The SCO Group plans to emerge from Chapter 11 soon and revealed that not only will it modify its business strategy towards mobile products, it will also replace chief executive officer Darl McBride and pick up the Linux and Unix license lawsuits against IBM and Novell. The new owner of The SCO Group, investment firm Stephen Norris Capital Partners, is planning to open a new chapter in SCO's Linux lawsuit history, which started back in March of 2003 when the company filed a USD 1 billion suit against IBM. As part of its plan organization, SCO announced that it will appeal the proceedings, which will begin with an appeal against a key decision in favor of Novell from August 10, 2007, which also impacts the lawsuit against IBM.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-10-11
Fans: 2
Member since:
2006-12-28
Fans: 7
It just goes to show that some people never learn.
SCO's focus on the mobile space would be a shrewed move if they actually had anything to offer. Over the last few years, especially since McBride, SCO haven't actually produced anything worthy of investor interest, so I don't understand why SNCP would gamble that cash on appealing a technicality in the Novell case.
What is really interesting, at least for me, is that SCO are only getting $5M, the other $95M is optional over the next 5 years and comes with a 17% over prime price tag attached. So what do they do? Instead of using that sum to try and get a descent revenue stream going, they decided to fire the guy who got them into this in the first place and then continue fighting the case that almost bankrupted them! WTF!
It just doesn't make sense to me, unless SNCP have something else in mind for SCO.
RE: And I thought it was all over.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 6
And I suppose you forgot to add the obvious - "and neither can the Israeli's". No problem, we all forget things...
But back on topic, I agree that the continued pyrrhic battle to sue EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH is probably not a sound business strategy for SCO. It must sound good to the suits, though. I guess there's just something pleasant sounding about Mom, Apple Pie and Lawsuits to some business people.
Member since:2006-12-28
Fans: 7
Wow, I don't know what to say.
I think your statement is in exceedingly bad taste. I don't understand how you can equate copyright and patent trolls, who are too stupid to know when to just drop it, with a an ethnic conflict that happens to involve two unmatched peoples fighting for what they consider to be their right and also their lives.
Dude, one costs money and is pretty pointless, the other one costs lives! It doesn't get any more serious than that!
Member since:2006-10-10
Fans: 1
Actually, I think the comparison of SCO v. Linux and Palestine v. Israel is quite accurate. We'll leave out the ignorant "Palestinians WON'T win." comment because that just reeks of "I get my thoughts from Fox News, and have none of my own."
Let's put it this way, just as the US is funding/backing Israel (aka, the only reason that country/state even exists), the SCO group is being funded by <insert very large corporate by-proxy funding here> You all can draw your own conclusions as to whom that particular corporation may, or may not, be.
There is no way the SCO group (or any other American corporation filing Chpt. 11) should be let off the hook. This is exactly the reason why the US is in the lending turmoil it's in. Companies can borrow millions and millions, file Chapter 11, and then resume under a new moniker relatively free from any liability from previous debtors. Those at the top of the company should be made to pay their debts, whether they're dissolving the company that's filed, or while earning a paycheck in a new venture.
</end soapbox>
Member since:2006-01-16
Fans: 6
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
You know, I was about to ignore this stupid Israel vs. Palestine sub thread completely when I saw your post.
Beyond being -wildly- OT, you (as in all the people that somehow joined this sub-thread) seem to have zero (0) understanding on what you're talking about. (And I do mean both sides: Fox news and CNN viewers alike)
Can you quote, from memory, the number of nations that are part of the Arab Israeli conflict? How many wars have we (occupants of the middle east) seen in the last 100 years? Can you name at least two major powers that were saw active combat in middle eastern wars? How about religions - Can you tell the difference between Syria, Jordan and Iran? How about HAMMAS vs FATAH? Can you tell me what divides them vs. what unites them?
I'm willing to bet good money that my knowledge of the American (and European) history far exceeds your apparently meager middle-eastern history knowledge by a mile or two.
... So before you go and compare my home to SCO, at least take the time to know what the hell you're talking about.
Now can someone delete/lock this sub-thread?
- Gilboa, Israel.
Edited 2008-03-07 17:11 UTC
Member since:2006-12-07
Fans: 1
Member since:
2006-01-10
Fans: 0
I really find it hard to believe this is still dragging on after all these years. I used to visit Groklaw daily and read the documents and hear the accounts of people who actually visited the courtroom, now I can't be bothered.
I suppose "The wheels of justice grind slow (oh, so slowly), but they grind exceedingly fine." is apt.
Member since:
2006-01-27
Fans: 0
McBride "regrets" that he is being "pushed out" of the company. "Clearly when we draw up a battle plan for what we've been working for the last several years, trying to get SCO's intellectual property rights fought through in the courts and the marketplace, the endgame didn't have this sort of outcome for me personally,"
No one would have to throw me off a burning ship.
What I can't figure out, SNCP's motivation. Maybe a phony deal that'll fall through at the last second, a last-ditch effort to pump-and-dump the worthless stock?
Edited 2008-03-06 18:10 UTC
Member since:
2006-05-18
Fans: 1
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 11
COME OOOON. gah, do we have to go through this AGAIN?
Throwing money down the tubes (well, lawyer wallets, same difference). Big Blue will just CRUSH them.
I hope to god IBM systematically disassembles SCO this time. IBM probably spends more on electricity bills each month than the new SCO has in total assets.
They won't stand a chance.
Member since:
2005-08-28
Fans: 1
Member since:
2006-06-03
Fans: 2
As season 1 of SCO came to it's dramatic end, the producers realised that there were enough viewers to enable them to script a second season.
Killing off one of the lead actors was quite a dramatic move though, I hope people will still feel themselves able to identify with the characters.
Edited 2008-03-06 18:55 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 11
Member since:2006-06-03
Fans: 2
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 6
It's Survivor - SCO Island
The difference is nobody survives. The last one on the Island gets to turn out the lights!
--------------------------------------------------
The amazing thing to me is this:
All the employees will lose their jobs. The investors will lose any money they invested.
And yet whole teams of lawyers will walk off with green lining their pockets. What a system!
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 4
Member since:2006-06-03
Fans: 2
Member since:
2006-03-23
Fans: 0
you know.. some time ago i was in a mall, and they had bikes.. SCO bikes.. yeah thats right, it was labelled SCO, and whats more, it was a "discontinuation" sale..
i thought: "hey, i guess THATS what darl meant with mobility.." but well..
(btw, this is actually true)
Member since:
2006-05-19
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
Until now IBM has been fighting SCO not to protect Linux, but to protect itself. If it had given in and done a buyout you could bet all sorts of sharks would follow up hoping to get a sweet deal also.
But IBM always knew that they would never make back their money off SCO (SCO knew this too, thus their hope for a buyout), but now these investors are not only pumping money into SCO but in becoming partners with SCO open their own assets up.
Now IBM's lawyers not only see blood, they see money, lots of money, $100 million just for starters. If anything these idiots just gave IBM all the more reason to take SCO apart and suck it dry.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
Member since:
2005-07-30
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 35
And about as relevant to our daily lives. In the beginning, the SCO thing was supposed to be about Linux. It never was, really. SCO's PR campaign made it sound like it was going to be, of course. But it turned out to be a contractual dispute, and has been only that for a very long time now.
I suspect that if Groklaw weren't still stirring the pot so hard, we'd see very few news reports about this case. It's really not very interesting news at this point. Even if SCO somehow miraculously won something, which is highly unlikely, it would have no real practical impact on Linux.
I think that we continue to watch the SCO cases for much the same reason as we watch the horror films; We want to see it when the monster's head gets chopped of with an ax and goes flying into the lake, as the body stagers and falls to the ground, and then sinks in like it was quicksand.
Now, what would be *really* cool is if IBM, Novell, or the SEC came up with a good reason for a court to pierce the corporate veil and go straight after Darl, Chris and the others personally.
Member since:
2006-11-28
Fans: 0
Member since:
2006-07-06
Fans: 0