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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 3Xs
Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 01:45 PM EST

SCO's Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn not only proposes to let Ralph Yarro "loan" some money to the company at what Novell calls egregiously inequitable terms -- inequitable to everyone but Ralph Yarro and the gang, that is -- but now he proposes to sell SCO's "mobility business", which not long ago SCO said was worth millions, if I recall correctly, to another SCO insider, Darl McBride, for $35,000.

Here's the only reasonable explanation. Judge Cahn's evil twin has kidnapped his brother, thrown him in the dungeon of the castle, welded an iron mask on him, and the Pretender is now signing all these proposals and filing them with the court.

Kidding....

. . . Well....Sorta kidding.

Are they seriously proposing these deals? I mean, really? Really? It feels like a stickup. Wait. Maybe this isn't about money. Here, in my eyes, is what may be the operative sentence from the operative paragraph of the proposed APA:

6.1. Transition and Cooperation.From and after the Closing Date, (a) Seller shall not take any action, alone or together with others, which obstructs or impairs the smooth transition by Buyer of the Acquired Assets; and (b) Seller shall promptly provide access to Buyer to all correspondence, papers, documents and other items and materials received by Seller found to be in its possession which pertain to the Acquired Assets.
Hopefully, someone will sit with him at the table while he goes through those documents. We wouldn't want any of them to go missing by accident.

McBride, I've heard, always talked about the importance of having an exit strategy. Guess when the APA says the closing date will be? March 1. Why, that's just before the trial in Utah in SCO v. Novell. If the closing hasn't happened by April 1, by which time the trial will be over, the deal is terminable. That timing sounds really odd. So, by the closing, would all those papers be in Darl's possession, no longer in SCO's? Just before the trial?

I think Cahn is thinking about some other end game possibilities. The next paragraph has McBride releasing SCO, its subsidiaries or affiliates, and Cahn from any possible lawsuits other than a shareholder lawsuit or litigation over this contract.

Here it all is:

02/26/2010 - 1066 - Motion For Sale of Property under Section 363(b) / Motion Of The Chapter 11 Trustee For Order Under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(A), 363, And 365 And Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002, 6004, 6006 And 9014 (A) Approving The Sale Of Mobility Business Free And Clear Of All Liens, Claims, Interests And Encumbrances Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. Section 363, (B) Authorizing And Approving The Assumption And Assignment Of Certain Executory Contracts In Connection Therewith, And (C) Granting Related Relief Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C Part 1 # 5 Exhibit C Part 2 # 6 Exhibit C Part 3# 7 Exhibit C Part 4 # 8 Exhibit C Part 5 # 9 Exhibit C Part 6 # 10 Exhibit D # 11 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

02/26/2010 - 1067 - Motion to Shorten / Motion Of Chapter 11 Trustee To Shorten Notice And Response To Trustees Motion For Order Under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(A), 363, And 365 And Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002, 6004, 6006 And 9014 (A) Approving The Sale Of Mobility Business Free And Clear Of All Liens, Claims, Interests And Encumbrances Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. Section 363, (B) Authorizing And Approving The Assumption And Assignment Of Certain Executory Contracts In Connection Therewith, And (C) Granting Related Relief (related document(s) 1066 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 3/15/2010 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 3/8/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Form of Order) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 02/26/2010)

Cahn says that SCO looked at the mobility business, and the company lacks the capital to really develop the business, which SCO has been telling us about for years but which it now describes as "in the early stages of product development", so they decided to try to sell it or if they couldn't find a buyer, to just shut it down. They now say they found a buyer, MIH, Mobility Inc. Holdings, which seems to be affiliated with Darl, or at least if the deal goes through, and they'd like to sell to MIH "or another higher and better bidder". Like SCO's litigation victims, maybe, totally freaked out by a possible sale to Darl?

In December, Darl McBride approached the Ocean Park people, to discuss maybe buying the "mobility business", and soon he delivered a draft letter of intent. For about a month, OPA and Darl, equity holder and exCEO, "engaged in arms-length negotiations" about the proposed sale.

Are you with me so far?

So here comes the good part. They decided it would be better to "pursue a private sale... rather than incur the expense and delay" of a public sale and auction. OPA then looked around and tried to find another buyer who might pay more, but alas, the "competitive sale process" was a failure. No one wanted to buy this wonderful business Darl's been telling us all about for years and years.

Go figure.

Here's what OPA did to try to rustle up a better buyer. They made a list of 12 possible buyers, appropriately called "Targets". Heh heh. So for two whole weeks, OPA contacted 11 targets by email or phone -- or even both! those busy bees -- eleven because one "target" couldn't be reached. Probably on a camel heading back to the warm oil wells of Saudi Arabia or something. Just kidding. But seriously, what kind of legitimate buyer or entity would be unreachable for two whole weeks considering that these zealous OPA folks were emailing away night and day and calling on the phone too?

OPA hasn't given up,though. No siree. They will be placing an ad in a Salt Lake City newspaper, according to Exhibit A, announcing this proposed deal and inviting anyone to contact OPA if they don't want to miss this wonderful opportunity. Isn't that how fabulous businesses are usually sold? They tell the court that this two-week effort is proof that the mobility business "has been marketed adequately." Maybe if your real goal is marketing to IBM and Novell. Otherwise, I think they should just list it on eBay. They'd likely get a better offer.

So, assuming nobody else wants to buy, the APA, attached as Exhibit C, sets the terms. Uh oh. Darl, for $35,000 gets "certain Intellectual Property". You know what that may mean. Lawsuits ahoy, m'hearties. Lets see. Mobility products. I know. Maybe MIH could sue Apple for using OSX.

You think I'm kidding.

He gets also some contracts (specifically one with Franklin Covey and one described as "iPhone Application Program with Apple"), and you know what he said contracts are good for, and he'll also "enter into a Source Code License Agreement with SCO".

OK. Put your bets on the table. Who will sue the other for breach of the license first? My money's on Darl. I've seen him run around that track.

No. No. Infringement! Copyrights. It has to be. IP is a waste if you can't sue somebody in the SCO way of thinking. Would this not be UNIX-related IP? What could be better? Heaven only knows that IP is good for at least 7 years of litigation. I know. They could sue Google. Think as big as the sky, why don't they? Everyone else sues Google. Talk about your deep pockets.

The actual copyrights are listed in Exhibit 9, but the copyright registrations are not provided, but what I'm saying is this: since we have no idea what code is inside these proprietary products, like Shout and HipCheck, but we know they are Unix-based, or at least that is what I recall SCO telling us, how do we know that there is no spillover that could, in Darl's lovely universe, seem useful in pursuing deep pockets companies over "infringement" of those Unix copyrights? Like IBM, for example, or you, if you have any money. At a minimum, I'd want him to sign a release disclaiming any such possibility, because if he doesn't, obviously $35,000 isn't the right price or even a reasonable price. Or only if there's a lien, or Novell agrees or something. You could get more on eBay just from people wanting to block him. Groklaw could buy it, take up a collection, whatever it took.

Wait. Is this the actual purpose of this proposed deal? To get some money from potential victims of this serial litigation machine by threatening to sell to Darl? Hmm. Is that ethical?

Hahahaha. Just checking to see if you are still paying attention.

Footnote 3 suggests that "parties in interest are advised to review the APA in its entirety." I'll say. Let's do.

What's the consideration? The purchase price, the princely sum of $35,000, and if MIH has annual gross revenues reaching the amount of $1,000,001 -- and no doubt that happy day is right around the corner -- Darl's company pays SCO some money, the wording of which I can't understand, but since I doubt it will ever happen, who cares? But some of you may want to know:

e. In addition to payment of the Purchase Price, the APA provides for up to an aggregate of $60,000 in "Income Participation" payments to Debtors when the annual Gross Revenue earned by MIH from the Mobility Business reaches $1,000,001 with no more than $30,000 paid in any given year; ...
Since SCO is likely to have gone out of business long before this event occurs, no need to parse it out too carefully, but I think it's saying all MIH can ever owe is $60,000 grand total ever, payments to be spaced out over two years. Oh, one more piece of consideration:
f. In further consideration for the purchase of the Mobility Business Assets, McBride will grant a release to the Debtors, the estates and the Trustee and all Seller Parties (as defined in the APA). See APA § 6.2.
Since Darl is an equity holder and was the CEO, "McBride may be an insider", they disclose. You think? But, but, they swear on their mother's grave that all negotiations were "at arms-length and in good faith." So, Cahn tells the court, the sale "is reasonable and appropriate" under § §105(a) and 363(b).

How do they measure that, I wonder? I mean, what's the ruler's edge for measuring good faith? The document tells us, and this is the scary part. It's, according to 363(b)(1) "a matter within the Court's discretion, giving due consideration to the sound business judgment of the proponent of the sale." And according to 105(a) "the court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Bankruptcy Code]."

Well, that's that, then.

Are we in Second Life or something? I mean, can we fly and leap over buildings with a single bound and buy hotels on Park Place and stuff? This is a real bankruptcy? Involving real money? Are you positive? How can you tell?

It's obvious a bankruptcy court judge in Delaware can do whatever he pleases, to hear them tell it, and he answers to no one, since the bankruptcy code says he can do whatever seems right in his own eyes. But wait. I want to ask you something. If, as the company keeps assuring the world, it's just about to hit the jackpot in court next month, why can't it develop the mobility business itself, using the windfall it's allegedly about to win? I mean, if lack of capital is the reason they feel they can't develop this asset, which currently isn't worth much, judging by the purchase price, why wouldn't it make sense to hold on to it, win big in court, get the copyrights, sue the Linux world, and then use their unimaginable wealth to develop this wonderful business?

What? Too linear in my thinking? Oh, and Cahn wants the court to hurry up and shorten the time to get this deal done. Let me ask a question. Is the sudden urgency indicating that SCO now realizes it is more than likely to lose the case against Novell next month? It's either that or they just want to do the right thing by the business. Oh, and the deal once approved means that the business and this intellectual property is now free and clear, with no one able to go after it to satisfy any claim. Like the pizza joint SCO stiffed when it went bankrupt. Or... Novell, for instance.

Oh, no. I fear my curled lip is stuck.

P.S. I believe it was Judge Gross who ruled not that long ago that the mobility business was virtually worthless. So in his eyes, $35,000 may seem like better than nothing. That's the really sad part. By separating all the individual parts of what SCO is doing, instead of looking at the big picture --what SCO has tried to do to Linux and to the market -- each small step can be legally justified by someone somewhere. But step back, and then I think you have to ask, what is Judge Cahn thinking? Do judges have an ethical responsibility to look at the ethics of a matter? Here's one judge who says they do. Why, really, is he proposing these deals? And why does McBride want this "business" really? After all the years of development effort that have shown such small results, where's the value in this picture?

Update: I notice one other thing. Cahn references 363(m), saying MIH should have the benefit of it. Here's how it reads:

(m) The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.
And an anonymous comment caught my eye:
So how many billable hours does it take to line up 12 possible buyers, call them all, and describe the deal. How many hours to draw up all this paper work on the sale.

It's $35k minus whatever of Darl's fees they are going to pay. They are likely to spend more than that in Blank-Rome legal time doing the leg work.

The question becomes not is the sale good for the estate. But was pursuing it in the first place any good? Will more be spent on the lawyers fees than will be made by selling the asset? Is there a profit to the estate in this action? Is the trustee acting in the best interests of the creditors here?

[Update 2: Get a load of the assets going for $35,000. Not only do some copyrights and the source code go to the buyer, but there are 12 servers in the deal, 13 domain names, and 10 developer smartphonees. You find the list in Exhibit C Part 6, which begins with a list of the source code products involved in this transaction, but I notice something else. The deal is supposed to be, if approved, between SCO Group, MIH,LLC and Darl McBride. That is typical of a deal with an LLC, which, being a limited liability company with unknown resources, might shut down and then there is no way to enforce. So often you'll see that someone with the LLC has to personally sign the deal too, so there is someone to sue, if necessary. But in this case, although all three are named in the Agreement, I see only two signature lines, Cahn (with Bonnie Fatell signing for him by permission) and MIH, LLC, with Darl signing as President, but I don't see Darl's signature line as obligating himself as an individual, outside of the LLC.

[ Update 3: I had time to carefully peruse the deal. Here's a reassuring paragraph, the excluded assets list:

(c) Excluded Assets. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 2.1(a) or elsewhere in this Agreement, the following Assets of Seller (collectively, the "Excluded Assets") are not part of the transactions contemplated hereunder, are excluded from the Acquired Assets and shall remain the property of Seller after the Closing:
(i) any and all assets of Seller other than the Acquired Assets, including United States Patent Number 6,931,544 and Seller's ownership, intellectual property and all other rights in and to (A) the UNIX systems and assets, including UnixWare and OpenServer and (B) U.S. Patent Application No. 11/533,347 SCO Mobile Server, SDK HipCheck and all predecessors of the same.

(ii) all rights of Seller under this Agreement and all agreements contemplated hereby; and

(iii) all Seller's claims, causes of action and other legal rights and remedies (A) against Buyer with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and (B) relating to the Excluded Assets or to Seller's Obligations not included in the Assumed Obligations, including all rights and interests in all litigation claims pending or that may be known or unknown that has been or may be asserted against Red Hat or others relating to or arising from all licensing or covenant not to sue rights relating to claims that Linux violates SCO Unix and UnixWare intellectual property or contract rights against any other third parties.

So at least Darl can't interject himself into the litigation. End Update 3.]

Here's the assets list and the agreement:

EXHIBIT A

SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS

  • SCO Mobile Server
    J2EE jboss application that provides network solution for creation of Mobile applications and a deployable server for running mobile applications accessible via a Windows Mobile of J2ME capable phone which communicates with both HipCheck Agent and a HipCheck Client.

  • SCO Mobile Server SDK
    Development Kit

  • HipCheck
    The applications that allow users to remotely monitor and manage the basic health of UNIXTM and Windows systems through smartphones, including Windows Mobile and Java-enabled smartphones. "HipCheck Products" includes the "HipCheck Agent", "HipCheck Client" and the "Mobile Server for HipCheck".

  • Prototypes/Demos associated with the SCO Mobile Server
    Siemens/Fujitsu Hardware Monitoring (HipCheck)

    Siemens PG Call Home

  • Me Inc Server (Software) and Shout Server (Software)
    These are customized early versions of what ultimately became the SCO Mobile Server.

EXHIBIT C

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made and entered into as of February __, 2010, by and between The SCO Group, Inc., Inc., (referred to herein as ("Seller"), a corporation of the State of Delaware, with its place of business at [address in Utah], and me Inc Holdings, LLC (referred to herein as ("Buyer"), a Delaware limited liability company with its place of business at [address in Utah].

WHEREAS, by an Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of February __, 2010 (the "Purchase Agreement"), among the Buyer, the Seller and Darl McBride, the Seller has agreed to sell and assign the Acquired Assets to the Buyer; and

WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to execute this Agreement to further evidence the assignment by Seller and assumption by Buyer;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements herein contained and intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Definitions. Except as otherwise provided herein, all capitalized terms contained and not defined herein (including the recitals hereto) shall have herein the respective meanins ascribed to them in the Purchase Agreement.

2. Assignment. Seller hereby sells, transfers, conveys, assigns and sets over to Buyer, its successors and assigns, all of the Acquired Assets, including, without limitations, all Assumed Contracts.

3. Assumption of Assumed Obligations. Buyer hereby assumes and undertakes to pay, perform and discharge the Assumed Obligations.

4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to principles of conflicts of law.

[Signature Page Follows]


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

SELLER:

SCO GROUP, INC.

By: [signature: "Edward Cahn w/permission by Bonnie Fatell"]
Name: Edward Cahn
Title: Chapter 11 Trustee

BUYER:

ME INC HOLDINGS, LLC

By: [signature]
Name: Darl McBride
Title: President


PURCHASE PRICE ALLOCATION

Asset ClassPurchase Price Allocation
Class I-
Class II-
Class III-
Class IV-
Class V$10,000
Class VI$20,000
Class VII$5,000

ASSETS
AssetType
Me Inc Server (Software)
except those parts excluded in Sec. 2.1(c)(i)
Source code copyright
Shout Server (Software)
except those parts excluded in Sec. 2.1(c)(i)
Source code copyright
Shout PostcardSource code copyright;
Server running the application
Shout MarketingSource code copyright;
Server running the application
Shout 119 (need to locate)source code copyright
Shout coupon (need to locate)Source code copyright
MyCoSource code copyright
MIGsSource code copyright;
Server running the application

FC Products
Asset Type
FCmobilelifeSource code copyright;
Server running the webstore
Server running the application
Server running the databases
Server running the license application
FCtasks for iPhoneSource code copyright
FCgoals for iPhoneSource code copyright
FCtasks for BlackberrySource code copyright

Mobile Prototypes/Demos

Asset Type
Snowplow (still need to
locate in UT source repository)
Source code copyright
GrassrootsSource code copyright
Mobile OESource code copyright
MPSEB Indian utility co.
meter reading
Source code copyright
Delhi traffic policeSource code copyright
Citibank demoDocumentation
DispraxScreen shot mockups
Jackson BuildersDocumentation
Aston VillaSource code copyright
NREGA employment
census
Source code copyright
smnp hardware monitoringSource code copyright
NDPL PowerSource code copyright
PG Call HomeSource code copyright

Domain Names (which shall include sub and pre domain names that tie to the root domain)

Me-inc.com
Me-inc.mobi
Meinc.mobi
Meincmobile.com
Meincmobile.net
Meincmobile.org
Mobiledaytimer.com
Mobiledaytime.net
Mobiledaytimer.org
Shout119.com
Shoutblogs.com
Shoutpostcard.com

Meincsalesagent.com

Servers - Buyer to arrange pickup. SCO will provide a clean shutdown and disconnect from SCO infrastructure on pickup date. SCO will also provide consultation on bringing the servers back up in their new environment. All servers are in SCO Utah data center.

Siple (FCML App Server)
Berkner (FCML Webstore)
Uther (FCML Stage App Server)
Lancelot (FCML Stage Webstore)
Labs1 (mice1 and *.me-inc.com)
Labs3 (Shoutpostcard)
Buru (MIGs Server)
Melville (email blaster for Shout Marketing)
Saturn (Me Inc. Jira database and Me Inc. wiki)
Midb (database server for FCML webstore and other me-inc apps)
Jas (license application server - database on midb)
Licdev (license application server for Uther)

Developer Test Phones:

iPhone
Blackberry Bold
2 x T-Mobile Wing
Nokia N90
Pantech (model C810)
BlackBerry 8100
Samsung SGH-i607
Palm Tero 700p
2 x BlackBerry 8300
BlackBerry 8800

Assumed Contracts:

Business Cooperation Agreement by and between The SCO Group, Inc. and FranklinCovey Product Sales, Inc., dated March 3, 2008.

iPhone Application Program with Apple


  


SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 3Xs | 377 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please, if needed
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 01:55 PM EST
To assist PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 01:56 PM EST
As always, please try to make clickies where appropriate, and remember to use
preview and HTML mode.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick discussions here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 01:58 PM EST
Please remember to include the Groklaw Newspick item you are discussing in the
title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:02 PM EST
"Virtually worthless", in this case, equates to less than my parents'
car and truck.

If it's that worthless, why would Darl want it? Why not give it to Novell
outright, since they have a pre-BK claim?

"SCO are panicking" is the best explanation I can come up with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This smells very bad indeed!
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:07 PM EST
Like some kind of fraud, perhaps? I don't know much about US law, but have a friend who was a director of a company that went bankrupt in the UK, and he tells me that a recent ex-director attempting to buy an asset at a low price from the trustee (administrator in the UK) would be regarded as very suspicious indeed, and would likely incur a criminal investigation.

Clearly it is possible for an insider to manipulate a company into bankrupcy so that he (or more typically, his cronies, to make it less obvious) can acquire some asset that they want cheaply, and I do believe that the law in most developed countries must place severe restrictions on doing just that, or there would be much more fraud than there is.

If justice were done, it seems to me that Darl would be acquiring an orange jump suit shortly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: fredex on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:13 PM EST
PJ, should anyone ever start a FOSS night/comedy club, you should be the
resident stand up comic! Love your humorous jabs.

As I'm sure the rest of you all do too, I sit aghast in wonder that the lawyers
and judges overseeing these various cases can't see the antics of SCO and its
various representatives. It seems plain as day. :(

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:13 PM EST
Novell should offer $35,001 for the mobility business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

iTune scrape of Customer reviews of FCTasks
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:17 PM EST
iTunes records customer reviews in real-time. I have been scraping these periodically.

They reveal a NOT VERY pretty picture with FCTasks, the main deployed Me Inc product.

Table: FCTasks Ratings for period ending on Date
Rating ____ 9/19/09 ____ 1/10/10 _____ 2/25/10 ____ Totals
***** _____ 57 ________ 22 ________ 8 ________ 87
**** ______ 49 ________ 27 ________ 7 ________ 83
*** ______ 84 ________ 33 ________ 11 ________ 126
** ______ _ 95 ________ 49 ________ 21 ________ 163
* ________ 167 ________ 74 _______ _ 2 ________ 267
Total ____ 452________ 205 ________ 76________ 726

In short, 58-67% of the customers who review the product they purchased, one or two star it.
Some reviewers leave comments, the most recent is representative of the corrosive response.

Long Time FC User.
ZERO STARS! This app is extremely frustrating. Wake up and read the reviews FC. Your're sacrificing customers every day. At the end of the week, my wife and I are through with FC forever. It's too bad.

Unfortunately, Apple disables cut and paste out of iTunes, so the reviews have to be hand transcribed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alternatives to the "evil twin" theory
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:21 PM EST
There's something in the water. Probably something hallucinogenic.

Someone is playing very dirty, threatening to harm people near and dear to Judge Cahn.

Alien abduction. Well, I suppose this is a variant of the evil twin idea.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:42 PM EST
"I know. They could sue Google. Think as big as the sky, why don't they?"

Source Claims SCO Will Sue Google

A source claiming to be in the know says that the SCO Group is going to sue Google for not paying its Linux taxes. Last week SCO threatened to make an example of a big-time Linux user that hadn't paid SCO the license fees it's demanding and take it to court for copyright infringement. SCO has not disclosed the identity of its mark and SCO CEO Darl McBride claimed Tuesday that a decision on what company to target wasn't final yet. He said SCO and its lawyers were working with "a short list" of "seven or eight" names. McBride declined to say whether Google's name was on it, but another knowledgeable source said it was. SCO said last week that it would sue within 90 days. The Linux community thinks SCO's bluffing and won't make its self-imposed February 17 deadline. McBride said he'd like to play that number in Vegas.


*chortle*

Speaking of Nevada, I found it morbidly amusing that Darl's "bounty" on a certain someone is $4000 more than he says his big "harvest mode" mobility business is.

After all, Darl "never lies in court" and valued the same thing at around $5 million not too long ago.

Is this sweetheart deal Cahn's way of buying indemnification from the Cowboy?

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why transfer any IP
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 02:44 PM EST

Thsi sounds like a simple one man company, that a programmer could make a living off. Though I doubt that Darl could program his way out of a paper bag.

But it just needs a license for the product, so that the product can be developed.

Is this somehow setting a precedent that IP is needed with the business. This is what an SCO expert claims; and it is clearly not necessary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: phantomjinx on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 03:14 PM EST
Maybe I am being idealistic, well I know I am ...

but at what point does someone stand up and really say "no!".

Is the conclusion of all this litigation simply a demonstration of how willing
established elements in American society are, to bend over backwards for
corporates and big business, regardless of justice and ethics?

phantomjinx

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Yossarian on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM EST
>"for $35,000"

There is something that I don't get.
The goal of the Chapter 11 trustee is to *maximize*
the value of the estate.

How does selling the property for $35,000 help with that? Should not the trustee
put the property on the auction block,
and try to generate interest, so he can get some higher bids?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ideas on how to get another buyer for ME
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 03:26 PM EST
A thread for your ideas on how to find another buyer for ME

1- What if ME can be made far more valuable, but ONLY if Darl is NOT the
purchaser.
Here's how. People of the Linux community can make a pledge to purchase low cost
ME licenses but ONLY if ME is in friendly hands. This would be done at least
until the buyer made Purchase price +X% profit. Suddenly we have a valuable
property for someone (other then Darl) to buy!

1a-As part of this (though it may be seperate also), why not advertise the
avaibility of ME on many internet business for sale websites. Possibly let
people know that though it is going for only 35,000 that Darl has been quoted as
saying that it is worth $X million dollars. Cahn has only advertised this in
Utah, doing worldwide advertising may get him a far better fish for it.

Them's my ideas. Let's hear yours and see if something can be done over the next
few days.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This would make SCO indisputably a litigation company
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 04:14 PM EST
If memory serves, SCO have previously admitted that the only chance of them
making any profit is from litigation and mobility. If they sell mobility, that
will make them, by their own admission, solely interested in litigation. Of
course, we've all known that for years, but it would be nice to have SCO
agreeing with us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"And why does McBride want this 'business' really? "
Authored by: Yossarian on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 04:42 PM EST
You gave the answer a couple of pages up:
"would all those papers be in Darl's possession, no longer in SCO's?"

Unlike you, and I, Darl knows pretty well "where the bodies
are buried". And he has no interest of somebody digging them
up "by mistake". In other words, IMO Darl has something to
hide and by offering a low price he has a better chance of
getting a quick approval by claiming that the property does
not worth all that much anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM EST
Can SCO try including certain copyrights they "own" into this deal?
If they can and it gets approved and completed before the trial, does that do
anything to the trial?

[ Reply to This | # ]

If they're going to sell bits off ...
Authored by: kh on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 04:52 PM EST
Why not go into Chapter 7 and do it properly?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good Faith
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 04:59 PM EST
Seems to me that the bit about not suing anyone involved with SCO for basically
anything puts, at minimum, some tarnish on the whole good faith argument. Cahn
should be happy to take Darl's $35,000 without all those "gotchas".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meh!
Authored by: Tufty on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 05:00 PM EST
>
Oh, and Cahn wants the court to hurry up and shorten the time to get this deal
done. Let me ask a question. Is the sudden urgency indicating that SCO now
realizes it is more than likely to lose the case against Novell next month?
<

Speaks wonders about the contents of the MORs that have yet to surface. Likewise
the proposed Yarro deal. Are TSCOG underwater already?

Tufty


---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps Darl just needs a job ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 05:13 PM EST
... what else is he going to do? Leading a company into disastrous litigation
and bankruptcy isn't going to be a great selling point on his resume.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We should buy it
Authored by: maroberts on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 05:18 PM EST
PJ should set up a second Paypal button so Groklaw could own this business worth
millions....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride...
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 05:19 PM EST
For $35,000? You can't even buy a decent house for that.

---
Trusted computing:
It's not about, "Can you trust your computer?"
It's all about, "Can your computer trust you?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Billable hours- how much legal fees on this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 05:41 PM EST
So how many billable hours does it take to line up 12 possible buyers, call them
all, and describe the deal. How many hours to draw up all this paper work on the
sale.

It's $35k minus whatever of Darl's fees they are going to pay. They are likely
to spend more than that in Blank-Rome legal time doing the leg work.

The question becomes not is the sale good for the estate. But was pursuing it in
the first place any good? Will more be spent on the lawyers fees than will be
made by selling the asset? Is there a profit to the estate in this action? Is
the trustee acting in the best interests of the creditors here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm thinking of bidding for this.
Authored by: Vic on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 05:54 PM EST
When the mobility business was valued at $millions, I wasn't even toying with
the idea.

But at $35k, it might actually be a worthwhile punt; sure, Darl made a complete
mess of it all, but given the exposure it's had, I reckon the business could be
turned around.

Anyone have any email addresses for Judges Cahn and Gross? I think I can get
more money for the estate than Darl is putting up...

Vic.


---
http://solectronics.co.uk
Solving problems with Free Software

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this not a little in_cestuous? SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business" to Darl McBride
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 06:01 PM EST
I mean I like a little farce* but isn't there a dander of overdoing things?


Wikipedia:
*"A farce is a comedy which aims to entertain the audience by means of
unlikely, extravagant, and improbable situations, disguise and mistaken
identity, verbal humour of varying degrees of sophistication, which may include
sexual innuendo and word play, and a fast-paced plot whose speed usually
increases, culminating in an ending which often involves an elaborate chase
scene. Farce is also characterized by physical humour, the use of deliberate
absurdity or nonsense, and broadly stylized performances. Farces have been
written for the stage and film.

Many farces move at a frantic pace toward the climax, in which the initial
problem is resolved one way or another, often through a deus ex machina twist
of
the plot. Generally, there is a happy ending. The convention of poetic justice
is not always observed: The protagonist may get away with what he or she has
been trying to hide at all costs, even if it is a criminal act involving crazy
costumes.

Farce in general is highly tolerant of transgressive behavior, and tends to
depict human beings as vain, irrational, venal, infantile, and prone to
automatic behavior. In that respect, farce is a natural companion of satire.
Farce is, in fact, not merely a genre but a highly flexible dramatic mode that
often occurs in combination with other forms, including romantic comedy. Farce
is considered a theatre tradition."


---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'll buy it, if you include the bridge
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 06:25 PM EST
It's fascinating to watch crooks at work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO assumes Judge Gross is a patsy
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 06:48 PM EST
I'm struck by the audacity of this, in that it assumes the bankruptcy judge will
approve any cockamamie scheme SCO proposes.

The only possible upside I can think of right now is that Gross is not in the
10th Circuit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like this part...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 07:25 PM EST
"The actual copyrights are listed in Exhibit 9"


Can this proposed agreement be used at the trial as an example or correct
copyright transfer?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the point? Not the documents
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 07:51 PM EST
All the documents don't transfer, just the documents *associated with the
mobility business.* Big difference.

So unless Cahn is using this to help Darl hide something (which would be
criminal conspiracy), or unless Darl, while he was CEO, hid the smoking guns in
the Me, Inc., paperwork, then the point isn't to hide evidence of wrongdoing
associated with the lawsuits.

Here's my theory: Ralph Yarro is still the biggest stockholder of SCO. Darl,
we presume, still owns a chunk of stock. If they take away the mobility
business, then the only thing Cahn has left is the lawsuits. I think that this
purchase offer from Darl, plus the load offer from Yarro, are trying to keep
Cahn focused on the litigation, and on that only.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 08:00 PM EST

It seems obvious to me that Darl knows where some bodies are buried, and he
desperately needs to hide the evidence ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's worthless, but keeps Darl from suing?
Authored by: UncleJosh on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 08:09 PM EST
It seems that the mobility business is probably not worth much, as I remember
someone in SCO Germany was saying that it was a Darl fetish. Perhaps the $35K
just covers the expense of transferring it to diddly Darl and he will go away
and leave people alone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 09:44 PM EST
Didn't Darl get some "Bonuses" before he left... I wish I could write
myself a bonus check and use some of that "bonus" money to purchase
some of the company I was fired from. I can't remember how much his bonus was,
but I'm sure it was a lot more than $35K... This along with a 'Loan' from Yarro,
something isn't right here.

We get Judge Judy in Australia here, and she often says "If it doesn't make
sense it's not true!". I will go out on a limb here and say that it seems
that the wool is being pulled over the eyes of Judge Cahn and the courts.

On occasion we see things that don't make a lot of sense, and what will make
Groklaw (or any lawyer for that matter) great is being able to interpret them
accurately/correctly...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Remove judge? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 09:43 AM EST
Distraction
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 10:10 PM EST
We know Darl obsessively hates Groklaw. Perhaps this offer is calculated to
distract us from analyzing the filings in Utah. After all, this egregious
"contract" is Groklaw bait of the first order.

I know this theory is ridiculous, but it is not as ridiculous as the proposed
contract.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Distraction - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 01:21 AM EST
Trustee Cahn doesn't NEED the income from the Mobility "IP"
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, February 27 2010 @ 10:48 PM EST
Below is my previous comment on the mega-de-minimis "settlement" from Autozone.

Clearly we can surmise that the amount that changed hands was of such voluminous magnitude, that Trustee Cahn doesn't NEED the income from the Mobility "IP", and therefore can easily afford to flog it off for kopeks in the dollar. With such coffer-swelling events such as AutoZone happening almost daily, he doesn't have time to look after "Mobility", so best to pass it on to some uninterested party who has never has a vested interest in the company and will use it only for the benefit of all humankind.

Judge Kimball's recusal is not the victory SCOXQ.BK might have wanted

Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 09:37 PM EDT

Having recused himself from having to deal yet again with SCOXQ.BK, as a result of the triumvirate perplexum decision to send parts of the saga to a jury, a NEW Judge now gets to wade through the slurry, adding FURTHER expensive delay, which SCOXQ.BK clearly cannot afford. Posters on other SCOXQ.BK related message boards have suggested a big WIN for SCOXQ.BK, but the trustee runs the show, not Darl, and SCOXQ.BK seems to operating in a cash vacuum. My gut feeling is that the trustee's Autozone settlement is quid pro quo - if Autozone agrees not to pursue getting SCOXQ.BK to PROVE they own anything relevant, then any possible breaches of software licenses will be dropped, and no significant money changes hands - like maybe nothing. But only if you don't tell anyone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 02:29 AM EST
OTOH

Wouldn't it be a great gift for Groklaw? In understand the
intention of PJ to remain privat and of course support it.
Nevertheless -in case somebody wihin this forum is reliable
and would be willing to spare his name as well as some time
to share the documents involved (as long as legally
possible) or at least provides comments regarding this
sidedeal and in case run or shut down me inc - I'd be
willing to support the outbidding of Darl.

Best from Europe!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 02:29 AM EST
Although Gross and Cahn may not actually believe that SCO is
being bullied by IBM and Novell, they seem hell bent to
protect SCO if it is true. I don't see anyway that Judge
Gross denies what Cahn asks for. They are going to get SCO
their day in court and right now they need any funds they can
scrape together to do it. So unless there are reasons Gross
could actually be taken out back and shot, this is a done
deal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Due consideration
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 04:14 AM EST
due consideration to the sound business judgment of the proponent of the sale
That would be the guy that Cahn just fired for his sound business judgement.

My sides hurt.

---
Regards
Ian Al

PJ: 'Have you read my open letter? Would you read it out loud to Darl McBride?'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe FSF would be willing to pony up a little cash
Authored by: dacii on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 10:41 AM EST
They could purchase the copyrights on the software for a small amount and GPL
the code. This would allow interested parties/programmers to fix the
deficiencies in the product and then purchases of the product would go back as
donations to the FSF and those who contributed. It may take several years for a
complete payback, but it is an idea that has an ironic twist to it. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

You couldn't make it up
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 11:06 AM EST

But the most surprising aspect of the whole sordid SCO saga, to me, has been the spectacle of Cahn, the trustee, and Gross, the judge, helping the disgraceful show to keep rolling along. I would have expected Cahn, a former US judge, and Gross to have brought some ethical standards to their work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An idea to increase the probability of winning ME
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 11:18 AM EST
VIC is putting together a bid, obviously he's gonna meet the $35,000 that Darl is willing to pay. Could Darl be willing to pay more if someone else makes an offer? Perhaps. What follows is how to increase the probability that VIC wins.

There is a site: 'The Million Dollar Homepage"

“The idea is simple: to try and make $1m (US) by selling 1,000,000 pixels for $1 each. Hence, 'The Million Dollar Homepage". The main motivation for doing this is to pay for my degree studies.”

Million Dollar Homepage

The fellow sold the million pixels. And took in a million dollars.

Here's my idea

DollarsforMe.org

which would be somewhat like the above website, and have a goal of raising dollars (though not specifically 1 million) to buy ME. With whatever is taken in to be offered with the proviso that it will be placed in trust ONLY for paying off SCO's creditors and NOT for the ligation (except perhaps the 35,000 to match the offer that Darl made for ME) Also it might be a good idea to place in the contract that the additional funds will ONLY be paid to the creditors after ALL ligations have stopped.

Information on this effort can be Slashdotted, press releases emailed to all the Linux media sources and possibly the general media.

I would think that the amount of money raised by the open source community should far exceed anything anyone else would bid for ME. Giving this Judge Gross and Judge Cahn should have a very hard time to turn down the offer.

Either Vic can run the site, or if people would feel more comfortable someone else in the open source community.(FSF?) But whoever runs it getting it up ASAP is of the essence.

If Judge Gross says no, do paypal refunds, or use the money for other aspects of case.

Unlike the Million Dollar Homepage the actual amount taken in should be kept secret until presented to the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Assets: Servers, Server software, and developer software
Authored by: tce on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 02:45 PM EST
The server names are informal-shop id names - they do not describe the asset -
Wintel boxes (HP or Dell?), SCO/Unix/Linix boxes (Wintel or SUN or HP or IBM
or?), RAM, Disk, CPUs, etc, File Servers?, backup hardware?, network routing
hardware (CISCO, F5?)

Software purchased as part of the production infrastructure or the development
tool set?

..."Jira database and Me Inc. wiki" - that could be www.atlassian.com
's Jira and Confluence tools... both of which cost money for commercial
operations.

And how about Relational databases - I assume that since management sees GPL as
unconstitutional, that they would PAY for Oracle, or maybe Microsoft Sql
Server... rather then leverage MySQL or BSD?

And, their web server software (F/OOS Apache / Tomcat / etc or MS IIS, or maybe
IBM WebSphere... lots of money could be tied up here.

At $35k it is completely possible that the ebay value of theses assets is
greater then the purchase price.

-tce

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Cahn didn't try the easiest sales method known today
Authored by: s65_sean on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 03:15 PM EST
He should have put ads in craigslist under the "For Sale... Business"
section in all of the major metropolitan areas around the US.

Because he failed to attempt to sell the business on Craigslist, he should be
found derelict in his duties and this sale should be denied.

[ Reply to This | # ]

$35,000.00?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 03:17 PM EST
Where will Darl get that kind of money?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • $35,000.00?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 08:10 PM EST
  • Ralph? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 12:56 PM EST
Why don't we offer $35,500.00?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 03:20 PM EST
Just to see what happens. (I mean -- hey, it's not like
anybody ever actually comes up with the money in these SCO
"deals", anyway.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The "Darl risk"
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 03:38 PM EST
A previous comment said that the legal costs of preparing the contract and
vetting buyers would likely eat up much of the $35,000.

But even ignoring that, assume that the deal was still an obvious win to the
company.. Darl wanted to pay $35,000 for his favorite office chair or something.
But even then, remember you're dealing with DARL here, someone who is known to
be litigious and irrational. You almost HAVE to expect new hassles, suits, and
arguments if you ever make a deal with him! It won't matter if his arguments
are nonsensical "I bought the chair and therefore own all ideas that were
created while anyone was sitting in it in the past", it will just be a
burden and distraction to the company. $35,000 isn't worth even the RISK of
Darl having ANY further connection with newSCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO reloaded, or The Darl is in the details
Authored by: egan on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM EST

Ever since SCO entered bankruptcy and it became apparent that its litigation business model was backfiring disastrously, its insiders - Ralph Yarro, Darl McBride and their gang of copyright trolls - have sought a deal that would let them evade legal accountability for SCO's failing lawsuits while extracting the copyright assets and licensing claims upon which those lawsuits were based into another entity, possibly in order to continue seeking their fevered dreams of extorting untold billions in licensing fees from those who use Linux. This proposed sale of ME to Darl might just be the latest in that long string of attempts to escape with SCO's Unix copyright claims and reload the same scam.

The reference to 363(m) tends to support this suspicion:

(m) The reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under subsection (b) or (c) of this section of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith, whether or not such entity knew of the pendency of the appeal, unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.

In other words, if this sale goes ahead and unless SCO's creditors appeal this sale and the bankruptcy court issues a stay pending appeal, the purchaser gets away with all title and rights to whatever is sold under this deal.

Now, there are a number of line items listed as assets to be sold that include source code copyrights, which are characterized by vague, innocuous looking names but not specified by listing all of the source code files that are included in the proposed sale. What's to prevent Darl and the gang from making off with all of the Unix copyrights that new SCO is claiming that old SCO bought from Novell?

Then, Darl and the gang might suddently find some mysterious backers, just as SCO had in the past and of whom a few apparently have been lurking in the shadows, and try SCO's old Linux license extortion scheme all over again.

Are they that fixated on their dreams of riches and crazy about their chances of getting away with it legally?

Going by their track record so far, one might be foolish to think they wouldn't dare try it. That's why I say The Darl is in the details.

- Egan

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 05:38 PM EST
I don't like the smell of this one little bit. Especially whiffy is this:

"f. In further consideration for the purchase of the Mobility Business
Assets, McBride will grant a release to the Debtors, the estates and the Trustee
and all Seller Parties (as defined in the APA). See APA § 6.2."

How can McBride make personal grants when he is not the sole owner? What happens
if he sells his share the next day? Do all grants go out the window leaving the
new buyer(s) in the clear to do as they wish?

Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

email blaster for Shout Marketing
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 06:25 PM EST
... Oh Joy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: electron on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 07:04 PM EST
> [Update 2: Get a load of the assets going for $35,000. Not
> only do the copyrights and the source code go to the buyer,
> but there are 12 servers in the deal, 13 domain names, and
> 10 developer smartphonees.

The servers may be of limited value depending on how old they are.

Domain names are neither here nor there - being an ongoing cost to maintain. An
interesting point would be how far into the future they have been registered
for.

Smartphones - again how old are they? If old they would be next to worthless. If
brand new worth about NZ$500 each to purchase new.

I would want to know why so very many servers are involved and why the
smartphones are included in the deal. Surely they would be being used by the
individual SCO employees who were working on that software.

What would those employees be using/doing after the sale?




---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Snowplow? in Utah? that figures...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 08:48 PM EST
Then Google tells me there is "snow removal software" which accounts
for the source code. Sorry, I don't get it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copyright transfers
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 10:10 PM EST
I note that the transfer of copyrights is very explicitly noted for each piece
of software. I would have thought something in the nature of "such
copyrights as are needed to conduct the business" would have been deemed
sufficient by Darl. :-)
-RS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mobility services?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 10:23 PM EST

What?! No SCO support contracts for these servers included in the sale?

Maybe they're not running SCO's brand of unix? Does that mean that Darl has to get a packet of SCO Linux Extortion licences?

Seriously: buying a running server would imply transfer of licences and obligations attached to. And if it's an online service, surely you'd setup a datacentre first to mirror the soon-to-be-purchased servers and then switch-over to the new boxes without affecting customer availability - which is what a subscriber to an online service would be expecting

... then again, SCO and Darl have given little care for customers in the recent past.

Charles from Oz

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing Chicken with the Undead
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 28 2010 @ 11:15 PM EST
At this point SCO is a walking corpse. and they are highly likely to lose in
court.

But what I couldn't understand is that settlement talks were shown somewhere in
the laywers bills. What could they use as leverage to create a settlement if
Novell knew they SCO was "The walking dead"

Here's my thought Cahn made an offer. you settle or I transfer the soul of SCO
to a entity outside the reach of Judge Gross and Judge Steward.

LSMFT


It's the only thing that would make sense to me, but as we often say around my
house "nothing makes sense".

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 01:20 AM EST
I, the anonymous one, offer my 2 cents, which is probably more than it is worth.
:P

[ Reply to This | # ]

The hardware is not worth much
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 01:51 AM EST

Not only do the copyrights and the source code go to the buyer, but there are 12 servers in the deal, 13 domain names, and 10 developer smartphones.

Used computers are not worth much. These servers could be worth $200 to $300 each, depending on age and configuration. Secondhand smartphones don't bring much, either.

As for domain names - typically they cost about $10/year. For the latest prices, check Godaddy or one of the other vendors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 03:26 AM EST
I would just love to see Novell bid against Darl with the same money they will
never collect from SCO! How about Novell sells its uncollectable amounts to SID
(SCO Is Dead), LLC who then bids against MIH, LLC. If Novell (or SID LLC) won
such a bid, I would expect that SCO would get no cash (because they already
spent Novell's money on litigation), and the end may come faster.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aston Villa? Really?
Authored by: The Cornishman on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 04:19 AM EST
Ref the list of applications in source: Aston Villa FC is a UK football [soccer,
guys] club in the English Midlands. I wouldn't have thought they'd be a prime
customer for a mobile system administration application. How odd.

Of course there's Aston Villa motel at Niagara Falls, or Astonvilla, the French
rock band, but I think they're even less likely.

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 04:22 AM EST
What if this is all a cover for getting servers out of SCO's possession to hide
incriminating evidence in case they lose the trial? Have any of those servers
been used as mail servers? Even if SCO reassured everyone that those are not
mail servers and do not contain any relevant information about SCO's other
operations, what would prevent the handover of other servers that may have such
information (such as mail servers) along with the mobility servers? Then later
after they are in Darl's hands they can say the mail servers were accidentally
handed over to him in the transfer. I smell a cover up. 35K is a drop in the
bucket. This is not about buying the Mobility Business or getting money into
SCO's bank accounts. This is about hiding evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 12:01 PM EST
Not sure if this is a news pick or off-topic. Note comic strip referenced in the referenced article.

Luis Villa — looking for locomotives

I will henceforth refer to reading a contract as ‘looking for locomotives.’

As a bonus, and related to my recent post about plain english in the law, Wondermark is apparently working with the Center for Plain Language on a contest to reward plain (and terrible) use of plain English in communication. That is terrific to hear, and I wish them great luck with it. I only wish I had some appropriate examples to submit to the contest.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 12:08 PM EST
PJ says:
... and you know what he [Darl] said contracts are good for ...
Yes, I'm sure most of your regular readers do. But just in case Judge Cahn's people are reading this, I think we should provide the full quote, for them to look up on the intertubes:
"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."

[ Reply to This | # ]

patents?
Authored by: basher20 on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 03:14 PM EST
Has SCO taken out any patent applications in connection with the ME Inc.
software? I don't see any refernce to patents in the proposed deal, but the
proposed oder section 7 allows the parties to make changes that don't affect the
economic terms of the deal. So then after aproval, Darl comes back and says,
whoops, we left the patents out of the deal, and of course the patents go with
the source code, otherwise we're infringing on day one. Since the purchase
price doesn't change, and both sides state that the patents were intended to be
included, the economic terms of the deal don't change, and no further approval
is required.
Next thing you know, all of a sudden every body who uses smart phones to connect
to Unix servers via the Internet gets a notice stating that they're in violation
of one of Me Inc's patents...

Or has my tinfoil hat lost it's grounding strap again.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trustee Judgement, Part 2
Authored by: biochem_guy on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 05:26 PM EST
See my comment from the previous article. Judge Cahn is now total incompetent
in my view and should be removed. Now this is just getting silly!

---
Chemistry is cool!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOGBK#1072
Authored by: Silurian on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 07:04 PM EST
Order Granting Motion Of Chapter 11 Trustee To Shorten Notice And Response To
Trustees Motion For Order Under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(A), 363, And 365 And Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 2002, 6004, 6006 And 9014 (A) Approving The Sale Of Mobility
Business Free And Clear Of All Liens, Claims, Interests And Encumbrances
Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. Section 363, (B) Authorizing And Approving The Assumption
And Assignment Of Certain Executory Contracts In Connection Therewith, And (C)
Granting Related Relief (related document(s)[1067]) Signed on 3/1/2010. (ALC)

Hearing: March 15, 09:00 (Was 10:00)
Objection deadline: March 11, 16:00 (Was March 8)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Beware Of Beta Software
Authored by: sk43 on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 09:50 PM EST
In case anyone is thinking of tendering a bid for this seemingly incredible bargain, just be aware that the "SCO Mobile Server SDK Development Kit" is still being tested as part of the SCO Beta Program:

Unrestricted Beta

An Unrestricted Beta is held when the product is ready for a first public viewing. Anyone who has received beta product through public distribution is eligible to participate. Unrestricted beta sites do not receive product support, and interact with the Unrestricted Beta site to download product and provide feedback.

Current Unrestricted Beta Products:

* SCOMobile Software Development Kit

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 04:32 PM EST
Terms: " SCO will also provide consultation on bringing
the servers back up in their new environment." - And just
how much is that going to cost SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Proposes Selling its Mobility "Business"... to Darl McBride - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:11 PM EST
What if I were to offer 50k for the business?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sinking boat
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 10:01 PM EST
SCO's like a boat whose own anchor made it sink; now that the
boat is nearly submerged the captain's jumping out with...
guess what... the anchor!

I wouldn't be too worried :)

[ 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 )