|
|
| SCO Layoffs - Maciaszek Out |
 |
|
Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 01:52 PM EST
|
SCO yesterday filed an 8K with the SEC, stating that it will be laying off about 30 more people, beginning on January 31.
Here are five of them [PDF] already, as filed with the bankruptcy court, folks who survived the initial bankruptcy cut but are now out the door. One of them is John Maciaszek, a director "who has worked for USL, Novell, Santa Cruz and SCO as a Contract Manager in the UNIX licensing groups". He was director of operating system product management at SCO . Evidently there is no current need for that position.
Maciaszek first came to our attention in May of 2003, when he signed the Dear SCO Partners letter, telling about purging materials involving LKP due to SCO's purported intellectual property concerns about Linux.
Next, in February of 2004, his name came up when IBM complained to the court in SCO v. IBM that SCO had failed to include discovery from his files. SCO claimed it was an oversight and later said they'd produced the materials. If you recall the context, even when SCO provided emails, it had not produced the attachments. So IBM scheduled a deposition of Mr. Maciaszek for December of 2005. It was filed under seal. He provided SCO a Declaration also. And in the SCO v. Novell case, he testified -- (Novell filed evidentiary objections to his testimony and asked it be thrown out) -- in support of SCO's failed effort to convince the court that Novell had no right to tell SCO to waive, etc. His testimony, as described by SCO in its motion for reconsideration of the Utah court's August 10th order, involved this aspect of the contract dispute: Second, the uncontroverted testimony demonstrates that the parties always treated revenues from UnixWare Licenses that included incidental licenses to SVRX as UnixWare revenues under Schedule 1.2(b) of the APA, not as SVRX Royalties....
John Maciaszek has been involved in the UNIX business for almost two decades. (Maciaszek Decl. (12/11/06) ¶ 2.) He testified that Novell's interest in UnixWare Licenses that included an incidental license for prior SVRX products was always treated under the UnixWare Royalty provisions of Schedule 1.2(b), and that interest "expired in 2002." (Id ¶ 27.) Next, when SCO filed for bankruptcy, he showed up on the list of creditors. He was apparently also deposed in the Novell case, because portions of his deposition transcript are listed as an exhibit attached to the recent Brent Hatch Declaration. Now, he's gone. He gets severance of $486.91 for 10 years service at SCO. Bruce Grant, who was with Vultus originally, is also cut. He gets $2,118 severance pay for 4 years and 8 months' service. Go figure. Mike Almond, who was OpenServer Product Team Manager for SCO according to Bela Lubkin's resume but is listed by SCO as "Vendor Relations Manager", is out too. He gets $2,179.03 for 16 years 7 months' service. Krishna Aluri, who was with Santa Cruz back in 1996 with Worldwide Services And Technologies, is on the list too, with $693.07 severance for 11 years' service. The tech talent is being weeded out.
The 30 positions represent 26% of the total workforce, SCO says. I'm sure you can do the math. SCO is shrinking. Do not let that fool you, however, as to their ultimate hopes and dreams. I continue to believe that they intend to try to do the York deal before this is over. Here's how the 8K reads:
********************************
Item 8.01 Other Events.
On January 31, 2008, The SCO Group, Inc. (the “Company”), in an effort to reduce ongoing operating expenses and to conform the Company’s business to its current objectives and opportunities, began implementation of a reduction in force. The Company currently anticipates that it will reduce its workforce by approximately 30 positions, a reduction of approximately 26% of its total workforce. The Company instituted this reduction in force to continue to focus on and serve its UNIX customer base and to deliver on key opportunities with its mobile products and services.
Forward Looking Statements
The statements contained in this Form 8-K regarding (1) the Company’s intention to reduce the number of its employees, and (2) the Company’s efforts to continue to focus on and serve its UNIX customer base and to deliver on key opportunities with its mobile products and services are forward-looking statements and are made under the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to risks and uncertainties. We wish to advise readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from historical results or those anticipated in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, outcomes and developments of our Chapter 11 case, court rulings in our bankruptcy proceedings, the impact of the bankruptcy proceedings on our other pending litigation, and our cash balances and available cash. These and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated are discussed in more detail in the Company’s periodic and current filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2007, and future filings with the SEC. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made, and the Company undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events or circumstances arising after such date.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:07 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:10 PM EST |
| If you discuss anything on-topic in this thread, we will not be
amused..... :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:15 PM EST
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: josmith42 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:21 PM EST
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:22 PM EST
- Distracted by something else ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:44 PM EST
- Ive been distracted by this ... - Authored by: madluther on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:45 PM EST
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 04:07 PM EST
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: grouch on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 07:28 PM EST
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: wal on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 08:07 PM EST
- Is everyone asleep, or distracted by something else? - Authored by: analyzer on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 10:22 PM EST
- Is anyone at SCALE? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 05:04 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:11 PM EST |
Please indicate which newspick item you are discussing in the title of your
post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:22 PM EST |
| Well, according to Kcalc, which does not seem to have the aritnetical errors of
a certain inferior product, that is from 115 to 85, both approximate, as the
input data is said to be approximate. It would be interesting to know what the
remaining people are actually doing, in between looking for new jobs. I doubt
that there is significant on-going software development. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:25 PM EST |
| Well, all that testimony he filed on SCO's behalf mustn't have been that
important to them then.
I'd really hate to be in his shoes with that kind
of repayment for loyalty.
---
Form follows function [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 02:43 PM EST
- Absolutely true. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:07 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:35 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:40 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 04:19 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 05:25 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 04:14 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 05:07 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 06:15 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 08:41 PM EST
- "Now, he's gone." - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2008 @ 04:52 AM EST
- Same in NY - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2008 @ 02:36 PM EST
- Now, he's gone where? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 05:23 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: AceBtibucket on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 03:42 PM EST |
If I may ask a question? Their workforce is melting away; do they have any
customers left? If I were a customer, I would think that I would have noticed
their situation and bailed on them. Maybe there are reasons to stick with them?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 04:20 PM EST |
How much to ship those 30 empty chairs to Redmond? I'll bet Ballmer could find
some thrills by throwing them at people.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 04:32 PM EST |
Quote:
FOR RECRUITERS
This is for that class of recruiters
who cannot seem to understand the simple message "CURRENTLY EMPLOYED AND NOT
SEEKING". You know who you are.
If you are thinking of contacting me
because you have "such an exciting opportunity", be aware that I'm going to yell
at you. To interest me, you would need to be offering work that was interesting
to me, more than my current salary, AND full-time (100%) telecommute. Not "gee
that might be a
possibility", but embedded in the offer itself. Or you would
have to be offering several million dollars in relocation expenses.
If
your "exciting offer" doesn't meet these specs, don't contact me in the first
place.
For some reason, I just loved that
part.
---
Form follows function [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 05:36 PM EST |
| Are the SCOundrels trying to make Maciaszek a scapegoat for the wrong-doing of
McBride and others? He is far from being entirely innocent, of course, but I
wonder if there is some blame-shifting going on right now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nice Kitty on Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 06:32 PM EST |
Saturday, February 09 2008 @ 01:52 PM EST
SCO yesterday filed an
8K with the SEC, stating that it will be laying off about 30 more people,
beginning on January 31.
Excuse me, but is the 31 January
being referred to in the year of 2009? If not, then perhaps Darl & Company
have perfected the art of time travel. Or (outside chance?), perhaps the entry
of "January" was truly intended to be a later month (?). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2008 @ 07:06 AM EST |
Look at it from the point of view of these people who've had their positions
made redundant...
Some of them have worked for SCO for a long time. They've stuck there through
the bad times. They haven't jumped ship. They've probably endured scorn when
they've told people that they worked for SCO. Maybe worse.
Finally they've been made redundant. Okay, that happens: the company is dying.
BUT instead of a reasonable reward for loyalty, they've been paid off with
paltry amounts - one of them with $486.91 for 10 years service!
Meanwhile the SCO directors continue to cream-off a healthy salary, and in some
cases, retention bonuses, and their lawyers and advisors aren't doing that badly
either.
Now, I grant that there may be things I don't know. Perhaps these people were
rewarded in other ways, but this looks like spectacularly bad behaviour on the
part of the management team, to me.
Looking in as an outsider, it says to me that you NEVER want to be involved with
the SCO management team in a business capacity because they don't look after
their people; you too can expect to be treated like this.
Before this, I thought that there was a chance that the management team had
personal integrity, despite their flawed business plan and their strategy of
razing the fields as they retreat. To some degree these make business sense,
despite not being posters for how to behaviour in a neighbourly fashion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 10 2008 @ 02:47 PM EST |
I wonder if the small size of the final payoffs is due to being based on their
salary for this year. It would not surprise me to find out they all stayed on
to get bonus money in some form and are bailing after the end of the calendar
year.
How old is John Maciaszek? I looked but did not find anything quickly with
Google. It may be that he is at a point where retirement is feasible and
desirable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 11 2008 @ 06:19 AM EST |
Hey ex-SCO people: that wasn't a very big payoff, was it?
Do you feel as if you've been treated farly and reasonably?
You might want to read through the various agreements you've made with SCO to
see the extent to which you are bound about talking about your time with SCO.
Chances are there's some cash in it if you talk to the press, or have a
discussion with IBM or Novell. I expect that all have figured this out. And also
that it's a time-limited option.
It's the Prisoners' Dillema acted out in real life! Who will crack first?
Based on her display of integrity, I'd suggest you talk to Pamela Jones: it
won't pay as much as the others, if anything, but you can trust that she won't
twist what you say. Your side of the story will be heard. And everybody here
would love to read a 'Life inside SCO' expose`.
JeffV[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 14 2008 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Maciaszek is technically not out. He just became a contractor. Also, he didn't
get $400+ in severance. He got in the tens of thousands of dollars. The $400+
is what was over the cap that he got an IOU for. Same with the others.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
