Slashdot Mirror


SCO Zombie McBride's New Plan For World Litigation

eldavojohn writes "Years after you thought it was all over, Groklaw is reporting that Darl McBride (ex-CEO of SCO) has formed a new company that is buying SCO's mobile business for peanuts — but he's also going to get 'certain Intellectual Property' with the deal. You may recall that McBride was the brains behind the Linux lawsuits that SCO launched and it appears he may be orchestrating an exit route where he escapes with some IP intact, in order to wreak havoc once again. Hopefully this is the part at the end of the movie where the zombie comes back to life one last time only to have the hero deliver the final final blow. When this news broke upon the investment world, SCO's stock skyrocketed a blistering 11%, bringing it up seven cents to a full seventy cents — a level which it has not achieved since 2007."

193 comments

  1. Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by lorenlal · · Score: 1

    Indicates that the McBride is interested in brains... He's not. He's interested in trying to exploit patents that he had nothing to do with and not contributing anything back.

    1. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Garridan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If brains are equated to IP, then the comparison is apt. Zombies eat the brains of the living, to the detriment of the living, just to prolong the zombies' pathetic existence. McBride wants to harvest the IP of others, to the detriment of the originators of said IP, only to prolong his pathetic existence.

    2. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Someone get Woody Harrelson on the line. I've seen what he does to zombies.

    3. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Informative

      If brains are equated to IP, then the comparison is apt. Zombies eat the brains of the living, to the detriment of the living, just to prolong the zombies' pathetic existence. McBride wants to harvest the IP of others, to the detriment of the originators of said IP, only to prolong his pathetic existence.

      Perhaps not coincidentally, this also reads a lot like the theme of Atlas Shrugged... except, you know, no zombies and all that.

    4. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      He will lose more money. The guy is a slow learner.

    5. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by ipquickly · · Score: 1

      I think those who hire him are even slower.

    6. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's why he needs the brains...

    7. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Too bad IP can't be equated to brains. Too many shitty patents for that to be even close to a comparison.

    8. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps not coincidentally, this also reads a lot like the theme of Atlas Shrugged... except, you know, no zombies and all that.

      You mean the book where you couldn't speedread a "half-hour speech" in less than an hour (and if you hadn't got the point by that time, you were too dim to get it from the speech)?

      And where all the creative people are staunch conservatives? Unlike, say, this planet where they're more likely to be flaming liberals?

    9. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Shin-LaC · · Score: 1

      I propose a new word for this: "pathentic".

    10. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by denobug · · Score: 1

      Too bad IP can't be equated to brains. Too many shitty patents for that to be even close to a comparison.

      Not all brains are created equal: Some are better than others. So are the qualities of all IPs out there.

    11. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Atles Shrugged Zombies would make a good book.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    12. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "only to prolong his pathetic existence."

      He's rich, and the only people who consider him pathetic are exactly the folks he doesn't care about.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by capebretonsux · · Score: 1

      Or a movie. Get Uwe Boll to direct...

      (The sad thing is that I can just about believe that)

    14. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Garridan · · Score: 1

      a) Rich doesn't imply "not pathetic".

      b) This is generally true about people. If people I don't know personally think I'm pathetic, well, fuck them, they don't know me. Otherwise, people would have long ago been shamed out of spamming, patent trolling, consuming child pornography and engaging in bestiality, to name a few. But guess what? The internet is here to stay.

    15. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Funny how he never loses it all though.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    16. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Maybe Atlas Shrugged should be revised to include zombies. After all, there's precedent.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    17. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Ryan+Hemage · · Score: 1

      Isn't that Bioshock?

    18. Re:Comparing that to a Zombie flick... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      The only problem with your logic: IP is a solely imaginary concept.

      So this is a very very delusional (and also imaginary) zombie, feasting solely on imaginary brains.

      Which makes sense, since only an imaginary being can live off of imaginary brains, and not get upset by energy (or money) preservation laws.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  2. How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

    At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

    Oh and the zombie you thought was the last one, usually is not the last one. History repeats itself, folks.

    1. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

      "How do you kill that which has no life...?"

    2. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by eln · · Score: 3, Funny

      "How do you kill that which has no life...?"

      Are you implying that Slashdotters are immortal?

    3. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

      Oh and the zombie you thought was the last one, usually is not the last one. History repeats itself, folks.

      Not sure about that. You see I bought Left 4 Dead 2 and my combat shotgun works quite well against Zombies. So I think you can at least prevent it from moving after a couple blasts. The cool part is when the witch or a tank shows up. But then I'm getting ahead of myself ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    4. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by kev0153 · · Score: 1

      If it bleeds we can kill it

    5. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      At the end the Zombie comes back, because you can't kill something that is already dead!

      "How do you kill that which has no life...?"

      Sever the head or destroy the brain. The same solution should be effective with McBride.

    6. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it bleeds we can kill it

      Now Get To Da Choppp.. I mean Laawwyer

    7. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      destroy the brain stem to stop future returns. then set the corpse on fire for good measure

    8. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who took my cookies?!

    9. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Don’t need to kill that which you can throw in the meat grinder. Let’s see how much that zombie can do when it’s in the form of burger patties. Unless it got T-1000-like powers, not very much, I guess... ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    10. Re:How many zombie movies have you seen, exactly? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      If a large fungus fits your definition of immortal, then yes. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. Urgent Legal Reform... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 0

    I would urge that all members of the judiciary be issued the implements required for destruction of the undead as swiftly as possible; but I'm not quite sure whether requiring state officers to carry holy water violates the establishment clause or not... Stakes, garlic, and shotguns, at least, should be ok.

    1. Re:Urgent Legal Reform... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Carrying the vials themselves would likely be a violation, unless they were doing so as a personal demonstration of their faith, which would likely be protected unless they did it in the courtroom, which likely would not be protected.

      Another solution would be to provide funding for faith-based initiatives to carry the holy water instead of the judiciary, but leave the initiative open to all faiths and denominations. I'm not sure if others (Hindus, for example) use holy water, or if it any more effective than good ol' Catholic holy water, but by leaving participation open to all, you would likely solve the Constitutional issues.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    2. Re:Urgent Legal Reform... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      hindus use milk (you know, from cows). maybe cow dung is holy to them too. not sure, but let's assume it is.

      that'd be fun. send zombie darl to bangalore, where he'd be received by a bunch of EDS helpdesk operators armed with super soakers loaded with milk and cow dung throwing slingshots.

      i'd pay a pretty penny to watch on pay-per-view.

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
  4. Reading? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    $0.63 + $0.07 = $0.70

  5. Re:Math? by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, but $0.63 + $0.07 = $0.70 and .07/.63 is .111111 or about 11%. I think you misread.

  6. Sigh... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is why the SEC should have gone after McBride and SCO. That this guy, after basically bilking investors (not that some of those investors didn't deserve it) in an obvious pump-and-dump isn't spending time in a Federal prison, but instead is free to start a new company that actually buys up some of SCO's alleged IP to start another round of "litigation as a business model" pump and dumps is beyond me.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Sigh... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Eh, let him try to find investors. Anyone who is dumb enough to invest in his company needs to be separated from their money anyway.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Sigh... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      isn't spending time in a Federal prison, but instead is free to start a new company that actually buys up some of SCO's alleged IP to start another round of "litigation as a business model" pump and dumps is beyond me.

      This will remain the status-quo as long as Corporate personhood is the law.

      You can create a "person" for a few bucks, commit all the crimes you want, and then let that "person" take all the blame for it. You were merely a slave to the corporation. And as an added bonus, there is no criminal law for corporate persons, so they only ever have to cough up some money, and that only after they've killed a LOT of people. Just ask Toyota.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe SCO can go back into the business of developing software for fast food restaurants again, while McBride feeds his last pennies to the lawyers. SCO's stock went up because they finally got some cash from the asshole who ran them into the ground confusing litigation with business.

      I can't wait to see how much their stock goes up when McBride's new outfit sues them. If this new outfit's entire business model is still just litigation a good lawyer might be able to challenge the veil of corporate protection over McBride's wallet if they can demonstrate McBride started the company just to harass people he has grudges against. I am no lawyer, but looking at Enron and the prosecutions there it seems there are limits to how much protection a court will offer criminals through a corporation.

    4. Re:Sigh... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Eh, let him try to find investors. Anyone who is dumb enough to invest in his company needs to be separated from their money anyway.

      You are assuming that they are investing to make money. Microsoft might well invest to prolong the FUD against Linux.

    5. Re:Sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah county Utah is a hot bed for investment fraud too.

    6. Re:Sigh... by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, SCO *does* have people looking to invest in it. Yarro, as proxy for other unnamed investors.

      But what THAT's about, is "who gets the first cut of the SCO corpse"? (They want it, of course!) The terms they want for the loan are outrageous.

    7. Re:Sigh... by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Calling it a "loan" is disingenuous. Yarrow's puppet-masters are buying SCO's assets - and none of the debts - once they inevitably go into Chapter 7.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    8. Re:Sigh... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Oh, he'll find investors. And they won't necessarily be stupid in terms of something you can measure on an IQ test.

      All he has to do is to take advantage of the kind of bug in human cognition that make otherwise sensible people fall for any other scam.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Sigh... by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      Try this out sometime and let us know how it works for you. Big corporations can get away with big problems, but little corps will get their officers thrown in the pen as quick or quicker than sole proprietors.

    10. Re:Sigh... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as 'otherwise sensible people.' They're all morons.

    11. Re:Sigh... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      To some he's the nasty bastard that deliberately drove SCO into the brick wall that is IBM and funneled a lot of the company money to his brother in the form of enormous legal fees for an unwinnable trumped up case based purely on fantasy.
      To others with short attention spans or that have only read the PR he's the guy that took on IBM and would have won too if it wasn't for those pesky kids and their penguin. There was a lot of PR pretending to be news pushing that line, especially from the fake Steve Jobs guy and the Amityville Horror stalker. The PR will have hit it's mark plus there were some that made money on the pump and dump - Darl will find someone else to scam.

    12. Re:Sigh... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The sad part is wondering how many great ideas never leave the ground because investors already have their money invested in scum like McBride.

  7. Re:Math? by lorenlal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Up 7 cents to 70... meaning it was at 63.

    Not to be obnoxious... Just pointing out that I read it too fast to begin with as well. Just double-back next time and try a re-read... well... unless you're frist prosting...

  8. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0.70 - 0.07 = 0.63 0.63 * 1.11 = 0.70 (rounded)

  9. Choke! by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You may recall that McBride was the brains behind the Linux lawsuits....."

    The brains?!?!? Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Choke! by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      Yes. Brains. McBride is surely doing pretty well, financially-speaking. Investors who bought into SCO probably lost their shirts (and the shirts of their clients) but I think he's doing just fine and appears to be in position to start it all over again.

      Sure, he's a scumbag who drove a company into the toilet and pissed away investor's money but I'm sure his bank account will happily report that he's made some smart, if immoral decisions along the way.

      Remember, executives rarely follow the same failure track of their companies...

    2. Re:Choke! by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

      That's what he did all the way to the bank, yes. You're assuming he bought into what he was saying, while I suspect that he and his lawyer brother riled each other up trying to find the most absurd but plausible-sounding legal fillings and PR statements to inflate the stock price over killing a bottle of scotch and released everything they managed to say with a straight face. No player ever announces himself as such, the whole "poor victimized CEO that's been screwed over by IBM and had his precious IP stolen" is playing the act. His apparent ignorance that the whole lawsuit was basically a sham based on IP rights they didn't own is more of the same. He misled people, got lots of money and got away with it. In my book that's a very successful and intelligent con man, despite the faulty moral compass. I suspect if he read your post he'd go "lok, I got you soooooooo fooled".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Choke! by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      Remember, executives rarely follow the same failure track of their companies...

      I hate to admit it, but it's true. Rarely do you see an exec walk away from crap like this without his/her shirt on their back. Hell, most of them get rewarded with a new position in another company.

      Look at what Sol Trujillo did here in Australia. Ran Telstra into the ground and walked away with a huge pay out. While all the mum & dad investors ended up losing their retirement nest egg, he sits there counting the millions he walked away with.

    4. Re:Choke! by fermion · · Score: 1

      Form the zombie guide to management (Z.E.O): Use yours, eat theirs.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:Choke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the millions he managed to get Microsoft to pay him to accomplish all of this.

  10. *sigh* by the1337g33k · · Score: 0

    Honestly, this guy should not be allowed to hold any intellectual property. Any IP this guy holds will have lawsuits attached to it.

    SCO Unix was not a bad operating system, but he literally destroyed the company with all the lawsuits against linux in the name of defending their IP.

    1. Re:*sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Honestly, this guy should not be allowed to hold any intellectual property.

      Actually considering the amount of money he has wasted or caused to be wasted, I would venture to say that the sociopath that he is should not be allowed to breed or to breath. But we don't always get what we want...

  11. Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So it isn't legal to kill him, or have him killed. (So don't try this kids.)

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by decipher_saint · · Score: 3, Funny

      "McBride isn't a Zombie so it isn't legal to kill him, or have him killed. (So don't try this kids.)"

      Is killing a zombie legal outside of self-defense?

      Won't someone think of the zombies???

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    2. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On the flip side it is only illegal if you get caught.

    3. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      So it isn't legal to kill him, or have him killed. (So don't try this kids.)

      I'm suddenly feeling like this thread has turned into a Mafia conversation. "Yes. Please don't hire a hit man. Please don't call Freddy at 555-0129. That's Freddy at 555-0129. His services cost $5,000 per hit plus expenses, so he is quite affordable, but again, I repeat, do *not* call Freddy at 555-0129. After all, that would be illegal. That's Freddy at 555-0129. Don't call him today."

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Is killing a zombie legal outside of self-defense?always self-defense.

      Even if you make a game out of it like "zombie head t-ball" or "see how many times you can shoot the zombie's limbs before it has to start dragging itself after you with its lips". After your thousandth self-defense zombie killing, you start to want to take the edge off the monotony!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      It's illegal either way. There are only direct consequences if you get caught.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      Its not Illegal if you truly believe he is a Zombie.

      OK kids lets all believe real hard!!!!!!!

    7. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      No, it's illegal no matter what. You only get government/society-imposed consequences if you get caught. An act does not become illegal because you were found out.

    8. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Its not Illegal if you truly believe he is a Zombie.

      OK kids lets all believe real hard!!!!!!!

      Way ahead of you. In fact I have trouble believing McBride isn't a Zombie.

    9. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, it's illegal no matter what.

      Well coming from a state where "He needed killin' yer honor." is an affirmative defense might just color my perception of that a wee, little bit.

    10. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      Freddy? Oh you forgot the area code - it's 888-555-0129 but yeah,don't kill 'em ... That would be illegal... A slow death wouldn't be looked upon kindly by the courts ya'know... Don't call him at all. Please don't call Freddy at 888-555-0129.
      Thanks,

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    11. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a legitimate question given the existence of laws against desecrating the dead.

      Well, I guess zombies are technically *un*dead rather than the conventional meaning of "dead", but I don't think the law draws that distinction. Clearly the law needs to be amended before the zombie apocalypse rather than waiting until the catastrophe happens. :-)

    12. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by sconeu · · Score: 1

      There y'go!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    13. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      This is one of the moments when I wonder why it isn't. Personally, my moral code tells me "must not" should be "must".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    14. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      You killed Zombie McBride!
      He was a Zombie?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1
      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    16. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      Won't someone think of the zombies???

      Kids can become zombies, too. Won't someone think of the zombie children??? For one 11 cents a day, you too can feed brains to a zombie child!

    17. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 1

      Damn, it ate my Zombie Sally Struthers tags.

    18. Re:Unfortunately McBride isn't a Zombie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father was a zombie, you insensitive clod!

  12. Re:Math? by One+Louder · · Score: 0, Redundant

    up 0.07$, not up *from* 0.07$

  13. Don't forget.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    the double tap.

    1. Re:Don't forget.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and the cardio.

  14. Re:Math? by Umuri · · Score: 0, Redundant

    x + $.07 = $.70
    x = $.70 - $.07
    x = $.63

    $.07 / $.63 = .111111
    11% rise of 63.

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
  15. Re:Math? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    You need to take some reading comprehension classes. The summary says that it rose $0.07 to reach $0.70, not that it rose from $0.07 to $0.70. So before the increse the stock price was $0.63. And if you do the math $0.07 is indeed 11% of $0.63.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  16. Re:Math? by MasseKid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think I need some more coffee this afternoon. :(

  17. Zombies by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    Having a habit of scanning headlines. I first read this as:

    "Zombies Plan For World Liquidation"

    Maybe I've been playing Left for a Dead a little too much. FML

  18. Darling McBride by Gizzmonic · · Score: 1

    "Darl McBride" just isn't a real name, people. You gotta come up with a more convincing villain name, like, say, "Gorgeous McRib."

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Darling McBride by Dachannien · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Darling McBride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad he is neither named Ken nor has an affinity for forklifts.

    3. Re:Darling McBride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the song, right after the lawsuit,
      it's the return of Darl McBride!
      Let's try-y-y-y-y to kill him with a forklift!
      Ole!

    4. Re:Darling McBride by fnj · · Score: 1

      "Darl McBride" just isn't a real name, people.

      That is very fitting, because this hideously appalling criminal waste of protoplasm isn't a real person.

  19. Here we go again.. by Skatox · · Score: 0

    ..at least we can still reading SCO vs Linux information again. I'm bored without seen news like that

  20. Re:Math? by eln · · Score: 2, Funny

    Next time you want first post, just check the "post anonymously" button and say "frosty piss", or cut and paste a GNAA troll, or say something about CmdrTaco's gay sex orgies (with goatse link!) or something of that nature...you'll get less abuse that way.

  21. Time to take him out back... by M5Hosting · · Score: 0

    Somebody just needs to put this guy out of his misery.

    1. Re:Time to take him out back... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Somebody just needs to put this guy out of our misery.

      Fixed that for you

  22. If the business model works.... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, not the SCO business model. I mean the Darl McBride business model, which is to swindle investors into believing that he can accomplish something in the long run, pocketing as much money as he can, and moving on to the next busload of Wall Street suckers. As long as it keeps incrementing the value in his bank account fast enough, he'll keep doing it. Short of marooning him on a desert planet somewhere -- which entails its own risks -- there's not a lot anyone can do to keep him from grabbing the occasional headline with his latest antics.

    Just be thankful that he isn't working that business model at the same scale as AIG, Bank of America, or Citibank.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:If the business model works.... by shadowofwind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you just described the business model for the entire American economy.

    2. Re:If the business model works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...
      “My friends”, he announced in a voice clear and clean,
      “My name is Darl McMonkey McBride.
      And I’ve heard of Your troubles. I’ve heard you’re unhappy.
      But I can fix that, I’m the Fix-It-Up Chappie. ...

    3. Re:If the business model works.... by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      there's not a lot anyone can do to keep him from grabbing the occasional headline with his latest antics.

      What was that the Anonymous Coward mentioned a little further up the page? The double tap? What was that in reference too? =P

    4. Re:If the business model works.... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You think the business model for the most successful economy on the planet is based entirely upon fraud and deceit? That tinfoil is for saving leftovers and cooking JiffyPop, you look silly with it on your head.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:If the business model works.... by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually right now the most successful economny on the planet is china, if in the traditional sense you measure success in the form of economic growth.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:If the business model works.... by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      At the executive level, a very sizable portion of current profit seeking involves dismantling what was built in previous decades. Its true that its profitable to tear the economy down largely because it was built up so well to start with. But there's still an awful lot of tearing down going on.

      Look at HP, or Sun: shells of their former selves. Semiconductor manufacturing by companies like TI or Motorola? Gone to asia. Machine and other engine parts? Mostly gone. Paper mills? Closed in the 80's. Yes there's still a lot of economic health left, and a lot of good work being done, but a lot of that is also left over from former years.

      Maybe you've got a good job, or you're still in school. I've got strong coding and math skills, a strong work ethic, and I'm unemployed. Most of the jobs I'm qualified for have gone overseas. And its not just wage competition - the outsourcing decisions that I have first-hand knowledge of have mostly been long term disasters for the companies that made them, nothwithstanding the short term decrease in costs.

      Socialism is a worse system to my taste, and I still prefer America and its economy to most other existing alternatives. But the toll that casino capitalism takes is both real and fairly pervasive.

    7. Re:If the business model works.... by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Congrats on the +5 insightful and -1 troll in the same thread.

    8. Re:If the business model works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the underlying theory of modern capitalism involves multiple violations of the Second Law

      The second law of what? I hopped on google, and all it came up with was the second law of thermodynamics, but you can't possibly be implying that the amount of money/value in the universe is fixed in the same way that the amount of energy/heat is (or do you think that early humans were ludicrously wealthy since they were dividing the same wealth between fewer people?). I suppose you could have meant the second commandment ("thou shalt not make false idols"), though I'd say capitalism is far more guilty of violations of commandments 8,9 and 10 (no stealing, lying, or coveting), and possibly commandment 4 ("keep the sabbath holy").

      Seriously, I'm not trying to harass you, I genuinely don't know what second law you could be referring to.

    9. Re:If the business model works.... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      I'm actually referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And no, value isn't limited like energy, but that's because value is imaginary, that is, the value of a thing is just an idea in a human mind. All that's necessary for something to be infinitely valuable or completely valueless is for people to decide that it is so. That said, the value of the things we need to survive tends to be rather more closely tied to its usefulness and availability, similar to the economic notion of supply and demand, at least as it applies to necessities rather than luxuries.

      In material terms, Earth is a closed system. In terms of energy, it is open only to solar radiation, which at present we cannot utilize efficiently enough to eliminate our dependence on purely local, finite sources of energy. Everything we make increases local entropy, which manifests as less available energy resources and less useful matter in the form of waste products that can only be reused through the input of additional local energy. Modern capitalism is essentially industrial consumer capitalism, which is predicated on an ever-increasing population consuming ever-increasing quantities of goods and services. With our current technology, local entropy increases faster than it can be decreased via offplanet energy input -- currently solar, but presumably eventually off-planet fuels for fusion reactors. Obviously, more advanced technology would change the ratio of consumption to available resources, but we're not there yet and apparently not in much of a hurry to get there.

      In short, we sooner or later run out of adequate supplies of usable energy and everything grinds to a halt. Things become quite unpleasant well before then as demand outpaces supply. That intermediate period of increasing scarcity is actually desirable if you've got necessities to sell, though everyone gets screwed in the final crunch. You can see this in the ever-increasing cost of land as there is less and less land available for more and more people to live in. In economic terms, that means that value is being created, but in real physical terms, there is actually less utility per each person's share of the goods.

      What we're doing now is basically what we've done with every initially abundant resource -- the cheap land of the wild west, the buffalo, dammable rivers, oil, etc. As the selling and re-selling goes on, the economic value increases but the underlying real energy and matter is constantly degraded. Worse, the increasing economic value depends on and encourages accelerated increases in entropy. As the imaginary value asymptotically approaches infinity, the practical utility decreases proportionally. The last gallon of gasoline will be unimaginably expensive, but your car won't go any further with it than the much cheaper gasoline of ten years before.

      All of this is moot, of course, if we make it off-planet. It's a huge universe, inexhaustible even by voracious human standards. But at present, we're stuck on a small planet which is for all current practical purposes a closed system, and we can't even visit the moon. Our current economic system is predicated on a state of affairs that does not presently exist. And that's basically what I meant by my earlier offhand remark.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    10. Re:If the business model works.... by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      ..and that's because they are a manufacturing based economy and NOT a service based economy (which is what America has been/being pushed into).

      Service economy = lose in the end.
      Manufacturing economy = win.

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    11. Re:If the business model works.... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Should've said "largest" economy. Because you're right, going by growth China has the rest of the world beat hands down.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    12. Re:If the business model works.... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    13. Re:If the business model works.... by chrb · · Score: 1

      Should've said "largest" economy.

      The European Union?

      (Nominal GDP: EU=$18.394 trillion, US=$14.441 trillion)

  23. Pumping again by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    He's just pumping SCO again so he can make up for his losses. There's always a pool of sucker gamb... investors who will lap this shit up.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  24. No Volume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Up 11% on sub 20k volume. So in other words less than $15k of stock was bought/sold today. nothing to see here

  25. I do not understand by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...who is the zombie: SCO, Mc Bride, or both ?!?

    1. Re:I do not understand by Elky+Elk · · Score: 1

      yes!

  26. You thought you were safe by trurl7 · · Score: 1

    You thought it went away forever. That they would never come back.

    You Were Wrong.

    I Still Know Whom You Sued Last Summer.
    Coming in 2010 to a courtroom near You.

    1. Re:You thought you were safe by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      "The Return of The Son of The Litigator - McBride Rides Again"

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:You thought you were safe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      McBride 2 - The quest for more money.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I am sure McBride has probably made quite a bit of money out of this little scam. This is an example of Ayn Rand greed ideology at its finest, and shows how someones wealth has little to do with how hard they work, otherwise people like Gates or McBride would be broke and Chinese factory workers would be millionaires. Your wealth depends on your ability to exploit others, and generally most millionaires have made their money that way, including legalised forms of this kind of exploitation of the working class. Ayn Rand ideologies are thinly veiled propogation fo ideas which are meant to allow corporate elites to exploit the working class to enrich the rich further and to drive the poor further into poverty. They then dupe ignorant rednecks into electing Randists into power, such as Republicans who proceed to do this. Thus we see in the US a shrinking middle clas, ruined economy while the elites make billions of dollars. THis is why it is time for major reforms of corporatoins to turn them into employee owned democracies foxued on the public good rather than enriching wealthy elites, and establishing maximum salaries for the employees of these corporations.

    1. Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least when your socialist utopia is realized your neighbor will lend you a newline.

    2. Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      You haven't read Atlas Shrugged, have you? If you have you clearly did not understand it. Do not confuse what some people do today to twist Objectivism to their own benefit.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    3. Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      I have not read every page but i have read the synopsis. It is an incredibly arrogant book and it seems to be intentional disfinformation written by pro-corporate shills. Being an engineer myself, I can say she gets it all wrong. Corporations are not a good environment for engineers, the would like to reduce salaries as much as they could, and as well there is little room today for independant research, everything has to generate an immediate profit. The days of Bell Labs are gone, and that didnt even exist in a market environment, it was possible because Bell had a monopoly and a constant source of revenue, that they could throw into such useless projects which would never stand the tests of the market, such as the transistor and Unix. The irony is the government provides a haven for researchers who are interested in research that ultimately expands or database of scientific knowledge and leads to new inventions. Scientists do their work to benefit society, because they enjoy it, the passion they have, money is just a means, really a nuisance, the business aspect that has to be dealt with. Ayn Rand cannot seem to understand how anyone could work to contribute to society or with a sense of generosity or because one enjoys their work, she is a sociopath as for here, everything is based on greed, money is the end rather than means.

      Ayn Rand advocates basically an attack on democracy and is meant to promote an ideology that benefits powerful elitist corporations that are a pernicious vampire that sucks then lifeblood out of the productive areas of the economy, the working class, which includes scientists, architects, farmers, factory workers and everyone else who does the real work that keep things going. Money is, for engineers and scientist, a means rather than an end. They need money to do their research, funding, and ironically in many cases it is government itself which funds their research and gives them more freedom to do as they wish. With corporations rather, the short sighted interests of the markets dominate, so unless something generates immediate return, the money tends to not flow there. Markets are not rational in any way, They can be one of the most irrational forces. The fact we are continue to be dependant on oil, this is sort of one of the set behavioural patterns of the markets that is self reinforcing, it takes planning to break off of it, and the investments needed in renewables needs to take place decades before oil actually starts to run out, long before the problem really becomes critical and apparent that it would begin to affect markets. Even in the death throes of oil depletion, I doubt that there would be able to be, with markets alone, or even with corporations, a smooth transition to a renewable paradigm.

      Ayn Rands ideas ignore the critical balance between government and corporate power. That corporations and corporate amalgamation and control of resources allows for exploitation an control of those who depend on those resources, their control of the markets, capital, prices, wages, and so on them allows them to subordinate the workers beneath an elite and allow for these workers to be exploited, for the work generated from them to be exploited by the elite, with little going back to the productive source. Corporate capitalism is more of a slave plantation system as such.

      Through bad luck, bad things happen to good people. PEople may have an unexpected health problem, or despite their being a talented scientist they may be rendered jobless byu an economic collapse. In these situations it makes since to have insurance systems. That we can benefit from insurance is an inevitable conclusions. It makes sense to have these systems run in a non profit manner and for them to equally available to all persons regardless of income, for them to be democratic and accountable to the people rather than a mechanism for the wealthy to exploit the people to expand their wealth.

      We need to stop judging people by their income. The law income people i know work hardere than any of the

    4. Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you've spoken up and removed all doubt that you know twat about objectivism.

      You're certainly right the evils of the present counterproductive conspiratorial union of megacorporations and government, though.

    5. Re:Insanity Ayn Rand would be proud of by hmar · · Score: 1

      That is one hell of a reading to get all this from a synopsis. Suggestion: read the whole thing. Seriously.

  28. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm very disappointed... CmdrTaco has been having gay sex orgies, and he hasn't invited me?!?

  29. There ought to be a law by TRRosen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really it should be illegal for principals in a bankrupt company to purchase any of that companies assets. In this case he is profiting from running the company into the ground by purchasing assets at cut rate prices with the money he syphoned off from the company.

    1. Re:There ought to be a law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism! Ain't it grand?

      Nothing was stopping you from making an offer on SCO's assets... it's just that you didn't see any value in them (BTW: you == anybody else too).

      The problem isn't that this can be done. Part of the problem is that loose ends remain loose ends after a company goes down, and nobody is aware of those more than the principles in that company.

      This IP loose-end is a copyright issue, and we all know where that is heading.

    2. Re:There ought to be a law by arfonrg · · Score: 1

      Don't blame capitalism, blame the Board of Directors. They could block the sale if they wanted.

      --
      Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  30. PDP-11 Out the 5th Floor Window: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Zombie Kill of the Week.

  31. Put him in carbonite for 25 years by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 1

    How much would it take to put this guy in deep freeze or drug induced coma while all the so-called patents run out... oh.. yeah copyright, oh shit. I hope the cryopumps hold out for awhile..

    1. Re:Put him in carbonite for 25 years by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      Wait, you think Darl would let a silly little thing like *facts* (for example, that a given copyright or patent had expired) stop him from wasting millions of other peoples' money on a lawsuit? If Darl let the facts get in the way of his agenda, he'd have stopped these stupid lawsuits 6 *years* ago. No, total cremation is the only way to deal with this problem. . .

    2. Re:Put him in carbonite for 25 years by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      It would be a real shame if his life support were to fail with him still locked inside. A real shame.

      *Ahem* I said...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  32. wait wait wait... by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    "Video games warped my mind and I truly believed Mr McBride was a zombie when I decapitated him with the chainsaw. As such I am not responsable for my actions as my lawyer Mr Jack Thomson will clearly show."

  33. No, No, NO! by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    You have to use the shotgun and shoot them in the head! Shooting them with a handgun just pisses them off.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  34. Re:Math? by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 3, Funny

    at least 11% more.

  35. Re:Math? by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 1

    His way is 11% better than that.

  36. Outbid him and send him packing by joelgrimes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's only $35k!

    I'll personally commit $100 to create a fund to outbid him.

    Who's with me?

    1. Re:Outbid him and send him packing by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who's with me?

      [sound of crickets]

    2. Re:Outbid him and send him packing by joelgrimes · · Score: 2, Funny

      [sigh]

      Should have known better.

    3. Re:Outbid him and send him packing by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I'm totally with you but you're going about this the wrong way - do what Blender did, to buy out the source code ( and I contributed $25 to that so many years ago ) - start the Foundation to Pwn Sc0, get a site set up get the EFF, the Linux Foundation and whoever else on board and I'm sure you'll have enough for a buyout in a week's time.

      I'm very disappointed that IBM didn't solve this problem years ago.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    4. Re:Outbid him and send him packing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! We can call it the Fund for Organizing Active Development!

  37. Rule No. 4 by DWIM · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gahhh!!! Never forget Rule No. 4: Doubletap!

    1. Re:Rule No. 4 by gurudyne · · Score: 1

      Is two to the chest and one to the head the Mozambique Drill or the Mo' Zombie Drill?

      --
      Hey, Mom! Is it beer, yet?
    2. Re:Rule No. 4 by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Preferably with .45 250 grain silver hollow points. Following up with 5 gallons of gas and a hurled Zippo would only be prudent.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    3. Re:Rule No. 4 by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As Hastur said when asked three times how to pronounce his name: Does not matter, as long as you do it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Rule No. 4 by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If there's been a zombie apocalypse, I seriously doubt you'd have 5 gallons of gas to waste on any zombies you ran across.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:Rule No. 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought rule number 4 was "anyone caught not drinking in their room after lights out will be punished".

  38. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, but this post goes to 11%!

  39. Re:Math? by poetmatt · · Score: 1

    sup darl?

  40. Re:Math? by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know, it's morning here as I read this, and nothing makes me giggle more than a post by someone who misread the article, followed by ten or more posts showing the incorrect math used, examples and why the post is mislead.

    I haven't worked out whether it's
    a) Altruism - No my friend, you got this wrong, here is how you were meant to interpret the article.
    b) Pack mentality - No brother, you need to read it correctly, if we all read it correctly, our slashpack will become the most powerful pack on earth and we will enjoy the good life.

    (It starts going downhill from here)
    c) Nitpicking - You silly slashdotter, you read it wrong, naaarrny naarny nar nar!
    d) Douchebaggery - Check it out, I am so much smarter than you, I am like a million times smarter than you, I read it correctly! Here is how it's meant to be read. Now bask in my glory!

    But whatever the case, it's amusing, and I don't think there are many other sites that give me both nerd news and giggles.

    *sips coffee*

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  41. Oh for the love of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just die already McBride! You've had everything but a stake shoved through your heart and beheading plus soaking in holy water dammit!

    Just die die die!

    1. Re:Oh for the love of... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      His parent just forgot to join him. Now we have to wait for his parent to die, so init can inherit and join him.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  42. Re: Ayn Rand by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    McBride is obviously one of Rand's "Looters" who destroyed or drove out all the producers and innovators, thereby bankrupting the country. Wall Street, government and people like McBride are making a "prophet" out of Rand alright.

  43. Timing by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm, Windows 7 Mobile edition is coming out soon. And the McBrideinator in moving into position for another attack - with mobile patents, perhaps partly based around the use of UNIX in a mobile platform.

    Coincidence?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  44. Is it trollish to conflate two internet memes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...when we're taking the piss out of Darl McBride?

    Darl McBride is my hero! http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1267501606195RA33

    Warning: Definitely NSFW.

  45. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Having read Slashdot since its first year, I'm pretty sure it's mostly (c) and (d).

  46. Darl rewind....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darl has but one innovation
    Which is ill conceived litigation,
    It's a shame he can't find
    Work made for his kind
    But who'd pay him for masturbation?

  47. Re:Math? by zapakh · · Score: 1

    That is perhaps the most pretentious coffee-sip I have ever experienced in text form. My fedora is off to you.

  48. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My fedora is off to you

    And look! The most pretentious tip-of-the-hat!

  49. Re:Math? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, now he'll go and drink eleven coffees at once instead of just one! You bloody murderer!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  50. Pub address - Send me an update... by rozthepimp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..when there are further developments. I'll be at the Winchester.

  51. Re:Math? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    According to the replies' timestamps, I think it was rather e) the lack of pessimistic locking on the comment being replied to, and the resulting race condition of quick arithmeticians who, unlike me, don't realize that a simple refresh to check that someone has indeed already corrected the numerical wrongdoer is often enough due to the excess supply of said arithmeticians.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  52. Re:lack of pessimistic locking by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

    There is no such thing as a lack of pessimistic locking. First in, best dressed!

    --
    You never catch me alive
  53. Re:Math? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, it's morning here as I read this, and nothing makes me giggle more than a post by someone who misread the article, followed by ten or more posts showing the incorrect math used, examples and why the post is mislead.

    I haven't worked out whether it's
    a) Altruism - No my friend, you got this wrong, here is how you were meant to interpret the article.
    b) Pack mentality - No brother, you need to read it correctly, if we all read it correctly, our slashpack will become the most powerful pack on earth and we will enjoy the good life.

    (It starts going downhill from here)
    c) Nitpicking - You silly slashdotter, you read it wrong, naaarrny naarny nar nar!
    d) Douchebaggery - Check it out, I am so much smarter than you, I am like a million times smarter than you, I read it correctly! Here is how it's meant to be read. Now bask in my glory!

    But whatever the case, it's amusing, and I don't think there are many other sites that give me both nerd news and giggles.

    This really should be in the Slashdot FAQ.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  54. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that would be a beret.

  55. Re:Math? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

    Well said. One more mystery of slashdot cleared up - thanks.

  56. Goddamn it!! by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    What do they always tell you?! Hmm?!

    You have to shoot these motherfuckers in the HEAD or they always come back.

    Now we have to go with the nukes from orbit plan.

  57. Re:Math? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    I was kicked out of my slashpack. I'm now a slashpack of one.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  58. Darl McBride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Why won't this cunt die?

    1. Re:Darl McBride by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Awww c'mon, how would we here at /. have our "license" meme without old shitbag Mcbride? I can't believe nobody has posted it yet, so in the tradition of never letting a meme die here at /. I'll do it...

      Pay your $699 license fee, you cock smoking teabaggers!

      But seriously as long as there are patent trolls, copyright whores, and the district of East Texas, I'm sure McBride will continue to stick around being irritating, like a pimple on the ass of society. I'd say the bigger threat would be if old Ballmer gets a brain tumor and decides to go mutually assured destruction on Linux. Sure if big daddy IBM got involved it wouldn't be pretty for either side, but considering how much crap MSFT has patented over the years I'm sure they could send Linux developers scrambling to provide workarounds for the next half dozen years or so. Sure it would be suicidal and stupid, but after releasing the x360 with the whole RRoD problem I'd say there are some serious PHB levels of stupid in that company.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Darl McBride by Golddess · · Score: 1

      They already tried that. A bunch of FOSS developers then said, "bring it".

      Near as I can tell, nothing ever developed from it.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    3. Re:Darl McBride by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      No they didn't, all they did was throw a little FUD, which costs MSFT exactly $0. I'm talking about old monkey boy saying "aww to hell with it" and dragging every single major Linux vendor into court with every thing they've patented in the last forever. Remember the USPTO granted fricking "one click" to Amazon for the love of Pete, so there ain't no telling what kinds of crap is currently owned by MSFT.

      As I said, this would be costly on both sides, but MSFT could afford it. I personally think Ballmer was just throwing FUD before because his lawyers told him that anti-trust would fall like a piano on his head if he actually tried to wipe Linux off the earth. Even though Linux only has 1% of the desktops, and last I checked 14% of the servers (it was on PCWorld by that Linux troll Nichols if you want to look it up) it still gives MSFT the ability to say "see, we are not a monopoly! No sireee Bob!" same as Intel needs AMD to stay afloat in second place.

      But considering the minefield of patents and copyrights it would be a miracle if Linux wasn't infringing on 100s of MSFT patents, just as I'm sure there are at least a couple dozen that MSFT is infringing on Linux. Ehhhh...the whole thing is moot anyway, as MSFT figured out how to backdoor screw Linux by using their own elitist bullshit against them. While the Linux nerds have been offering NO solutions to the mobile problem other than tired old EXT2/3 while screaming "Free as in freedom!" MSFT quietly cooked up ExFAT which Samsung has already jumped onboard and I'm sure the other big mobile chip manufacturers will jump on shortly.

      What this means is in a couple of years Linux is royally fucked. MSFT from what I understand really locked down ExFAT patent wise, so "free as in freedom!" ain't gonna mean jack shit when you can't hook up your camera, cell phone, PMP, etc, etc, and any attempt at a workaround will most likely step right on a MSFT patent landmine and blow up ala TomTom. It is like I've said before...Linux is its own worst enemy. Just as they should have been pushing a FOSS hardware acceleration for Theora right from the start, instead of letting H264 get accelerated on everything from notebooks to cell phones, so did the file limitations of FAT give Linux developers a golden opportunity to come up with a fast royalty free file system to own the mobile space. Instead they only pointed to old ass EXT, which was never made for SSD unlike the new ExFAT, and they've let MSFT walk right in and take another sector without even a fight. Just stupid if you ask me.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Darl McBride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He hasn't LOST his body he has only LOST his mind?

      (All hail our original four toed monster MADISON)

  59. The 1980's called and they want their decade back by fnj · · Score: 1

    Most successful economy on the planet? How's the crack you're smoking on that cloud up there?

  60. Shortselling? by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    I often wonder how many people made small fortunes on short-selling SCO stock. We're talking about a company that was, at one point, trading around $20/share. It's now worth like 50 *cents* per share or something. That's a long fall, there was plenty of potential for someone to make a lot of money shorting the stock.

    I even thought about trying that game, but I was too poor to play a rich-man's sport. That is, even though I was convinced that SCO was a good long-term short sell, the problem with shorting is that you can't always decide when to cover the short, and if someone called your short at the wrong time, you might've lost money. Still, I suspect *someone* made money on shortselling SCO (probably Darl and his buddy Ralph Yarro).

  61. Oh My GOD by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Investors are stupid! God damn it they're just begging to be defrauded! I bet if you started a company whose STATED GOAL was "Defraud investors of millions of dollars," people would invest in it! In fact, I should go do that RIGHT NOW! I should go start a company with the motto "We're not going to make anything, we're just going to take your money and run," announce that we're suing EVERYONE, and see how high the stock prices go. I wonder if Darl's free to run the thing. Hmm, and we're going to need a lawyer... What's Bois up to these days?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  62. Re:Math? by Trails · · Score: 1

    I'll see your beret and raise you a fez.

  63. Re:Math? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Having read Slashdot since its first year, I'm pretty sure it's mostly (c) and (d).

    People talk about Slashdot's signal to noise ratio being low. I don't think they're counting the c and d posts you're referring to.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  64. What is happening to /, ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    How come we have /. posters who can't do math??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  65. Why? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    What hasn't someone shot this asshole yet? I'm only partially kidding. In all seriousness, people like this man are dangerous.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  66. Fantasies by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    I've, on occasion, had fantasies about righting some of the wrongs in this world. I once had a dream about a Matrix-meets-Boondock Saints, where there were vigilantes taking out abusive, greedy corporate types.

    McBride personifies the ideal target for this kind of thing. The man is a worm.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  67. Microsoft was the "brains" behind the scox-scam by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Isn't it obvious? Msft financed the entire scox-scam. The entire thing is just a msft PR stunt. It is supposed to scare people away from using Linux, and it's supposed to scare companies away from contributing to Linux.

    Think about it: how did scox intend to finance the mega-expensive lawsuit? Scox did not have that kind of money - not even close. Then in jumps msft with tens of millions of dollars, how convenient.

    And why sue IBM? IBM was never even a Linux distributor. Hint: IBM had just contributed a file system to Linux, and that p!ssed msft off. If scox thought there was infringing IP in Linux, scox would have sued Redhat. The lawsuit is not supposed to be "won" in the conventional sense. The lawsuit is supposed to be dragged on and on. BTW: I think it's the 7 year anniversary of the original lawsuit.

    Anybody who is familiar with how msft operates should recognize the MO right away. Has anybody noticed that thy usual msft shills - like Enderle - have been championing the scox since day one?

    Darl, and his brother Kevin, are just a couple of Utah hicks who got lucky. They were never the brains behind anything.

    1. Re:Microsoft was the "brains" behind the scox-scam by Bootarn · · Score: 1

      Darl, and his brother Kevin, are just a couple of Utah hicks who got lucky. They were never the brains behind anything.

      So their last name is McBrides?

      (Sorry... I'm from Sweden, and I found that funny.)

  68. Brains? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    You may recall that McBride was the brains behind the Linux lawsuits that SCO launched

    What brains??

    where he escapes with some IP intact

    Repeat after me: THERE. IS. NO. SUCH. THING. AS. INTELLECTUAL. PROPERTY! BITSPACE. IS. NOT. MEATSPACE!
    It’s a physically impossible concept. It’s just as absurd as asking what was before time itself.
    So don’t you ever dare to use that FUD word again!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  69. Re:Math? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    That is perhaps the most pretentious coffee-sip I have ever experienced in text form. My fedora is off to you.

    *sips coffee*

    :D

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  70. It is like that in the UK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In some circumstances in which you show financial incompetence, one of the restrictions you get is the impediment to become company director for 5 years.

    It is not much ( what about with people fronting other person's business) but acts as a big red flag for possible investors in future ventures.

  71. McBride by hackus · · Score: 1

    Number 1:

    He better start his own company, because the only idiot that would hire the guy is himself.

    Number 2:

    Can't wait to NOT BUY A DAMN THING from ANY COMPANY THAT BEARS HIS NAME.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  72. #5 is not the leader by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    actually right now the most successful economny on the planet is china, if in the traditional sense you measure success in the form of economic growth.

    Only if by "most successful" in terms of economic growth, you mean "has the fourth highest GDP growth rate".

    China doesn't even have the highest GDP growth rate if the only countries you consider are China and the countries which border it directly, as Mongolia has it beat.

    (China is farther from first -- about #10 -- in the more meaningful measure of rate of annual growth in the GDP per capita.)

  73. "Hands down"? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    Because you're right, going by growth China has the rest of the world beat hands down.

    By annual GDP growth rate, China is #4 from the most recent stats I've seen, and #10 in annual growth in per capita GDP. In neither case is it fairly characterized as having the rest of the rest of the world beat hands down.

  74. "McBride was the brains" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Illogic error.
    Redo from start.
    Improbability factor infinite.

  75. Re:Math? by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

    I peer through my monocle and raise my topper.

    I'd like to see you cap that.

  76. Ahhh, memories..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember the days when it was enjoyable to go to work at SCO. When Doug ran the company and actually cared for his employees. Life was good. Then, we were purchased by this little Linux company from Utah called Caldera. At first nothing really changed except the logo on my paycheck. Then, the soda machines in the break room vanished and I had to take a pay cut. Then I started recieving daily account closures from HR and another pay cut. I watched the company having 1600 employees world wide to just over 600 in a matter of 2 months. oh yea, I got another pay cut. I was one of the lucky ones, I was part of the last round of employees to get a severence package. The few employees left behind didn't get one.