|
|
| SCO Agrees With Itself (Technically with its New Subsidiary Cattleback) to Give Itself Some Bonuses - Updated |
 |
|
Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:24 AM EST
|
All rise, please. The word fraud has just entered the courtroom. And it's SCO who has first uttered it. Of course, it denies it. It has filed a document, proposing a settlement with itself (technically with its newborn subsidiary, Cattleback Holdings, born on July 17), regarding a sale of a patent which was transferred to the subsidiary without consideration quite recently, whereby they'd like the court to say it's OK that they did that and let them pay some unnamed employees some bonuses, prepetition don't you know, and the document tells all about why it isn't a fraudulent transfer. Even if it is another asset sold off that Novell and the other sadsack creditors whom no one in that courtroom in Delaware cares one bit about, I gather, can't get full value from. No bonuses for creditors. What, are you mad? "All gone!" I imagine I hear Mr. Spector tell the court someday soon, "so where's the harm to Novell now?" Shazam! It all got spent on lawyers and financial advisers and now a fair chunk, if SCO gets its way, to the folks who found the buyer for the patent, after great labors for which it must be paid, Ocean Tomo, who call themselves "the leading Intellectual Capital Merchant Banc® firm that specializes in understanding and leveraging Intellectual Property assets." But this article about Intellectual Ventures, started by two ex-Microsoft executives, Edward Jung and Nathan Myhrvold, calls it a patent auctioneer: Also complementary to Intellectual Ventures' operations is patent auctioneer Ocean Tomo. "An auction is a great way of setting prices. We’ve participated in Ocean Tomo auctions...as buyers and sellers," Jung said. Small world, isn't it?
Now, SCO is worried that there might be some nitpicky types, like creditors and whatnot, who might argue that "a transfer for no consideration made by a chapter 11 debtor shortly before its entry into chapter 11 should be avoided as a fraudulent transfer." I might think that way myself, now that they mention it. "In lieu of filing a lawsuit against its wholly-owned subsidiary," SCO helpfully suggests, "the Debtor has agreed to the following resolution of the incipient dispute." Um. Agreed with whom? Who is Cattleback? Are there humans there? Other than Darl and his gang of cowboys? His wife? Who? Here's the deal SCO offers, and I'm sure this was a hard-fought compromise after blazing gun battles with the Cattleback posse: - Cattleback gets paid for the patent and pays SCO $570,000, the full amount offered, (and may I inquire the last time a patent was worth that little if it had any value at all?) to SCO, and Cattleback will pay everything that was incurred by the Debtor for the development and marketing of the patent. With what? Did money get transferred to that subsidiary too?
- SCO must pay Ocean Tomo, the folks that found the unnamed buyer, the balance that it owes them for that laborious task, and the balance they are owed is $60,500. That's the *balance* on a $570,000 deal? What did they get already?
- SCO says it owes the inventor and unnamed "several employees" a cut, to the tune of $45,000 split between them, whoever they are. They have to pay themselves, unfortunately, since the marketing agreement says so. They are "obligated by the marketing agreement". Those are the breaks. Evidently SCO lost the poker hand, got into this marketing agreement, and now it can't escape, and SCO has to pay its employees money. Whoever they are. Drat.
-
That leaves $464,500 for SCO Group "in full and final satisfaction of any claims that the Debtor may have against" Cattleback. Like they are really fighting.
Hence the word fraud might start floating past in middle space... so before such a horrible thought takes root in anyone's brain, SCO explains why it is not a fraud: - It's cheaper than litigating the controversy between SCO and itself...er.. I mean Cattleback
- the judge has discretion, and settlements are encouraged and the court should only look and see whether the settlement "falls below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness." Well. Not hard to leap over that bar, I'd say. They might just get this approved if that's all it takes.
- True, a transfer made for no consideration within a year before bankruptcy -- let alone two months before -- is avoidable if the transfer was made with the intent to "hinder, delay or defraud a creditor" ... heaven forfend. Or if the transfer was made when the transferor was insolvent or would make him so. How about if he woke up and smelled the coffee, knew bankruptcy was almost inevitable, and set up a straw subsidiary to siphon off an asset so Novell couldn't get it? Well. There goes my wild imagination again. Skip that. SCO says it's paying itself the proceeds of a "market-based sale", so that's better than the lowest point in the range of reasonableness.
- It was Ocean Tomo that advised SCO to set up Cattleback after all. It never entered SCO's pretty little head to defraud any creditor. No. This isn't a bit like that.
- SCO was solvent in July so it can't be faulted on that account. True, and it still is, so why is it in bankruptcy court? A cynic might say for the same reason it set up the newborn subsidiary and transfered an asset without consideration. The wind was blowing all one way, and SCO stuck its finger in the air. Or maybe it heard Novell tell the judge in Utah that for SCO bankruptcy was inevitable and imminent and caught a clue. No, not at all. SCO was solvent, so no one can prove it's a fraud. No sir, "there is no evidence of actual intent nor any badge of fraud to substitute for such evidence that would support a recovery." Badge of fraud? That's a new phrase to me. My imagination takes wings. Surely there could be no more worthy recipient of such an honor. I didn't know they have badges for that. Well, whoever can design a badge of fraud, please send it to me, so we can start thinking of an award ceremony. Joke. Joke. Here's what it means. And here is a ruling where the court goes into detail. The short version is that because it's hard to know or prove intent, being inside your noggin, they look for outward indicia. Like the ones SCO mentions. Here's another it didn't list: that on the eve of bankruptcy, you gave your brother a lot of money. Stuff like that. It's like the Girl Scouts, I gather. One badge won't do it. But get enough badges, and you fly on up.
- And nobody could make a constructive fraudulent transfer theory stick either, because SCO was solvent not only before but after the transfer, so any money it can get for the estate "is clearly a win."
So would the court please let them do this too?
It's " Method and apparatus for monitoring computer systems and alerting users of actual or potential system errors", patent number 6,529,784. After recent events, I'd like to see someone invent a Method and apparatus for monitoring courtrooms and alerting judges of actual or potential lawyer errors issuing out of their mouths. Colloquially known as a dancing baloney meter. We sure could have used one of those at the hearing yesterday. We reported the patent had issued back in 2003, to gales of laughter and suggestions of prior art. Of course, you may know of more.
The last entity on planet earth I'd want to hold a patent, good, bad or indifferent, would be SCO. However, I think the creditors perchance will hold the opinion that any patent worth $570,000 in a firesale would be worth a lot more if retained and used to sue victims right and left. Just saying. And isn't that SCO's line of work? They even need the court to approve this "agreement" or it'll have to sue itself. I don't see why SCO needs to sell its patent. According to Mr. Spector, they are potentially going to be raking in the dough, millions and millions for errno.h and stuff. If they can just hold on.
Here are all the filings: 190 -
Filed & Entered: 11/06/2007
Order on Application to Employ
Docket Text: Order Approving the Employment of Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC as Financial Advisors to the Debtors. (Related Doc # [74]) Order Signed on 11/6/2007. (LCN, )
191 -
Filed & Entered: 11/06/2007
Motion to File Under Seal
Docket Text: Order Authorizing SUSE to File Exhibits to Affidavit of Felix Imendoerffer Under Seal. (Related Doc # [143]) Order Signed on 11/6/2007. (LCN, )
192 -
Filed & Entered: 11/06/2007
Order on Motion to Approve
Docket Text: Order Authorizing Retention of Professionals Utilized in the Ordinary Course of Business. (Related Doc # [138]) Order Signed on 11/6/2007. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A # (2) Exhibit B) (LCN, )
193 -
Filed & Entered: 11/06/2007
Minute Entry
Docket Text: Minutes of Hearing held on: 11/06/2007
Subject: OMNIBUS.
(vCal Hearing ID (57215)). (related document(s) [183]) (SS, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 11/6/2007 (SS, ).
194 -
Filed & Entered: 11/06/2007
Motion to Approve Compromise (B)
Docket Text: Motion to Approve Compromise Debtors' Motion for Approval of Compromise of Incipient Controversy Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 12/5/2007 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 11/28/2007. (Attachments: # (1)
Notice # (2)
Proposed Form of Order # (3)
Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel) I didn't get all the certifications and notices, because it's getting too expensive and they're the same, over and over. But everything else is there. Update: I received a donation to cover the extra documents. Thank you. And a comment had me running to look at SCO's SEC filings. SCO says that it set up Cattleback and transferred the patent to it without consideration in mid-July. Where is that to be found in SCO's SEC filings? Here's SCO's 10Q for the period ended July 31, 2007. Not one word that I can find about Cattleback's establishment or about transferring an asset to it.
************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re:
The SCO GROUP, INC., et al.,1
Debtors. |
Chapter 11
Case No. 07-11337 (KG)
(Jointly Administered) |
Objection Deadline: November 28, 2007, at 4:00
p.m. (prevailing Eastern time)
Hearing: December 5, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern
time)
MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE OF
INCIPIENT CONTROVERSY
The above captioned Debtors seek approval of a compromise in
settlement of a potential controversy between the Debtor, The SCO
Group, Inc. ("Debtor") and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries,
Cattleback Intellectual Property Holdings, Inc. In support of this
motion (the "Motion"), the Debtor states:
Jurisdiction and Background
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the matters subject of this
Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. The
procedural predicates for the relief sought herein is Rule 9019 of
the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
2. On September 14, 2007 (the "Petition Date"), the Debtors
filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532.
(1)
3. For greater detail regarding the background of the Debtors'
business and events leading up to the filing of these cases, the
Debtors refer the Court and parties to the Declaration of Darl
C. McBride, Chief Executive Officer of the Debtors, in Support of
First Day Motions (the "McBride Declaration") filed on the
Petition Date and incorporated herein.
4. In June, 2007, the Debtor decided to sell U.S. Patent No. US
6,529,784 titled "Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Computer
Systems and Alerting Users of Actual or Potential System Errors."
On June 29,2007, the Debtor retained a professional intellectual
property marketing firm, Ocean Tomo, LLC, to help it market the
patent.
5. Ocean Tomo recommended that the Debtor set up a separate
company to hold and market the patent, which advice the Debtor
followed.
6. Accordingly, on July 17,2007, the Debtor formed a
wholly-owned subsidiary which it called Cattleback Intellectual
Property Holdings, Inc.
7. The Debtor then assigned the patent to Cattleback on July
18,2007.
8. Inasmuch as Cattleback was always a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Debtor, it paid no consideration for the transfer.
9. Ocean Tomo marketed the patent to almost 200 companies during
August, 2007, with several companies showing interest and doing due
diligence.
10. From September 7 - 12, Ocean Tomo received six bids for the
patent.
11. Ultimately, Ocean Tomo and Cattleback settled upon a buyer
for $570,000.
5 (2)
12. In the meantime, while marketing efforts were underway, the
Debtor filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code.
The Settlement
13. Creditors could argue that a transfer for no consideration
made by a chapter 11 debtor shortly before its entry into chapter
11 should be avoided as a fraudulent transfer. In lieu of filing a
lawsuit against its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Debtor has agreed
to the following resolution of the incipient dispute.
14. Cattleback will pay to the Debtor 100% of the net proceeds
of its sale of the patent and will assume any obligations, if any,
incurred by the Debtor for the development and marketing of the
patent.
15. The Debtor is obligated under a marketing agreement to pay
Ocean Tomo $60,500 as the balance of its fee for finding a buyer
for the patent. In addition, the Debtor is obligated to the
inventor of the product and to several employees for bonuses
approved by the Debtor pre-petition in the aggregate amount of
$45,000. These expenses will be paid by Cattleback and the balance
of the sale proceeds ($464,500) will be turned over to the Debtor
in full and final satisfaction of any claims that the Debtor may
have against it.
Standards For Approval Of
Compromises
16. Rule 9019(a) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
provides that, after notice and a hearing, a court may approve a
proposed compromise or settlement of a controversy. The settlement
of time-consuming and burdensome litigation, especially in the
bankruptcy context, is encouraged and "generally favored in
bankruptcy." In re World Health
6 (3)
Alternatives. Inc., 344 B.R. 291, 296 (Bankr. D. Del.
2006). See also In re Penn Central Transportation
Co., 596 F.2d 1102 (3d Cir. 1979) ("administering
reorganization proceedings in an economical and practical manner it
will often be wise to arrange the settlement of claims"), quoting
In re Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT
Ferry. Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 (1968).
17. The decision to approve a settlement "is within the sound
discretion of the bankruptcy court." World Health
Alternatives, 344 B.R. at 296. See also In re
Neshaminy Office Building Assocs., 62 B.R. 798, 803 (B.D. Pa.
1986), cited with approval in Meyers v. Martin (In re
Martin), 91 F.3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996). The bankruptcy court
should not substitute its judgment for that of the debtor. See
Neshaminy Office Building, 62 B.R. at 803. The responsibility
of the court "is not to decide the numerous questions of law or
fact raised. . . but rather to canvass the issues and see whether
the settlement 'fall[s] below the lowest point in the range of
reasonableness.'" In re W.T. Grant Co., 699 F.2d 599, 608
(2d Cir. 1983)(quoting Newman v. Stein, 464 F.2d 689,693 (2d
Cir. 1972)). See also World Health Alternatives, 344
B.R. at 296 (stating that "the court does not have to be convinced
that the settlement is the best possible compromise. Rather, the
court must conclude that the settlement is within the reasonable
range of litigation possibilities.") (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
18. In determining the fairness and equity of a compromise in
bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has stated that it is important that the bankruptcy court
"apprise[ ] itself of all facts necessary to form an intelligent
and objective opinion of the probabilities of ultimate success
should the claims be litigated, and estimated the
7 (4)
complexity, expense and likely duration of such litigation, and
other factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the
[claims]." In re Penn Central Transportation Co., 596 F.2d
1127, 1153 (3d Cir. 1979). See also In re Marvel
Entertainment Group. Inc., 222 B.R. 243 (D. Del. 1998)
(quoting In re Louise's Inc., 211 B.R. 798, 801 (D.
Del. 1997) (describing "the ultimate inquiry to be whether 'the
compromise is fair, reasonable, and in the interest of the estate.'
").
19. The Third Circuit has enumerated four factors that should be
considered in determining whether a settlement should be approved:
"(1) the probability of success in litigation; (2) the likely
difficulties in collection; (3) the complexity of the litigation
involved and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily
attending it; and (4) the paramount interest of the creditors."
In re Martin, 91 F.3d at 393. Accord Will v.
Northwestern Univ. (In re Nutraquest, Inc.), 434 F.3d 639,644
(3d Cir. 2006).
20. In passing on proposed settlements, the standard that courts
applied under the former Bankruptcy Act is the same standard as
courts should apply under the Bankruptcy Code. In re Carla
Leather, Inc., 44 B.R. 457, 466 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984),
aff'd, 50 B.R. 764 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). As stated by the Supreme
Court in Protective Committee, supra, under the Act,
to approve a proposed settlement, a court must have found that the
settlement was "fair and equitable" based on an -
Educated estimate of the complexity, expense, and
likely duration of . . . litigation, the possible difficulties of
collecting on any judgment which might be obtained and all other
factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the wisdom of the
proposed compromise.
8 (5)
390 U.S. at 424. See also In re Justice Oaks II,
Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir. 1990); In re
Lion Capital Group, 49 B.R. 163 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985);
Drexel v. Loomis, 35 F.2d 800 (8th Cir. 1929);
Matter of Marshall, 33 B.R. 42 (Bankr. D. Conn. 1983).
21. Applying the foregoing standards, the Debtor believes that
the compromise satisfies that four-part test relating to Rule 9019.
The Debtor also believes that based upon the likelihood of success
in litigation, and the expense, inconvenience and delay that would
be caused by litigating, litigation would not be in the best
interests of the estate. Therefore, it is the Debtor's belief, in
exercising its business judgment, that after full and careful
consideration of the issues and the merits of any litigation, the
terms of the compromise (resulting in a benefit to the estate of
$464,500) is in the best interests of the estate.
This Settlement Satisfies The Above
Standards
22. A transfer made for no or inadequate consideration within
one year before the transferor's bankruptcy is avoidable if either:
(1) the transfer was made with the actual intent to hinder, delay
or defraud a creditor; or (2) if the transfer was made when the
transferor was insolvent or the transfer rendered the transferor
insolvent. 11 U.S.C. § 548(a). Because the Debtor could not
prove either of these theories, a settlement whereby the putative
defendant provides the estate 100% of the net proceeds of the
market-based sale of the transferred asset and indemnifies the
estate for any expenses is far above the "lowest point in the range
of reasonableness" as required by Rule 9019 and applicable law.
23. Here, the plaintiff would have an insurmountable burden to
prove that the transfer of an asset that the transferor was itself
trying to sell at market prices but placed into a
9 (6)
holding company on the advice of professional marketing firm was
done with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud its
creditors. In this case particularly, where the Debtor was plainly
solvent on the date of transfer and was current with all of its
creditors, there is no evidence of actual intent nor any badge of
fraud to substitute for such evidence that would support a
recovery.
24. Nor could a putative plaintiff prevail under a constructive
fraudulent transfer theory. Again, the transferor was solvent on
the date of transfer, both before and after the transfer.
Therefore, any settlement at all that brings any amount of money to
the estate is clearly a win for the estate.
[remainder of page intentionally left
blank]
10 (7)
WHEREFORE, the Debtor requests the Court to enter an order
approving the compromise and granting the Debtors such other and
further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: November 6 , 2007
PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP
(signature)
Laura Davis Jones (Bar No. 2436)
James E. O'Neil (Bar No. 4042)
Rachel Lowy Werkheiser (Bar No. 3753) [address]
[phone]
[fax]
[email addresses]
and
BERGER SINGERMAN, P.A.
Paul Steven Singerman
Arthur J. Spector
Grace E. Robson
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
and
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
[email addresses]
Co-Counsel for the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession
11 (8)
|
The Debtors and the last four digits of each of the Debtors'
federal tax identification numbers are as follows: (a) The SCO
Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Fed. Tax Id. #2823; and (b)
SCO Operations, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Fed. Tax ID.
#7393. |
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:42 AM EST |
PJ its been a big day! Get some rest, please. You are writing faster than I
can read![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snakebitehurts on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:46 AM EST |
| I got the first one. LOL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:47 AM EST |
Please, make the pain stop.
Is there anyone out there who can stop this fraudster, this huckster, this utter
lying, conniving, deceitful little toady that goes by the name SCO?
Please?
Anyone?
I'm begging you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Fraud - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:56 AM EST
- SCO Fraud - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:52 PM EST
- SCO Fraud - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: atheist on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:49 AM EST |
Make the subject match the newspick title please, and follow the instructions if
pasting links [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Highfield Open Standards - Authored by: osaeris on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:53 AM EST
- Microsoft fires its CIO .... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:01 AM EST
- SCO Announces Availability of Maintainance Pack 3 for OpenServer 6 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:09 AM EST
- Will Linux/Android Finally Take Out Micr0$oft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:55 AM EST
- Everex to track pirate Windows installations in China - Authored by: brooker on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:36 AM EST
- Everex to track pirate Windows installations in China - Authored by: nickd on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:17 PM EST
- Larry Lessig: How creativity is being strangled by the law - Authored by: squib on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:24 PM EST
- SCO vs. Linux: Costly German lawyers - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:55 PM EST
- Who owns writers IP? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:04 PM EST
- Web site management at the BBC - Authored by: Hargoth on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:06 PM EST
- mpeg-la sues Alcatel - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 09:21 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: atheist on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:50 AM EST |
| They've discovered 5 planets orbiting a star 41 light years away [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic here - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:04 AM EST
- These observations have previously been described as "observing a mosquito... - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:20 AM EST
- BIOS as OS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:57 AM EST
- BIOS as OS - Authored by: zcat on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:41 AM EST
- How long - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:19 AM EST
- How long - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:18 PM EST
- BIOS as OS - link - Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:26 AM EST
- Linux Environment - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:42 PM EST
- BIOS as OS - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 02:21 PM EST
- BIOS as OS - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2007 @ 07:07 AM EST
- Dell dumps Ubuntu!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:38 AM EST
- "millions and millions for errno.h and stuff..." - nearly needed a new keyboard! :-D n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:12 AM EST
- Prince vs. his fans - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 09:01 AM EST
- Why is Microsoft about to open a 700-employee software development centre in Richmond, BC ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 09:24 AM EST
- Off Topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 10:18 AM EST
- SCO bankruptcy docket: #195..197 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:24 AM EST
- Off Topic here - Authored by: darthaggie on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:51 PM EST
- Off Topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 06:14 PM EST
- To the tune of Jingle Bells - Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 02:27 PM EST
- The Canadian dollar's meteoric rise accelerated this week. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 02:33 PM EST
- Dan Gillmor Named Knight Center Director, Kauffman Professor at ASU - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:32 PM EST
- Microsoft patenting Sign Off Messages - Authored by: stephen_A on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:50 PM EST
- IRC prior art - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:58 PM EST
- Pre-2006 MLB videos dead due to DRM - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:57 PM EST
- Roling Stones & Youtube - Authored by: NeilG on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:39 PM EST
- This is so far off topic, sorry, another youtube moment - Authored by: NeilG on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:45 PM EST
- Off Topic here - Authored by: billposer on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:51 PM EST
- MO'G says SCO is LYING - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 06:11 PM EST
- Way way way OT, but funny - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 06:38 PM EST
- More on the OpenDocument Foundation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 06:39 PM EST
- Novell's answer to eternal US litigation? - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:22 PM EST
- AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:39 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:52 AM EST |
Three guys are going to share a hotel room for the night, and the desk clerk
charges them $30, i.e. $10 each (ok, so it's a *very* old joke). The manager
later tells him he made a mistake, the room is only $25, not $30, so go refund
their $5. Being too lazy to make change, and a little greedy, he gives them $1
each and pockets the extra $2. So each guy ended up paying $9, making $27 for
the room, plus the $2 the desk clerk kept makes $29. What happened to the extra
dollar?
At first I thought I'd put this in the off-topic thread, but actually it pretty
much describes SCO-Logic.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:58 AM EST |
"Cattleback gets paid for the patent and pays SCO $570,000,
"the full amount offered, (and may I inquire the last time a
"patent was worth that little if it had any value at all?)"
They got Steve Ballmer in to throw the couch around the room,
and that's all the loose change that fell out...., oh and a
Badge of Fraud, but it was only a plastic one from a crackerjack box.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bstone on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:00 AM EST |
What possible reason could they have to keep the name of the buyer secret? I'm
guessing the secret might be "Acacia".
I also wish at least one judge somewhere would check out the truthfulness of at
least one of their filings. In this case, I wonder what he would find if he
asked for the list of the "200" companies that the patent was
"marketed" to, and then asked them about it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:16 AM EST |
"Tomo is a Japanese word for intelligent and friendly and reflects
the Asian notion of an integrated, friendly group of related
businesses."
Tomo is a Maori word for a hole in the ground, a
limestone sinkhole,
or a narrow gulch. In this context these items (3
page pdf) might have been handy to stem the flow of nonsense from SCO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:25 AM EST |
I don't understand this.
They make new deals and they are free to spend money like crazy, yet owe nothing
to their existing creditors?
Isn't there supposed to be some control over what they spend?
Or is this judge and his court a complete pushover?
It would seem that any major deals, unless agreed to otherwise by existing
creditors and the court, should place any amounts due anyone into creditor
status and not paid.
This is beginning to look more like a ream job (you know, the big multibladed
kind machinists use) than a court where arguments creditors make have any
bearing whatsoever. Or is the point to show that your arguments are
meaningless, wait until you stop, and then say, look, nobody is objecting so we
must be right!
If this doesn't get shut down mighty quick, what is bankrupt is the morality of
the system. And that reflects badly on our entire country.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:46 AM EST |
Where is lady justice? Broke and in the gutter pandering, with all her money
paid to lawyers?
In the US where rule of law is the word of the land (you hear all lawyers
trumpet this). Well, this SCO saga, and the bravado of the judge to rule in
ways "like HE, even knows or has any sense about what has been going on,
and how that newSCO (a comedy in the rename of Caldera it was too), and how
newSCO actually attacked everyone else first, including launching a lawsuit
AGAINST Novell for slander of title etc... The judge made a huge mistake in the
stay of the arbitration, as it was defensive, in part due to newSCO's launch of
the OFFENSIVE actions against NOVELL in the first place (the only mistake that
Novell has made, is NOT pointing out to this bankruptcy judge that it was newSCO
who went after Novell in the first place, even after approaching them to get the
copyrights transferred, that Novell said NO to, and that newSCO did this IN
POINT OF FACT, even BEFORE launching suits against IBM and the rest of the world
KNOWING that they did not have the copyrights, as otherwise why would they be
asking (quietly) Novell for them, almost as soon as Darl took over at newSCO to
head it's agressive actions against IBM, and then Novell...?
Novell should appeal this mistake by this bankruptcy judge, as he has not done
his homework well enough to make such a senseless ruling (Novell is not the
aggressor, newSCO has been, and is still, by virtue of taking this to
bankruptcy, newSCO is the aggressor, and by going to bankruptcy is making a
mockery of the "RULE OF LAW" ... showing now that only those with
money can be a citizen, and even if you have money, that the legal system is so
over taxed and lost, that judges like the one in the bankruptcy court, can't
take the time so figure out the P's an Q's and make a correct ruling.
Where is lady justice? She seem, due to this judge's ruling and maybe future
rulings to be lost and with no more than a penny in her pocket, due to what
seems to be a broken system, that no one can play in, unless you are rich.
And that is wrong.
Dickens, in "Bleak House", painted a picture of a broken legal system
in that day (a reflection of the truth that was in time corrected, due in part
to his writing about it and the public reading about it... where the system was
gamed to only make lawyers rich. The same is true more and more in the US
today.
Will the court find it's way back to being one of integrity and a quick and fair
trial...without these expensive games?
Most likely NO, and that is a sad future ending to all of this, no matter what
the case ends up like, in the end... when we look at the big picture, something
is broken... and lady justice, saddly is left dying in a ditch somewhere with
all the lawyers who are involved drinking their expensive imported fine wines,
in comfortable houses, while the rest of us "eat only the cake that they
want us to dream about".
PJ - you say wait for justice to prevail, but for anyone else but a large
corporation, who can afford to experience this path? And this is a very sad
thing. I feel sorry for lady justice now in ways that I can't begin to write
about.
Dickens would have loved this story, as it would have been both bread and butter
for him to apply his skill to.
Nemo
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Filias Cupio on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 02:58 AM EST |
If SCO gives a $500,000 patent to Cattleback, that decreases the value of SCO by
$500,000 and increases the value of Cattleback. But SCO owns 100% of Cattleback,
which increases in value, so SCO come out even. Cattleback is an asset which
could be sold off to pay creditors.
So why is this a problem? Is it because Cattleback is not in chapter 11, and so
can give assets away without court approval? (I.e. SCO gives to Cattleback -
"it's OK, because we own Cattleback 100%", then Cattleback gives to a
fairy "it's OK, we're not bankrupt and don't need permission.")
Clearly, IANAL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kh on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:21 AM EST |
It makes me wonder what other things are lurking in SCO's accounts that they
didn't tell the BK court. Surely this should have been in the initial filings.
Are they just starting to realise that the BK court will shine a light on
various dodgy dealings they have been hiding?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:21 AM EST |
| NT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:46 AM EST |
Now it gets interesting...
---
Software Patents are leeches on the creativity of mankind.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:32 AM EST |
"Method and apparatus for monitoring computer systems and alerting users
of actual or potential system errors",
That sounds an awful lot
like what Hipcheck does. Hipcheck, which SCO wants to sell to York while keeping
a perpetual, irrevocable, etc license to prepare derivative works and sell it,
plus SCO would get 75% of York's revenue from Hipcheck sales for the next three
years (capped at $3 million dollars). Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for
them to keep the patent, so that Hipcheck would have a monopoly on that
market? ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set
him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry
Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:03 AM EST |
Sorry, we have no money to pay our creditors, so dismiss our petition
and let us go on to other things and stop bothering us and let bygones
be bygones.
SCO has mocked every court it's been in, and continues to do so.
It's baffling. It care nothing for its own good name, or anyone else's.
Does this happen a lot in bankruptcy, a petitioner trying to dissipate
its assets so it doesn't have to pay anything to anyone, and there
are no consequences?
The stakes, it seems to me, are the same for the bankruptcy court
as they were for ISO: can it salvage its own credibility? ISO managed
to save itself. Can the bankruptcy court?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:07 AM EST |
Do you think the US Trustee has a good sense of humour?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Genuine Advantage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:14 AM EST |
I can see it now:
Novell's lawyer:
Your honor, SCO
indeed deserves the badge of fraud.
SCO's lawyer:
Badges? We don't need no steenking badges! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Badge of fraud? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 12:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 07:19 AM EST |
Well, I can see many here feel strongly about this.
Apart from the use of the F-word though -- which is interesting -- in my view,
this is not as outrageous as what happened in the hearing yesterday; or SCO's
proposal to sell off assets they don't own, arguing that it's OK, people do that
all the time...
Delaware seems to be living up to its reputation. The US Trustee seems to be on
the ball -- very much so -- but that judge...
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:13 AM EST |
We are told that SCO owes Ocean Tomo $60,500 because of a pre-petition
marketing agreement.
So, why weren't they listed as one of the top 20
unsecured creditors back in September?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:14 AM EST |
Hey, everybody!
If I shake my head anymore, I think my brain will become dislodged from the
spinal column.
I think what makes this so frustrating is, most people know they are doing
something wrong and try to hide it, or at least make an effort. There is an
acknowledgement that there is something wrong here. But SCO is acting like the
old, "If I'm not supposed to do it, then how come I can?" Just move
stuff around, mess with the legal system, and everything, just to get themselves
some fame, some standing, and some money.
One of the things I love in Pearls Before Swine was a strip where the crocs made
a deal with the Devil to get Zebra, and promptly found themselves in Hell. When
them complained, the Devil laughed and said, "Of course, I lied! I'm the
Devil, aren't I?" SCO seems to be doing everything it can to remind people
they can't be trusted. Would just LOVE to see their long term business
prospects.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:30 AM EST |
It's looking - more and more and more - that SCO knew exactly why Delaware was
the place to be. SCO will "win" everything it wants to win in
Delaware.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 08:54 AM EST |
Transfer has not been recorded, but the Public PAIR patent record shows that
SCOX was late in its filing last year. It also negotiated a lower payment since
it had changed from a "Large Entity" to a "Small Entity.
PATENT NUMBER
6,529,784
FEE AMT $450.00
SUR- CHARGE $65.00
PYMT
DATE 10/02/06
U.S. APPLICATION NUMBER 09/514,488
PATENT ISSUE DATE
02/29/00
APPL. FILING DATE 03/04/03
PAYMENT YEAR 04
SMALL
ENTITY? YES
ATTY DKT NUMBER 3412.2.5
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 09:00 AM EST |
SCO's Strategy:
1. Sell the assets of the company (even if it doesn't own the assets) for a low
price (marketed to look like a high price: $36 mil = $10 mil + $10 mil in debt
+ $16 mil potential litigation wins) to a friend company (York) - while
stripping the assets of the ongoing litigation, so that the "real"
assets (the
"IP") are placed out of reach of creditors.
2. Use up the remaining money in litigation or payments to friends or
executives (e.g. the patent sale to its subsidiary).
3. Transition to Chapter 7 when there is no money left.
4. In Chapter 7, all the litigtion goes "poof!" since there are no
longer even
bones to pick by Novell, IBM, etc. Thus it gets a free pass out of bad
litigation. SCO gets to thumb its nose at its foes!
5. Form a new company - "SCO Phoenix".
6. Buy the assets back from York (who doesn't know what to do with them
anyway).
7. Sell "licenses" to obtain money from Microsoft and others willing
to use a
hired gun.
8. Start suing other companies again. The Phoenix rises anew!
For companies whose business model is litigation, this is a perfect way to use
and abuse the courts (if the bankruptcy court ends up blind).
Bankruptcy via Chapter 11 is then a way out should litigation turn out badly -
as in it's lawsuit against Novell - which would have bankrupted the company.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 09:25 AM EST |
Intellectual Vultures Ventures, started by two
ex-Microsoft executives, Edward Jung and Nathan Myhrvold
It's funny
how it's raining IP-buying ex-MS execs all over this case...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 10:13 AM EST |
This is not about the money.
This is about getting court approval for
some
other hidden activity.
If the entire purpose of Cattleback was
to hold and
market the patent, as Ocean Tomo
recommended (allegedly), then why
does
Cattleback have to continue to exist?
14. Cattleback will pay
to the Debtor 100% of the net proceeds of its sale of the patent and will
assume any obligations, if any, incurred by the Debtor for the development and
marketing of the patent.
Why would SCOX have any
obligations if the patent
has been sold?
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joef on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 10:58 AM EST |
| It's in Delaware: http://www.corp.delaware.gov/onlinestatus.shtml and search for
cattleback. Sorry, I couldn't get the link to work after several
tries!
THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING
File Number:
4389925 Incorporation Date / Formation Date: 07/16/2007
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Entity
Name: CATTLEBACK INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC.
Entity Kind: CORPORATION
Entity Type: GENERAL
Residency: DOMESTIC State: DE
REGISTERED AGENT
INFORMATION
Name: THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY
Address: CORPORATION TRUST
CENTER 1209 ORANGE STREET
City: WILMINGTON County: NEW CASTLE
State: DE
Postal Code: 19801
Phone:
Since they were formed in July of
this year, wouldn't this transaction raise issues of hiding assets? Could the
entire event of creating the subsidiary be nullified (avoided?) for being done
just before filing for bankruptcy?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:33 AM EST |
I'd like to see someone invent a Method and apparatus for
monitoring courtrooms and alerting judges of actual or potential lawyer errors
issuing out of their mouths. Colloquially known as a dancing baloney meter. We
sure could have used one of those at the hearing
yesterday. This is just another aspect of our ethical legal
system that causes me to lose 100% faith in that system. Lawyers are
supposed to be above board, ethical and keep the legal system in good
light. That may have been true long ago but today, that is not the case. This
is why there are so many [anti] lawyer jokes floating around. Why so many
people actually fear the legal system. Today's environment of "win at any
cost" including lying, cheating, stealing and, yes, abusing the legal system is
just a part of that. It gets worse day by day. Sure, there are a LOT of good
lawyers out there but, the number of bad ones like Boies & Co. are grwoing
in leaps and bounds. ---
Bill The Cat [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:42 AM EST |
The driver(s) at the back of all of these doings is utterly contemptuous
intellect. To that intellect--and let's please handle with lead gloves reports
of conversations with anyone at or near the center of SCO, whatever that might
be, that conveyed how genuinely distressed such a person or persons may have
appeared to have been at the turn events; Ted Bundy, for example, was an
absolute charmer--business is a joke, fair play is joke, UNIX is a joke, Linux
is a joke, customers are a joke, the court system is a joke; that is, to that
intellect, *this is all _play_*, which is why it's so dangerous, capricious, and
destructive. To that intellect, there is no such thing as loss; there's just
another, and another, and another resource-sucking play, just another, always
another, instance of make itself the center of attention and making the
hypnotized suckers dance. Look back through all the coverage of this process and
identify how many times the entity that is SCO has done things that to anyone
interested in *actually* making money, *actually* interacting with community,
*actually* succeeding and growing in any reasonably sunlit way, have seemed,
well, insane? It seemed, it seems, insane because it *is* insane.
So consider, please, the name Cattleback. A bull is a cattle, and the metabolic
waste from a bull exits somewhere toward the rear--at the, er, back. *That name
is itself more of the joke.*
Profound mental illness is the driver behind all these doings. Stop imagining
that evil genius, a brilliant chess player or players, lies/lie behind it;
that's just our human tendency to project itself as an omnipotent deific
container around its own lack of understanding. Those at the center of this
conflagration *do not care* how the game comes out or who gets hurt or what gets
lost in the process; the conflagration itself, prolonging it for one more day,
one more hearing, is the goal.
Of course, now have that we're in "the bankruptcy phase"--as if it's
the life cycle of star or a beetle--we have indeed entrained entirely new
subindustries of opportunists, parasitses and hangers-on--specialists trained in
extracting profit, of commoditizing, the tiniest detectable gradient of
misunderstanding, delay, deceit, and misery. But the core driver of these events
is sick intellect, and to that intellect *all* of this, in any flavor, all day
every day, is just fine and dandy.
Were it not so, SCO would always have been about actually building widgets,
hardware or software or otherwise, and selling same at a reasonable profit, and
growing that business and taking it where it may go, and then going home to
live life--*always* going home to live real life, which is actually why we do
these things at all. But no. To a sufficiently sick intellect, that simple
process, living life well, reproducing, and then dying well, is also a joke. To
that intellect, why live such a sunlit, healthy life when you can do *this*?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:43 AM EST |
Has anybody looked to see (from public records) as to what amounts each of the
various officers and such could be on the hook for?
ie if Kimball and Gross go Boondock Saints on TSCOG and BSF
Darl is on the hook for X million
the former C?O folks are on the hook for X million
BSF has folks on the hook for X million
If you added up all of the "loose change" i wonder if we could get
Novell paid off?
Bonus round question is what CRIMINAL charges folks are maybe on the hook for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:57 AM EST |
Should the trustee be worried about SCO's reorganization plan? SCO is attempting
a fire sale on the UNIX business, the existing cash flow. And now selling off
the assetts of SCOme (the cattleback patent).
So what is SCO's future as a business?
An assetless lawsuit target appears to be SCO's only future.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 11:59 AM EST |
The settlement of time-consuming and burdensome litigation,
especially in the bankruptcy context, is encouraged and "generally favored in
bankruptcy." In re World Health
Gee, I can think of some
"time-consuming and burdensome litigation" they might settle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Wasn't part of Enron's downfall the fact that it created shell companies and
created the appearance of false revenues/profit by transferring assets and
overvaluing them?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stites on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:38 PM EST |
Cattleback gets paid for the patent and pays SCO $570,000, the full
amount offered, (and may I inquire the last time a patent was worth that little
if it had any value at all?) to SCO, and Cattleback will pay everything that was
incurred by the Debtor for the development and marketing of the
patent.
Suppose that the patent is actually worthless. Then this
transaction could be viewed as yet another way that the PIPE Fairy could pump
money into SCO and its employees.
------------------
Steve
Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vb on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 01:51 PM EST |
It seems like no matter what blatant fraud SCO does, I yawn.
There must be a lot of others like me. It really should have been a bombshell
yesterday when SCO admitted that they have been plotting with York since 2005.
SCO has just been waiting for the right time, that causes the most litigation
damage to IBM/Novell, to transfer their "Unix rights" to York.
Even if they lose against IBM/Novell. York can carry the FUD torch for the next
few years.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:13 PM EST |
it is important that the bankruptcy court "apprise[ ] itself of all
facts necessary to form an intelligent and objective opinion of the
probabilities of ultimate success should the claims be litigated, and estimated
the complexity, expense and likely duration of such litigation, and other
factors relevant to a full and fair assessment of the
[claims]."
Good idea. Maybe it should start with the likelyhood
that there could be any such litigation at all. Being a 100% subsidary of
SCO it should be fully controlled, no? Doesn't have SCO full control over
Cattleback's board? BTW, who are Cattlebacks officers?
Also, just to spread
any residue suspect of fraud, shouldn't the full agreement with Ocean Tomo be
disclosed to the BK court? Have a look at the other five proposals made by
prospective buyers?
And if Ocean Tomo suggested to establish a shell
company, what was the rationale behind that? Is SCO sure that the idea was not
to sell the whole shell company including the patent?
And, just
hypothetically, what would happen to the estate if SCO defaulted on the contract
with Ocean Tomo and sold Cattleback completely? Then Ocean Tomo would be (a new,
surprise, surprise) creditor, but the resulting cash might be more than the
$464,500 proposed by SCO's "settlement".
Hm, and the beneficiaries of
those bonuses, wouldn't that be even more new creditors of SCO? So they would be
payed in full? How nice for them. Those employees wouldn't include the former
CFO or any other officers of SCO I hope?
<sarcasm off>
/Andreas
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 03:23 PM EST |
There are way too many questions raised by this. I would hope the judge starts
asking them soon, and fully expect Novell to ask a few of them, but I'm sorta
puzzled that a couple of the noticable defects haven't already been brought up
here.
The ones that glare out the most to me:
SCO purports to be wanting to sell ME and Hipcheck to York (who tout the
incredible revenue potential of this vital, patented technology in an growing
market), yet we find out that the single patent behind this future wealth has
already been sold... (The mere fact that York doesn't question this should
raise eyebrows...)
IIRC, ME (and it's valuable patent) was one of those nebulous companies that
Ralph Yarro was moving around under the Canopy umbrella, which eventually landed
in the SCO bin. Wasn't it a spin-off of a spin-off of something else? So who
are these "inventors and developers" that SCO is now
"obligated" to pay for this? Are they coincidentally SCO insiders?
If not, why are they suddenly entitled to payment now, even though their patent
was apparently sold/exchanged/traded at least once (possibly more) previously
(or is SCO selling other property they don't own)?
This whole York deal, and all of the other transactions we are now seeing appear
to be nothing but mud thrown in the water to obsfucate all the nefarious
scheming beneath the surface.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:07 PM EST |
| The real mistake with the Everex article is the assertion that they are going to
be tracking how many systems will be using pirated Windows on those
machines.
A system which doesn't go to the Everex site for upgrades could
be:
- used for an off-internet application and just never updated
- run by
a user who distrusts Everex and turns off the auto-update
- converted to a
different Linux distro
- converted to a purchased copy of Windows
This
"anyone who doesn't do what we expect must be breaking the law" viewpoint is
really obnoxious.
John Macdonald [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:32 PM EST |
A cellphone has not much security value in a subway. Unless your train happens
to be in an outlying area where it runs above ground, you just have a brick with
no signal most of the time. All you can do with the cellphone is to use it
immediately after you get out of the subway - but that's likely to be too late.
John Macdonald[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 04:43 PM EST |
BUTTERFLYING is the buzz word used by tax lawyers and accountants here in
Canada. BUTTERFLYING is apparently legal in Canada; because a tax lawyer and a
tax accountant who both advise the federal government tax department's lawyers
and accountants - both said it's legal.
In the above situation, there was $1,500,000 profit by the main company. By
establishing a series of BUTTERFLIED companies (yes owned by wives, uncles,
fathers and so on) a grand total of $15,000 was paid out in corporate tax that
year!
Yes it's called a LOOPHOLE. And LOOPHOLES are not accidently when it comes to
taxes. All LOOPHOLES are well developed as well as being well paid for to the
highest bidder through political campaign donations.
Be interesting to see if an expert in USA taxes is brought into the picture by
Nouvell et al.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 05:02 PM EST |
why do i get the feeling that in both cattleback and york, sco is doing 'oops we
meant to say ... but forgot to, no problem here's what we meant to do.see all
right now, so there should be no penalty.'[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 06:03 PM EST |
| potential fraud", [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 09:02 PM EST |
SCO must pay Ocean Tomo, the folks that found the unnamed
buyer, the balance that it owes them for that laborious task, and the balance
they are owed is $60,500. That's the *balance* on a $570,000 deal? What
did they get already?
This is the infamous 15 percent commission.
The prior payment shows up as having cleared in SCOs Statement of Financial
Affairs, Payments to Creditors, schedule 3b, Filing #131, Attachment #1, with a
clearing date of August 1, 2007, for the amount of $25,000. This gives a
total of $85,500 which is coincidentally enough 15 percent of the sales
price.
SCO says it owes the inventor and unnamed "several
employees" a cut, to the tune of $45,000 split between them, whoever they
are. They have to pay themselves, unfortunately, since the marketing agreement
says so. They are "obligated by the marketing agreement". Those are the breaks.
Evidently SCO lost the poker hand, got into this marketing agreement, and now it
can't escape, and SCO has to pay its employees money. Whoever they are. Drat.
It's my understanding (as an inventor and not a lawyer) that at
least a handful of cases in the last couple of decades have found that inventors
are entitled to a share of the profits reaped from the benefit of their
inventions above and beyond normal renumeration. I knew of a couple of
engineers working for Lockheed Missiles and Space, who eventual were awarded
some number of millions of dollars for something they patented called a spin
decoupler, a spring wind up launching pedestal situated between a booster and
spacecraft (satellite), that would impart spin and give a push to separate the
spent booster from payload. The patent was found to have a value to Lockheed of
something like $112 million dollars over it's life.
Another case comes to
mind more recently, where the inventor of the blue LED in Japan won a much
bigger settlement.
I can readily imagine that a terms of sale through Ocean
Tomo would include a percentage of par payment (and probably a royalty schedule)
for the inventors to preclude litigation on their part. The inventors can be
readily identified from the patent. The terms of
the deal could probably be viewed as above board, regardless of whether or not
SCO is trying to divest assets to assure escape into Chapter 7.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sschlimgen on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 10:04 PM EST |
The language in this reminds me of that motion where they reminded Wells that
she had at one time said they'd accted in good faith - as if that one time good
behavior could be carried forward to cover all future misdeeds.
---
Meandering through life like a drunk on a unicycle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2007 @ 10:33 PM EST |
It has now become clear for me (sorry if you saw it before I did) that this
entire fiaSCO has been about damaging Linux companies and spreading FUD. Up
until yesterday I still had some reservations because I'm the type of person who
is willing to give anybody the "benefit of the doubt". No more! It's
quite clear now that the SCO management's only agenda is to create the largest
crater they can. They want to pull everybody down into it and drain as much as
they can from all involved. It's quite obvious that they have no intention
whatsoever of continuing to operate a business in the traditional sense.
They've squandered all the assets of two decent companies (oldSCO and Caldera)
and have nothing to show for it other than a massive cyst on IBM, Novell, and
Linux in general. It is now quite clear to me that somebody in Redmond is
pulling the strings. Nobody in their right mind would take these actions if
they wanted their company to be an ongoing concern.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2007 @ 08:40 AM EST |
Cease and desist with using the phrase "Dancing Baloney Meter" as we
have filed for it's patent nearly a year ago. We would also like to inform you
that we have patented the method of patenting methods. With this new patent we
will strike at everyone. Suing them all for having a patent itself. We don't
even have to prove it for a few years. We can incorporate, Make a IPO on the
stock, Juice the stock up with out and out lies, and ride the gravy train for
nearly 5 years, 6 if we patent methods of "Chatting on a cellular phone
while avoiding a three car pile up.".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Thursday, November 08 2007 @ 11:32 AM EST |
SCO's take on the relationship between themselves and their
wholly owned subsidiary is rather different from their take on
that between Novell and SUSE.
One has to admire that abount of brazen cheek.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2007 @ 05:14 PM EST |
The above captioned Debtors seek approval of a compromise in
settlement of a potential controversy between the Debtor, The SCO Group, Inc.
("Debtor") and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Cattleback Intellectual
Property Holdings, Inc. So Darl "SCO" McBride was holding a gun
to the head of Darl "Cattleback" McBride? Is this filing a derivative work based
on the Mel Brooks classic? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, November 09 2007 @ 12:59 PM EST |
| Obviously the patent had no significant value until after cattleback
found a buyer for it.
If that wasn't the case SCO would have never given it
away ... or spent time and money setting up the company to give it away to ...
or spent time and energy finding a 'mysterious buyer' for it. (the mysterious
buyer just materialized out of thin air -- honest!).
Move along folk. This
isn't the fraud you were looking for <waves
hands>.
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
