SCO Puts Unix Assets On the Block

itwbennett writes "SCO Group announced Thursday that it plans to auction off most of its Unix assets, including 'certain UNIX system V software products and related services,' ITworld reports. 'This asset sale is an important step forward in ensuring business continuity for our customers around the world,' said Ken Nielsen, SCO chief financial officer, in a statement. 'Our goal is to ensure continued viability for SCO, its customers, employees and the Unix technology.' Interested parties must submit a bid for the assets by Oct. 5."

Comments

Can they do that?

[Archangel Michael]

I thought Novel owned Unix and only licensed it to SCO, and that was already settled. How can they sell Unix if they don't own it?

Re:Can they do that?

[spun]

They didn't say they own Unix, this time. They said they own Unix technologies and "certain UNIX system V software products and related services." Meaning, SCO Unix. Anyway, the news here is that they are officially not any sort of software or technology company anymore, they are now officially nothing more than a shambling, undead lawsuit factory. I suppose the one guy who still licenses anything SCO related will be happy they are selling his support contract to someone else.

Re:Can they do that?

[mark72005]

They're about to sue Linus Torvalds, after which they will own everything. (maniacal laughter)

Re:Can they do that?

[JDmetro]

http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=2648

Re:Can they do that?

[grub]

I think "it it plans to auction off most of its Unix assets" means they plan to sell off their O'Reilly books on eBay.

.

Re:Can they do that?

[Archangel Michael]

Spun wrote

They didn't say they own Unix, this time.

Press Release says

Even as it continues to battle for Unix ownership in court, the SCO Group plans to auction off most all of its Unix assets, including "certain UNIX system V software products and related services,"

Yes they are certainly still claiming ownership of Unix.

A Judge enjoin them from selling anything while the lawsuits against them are adjudicated.

Re:Can they do that?

[spun]

Gah! Really?!? You mean to tell me you actually read the article? My God, what has Slashdot come to? We do not read articles here. Here, we make uninformed and inflammatory comments about the poorly written and factually incorrect summary, mister.

Seriously though, thanks for pointing that out. Ownership of the generic trade name "Unix" and copyright is something different from ownership of SCO Unix. But still, if the judge enjoined them from selling anything, I don't see how they can legally do this.

Re:Can they do that?

[Archangel Michael]

I know I know. My Bad.

I've been around almost as long as you, I should know better. Can I chalk it up to being a newbie??? ;)

Re:Can they do that?

[spun]

Sure thing, six digits. :)

Re:Can they do that?

[KlomDark]

Whoa, look, there ARE still a few of us 4-digit people around! :)

Re:Can they do that?

[EQ]

More of you 4 digits than us 5 digits, I think. Seems our attrition rate is higher.

Re:Can they do that?

[ImprovOmega]

Well, the Unix trademark is owned by The Open Group. You can't call your OS Unix without going through them. The argument SCO was trying to make was that AT&T sold the original Unix source tree copyrights to Novell (which did happen - Novell paid ~$300 million for it), but that then Novell turned around and sold the copyrights to SCO (which did *not* happen - the deal with SCO was for ~$50 million about 2-3 years after the AT&T deal). Instead, SCO actually bought rights to develop and market their own version of Unix (called Unixware) and access to a number of distribution channels, plus kickbacks for collecting Unix licensing revenues for Novell (SCO got 5% as an administrative fee).

Of course, everything was cool until about 8 years after the original agreement, after the company changed hands about 3 times and new management took over. At which point Darl McBride and company started jumping up and down screaming "WE OWN UNIX!!" and suing/threatening to sue everyone and their mother. The nonsensical litigation dragged on for these past 7 years, with IBM and Novell being the primary players (Novell has judgments in their favor declaring that they do, in fact, own the Unix copyrights - SCO is appealing, naturally).

At this point in our sad, sad story, SCO is in chapter 11 bankruptcy (and has been for over three years) with a trustee now running things. Because the lawyers are pre-paid through all litigation and appeals, it looks good on paper to continue the litigation lottery in hopes of getting some settlement to shut up. Of course, IBM has a point to prove, and the Unix copyrights are worth too much to Novell to suffer an adverse judgment, so SCO will get nothing there.

Anyway, with that backstory told, my point is that the bankruptcy judge hasn't enjoined them from anything, in fact he's approved the terms of the auction. So there is no legal hurdle to prevent them from doing this. Though it is definitely a case of "caveat emptor" because the buyer may end up with a whole lot of nothing when all is said and done.

Re:Can they do that?

[Isaac-Lew]

I almost want to say "get off my lawn"...

Re:Can they do that?

[darkpixel2k]

More of you 4 digits than us 5 digits, I think. Seems our attrition rate is higher.

I've always been sorta curious...did any of the 3, 4, or 5 digit slashdot users managed to breed. If so, do your offspring surf slashdot?
Do they have digits 6 to 10 digit range?
Have you left your sub-six-digit username and password to your children in your will?

don't forget to pay your $699 license fee

[FuckingNickName]

you cocksmoking teabaggers!

Re:don't forget to pay your $699 license fee

[grub]

Sheesh, the mods have short memories and/or no sense of humour.

Re:don't forget to pay your $699 license fee

[bsDaemon]

yeah, or maybe a post comprised entirely of "you cocksmoking teabaggers" is just sort of trollish?

Re:don't forget to pay your $699 license fee

[cmiller173]

The subject line "don't forget to pay your $699 license fee" is part of the post ... and the joke.

$699 !

[Anonymous Coward]

Do unto others ...

Microsoft Should Buy Them

[smartin]

They could use a decent operating system to sell

Re:Microsoft Should Buy Them

[mark72005]

Too bad Microsoft is infringing on no fewer than eleventy billion SCO patents too.

We're finding places where, line by line, they have stolen code that we stole from someone else!

Re:Microsoft Should Buy Them

[Enry]

I see you're not familiar with Xenix.

Re:Microsoft Should Buy Them

[Pharmboy]

No, Microsoft was a concerned enough corporate citizen that they were the FIRST to pay big money to acquire a license to said technology. That was even before SCO found the money to start all the lawsuits, ironically.

Re:Microsoft Should Buy Them

[Greyfox]

Wow. Hmm, if I had to choose between using SCO UNIX or MS Windows, that would be a tough call. I've had to use SCO UNIX on a few projects and just despised the system. Of course, most of that was being cockblocked by missing system components that SCO wanted another $1500 for. By the time you finish getting SCO UNIX fixed up to the point where it's usable (strictly from a user-interface perspective) you may as well have just installed Linux anyway. At least then you'll have a decent packaging system.

I guess MS could buy the kernel and bundle it with apt, gcc and Windowmaker and sell it as "Windows 8"...

Re:Microsoft Should Buy Them

[Anonymous Coward]

Cygwin on windows is a better unix than OSX is.

Re:Microsoft Should Buy Them

[Alien Being]

I always read their willingness to pay differently than you.

1. MS is so freaking huge that it would be stupid to not pay chump change for the "rights" to a major chunk of worldwide computing technology.

2. By paying, they "legitimized" SCO's claims and thereby helped to put a big question mark on the viability of Linux.

3. They were also backdooring money to SCO in furtherance of #2.

You can spin it any way you want but it was never anything more than racketeering by SCO and MS.

Let's bid on it

[MrEricSir]

Maybe we could all get together and chip in a buck or two to buy the assets, then open-source the whole thing.

How does that sound?

Re:Let's bid on it

[oldspewey]

I'll put in twenty bucks, but only if the deal includes me giving Darl McBride a swift kick in the nuts.

Re:Let's bid on it

[drfreak]

I'm not a SCO Unix guru by any stretch of the imagination, but having used it casually for years I don't see anything in it of value which does not already exist in Linux or the BSDs.

I think Darl McBride had the same thought. In choosing litigation over innovation, to quote the guardian of the Grail in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: "He chose poorly."

Re:Let's bid on it

[Bing Tsher E]

Unlike most commercial Unixes, it's never really had any cutting edge features (unless you consider "runs on x86 hardware" to be cutting edge, which it may have been twenty-odd years ago)

Well, 30 years ago Microsoft Xenix supported five users concurrently on an 8086 processor with 512K of RAM. The users connected to serial ports on the box and used dumb terminals. It's a somewhat impressive accomplishment. I still have one of them, an Altos 586.

Re:Let's bid on it

[Trailer Trash]

There *is* a business model there, though. SCO Unix sucks by today's standards but is widely used in a number of vertical markets. All of them are ripe for replacement with Linux. Buying the assets and creating an "official" migration path to Linux, supporting and maintaining current users, and turning it into a service company could likely be a decent money maker. SCO was making money before they set out on these ludicrous lawsuits. Their revenue was declining as they refused to embrace Linux, but, well, that's the key, right?

First Bid!

[Skjellifetti]

$0. SCO doesn't have any Unix assets.

Re:First Bid!

[ByteSlicer]

Someone should buy it for $699.

Re:First Bid!

[sconeu]

SCOXQ already has a buyer in mind (probably Yarro), or they wouldn't do this auction.

Re:First Bid!

[ChefInnocent]

Maybe, but this isn't Soviet Russia. So instead we will have:

1. Buy SCO Unix assests.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

As long as we're selling software we don't own

[Zeek40]

Would anyone like to buy the rights to OS/2 products systems and services from me?

Re:As long as we're selling software we don't own

[mark72005]

As your customer, will you ever-so-graciously promise not to sue me for using Linux?

Re:As long as we're selling software we don't own

[Zeek40]

Sure, but I'm pretty sure there's some infringing code in some version of Windows somewhere. I'm definitely gonna sue you for that one. I mean both operating systems have GUI's, so they must have copied the code straight from my stuff, right?

$1.73 million

[jbeaupre]

$1.73 million buys the whole company. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOXQ.PK

Re:$1.73 million

[haruchai]

Just when I thought my opinion of them couldn't fall any lower.

What assets?

[Locke2005]

Unless by "assets" you mean "little asses", I don't think SCO has any. Besides which, can't Novell confiscate assets as part of the settlement of it's lawsuit? Seems to me there are a lot of interested parties that would request the judge freeze any sale of assets.

Auction?

[multipartmixed]

I bid 50 quatloos on the newcomer!

Caldera (caldera) - noun

[Picass0]

A smoldering hole in the ground, watched by many for signs of activity leading to great destruction. Usually produces little more than some noise and gas.

Re:regex

[Zeek40]

SCO Ps U Asss O h Block

Does that mean something in a foreign language or something?

They already did!

[FranTaylor]

Xenix anyone?

Re:They already did!

[mrbill1234]

SCO Unix is not Xenix. SCO UNIX was based on System V R3 - Xenix was based on - Xenix :-)

Xenix came from Microsoft. It originally ran on the 8086, then the 80286, then a 32-bit version was released.

SCO UNIX only ran on a 32-bit processor (386 and above).

Xenix was a pretty nice OS - available WAY before any other UNIX like OS ran on commodity hardware. You could easly run 16 serial terminals on a 286. Running 4 terminals on an 8086 was also no problem at all.

Of course, this was all when SCO was "The Santa Cruz Operation" - the original SCO - not the new "SCO Group" which it ended up being called after being bought by Caldera.

Re:They already did!

[Eunuchswear]

Microsoft no longer owns Xenix, SCO does (no seriously). SCO Unix is Xenix.

You gotta love slashdot mods: "informative" my ass.

SCO Unix is not Xenix. SCO Unix is not even Xenix compatible.

Here's what happened:

1. Microsoft write their first Operating system, a 16 bit version of Unix for the 8086, called Xenix because at that point you weren't allowed to call it Unix unless you were AT&T.
2. SCO buy a license to Xenix and make some 286 versions of it.
3. AT&T and Interactive port Unix SVR3 to the 386
4. SCO ports Xenix to the 386
5. AT&T and SCO make Unix SVR3.2, which is Xenix compatible, for the 386. At this point if you boot Unix SVR3.2 you see a Microsoft copyright,
6. SCO starts selling SCO Unix (SVR3.2), eventually abandoning Xenix, but still paying licensing to Microsoft for the Xenix compatibility code.
7. AT&T and Sun produce Unix SVR4, merging some Sunos stuff into SysV, still licensing stuff from Microsoft
8. AT&T and Novell produce UnixWare, SVR4.2, still licensing stuff from Microsoft
9. AT&T sells Unix to Novell
10. Novell sells UnixWare (but not Unix) to SCO
11. SCO produces various versions of UnixWare, still paying licensing to Microsoft. It starts proceedings against Microsoft (In the European court of justice AFAIR) and was finally released from the licensing deal if it removed the Xenix compatibility code from UnixWare, which it did.
12. SCO was still selling SCO Unix (now SCO OpenServer) the SVR3.4 based system which includes the Xenix compatibility code alongside UnixWare, which now didn't.
13. SCO sells UnixWare and OpenServer to Caldera (it's more complicated than that, but...)
14. Caldera (having renamed themselves [T]SCO[G]) replace the SVR3.2 kernel in OpenServer with the "SVR5" (SVR4.2 renamed for marketing reasons) kernel from UnixWare, so OpenServer no longer needs licensing from Microsoft.

So not only do [T]SCO[G] not own Xenix, they don't sell Xenix, and they aren't even Xenix compatible.

Maybe I obsess to much about this nonsense? See my pseudo.

Propagation

[carrier lost]

Maybe Paul Allen will buy them.

Amazing

[sjames]

Absolutely amazing. They haven't had a modern up-to-date system in ages, it turns out they didn't even own what they claimed to own. They got rid of the only people who had any hope of maintaining anything technically back in the '90s and they tried to defraud everyone in reach. And yet, all these years later the corpse is still twitching.

It's like the end of the horror movie when the monster shows some vague sign of life just as the credits roll.

Re:Amazing

[The Damned Yankee]

Just wondering: When, exactly, will the credits stop rolling? This corpse has had so many silver bullets pumped into it that it's getting assessed by mineral developers.

Re:SCO's Auctions....

[larry bagina]

The Unix name is owned by the Open Group, which certifies a system (eg, AIX, OS X, Solaris) as being Unix.

Re:They are trying to get bought

[AnonymousClown]

This will make their debt the responsebillity of the buyer and not the management

No it won't. They're only selling the assets and not the business entity. If they were selling the whole SCO enitiy - if someone bought all the outstanding common stock - then you would be correct, IIRC business law.

If you look at most business sales, the buyer only purchases the assets - includes any trademarks and other IP. Sometimes, as part of the deal, the buyer will take on some of the debt. SCO is in bankruptcy, this is strictly an asset sale and the proceeds will go to the creditors.

It goes for the liabilities too. By purchasing just the assets, the previous entity keeps the liabilities (lawsuits, judgments, and years ago, any environmental liabilities). That's the basics and there's a shit load of subtleties that the lawyers worry about - especially when it comes to environmental problems.

Groklaw coverage of the event

[mrflash818]

Groklaw has mention of the event, too:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100916121940186

System V source code

[plcurechax]

I take it this does not include a complete set of System V (Release 4.2 or 5) source code does it?

Having never seen any AT&T Unix code newer than the reprint of Lions' A commentary on the Unix Operating System, (based on V6 - 1975) and the "ancient" Unix source from The Unix Heritage Society.

It would be purely academic and novelty, but it would be of geeky interest to have access to System V's source code.

Don't forget...

[Nimey]

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

What SCO's selling...

[rnturn]

... is probably a bunch of old crap that's on QIC-02 tapes.

I still have bad memories of having to use SCO back in the mid/late-90s. When I left that job, I left the SCO manuals -- that I bought on my own dime -- in the bottom drawer of my desk. I couldn't bear having any evidence of having used that atrocity of a UNIX; didn't want anyone to know I'd been exposed to it. They might ask me to work with it again.