Slashdot Mirror


SCO Wants To Destroy Business Records

An anonymous reader writes "SCO, now calling itself TSG, has just filed a motion (Pdf) with the bankruptcy court in Delaware asking it to authorize 'the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of certain surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome, property, including, without limitation, shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.'"

31 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Small wonder. by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The rent to store all those court documents must be astronomic.

    1. Re:Small wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but why should we let Microsoft dispose of the evidence that easily?

    2. Re:Small wonder. by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just wish someone would go ahead and pound a stake in SCO's heart and be done with them. If I never hear about those bastards again it'll be too soon.

  2. They're bankrupt by symbolset · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They ought to let us bid on them. I bid five hundred dollars.

    I should think together we could get that number up to a substantial sum to help them be rid of these burdensome records they can no longer afford to store. Who here would chip in a bit to free SCO of this burden? I bet we could rally a sum worthy of the court taking notice, to salvage these valuable historical records from the shredder.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:They're bankrupt by Miros · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They probably couldn't do that even if they wanted to. Some of the documents likely contain business records that can't just be 'sold to the highest bidder' (imagine how bad such a scheme would be for the consumer!) The costs associated with sorting the stuff they could sell from the stuff they couldn't would likely exceed whatever you're all willing to pay for them. Then you know, plus shipping...

    2. Re:They're bankrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Over at Groklaw, PJ said that they would buy them from SCO - we could have a bidding war on our hands here.

    3. Re:They're bankrupt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They ought to let us bid on them. I bid five hundred dollars.

      I should think together we could get that number up to a substantial sum to help them be rid of these burdensome records they can no longer afford to store. Who here would chip in a bit to free SCO of this burden? I bet we could rally a sum worthy of the court taking notice, to salvage these valuable historical records from the shredder.

      Why not start a kickstarter campaign to buy up SCO or whatever they call themselves this week? Then the people who pitch in are share holders or something. Priivy to the sorrid secrets of the company. Someone could be appointed CEO run the company in a crowdsourced manner. Turn it into what it once was. A UNIX (now better Linux) company. Just a thought. Good idea or bad it could work. Crowdsourced company vs the share holder system we have that kicks out employees to help shre holders make profits OR a crowdsourced comapny that is dependent on the community for its support to some degree.

    4. Re:They're bankrupt by michrech · · Score: 2

      no that's stupid

      Thanks for your thoughts, Darl. Now, get on home -- adults are talking here...

      --
      bork bork bork!
  3. News at 10 ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is a fire at the SCO offices ....

    1. Re:News at 10 ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Should've gave him back his stapler

  4. Commas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    'the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of certain surplus, obsolete, non-core or burdensome, property, including, without limitation, shelving, convention materials, telecommunications and computer equipment, accounting and sales documents, and business records.'

    Only a lawyer could make a sentence so hard to parse with the use of commas!

    1. Re:Commas by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's OK. Commas, are on, the list of, things, to be destroyed.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Commas by chad_r · · Score: 4, Funny
      They missed one comma:

      the abandonment, disposal, and/or destruction of ... business, records.

    3. Re:Commas by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sarten-X's guide to reading legal text:

      First, ignore everything. Seriously, ignore anything anybody's ever told you about the legal document, because it doesn't mean anything. The exact written words don't mean anything, nor does anything verbal spoken about the document. What matters is what a judge would think about the document and the actions people take because of it. The written words are just to clarify what the writers want a judge to think about. This is why having a lawyer read documents is so important: The lawyer understands the legal history behind the words used, and can better predict what a judge will decide.

      Next, start reading. Legal texts are usually long and complex, to clarify every mundane discrepancy that might lead to a disagreement, so skip over all of that. Also skip over any section headings, because they're usually ignored by judges (and remember, it's the judges that matter), being meant only to help find useful parts of the document for particular situations. Instead, pretend you're back in primary school first learning to read. Split each sentence into its basic parts: A subject and an action. That will tell you the main meaning of the sentence. Then look for what's not included - any exceptions or omissions that might be covered in other sections of the document.

      Condense any synonyms. Exact word choice can make a huge difference on a judge's decisions, so lawyers will use multiple words with the same overall meaning to give their clients options. For example, simply getting rid of paperwork at the end of its useful life might involve shredding or incinerating it, which is "destruction". If some pages get lost or forgotten during shredding, they might be considered "abandoned". If someone picks up the forgotten pages and drops them in the trash can, that's "disposal". A well-written contract would specify which of those actions are allowed and which, if any, are not. While this verbosity makes the document much clearer if a judge needs to read it, the unfortunate side effect is that the document seems repetitive on cursory review.

      Finally, consider consideration. Most contracts require that each side give up something, and without that mutual concession nothing would happen. For example, I give up my legal right to the exclusivity of publishing this comment, and Slashdot's corporate overlords agree to publish it, among various other services. When reading a legal document, keep an eye out for what obligations you're agreeing to, and what the other parties are agreeing to.

      That's it. That's all there is to reading legal documents. As opposed to a literary work, legal documents are written for accuracy and precision rather than ease of reading. As opposed to a computer program, they aren't so much instructions as they are suggestions to the judge. Most justice systems are based around the notion that the law describes what's right or wrong, and judges determine whether particular laws apply to particular situations.

      TL;DR: If you need a TL;DR version, hire a lawyer.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. Re:Let it go by Brandano · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if what was uncovered is that this whole charade was sponsored by a third party that was not implicated in the various SCO trials?

  6. What did they do? by tubs · · Score: 3, Funny

    Remind me, what did SCO do?

    --

    try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

    1. Re:What did they do? by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Informative

      It depends, which SCO are you referring to? The early version(s) that, at one time, had decent Unix OS offerings with OpenServer and Unixware? Or the scorched-earth-that-ultimately-blew-up-in-their-face litigious idiots that took on probably the absolutely worst company to get the Linux litigation ball rolling.

    2. Re:What did they do? by spike1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You have either a terrible memory or you weren't around at the start of this...
      back in about 2003, a Linux distribution by the name of Caldera bought the Unix part of SCO (the other part went on to continue trading under a different name)
      Then. in a moment of utter insanity, they decided to sue IBM under allegations that IBM had included their UNIX "property" in the linux kernel...

      Millions of man hours of searching later. people came up with about 5 lines of code that were so generic it was impossible to copyright them,..

      So, the IBM trial went on and on and dragged other companies into the mess...
      Microsoft "invested" in SCO, presumably to keep the trial going.
      Novell disputed what SCO actually claimed to own...

      Last year (or was it 2011) the novell case finally concluded that SCO didn't own any of the copyrights they were suing IBM over in the first place.
      IBM have yet to countersue, but there's so little of SCO left now it's probably no longer worth it.

    3. Re:What did they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC they were a litigation business.

      Correction: They were the puppets for Microsoft and Sun to destroy Linux, the free kernel that was taking over UNIX and threatening Microsoft's future control of the small computing platforms. What nether saw was Apple coming up in the rear view mirror.

    4. Re:What did they do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked at Caldera when they bought SCO. I also left a few months after the acquisition. Prior to the SCO purchase, Calera was a fun Linux distribution company. We were doing really great things such as building the first GUI install, incorporating Webmin for a GUI admin utility, and having DRDOS to run all your DOS programs within Linux. They were great times. Then, the acquisition happened. Departments at Caldera began to be dismantled, and senior management replaced. I left, and took note as Ransom Love (who was a great person to work for with a great vision) sold his stake and left. Darl McBride didn't exist at the time, no idea where he came from. However, all the Caldera employees that worked hard to make the distribution what it was at the time left long before the litigation.

  7. Re:Let it go by sribe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if anything was to be uncovered it would most likely be making the company liable, so you would be incurring hideous costs in order to be able to prosecute a company that no longer exists. hmmmm I think I prefer our courts were doing something other than using our money trying to punish a corpse. Let it go, they are dead and buried.

    Actually, there's good reason to suspect the kinds of collusion and deliberate deception that could result in personal liability, including possibly criminal liability, for some of the players.

  8. Re:Let it go by Andy+Prough · · Score: 2

    Solicitation to commit a crime is itself a crime, as is conspiracy.

  9. Re:Who the hell is SCO? by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    How did you get internet access below that huge rock you've obviously been living under?

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. Re:Who the hell is SCO? by Jerslan · · Score: 2

    In tech circles (ie: Slashdot's core focus) SCO is infamous for crazy lawsuits claiming they own bits of the Unix/Linux kernel and that everyone was infringing their copyright... It was kind of a big deal for the better part of a decade.

  11. Re:Who the hell is SCO? by tazan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In this community SCO is as well known as Wal-Mart. It's been mentioned literally thousands of times on this site. (8300) vs. only 5000 hits for Wal-mart.

  12. Re:Who the hell is SCO? by Arker · · Score: 3, Informative

    TSG (and I was way ahead of the curve calling them that a few years ago, when they were dragging the SCO name through the mud) is the zombified shell of what was once the Linux company Caldera Systems. Several years ago they purchased most of the assets of the company which was known for years before that as SCO - the Santa Cruz Operation hence SCO.

    This purchase was technically structured as a merger with a holding company involved, to produce a 'new' business called "The SCO Group", which then went berserk, forgetting its own history entirely, and attempted to create a new business model by claiming to own Linux and shaking down companies using Linux for 'license fees' supposedly owed. They wound up suing IBM and eventually losing hard, then filing bankruptcy.

    Since the original threats and claims were made, through the resulting court battles and judgements, many legions of articles have been posted on this subject. Most readers are well aware of who TSG is, although certainly taking the time to add a link to an overview of some sort would have been a good move. But, that would require an editor actually editting. If you think that will happen you are definitely new here. We get short blurbs that still manage to be wrong most of the time and we like it! If you want to more accurate and in-depth information about this story try http://www.groklaw.net/

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  13. Re:Who the hell is SCO? by jbengt · · Score: 2

    On slashdot, readers aren't expected to look up or guess who SCO is - SCO is famous around here.

  14. it's a reasonable request by a2wflc · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least for most companies. Most nerds don't have a clue about the document management tools and processes that managers selected (especially 10+ years ago). And also don't understand the government regulations around documents.

    It took me almost 8 years of training before I accepted that "copy it to a DVD" isn't a records management process for a large company. Everyone in my company has mandatory yearly "records management" training and as you move up in management, you have training to learn more and more about the reasons. And when you have a bogus (or legit) law suit against you requesting "every mention of X-Corp in all company documents", it makes sense why it's important to destroy records AND record the destruction so the lawyers can respond with "Here's ALL records and here's proof that we don't have anything else".

    I know one company that keeps track of cost per document. The average per jpeg image is over $17,000 over it's lifetime. For some images, a lot of that is production or licensing. But most of it is managing the licenses. Even if a developer makes an image for a web site they keep a record of who/when/why/etc so the lawyers can respond when someone claims it was stolen. That all has to be stored, indexed, backed up, accessed, etc. A stack of DVDs in a warehouse somewhere does nothing but cost money. And takes a lot of time to find what you want if/when it's needed. Better to be able to say it doesn't exist for documents that you aren't required by law to keep or have a reasonable expectation that they will be involved in a law suit (in which case you maintain them in the records management system). As much as I dislike SCO, I'd guess they have a lot of records that shouldn't be involved in any lawsuit. If they destroy records that hide a crime, that's a different issue.

  15. Re:Who the hell is SCO? by IMightB · · Score: 2

    This was the first question that popped into my head as well.... GP didn't google too hard.

    Here's the brief. SCO used to be a legit company. a while back thy sold off the legit part and split into two companies, Tarantella and SCO, SCO became a troll, trying to charge linux users a 600/server license fee and claiming patents/copyright violations on linux and suing IBM, Redhat and a few other companies using linux.

    This is the series of lawsuits that created groklaw.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_Operation

  16. Re:Let it go by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    Finding a way to sue Microsoft into bankruptcy is never irrelevant.

    I just don't think they'll find anything, MS can do this w/o leaving a trail.

  17. Re:Let it go by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I despise Bill Gates. I hate Microsoft. If we could find a way to break Microsoft up into a dozen smaller companies, I'd be shickled teatless. But, hatred can be irrational too. Purchasing all that crap that SCO has, just to spend millions of dollars worth of manhours poring over the contents, hoping to catch Microsoft doing something illegal seems irrational to me.

    Then, if you actually find what you are hoping to find, then what? Spending yet more millions preparing to take Microsoft to court. Millions upon millions more, paying for all the legal counsel.

    Phhhttt - all that money is better spent undermining Microsoft's current monopoly status. Go buy an Android and a Chromebook. Sign contracts with several companies that are in direct competition with Microsoft. Donate some Linux machines to a school near you. Hell, start a foundation that donates a few hundred Linux machines to schools in your state, annually.

    Do something more useful than feeding the predatory lawyers who will swarm the case you bring against Microsoft.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br