decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice
Friday, April 27 2007 @ 06:51 PM EDT

Nasdaq, as expected, has sent SCO a letter, which it has filed in an 8K with the SEC. The important bit is this:
On April 23, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) indicating that the bid price of its common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain compliance.

This is the second such letter, but the first one due to stock price. Here are the Nasdaq rules [PDF], which I remembered from an earlier article dating from the last time SCO got a notice, and a chart for the last five days, since the receipt of the notice, with the arrow pointing the wrong direction, it seems to these non-expert eyes.

**********************************


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): April 23, 2007

The SCO Group, Inc....

Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.

On April 23, 2007, The SCO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market (“Nasdaq”) indicating that the bid price of its common stock for the last 30 consecutive business days had closed below the minimum $1.00 per share required for continued listing under Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain compliance. The letter states the Nasdaq staff will provide written notification that the Company has achieved compliance with Rule 4310(c)(4) if at any time before October 22, 2007, the bid price of the Company’s common stock closes at $1.00 per share or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, although the letter also states that the Nasdaq staff has the discretion to require compliance for a period in excess of 10 consecutive business days, but generally no more than 20 consecutive business days, under certain circumstances.

If the Company cannot demonstrate compliance with Rule 4310(c)(4) by October 22, 2007, the Nasdaq staff will determine whether the Company meets The Nasdaq Capital Market initial listing criteria set forth in Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c), except for the bid price requirement. If the Company meets the initial listing criteria, the Nasdaq staff will notify the Company that it has been granted an additional 180 calendar day compliance period. If the Company is not eligible for an additional compliance period, the Nasdaq staff will provide written notice that the Company’s securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company may appeal the Nasdaq staff’s determination to delist its securities to a Listing Qualifications Panel

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: April 26, 2007

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

By: /s/ Bert B. Young
Name: Bert B. Young
Title: Chief Financial Officer

****************************************

SCO has now issued a press release as well, which explains the what-happens-next part:

SCO Receives Nasdaq Notice Letter
Posted : Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:08:01 GMT
Author : The SCO Group, Inc.
Category : Press Release

LINDON, Utah, April 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") , a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services, today announced it has received a Nasdaq Staff Deficiency Letter on April 23, 2007 indicating that the Company fails to comply with the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). The letter gives SCO notice that the Company's bid price of its common stock has closed under $1.00 for the last 30 business days.

Pursuant to Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(8)(D), the Company has been provided an initial period of 180 calendar days, or until October 22, 2007, to regain compliance. The letter states the Nasdaq staff will provide written notification that the Company has achieved compliance with Rule 4310(c)(4) if at any time before October 22, 2007, the bid price of the Company's common stock closes at $1.00 per share or more for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, although the letter also states that the Nasdaq staff has the discretion to require compliance for a period in excess of 10 consecutive business days, but generally no more than 20 consecutive business days, under certain circumstances.

If the Company cannot demonstrate compliance with Rule 4310(c)(4) by October 22, 2007, the Nasdaq staff will determine whether the Company meets The Nasdaq Capital Market initial listing criteria set forth in Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c), except for the bid price requirement. If the Company meets the initial listing criteria, the Nasdaq staff will notify the Company that it has been granted an additional 180 calendar day compliance period. If the Company is not eligible for an additional compliance period, the Nasdaq staff will provide written notice that the Company's securities will be delisted. At that time, the Company may appeal the Nasdaq staff's determination to delist its securities to a Listing Qualifications Panel.

About SCO

SCO, SCO OpenServer, Me Inc. and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare are registered trademarks of The Open Group.

The SCO Group, Inc.


  


SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice | 361 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:06 PM EDT
If required

---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spiderman 2 quote
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT
"Thanks for the good news."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT
The downward spiral of a company with nothing to sell, no customers, and a
business plan hatched in law school.

It should not be too hard for them to stave this off because any trader can
engineer a price rise by putting in a few high bids near the end of the day
(last few seconds). Do this 10 days in a row and they (SCO) manage to escape
this warning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who will buy out SCO?
Authored by: devil's advocate on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:12 PM EDT
I don't know if anyone has suggested this before, but why wouldn't Novell be
positioning itself to buy out SCO? It all fits in: the preliminary injunction
threatening to bankrupt them, Novell having still, one supposes, a large
chunk of SCO common stock. It would be easy, and also natural for them to
buy out their UNIX distrbutor. Everyone has been suggesting IBM, but Novell
looks a much better candidate to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do reporting requirements change with delisting?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT

If SCOX is delisted, is SCO allowed to report less information to the SEC or
other government agencies?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So does this mean SCOXE on Monday?
Authored by: Boundless on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:23 PM EDT
... as I saw asserted on some fin forum.

Anyway, the interesting aspect of this is that
it means the painters either didn't try to get
a one-day $1.00 close to stop the clock,
or didn't try, or they don't exist.
_______
Which means there's no reason to suspect they'll
try to prop up the closing price for 10 days now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reverse stock split
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:24 PM EDT
Would a reverse stock split put them back in compliance?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: idahoan on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:30 PM EDT
Use HTML Formatted (under Post Mode) for URLs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Investors village
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:32 PM EDT
I have been trying to understand a series of posts, in particular those of
hamjudo2000, on the Investors Village SCOX message board. The theory seems to
be that SCOX isn't being painted per se. Rather, the 'robots' are being
manipulated by freaking them out with offers that only last for a few seconds.


The other theme is that SCOX will soon be delisted by the Russell Microcap and
the institutional investors will go away.

All this makes my brain hurt. I'm guessing that SCOX cares about their stock
price because McBride et al can still make money by selling some of their stock.
Otherwise, why does anyone care about the price of the stock?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 07:38 PM EDT
I have some shorts on SCO. I have a nice profit there, but I
wonder what will happen to my shorts if the stock will be
delisted. How can I cover the shorts for an unlisted stock?
(My original plan was to keep the shorts till the bankruptcy
court will send the stock price to zero and cover only then.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Is Radioactive
Authored by: karl on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT
There are pretty much three reasons buy a tech company: its brand, its technology, or its people.

The mere mention of TSCOG causes almost every non-Microsoft-centric computer geek out there to start foaming at the mouth: SCO's brand has a negative value.

SCO's technology? It was a major advance... in 1978 when AT&T Bell Labs was creating it. At this point it is pretty far behind even the free stuff that's out there.

And their people? *cackle* They had some good folks back in the day (late 80s, early 90s), before someone sent in the clowns. Clowns in business suits can be pretty funny, but they're not, you know, valuable and, like, marketable.

Nah, nobody is going to buy them. It would be a safer investment to buy an asbestos mine.

Nice try, guys. And the sideshow kept a lot of people engaged for years, and the real value you provided was probably to Microsoft when their salespeople, over beers, out of earshot, told the prospective customer, confidentially, hey man, you can't trust that Linux stuff, from what we hear, it's illegal and people who use it could be liable for big bucks.

Hey Darl, you're not going to parlay this into a better job. After this, your career, and your fifteen minutes of fame, are over.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reverse Split - Suicide for low-traders...
Authored by: comms-warrior on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 08:44 PM EDT
The general consensus is that a Reverse Stock-Split is tantamount to fiscal
suicide on nasdaq. Companies that do this generally have their stock dive lower
than the original price prior to the split.

Given the incompetent manner in which this company is run, I'd say a reverse
split is in order; not for any other reason than Darl's abysmal management
performance prior to this, and his inclination to pick the very worst of all bad
options..

Darl reminds my of J.R Ewing of Dallas.. Without the money, rough-and-ready
looks, intelligence and charisma...

I thought they would be out of business by Christmas.... I was obviously wrong
on that one... I do fear the end is neigh now that the money runs out in
October.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather see the company wound up sooner than
that... In Australia this company would be gone now and the administrators
cleaning up the insolvency mess...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Share price...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 09:03 PM EDT
I seem to recall that Darl likes the stock at these levels.
Too bad NASDAQ doesn't...

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Nasdaq listing requirements
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 09:10 PM EDT
Nasdaq has different markets depending on capitailization.
The one for small stocks (called the Nasdaq Capital Market, used to be named
"SmallCap"), with the lowest requirements, requires (satisfying one)
the following (see Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(2)(B):

(i) a minimum of $2,500,000 in stockholders' equity;
(ii) a market value of listed securities of $35,000,000; or
(iii) $500,000 of net income from continuing operations for the most recently
completed fiscal year or two of the three most recently completed fiscal years.

This is a separate condition in addition to the $1.00 share price requirement.

SCOX fails (ii), ostensibly fails (iii) but could argue that losses don't count
as they are extraordinary, not operational. But its cash stockpile (small, and
dwindling) is still big enough that (i) is well satisfied, so SCOX does not need
to worry about delisting via this rule... yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

4310(c)(8)(D)?????
Authored by: pajamian on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 09:25 PM EDT

There is no 4310(c)(8)(D). Section 4310(c)(8) only goes up to C.

That said, 4310(c)(8)(B) seems to be the correct citation, and it gives 90 days for compliance, not 180:

(B) A failure to meet the continued inclusion requirements for minimum bid price and market value of public float shall be determined to exist only if the deficiency for the applicable criterion continues for a period of 30 consecutive business days. Upon such failure, the issuer shall be notified promptly and shall have a period of 90 calendar days from such notification to achieve compliance with the applicable continued inclusion standard. Compliance can be achieved by meeting the applicable standard for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days during the 90 day compliance period.

So ... I suppose that since they gave SCO 180 days to comply in the letter that will be the determining factor now, but it seems that NASDAQ are quoting a non-existent rule to do so.

That said, I don't think SCO can bring their stock above the $1 minimum for 10 consecutive days whether they're given 90 days, 180 days, or a full year.

---
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An opinion on tSCOg's position at this time ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 27 2007 @ 09:37 PM EDT

Seems to me that the following one-liners cover tSCOg's predicament (not in
order of importance) ...

1) They have suffered the humiliation of being delisted

2) In the past 2 weeks we and the world (mostly thru Groklaw) have seen the
clear intent and position of Novell's ownership of copyrights re the sale of
Unix software to oldSCO

3) The legal documents starting with the APA clearly stated that the excluded
assets cover the copyrights. APA amendment 2 restated this & included no
additional bill of sale for anything

4) tSCOg commenced litigation *knowing* they did not have any documented title
to the copyrights nor any legal document that clearly transferred them to tSCOg

5) That Novel clearly had the law on its side when Novell told tSCOg to cease
and desist in its demand that IBM stop selling AIX

6) That tSCOg had nothing by way of legal ownership that allowed them to make
the demand of IBM re selling AIX

7) That either tSCOg lied to its lawyers BS&F or these lawyers decided to
support tSCOg knowing that tSCOG had no documented legal basis for their actions
(this is where I am unclear as to US law re what a lawyer can do for a client if
the client insists on going down a path that is clearly unsupported by the known
facts (bluff) - what were BS&F's obligations under US law ? - it seems they
may argue that they gave valid advice to their client but their client chose to
ignore it so 'we' BS&F ae not to blame ?)

8) That tSCOg are in a deep dark place that is very hot and have no way out.
This was of their own doing every time they stated in documents to the courts
(repeatedly) about 'violations to their copyrights' (they have to have known
they were lying - why, because they had no legal documents in their posession
that in any way backed up their position & claims).

9) That tSCOg are now in so deep, that they can no longer expect the courts or
their victims, to allow them off the hook.

10) BS&F will sooner or later have to publicly (or before a judge) take a
position & explain why they as tSCOg's lawyers, pursued the various cases
when it has to have been abundantly clear to them, that tSCOg did not have the
'standing' in law to pursue most of these various cases.

This is no longer a matter of when tSCOg will lose, this is now a national IT
& law scandal that tSCOg ever brought the cases and that a prominent law
firm such a BS&F gave any credibility to the cases by acting as tSCOG's
lawyers.

So the issue now seems to me, not when tSCOg goes down, but how much &
whoose blood will be on the floor afterwards.

Doug Marker

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO opinion on event from last 10Q
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 12:21 AM EDT
last 10Q

We could lose our listing on the Nasdaq Capital Market if our stock price falls below $1.00 for 30 consecutive business days, and the loss of the listing would make our stock significantly less liquid and would affect its value.

Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market and had a closing price of $0.96 at the close of the market on March 14, 2007. If the price of our common stock falls below $1.00 and for 30 consecutive business days remains below $1.00, we will receive a deficiency notice from NASDAQ advising us that we have been afforded a 180-calendar day compliance period. If our stock fails to maintain a minimum bid price of $1.00 for 10 consecutive business days during a 180-day compliance period on the Nasdaq Capital Market or a 360-day grace period if compliance with certain core listing standards are demonstrated, we could receive a delisting notice from the Nasdaq Capital Market, and, under certain circumstances, even if our stock maintains a minimum bid price of $1.00 for 10 consecutive business days, we may receive a delisting notice from the Nasdaq Capital Market. Upon delisting from the Nasdaq Capital Market, our stock would be traded over-the-counter, more commonly known as OTC. OTC transactions involve risks in addition to those associated with transactions in securities traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Many OTC stocks trade less frequently and in smaller volumes than securities traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market. Accordingly, our stock would be less liquid than it would otherwise be, and the value of our stock could decrease. Our stock price is volatile. -- Not mentioned is the fact that index funds will no longer hold the stock and will sell. Expect a general sell to occur over the next month.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This May Actually Be Bad News...
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 02:54 AM EDT
No, this is not a troll, nor flame bait.

I actually think there are several reasons why a sudden demise of The SCO Group
would not help matters.


1. The various legal claims of this case will not be tested in court. I think
that's a bad thing. I think the GPL would be stronger for a more complete test
[in that more business people would be comfortable trusting it] and that more
developers may be willing to release their code under the GPL, confident that it
could not be subverted by unscrupulous businesses.

2. The guilty - and there are a few suspects in this case - may get away
"free". Let's see...

Darl McBride and members of the SCO Group's Board.
Microsoft.
Ralph Yarro and perhaps other elements [that were] within Canopy.
Miscellaneous spokespeople [sorry, journalists].
Employees of BSF who have continued this case.

Without this case going to trial, for example, will there be any means to seek
redress for the wild and outlandish statements from Darl McBride in the early
days of this case?

3. Future Threats
There has been a lot of speculation that Microsoft took advantage of this case
[if not engineering it outright] and setting aside the fact that we might never
know the full truth if this does not go to trial, the fact remains that those
who created FUD while this case has been in progress are still at large and at
liberty to continue.

It's unlikely that MS would try exactly the same tactic. But a company with the
billions of dollars that MS has at their disposal are going to find ways of
making life difficult for their perceived competitors, no matter what.

One of the few things, I suggest, that is likely to dissuade anyone else from
this litigation strategy, would be judgements handed down from this Court that
if you go this route on a bluff, the consequences and reprimands will hurt. I'm
not sure that the Court has the scope to make such a response if this particular
case does not go "all the way".


But, as always, it's going to be interesting to see how the rest of this plays
out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Blast from the past
Authored by: gbl on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 03:11 AM EDT
There is a quote from a story about the Caldera IPO in March 2000...
Five million shares were offered, but the first day's trading showed a volume of more than 15 million. With more than 38 million shares outstanding, the capitalisation of Caldera went up to $1.27 billion, which is not bad for a company that had revenue of $3.05 million in 1999 (to 31 October) and net losses of $9.37 million. Caldera raised $70 million for 13 per cent of its shares. If there's a message, it is that the Linux boom is alive and well, although shares are now priced a little more realistically than in the past, perhaps reflecting greater maturity in both the market and investors.

Story here < p>It takes a particular kind of cleverness to take a potential $1.2 billion and convert it into $25 million in only seven years :-)

For comparison, Redhats IPO in the previous August resulted in a capitalisation of about $3 billion and raised $84 million in cash.

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Damages proven!!! SCO files urgent motion to amend complaint! (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 04:18 AM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delisting is good for them
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 04:36 AM EDT
Delisting is good for SCO, no more quarterly reports
to the public.

They do not need the stock exchange at this point. The extortionists are the
majority shareholders. The rest have acquiesced in the scheme. Free float is
just a couple of speculators.

Right now, it is in their interest to delist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 07:00 AM EDT
Would this be more proof Novell needs an injunction to stop SCO from spending
Novell's 95% of the SUN/Microsoft payments.

---
If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 12:59 PM EDT

Dear PJ,

We at SCO always view things in the most favorable light. We take exception to your quote:

SCO got a notice, and a chart for the last five days, since the receipt of the notice, with the arrow pointing the wrong direction, it seems to these non-expert eyes.
The arrow is not pointing in the wrong direction. If you rotate the page 180 degrees, you can clearly see the arrow point up. Err wait, the curve still points down. Sorry about that instruction.

Flip the paper over and hold it up to a bright light. Now you clearly see that if the paper is held up in the right SCO light, it clearly shows the success SCO is having.

In the future, please consult with us before reporting. We should be able to point out the correct "expert" take for your "non-expert" opinion pieces. It is important to put the correct spin on the story.

Sincerely,

Darl

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 8K: Nasdaq Delisting Notice
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 02:27 PM EDT
Another article

---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

which way is up?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 04:53 PM EDT
The arrow seems to be in the "right" direction.
After the Thursday fright the price has been generally clawing upwards.
Question is: are these the last of the true believers?
Or is the Pipe Fairy dripfeeding just enough to ease over
the magic $1 for 10 days?

[ Reply to This | # ]

someone should've given them their 2 cents worth
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT
On April 17 they got to 99c before falling.

If they reverse-split 10,000,000-1 and are allowed to fall to what they are
worth, they'll be above $1. Barely.

Of course then they'll be delisted for not having enough market value.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's best option: Sell usable assets then liquidate
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 06:25 PM EDT
SCO should sell off its Unix business and other assets, drop all litigation,
then liquidate.

Of course that would leave the stockholders with nothing, but at least customers
will still get support and employees will still get a paycheck.

I'd love to see IBM make a "fair market value" bid for the Unix
business then disclaim any ownership of the Unix-related IP that rightly belongs
to the public domain, provided Novell and everyone else with a claim does the
same. Of course, SCO and/or IBM will have to dismiss all pending lawsuits and
quickly settle any counterclaims for this to work.

Why IBM? 1) they are a major party to the lawsuits, and 2) because of the
large Unix vendors, they are among the best-equipped to serve the needs of SCO's
Unix customers.

Disclaimer: I own a small amount of IBM stock.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens to the suit if SCO goes broke?
Authored by: Filias Cupio on Saturday, April 28 2007 @ 08:20 PM EDT
A quick question (possibly an FAQ):

SCO goes bankrupt before the law suit is tried. A litigeous third party buys up
SCOs Unix rights (whatever they are.) This third party wouldn't be able to
restart the legal process from scratch, would they? They'd still be limited to
SCO's 327 lines of allegedly infringing code, etc. etc.? I.e. all the adverse
court decisions are now 'perminantly attached' to SCO's Unix rights, and can't
evaporate due to change of ownership. Is this correct?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How FOSS earns friends. The DVD saga
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2007 @ 03:08 AM EDT
Our department has just bought a brand new laptop for the use of those
travelling, and since I happen to be the first one travelling I get to break it
in. Yay! Ok so it is an XP machine and since it isn't mine I don't get to change
that. But very nice all the same, and at least XP isn't vista!

Anyway, I happened to have this at home yesterday getting everything I need
installed and sorted out before the trip so I'd be able to do my work on it
while I was away. As usual the kids had the TV and two computers sewn up and
there was this DVD that was due to go back that I wanted to see. So - brainwave
- rather than kick the kids off the machines I'll just bung it in the laptop.

On inserting the DVD, a popup instantly appears and tells me that I need to
install windows media player 11 and that it can't play the DVD until I do. So I
curse and swear and get out the network cable and reconfigure the LAN and get
myself onto the internet. Now I can click on the link in the popup which opens
internet exploder - oops need to configure that too (not just firefox) and ...

... I get another popup telling me that before I can install windows media
player I need to validate my copy of windows. Now it should be OK - brand new
laptop - but it makes you nervous. So I say OK go ahead and it tells me that
before I can do that I need to download and install an updated windows
validation tool. Which I then do while feeling much put upon. And it downloads
and it installs and it runs, and after spending what seems like an inordinate
amount of time examining the contents of my hard drive, it says my copy of
windows is genuine and I breathe a huge sigh of relief.

But I still can't play the DVD.

So try again. This time it lets me download windows media player 11 - which
seems like a huge download and a long install process. And of course I have to
go through a custom install turning off all those dozens of nasty ways that
microsoft wants to look over your shoulder - all the web fetches and tracking
and commercial stuff going on behind your back and offers they want to send you
that have to be turned off one by one before the thing will agree to just do its
job and leave you alone.

Anyway - at last media player 11 is installed and it opens on a jazzy commercial
type splash screen with everything blinking and flashing away there like some
kind of neon billboard advertisement. Yuck - but at least it works. So try again
with the DVD, and it pops up a really nice message telling me it can't play my
DVD because it doesn't have the right codec, and there is a link to a website
which will explain the nature of the problem.

Steaming gently ... I click on the link and it tells me that I need to pay them
a bunch of extra money for a commercial codec before it will play my DVD. At
this point I've spent about half an hour tinkering with it and I still haven't
seen my movie and now I'm faced with what feels very much like an extortion
demand before I can get my DVD player to play a DVD.

So ... why don't DVDs just play out of the box? The laptop was sold as having a
DVD drive. You'd expect it to be able to ... um ... play DVDs. That is why it is
called a DVD player - duh! Why did windows tell me I needed to install windows
media player 11 to play DVDs if in fact windows media player 11 is unable to
play DVDs. Why wasn't I told of the requirement to purchase this codec before
going through all that validation garbage.

At this point there was NO <expletive deleted> way I was going to shell
out extra money for a codec that might not even work. After all I was just told
by precisely the same people that media player 11 was what I needed and it
didn't turn out to be able to do the job. I wasn't feeling like handing out
money to such untrustworthy types on nothing more than vague promises.

There are in fact zillions of different codecs out there. Should I be expecting
extortion demands on a regular basis every time I try to play something
different? Not feeling at all happy. Feeling pretty stubborn at this point.

So lets go hunting on the net. There is a whole world of `freeware' out there
and of course there are lots of places offering free codecs and codec packs and
whatnot. And I'm sure some of them are good. But I'm also sure a lot of them are
pretty bad - and some of them likely come packaged with all kinds of malware,
and it isn't at all easy to tell which is which. I figure I need an mpeg-2
codec. I find a GPL project on sourceforge that offers one. Check them out. They
look legit. Download it. Install it. Try windows media player again. Windows
media player refuses to use it because it says it isn't properly signed. Tear
out hair.

OK - FORGET windows media player 11. Lets get something that I KNOW will do the
job. Google mplayer. Lets see if it has a windows port. And it does - called
MPUI. Download it - tiny download by comparison with all the previous rubbish.
Install is a snap. Start it up. Eureka! Now I can watch my movie.

There could be no better advertisement for open source software than an
experience such as this one.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds