court papers during lunch-time tomorrow. Tuller is quoting as saying, "Everyone owes us money, and everyone must pay." Stockholders are up in arms over this last minute bid to serve the entire world with a reverse class-action lawsuit, saying that the estimated $100 billion cost of doing so is just the latest in a long line of terrible decisions by company management.

    In other news, the dancing penguin video has become the latest sensation to hit the web...

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
  14. Save Their Publications by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's not forget to archive the materials they have published (mostly as Caldera). There is some useful information there.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  15. Same place, most likely by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder...where would SCO be today if it hadn't started filing lawsuits?

    Same place, chapter 7.

    They knew they were tanking and that's why they did this hail mary "let's sue IBM" nonsense. Their UN*X product was not spectacular. They didn't really offer anything unique or give any compelling reasons to do any business with them.

    People do this sort of thing all the time. There is something nearly universal in the human psyche that says that it makes sense to spend your last five bucks to buy a lottery ticket.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  16. Just like I knew Nortel was in trouble ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... when they started suing everybody who did anything SONET (including our company) over potential infringements of their patents. (I got dragged in because a chip I had co-architected included a SONET-like framer and some other telecom carrier framer stuff.)

    When the company is sinking and the management is grabbing any floating debris that might keep their heads above water, the patent portfolio that USED to be just for protection against suits from others suddenly becomes a potential cash cow. (Or an inflatable life raft to continue the previous metaphor.) And a technology company starts taking on the appearance of a patent troll operation.

    Of course in SCO's case it looks like the patent trolls bought into the sinking company so they could use it for trolling...

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  17. One more thing... by Timbotronic · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think a sharpened wooden stake is called for at this point.

    --

    One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

  18. I miss the old SCO by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There was a point in time when there was an SCO (probably prior to 7 buy outs and name transfers) that actually focused on technology. I remember when their product, in my opinion was the best UNIX desktop if for no other reason, but they had a control panel while everyone else still used configuration files. It was a dream being able to change screen resolution without having to restart X.

    They also made some products in their Tarentella line which was a port of the Microsoft SMB stack and therefore was a MUCH MUCH better solution than the Samba of the time. In fact, management-wise, it might still be better. After all, when you can spend less time reverse engineering and hacking with compatibility problems you can spend more time on usability.

    I guess that company is long gone and what's going bankrupt now is just some predators who attempted to capitalize off the accomplishments of the old SCO.

    But Goodbye SCO. I miss you

  19. Re:Ahem. Ahem. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    But be honest, you KNOW this hand comes, don't you? I mean, how many zombie movies have you seen? You're actually pissed when it doesn't come. It's like sex without an orgasm when you're sitting there, the hero has his love interest in his arms and that fuckin' zombie stays just DEAD. "C'mon! Move!", you scream at the screen, "how can you let him get away with this without a last, feeble attempt to claw at him!"

    I'd feel cheated if zombie Darl didn't at least try to move and lift four fingers to make that chapter 7 an 11 again.

    I feel there's a 7-Eleven joke in there somewhere, if someone finds it, please inform me. Thanks.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Off doing bigger stuff by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While we've been worrying about a small company trying to make money by patent trolling large ones, the Masters of the Universe held whole governments to ransom. Bernie Madoff's petty cash fund is probably bigger than the entire SCO case.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  21. He asked "actively license" by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but the question was if anyone still actively goes and buys a license.

    E.g., given the state of IP in Russia or China, I can't possibly imagine that the Bank Of Russia (or for that matter the China Post) actually bought full price licenses for those 22,000 branches. Most likely they had copied it lots, and if they even have a license in the meantime, they probably got some _massively_ discounted blanket license as most companies sell for Russia, China, etc. That or it was some scam in which it was imported through the CEO's brother's ghost company and it was just a way to siphon some money into their private pockets.

    E.g., those BMW service centres or the Deutsche Bahn, I don't imagine they still pay anything for that SCO Unix or designing new systems around it. Most likely they still have some legacy stuff from the 80's or early 90's, and it stays there just because nobody can be arsed to replace it with something newer. Or maybe it's the same I'll get to for McDonald.

    Running McDonald restaurants? Now that really gets me thinking. It's not like a McDonald restaurant has its own computing centre at all. If they're that big on SCO Unix, why only in restaurants? And why not in all restaurants? Does McDonald have anything against a homogenous and easy to administrate network?

    What this last one gets me to suspect is that it's really more along the lines of "whatever embedded OS came with those cashier machines." Roll that around in your head a bit.

    What that really tells me is that McDonald doesn't actually give a flying fuck about SCO Unix as such. They just have a bunch of cashier machines which incidentally came with SCO on them. But they wouldn't give a rat's arse about whether it's SCO or Linux or some embedded version of Windows or some refurbished thing based on OS/2, as long as it still talks the same protocols to the rest of their network.

    And they probably won't shed one tear for SCO. Whoever manufactures those terminals will just switch to something else and McDonald won't even notice, nor care.

    And it makes me wonder how many others on that list are essentially the same misleading claim. E.g., pharmacies? I don't imagine many either (A) actually implementing any meaningful computer centre in the back, or (B) actually choosing SCO for that. Most likely, again, it was whatever embedded crap came with their cashier machines. They'll keep them happily untilt they stop working at all, then replace them with some other machine that talks to the same protocol, and probably don't even know they run SCO at all.

    Same for probably a lot of other retailers, since SCO seems to hype that.

    I'm sorry, but that doesn't equal "actively licensing their craptacular Unix." In reality the only ones who actually actively licensed SCO there were the one or maybe two manufacturers of those cashier machines, and even those probably just because they got some old 16 bit version for peanuts.

    And I'd be surprised if any of those would _still_ go and license SCO for a new machine, since the word "still" was in the GP's question too. Most likely it's something they licensed a decade or two ago, and never thought about it ever since.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  22. You're wrong. by schon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SCO had the lead in Unix on x86 hardware and apparently were used widely in certain sectors.

    No, they most certainly did not.

    Santa Cruz Operation had the lead in Unix on x86 hardware.

    "The SCO Group", which is the company we're talking about, was a failed Linux vendor who called itself "SCO" after they decided to file baseless lawsuits.

  23. Re:Ahem. Ahem. by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sad thing is that once upon a time, they provided a Unix variant (Xenix),

    No, they didn't. That was the Santa Cruz Operation, or SCO, of Santa Cruz California, which did that. They are now named "Tarantella", and are still in business as far as I know.

    The company in this article is "The SCO Group", of Linden, Utah, formerly named "Caldera" (of Linux fame).

    Caldera bought some assets from old-SCO, renamed themselves "The SCO Group", and that's who they are now. They have never been the same company as the one that made Xenix, or had any of the same people.