Slashdot Mirror


SCO Group Files For Chapter 7

New submitter rkhalloran writes "The remnants of the failed litigation engine that was the SCO Group has finally filed for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. 'There is no reasonable chance of "rehabilitation."' Groklaw describes the recent filing (PDF) thus: 'I will try my best to translate the legalese for you: the money is almost all gone, so it's not fun any more. SCO can't afford Chapter 11. We want to shut the costs down, because we'll never get paid. But it'd look stupid to admit the whole thing was ridiculous and SCO never had a chance to reorganize through its fantasy litigation hustle. Besides, Ralph Yarro and the other shareholders might sue. So they want the litigation to continue to swing in the breeze, just in case. But SCO has no money coming in and no other prospects, so they want to proceed in a cheaper way and shut this down in respects to everything else.' I guess that means the lawyers will suck the marrow from the carcass and leave the bones to bleach out in the sun."

190 comments

  1. good riddance by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully this will be a lesson to other companies who compete using lawsuits rather than customer service.

    1. Re:good riddance by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Good riddance

      Maybe not quite yet... Someone could buy the portfolio, no?

    2. Re:good riddance by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good riddance

      Maybe not quite yet... Someone could buy the portfolio, no?

      ONOS! Not teh Micorsfots!

      Honestly, I think they have enough on their plate, trying to head off Andriod and iOS. More money into research and do some skull cracking of those departments who refuse to work together (read: support their employer, rather then empire building) and Microsoft could have a chance .. in a few years.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:good riddance by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2

      Well, Apple has that lawsuit going on right now... so I don't think they've learned any lessons from this yet.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    4. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully this will be a lesson to other companies who compete using lawsuits rather than customer service.

      Yup, this was an extremely successful campaign to keep everyone tied up in litigation.
      MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

    5. Re:good riddance by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm a little surprised that IBM didn't buy their portfolio a long time ago. Unless they were waiting for the price to go down. Come to think of it, it probably has.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:good riddance by dbIII · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really. One of the lawyers sucking the marrow from the bones was Darl's brother.
      It's like deliberately crashing the company car into a wall so your family's repair business can get some work.

    7. Re:good riddance by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're making scandalous sums in royalties from Linux and Android. What do they care, now that the IP litigation is impossible? For Microsoft, this is Profit: stand up you PC and Phone Makers: On the left, is the $$ you'll pay for using Linux (so you won't get sued) and on the right is the $$ you'll pay for integrating that Android Stuff.

      And if you think we were fooling, here's our RT tablet. Open the wallets or die! That's the mantra.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    8. Re:good riddance by couchslug · · Score: 2

      "Hopefully this will be a lesson to other companies who compete using lawsuits rather than customer service."

      Companies are expendable paper constructs which can be and are blithely created and destroyed. They are "game characters".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    9. Re:good riddance by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Maybe not quite yet... Someone could buy the portfolio, no?

      A portfolio of what? Unsubstantiated lawsuits? I thought people usually buy assets.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:good riddance by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that'll teach you, other companies. Frivolous copyright litigation will lead to bankruptcy. A decade later. Maybe.

    11. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From wikipedia:
      "On April 9, 2010 [Darl] McBride purchased the SCO Mobility intellectual property from The SCO Group for $100,000.
      The company is now known as Me Inc. and as of June 10, 2011, McBride is President and CEO"

    12. Re:good riddance by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      If they're making scandalous sums off of android and Linux that just means android and Linux are worth scandalous sums of money and then some. It legitimizes the platforms just that much more. Patents run out so the racket can't last forever and when it's over Linux will still be there. How much are they making off of windows phone again?

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    13. Re:good riddance by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Probably amused them more just to bleed them dry in court. IBM's patents have patents so I doubt they give a shit about a toy company like Santa Cruz Operations.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    14. Re:good riddance by Quila · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not really. Those in charge get to skate with their money. They're free to try it again with another company.

      What they need in this case is piercing of the corporate veil. Those who started this, and cost other companies so many millions of dollars in this bad-faith fraud, need to be held personally accountable.

    15. Re:good riddance by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm a little surprised that IBM didn't buy their portfolio a long time ago.

      Portfolio of what? A jury decided that Novell owned the old Unix copyrights and SCO only had one patent.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    16. Re:good riddance by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Not really. Those in charge get to skate with their money. They're free to try it again with another company.

      Darl managed to lose all or most of what he got from SCO, I think his house was foreclosed on some time after he lost his job at SCO.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    17. Re:good riddance by jd2112 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, Apple has that lawsuit going on right now... so I don't think they've learned any lessons from this yet.

      Well, Apple does have more of a case with the rounded corners thing than SCO had with it's 'stolen' source code...

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    18. Re:good riddance by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What intellectual property could they possibly have, except for the trademark and an old OS that nobody cares anymore?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    19. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the executives got paid for most of it's lifetime. They just proved that while not a plausible way to run a business, it is a plausible way to make money.

    20. Re:good riddance by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The bastards have been going on for, how long now? Even after they were supposedly believed to be shut down for good? It's not that easy for a company, even as worthless as SCO, to go down. They might still linger... but hopefully they don't.

    21. Re:good riddance by shentino · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, we heard u liek patents so we put a patent in your patent so you can sue while you sue.

    22. Re:good riddance by bender183 · · Score: 1

      ha! good riddance is _exactly_ what I said when I read the headline of this story. I guess they ran out of money to pay lawyers. What a shame.

    23. Re:good riddance by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're making scandalous sums off of android and Linux that just means android and Linux are worth scandalous sums of money and then some. It legitimizes the platforms just that much more. Patents run out so the racket can't last forever and when it's over Linux will still be there. How much are they making off of windows phone again?

      By the time the patents have run out they will be obsolete and will have been replaced with something else that MS is claiming they own. The problem isn't that Linux might be infringing MS patents, its that MS will never tell anyone what those patents are to give Linux a fighting chance of avoiding infringement. Someone needs to call MS's bluff and go to court over this so the patents get exposed. Companies that threaten alledged infringers but won't say what is being infringed really should have to forefit those patents.

    24. Re:good riddance by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? The guy is the President and CEO of Me Inc. and owns the SCO Mobility intellectual property. I bet the guy puts that on his linked in, personal website, email signature etc. For $100,000 that is some cheap fun designer bragging rights.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    25. Re:good riddance by gmack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Buying the portfolio would have been settling and it's also exactly what SCO(TSG) wanted them to do but IBM has a scorched earth policy when it comes to lawsuits. When sued, IBM will call in the lawyers and fight for every penny even if the resulting litigation is more expensive than the settlement would have been. It makes each lawsuit more expensive but it discourages others from trying and you can see the result: IBM doesn’t' get sued anywhere near as much as other tech firms.

    26. Re:good riddance by DrXym · · Score: 2

      The source code to SCO Unix must be worth something to somebody. There must be a lot of point of sale devices and servers dotted around running it that still need some kind of support.

    27. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. One of the lawyers sucking the marrow from the bones was Darl's brother.
      It's like deliberately crashing the company car into a wall so your family's repair business can get some work.

      If your drunken, drug-addicted, mentally challenged brother is careening around the 'hood being a menace in the company car he's probably going to crash the damn thing sooner or later anyway so you might as well make what profit you can out of the situation.

    28. Re:good riddance by Splab · · Score: 2

      Do enlighten us on how they do that, because that sure as hell aint exactly obvious to the rest of the world...

    29. Re:good riddance by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      The gist of your post is fine, but this sentence is ridiculous:

      Companies that threaten alledged infringers but won't say what is being infringed really should have to forefit those patents.

      If the company won't say which patents they is talking about, how are you going to those patents away from them?

    30. Re:good riddance by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

      *they _are_ talking about

    31. Re:good riddance by FireFury03 · · Score: 2

      The gist of your post is fine, but this sentence is ridiculous:

      Companies that threaten alledged infringers but won't say what is being infringed really should have to forefit those patents.

      If the company won't say which patents they is talking about, how are you going to those patents away from them?

      Because when company A threatens company B by saying "Linux infringes a number of our patents but we're not going to tell you which, pay us a licence fee in order to avoid court action", company A would automatically forefit those patents. Now, you're right that no one will know which patents they are forefitting, but it does mean that if company A subsequently sues someone for infringing their patents through the use of Linux, they have now revealed some of the patents they have forefitted and therefore have no suitable patents left to continue that court case. The upshot of this is that there is no reason for company B to ever pay the licence fee because they know that if it goes to court, the patents will be invaid.

    32. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully this will be a lesson to other companies who compete using lawsuits rather than customer service.

      The lesson being that, with a few shady financial backers and a lunatic CEO and board, a company can engage in nearly 10 years worth of baseless litigation before finally succumbing to its entirely self-inflicated wounds. I still don't understand how Yarro and other big shareholders sat by and watched as Captain "what the fuck is that?" McBride steered the good ship SCO from frying pan to the fire, and then in to a volcano or something. Was Yarro being compensated for his impending losses as his SCO stock went south, or was he just bored of having stock worth something?

    33. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they won't say which ones they're talking about, just take all of them.

    34. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing something I don't like but I won't tell you what....

      Boy I'm getting mad, you're REALLY making me upset.....

      You want to stop bothering me?!?? But then I can't throw a tantrum, so I wont tell you what you're doing to bother me.

      This behavior in other social situations is extremely wrong and frowned upon. Linux doesn't WANT to breach your stupid patents. Tell us what they are so we can rip it out. But no you want to complain.

    35. Re:good riddance by rkhalloran · · Score: 2

      The only code SCOX holds any rights to is whatever additions were made to Unixware *after* the deal; they had a *redistribution* license for the UNIX codebase from AT&T/USL/Novell same as IBM, HP, Sun, etc. Santa Cruz *wanted* the codebase, Novell wanted out of the UNIX business, but Santa Cruz Operation (!= SCO Group) couldn't produce the money, so what they got as a sop was the royalty collection business from the other source licensees. They got to deal with the billing, collection, etc and keep 5% for their trouble, forwarding the rest to Novell. Given the rapid decline of SCO, most POS platforms have moved off SCO Unix. Autozone got their own lawsuit for quickly and *publicly* porting their POS system to Linux, SCaldera claiming it couldn't have been done without using their libraries. There was a sealed settlement for apparently minimal $$ proving again the shaky basis for these lawsuits. I still believe SCO's plan all along was to get bought out by IBM to shut them up. Once IBM declined and blackened the Utah sky with lawyers, it's been a case of seeing how long they could dodge the bullets. Looks like it's finally over.

    36. Re:good riddance by denvergeek · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what Barnes and Noble was doing regarding the Nook? Or did that not go anywhere?

    37. Re:good riddance by oakgrove · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone needs to call MS's bluff

      B&N did and apparently it worked out pretty well for them.

      By the time the patents have run out they will be obsolete and will have been replaced with something else that MS is claiming they own.

      True that but every Android or Linux unit that shifts may be 5-15 dollars in MS' coffers but it represents one atomic unit of less direct influence they have over the market. I'd rather they get a patent fee than an in the field Windows license.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    38. Re:good riddance by zish · · Score: 1

      Maybe not quite yet... Someone could buy the portfolio, no?

      Come on over and bid on the Humble Legal Bundle!

      --
      Spork.

      P.S. Spork.
    39. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't making a penny from either, they are giving you a heavy discount on their products such as windows and word, if you agree - under NDA - to pay them a token amount for linux/android "patents" and let them claim to the press you are licensing these patents.

      Barnes and Noble called on their bluff, they ended up running scared to drop the case before the whole racket was revealed (and indirectly invested in BN so they shut up).

      In the Apple vs Samsung, Microsoft is desperate trying to keep their licensing agreement with Samsung sealed.

    40. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do tell the infringers. They just don't tell YOU.

    41. Re:good riddance by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      This was a copyright case, not a patent case.

      The case failed because 1. They didn't own the copyrights in question, Novel owned them, 2. Linux didn't copy the code in question; and 3. Both SCO and Novel published the disputed code under the terms of the GPL meaning that even if they did own the copyright and even if it had been copied into Linux, they had permission from the copyright holder to do so.

      As a result, there is nothing for Microsoft, IBM, or anyone else to buy.

    42. Re:good riddance by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Two words: Design Patent.

      It works a bit differently than you think.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    43. Re:good riddance by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I can appreciate that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    44. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darl managed to lose all or most of what he got from SCO, I think his house was foreclosed on some time after he lost his job at SCO.

      So maybe he's figured out how to avoid paying the bank what he owes them, but he's still in the $1 million dollar house.

    45. Re:good riddance by Splab · · Score: 1

      Two words: ignorant twat!

      What kind of stupid answer is that?

      You answer a question with an assertion that I don't know anything, yet you don't answer anything.

      The point of my statement is that both those cases are blatantly stupid lawsuits, both allowed in a fucked up legal environment.

      Also you are an idiot. There I said it and I feel better.

    46. Re:good riddance by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Apparently you're too drop-stupid to know how to use Wikipedia, so I'll help you out.

      In other words, not only do you not know shit about patents, but you don't know shit about how to do some basic research.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    47. Re:good riddance by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      iPad manufactured with rounded corners vs nothing.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    48. Re:good riddance by microbox · · Score: 1

      Can you provide a reference to this information?

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    49. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's why there is only one acceptable response to being served: "I'll see you in court."

      of course, that only works if you have nearly unlimited funds -- and unlike most other players in this game, IBM does have ongoing revenue. LLNL isn't going to suddenly replace all of their hardware any time soon...

    50. Re:good riddance by whoever57 · · Score: 1
      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    51. Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The concept that a corporation shields owners of personal responsibility is inherently wrong. Penalties should be tied to owners depending upon the degree of ownership and degree of control over business actions.

    52. Re:good riddance by shentino · · Score: 1

      I hope the trustee learns a lesson about withholding funds from a creditor that has a constructive trust.

      I hope novell sues for negligence.

    53. Re:good riddance by shentino · · Score: 1

      Basically proof that MS is more interested in extortion than compliance with their patents.

    54. Re:good riddance by shentino · · Score: 1

      Conflict of interest much?

    55. Re:good riddance by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 1

      Maybe not quite yet... Someone could buy the portfolio, no?

      Probably not. IIRC, the claims got sifted down to a relatively few lines of code. Most of these were akin to "standards essential". One small block was the register push/pop sequence for interrupt service routines. This can be done one way, more or less, [due to the Pentium's architecture] and, thus, can't be copyrighted [see Judge Alsup's decision in Oracle v. Google as he gives an excellent [42 page] explanation of the law in these matters].

      The ISR code was in the Linux kernel from at least 1993 [I have a source CD from that era and I had looked it up]. I believe that predates the initial SCO deal with Novell?

      --
      Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
  2. ... and on this day... by logicassasin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... not a single f_ck was given.

    SCO got on the shitlist of many a person and corporate entity with their senseless trolling. I'm surprised that it took this long for them to finally hit rock bottom.

    --
    Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
    1. Re:... and on this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... not a single f_ck was given.

      SCO got on the shitlist of many a person and corporate entity with their senseless trolling. I'm surprised that it took this long for them to finally hit rock bottom.

      The reason why it took so long was the huge injection from BayStar and the cash train from Redmond. If you know anything about what really went on just look into how and why Novell/Suse is surviving this nonsense. Fact is the real target of all this crap was RedHat and the server side of Linux and the main antagonist was and still is Microsoft.

        Sco was just a fishing and fud throwing expedition and to a large extent it succeeded. Windows has gained server market share because of all the fud. The money channelled into Sco from Microsoft to do all this bullshit is small change in comparison to the market sales they gained in the high end server game.

    2. Re:... and on this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and yet anyone with a clue will choose Linux over Windows anywhere but the desktop.

    3. Re:... and on this day... by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      finally hit rock bottom

      More like they finally ran out of shovels.

    4. Re:... and on this day... by oakgrove · · Score: 2

      Maybe so but Linux went though the copyright trial by fire against some very powerful enemies and when it was done and over, Linux came through looking better than ever. So when the FUD slinging starts, this is an easily cited IP victory.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    5. Re:... and on this day... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are reasons to choose Windows over linux.

      Reason the first: Exchange.

      Incidentally, I think Ive found a good way of figuring out which posters have a clue: those who say that their product / OS / device is the best option for all scenarios, dont.

    6. Re:... and on this day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the proxy wars just worked out great during the cold war for everyone involved....

    7. Re:... and on this day... by adolf · · Score: 0

      ... not a single f_ck was given.

      Who are you censoring yourself for? Can't you just use the word? And if you don't want to use the word due to some sense of moral obligation, can't you come up with some better verbiage?

      More to the point: On what planet would "fuck" be deemed offensive, but "f_ck" be perfectly OK?

    8. Re:... and on this day... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Maybe so but Linux went though the copyright trial by fire against some very powerful enemies and when it was done and over, Linux came through looking better than ever. So when the FUD slinging starts, this is an easily cited IP victory.

      And yet MS is still raking in the cash over patents they claim Linux is infringing...

    9. Re:... and on this day... by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      It is national don't type that letter day. Insensitive clod. :)

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    10. Re:... and on this day... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      well, one was, but SCO was on the receiving end

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    11. Re:... and on this day... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Oh. Y_o got me on that one: I didn't _nderstand that we were still doing that.

      D_ly noted. I won't make this mistake in the f_t_re, I ass_re you.

    12. Re:... and on this day... by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of these things called word filters? A lot of people read /. from work and don't want to get flagged by the profanity filter so appreciate people making the effort to not f_ck things up for them.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    13. Re:... and on this day... by unapersson · · Score: 1

      I thought that at first but I'm not so convinced any more. I get the impression it's like those deals where companies buy out each other using stocks. So the licensing money paid is offset by free Windows Phone licenses or some other similar wheeze.

    14. Re:... and on this day... by cupantae · · Score: 1

      those who say that their product / OS / device is the best option for all scenarios

      ...which wouldn't include the person you're replying to.

      --
      --
    15. Re:... and on this day... by cupantae · · Score: 3, Funny

      Y_o

      I'd say stick to the German, Adolf.

      --
      --
    16. Re:... and on this day... by subreality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If someone is reading at a company with a filter so invasive that it's counting the number of fucks on a random web site, then perhaps they shouldn't be reading slashdot at work. I'm generally not very profane, but I will not bowdlerize myself for the convenience of people fucking around on paid time.

    17. Re:... and on this day... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      If someone is reading at a company with a filter so invasive that it's counting the number of fucks on a random web site, then perhaps they shouldn't be reading slashdot at work. I'm generally not very profane, but I will not bowdlerize myself for the convenience of people fucking around on paid time.

      The children! Think of the f_cking children!

    18. Re:... and on this day... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      And yet MS is still raking in the cash over patents they claim Linux is infringing...

      If they're raking in cash then that means Linux units are shifting. What is better for Linux, more mindshare from more Windows licenses in the field or a paltry patent fee and less mindshare due to a Linux unit in the field and the Linux using OEM gets a share of the profit.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    19. Re:... and on this day... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      If they're raking in cash then that means Linux units are shifting. What is better for Linux, more mindshare from more Windows licenses in the field or a paltry patent fee and less mindshare due to a Linux unit in the field and the Linux using OEM gets a share of the profit.

      You're making it sound like anyone is benefitting from MS charging a licence fee on Android. Paying MS a chunk of money for each Android device doesn't decrease the windows mindshare whilst it does support MS for doing basically nothing. The licence fee isn't "paltry" - I certainly would prefer my phone to be $15 cheaper. If you don't mind paying people who've done nothing to help produce the thing you're buying, how about you give $15 to me the next time you buy a phone? I've probably done about as much as MS to further the development of Android..

    20. Re:... and on this day... by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Paying MS a chunk of money for each Android device doesn't decrease the windows mindshare whilst it does support MS for doing basically nothing.

      If a consumer buys an Android device in lieu of a Windows device be it phone or tablet then that does dilute Windows' mindshare. Not only that but it is a precedent at least in the tablet space since most people are used to equating computer=Microsoft and tablets while not completely breaking that chain of thought certainly weaken it. Most people aren't rich and if they buy a tablet at all only buy one so if they're buying an Android they are almost certainly not buying another Windows laptop or any hypothetical Microsoft tablet. I am not wild about the patent license thing but it is what it is right now so we have to accept it. The silver lining is that while it seems like a lot of money it is "paltry" compared to what MS and its ecosystem partnerswould have gotten had they sold an entire device instead of just taxing the Android one. When a tablet sells at least a couple of hundred dollars are made on it by the various entities in the chain. The OEM makes money, their suppliers make money, MS makes money, the retailer makes money etc. If that unit shifts with Windows everybody knows about it and it strengthens the collective resolve to promote those products but if Android or Linux shift then the opposite happens and while MS gets their patent fee, they lose the after sale leverage over the consumer and they lose that tiny amount of grip over the supply chain. They would gladly give up that patent fee to sell Windows units even if it meant making nothing in the process because of the overall effect.

      MS' greatest power is mindshare with the consumer and their OEM licensing power and they are loath to lose even a little bit of that. It's like back in the netbook days, they turned on a dime to give away XP and that was just to fight pathetic little Linpus Linux on the Eee PC. Right now they are completely flipping their number one flagship product around and pissing a lot of people off in the process just to compete with the iPad. And the iPad sells nowhere near what PCs sell in a month. Yet they are going so far as to force not-Metro on their server product. They don't give a shit about the patent fees on Linux and Android as even hundreds of million a year are a drop in the bucket compared to Office and Windows profits. What they want is to sew FUD and when people get up in arms over it the FUD is working. I hesitate to use a charged word but it is almost a form of terror (no disrespect to real terror victims) and if you play along and get scared, they win. Just pay the fees and get over it because in the long run they still lose.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    21. Re:... and on this day... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      If a consumer buys an Android device in lieu of a Windows device be it phone or tablet then that does dilute Windows' mindshare.

      Correct, but that is irrespective of whether MS is making cash out of it. No one is going to say "well, I was going to buy a Windows phone, but since I can give MS $15 by buying Android I'll do that instead".

      The silver lining is that while it seems like a lot of money it is "paltry" compared to what MS and its ecosystem partnerswould have gotten had they sold an entire device instead of just taxing the Android one.

      Well, not a huge amount more actually - Windows Phone 7 licences go for $20-30 a pop, so MS only charges marginally more for a whole OS than they do to licence a few questionable patents for Android. Luckilly, Android currently appears to be what the customers want, so the fact that the vendors end up paying MS about the same whatever OS they use doesn't affect what is offered to the consumer.

    22. Re:... and on this day... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much.. it's like paying a hooker then bragging to your friends the day after that you got laid.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    23. Re:... and on this day... by adolf · · Score: 1

      Good call.

    24. Re:... and on this day... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, I think Ive found a good way of figuring out which posters have a clue: those who say that their product / OS / device is the best option for all scenarios, dont.

      I've generally found that to be true.

      There are reasons to choose Windows over linux. Reason the first: Exchange.

      I have no use for Exchange, so er, which camp are you in? As to Windows on the desktop, for most enterprises, Windows may be the best choice. For a non-gaming home user? Linux beats Windows hands down. For a hipster with a lot of money? Apple, obviously.

      Please tell me what advantage Windows gives ME, a user with an XP box (because EAC won't run on the other two computers), a Windows 7 (not pro) box, and a kubuntu box? Linux lets me network all three, even though the Windows 7 docs say I have to have W7pro on the network for it to connect. Windows 7 has some glaring deficiencies compared to kubuntu, please inform me why you think Windows is superior?

    25. Re:... and on this day... by Filgy · · Score: 1

      Get the fuck out. (Posting from work).

      --

      -- filgy
    26. Re:... and on this day... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I have no use for Exchange, so er, which camp are you in?

      Im in the camp where the most a particular brand means to me is the track record it has. I use Exchange and love it, but think ISA server is a piece of garbage-- pfSense is MUCH better. I love catalyst switches, but Im not a huge fan of the general overkill nature of Cisco's SMB routers and think their "business grade" linksys stuff is crap. I like HP laptops, but think their printer / software division needs to be shot. And while I generally loathe the Apple culture and pricepoint, I think they DO have some cool stuff.

      Basically, if you delve into fanboi-ism, you end up missing all the cool things that different vendors can do. You might decide to go full-on Google, but you'd end up missing the unique features that Live Mesh had to offer. Part of being a good IT guy is having a wide knowledge of the options out there, and being able to choose the right one based on technical merit and suitability, not your own baseless bias (though I readily admit I AM biased towards OSS).

  3. sigh. by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    And nothing of value was lost.

    1. Re:sigh. by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but the chapter 11 bankruptcy administrators earned a lot of money and ensured that none of it went to actual creditors.

    2. Re:sigh. by shentino · · Score: 2

      Speaking of which wasn't there a constructive trust involved?

      I think that there may well be a case for negligence against the trustee for not sending that money Novell's way pronto.

      The court already decided the money was already Novell's and that it wasn't even supposed to be part of the bankruptcy estate to begin with.

    3. Re:sigh. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, they'll send a few cents to Novell. But they have administrative fees to collect first. That means however many lawyers you have multiplied by hourly rates, suck up any excess cash fast. No one would ever be an administrator if they had to do it for free, and extremely few would volunteer for it if they couldn't make good money at it.

  4. Ding Dong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the Witch is dead!

    1. Re:Ding Dong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but in Hollywood movies the baddie allways gets back up for one last try at the end. You know there is allways a sequel!

    2. Re:Ding Dong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This IS the sequel :)

    3. Re:Ding Dong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding Dong! The SCO is dead. Which old SCO? The Wicked SCO!
      Ding Dong! The Wicked SCO is dead.

      Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
      Wake up, the Wicked SCO is dead. SCO's gone where the goblins go,
      Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.
      Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
      Let them know
      The Wicked SCO is dead!

    4. Re:Ding Dong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...that's the evil witch of the East you killed. You still have to deal with the Wicked witch of the West. she's even worse ..."

  5. Let's not forget by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ralph Yarro enriched himself tremendously. While SCO the company might be bankrupt, a lot of the money ended up with him.

    Robert Penrose and Val Kriedel (Noorda) both committed suicide over their involvement.

    Tens of thousands of us were damaged in some way.

    1. Re:Let's not forget by ackthpt · · Score: 0

      Ralph Yarro enriched himself tremendously. While SCO the company might be bankrupt, a lot of the money ended up with him.

      Robert Penrose and Val Kriedel (Noorda) both committed suicide over their involvement.

      Tens of thousands of us were damaged in some way.

      It's a sad thing to drive past the old Santa Cruz Operation buildings, over near Harvey West Park, remembering better times for the company and people. I once attended a free JSP session there when SCO hosted the author and was kind enough to provide refreshments. So much potential, so rudely squandered.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Let's not forget by Chas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nonono.

      That was Santa Cruz Operation.

      COMPLETELY different outfit.

      The people hearing the *FLUSH* right about now were The SCO Group (aka Caldera Systems, later Caldera International).

      Essentially, they bought some of the original SCO UNIX IP when Santa Cruz Operation became Tarantella Inc.

      Later, they entered into a licensing agreement with Novell to collect fees based on THEIR copyrights.

      Caldera, having delusions of grandeur, decided that they'd *bought* all that UNIX IP, didn't pay Novell a dime, changed their name to The SCO Group, and decided that they'd try to take ownership of ALL *nix by trying to collect royalties on anything *nix derivative (including Linux, which they'd contributed to). They somehow thought that holding huge companies like IBM hostage. Apparently they forgot that IBM's lawyers were INFINITELY nastier predators than ANYONE they could afford to hire.

      Not to mention incoming and outgoing lawsuits squaring off against RedHat, AutoZone, SGI, and Daimler Chrysler.

      The only thing that kept them afloat that long was intervention by Microsoft, looking to chum the waters further.

      In short, the asscreants at The SCO Group (a group of litigation-happy IP trolls who didn't do their homework) have jack and shit to do with the original Santa Cruz Operation (a group of technologists).

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    3. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This.

      I had the pleasure of working for the Santa Cruz Operation. Say what you will about its flavor ("The McDonald's of UNIX" and the inexplicable "SCO OK" attempt to ape "Designed for Windows" branding, which was immediately renamed by techies to "WTF? Scook?!"), it was a fantastic place to cut my teeth.

      The SCO Group can die in a fire, and should have done so years ago. The Santa Cruz Operation was a place where techies could tinker on stuff largely unimpeded by management, and I remember my days there findly.

    4. Re:Let's not forget by NJRoadfan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm still trying to figure out what happened to Caldera. They used to have a their own Linux distribution and tried to make it user friendly with the Looking Glass Desktop. They even ported Sun's WABI to x86 Linux. Back in 1997, they were pretty much viewed as a Linux company. Groklaw did a nice piece about it: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080807125817699

    5. Re:Let's not forget by jbgreer · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits against their customers? You're kidding, right?

      --
      The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 4th Ed., Vol 2
    6. Re:Let's not forget by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "Apparently they forgot that IBM's lawyers were INFINITELY nastier predators than ANYONE they could afford to hire."

      Ehhh..I dunno. SCO had Boies Schiller, IBM had Morrison Foerster, they're both kind of operating at the same level.

    7. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't that Oracles lawyer in v. Google? Isn't he tired of getting his ass kicked by team Linux yet?

    8. Re:Let's not forget by Chas · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Their initial releases of Caldera OpenLinux were some of the most user-friendly Linux installs EXTANT at the time.

      Stupidly easy to navigate. And while it installed, they gave you a game of TETRIS to keep you occupied.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    9. Re:Let's not forget by Chas · · Score: 1

      Basically they tried to extort unwarranted "license fees" from any and ever avenue they could find.

      And anyone who didn't play ball got served.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    10. Re:Let's not forget by Chas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, but IBM is the birthplace of "Here's the first tractor-trailer of paperwork. Where do you want the OTHER hundred and thirty seven?"

      It's a commonly known fact that IBM's lawyers eat their own children... =)

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    11. Re:Let's not forget by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Nonono.

      That was Santa Cruz Operation.

      COMPLETELY different outfit.

      The people hearing the *FLUSH* right about now were The SCO Group (aka Caldera Systems, later Caldera International).

      Essentially, they bought some of the original SCO UNIX IP when Santa Cruz Operation became Tarantella Inc.

      Later, they entered into a licensing agreement with Novell to collect fees based on THEIR copyrights.

      Caldera, having delusions of grandeur, decided that they'd *bought* all that UNIX IP, didn't pay Novell a dime, changed their name to The SCO Group, and decided that they'd try to take ownership of ALL *nix by trying to collect royalties on anything *nix derivative (including Linux, which they'd contributed to). They somehow thought that holding huge companies like IBM hostage. Apparently they forgot that IBM's lawyers were INFINITELY nastier predators than ANYONE they could afford to hire.

      Not to mention incoming and outgoing lawsuits squaring off against RedHat, AutoZone, SGI, and Daimler Chrysler.

      The only thing that kept them afloat that long was intervention by Microsoft, looking to chum the waters further.

      In short, the asscreants at The SCO Group (a group of litigation-happy IP trolls who didn't do their homework) have jack and shit to do with the original Santa Cruz Operation (a group of technologists).

      Yes, I knew all that. What's your point? The buildings are still there and what could have been a noble enterprise was turned into a monster.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    12. Re:Let's not forget by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Sorry. IBM had Cravath, Swaine and Moore. *NOVELL* had the MoFos.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    13. Re:Let's not forget by stasike · · Score: 1

      Yes, you knew that, and yet you called them "The Santa Cruz Operation." Santa Cruz operation was entirely different company. This bankrupted company is Caldera, later renamed "SCO" [that is: NOT Santa Cruz Operation] in an attempt to muddle things. Apparently they were highly successful.

    14. Re:Let's not forget by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it was sad to see Caldera plummeting into the abyss of incompetent leadership and negative strategy.
      I was one of those users of the quite nice Caldera OpenLinux on a 486 back in the last century. I moved thence to SuSE (before Novell purchased it) and subsequently to the *buntu family.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    15. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Essentially, they bought some of the original SCO UNIX IP when Santa Cruz Operation became Tarantella Inc.

      The same Tarantella that was later bought by Sun Micro; which was later bought by Oracle.

      I got a chance to play around with Tarantella's products before they became Sun's and, later, with the Sun-branded "Secure Global Desktop". Very nice stuff. No idea if that holds true today.

    16. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonono.

      That was Santa Cruz Operation.

      COMPLETELY different outfit.

      The people hearing the *FLUSH* right about now were The SCO Group (aka Caldera Systems, later Caldera International).

      ..

      From Wikipedia:

      A caldera is a cauldron-like volcanic feature usually formed by the collapse of land following a volcanic eruption.

      HAHA

    17. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that all rights to the Unix trademark went to the Open Group, but SCO did acquire USL from Novell, which would imply rights to all AT&T code, which for Unix was all under USL. I agree that their claims on Linux were bogus, but as far as their claims on Unix IP itself goes, that seems to be valid. Not the tm, which Novell had turned over to the Open Group, but the actual code itself. It's worth noting that the only brand of Unix that was ever SVR5 was Unixware 7.

  6. Who-hoo! Time to get that source code cheap;) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll chip in $5.00 if they provide it on a nice big flash drive.

  7. Zombie Corp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a feeling that they will be one of those corporations that rise back from the grave in a few years to continue to attempt to survive off others.

    1. Re:Zombie Corp by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have a feeling that they will be one of those corporations that rise back from the grave in a few years to continue to attempt to survive off others.

      Can we just skip ahead to whatever comes after, "the lawyers will suck the marrow from the carcass and leave the bones to bleach out in the sun."? These guys are like one of those bad zombie movies where the zombies keep coming back; even after the credits are done.

    2. Re:Zombie Corp by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Already happened. They've "transferred all their assets" to Unxis Inc, which according to Groklaw seems to be comprised of many of the same people from SCO Group. Even their website has been hastily and lazily re-branded in a "we barely care if you don't believe us" sort of way:
      http://www.sco.com/

    3. Re:Zombie Corp by crutchy · · Score: 1

      survive off others

      sounds like the motto of every corporation

  8. Re:Who-hoo! Time to get that source code cheap;) by Sygnus · · Score: 1

    I'll chip in $5.00 if they provide it on a nice big flash drive.

    I'll chip in $6.99. ;)

    --
    First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting. :) -- Illiad
  9. No longer SCO by ClaraBow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I went to www.sco.com and lo and behold a new company has emerged from the ashes!

    1. Re:No longer SCO by landoltjp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From the "Company Profile" page:

      "UnXis, Inc., a new company formed by Stephen Norris Capital Partners and MerchantBridge Group created to acquire all the operating assets and intellectual property rights of The SCO Group, Inc."

      However, I like this line:

      "Led by a team of visionary and accomplished technology and businesses executives"

      *chuckle*

    2. Re:No longer SCO by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > "Led by a team of visionary and accomplished technology and businesses executives"

      Really? Like, from where?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:No longer SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      all the operating assets and intellectual property rights of The SCO Group, Inc.

      Plus they got a couple of empty cans with a 5 cent refundable deposit.

    4. Re:No longer SCO by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Bankruptcy assets, I fear...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:No longer SCO by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Business executives are bankruptcy assets? Wow.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:No longer SCO by TangoCharlie · · Score: 2

      I like the comment on this page which says "UnXis's award-winning Global Services offer a complete portfolio[...]". Which "Awards" exactly? Buying the remains of SCO probably $600k down-the-drain. I also note on the The OpenGroup's website (the owners of UNIX), that they (TheOpenGroup) own the trademark UNIXWARE. So what do UnXi actually own? A few hundred thousand lines of unmanageable and out of date code? Seriously guys, Unixware and OpenServer are deader than a dead thing with dead dangly bits.

      --
      return 0; }
    7. Re:No longer SCO by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, I guess you're right, they're more a liability.

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

      "Led by a team of visionary and accomplished technology and businesses executives"

      I think they mean "hallucinating".

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    9. Re:No longer SCO by Shagg · · Score: 1

      Close... but you have an extra "t" in there somewhere.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
  10. 7-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SCO filed for chapter 11 back in April of 2011 and now they're filing for chapter 7. Can someone explain what the two together might mean for SCO Group?

    As a former SCO Unix user (for work) I just want to say that nothing of value has been/will be lost.

    1. Re:7-11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SCO filed for chapter 11 back in April of 2011 and now they're filing for chapter 7. Can someone explain what the two together might mean for SCO Group?

      As a former SCO Unix user (for work) I just want to say that nothing of value has been/will be lost.

      Chapter 11 was a corporate adjustment to try and get the company going again. It could not happen so Chapter 7 is invoked which is liquidation. The company goes out of business and its assets are sold off with the proceeds divided among creditors.

    2. Re:7-11 by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      SCO filed for chapter 11 back in April of 2011 and now they're filing for chapter 7. Can someone explain what the two together might mean for SCO Group?

      Chapter 11 means you're trying to reorganize the company to come out of bankruptcy protection again, typically by making a deal with your creditors and/or selling off assets, IP rights or parts of the business. Chapter 7 is liquidation, it means all their assets will be sold and the company will cease to exist.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:7-11 by sconeu · · Score: 2

      SCO filed Chapter 11 back in 2007, on the eve of the Novell trial.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:7-11 by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 1

      Yup. I had the unfortunate chance to study the various options for myself, finally choosing to just pay my debts myself, instead, since a bankruptcy is so invasive and expensive. Student loans are choking me, but those ones are unassailable by bankruptcy, anyway. The chapters are similar for businesses, but an order of magnitude more complicated to file, due to the various assets and debts a business owns, compared to an individual. If interested, here's what I found:

      7 is a "cut and run", admitting total inability to pay, wiping all un-secured debts (credit cards, medical bills, etc but NOT secured debts like student loans, mortgages, or liens). They take anything considered an asset, too, such as a second car, etc. They leave you a total value allowance to keep some of your stuff, and take the rest to sell off. The recommendation I got was to sell off these items myself prior to filing bankruptcy, applying the proceeds to secured debts, or else I'd lose them to the unsecured debt settlement. 11, on the other hand, is a "buy a few years to pay off debts, at a (hopefully) reduced rate". You get to keep most everything, and get the chance to settle or negotiate reduced payments, but every creditor gets a piece.

      Chapter 13 is a kind of the weird one: it's basically a court-appointed debt consolidation, with weirdo or specific rules set by the court. It's usually used to prevent foreclosure during repayment, though the foreclosure resumes at the end of the bankruptcy repayment time (assuming the home isn't brought out of foreclosure proceedings in the meantime). It also lets you discharge (wipe clean) certain debts that 7 doesn't allow.

      Then you have Chapter 12, which is only for farmers and fishermen. From what I gather, it's an 11 with much better repayment and negotiation options options.

      Lastly, a 7 is cheaper to file than an 11, or a 13. Amusingly, the lawyer will only bill you AFTER the bankruptcy. ;)

  11. Worse than Lost by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 2

    Nobody who died on that show stayed dead. Like SCO, they kept bringing them back for one more episode. Well, its time to let go, SCO. Walk off into that bright light.

    1. Re:Worse than Lost by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      But at least the average network knows to keep a show dead when nobody wants to watch it anymore. And SCO jumped the shark years ago.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Mod this up, lol by Grog6 · · Score: 2

    SCO fits the 'green and warty' set pretty well. :)

    Although the Scooby Doo ending is also appropriate; "They'd have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for PJ."

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  13. Let's all lock arms and dance by PRMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ding, dong, the witch is dead...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  14. Don't forget by BluPhenix316 · · Score: 2

    You gotta shoot the zombie in the head........

    1. Re:Don't forget by crutchy · · Score: 1

      in this case the head has initials DM, and unfortunately he's still alive

  15. Groklaw is back? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought PJ closed Groklaw. Did she change her mind?

    1. Re:Groklaw is back? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I thought PJ closed Groklaw. Did she change her mind?

      No, she handed it off. Still pops in sometimes, though.

      Thanks to such shenanigans as the Apple sueage machine and Oracle v. Android, there's more than enough fodder to keep Groklaw going even if SCO could finally be reduced to its component atoms.

  16. Interesting by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am curious what SCO will do with its UNIXWare product portfolio. I would love it if Unixware source code would be made publicly available on a public domain license. There is no telling what exciting things will change in the current open source world.

    1. Re:Interesting by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      It will be sold off to the highest bidder just like every other asset

    2. Re:Interesting by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      If it is maintained at all like their Xenix product now called OpenServer I am sure everything is 20 years old and has not been updated in years. Seriously it like a timewarp on that thing! Does Unixware even come with x11R6 from 1999 yet or is it still X11R5? ... and here I am criticizing XP for being a decade old.

      I know the source code is very historic but it is not practical to run it today. The 1977 AT&T source code is freely available if you google it as well as as some ancient PDP-11 C compilers from Denis Ritchie.

    3. Re:Interesting by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Having developed for OpenServer and Xenix, I must correct you.

      OpenServer is not Xenix. OpenServer is an SVR3 derivative. UnixWare is their SVR4 product. Xenix died with Xenix/386.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree w/ the op. SCO, as the owner of USL, had full rights on AT&T code (although not to the extent they imagined), while Caldera at the time had a distro second only to RH. Incidentally, the last thing they were working on was Monterrey for itanium. One correction above - Unixware 7 was based on SVR5, not SVR4. At any rate, had SCO combined the best of svr5, Linux, and even things in Xenix or ODT/OSE and ported them to Suns, HP and others, they'd have done just fine.

      Does anyone know whether whoever ends up w/ their remnants can release it under something like GPL? Since nobody has any use for it? Or can companies whose parts they were using, such as Symantec/Veritas file system, prevent them from doing it?

  17. Oh no! by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where else am I going to buy that cutting edge modern SCO OpenServer that runs on so many different varieties of hardware that has a steal price of only $1800 for a TCP/IP stack to connect to the internet plus +$799 per core!

    1. Re:Oh no! by Pyrus.mg · · Score: 1

      For now the same place as before. I'm sure they'll have a new domain and team of lawyers soon.

    2. Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was forced to run a couple instances of OpenServer 5 and 6 at a company so scared of change it was still using dial-up for communication between branches. So... awful.

      My only suggestion to those still suffering a similar fate is to replace everything with GNU utilities. SCO OpenServer 6 is so borked.

    3. Re:Oh no! by ntropia · · Score: 0
      Why I didn't know about this masterpiece before?

      An IDC survey of 1000 IT professionals found UNIX to be superior to Linux in multi-processing, integration, security, and skills availability.

      Here it is, black on white, the reason why Linux sucks: everybody knows that UNIX has better skills availability (go ahead, try "modprobe skill_avail" on your open source rip-off free OS)

      The greatest improvements in OpenServer 6 include multi-threaded application support [up to no less than 32 processors, gentlemen], large file support (up to 1 terabyte)

      That's right: others would have stopped at 16 cores, but hey, this is UNIX(c), babe, they've earned that "X" at the end of their name!

      OpenServer 6 customers have reported up to 1000% increase in performance.

      That would explain the lack of that hnd_brake process that was constantly running with 99.9% CPU usage in their previous version.
      And if this didn't knock you off from your chairs yet, here come the frosting. Recent improvements include (among others):

      Flash Player Support

      and ... wait for it...

      USB modems/serial adapters.

      Now, once I've managed to convince my boss to sign for these these $25568 for our 32 core machine, I just have to figure out if I have to file this clearly "competitive advantage" under

      low total cost of ownership

      or under

      established reseller relationships.

    4. Re:Oh no! by crutchy · · Score: 1

      rip-off free OS

      its funny how so many people say this about Linux, but are unable to actually quote the parts that are ripped off (even in a courtroom), and even with full access to the Linux source code

  18. SCO's Intellectual property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep wondering: is there any IP there that somehow could be gotten cheaply and freed? Perhaps there's not a lot with commercial value (any more), but it might be stuff that could be used in one Open Source project or another?

  19. Correctm they are just rebooting by tlambert · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are coming back as UnXis, and they are still asserting that Linux is infringing their intellectual property, including the McBride letter:
    http://www.sco.com/5reasons/#5

    It's a coventure between Stephen Norris Capital Partners and MerchantBridge Group. Stephen Norris' biography includes the former presidency of the Carlyle Group, who tried to invest in SCO in 1998, in a deal netting his group 51% ownership with a court filing that included the statement "provides that the reorganized SCO will pursue the Novell/IBM litigation and other pending litigation claims aggressively,".
    http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_8267122

    MerchantBridge Group is a very deep wallet:
    http://www.mbih.com/
    Eric le Blan of MerchantBridge is Chairman at UnXis.

    I do not expect this saga is over.

    1. Re:Correctm they are just rebooting by TangoCharlie · · Score: 1

      UnXi's claim that you link to http://www.sco.com/5reasons/#5 is just lies. In the UK, I think the Trading Standards Authority would have something to say. If one thing is now clear, SCO never owned the rights to Unix, never owned unix, still don't own unix.

      --
      return 0; }
    2. Re:Correctm they are just rebooting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, some of the other stuff on that page is ancient.

      For example, take the McDonald's information. A quick search on LinkedIn reveals that John Doty hasn't been with McDonald's since 2001.

  20. too late by slew · · Score: 2

    Apparently, a shell company called UnXis bought all that was left of SCO (except the lawsuit) for $600K. I'm assuming SCO lawyers got some money from some Dubai emirate to set UnXis up and then proceeded to dump that money into SCO so they could bleed it out. Now that money is gone, so Chapter 7 it is...

    All that Unixware/OpenServer source base belongs to them (not us).

  21. SCO financial model? by dgharmon · · Score: 1

    I've got an accumulator bet on a number of horses at odds of 1/2349088560, would anyone here like to invest in this legitimate business opportunity.
    --

    ref: "the Chapter 11 Trustee believes that it is in the best interests of the Debtors' estates and its creditors to continue the prosecution of the District Court Action, which was the subject of this Court's Order Granting Stipulation and Order Modifying the Automatic Stay [D.I. 1396]. Based on these circumstances, the Chapter 11 Trustee requests that this Court grant the Motion to convert these cases as soon as possible".

    --
    AccountKiller
  22. My thoughts on SCO by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    Aren't you dead yet?

  23. Zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brain eating and blood sucking zombies.

    'And everything seemed to be going so well', from SinCity.

    Look for more pyrotechnics in this to come.

    LOL

  24. So... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Do I get my 699 bucks back?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  25. No reboot possible by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is VCs attempting to look good or to drag it out to the last gasp for the folks behind this deal (I would guess Microsoft, given the testimony from Benchmark Capital).

    But I don't think they actually have anything salable no matter how hard they try. There are enough court findings about the provenance of this IP that any going back to that will just cause a motion for sanction under Rule 11, which is about frivolous and factually baseless proceedings.

  26. Don't forget by Nimey · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  27. If there's any justice in this world by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Darl McBride will be reduced to offering hand jobs at freeway on-ramps just to earn a living.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  28. Can we sue Ralph Yarro for trolling ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ralph Yarro and other SCO shareholders had caused the Linux communities a lot of headaches for the past decade or so

    We all know that they had no case, (with encouragement from M$), they filed baseless lawsuits suing almost every business entity in the Linux sphere

    Is there a way for us to sue those fuckers, including Ralph Yarro, back?

    They've made our lives hell, and it's only justice that we made their lives fucking hell in return
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Can we sue Ralph Yarro for trolling ? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that.

      IIRC, a couple of the former SCO honchos offed themselves (quite literally), and last I heard, Darl McBride had to file for bankruptcy.

      Long story short?

      * Microsoft got what it wanted (delayed/slowed Linux acceptance) without Joe Sixpack or the DOJ being too aware of it
      * Mr. Boies (as evidenced by his previous public loss in Bush v. Gore) proved that with a bit of name recognition, you can be a shitty lawyer but still get rich.
      * SCO's board of directors proved that if you're going to die anyway as a corporation, you may as well use some fantastic claims to kite your stock one last time.
      * Originally, SCO did a lot of good things with Caldera... pity that they had to fuck it up with their stupid licensing on the modifications.
      * A couple of good Linux-oriented companies that were also under the Tarantella umbrella (and were also in Utah, in the same literal neighborhood even) got fucked thanks to the poisonous reputation that SCOX gave 'em. Watching that happen up-close was pretty painful.

      So - when's the asset sale? I think someone needs to buy the SCO logo sign, mount it with antlers, and present it to Mr. Torvalds as a trophy.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  29. the case that made GrokLaw by PMuse · · Score: 1

    Don't sugar-coat it, PJ.
    Tell us how you really feel.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  30. Suicide by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Ralph Yarro enriched himself tremendously. While SCO the company might be bankrupt, a lot of the money ended up with him.

    Robert Penrose and Val Kriedel (Noorda) both committed suicide over their involvement.

     
    There was a veil attempt to clear the name of Val Kriedel after her suicide - http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050407113517663 - but anyhoo, what do we do with Ralph Yarro ?
     
    We should not leave him scot free after what he had done to thousands and thousands of us
     
    If we let Ralph Yarro go we only send a clear signal to the world - come and troll us, hurt us, impair our ability to renovate, and at the end, we will let you go scot free
     
    I am not calling for a violent vengeance or a jihad or anything like that, what I am saying is we should not let that motherfucker go scot free, just like that
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Suicide by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative
      I have no reason to believe that Ms. Kriedel was anything but a victim. I believe the Noorda family were all victims, and that little of this would have been allowed to happen had Ray Noorda had his full mental capabilities. As it was, the family was vulnerable to a Svengali. I appreciate that Ms. Kriedel's brother pointed out the role of Rob Enderle and Laura Didio.

      What can you do? Do not do harm to anyone. We can wish for justice from courts or society, but I'm afraid all we can do this time is wish.

      I'd like to see something like this for Mr. Enderle and Ms. Didio, but I don't think it'll happen as part of the SCO case.

      As for Mr. Yarro, I hope that folks understand what he did and shun him, but I have no idea if that happens or not.

    2. Re:Suicide by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr. Perens,

      Long time no talk !

      I hope I can be as calm and as cool as you after being put through hell by those trolls

      How many years of setback that we have to endure, with all that SCO (with the backing from Microsoft) hullabaloo ?

      And Microsoft's scare-n-blackmail racket is still making untold millions for hinting that Linux infringes on their "patents" that they refuse to disclose

      One day we do not fight back, one day they will find more ways to make our lives miserable

      All we want is to create, to innovate, to push the envelope just a little bit further, but no, they just have to get in and mess everything up

      I do not know about you, Mr. Perens, but I am tired of being pushed around
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  31. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprised that it took this long for them to finally hit rock bottom.
    http://www.designnir.com/

  32. A long, long, time ago in a galaxy far away... by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

    ...SCO was a respectable UNIX vendor. Then the bean counters and lawyers took over; they became hungry for power, and turned to the Dark Side. They built a Death Star of litigation, confident that they could use it to crush the rebel Linux alliance. But ultimately the rebels prevailed. (The End?)

  33. No riddance at all: read the source ... by golodh · · Score: 2

    If you read the source (the Groklaw article) you will see that it's far from over yet. SCO is asking the judge to be allowed to keep the litigation alive, despite SCO being in chapter 7.

    If anything this sets an awful precedent: as in create a shell company (or bankroll an existing one) have it start litigating, pay the lawyers in a share of the proceeds, sink it in chapter-7 protection when the money runs out, and let the litigation roll on. Especially effective against Open Source.

    If you feel this is far-fetched, please read up on the case (e.g. on Groklaw) because this is exactly what happened here but for the judge's assent. And this particular judge has been favouring SCO ever since he inherited the case.

    What was that again you said about "good riddance" ???

  34. Novell shot first... by rts008 · · Score: 2

    (The End?)

    Well, I hope there aren't as many sequels and edits in this saga......

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  35. Lawyers versus zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I guess that means the lawyers will suck the marrow from the carcass and leave the bones to bleach out in the sun."

    Hmmm... I guess that's a story I've not seen pursued in the zombie apocalypse genre. What *would* happen if you put zombies up against lawyers?

    FIGHT!

    1. Re:Lawyers versus zombies by r_a_trip · · Score: 1

      PLEASE! Have some compassion for the zombies.

      --
      # touch universe # chmod +rwx universe # ./universe
  36. I don't know... by kuhnto · · Score: 1

    ...anything about SCO, or what they have done... So I looked it up on Wikipedia.... Yep, they are pretty evil.

    --
    "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
  37. wrong by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

    You're falling into the same trap the SCaldera management did when they started this mess. The legal agreements, and the Novell board minutes from the time approving the sale, clearly state that the copyrights to UNIX were retained by Novell.
    The old Santa Cruz Operation wanted the codebase, but couldn't come up with the money, so as a consolation they got the license fee collection business from Novell, keeping 5% for administration. Other than that they had a source license same as the other UNIX vendors

  38. a judge by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    A judge can say, tell us which patents, or we'll place all employees under arrest, and suspend all financial transactions from said company, ie, a full corporate Coma.

    ps. dont buy win-v8 Win2012 whatever its called.

    Does that mean win7 is out of sale, and now can be considered free for all , pirate all you like, since its out of sale, never to be sold again.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  39. Scox scam was a huge success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What most people is forget is: scox was DOA before the scam.

    Before the scam, scox had never been profitable, and scox was gushing red ink, and was soon to run out of money. That $100 million in Microsoft money was most welcome to scox execs, and investors.

    Microsoft was clearly behind the entire thing since the beginning. Microsoft wanted to smear Linux, and MS wanted to scare other vendors away from contributing to Linux.

    Why do you think IBM was targeted? Why not target RedHat? As it happened, IBM had just made a huge contribution to Linux. MS was too happy about it. MS wanted other vendors to know that could not just easily get away with that sort of thing. MS also wanted Linux users to know they could be sued for using Linux.

    You may have noticed the MS shills, like Enderle, were 100% behind scox the entire time.

    For MS, $100 million is nothing. MS spends that on one commercial campaign. I would say that MS's smear campaign was very successful for MS.

    Scox execs also cashed in. One exec, named Riamondi as I remember, sold his scox shares after the share price had been pumped to $16 a share. McBride also made out very well.

    The scam was a huge success for Microsoft, and Scox.

  40. Zombie SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beware the Zombie SCO.

    I'm serious.

    1. Re:Zombie SCO by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Are you serial?

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  41. Re:Who-hoo! Time to get that source code cheap;) by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    I've got my buck o'five ready... if you don't give your buck o'five, who will?

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  42. How about using clawbacks on Darl and co.? by the+saltydog · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the US Trustee could get lots of money for the cardboard box Darl Mc Bride was living in, under one of the Interstate 15 overpasses in Lindon, UT, after he lost his McMansion to foreclosure... because he wasn't as smart as Ralph Yarro, who transferred ownership of his house to his wife...

    We all knew it was going to end like this, didn't we?

    Here's a hearty FUCK YOU to everyone who concocted up this scam, and to everyone who helped promote it - from Brian Skiba, to Microsoft (for funding the scam in the first place), to Rob Enderle, to Dan Lyons, to Maureen O' Gara, to Ryan Tibbets, to Ralph Yarro, and all the other scumbags who tried to extort money for something that they didn't deserve, or even own. Fuck you all, in the ear.

  43. Fighting back by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2
    See if there's a way to put that energy into EFF or Public Knowledge.

    I am equally bothered, especially with the companies that do their best to encumber us with their patents and also act (in their own interest) as members of our community. Many of them have joined the Linux Foundation, and some are on its executive board. Many of them (including Microsoft) are part of organizations like Apache Foundation, etc. Some of them are Linux distribution companies. Try to get one of those to take a real stand about software patenting.

  44. But wait, Microsoft is a benefactor! by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    Check out:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3026767&cid=40881041

    And that guy was modded +4 Insightful!

  45. Tag zombie by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 1

    I'm tagging this story "zombie".

    By the way, maybe we should give up on having a closure for this. Some smart and powerful people are behind SCO. They will continue to enrich themselves, even if the small shareholders get nothing. Paying attention to this will do nothing but depress us.

  46. One Patent Troll down. by Criton · · Score: 1

    That's one less patent troll company in this world a crap more load of them to go.

  47. this is gaming the BK court. deny chap 7! by swschrad · · Score: 1

    we recently had a wheeler-dealer in our area who was trying to turn $2 billion in bad debts to carmakers, finance companies, and the like into 6 billion bucks. bankruptcy court threw his chapter 7 out because he was gaming the system. this is exactly what should happen to SCO, as they are trying to maintain operations (lawsuits) while filing for dissolution. dismiss the petition with prejudice, judge! they are scamming you, too!

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  48. They sold out, what's hard to figure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making money selling a free OS is tough business model. Scox was never profitable. Then along comes Microsoft, with huge amounts of real $$. All scox had to do was file an obviously BS lawsuit, and the MS money poured in.

    Scox would have been out of business 8 years ago, if not MS.