Slashdot Mirror
SCO Sells Its UNIX Product Line To London Firm
An anonymous reader writes "SCO just forged a deal to sell its UNIX product line to Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London. Under the terms of the deal, SCO would continue to exist as a separate company helmed by Darl McBride, with its primary remaining assets being related to its mobile platform offerings. However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be considered 'done' yet. It could fall through as others have in the past."
SCO have products? when did this happen? i thought all they did was patent troll.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
SCO actually had a product line? And apparently more than one?
Wonder where they'd be if the had put half as much effort into selling their products instead of lawyers fees.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Does anyone know who actually uses SCO products if any?
Who buys something that no one (or mostly no one) uses?
Maybe lots of people use it that I'm unaware of. Care to enlighten me?
Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
...there is a sucker born every minute!
There is a war going on for your mind.
A while back a Judge ruled SCO does not own the UNIX(tm) copyrights.
((That would be SysV copyrights that were gutted by the BSD settlement, but that is a whole other story.))
SCO's argument in that case was that they could not run the UNIX business without the copyrights. And thus when they bought the business they must have bought the copyrights.
Now SCO is in BK court and in the processes of selling the business. The problem is they are also in the appeals court where their argument that the only way to sell the business is with the copyrights is being evaluated. So SCO is
a) selling the business without the copyrights in the BK court.
b) arguing that to buy the business you must get the copyrights in the appeals court.
It is supposed to be bad practice to argue different things in different courts at the same time.
But that does not stop SCO.
and didn't specify whom to make immortal. SCO was the receiver of that power and we have to live with the consequences of that wish. Fact: You can't kill SCO.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Perhaps they should ask the Obama Government for a hand out, hmm, I mean a bail out package.
This article on the BBC news website was pointed to by a link saying "China lends SCO $10bn". Turns out it was a different SCO. Thank all the gods (and ceiling cat)!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They're an investment banking firm. I see two possibilities: either SCO managed to convince them that if they only had enough funds, they could turn their flavor of UNIX into a hugely profitable product, or Gulf Capital Partners is already one of SCO's few customers and they want to make sure they don't lose support when the company shuts its doors.
The latter would surprise me.
Maybe somebody should ask them what the hell they're thinking?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Fresh cash to persue copyright violations? Is Gulf Capital Partners LLC of London a cover for someone like Microsoft? Why would someone want to purchase SCO properties? SCO the Unix business is almost completely dead.
Does SCO even have the right to sell their Unix business without the approval of Novell?
The subject line is deliberately ambiguous, and I could probably support just about any interpretation you make, but my understanding is that SCO UNIX is still used in some embedded point-of-sale (POS) systems. There was also, IIRC, some noise in one of their recent filings about its popularity in Russia, so I guess it can be handy for controlling botnets or something. :)
> However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be
> considered 'done' yet.
Then why did you headline it as if it were?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
... Darl, is that you?
Seriously, I don't mean to feed the troll, but I don't see any bullying of the "IT press". Unless you mean Maureen O'Gara.. but I remember reading her crap from before SCO and thinking she was a muck-raker. I was rather worried when the SCO thing first came out, but they never produced any solid evidence. The "SCO may not own the copyright" bit aside, they never actually gave any bits that were copied.
They also then proceeded to try and sell everyone who runs Linux a "license" and threatened to sue you if not, while trying to distribute the unmodified kernel under the GPL! And we're not talking about suing IBM or Red Hat (or even Novell, again, copyright issues aside), they wanted money from everyone running a server, a desktop, or an embedded device.
Who Tried to bully whom here, exactly?
I put on my robe and wizard hat..
It's amazing how they keep going, and going and going. And how a management team can fly the plane into the side of a mountain and keep their jobs.
Well, if they are censoring the bad posts, then what's the matter?
And how a management team can fly the plane into the side of a mountain and keep their jobs.
. . . when the board and the executive management are cronies and in cahoots, nothing is impossible or unimaginable . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
SCO has products?
Who knew?
I thought they main product was the ability to hire lawyers and try (emphasis on "try") to sue yourself some profit.
I have trouble believing Microsoft are pulling the strings here - I'd have thought they'd have realised by now that this was a complete waste of time.
Unless, of course, their aim isn't to destabilise Linux completely but just give their salesmen a bargaining chip in large negotiations - in which case there may be a return on investment.
Assuming Microsoft aren't pulling the strings, what on Earth would possess any company to even consider this? Even the tiniest bit of due diligence - so tiny that you don't even read the IT press to get the IT world's view on it - would show that SCO have been doing this for five years without so much as an iota of success and quite a lot of defeat.
I have a Slackware 3.3 disc for sale to this London company. Its OS is much better than SCOs and I'm willing to part with it for only $5-million.
Hi MOG! How's the stalking^h^h^h^h^h^h^hinvestigative journalism gig working out fer ya?
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Back in the day (circa 1998) I worked for a small-potatoes ISP, and we used SCO Unix for our two key servers (mail and web). Why you ask? Well, the bosses were into getting things on the free side of cheap, so they applied to be a reseller for SCO products. As a result they were given an "evaluation" copy of the OS, and our servers were born. We did discover that we had to keep the boxes off the same subnet or they would find each other and cease to function. :)
> Fact: You can't kill SCO.
Doesn't matter. You can have a lot of fun trying!
Could this be the beginning of the end for SCO?
-- thinkyhead software and media
Is the huge stain splashed on the open source community by PJ and her gang of thugs at Groklaw. Bullying and intimidation of the IT press and individuals was all you ever got from Groklaw... well, that, and a lot of amateur legal advice.
Please give a specific, verifiable example?
The scox-scam is nothing but 1% of msft's ongoing fud campaign against linux. Why do you think msft sponsored the entire thing? Why do you think they are suing ibm? IBM does not even have a linux distribution.
IBM contributed to linux, and that scared msft. So msft wanted (and still wants) it to be know that if you contribute to linux, you may be served with a bogus lawsuit. The entire point of the lawsuit is to have a chilling effect on potential linux contributers. And possibly linux users, since linux users were told they would have to pay scox $699 per CPU, or scox would sue them as well.
In such a lawsuit, it does not matter if you in the right, if you can not afford the lawsuit, you lose as soon as the suit is filed, just ask TomTom.
Scox has never had a profitable quarter, not once in their entire existence. Scox would have been out of business five years ago, if not for the generous contributions from Redmond. Seriously, research scox's financial situation before scox filed the suit.
Msft paid some hicks in Utah to file a bogus lawsuit, and the deal has worked out nicely for msft, and the Utah hicks.
this actually makes sense. If Win7 does not save M$, a fallback position with a proprietary *nix with virtualization and XP built in by default with their flagship apps ported to Win-IX with its introduction and their less important apps ported to -ix as fast as their programmers can work might be a Very Good Thing for them to have.
Tech Public Policy stuff
of course if the opposing counsel finds out he could give a bigger bribe and then Darl would find himself in a gunfight with a machete.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.