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
Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 12:42 PM EDT

Yesterday, we reported that Darl McBride said that the plan for a reorganization is to spin off the "Unix assets" and leave him behind as CEO of the remnants of the company, that is, of the litigation. There are more details in the Daily Herald today, and apparently that is only one possibility:
Among proposals considered for the new reorganization plan is a possible spinoff or sale of SCO's Unix business, and allowing SCO to focus exclusively on its litigation with IBM and others....

"SCO is interested in selling the Unix business so it can continue unhindered by the litigation, that's one of the plans being considered," McBride said. "After reviewing the strength of the Unix customer base and Unix technology, Norris decided to buy the Unix business, and may spin it off into a separate company with a new name and new owners. SCO may become a holding company for ongoing litigation."

Hmm. A holding company with no assets? And when they lose, they will pay how? From the details, I think the dream is to pay Novell off from the proceeds of suing new Linux users, in a kind of a renewed SCOsource effort, if the Utah court rules a certain way. That would be ironic. Let me show you what I notice.

At the court hearing, SCO's lawyer said SCO could pay off any debt, even if it took ten years. But if they lose, what will they use to pay it off with? Or is that the plan, to have nothing to pay Novell with?

I think this might be telling us the plan: perhaps they want to be in a position to have nothing to lose, with nothing to pay Novell with immediately, so they set up a payment plan and then sue other people who do have assets, Linux-using companies, over claims involving whatever copyrights they think they have post-1995 and, depending on how the Utah court rules, with a renewed SCOsource.

I have formed the impression that to SCO Linux is an irresistible treasure box, filled with gold they crave so intensely, the dream won't die. And somebody wants Linux to be under a cloud, by hook or by crook, so delay is a plus. It's obviously not just Darl.

Of course, this is SCO talking, and that means it might be as ephemeral as the summer breeze wafting through my office today. Some of what he said makes little sense to me. Darl says, for example, that it might take 6 to 8 weeks to get the documents for a plan ready to file, starting with the moment the judge in Utah issues his ruling in SCO v. Novell. Like SCO can't possibly prepare them now for various contingencies, since the amount is unknown but quantifiable at its lowest and highest end. I know. They are trying to economize so they don't run through all of Novell's money. Har har. Speaking as a paralegal, I can tell you that lawyers do that all the time, prepare documents with various paragraphs that stay or go, depending on what happens in negotiations.

Unless SCO knows there will be no deal at all if SCO doesn't win certain things in the Utah litigation. Hmm. Now there's a thought. One thing is crystalizing: Stephen Norris and friends don't appear so eager after all.

It does seem to me that Novell is right, that this is all largely about delay, with a gambler's willingness to accept any odds rather than quit. Gamblers are like that. And the judge in Delaware is going along with delay for now, so delay it is. I don't personally care about delay. I decided years ago, I am here for the entire ride, and I want to be there to watch the end game.

Something SCO's lawyer said at the hearing takes on more meaning to me now. Here's what our reporter at the hearing MikeD told us Spector said to the judge:

He spoke about the fact that "How much - if anything" SCO owes Novell from the Utah case has not been decided. He spoke about how this was a unique bankruptcy case. SCO received a devastating litigation result last year in Utah. There are many uncertainties that have not been decided beyond just the financial aspects of the Utah case regarding what they do or do not own.

See how he is indicating that the amount owed to Novell is not the only uncertainty? So, what else? What pops into my mind is the question of whether or not SCOsource was about System V or whether the court accepts SCO's argument at trial that it was licensing what SCO owns, not what Novell was found to own. There are other uncertainties, too, but this is the one that stands out to me in connection with SCO going forward as a litigation company. If Utah rules that the smaller SCOsource licenses, like EV1's, were not SysV licenses, presumably SCO could begin going after future licensees. It might indicate that they hope to free SCO up to start bullying folks again, with SCOsource or a renamed cousin. That was Darl's dream, after all, billions from Linux, without having to do a thing. Here's what Darl said at his deposition on March 27, 2007 [PDF] in SCO v. Novell:

Oh, we had -- usually I would sit down and go through it on the white board with Chris or Bob Bench. You know, guys on the finance side. We would kind of lay out what the number of units of Linux were that were in the marketplace against what our list price was for the SCOsource license, reduced by any kind of discounts that we might give for volume or for being an early adopter. And it was usually a pretty big number that we were talking about....

I remember that the models were showing -- we would look at IDC numbers, and there were X millions of servers and growing at a certain rate. And I remember specifically 4 million servers going to 6 million servers over some time frame. I'd have to go back and refresh what the time frames were, but I remember bracketing if you've got 4 million servers against our list price of $700, you multipy that out, you get $2.8 billion. If you go up to the full list -- or the list price against the 6 million then you are talking about $4.2 billion. So it was always -- it's a ridiculously big number. So okay. I guess we could get finite on whether the number is $5 billion or $1 billion or $6 billion. The point is it was a lot of money for the company, and the size of company that we were.

In short, SCO would like to spin off the business of selling Unix assets and focus on its real interest, being an IP troll. IP trolls have no assets that anyone can go after. It's how it works. They set up that way deliberately, and that is one reason so many are calling for a change to patent law. Maybe someone needs to look at copyright law too. Currently, it seems to inspire greed, for starters.

SCO, then, is planning to set itself up as a copyright troll, or so I now believe. That would make them free to bully with no financial consequences to themselves. What is the worst that can happen if you have no assets but some copyrights? Unless there is a way to pierce the corporate veil, which there may be, for IBM and Novell and the current victims of the dream. Here's an article that mentions, for example, a couple of issues that make it possible to pierce the veil:

Corporate shareholders and officers are generally insulated from personal liability for the corporation's debts. This limited liability is metaphorically known as the "corporate veil." But the veil is not an absolute shield. Under certain circumstances, a court may pierce it to hold a shareholder or officer personally liable. Piercing is most commonly done when a corporation is the shareholder's "alter ego" and is a sham or façade used to evade creditors or commit fraud.

That might end up being a necessary effort, looking at the current SCO strategy, if I've understood it correctly. They won't stop unless someone forces them to stop. I don't see anything else that would disincentivize SCOfolk. So hopefully Novell and IBM and Red Hat are doing some creative contingency planning of their own.


  


Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified | 315 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 12:55 PM EDT
Please, if you note a mistake in the article, comment on it here.

Routine corrections are best posted with the mistake in the Title: field like this:

Mistake -> Correction

Thanks.

---
Form follows function.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[NP] Groklaw News Picks discussion
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 12:59 PM EDT
Discuss Groklaw News Picks here.

If you grok the law in the story, that is.

Mention the name of the story you are commenting on, so we can place your comments in context.

Thanks.

---
Form follows function.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Off Topic comments and discussion
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:04 PM EDT
Posts not related to this story, "Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified," belong here.

If you have a link for us, please use HTML, following the guide provided in the "HTML How To" (link on the left). Please add a comment or a quote to your post about the link, because many of us will not follow the link without a dripping interest in the story, or knowing it failed to come from the AP. Thanks.

Speed Limit
Your last comment was 7 seconds ago. This site requires at least 45 seconds between comments

OK.

---
Form follows function.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams still depend on one fact he seems to entirely ignore
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:19 PM EDT

That fact is: he must own copyrights in some code that is improperly in Linux.

On top of that, the law requires mitigation of damages which he's blissfully ignored. The moment the community requested knowledge of that code which is improperly in Linux, he absolutely refused to provide it.

Combine that with the lack of evidence in the IBM case, and I can't imagine it would be very difficult for anyone defending against SCOG's next action to pull up that history to the Judge and ask:

    SCOG claims we stole their code. But they absolutely refuse to identify what code. We request they identify that code. Note the IBM case where even after 3 years of discovery with full access to the historical source code bases of 3 different operating systems, they provided nothing. Please make SCOG identify at least one instance of:
  1. Code that is clearly copyright owned by SCOG. If they provide code that has a history of belonging to someone else, please ensure the order specifies they must provide a legal document of copyright transfer.
  2. What and Where in Linux - of which they have full access - the code is copied to.
  3. Why, when requested to identify such infringing copyright protected material - which is publicly available in Linux and therefore no secret - SCOG refused to identify it.
    Your Honor, are we expected to be forced to buy a license to non-existent copyright-owned code? We request a PSJ period in which that first example is to be clearly identified as a reasonable example deserving of copyright protection to the plaintiffs considering the litigous history of the plaintiff combined with the lack of specificity on their claims. To do otherwise is to open up quite heavy costs of discovery with the high probability the plaintiff has nothing.
There has got to be some kind of defense that can use the last 5 years of non-specific history to avoid another 3 years of discovery. Of course IANAL, but if there's any Justice in the system, that has got to be able to be used. That, of course, doesn't take into consideration the "1000 faces of SCOG claims".

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:23 PM EDT
Even a patent troll needs money for litigation. After the IBM case "Is
that all you have", and that's for SysV much less "UnixWare",
they will need to build a war chest - since the claims will be challenged.
First by the IBM, and they show no signs of giving in a micron. Once IBM wins,
pretty much any target of SCOSource litigation will have to do is point to the
IBM case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My head is going to explode
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:27 PM EDT
Constant gaffs of disbelief aside. I just can't imagine where SCO would be
allowed to do this by the BK judge. A whole host of issues arise.

Personally I wouldn't care about the spin-off, but in this litigation how would
this allow SCO to escape unscathed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Eyeballs for ODF - the Groklaw discussion thread
Authored by: bbaston on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:39 PM EDT
For Groklaw's benefit - whether participating over at OASIS or just passing by - here's the place to post.

PJ reminds those of us monitoring the discussion to
"Stay polite at all times, of course, if you say anything, and you needn't say anything, but do follow along and please keep us posted on anything you see that sounds peculiar."


OASIS discussion list for ODF Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance

Some relevent information includes formation of this discussion and archive of all discussion emails (pick date or thread - direct access doesn't seem to work).

A work-in-progress of the result so far - the draft charter is hosted at: http://sites.google.com/a/od fiic.org/tc/Home

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO trolling
Authored by: kawabago on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:46 PM EDT
The dim wits at SCO keep fantasizing about rivers of money emptying directly
into their pockets. It's a compelling fantasy, criminals have it every day.
Gamblers always think they are just about to make the big win. SCO seems to
think that by virtue of having a lottery ticket they have a right to the prize
money even if they don't win. They would probably have better luck if they run
down to the Mississippi, take out a spoonful of water, and start suing everyone
for flood mitigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IP Trolls
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:47 PM EDT
"IP trolls have no assets that anyone can go after."

Except, usually, they do have some IP... SCO seems to be struggling with that
bit of the business plan.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too many people dream about getting rich for no work.
Authored by: billyskank on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:52 PM EDT
It's the principal thing that's wrong with the world today.

Do some work, you lazy oiks!

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You sound as though you believe they may have a chance, PJ.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 01:58 PM EDT
"I think this might be telling us the plan: perhaps they want to be in a
position to have nothing to lose, with nothing to pay Novell with immediately,
so they set up a payment plan and then sue other people who do have assets,
Linux-using companies, over claims involving whatever copyrights they think they
have post-1995 and, depending on how the Utah court rules, with a renewed
SCOsource."

That is just cruel on your part, and runs the risk of giving their FUD some
credibility.


The arbitration over United Linux, and the fact that they GPL'ed their own code
makes any future scams non-starters.

There is no unlicensed SCOG code in Linux.....Period.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 02:00 PM EDT
Sounds like McBride is stepping into the world of a Patent
Troll...... to bad he/SCO has no patents to troll with.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dreams and Nightmares - Darl and PJ - The enabling couple needs some de-amplification
Authored by: webster on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 02:29 PM EDT
..

It's a bluff, PJ. They are still trying to attract a retarded PIPE Fairy or
inspire some kind of settlement with the threatened prospect of eternal
litigation.

They have no business to spin off. Sun has outed "their" Unix code.
What's left, if anything, is compromised.

The IBM litigation is even worse for them than the Novell litigation. Piercing
the corporate veil is a real possibility. Everyone is on notice. The law of
the case prevails as the factual reality with more to come in this case and
IBM.

Linux is safe. The APA is good. Novell has waived, SCO has waived [by
distributing Linux even after the suits]. This goes for their own post 1995,
copyrighted code that they may claim is in Linux. They have waived any claims
against Linux code based on any of their code or copyrights many times over
-putting it in Linux, distributing Linux before and after the suits, letting Sun
open it. Since they were writing Linux code and Unix code and distributing
both, they can't say excuse me, and sue anyway. The IBM PSJ's will take care of
this. They know it is not worth the further bother and risk [of veil-piercing,
and yes, fraud. They are all on notice.]

Spector is posturing before Gross, who is not so knowledgeable on the code
history, so that he will think that SCO is still viable and grant delays.
Paying off the debt in ten years is laughable. SCO has been in free fall and
they are getting near the bottom. If they are going to make IBM mop up, they
will take no prisoners. This is not litigation anyone will buy into.

"Planning to set up as a troll?" PJ, that's all that they have been.
It didn't quite work out how they planned. They never thought it would go so
far. That's why they had to rework the retainer with BSF. BSF had to get paid
for this loser. The contingency alone was not worth the risk. BSF has shown
that there can be misery in the limelight.

The impending verdict/SJ will be cataclysmic. It will either bring on Chapter 7
and the end of litigation, or It will bring on some guise of the SCO Sugar Daddy
or PIPE Fairy --some linuphobe who enjoys, and profits from, prolonged
litigation. IBM was considered to be the obvious target to terrorize the Linux
world. They don't like it and they have paid dearly. They are rooting for
Chapter 7. The End brings the prospect of veil-piercing terror. Who knows what
the Nazgul are going to do? They know. Whatever it is they have had years to
prepare for it. Would you like them after you? Judge Gross' skirts won't hide
them.

The only asset SCO has right now is a bluff. Their business and property assets
are not theirs. They are compromised, old and tainted to boot. They have lost
because they do not have what they say they have. Who believes them now?

~webster~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looking at copyright law
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 03:07 PM EDT
From a comic point of view.

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's PIPE Dreams
Authored by: bezz on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 03:08 PM EDT

I gave Darl's reported comments a little thought, and came to many of the same conclusions already mentioned as to why it won't work. They have little more than the post-1995 Unixware copyrights to troll with. And I also realized Darl has a long record of grandiose public threats that haven't been backed up by anything. After the June 17 hearing, Darl knew he was talking to someone from Graoklaw and was guaranteed it would end up public in a deliciously ironic way. So I said nothing to fuel the fire. I think it is all just Darl spewing more FUD and taking pride in knowing it was first reported on Groklaw.

On the Asset Purchase Agreement SCO claims to be working out with SNCP, I now have another idea what could be happening behind the scenes. It is not as cheery as Darl and their BK lawyers present the situation. Maybe keeping the Unixware copyrights is what gave pause to SNCP in March. If SCO tried to frame the deal as:

SNCP gets a license to the code base and only the rights to market, support, develop and sell the SYSV- and Unixware-based products.

SNCP gets ME, Hipcheck and what little non-Unix assets SCO has.

SCO keeps the valid Unixware copyrights and litigation; SNCP, in return, gets a cut of any settlements or son-of-SCOSource licenses.

and once SNCP looked at what they were getting, they had second thoughts and wanted to see something from Utah first.

If that is the kind of deal SCO offered, doesn't that become obvious SNCP would be buying almost the same business that has been shrinking and losing money for years? And SNCP's prospects for a litigation payout hinge on a loose cannon named Darl? And the litigation payouts are what SNCP would have to rely upon to make any money for paying off SCO's Novell (and IBM and Red Hat) loses.

It also should have raised the disturbing specter that SNCP would have to continue to develop and distribute Unixware encumbered with copyrights belonging to SCO. The SCO whose raison d'etre is now to (repeat after me) bring lawsuits over Unixware copyrights. There is the August 10 PSJ that ruled Novell owns the SYSV copyrights with little chance it will be overturned. Litigation going forward is limited to SCO's own Unixware copyrights. If SNCP did any due diligence and looked at the IBM evidence, they had to realize how little was offered in evidence.

As previously pointed out, Mr. Spector intimated that the deal assures SCO being able to pay Novell with SNCP loans and SCO paying back those loans in the future -- presumably through litigation. The original SNCP filings also suggest that is the structure of the deal. SNCP smells like another Baystar, getting involved on someone else's hot tip. Except Baystar took other people's word that SCO would make them rich and failed its due diligence. And maybe those promises of other ways to pay back Baystar weren't so great, after all. Perhaps SNCP started looking at what they were really getting and realized it isn't worth the risk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

what they do or do not own.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 03:34 PM EDT

> the Utah case regarding what they do or do not own.

It was not the Utah case that decided what SCOg do not own, it was the APA, the
Utah case, on this issue, just read it out to them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 03:56 PM EDT
I too have a dream.

SCO looses this litigation mess, it's Unix assets (such as they are) are
transferred to Novell or IBM as punishment. That organization promptly releases
as much of it as possible into the public domain.

Just lay waste to the sycophants who try to place monetary claims on this
not-so-secret knowledge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

the future is : ALL YOUR IP R BELONG TO US
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 04:13 PM EDT
heres an idea

novell to counter this spins off its own IP troll
and then goes after SCO
with nothing to lose it destroys SCO
Takes the cash it has and then laughs harder as more and more law looks like a
joke.

Wonder woudl IBM and every major company do that and thus we are back at square
one, you sue me i sue you, and because we dont own anything you can't harm us.

---> its that new spinoff that owns it and we own nothing else.
use new spinoff company to sue the crap out of all the remaining SCO buddies ,
use it to quash quash.

[ Reply to This | # ]

$19 Million PLUS Novell's Legal Costs
Authored by: jcjodoin on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 04:57 PM EDT
As an aside, SCO keeps talking of the costs dropping to only
19 million.

But, that does not include Novell's legal costs (I don't think). Won't that be
additional charges as part of the
case?

Also, what's the chance of treble damages?

Thanks much and just my two cents,

jeffrey

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder if Darl forgot something.
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 05:08 PM EDT
The good ship Litigation needs to have something about which to litigate. They have to have been damaged in some way to win recompense in the courts. That could be because of violations of copyright. However, Judge Kimball found that Novell did not give them any source-code copyrights in SVrX. Anyway, Judge Gross will not allow the ship to launch until the Suse arbitration shows they have no right to sue because of the UnitedLinux agreement. SCOG only shared post-APA code for maintenance purposes with their customers. The only likely way that SCOG copyright code got into Linux is if they, or Santa Cruz put it there and they released any such code under the GPL licence, anyway.

I thought about IBM style contract violation suits. It seems to me that the only reason they could sue IBM is because they took on obligations via the APA for pre-APA contracts and products. Can the agency agreement be split from the combined product part of the APA without Novell agreeing a rewrite of the terms of the APA? Can a single set of contract obligations be shared by two independant companies? It doesn't seem likely.

There is another possibility. There was the Caldera v. Microsoft case where Caldera sued for the earlier damage against Novell. I think that the only reason that was possible is that Caldera actually bought the DRDOS product which gave then standing to sue. This time the good ship Litigation will have no inherited product damages or inherited contractual obligations.

So, if they don't have products, copyrights or inherited contract obligations that can be damaged, where's the beef?

---
Regards
Ian Al

If you are not using Linux, you may be beyond help.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl just doesn't understand Linux
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 05:41 PM EDT
The fact is one of the main reasons for Linux's commercial success is the GPL licence and copyleft i.e. eternal freedom from cost and of use. Put proprietary licensing in there and you destroy the product.

If there were some serious licensing/copyright/patent problem with Linus's kernel (and I have followed this complete facade of SCO's long enough to realize that there isn't) then the Linux community would either work around it (in terms of the Linux kernel) or would adopt another kernel such as GNU Hurd, BSD Unix Kernel (although there would be tricky licensing issues to work out), OpenSolaris or start again with a new kernel as there are enough kernel level programmers out there to accomplish this.

End of story Darl.

The whole point about Linux and its 'commercial' worth is the freedom from proprietary licensing!

He just doesn't seem to understand this and thinks that Linux distributions are just like another version of SCO OpenServer.

Linux will NEVER have a proprietary license - this is why Richard Stallman was so clever when he thought up the licensing scheme. It was to protect against self-serving malicious self-proclaimed IP trolls. Darl isn't even one of these! He doesn't have any IP assets to be a troll with - the Novell legal battle destroyed that slim hope.

No somebody else is pulling the strings and although I cannot prove it in any way - I detect the smell of Microsoft around this.

---
Open Source Software - Unpicking the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 05:43 PM EDT
I think there a medical term for this.. Its called "dissociation"

and with the proper medicine, therapy, and desire, one can get better.

http://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Dissociative_disorder

But alas, the pied piper attempts to continue to sing his luring tune...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Okay -- so about those "rights"
Authored by: russellphoto on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT
Okay -- some assumptions to start

There are 4 lines of revenue / potential for Darl and Co.

1. UnixWare -- they own the copyrights to this
2. Unix Sys5 -- Opps, out of luck here. Novell owns this
3. SCOSource -- as long as we are talking about UnixWare, which means ONLY those
items added to it since the APA in 95 as any Sys5 code belongs to Novell.
4. Unix Sys5 License revenue -- 95% Novell owned 5% returned to SCO

If #2 is already gone as the court cases show. That leaves 1, 3 and 4.

Novell must agree to allow the transfer of #4, but the RIGHTS to the software
are embroiled in #2 and so Novell owns this one. Nothing for SCO here. That
leaves 1 and 3.

IF SCO sells #1, which they could, then they have no rights to pursue #3 at all.
What standing do they have for a lawsuit against Linux or *nix users? They
don't own the code (sold to another group) so what do they have to sue about?

Pipe dreams, for sure.

Russellphoto

[ Reply to This | # ]

It can't happen PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 06:13 PM EDT
1. If SCO is a holding company then it does have assets - namely the other bits
of SCO that it is `holding'. These other bits of SCO will end up being owned by
Novell and sold off/wound up to extract value. SCO can't hide value from Novell
by spinning off a subsidiary. Absolutely it can't do this while in bankruptcy.
If it was that easy to escape your debts everyone would be doing it. The
bankruptcy court isn't going to put up with any of that nonsense.

2. Novell isn't going to wear a `payment plan' from a company with no assets, no
source of income, and an absurd plan to waste millions suing people with no
prospect of success. Novell is going to want every cent it can get from SCO
immediately and want the rest wound up before more is wasted. And with the
expectd Kimball judgement in hand it should be in a position to demand exactly
that.

3. SCO is in bankruptcy. It isn't coming out. Novell is going to take all its
remaining assets after which it is going to into Chapter 7 and not coming back
out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Successful business that SCO Is
Authored by: jonathon on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 06:20 PM EDT
http://www.sco.com/successes/

According to the links on sco.com to that page, it describes all of the
successes that SCO has had.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 06:25 PM EDT
So SCO bought some properties from OldSCO for something like 100 million
dollars, and discovers a little later that it is worth, through no effort on
SCO's part, 50 times as much.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

By the way, if Linux has a million lines of Unix code in it, why didn't OldSCO
discover it? I mean, surely there were linux fans working there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Go ahead, Darl -- I want to see you arrested for fraud
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 08:47 PM EDT

Go, Darl -- go for it buddy.

Pile up that evidence for everyone to see. Make it as easy
for the prosecutors as you can. Send out 1,500 more letters
with your signature. Write 1,500 more press releases. Sue
1,500 more defendants.

You win the Lyndon LaRouche Award in the business category.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl the IP Cowboy once again
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 19 2008 @ 10:41 PM EDT
1. is shooting his mouth off.
2. shoots himself in the foot.
3. is shooting blanks.
4. misses the target completely.
5. is shooting from the hip.
6. is blinded when the barrel explodes in his face(unclean barrel).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the public object to a reorganization plan?
Authored by: groklaw_fan on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 12:31 AM EDT
I wonder if the public can object to a reorganization plan.

If SCO's plan is something along the lines of what PJ sketched out, I, as a
Linux user, would be harmed. SCO's plans, to date, have been along the lines of
an extortion racquet. I have no reason to believe that their future plans would
not also be along the same lines. If SCO goes into bankruptcy court and says
that their new business plan is one of continuous litigation, would I have
standing to oppose the plan?

Isn't in unfair that SCO should be allowed to game the bankruptcy court to
operate an extortion scheme?

If I had such a right, I would be willing to contribute to an organization, such
as the Software Freedom Law Center, to enter an objection to any plan that
allows SCO to continue to harass innocent Linux users or developers.

If this is possible, I wonder what it would cost.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't sue anyone as long as they're in BK
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 07:55 AM EDT

I guess one benefit of new extensions is that SCO can't
sue anyone without court approval. So, keep them in
bankruptcy, and there won't be any new phony suits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future ...
Authored by: emmenjay on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 10:04 AM EDT
Surely Darl's dreams are relying on his not being incarcerated?

Given the corporate misdeeds that have been alleged, there must be a fair chance
that he will be spending a few years "indisposed".

Michael J

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 11:37 AM EDT
I too have a dream...

I dream of a day when 99% of lawyers don't give the other 1% a bad name...

I dream of a day when the courts no longer allow themselves to be used and
abused by the likes of SCO...

I dream of a day when ALL lawyers are ethical, honest and truthful...

I dream of a day when the courts honor "a fast and speedy trial..."

I dream of a day when the courts hand out JUSTICE rather than interpreting the
law...

I dream of a day *POP*

Oh! Good morning! I just woke up!


---
Bill The Cat

[ Reply to This | # ]

So the legal system is a server and SCO is a hacker...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 11:47 AM EDT
...crafting a sort of denial-of-service attack in which the server expends great
resources just to determine that the client's request is invalid.

Do this very, very fast in a real network such that the server runs out of
resources just in responding "no" to zillions of requests, and you
have a denial-of-service attack. In the scenario I have described, however,
tying up the server is only incidental; it's just a means to the end of forcing
a series of actions out of which money precipitates as naturally as rain: Money
to pay the practitioners that craft the attack and who are necessary to rebuff
the attack, money to the judge and court staff in salaries, money to the
parasitic entities that spring up to "insure" those standing to lose
if the court case succeeds (and if it doesn't) in the form of insurance
payments, money to the media hacks who make just as much per column inch (or
byte) if they're writing about such disease as they make writing about honesty,
and on and on... Oh, and money to those who benefit from the resulting FUD, if
any, surrounding whatever straw man happened to be attacked for the purpose of
triggering the system.

And whoever crafts the attack is seen and repeatedly sought, by the twisted
minds that understand this scenario and seek to exploit it for gain, as a
rainmaker, and so, of course, money rain falls on him as well, allowing him to
send his children through college, take vacations, buy additional cars and
houses... Its fundamental sociopathy aside, it seems to make a fine, solid,
burgeoning career.

...all because a "server" takes so long and expends so many resources
in finding that a client's request is, ultimately, a crock.

I think PJ has the treasure box idea right, but Linux isn't the treasure box:
The treasure box is the legal system itself and its manipulatability by the
sick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sounds more and more like another york as time passes ... n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 12:14 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Losing every battle but expanding the War
Authored by: hokie on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 12:27 PM EDT
Considering SCO's expanding losses, I really don't understand this strategy.
Does anyone see away that they can actually generate any significant revenue in
the short term?

Clearly they are on their way to losing the IBM case in a big way. Unless by
some miracle they manage to get Novell's waiver overturned, they've lost the
case with IBM and are going to have to pay for the statements that they made to
the press. I know Darl keeps mentioning appealing the Novell decisions but my
understanding is that this is not automatic and they need a reason to appeal the
verdict. Not liking the verdict is not sufficient justification.

Yeah, they can continue to spam the world with legal threats but I don't see
this working again. Redhat is already seeking a declaration of non-infringement
and I expect Ubuntu and Novell to do the same if this tactic starts up again.
Surely small fries like EV1 will now rely on their vendors to fight the good
fight instead of capitulating like before. This leaves big linux users like
Google but I doubt SCO would want to try and take on another expensive legal
fight. At least most people should hang on until Redhat and IBM finish their
"show me the infringing code" fights.

Am I missing something here? So maybe Darl is convinced that they can win big
but I don't see how he can convince a reasonable person that it is so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Disincentivize the SCOfolk
Authored by: jbb on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 04:37 PM EDT
PJ said:
[Piercing the corporate veil] might end up being a necessary effort, looking at the current SCO strategy, if I've understood it correctly. They won't stop unless someone forces them to stop. I don't see anything else that would disincentivize SCOfolk.
Even though we don't agree on everything, I'm very glad we agree on this point PJ!

---
You just can't win with DRM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 05:40 PM EDT
"Darl McBride said that the plan for a reorganization is to spin off the
"Unix assets" and leave him behind as CEO of the remnants of the
company, that is, of the litigation."

Well Darl may want it, but I doubt Kimball would let him get away with it, since
it would undermine IBM's ability to get monetary compensation for the damage
that SCO has caused it.

Imagine if you will that any company that was being sued could spin off its
assets and leave a valueless shell. Obviously it would undermine the point of
civil lawsuits, and so judges don't let that sort of thing happen.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suspicions confirmed
Authored by: garbage on Friday, June 20 2008 @ 09:41 PM EDT
As I suspected Mc Bride was brought it in to turn the company into a just
another patent troll / IP scam company. Linux is incidental.

There is no conspiracy. Just a bunch of sleazebags who were very successful
at illustrating just how sadly broken the US system is.

Now they walk away unpunished & richer to go on to repeat ad nauseum their
crimes.

Gotta reluctantly give Kudos to Mc Bride & his law firm. They made total
fools
of the defendants & the courts by costing the defendants & the public
MILLIONS.

Pathetic

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: tanner andrews on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 10:22 AM EDT
the amount owed to Novell is not the only uncertainty? So, what else?

I would imagine that IBM, Red Hat, and perhaps a few other litigation targets will want to recover fees and costs of SCO. There may have been a prevailing party provision in the licenses; alternatively they may seek Rule 11 sanctions. Either way, I can imagine unhappy litigants seeking chunks of SCO's flesh.

There may also be actual damages claims by IBM and Red Hat which are readily provable. That, too, would come out of SCO's corpus (or corpse).

These amounts are not yet liquidated. Therefore they are a source of uncertainty in SCO's financial future.

---
I am not your lawyer; please ignore above message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Dreams for the Future Amplified
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 23 2008 @ 12:00 PM EDT
> Piercing is most commonly done when a corporation is the
> shareholder's "alter ego" and is a sham or façade used to
> evade creditors or commit fraud.

This sham/scam has been going on for 5 years without anyone going after the SCO
staff personally.

So how long would that take if they were to restart the same way? They could
practically live in the court room for another 5-10 years before anyone would
nail 'em.

In a perfect world, they would have been laughed out of the court room straight
into prison years ago. Alas, here comes reality.

___
magicmulder

[ 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 )