decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Bankruptcy Hearing on Darl's Mobility Offer on April 7 is "Going Forward"
Monday, April 05 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT

The agenda for the hearing in bankruptcy court regarding Darl McBride's offer to buy the SCO mobility assets set for April 7th is now posted on Pacer:

04/05/2010 - 1102 - Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 4/7/2010 at 03:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 04/05/2010)

The last line reads, "The hearing on this matter will go forward."

Some here were insisting that it would not, because there were no objections filed. But if there were any possible competing bids, which you and I would not know about yet, that would be another reason to have the hearing, even if there are no objections. Also if anyone with a contract with SCO for mobility products and/or services doesn't like the cure amounts SCO came up with or doesn't want the contract to transfer, that would be another reason to have a hearing. Here's the wording in the original Notice from SCO on filing objections or responses:
In the event that any objection or response is filed and served in accordance with this Notice, a hearing on the motion will be held before the Honorable Kevin Gross at the Bankruptcy Court on [date].
You can see that it isn't only objections that trigger hearings. This hearing was originally set for March 15, but now it's scheduled for April 7, starting at 3 PM. So, unless you see otherwise between now and then, the hearing is going to happen, and if you were making plans to attend, you can go forward with those plans.


Bankruptcy Hearing on Darl's Mobility Offer on April 7 is "Going Forward" | 252 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic here
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
On-topic posts will be severely punished.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks here
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Please put the title of the newspick that you are responding to into the title
of your post.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT
In the rare event that PJ has made a mistake.

Please have your title in the form "wrong ==> correct"

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything COMES here
Authored by: red floyd on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT
For the Quadrifecta!

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
If they are expecting/hoping someone will show up at the hearing and make an

I know of a case where something very like that happened.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something Fishy...
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 05:02 PM EDT
There has always been something a little odd with this part of the story, and no mistake.

In 2003, SCO 'acquired' Vultus, a small start-up that just happened to be based in the same office building as SCO, and just happened to be part of the Canopy Group. Yes, that Canopy Group.

At least a part of this story is capture right here on Groklaw.

Because, prior to the acquisition, Vultus was a privately owned group (held by Canopy), the exact terms of the deal were perhaps never fully understood.

However, it seems as though the deal was well timed. Vultus was owned by Canopy - i.e. the Noordas. Then SCO announced their various legal claims and their stock bounced upwards. While it was elevated, a deal was struck that saw SCO acquire and assimilate Vultus in return for SCO stock. Stock which now, incidentally, has dropped in value.

I do not recall seeing any separate income figures listed for Me, Inc (the branded name of the Vultus platform after the acquisition) but it would be interesting, if available, to see what sort of revenue it has been generating.

Of course, in the event that this divestiture has been planned for a while - and given the lack of competing bids - there may have been an opportunity to structure the financials such that it looks as though Me, Inc was barely breaking even or even trading at a small loss. That might have encouraged the Trustee to go along with the planned sale.

I also recall some of the chatter at the time that the deal was announced. Some in the FOSS community speculated that the Vultus deal could form a parachute for SCO executives in the event that their legal claims came to naught and that SCO was destroyed in the process. And where are we with that, exactly?

Seems to me, with hindsight, that Mr Noorda would have been better off holding on to Vultus and getting rid of his SCO stock. Hang on a second, though... Didn't Ralph Yarro get all or most of that stock when he left Canopy under uncomfortable circumstances?

So let me see if I can get this right:

1. Canopy sets up Vultus with some seed capital and incubates it as a startup. Funding comes from Canopy.

2. Shares in SCO - another company with ties to Canopy - rise, at which point SCO acquires Vultus in return for SCO stock, which may have been printed especially for the acquisition. Nothing has been said, explicitly, but with Mr Yarro working for Both SCO and Canopy at the time, one may be able to speculate that he knew about, was able to influence, or may have actually instigated these business transactions. Certainly it would have been surprising had he not known as it would be likely that he would have to approve the deal in at least one of his serving roles.

3. As the court cases wear on, so the SCO shares drop in value. Meanwhile, the Canopy Group and Ralph Yarro part company. Mr Yarro takes all the remaining SCO stock then held by the Canopy Group as part of his severance package.

4. Net result... The SCO Group acquires Vultus and Mr Yarro acquires a larger portion of SCO stock than he previously held.

5. SCO - through the Trustee - now propose to sell what is effectively the Me, Inc (Vultus) business to Darl McBride, a former director for - what was it? $35,000?

Others have already commented, but I can't help repeating, that it would be amusing if either IBM or Novell stepped in with a larger counter-offer, and continued to raise the value of the deal until Darl was unable to out-bid them.

Maybe it's just me, but this whole thing just looks a little too convenient...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy Hearing on Darl's Mobility Offer on April 7 is "Going Forward"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 05:14 PM EDT
What I would love to see is a motion by Novell for moving into a chapter 7. SCO
has been told they do not own the copyrights a number of times and had to borrow
money just to get this verdict so no point holding out another 7 years in

[ Reply to This | # ]

The hearing will still be cancelled
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 05 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT

The reason why the notice of agenda was filed is that (a) there is a pending motion that requires an order, and (b) Gross had not signed the order by the time the notice was due. After SCO files its CNO, Gross will sign the order and the hearing will be cancelled. This has happened several times before in the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IF Darl McBride concentrated on building a product = good idea?
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 03:05 AM EDT
I know it's unlikely given past form but lets say that Darl McBride managed to
market a useful product rather than concentrating on trying to attack other
people's efforts - might that not be a good thing?

Given what is happening in IT at the moment (and by that I mean computing
devices slowly replacing desktop PCs or at least giving an alternative), perhaps
there is a market for (New) SCO's mobile offerings. Of course given what has
happened to the parent company perhaps not...

Microsoft Software is expensive, bloated, bug-ridden and unnecessary.
Use Open Source Software instead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My SCO Reorganization Plan
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 10:14 AM EDT
SCO's period of exclusivity for filing a reorganization plan ended a year ago.
It's maybe time for us to offer some alternatives and soon, as SCO is at death's
(ch 7) door.

1. Separate the OpenServer and UnixWare business (new Unix) from the SVRX legacy
licensing business (old Unix).

2. Sell the new Unix business to an investor prepared to put money into it. They
could become viable products again.

Now that OS and UW are on the same kernel code base developing and servicing the
product should be cheaper than previously. The break with the past allows new
pricing structures and marketing options. By splitting off the old Unix business
Novell's control over the new Unix business should be minimal so the uncertainty
over the scope of APA 4.16 is neutralized. The uncertainty comes because that
may not be settled for years with a Final Judgement and appeals still to come.

3. Give the old Unix SVRX licensing business back to Novell. Novell in turn
arranges royalty buyouts with existing licensees and open-sources with a
non-free license the code they can, that is the BSD, AT&T and Novell written
code but not the third party copyright code.

Novell doesn't want Unix back, however they can minimize their future
involvement. The APA already contemplates royalty buyouts under slightly
different conditions. Continuing litigation over the scope of APA 4.16 will be

Most of the code can be open-sourced because: there are no trade secrets in UNIX
(Kevin McBride), Sun has already published a lot of the code with the permission
of SCO, the SOFT-XXXXX licenses say you only have to keep the code secret until
some other party has released it, the BSD code is free anyway and Novell can
publish it's own copyrighted code. This has several advantages: a non-free
license with third party code missing means no-one can build a new Unix product
thus preserving the value of the existing licensees products, if most of the
code is in the open the existing licensees can form a self-help group, and Linux
kernel maintainers can check that there really is no Unix in Linux.

4. The remains of SCO fall into Chapter 7 bankruptcy and are disbanded after the
Red Hat and IBM litigations are closed. There's no point in continuing the SUSE

Red Hat: as they don't own the SVRX copyrights, SCO admits publicly that there
is no Unix in Linux. Red Hat wins the Lanham Act claims but there's no money for

IBM: Novell have already released IBM from the contract claims, SCO admits
publicly that IBM can open-source its own code if it wants to, IBM wins all its
counter-claims but there's no money to pay any damages.

Is everyone happy after all this?

SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy Hearing April 7 on Cahn's Mobility after Smackdown; "Is he going to show?"
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, April 06 2010 @ 11:21 AM EDT

Judge Gross' assessment of Cahn as a great evaluator of litigation has been
shaken, to put it mildly. Seven years of preparation, a three week trial with
hours of advantage, and the SCO presentation could only persuade one out of
thirteen, a lawyer and an ex-judge at that --Cahn. With their own documents,
forced consistency and inadvertent "truth-speak" SCO's own
representations helped convince the jury that no copyrights passed or were
necessary. The jury's one-sided deliberations were only snagged by the hunger
pangs of a scant majority. This comment may be a little unfair to Cahn, but he
was picked to be judicious not "puffacious." Let's hope Gross doesn't
cancel the hearing so we can see how everyone's credibility fares after a
healthy dose of reality.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn's "excuse" will be quite reasonable.
Authored by: rfrazier on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:41 AM EDT
1. About the SCO claims. It didn't cost SCO much to pursue the end of the case,
and the unlikely, but possible payoff was quite high. (And, it isn't finished

2. About the IBM case. He can't get out of the case, so he might as well put a
brave face on, and go with it as inexpensively as possible.

SCO can't make the cases go away. How would SCO cave in, if it wanted to? What
would SCO gain? Lose?

Best wishes,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy Hearing on Darl's Mobility Offer on April 7 is "Going Forward"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 03:58 PM EDT
What's the status?

Why is this happening, did his rubber stamp break and he actually has to lift a
pen for his crony, Cahn?

[ 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 )