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
Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs
Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT

First word from the bankruptcy hearing today on Darl McBride's offer to buy (and license the IP) SCO's mobility assets. Groklaw's UD has this quick report, with more to come later:
Just got out of the SCO BK hearing a little bit ago and thought I'd send a quick update for you.

The sale of the mobility business to Darl was approved, but he ended up paying $100,000 for it instead of the original $35,000 because there was a second bidder that responded to the sale ad in the newspaper. They had an auction this past Monday with a minimum bid of $100,000 for the outright sale of the assets. Darl bid, the other party didn't. The judge approved the sale.

More a little later when I don't have to type on my phone...

Update: Note that this was a *sale*, including the IP, not Darl licensing it, as originally proposed. Is there a word for the opposite of bait and switch?

And SCO has been given more time to respond to Novell's Supreme Court petition:

Mar 26 2010 - Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 7, 2010.


As promised, here is the next UD report:
Edward Cahn began with a summary of the Utah court proceedings where he expressed his belief that going in to the trial he had a greater than 50% certainty that SCO would prevail. He thought the case was well argued and presented and opined that most of the people in the courtroom also thought SCO would win. He read verbatim Judge Stewart's praise of the fine lawyering he witnessed in this case. He still thinks they should have won and I believe he said something about filing a Rule 59 motion for a new trial. He said that Judge Stewart was going to issue further rulings on the 15th that would have an impact on SCO's future course so they were waiting for those rulings before moving ahead with a plan.

Ms. Patel (I think) then began talking about the sale of the mobility business. SCO's restructuring is continuing, there are pending motions for the sale of the mobility business (today) and the sale of the patent (4/20). There were no objections to the sale of the mobility business, so they had Ocean Park Advisors negotiate an APA with Darl McBride. They also identified 12 other targets that might have an interest in the IP so they sent out notices to them but none responded. Then there was an ad placed in the Salt Lake City newspapers to announce the sale and three parties expressed an interest - only one of which actually made a bid. Since they now had two interested parties, they decided they would have an auction for the assets. It was decided that it was in the best interest of SCO to sell the IP rather than license it and that the minimum bid was to be $100,000 (Darl's initial offer was $35,000). The auction was held by telephone this past Monday (4/5) and Darl opened with the minimum bid and the other party (Mobile Business Solutions) did not counteroffer. It was an all-cash purchase and is expected to close this Friday (4/9). The sale agreement is still being worked on so is not currently available but will be filed timely. SCO will also license back the IP for its internal use only.

The judge says he believes that that this is a good sale and in the best interest of the creditors and approves the sale. Darl and Me Inc. own the SCO mobility IP.

That was about it. Mr. McMahon was at the hearing (but didn't speak) and the judge joked about the rarity of his sighting. No other big players were present that I was accustomed to seeing at the other more momentous hearings.

And here's MikeD's report:
The hearing lasted 15 minutes.

Attendees

Joseph McMahon - U.S. Trustee
Sean Greecher - Novell
Bonnie Fatell - SCO/Ch. 11 Trustee
Stanley Tarr - SCO/Ch. 11 Trustee
Edward Cahn - SCO/Ch. 11 Trustee
Laurie Silverstein - IBM
For Groklaw
RFD
UD
MikeD
Ms. Fatell opened the hearing with a brief introduction, and then turned it over to Judge Cahn. Judge Cahn then proceeded to deliver his interim report:
- Court found that SCO did not hold the copyrights.
- He was there for 4 days of the trial.
- He thought that they would win during the trial.
- He is deeply disappointed in the jury verdict.
- Ms. Fatell will report on future steps.
- Will be filing under rule 50
- Will be filing for a new trial under rule 59
Judge Cahn then read Judge Stewart's comment about "the best set of attorneys he has ever worked with...."

He turned the podium back to Ms Fatell:

- Spoke about OPA
- They are going through an ongoing restructuring
- They are proceeding with an orderly liquidation.
- Selling Mobile business
- Selling patent.
- There have been ongoing discussions on selling the mobile business.
- They are addressing items and next steps in the Novell litigation
- They are pursuing the IBM litigation.
She then went into the one motion on the agenda - the sale of the mobile business.

She spoke about Mark Fisler, a managing director of OPA. He could speak to the process of identifying potential buyers for the mobile business.

[MikeD note: He sat beside me. I assume he was there to testify. Ms. Fatell spoke about all the things he could testify to. In the end, he was not called to the stand.]

Ms. Fatell continuing:

- They identified 12 potential targets
- Phoned and emailed them all over a two week-period.
- None showed interest
- They placed an ad in a Salt Lake newspaper
- Three parties showed an interest
- One provided a letter of intent
This party expressed an interest in buying the entire mobile product, including the IP. Darl had proposed only acquiring a license.

- There were two parties interested.

- Me, Inc (Darl)
- Mobile Business Solutions
An auction was held on April 5 by telephone. Minimum bid was raised to $100,000 (including the IP). Me, Inc (Darl) was the successful bidder. Deal closes April 9 with the Court's approval.

Judge Gross:

- Happy with the marketing and research efforts
- Feels the terms are fair
- Approved the sale.
That was it. Judge thanked everyone and the hearing was over.
What is the IP? Did no one even inquire? Just whoosh, and Darl owns unknown IP? It's like handing a loaded gun to a serial killer. What do you expect will happen next? I'll wait to see the transcript before reaching final conclusions, as always, but this looks very, very odd to me. In the original deal proposal, which isn't this deal, here's the list [PDF] of source code products, but I have no idea if the IP Darl just got matches the list.

And may I inquire if he paid for the trademark Me Inc? How does he name his new business Me Inc without having done so first? Did I miss something?

Here's Rule 59. I'll translate the legalese: SCO yearned for its day in court. It got it. Now it wants *another* one, a new trial. Blech. See why I always rest a while after each victory? SCO has 28 days from the jury's verdict to file for a new trial. And the judge can either accept SCO's reasons for asking for a new trial, or he can freestyle the same remedy, after granting the parties a hearing.

And here's Rule 50. It's a workaround if the jury ruled against you:

1) In General.

If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may:

(A) resolve the issue against the party; and

(B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.

(2) Motion.

A motion for judgment as a matter of law may be made at any time before the case is submitted to the jury. The motion must specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.

(b) Renewing the Motion After Trial; Alternative Motion for a New Trial.

If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment — or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged — the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on the renewed motion, the court may:

(1) allow judgment on the verdict, if the jury returned a verdict;

(2) order a new trial; or

(3) direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law.

(c) Granting the Renewed Motion; Conditional Ruling on a Motion for a New Trial.
(1) In General.

If the court grants a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it must also conditionally rule on any motion for a new trial by determining whether a new trial should be granted if the judgment is later vacated or reversed. The court must state the grounds for conditionally granting or denying the motion for a new trial.

(2) Effect of a Conditional Ruling.

Conditionally granting the motion for a new trial does not affect the judgment's finality; if the judgment is reversed, the new trial must proceed unless the appellate court orders otherwise. If the motion for a new trial is conditionally denied, the appellee may assert error in that denial; if the judgment is reversed, the case must proceed as the appellate court orders.

(d) Time for a Losing Party’s New-Trial Motion.

Any motion for a new trial under Rule 59 by a party against whom judgment as a matter of law is rendered must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.

(e) Denying the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; Reversal on Appeal.

If the court denies the motion for judgment as a matter of law, the prevailing party may, as appellee, assert grounds entitling it to a new trial should the appellate court conclude that the trial court erred in denying the motion. If the appellate court reverses the judgment, it may order a new trial, direct the trial court to determine whether a new trial should be granted, or direct the entry of judgment.

So there's your map for what SCO says it will be doing. Miles to go before we sleep... If you recall, SCO earlier filed a Rule 50 motion, that got mooted. Our reporter says Bonnie Fatell says SCO will be filing another one. But Novell filed one also that was denied, so I guess the last paragraph above applies to them, if I'm navigating through this legal labyrinth successfully. See why you need a lawyer always in any court of law?

Update 2: RFD adds to the above reports his impressions:

I don't have much to add to UD's and MikeD's reports. The hearing was short, about 15 minutes. Judge Cahn's report lasted about 4 minutes. He is either a very good bluffer, or else he has totally bought into SCOSource, or that's the impression I formed. He assured Judge Gross that he remains convinced that pursuing the Novell and IBM litigation is the proper thing to do. Is Judge Cahn thinking he can get IBM to settle rather then risk a trial? If so, I think he is in for a rude awakening.

I think I heard Ms. Fatell say that they are trying to put together a proposal to sell the Unix business. I am not sure if they are going to try to assume and assign the Novell-Santa Cruz APA as part of that sale. If so, they may have a difficult time coming up with the money to cure any default, I would think, as well as getting Novell to agree to accept the buyer as its fiduciary. If not, what viable business is there to sell?

Update 3: Here's the order approving the sale and the minutes of the hearing:

04/07/2010 - 1103 - Minutes of Hearing held on: 04/07/2010 Subject: Sale. (vCal Hearing ID (110728)). (related document(s) 1102 ) (SS) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/7/2010 (SS). (Entered: 04/07/2010)

04/07/2010 - 1104 - 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 ) Order Signed on 4/7/2010. (SDJ) (Entered: 04/07/2010)

I am so grateful to our three faithful reporters. Imagine if they had not attended, how many details of this behind-closed-doors sale to an insider we would have missed. Wait. I must correct myself. The Order says the Buyer is "a good faith purchaser." So there you are.

Here is all the information about the proceedings in the minutes:

HEARING HELD. AGENDA ITEMS:

#1 - Approved. ORDER SIGNED

Thank you guys. I know at least one of you drove 3 hours each way to attend a 15-minute hearing. And we are deeply grateful. Without your attendance, we would not know SCO's future plans, and now we do. SCO's incredible plans. And I think we can now put Mr. Cahn on the map with some certainty, as well.

Update 4: I have had an opportunity to listen to the audio of the hearing. I can't put it up on Groklaw, but I can tell you about it, and later when the transcripts are made available, you can verify my impressions. What Mr. Cahn told the court was that he had earlier said that he thought SCO's chances were a little better than 50-50.

That isn't what I remember. He said that SCO's claims were meritorious and should be aggressively pursued, or at least that is my memory. So either the judge is old enough that his memory is going, or he's caught the SCO disease. At a minimum, it explains to me why it doesn't bother him that they say one thing in one courtroom, and something else in another, or different things in the same courtroom on separate occasions. Personally, that would bother me, but that's just me.

He told the court this time that he thought SCO should have won. He's very disappointed. And he still thinks he was right to pursue the litigation, and they hope for better from Judge Stewart. They will file a renewed Rule 50 motion, not a new one, and, in the alternative, a Rule 59 motion, and they expect rulings from Stewart in the next few months. So the jury ruled against them, so they want the judge to overrule the jury. If he won't, they want a new jury and a new trial. They'll let Judge Gross know how things are going. And believe it or not, Judge Gross said that sounded great. Meanwhile, SCO will be spending the Yarro loan, and then how will they pay it back? Or if they default, then Yarro and friends get the assets, all of them, and he and Darl own it all, back in the saddle again.

So what is Cahn saying? Let's posit for the sake of this discussion that he is being truthful, that he really did tell the court that SCO's chances were a little better than 50-50. Would that not mean that the creditors' interests were gambled away on a hope and prayer on litigation they knew, which they *had* to know, might very well not work out, on a toss-up?

Are bankruptcy courts allowed to do that?

And Cahn wants to do it some more. And Judge Gross says he can. It reminds me of this interview with David Boies which a reader just remembered and posted, where he said, "If you start out with the best facts and the best team, you ought to win."

But SCO didn't win. Twice now SCO has lost, by judge and by jury. And yet they persist in declaring they are in the right? Where's the problem? It can't be the lawyers. Cahn read to the court Judge Stewart's praise for the lawyering in SCO v. Novell, so a logical brain would conclude the problem must be SCO doesn't have the best facts.

Did you ever see the movie, Moonstruck? Remember the scene in the restaurant where the college professor has a glass of water thrown in his face by his much younger date, one of his students? She storms out, and the waiter, with indignation at her, clears away her plate. Is it because he really feels indignation? We learn that it happens regularly with this guy in the same restaurant. So how indignant is the waiter really, the third or fourth time? Or is it that he has a steady customer he wants to please, so he acts indignant? SCOfolk remind me of that waiter. Their assertions that their case is so meritorious and ought to prevail ring hollow, certainly by now. So who are they trying to please? Who are these people, and what do they really want? It can't be what we are watching, I've concluded, because it really makes no sense at all to persist this way in a case that is obviously, to me anyway, a loser and which has always been a loser, unless the fix were in. That does seem to be SCO's only hope. They seem to be strongly, firmly relying on Judge Stewart to come through for SCO. Is this like the Court of Appeals, where SCO seemed to be positively clairvoyant as to the outcome, years in advance? Or is it just that they want IBM to settle, so they play their harassing part to the hilt? Or do they just love to gamble? I don't know.

But that isn't the oddest part. The truly odd part is that IBM, Novell and the US Trustee's Office were all there in the courtroom. And no one said a single word in objection. Not even when Bonnie Fatell said that the auction was held last Monday -- surprise -- , without telling the public, at least not on PACER, and by phone, so you couldn't even stumble upon it. Anyway, two bidders showed up, but only then, at the auction, SCO announced that the IP would be sold also, so the opening bid had to be $100,000, not $35,000. So the second bidder dropped out.

Now, a cynic might be thinking it was stacked to make more likely that Darl would win the bidding. I've never been a cynic myself, but I could get that way if this keeps going.

Why no objections? It makes me think of the lawyer who represented former Senator Ted Stevens, Brendan Sullivan, who when he was criticized for objecting too often in an earlier case famously said, "I'm not a potted plant. I am here as the lawyer. That's my job." Is there some strategy being followed whereby the lawyers for IBM, Novell and the US Trustee's Office have decided to act like potted plants, at least for now? Or is it just that Judge Gross, they've decided, is hopeless, like an overly indulgent father of an only daughter, and so there's no point in trying to stop him from granting SCO's every wish?

All I know is there is an eeriness to it. I think the judge feels it too, because at the end he makes an awkward joke about not seeing the U.S. Trustee Mr. McMahon much lately. My brain heard it as, why aren't you saying anything? Why is no one objecting to what is ridiculous? But who knows if my impression is correct or not, but for sure, this was by far the oddest hearing in all the peculiar bankruptcy hearings we've covered. All I can tell you is, we must not be in the loop, because it makes no sense to me. Whatever is going on is way over our heads, and we'll have to wait to watch it play out to be able to understand it. And play out it will.


  


Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs | 669 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections go here.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:45 PM EDT
Yeah, corrections here!

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT
Because there is more to life

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks go Here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:46 PM EDT
Yep, News picks.

---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anything Comes here
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:51 PM EDT
But not anything goes here.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does chapter 7 mean we'll hear . . .
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:55 PM EDT

You cursed brat! Look what you've done! I'm melting! melting! Oh, what a world!
What a world! Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy
my beautiful wickedness? Oooooh, look out! I'm going! Oooooh! Ooooooh!

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000
Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 04:56 PM EDT
Did anyone ask about the fact that the Me biz was supposed to be worth millions?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn to move move under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) for judgment in its favor notwithstanding the verdict
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:03 PM EDT
Let me see if I have this correct about copyright ownership.

SCO didn't like the verdict from a judge.

So they appeal and get a jury verdict.

They don't like the jury's verdict, so now they're going to appeal to get a
verdict from (a different) judge.

Let me guess, if they don't like that, they'll . . .

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why? goes here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:03 PM EDT
What does SCO have in "mobility assets" that could possibly be worth
100,000 USD to Darl? Alternatively, how is someone else making it worth Darl's
while to feed 100k into SCO??

To be honest, like so many SCO things, I have some difficulty getting this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scrape of iTune Customer Reviews of "FcTasks"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:05 PM EDT
I periodically scrape the ITunes Customer reviews for "FCTasks". The ratings are strongly biased toward 1 star (about 40%). The text comments are strongly negative. A particular buyer named "Skyline Cowboy" does love the software however.

Ratings for period ending on date. Total do not add, because users can rerate their purchase.
Rating __ 9/19/09 __ 1/10/10 __ 4/7/10 __ Total
***** __ 57 __ 22 __ 15 __ 94
**** ___ 49 __ 27 __ 12 __ 87
*** ____ 84 __ 33 __ 21 __ 136
** _____ 95 __ 49 __ 28 __ 170
* ______ 167 __ 74 __ 53 __ 287
Total __ 452 __ 205 __ 129 __ 774

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fishy / Obvious
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:05 PM EDT
I think it's good to state the obvious (probably not new):

This sale looks fishy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads - Non-Anon starter
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:15 PM EDT
Ow what a tangled off-topic web we weave when first we practice to post
Anonymous starter threads ... ummm ... something that rhymes with
"weave".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some tire kicker cost Darl $65k? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:21 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On Topic threads HERE
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Just in case anyone is interested in saying anything other than posting
off-topic threads.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The other bidder -- Could be Vaporous
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:24 PM EDT
The other interested party is reported as named "Mobile Business Solutions"

A quick search of Delaware, Texas, California, Nevada and Utah don't show any "active" corporations or LLC by that name. There is a British company with the name, but remarkably for such a generic phrase very little US hit that could be construed to represent such a business.

Utah has a registration that expired in 2003, Calif has a registration that went south in 2001, Florida has a 2004 era biz out of Jacksonville,

Delaware, Texas, and Nevada don't hit at all.

Could this be a stalking horse fabricated by the winning bidder to change the sale to a outright transfer instead of a license. The "change" was made after the trial was lost, and Darl may have decided he needed the asset outright, and was willing to make a paper bid in order to secure title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ deserves a commission on this
Authored by: Gringo on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:52 PM EDT
I think it is the publicity that Groklaw gave to this that
brought out a competing bid. After all, those incompetents
advising SCO only posted in the newspaper instead of the most
obvious on-line sites.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Fresh New Lawsuit...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT
How long before Darl files a lawsuit against somebody based on something he just
bought today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT
Hmm I'm a little conflicted..

Yay! Someone bumped the price, LOL.

Then reflecting on the players involved in this deal, I got to thinking that the
small print may be worth a read.

Just saying.

---
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 | # ]

Sign in sheet: Novell and IBM were represented in person
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:30 PM EDT
The sign in sheet (on Docket) shows Laurie Seiver Silberstein (or Potter
Anderson) represented IBM and Sean Greecher (of Young, Conway Stugatt and
Taylor) represented Novell

[ Reply to This | # ]

His belief that going in to the trial he had a greater than 50% certainty that SCO would prevail
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:37 PM EDT
Ok, he obviously didn't pay much attn to Novel's witness list, or their
depositions. He can't possibly have reached that conclusion based on the caliber
of SCO wittlesses like MOG......

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow. Just... wow.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 06:40 PM EDT
"Edward Cahn began with a summary of the Utah court proceedings where he
expressed his belief that going in to the trial he had a greater than 50%
certainty that SCO would prevail."

Either he really believed that, or he's lying to the bankruptcy court. Both
alternatives are very disturbing.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:01 PM EDT
What is rule 59? What does it mean to apply for a new trial under rule 59?
thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated
Authored by: Jan on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:08 PM EDT
OK, Novell isn't going to get anything like what they are currently owed out of
all this.

Is there any reason for Novell not to have bid on this and reduced their final
settlement by whatever amount?

Not sure what the mobility business is actually worth, but if it has any value,
something is better than nothing.

---
Non sum iurisconsultus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still waiting for SCOG to be declared a vexatious litigant (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:09 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mobile Business Solutions?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:11 PM EDT
That wouldn't happen to be Ralph and/or friends? In short was it just a
strawman? After all starting a new company isn't that expensive and if it lets
ya shake loose the actual IP instead of just a license...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not sure how SCOG expects to prevail on a Rule 50 motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:18 PM EDT
The 10th CCOA overturned Kimball on the premise that it was improper to rule on
summary judgment and that a jury had to decide. But now that SCOG has finally
had their jury trial wish and lost, they suddenly have a change of heart and
want a different judge to rule instead. Talk about your forum shopping.

If that's what they really want, they should request that Kimball's ruling be
reinstated. Oh wait...

[ Reply to This | # ]

ME - Missing Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:24 PM EDT
More Errors
Major Emmetic
Mega Excrement
Major Expence

[ Reply to This | # ]

So is Judge Cahn saying if you have a good lawyer...
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 07:39 PM EDT
Is Judge Cahn saying he thinks if you have really fine lawyers on your side you
should win no matter what the facts are? That's what it sounds like. I guess
it's a good thing he's no longer a judge.

I wonder who Darl will sue fist over Me Inc.? I've never heard of him doing
anything other than sue, so presumably that's why he bought it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What was purchased instead of licensed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:14 PM EDT
Based on a quick read of the PDFs in the original article about the proposed purchase, I think the IP to be licensed (which is apparently now purchased) are the "Source Code Products" listed here.
  • 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.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is the IP?
Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:35 PM EDT
If you go to filing #1066, attachment #9 (Exhibit C Part 6)you will find a list
of asset including various Source Code Copyrights. From what Ms. Fatell said, I
gather the change is that these copyrights will be sold to the buyer, rather
than licensed. No one raised any questions at the hearing about what was
included.

---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

He thought the case was well argued and presented ????
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 08:57 PM EDT
"He thought the case was well argued and presented and opined that most of
the people in the courtroom also thought SCO would win."

I can't stop laughing when reading this report, apparently in his opinion
"the most of people in the courtroom" does not include juries. Hahaha

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 2Xs
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 09:21 PM EDT
{
And the judge can either accept SCO's reasons for asking for a new trial, or he
can freestyle the same remedy, after granting the parties a hearing
}

"We need a new trial because we lost the last one." ;-)

---
IANALAIDPOOTV

(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What on earth is Cahn up to?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:02 PM EDT

Why was this even relevant at the bankruptcy hearing?:

Edward Cahn began with a summary of the Utah court proceedings where he expressed his belief that going in to the trial he had a greater than 50% certainty that SCO would prevail. He ... opined that most of the people in the courtroom also thought SCO would win. ... He still thinks they should have won

Why did Gross even allow Cahn to spout this nonsense? A judge made a ruling, he appealed and it went to a jury, the jury gave its verdict. End of story. It is extremely difficult to overturn a jury's finding of fact. As a lawyer, Cahn must know that.

Cahn "opined that most of the people in the courtroom thought that SCO would win". Based on what? How many people in the courtroom did he ask? He didn't even attend the whole trial; he was not present for the presentation of much of Novell's case. The reports we read here covered the whole trial and they gave the opposite impression. Again I have to ask, why is he allowed to present this at the bankrupcty hearing?

I think we have to conclude that Cahn has drunk the SCO Kool-Aid. He's pursuing the old SCO fantasies instead of doing his job.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can Darl own IP written in Java?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 11:48 PM EDT
And as far as his old multi threading patent is concerned, how did they patent that without submitting a JSR to the JCP?

Java Community Process

I think this is all way over reaching and now Darl has a problem with the new owner of Sun Microsystems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Standard for rule 50(b)?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 12:20 AM EDT
I may be wrong but isn't the standard for a rule 50(b) motion pretty much the
same as the standard for Summary Judgment, that a reasonable jury couldn't find
for the nonmoving party?

Didn't the CoA just reject that argument when Kimball did it? If that is the
case how could such a motion be granted now?

---
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 | # ]

"most of the people in the courtroom also thought SCO would win"
Authored by: ak on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 12:35 AM EDT
That proves (again) that Edward N. Cahn makes unfounded factual statements in front of a judge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can This Be Right?
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:56 AM EDT
Maybe I misunderstood this - can anyone help correct if I mis-state this
please:

1. SCO propose to sell the "Mobility Business [aka Me, Inc] to Darl McBride
for $35,000. Trustee Edward Cahn allows this to go before Judge Gross.

By agreeing to put this motion before Judge Gross, I am implying that Edward
Cahn believed that the sum of $35,000 represented fair value for the assets.

2. A "Stalking Horse" also bids for the same assets.

3. SCO amend the minimum bid price to $100,000 and the competing bid drops out.

4. Darl agrees to the $100,000 minimum and acquires the assets.

So, in other words, in a matter of moments the value of the assets sold pretty
much triples.

And Edward Cahn was going to stand before Judge Gross, with a straight face, and
tell him that a sale of the business to Darl McBride for $35,000 represented
fair value for the various SCO debtors?

This is the same Trustee who has been unable to file MORs in a timely manner and
unable to submit a reorganization plan that didn't include the word litigate and
the same Trustee who believes that SCO had a case against Novell and have a case
against IBM (the last with respect to IBM despite the fact that prevailing
evidence suggests that Novell has and exercised the rights to resolve any
remaining issues with respect to the IBM case). (I over-state the case: he has
been unable to submit a reorganization plan, period).

From my position of ignorance, I would like to hope that one of the larger
debtors would submit a motion of "No confidence" in the performance of
this current trustee and have him removed from this deal pronto.

As others have written, this simply does not stand up to review by a
"reasonable person".

Translation: this stinks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could Novell argue that the arbitration should be unmooted?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:22 AM EDT
I know the arguments Novell made about why the trial *could* moot the
bankruptcy. I know, as any "regular" here at Groklaw does, that PJ
disagreed with some of the points. But one argument could be that it could save
the estate much bread in attorney/research fees should they win an appeal.
Instead of preparing for and researching litigation strategies in the IBM and
Novell litigation, they'd all know where everyone stands. If SCO were to
ultimately prevail through any and all appeals it would have to be decided
anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hah! You all laughed at me.
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 03:27 AM EDT
Well, you're not laughing now, are you! I told you that SCO would say that no reasonable jury would have come to this decision and therefore, as a point of law, the jury was unreasonable and the verdict should be set aside.

Did you think I was joking! (Well, I was, actually, but that's no excuse)

What I must have, now, is Cahn's odds for the IBM race and the start date and time. I should have just enough time to bet the pension fund on the result. I hope Judge Gross pushes the odds up in my favour. Has he got access to the State's pension fund assets?

---
Regards
Ian Al

I sentence you to seven years, or more with good behaviour.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Define "all" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 10:29 AM EDT
Bankruptcy rules
Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 03:48 AM EDT
Remind me, how long is a company permitted to stay in Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
again?

SCO has hidden in a crack in the rocks, causing all litigation to be stayed
except the bit that it fancies pursuing at any given moment in time, a crack
that is there in the legitimate scheme of things for struggling businesses to
reorganize while protected, temporarily, from creditors. The Guardian of the
Crack, a.k.a. Gross J., seems to like it that way, but is there no remedy for
this abuse?

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

A ... theory?
Authored by: benw on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:02 AM EDT

This is very difficult to make sense of. But let's consider this:

Not only was Joseph MacMahon (US Trustee) there for Wednesday's hearing, but the Judge and he had a little joke about that, apparently. Joseph MacMahon moved for Chapter 7 conversion a year ago:

Additionally, not only is there no reasonable chance of "rehabilitation" in these cases, the Debtors have tried — and failed — to liquidate their business in chapter 11.

For Novell, present was Sean Greecher. And who signed Novell's Motion for Conversion last year?

IBM's representative at the hearing was Laurie Silverstein, who signed IBM's motion last year.

These are not babes in the woods in the ways of SCO. They may know more than we do. We can consider that they were likely acting under mutual advisement. None of them said a word, and we can consider that they kept silent for a reason, and it wasn't for SCO's benefit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

follow the money
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:14 AM EDT
Where did Darl get the money ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"in the best interest of the creditors"
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:36 AM EDT
Yes, obviously it's in the best interest of the creditors if SCO gets more money
which they spend on lawyers while SUING the creditors ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Handing it to Darl
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 05:50 AM EDT
If SCO turned up three interested parties just from an ad in a local newspaper,
it makes one wonder about the twelve potential "targets" they
identified for the sale that weren't interested. Were they names picked at
random out of the phone book?

What if they had advertised it more widely?

Could it be they wanted Darl to be the only party to close, whilst appearing to
make it available to all?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 06:35 AM EDT
It is possible that Judge Cahn has alzheimers disease
and not realize it. It starts out very subtle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 08:26 AM EDT

Wait. I must correct myself. The Order says the Buyer is "a good faith purchaser." So there you are.
Wait, I thought it was Darl as buyer?

Ops, sorry, forgot to mention I had on.

---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Kimball's performance
Authored by: ChrixOne on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 08:32 AM EDT
It seems bizarre to appeal the jury verdict on the grounds that a reasonable
jury could not possibly have found against SCO on copyright ownership when Judge
Kimball found through his summary judgement that there was absolutely no
worthwhile evidence that it did. Therefore as a matter of law no transfer
occured.

That would imply that Kimball is a blithering idiot.

The COA narrowly reversed that summary judgement on the (imo preposterous)
grounds that maybe there really was a fact to decide. How can anyone now go
forth with a poker face and claim that the facts presented amount to a
no-brainer in favor of SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Would acting as an agent for Novell be an asset?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 10:08 AM EDT
Could the Novell agency go to Yarro as an asset of the estate, even if they owe
money. Would the payments due Novell transfer with the rights to distribute
unix?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • lend me 100K - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:57 PM EDT
Looks like your thank you to Novell was premature
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 10:43 AM EDT
It looks like the thank you to Novell was premature if they made not objections,
or questioned the transaction.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why IBM and Novell allowed the sale of SCO Mobility
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 10:44 AM EDT
I think IBM and Novell allowed the sale of SCO's mobility business because.

1. It is an inconsequential component of SCO.

2. It allows IBM and Novell to argue that there is NOTHING left to SCO's
business. Novell owns the Unix Copyrights. SCO's Unix Business has
crumbled to hardly anything.

3. And after winning the jury trial, Novell, contractually, can and has negated

any of SCO's lawsuits against IBM and others. Thus, SCO's litigation business
is moot.

Therefore, IBM and Novell can move to have SCO go into Chapter 7
Bankruptcy since nothing is left of SCO's business and there is no plan to
rehabilitate the company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rule 50
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 10:54 AM EDT

The Court of Appeal took no position on who owns the Copyrights; they believed there was some argument for both cases and left it to a jury. Since there were arguments for a jury to rule either way, a Rule 50 motion on this issue is surely bound to fail on the basis that the jury could quite reasonably have decided in favour of either side.

"We take no position on which party ultimately owns the UNIX copyrights or which copyrights were “required” for Santa Cruz to exercise its rights under the agreement. Such matters are for the finder of fact on remand."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gambling
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 11:05 AM EDT
PJ said in Update 4:
Let's posit for the sake of this discussion that [trustee Cahn] is being truthful, that he really did tell the court that SCO's chances were a little better than 50-50. Would that not mean that the creditors' interests were gambled away on a hope and prayer on litigation they knew, which they *had* to know, might very well not work out?
Well, the trustee's job *is* to gamble with other people's money in ways that he or she knows may not work out. The kinds of decisions trustees would normally face would be things like:
  • Do we keep a money loosing division going in hopes of finding a seller, or do we shut it down now?
  • A factory needs expensive scheduled maintenance. Do we spend the money now or do we risk delaying the maintenance and hope nothing breaks?
  • Union workers are willing to take a 75% paycut. That would be enough as long as energy costs don't rise too much. Do we take the deal?
There is no way of knowing the correct decision in advance. Any decision is a gamble. If it were possible to know with certainty what would work out, the company probably wouldn't be in Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the first place.

In this case, if Cahn really thought he had 50-50 or better odds, then the decision should have been relatively easy. The potential payout was so much more than the cost to continue to pursue the litigation so it made sense for him to go for it. The cost of filing more motions is practically nill (BSF's time is already paid for), so even if the odds are very low it makes sense to go ahead with them. As far as I know, no creditor who isn't involved in the litigation is even asking him to stop. Of course IBM and Novell want him to stop, but since they are on the other side of the lawsuits and would want SCO to stop if SCO were sure to win, I'm not sure they are being given much credibility.

Why Cahn thought he had better than 50-50 odds with the jury and thought SCO had merit on its side is another matter, though. Maybe he was awed by a presentation that BSF gave him and really thought Judge Kimball made a bunch of mistakes. Maybe he's nostalgic for the times he fought cases as a young lawyer. Maybe it's just hard for him to believe that FOSS could successfully compete with something like Unix without cheating somehow. I don't know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Potted Plants
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 12:34 PM EDT
The case Brendan Sullivan was on when he made the famous remark, was the Oliver
North case in Iran/Contra.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Settle?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:00 PM EDT
IBM doesn't settle. It just will not ever happen. Anyone in the computer
business that does not know that, is an idiot. They would be sued a lot more
often if they were stupid enough to settle with everyone who thinks they can
make a quick buck off of IBM. So, they know they can't ever settle, even if
they are on the wrong side. But, we all know that is not definitely not the case
here. So after all this time it would take insanity to thing they will ever get
a settlement out of IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Settle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:44 PM EDT
  • Settle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:02 PM EDT
  • Settle? - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:13 PM EDT
  • tell that to PSI - Authored by: UncleJosh on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT
Odds of success
Authored by: gdshaw on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:57 PM EDT

An obvious question:

If Judge Cahn thought the odds of success at trial were only a little better than 50-50, then how can it possibly have been unreasonable for the jury to decide the other way?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Odds of success - Authored by: benw on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:23 PM EDT
    • Admissible? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:41 PM EDT
      • Admissible? - Authored by: benw on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 07:57 PM EDT
      • Admissible? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2010 @ 07:20 AM EDT
But very smart potted plants?
Authored by: brian-from-fl on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 01:59 PM EDT
Is there some strategy being followed whereby the lawyers for IBM, Novell and the US Trustee's Office have decided to act like potted plants, at least for now? Or is it just that Judge Gross, they've decided, is hopeless, like an overly indulgent father of an only daughter, and so there's no point in trying to stop him from granting SCO's every wish?

Could it be that the lawyers for IBM, Novell, and the US Trustee's Office have decided to follow the advice: "never interrupt your enemy while his is making a mistake"?

Just a suspicion from one who looks at this only from the outside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent Troll anyone? -Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Update...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT
Patent troll anyone?

"What is the IP? Did no one even inquire? Just whoosh, and Darl owns
unknown IP? It's like handing a loaded gun to a serial killer. What do you
expect will happen next? "

"Darl and Me Inc. own the SCO mobility IP."

"After doing a deep dive into our patent portfolio we have discovered we
have patents covering cell phone usage. We have a very strong belief that all
cell phones have been using our patented technology. We know this because our
patents are about cell phones, and people are using cell phones. In order to
protect you from our lawsuits, we will sell you FUD insurance for you cell phone
for only $699.00 per phone."

Just my opinionated guess.


[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question On Due Diligence
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
The notes from this hearing make - to my way of thinking - some interesting reading. For example:-

Ms. Fatell continuing:

- They identified 12 potential targets
- Phoned and emailed them all over a two week-period.
- None showed interest
- They placed an ad in a Salt Lake newspaper
- Three parties showed an interest
- One provided a letter of intent

and

Judge Gross:

- Happy with the marketing and research efforts
- Feels the terms are fair
- Approved the sale.
That was it. Judge thanked everyone and the hearing was over.


Now, last time I checked:-
1. We lived in the 21st century.
2. There is an invention called the Internet that connects computers to a global network.
3. The Me, Inc Mobility business is Software which can, implicitly, be operated from anywhere in the world.

What on Earth is going on here?


i. How can Edward Cahn, or SCO, have the temerity to stand in front of Court and say, under Oath, that they took all reasonable steps to establish that the price under offer was the best that they could reasonably expect from the marketplace?

ii. How can Edward Cahn or SCO get away with advertising the Mobility business for sale in Salt Lake and no further afield?
Did they offer it for sale via the SCO web site?
Did they mention it to Maureen O'Gara?
Did they put out a Press Release from their Marketing Department?
Did they contact any one of the dozens of news outlets that McBride gave interviews for during the litigation and mention it as an on-going development in their battle for justice?
Did they contact any of their competitors in this market sector and attempt to hold an auction among marketplace companies?

iii. How can Judge Gross possibly, possibly have the temerity to say that he was happy with the marketing and research efforts? What do other Chapter 11 companies he deals with do? Hire one of those aviation companies to fly over town towing a banner?

It is just a crying shame that we don't have a private individual who owns a solitary share in SCO who could raise a formal complaint and request that Judge Gross recuse himself and get a replacement.

Quite how this farce can be expected to continue is beyond me.

We have moved from the sublime, to the ridiculous, to the offensive.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 03:51 PM EDT
Maybe Me Inc. (IP included) is only worth a hundred grand, and the smart boys
know it is not worth kicking up a fuss about. (I would have to think they are
smart boys.) For sure SCO can not sell something they don't have proper title
to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cinematic analogies
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT
"Did you ever see the movie, Moonstruck?"

Never mind Moonstruck, what this case brings to mind is actually The Treasure of
the Sierrra Madre. Ralph Yarro is Curtin, Judge Cahn is Dobbs and Darl McBride
is Walter Huston.

Curtin has finally realized that there's not going to be any treasure. McBride
is hopping about from left foot to right as he knows that there isn't any
treasure to be had any more, so he just wants to get back to Franklin Covey and
open up a Mobile Phone farm.

But Dobbs is crazed. He's got gold fever. He thinks that the trial was rigged,
Yarro and McBride have reached a secret settlement and they're trying to rob him
of his rightful gold.

Some memorable quotes from this true to life movie:

McBride: "Patents and copyrights? We don't need no stinking patents and
copyrights. I don't have to show you any stinking patents and copyrights."

Cahn: "I know what litigation does to men's souls."

Yarro: "Say, answer me this one, will you? Why is SCO worth some twenty
bucks an share?"
Flophouse Bum: "I don't know. Because the company has solid
fundamentals?"
Yarro: "A thousand firms, say, go searchin' for IPO. After six months, one
of them's lucky: one out of a thousand. His find represents not only his own
labor, but that of nine hundred and ninety-nine others to boot. But if you
haven't actually got a product, then you'd better steal someone else's. Now take
that Linux. That's six thousand months, five hundred years, scramblin' over a
code mountain, goin' hungry and thirsty. An share of SCO's stock, mister, is
worth what it is because of the human labor that went into the findin' and the
stealin' of it."
Flophouse Bum: "I never thought of it just like that."
Howard: "Well, there's no other explanation, mister. SCO itself ain't good
for nothing except litigation and sellin' snake oil."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 06:16 PM EDT
PJ,

Speaking from many years in the industry in an international role. I can see two
possible scenarios.
Here is a 0.2 cent offering :)

1. Is the Microsoft angle. They have a significant vested interest in keeping
Linux dangling while they continue to re-invent Windows and Office as cloud
enablers/applications in competition with Google. A significant point at issue
though is both companies would keep the competition as a US event. Microsoft
have revamped office to run as a cloud app and are a key player in providing the
enabling computer base of the future of which only Linux can be seen as a broad
market competitor. Proprietary Unix versions no matter how good, are becoming
legacy and niche.

2. Is the US Global Trade angle. The US is once again (as it has been several
times before in the past 50 years) in need of trade renewal and revival. The
recovery from every major recession in the bast 50 years has largely been led by
US trade and computing and electronics has been a growing and key part of that.


If it is in US trade interests to encourage (stage if you will) a struggle
between two or so best competing US controlled computing technologies, that can
in essence underpin US dominance in the next recovery, then I am convinced it
will happen just as it has each time before.

US Trade learned hard and long from Japan's MITI and I have not seen that
lessen. The US came out of the post Desert Storm (early 1990s) recession with
Japan completely on the back foot whereas before Desert Storm Japan was on a
roll buying up US corporations and real estate and dominating chip and memory
manufacture. What is not well known is that Japanese industry had been working
on a spectacular project to unify remote processors with a common net language
(the TRON project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRON_Project ).

Microsoft played a key role in forcing Japan to back down and defocus the TRON
initiative - See the history comments in the above link). I was in and out of
Asia at this time as an A/P technology advisor for a large US computer vendor
and was involved in one role where I had to keep fending off Korean Govt (ETRI)
interest in the source code to a big iron Unix variant and also to keep delaying
another large Korean corp who wanted some of our computers expanded so this
Korean corp could design quad 32-bit chip cores for competing with Japan (they
wanted to leapfrog the Japanese).
I did my job & kept tendering excuses & reasons why we couldn't help
them.

So when big events (such as the struggle over Linux emergence) that appear
likely to have any significant impact on US trade interests and thus global
trade interests, appear to be involved in some kind of strange legal
manipulation that appears to defy common logic and common sense and appears to
be supported by opposing parties and odd court decisions and by judges decisions
and retired judges involvement, my leaning is to go back to basics and say it
is either being driven by Microsoft in their own trade interests or even a high
level cooperation of US computer corporations acting in the interests of US
global trade leading up to the next major global recovery.

DSM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl Buys (Not Licenses) SCO's Mobility Assets for $100,000 - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 08 2010 @ 09:19 PM EDT
I don't know if this has been mentioned before?

This might be an opening for Darl to sue Franklin Covey?
A second bite at the hand that fed him ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait - what happened to the IBM/Turbo articles?
Authored by: MikeA on Saturday, April 10 2010 @ 06:38 PM EDT
There was a large article yesterday that appears to be gone now. I am logged in
and have refreshed many times. Did it get pulled, and why?

---
“'Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business' are trademarks or registered trademarks
of Caldera International, Inc."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Moonstruck
Authored by: chad on Sunday, April 11 2010 @ 03:18 AM EDT
I think the better quote from the movie would be:
"Snap out of it!"

[ 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 )