Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Predicting SCO's Actions Post Bankruptcy

Posted by kdawson on from the litigious-doesn't-begin-to-cover-it dept.

eldavojohn writes "SCO lost last year and began the bankruptcy filings a long time ago but PJ has some speculative bad news on what they retain through the bankruptcy proceedings. SCO proposes to sell a number of assets to an outfit called UnXis, which PJ characterizes this way: 'It starts to hint that this is more a renaming, taking in some new management who seem to have financial expertise, and SCO keeps skipping along as unXis, with the dangerous litigation spun off safely into a litigation troll.' In their filings SCO says they retain 'their litigation and related claims against International Business Machines Corporation, Novell, Inc., AutoZone Corporation, Red Hat and certain Linux users which are not material customers of UnXis (excluding certain large-scale users of Linux servers) that are claimed to have infringed against UNIX copyrights.' So that's still a possibility they could go after anyone who is a 'certain Linux user.' And what's even worse is that they'll retain a patent for running multiple Java applications on a single Java virtual machine. We may not be out of the SCO litigation woods yet."

26 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Damn! by clang_jangle · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'll have to nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Damn! by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Get Oracle to buy them. They are pretty thorough.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  2. Microsoft Corp. today announced.. by NervousNerd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft Corp. announced today that they were planning on acquiring SCO for $1985.67. "I believe this is a great opportunity for us to diversify our product portfolio", Steve Ballmer said in a press conference.

    1. Re:Microsoft Corp. today announced.. by jbrax · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly. In this video Eben Moglen explains why for Microsoft threatening is better than suing. So Microsoft prefers denying that they have anything to do with SCO... although they may do some business with them.

  3. Won't work.. by spiffmastercow · · Score: 3, Funny

    We'll have to nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    They're like roaches.. They can withstand a nuclear apocalypse..

  4. Why worry? by gilesjuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SCO or whatever they become will keep losing cases. Those who are supporting them are treating it like a high risk investment and hoping it pays off.

    They're a parasite with no turnover of any significant amount, you can't keep a business going if the sole source of income is from court cases.

    1. Re:Why worry? by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      However, the RIAA was filthy rich to begin with. On the other hand, SCO is about as broke as a college student, with no way to get revenue. Really, unless you have a really, really, really, really solid case, you can't gamble with stuff like that unless you have money to burn like the RIAA does.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Why worry? by Quantos · · Score: 3, Funny

      If SCO need money badly enough I have a lawn that needs mowing, windows that need washing, and laundry that needs folding.

      --
      Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
    3. Re:Why worry? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you can't keep a business going if the sole source of income is from court cases

      There is about a billion law firms out there that beg to differ

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:Why worry? by machine321 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can probably use folding@home for the last one.

  5. So... by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So what does SCO have other than a few patents that may or may not be invalid, the name, and a whole lot of bad press?

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:So... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ability to provide Linux FUD. It's helped them stay funded so far, if you follow the "Microsoft Partnership" sponsorship that kept them alive, and their interference with IBM and Novell and RedHat have been significant.

      They aren't producing new usable products, and their old market niche of rock-solid x86 server class UNIX systems has evaporated in the face of Linux and other, more technically progressive and less lawsuit driven companies.

    2. Re:So... by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Informative

      Their latest filing claims they have a single java patent, but other than that, no, this was never about patents. SCO doesn't really have any and certainly didn't claim any when they sued IBM, Novell, Chrysler or anyone else.

      They sued IBM over the copyrights to Linux, which they claim they own because they claimed they owned the Unix copyrights. Novell said that they never sold the copyrights to SCO, so SCO sued Novell for saying that.

      Since SCO was suing IBM for copyright infringement, that whole thing was put on hold while SCO and Novell fought out who really owned the copyrights.

      At trial, all of SCO's claims were tossed out in summary judgement and the like. The court agreed with Novell that SCO had no copyrights to Unix (it never even got to the question of whether or not Linux violates Unix copyrights and their mounds of secret evidence has never been presented anywhere). All that was left were the counterclaims that Novell had against SCO. Among those was the claim that all the money SCO had collected from Sun and Microsoft should rightfully belong to Novell. The judge agreed that SCO was guilty of conversion, which means that it was never SCO's money to begin with.

      That part is important: it's not a debt owed to Novell, it was always Novell's money. SCO sold something to Microsoft and Sun that it didn't own. SCO had a right to collect royalties, but it was contractually obligated to give that money to Novell and be paid a percentage back. The court agreed and the only question was "Wow much of what SCO sold was Unix and how much was anything else?"

      The only thing left for trial was to figure out just how much money SCO stole from Novell. On the eve of that trial, SCO filed for bankruptcy. Under the law, SCO has a certain period of time where they get to be the first to propose a way out of bankruptcy. They missed every deadline. When the courts had all agreed that their unique opportunity to file a plan had expired, other parties began filing motions.

      Among those filing plans were the U.S. Trustee appointed to oversee the bankruptcy. He felt that SCO had no chance to move forward as an ongoing concern and moved to convert from Chapter 11 (reorganization) to Chapter 7 (liquidation). Novell and IBM agreed.

      SCO's last move wasn't even the eve before this time. They were late to court, and appeared at the last minute (an hour beyond the last minute, actually) with a so-called "plan" to sell the company. The plan basically amounts to selling all the assets to another company and leaving a shell behind to fight Novell, IBM (and Chrylser and other former SCO-unix customers on the basis that Linux violates the copyrights of Unix). Selling the "business" means, essentially, moving all of "SCO's" money to another company and leaving nothing behind for Novell to collect from at final judgment.

      SCO, as I said, showed up late and with only one copy of the agreement for the Trustee, Novell and IBM to see. They objected and asked the judge to move forward with the Chapter 7 conversion motions. They pointed out that SCO was past all legal deadlines. The judge said, and I'm not kidding or exaggerating, "What happens if I don't meet that deadline? Will they take me out back and shoot me?" Thus defying the statues, he gave SCO one more chance and agreed that they will meet in the required 15 days to hear about SCO's plans. The judge ruled that July 16th is 15 days from June 15th...

      SCO is really holding out for an appeal. But they'll never turn everything back. And without the copyrights (and probably even with them), they don't have much of a case against IBM (and IBM, like Novell, has counterclaims against SCO). Red Hat is also suing SCO, also on hold for Novell/bankruptcy.

      This is just a brief overview and I've skimmed over a lot. But no, patents aren't an issue here. If it were, they'd be in Texas, not Utah (or Delaware now for the bankruptcy).

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  6. Litigiousity by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "... with the dangerous litigation spun off safely into a litigation troll."

    Don't count on it. The deal with their lawyers for the lawsuits was, a cut of the winnings if they won, a cut of the company if they lost. They lost. The landsharks inherited big chunks of the bloody corpse. Just imagine them trying to keep from turning the company into a perpetual replay of the last couple years. They'd bust a vein with the effort. I say the company will become the lawyers' hammer for every nail worth suing.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  7. Hey, SCO! by the_rajah · · Score: 3, Funny

    [French_accent] I fart in your general direction.[/French_accent]

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  8. Bet on it! by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whatever they do, it will be the most ridiculous, idiotic, and/or moronic and asinine thing possible!

    Pretty much nobody here is warped enough to predict it right!

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    1. Re:Bet on it! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll have a go. Darl McBride will come out of the woodwork and found to be an alien made robot. Now that his identity doesn't need to be hidden, he unleashes a genetically engineered plague that wipes out all of man kind... except for Hans Reiser. Together they forge an alliance and with the weapons taken from the RIAA, they wage a war against Heaven itself.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Bet on it! by JohnBailey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you just post the script for a new Uwe Boll movie?

      Did you just imply Uwe Boll movies had scripts?

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
  9. RIAA vs. SCO by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RIAA attacks consumers, typically middle class or lower individuals who can't afford to fight back.

    SCO attacks large corporations. IBM, for example, can't afford not to fight back. IBM has deep pockets, and a very diversified business. If it was known as an easy target, anybody and their cousin would sue it for the money.

    Note: I am an IBM employee, but my job doesn't get me anywhere near legal strategy. This is purely my own opinion, and does not represent IBM in any way, shape or form.

    --
    -- Support a free market in the field of government
    1. Re:RIAA vs. SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note: I am an IBM employee, but my job doesn't get me anywhere near legal strategy. This is purely my own opinion, and does not represent IBM in any way, shape or form.

      What has the world become to be, when you have to write such a statement on your post.

  10. Whipping a dead horse by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To be honest we've been worrying about SCO for years now, "the sky is falling" worrying, a couple front page /. articles a month kind of worrying, and to date SCO has won basically nothing, and have done very little actual harm excepting that caused by people worrying about and being scared by them enough to do stupid things they didn't need to do. They've run up some legal bills but they were mostly paid by companies that could afford them like IBM and Novell, and those big companies usually have lawyers sitting around spoiling for a fight anyway.

    I'm making a resolution to absolutely stop caring about SCO until they actually win something in a courtroom or do ANYTHING which actually proves to be a real and substantive threat. Everyone constantly worrying about them has done more damage than if we had just yawned, and said "move along, nothing to see here".

    --
    @de_machina
    1. Re:Whipping a dead horse by oatworm · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, they're basically the North Korea of the tech world? Interesting... I wonder if Mr. McBride is "ronery"?

  11. UnXis by Toonol · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know nothing about the company, but I hate it passionately, if only because of its name.

    UnXis. How the hell are you supposed to pronounce that? Unzis? Unks-is? Un-Eks-is? Damn them to hell.

    1. Re:UnXis by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Funny

      i think that is pronounced Unazis

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  12. pronouced "unctuous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. excessively ingratiating: attempting to charm or convince somebody in an unpleasantly suave, smug, or smooth way

    2. oily, fatty, or greasy: resembling or containing oil, fat, or grease

  13. Re:SCO by Draek · · Score: 4, Informative

    That'd be old SCO then, the infamous jerks are new SCO, formerly known as Caldera Linux before they bought old SCO's rights over UNIX and trademarks for their name, hired a complete idiot as CEO and changed their name to SCO while old SCO changed theirs to Tarantella, were later bought by Sun, who were later bought by Oracle.

    So yeah, its messy.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.