The last time I wrote about SCO was when they lost the Novell case - and had their initial request for a retrial denied. As I said at the time "SCO have approximately one month to decide on their next course of action - assuming, of course, that they don't slide into Chapter 7 bancruptcy in the meantime."
Well, here we are, just under one month later and yes, they're going to try and appeal. The timing of this (leaving it as late as humanly possible - and also just before the next bankruptcy hearing) has been well noted.
To be honest I'm not surprised that they have appealed. In fact, I don't see that they've got an awful lot of choice at this point. SCO's future - such as it is - depends on them winning the court cases, and at the present time the ongoing court cases are the only thing realistically keeping them from sliding from Chapter 10 into Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
In a perfect world I can't see the appeal succeeding. I don't believe that the evidence, facts or the witness testimonies were in their favour. Personally I think that the courts were pretty darn lenient with them all the way through (in fact I thought that it was verging on the unfair towards Novell) so I can't see them having any grounds for a retrail other than the fact that they lost when they believe they should have won.
However this isn't a perfect world, so anything could happen. I'm not sure how long the appeals process takes - although judging by SCO's recent financial reports the bigger question is whether the Bankruptcy court is going to allow them the opportunity for one more throw of the dice before deciding to wind things up.
Stay tuned folks, it ain't over (quite) yet.
Showing posts with label SCO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCO. Show all posts
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Friday, 11 June 2010
That's All Folks! (for SCO at any rate)
It's official - SCO is toast, the request for a retrial has been DENIED.
From the article on Groklaw:
Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. SCO is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.
From the article on Groklaw:
Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. SCO is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.
CASE CLOSED!
So after six years and God only knows how many man-hours of dealing with their spurious claims they have lost. Again. Although there have been quite a few "face-palm" moments which have had me muttering "stop pandering to the damned litigious munchkins" through gritted teeth, it looks as if Judge Stewart has been making sure that when this is over there is no room for SCO to try and appeal the decision.
From the Final Judgement itself:
This matter came before the Court for trial on March 8, 2010, through March 26, 2010. Based on the Jury Verdict and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment is entered as follows:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for slander of title pursuant to the Jury Verdict.
2. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for specific performance pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on Novell’s claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Specifically, the Court declares:
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees;4. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.b. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled to waive on SCO’s behalf SCO’s purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees, when SCO refuses to act as directed by Novell; and
c. SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s purported claims against IBM and Sequent.
SO ORDERED.
DATED June 10, 2010.
BY THE COURT:
____[signature]_____________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
SCO can, of course, still try and appeal - but given the wording of the final judgement their chances of victory (not to mention the company surviving long enought to get to court) are somewhere between slim and none. This also nails the lid on the coffin of their other court cases.
SCO have approximately one month to decide on their next course of action - assuming, of course, that they don't slide into Chapter 7 bancruptcy in the meantime.
Thank you PJ for keeping us informed, amused and well-armed against the common enemy ;-)
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
Court decides: Novell owns Unix Copyrights, not SCO
It finally happened. After seven long years SCO had their day in court (well, two weeks to be exact) and the jury has returned a unanimous verdict: Novell did not sell the UNIX copyrights to SCO, and the now legendary Amendment 2 did not transfer the copyrights either.
This also blew SCO's slander of title claims out of the water (if SCO didn't own the copyrights and Novell did then there is no slander).
This had a dramatic effect on SCO's share prices, which over the past year had crept up to around 70 cents plunged back down to 10 cents on the news of the jury's decision.
So does this mean that it's all over? It's still too soon to tell. One thing is certain - things aren't looking too rosy for SCO at the moment...
This also blew SCO's slander of title claims out of the water (if SCO didn't own the copyrights and Novell did then there is no slander).
This had a dramatic effect on SCO's share prices, which over the past year had crept up to around 70 cents plunged back down to 10 cents on the news of the jury's decision.
So does this mean that it's all over? It's still too soon to tell. One thing is certain - things aren't looking too rosy for SCO at the moment...
Thursday, 27 March 2008
You'll Never Find a More Wretched Hive of Scum and Villany
Obi Wan could well have had the yahoo message board for SCOXQ.PK (formerly known as SCOX) in mind when he spoke the immortal line about Mos Eiseley.
If you want a good example of idiocy and grade A lunacy then pop on over and have a read. Just don't take anything said on there at face value.
Somehow the message board has degenerated into a Linux vs Windows flame fest - with each side just as bad as the other. According to one side Linux is the best, Windows is evil. According to the others Linux is broken beyond repair whilst Windows is perfect.
You've just got to hope that no-one takes this collection of pond-scum from the bottom of the gene pool seriously as they aren't doing anyone any favours.
Lets face it, it is entirely possible to run Linux full-time these days without worrying about recompiling the kernel when you reconfigure your hardware. That hasn't been true for nearly a decade (if not longer). Most hardware works as well in Linux as it does in Windows, which is actually pretty amazing when you consider the lack of official support for most hardware (most of the drivers are written by volunteers).
Windows too can work perfectly well for a lot of people. Personally I prefer Linux but hey, horses for courses folks. I certainly don't spend all my time editing configuration files. Linux works for me and doesn't get in the way. Your mileage may vary.
Is it worth getting into a flame war over? Not really. I'm a big fan of open source AND freeware software (something to do with me being a tight-wad) but it doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the fact that there are some pretty good - albeit expensive - commercial alternatives too.
The problem is that it is getting hard to recommend the commercial as the benefits no longer outweigh the costs. I'd guess this is why Microsoft (and other commercial companies) are fighting so hard against Open Source.
If you want a good example of idiocy and grade A lunacy then pop on over and have a read. Just don't take anything said on there at face value.
Somehow the message board has degenerated into a Linux vs Windows flame fest - with each side just as bad as the other. According to one side Linux is the best, Windows is evil. According to the others Linux is broken beyond repair whilst Windows is perfect.
You've just got to hope that no-one takes this collection of pond-scum from the bottom of the gene pool seriously as they aren't doing anyone any favours.
Lets face it, it is entirely possible to run Linux full-time these days without worrying about recompiling the kernel when you reconfigure your hardware. That hasn't been true for nearly a decade (if not longer). Most hardware works as well in Linux as it does in Windows, which is actually pretty amazing when you consider the lack of official support for most hardware (most of the drivers are written by volunteers).
Windows too can work perfectly well for a lot of people. Personally I prefer Linux but hey, horses for courses folks. I certainly don't spend all my time editing configuration files. Linux works for me and doesn't get in the way. Your mileage may vary.
Is it worth getting into a flame war over? Not really. I'm a big fan of open source AND freeware software (something to do with me being a tight-wad) but it doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the fact that there are some pretty good - albeit expensive - commercial alternatives too.
The problem is that it is getting hard to recommend the commercial as the benefits no longer outweigh the costs. I'd guess this is why Microsoft (and other commercial companies) are fighting so hard against Open Source.
Sunday, 30 September 2007
A small reprieve for SCO
You may remember that SCO were due to be delisted from Nasdaq on Friday due to their bankruptcy but had placed an appeal. Well, they've been successful and so will remain listed pending further discussions.
"The Company also has received a hearing date of November 8th, 2007 regarding non-compliance of Nasdaq Marketplace Rules 4300 and IM-4300. As such, the Company's common stock will not be delisted on September 27, 2007 as previously indicated by Nasdaq. Instead, the delisting action has been stayed, pending a final written decision by the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel."
This doesn't mean that it's all plain sailing for SCO as they have also received another notice of delisting due to the low price of their stock. Basically it means that their stock has been trading under the minimum price of $1 for 30 days. They now have 180 days to lift the share price or they face delisting for this too.
Some days you just can't win.
"The Company also has received a hearing date of November 8th, 2007 regarding non-compliance of Nasdaq Marketplace Rules 4300 and IM-4300. As such, the Company's common stock will not be delisted on September 27, 2007 as previously indicated by Nasdaq. Instead, the delisting action has been stayed, pending a final written decision by the Nasdaq Listing Qualifications Panel."
This doesn't mean that it's all plain sailing for SCO as they have also received another notice of delisting due to the low price of their stock. Basically it means that their stock has been trading under the minimum price of $1 for 30 days. They now have 180 days to lift the share price or they face delisting for this too.
Some days you just can't win.
Friday, 28 September 2007
When "Sorry" is the hardest word to say
Well, Rob's explanation has arrived, and what a story it is (you'll need to scroll down to get to Rob's bit). I'd recommend reading it fully before you read the remainder of this piece.
Finished? Good.
Unlike Dan Lyons, Rob isn't content to merely let people know that he was wrong, but would also like people to know that it isn't his fault, those nasty SCO and Linux people made him do it.
Oh dear.
Blame the victim for the crime Rob? Surely not.
And yes Rob, Linux and the Open Source movement have been the victims in this. Whilst you are right that code copying can happen (and that the best we can hope for is to remove it when it is proven to exist) that doesn't excuse what you wrote over the years, neither does blaming Groklaw. They were right about SCO and you were wrong.
It is nice that you point out that a good analyst needs to be able to look at both sides of a story, it's just a shame that it has taken you so long to do so with this one. Even when people were screaming at you that you were wrong - and providing proof of it - you stuck your head down, sang "la la la la I can't hear you" and went on writing pro SCO / anti Open Source rubbish. And that is exactly what a lot of it was. You didn't understand what you were writing about but still you went on.
That isn't to say that things weren't done against you that shouldn't have been. Angry emails happen. Unfortunately you'll find that there is a certain element in computing that gets very vocal about their choice being the right one. This isn't something new that has only started with the Open Source movement. Windows and Apple has their own set of vocal idiots.
In fact, going back twenty five years we had the same level of vocal fireworks about the early 8-bit computers (Commodore 64 vs Amstrad CPC vs Sinclair Spectrum). Those days of schoolyard arguments (and violence too sometimes - those Chinese burns leave painful memories) are thankfully behind us now, but the new generation are here and they want to shout about their cause celebre - most of these idiots are under 20 (in fact, most are under 16) and are too young to have learnt restraint.
Unfortunately for each batch that learn the error of their ways and grow up there is another set waiting in the wings to replace them. Sadly if you can't cope with this then you'll probably want to turn off your computer right now and try something else. May I respectfully suggest gardening as a more genteel alternative?
Now onto the actual quotes from the piece, with my comments on them. Please bear in mind that this is my personal opinion - feel free to disagree. Also please note that the quotes are taken out of context (although that is true of all quotes if you think about it). If you want to know exactly what Rob says, follow the link at the top of the story.
"(I) focused like a laser on the Linux supporters I then viewed as criminals. And if they were criminals, than SCO must be the victim, right? Well, that was my thought back then. "
And there is the crux of the problem. After writing his first article on Linux and Open Source (and being blasted for it) he decided that it was all the fault of those horrible Open Source people. Giving away software? How dare they! Thieves and murderers, the lot of them.
Now on to the (in)famous SCO Keynote speech.
"The really interesting thing about that talk was that I had designed it specifically to prove that Groklaw was intentionally misleading people. Most have never actually read this speech as it was actually given. But I came up with the idea while sitting in the audience of the SCO event the day before I was to speak. I simply compared what was being said to what someone from Groklaw, who had clearly snuck into the event under false pretenses, was inaccurately reporting on their website. Intentionally falsifying something, given my own experience, really angered me and I figured I would do something about it."
Now here is the thing. The script apparently differs slightly from what Rob actually said. Groklaw's transcript was taken from what was said - Rob's was taken from his script. According to reports he was certainly most agitated when he made his speech. Is it possible that he may have got a bit carried away during his own private Nuremburg rally? Unfortunately unless someone has still got a recording of what was said, then we may never know for sure how misreported Rob was.
Now as well as Linux being the criminals - Groklaw were also in Straight Shootin' Rob's sights. After all - if SCO are the victims and Groklaw are against them, then Groklaw must also be criminals too, right? That's Enderle logic that is.
"(I) thought of folks like Groklaw as some part illegal conspiracy with secret backing. I admit that I have no idea who funds them and only care out of curiosity now, but that is what I believed at the time. By the way, I do believe that, given the funding SCO had, it was in SCO’s interest to leave the implication in place as the facts surrounding Groklaw’s funding were probably nowhere near as damaging to Groklaw as the likely false allegations SCO was making about them.
I should, and do, apologize for saying (at least I think I did and know I thought it), they were paid by IBM, I no longer believe that. "
Well, I suppose half an apology is better than none at all.
"It really wasn’t much of a talk, and it depended heavily on an impassioned delivery which, to my own surprise, I actually pulled off. I doubt I’ll ever do something like this again."
And we should be most grateful if you didn't Rob. Really.
"Unlike Dan Lyons, who has recently said he was tricked by SCO, I was tricked both by SCO and some Linux supporters who, unintentionally through their nasty behavior and threats, made me see them as the criminals. Nothing I had done gave these people the right to attack my livelihood, threaten my life or the lives of my family, and I still view the folks who engaged in such behavior as criminals."
OK, let's try and make a distinction here between those who were nasty about you, and those who threatened you. Disagreeing with you (even vocally so) doesn't make someone a criminal. Threats of violence are different. Genuine death threats (and threats of violence) shouldn't be tolerated. I'd hope you contacted the authorities regarding this so that these idiots can be dealt with.
At this point it is true that we probably do need to close the door on a lot of this and move on. A lot of things have been said over the years that have angered people on both sides. Unfortunately when one side (SCO and Rob) has already decided that the other (Linux and Open Source) are criminals then it makes meaningful dialog and balanced reporting very difficult.
SCO had no interest in honesty. This was obvious from the start, blatantly so. If you get so wound up in things that you couldn't see that then, well, more fool you I suppose.
I don't think Rob is an evil person. Neither do I think he is in the pay of Microsoft (at least - not regarding what he has written regarding SCO). I do think that he is extremely stubborn and refuses to back down. Whilst this can be admirable when you are in the right - it can be extremely destructive and annoying when you are wrong. I can only hope that Rob moves on from this and learns from the experience.
In fairness, I'll leave the last word to Rob, this is taken from the comments after the piece.
"My involvement had nothing to do with software it had to do with stopping behavior that I have tried to fight all of my life. In a post 911, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City world people who espouse violence to settle disputes, particularly trivial little things like who owns what software, need to be identified and stopped. I simply won’t apologize for believing that.
In the end there are likely two kinds of people, those that defend the rights of others and those that feel that only their own rights matter. In looking back at all of these posts, which group do you think most of these folks belong to? Which group do you belong to?"
Finished? Good.
Unlike Dan Lyons, Rob isn't content to merely let people know that he was wrong, but would also like people to know that it isn't his fault, those nasty SCO and Linux people made him do it.
Oh dear.
Blame the victim for the crime Rob? Surely not.
And yes Rob, Linux and the Open Source movement have been the victims in this. Whilst you are right that code copying can happen (and that the best we can hope for is to remove it when it is proven to exist) that doesn't excuse what you wrote over the years, neither does blaming Groklaw. They were right about SCO and you were wrong.
It is nice that you point out that a good analyst needs to be able to look at both sides of a story, it's just a shame that it has taken you so long to do so with this one. Even when people were screaming at you that you were wrong - and providing proof of it - you stuck your head down, sang "la la la la I can't hear you" and went on writing pro SCO / anti Open Source rubbish. And that is exactly what a lot of it was. You didn't understand what you were writing about but still you went on.
That isn't to say that things weren't done against you that shouldn't have been. Angry emails happen. Unfortunately you'll find that there is a certain element in computing that gets very vocal about their choice being the right one. This isn't something new that has only started with the Open Source movement. Windows and Apple has their own set of vocal idiots.
In fact, going back twenty five years we had the same level of vocal fireworks about the early 8-bit computers (Commodore 64 vs Amstrad CPC vs Sinclair Spectrum). Those days of schoolyard arguments (and violence too sometimes - those Chinese burns leave painful memories) are thankfully behind us now, but the new generation are here and they want to shout about their cause celebre - most of these idiots are under 20 (in fact, most are under 16) and are too young to have learnt restraint.
Unfortunately for each batch that learn the error of their ways and grow up there is another set waiting in the wings to replace them. Sadly if you can't cope with this then you'll probably want to turn off your computer right now and try something else. May I respectfully suggest gardening as a more genteel alternative?
Now onto the actual quotes from the piece, with my comments on them. Please bear in mind that this is my personal opinion - feel free to disagree. Also please note that the quotes are taken out of context (although that is true of all quotes if you think about it). If you want to know exactly what Rob says, follow the link at the top of the story.
"(I) focused like a laser on the Linux supporters I then viewed as criminals. And if they were criminals, than SCO must be the victim, right? Well, that was my thought back then. "
And there is the crux of the problem. After writing his first article on Linux and Open Source (and being blasted for it) he decided that it was all the fault of those horrible Open Source people. Giving away software? How dare they! Thieves and murderers, the lot of them.
Now on to the (in)famous SCO Keynote speech.
"The really interesting thing about that talk was that I had designed it specifically to prove that Groklaw was intentionally misleading people. Most have never actually read this speech as it was actually given. But I came up with the idea while sitting in the audience of the SCO event the day before I was to speak. I simply compared what was being said to what someone from Groklaw, who had clearly snuck into the event under false pretenses, was inaccurately reporting on their website. Intentionally falsifying something, given my own experience, really angered me and I figured I would do something about it."
Now here is the thing. The script apparently differs slightly from what Rob actually said. Groklaw's transcript was taken from what was said - Rob's was taken from his script. According to reports he was certainly most agitated when he made his speech. Is it possible that he may have got a bit carried away during his own private Nuremburg rally? Unfortunately unless someone has still got a recording of what was said, then we may never know for sure how misreported Rob was.
Now as well as Linux being the criminals - Groklaw were also in Straight Shootin' Rob's sights. After all - if SCO are the victims and Groklaw are against them, then Groklaw must also be criminals too, right? That's Enderle logic that is.
"(I) thought of folks like Groklaw as some part illegal conspiracy with secret backing. I admit that I have no idea who funds them and only care out of curiosity now, but that is what I believed at the time. By the way, I do believe that, given the funding SCO had, it was in SCO’s interest to leave the implication in place as the facts surrounding Groklaw’s funding were probably nowhere near as damaging to Groklaw as the likely false allegations SCO was making about them.
I should, and do, apologize for saying (at least I think I did and know I thought it), they were paid by IBM, I no longer believe that. "
Well, I suppose half an apology is better than none at all.
"It really wasn’t much of a talk, and it depended heavily on an impassioned delivery which, to my own surprise, I actually pulled off. I doubt I’ll ever do something like this again."
And we should be most grateful if you didn't Rob. Really.
"Unlike Dan Lyons, who has recently said he was tricked by SCO, I was tricked both by SCO and some Linux supporters who, unintentionally through their nasty behavior and threats, made me see them as the criminals. Nothing I had done gave these people the right to attack my livelihood, threaten my life or the lives of my family, and I still view the folks who engaged in such behavior as criminals."
OK, let's try and make a distinction here between those who were nasty about you, and those who threatened you. Disagreeing with you (even vocally so) doesn't make someone a criminal. Threats of violence are different. Genuine death threats (and threats of violence) shouldn't be tolerated. I'd hope you contacted the authorities regarding this so that these idiots can be dealt with.
At this point it is true that we probably do need to close the door on a lot of this and move on. A lot of things have been said over the years that have angered people on both sides. Unfortunately when one side (SCO and Rob) has already decided that the other (Linux and Open Source) are criminals then it makes meaningful dialog and balanced reporting very difficult.
SCO had no interest in honesty. This was obvious from the start, blatantly so. If you get so wound up in things that you couldn't see that then, well, more fool you I suppose.
I don't think Rob is an evil person. Neither do I think he is in the pay of Microsoft (at least - not regarding what he has written regarding SCO). I do think that he is extremely stubborn and refuses to back down. Whilst this can be admirable when you are in the right - it can be extremely destructive and annoying when you are wrong. I can only hope that Rob moves on from this and learns from the experience.
In fairness, I'll leave the last word to Rob, this is taken from the comments after the piece.
"My involvement had nothing to do with software it had to do with stopping behavior that I have tried to fight all of my life. In a post 911, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City world people who espouse violence to settle disputes, particularly trivial little things like who owns what software, need to be identified and stopped. I simply won’t apologize for believing that.
In the end there are likely two kinds of people, those that defend the rights of others and those that feel that only their own rights matter. In looking back at all of these posts, which group do you think most of these folks belong to? Which group do you belong to?"
Friday, 21 September 2007
Where are they now?
Throughout the SCOntroversy, SCO have had a select number of very vocal supporters. What have they had to say about the latest events?
Starting with Daniel "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons (Forbes) - "my early predictions on this case have turned out to be profoundly wrong." Although it is nice that Daniel has come out and admitted that he was wrong (but let's face it, we already knew that) it doesn't excuse his earlier treatment of the Groklaw and Open Source communities.
Maureen O'Gara (Linux Business News). - Maureen is a strange one and no mistake. Rather than merely reporting on SCO, she took it on herself to unmask the evil PJ (Pamela Jones) who's crime was to run a blog critical to SCO. Unfortunately for Maureen, once her "expose" was published the following storm of controversy severely damaged her career, not to mention the reputations of those associated with her. Strangely, although she still publishes articles, it is hard to find out exactly what she is saying as they tend to be removed fairly quickly, for example even though Google News allows us to see that her latest headline (on September 19) is "Maureen O'Gara Airs Concerns About Open Source "Zealots"", the actual article has been removed. Allegedly she also publishes the same vitriol laden articles anonymously.
Last, but by no means least, Rob Enderle (Enderle Group) - "I stopped following SCO closely several years ago". Self promoting "analyst" (some have quipped that he's the man who puts the anal in analyst). Rob was one of SCO's most staunch supporters at the start, even appearing as a keynote speaker at SCO's 2004 conferences ("Free Software and the fools that use it"). Robs last piece about SCO looks more like an attempt to distance himself from the whole fiaSCO without actually admitting that he was wrong in his original analysis. Strange that even though he stopped following SCO, he's still been writing about it, or to be more precise - his target has moved slightly from pro SCO to anti Open Source.
So what do all these people have in common apart from their pro SCO / anti Free-Software viewpoint? Well, all of them, rather than just reporting the facts or giving their professional analysis of the situation have resorted to name calling, innuendo and insults. If they had treated an ethnic group in the same way that they have supporters of Open Source software they would have been branded as bigots and racists.
This isn't to say that you can't have a preference for closed source software, disagree with PJ or even think that SCO may have a point. But if you are going to do so then resorting to name calling (Linux loons, losers, thieves, criminals and worse) is only going to encourage people to respond in kind. But perhaps that is what they wanted, because after all any publicity is good publicity, isn't that right guys?
Starting with Daniel "Fake Steve Jobs" Lyons (Forbes) - "my early predictions on this case have turned out to be profoundly wrong." Although it is nice that Daniel has come out and admitted that he was wrong (but let's face it, we already knew that) it doesn't excuse his earlier treatment of the Groklaw and Open Source communities.
Maureen O'Gara (Linux Business News). - Maureen is a strange one and no mistake. Rather than merely reporting on SCO, she took it on herself to unmask the evil PJ (Pamela Jones) who's crime was to run a blog critical to SCO. Unfortunately for Maureen, once her "expose" was published the following storm of controversy severely damaged her career, not to mention the reputations of those associated with her. Strangely, although she still publishes articles, it is hard to find out exactly what she is saying as they tend to be removed fairly quickly, for example even though Google News allows us to see that her latest headline (on September 19) is "Maureen O'Gara Airs Concerns About Open Source "Zealots"", the actual article has been removed. Allegedly she also publishes the same vitriol laden articles anonymously.
Last, but by no means least, Rob Enderle (Enderle Group) - "I stopped following SCO closely several years ago". Self promoting "analyst" (some have quipped that he's the man who puts the anal in analyst). Rob was one of SCO's most staunch supporters at the start, even appearing as a keynote speaker at SCO's 2004 conferences ("Free Software and the fools that use it"). Robs last piece about SCO looks more like an attempt to distance himself from the whole fiaSCO without actually admitting that he was wrong in his original analysis. Strange that even though he stopped following SCO, he's still been writing about it, or to be more precise - his target has moved slightly from pro SCO to anti Open Source.
So what do all these people have in common apart from their pro SCO / anti Free-Software viewpoint? Well, all of them, rather than just reporting the facts or giving their professional analysis of the situation have resorted to name calling, innuendo and insults. If they had treated an ethnic group in the same way that they have supporters of Open Source software they would have been branded as bigots and racists.
This isn't to say that you can't have a preference for closed source software, disagree with PJ or even think that SCO may have a point. But if you are going to do so then resorting to name calling (Linux loons, losers, thieves, criminals and worse) is only going to encourage people to respond in kind. But perhaps that is what they wanted, because after all any publicity is good publicity, isn't that right guys?
Thursday, 20 September 2007
SCO receive notice of Nasdaq delisting
"The Nasdaq Staff Determination Letter received on September 18, 2007 indicated that as a result of the Company's having filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the Nasdaq Staff has determined, using its discretionary authority under Nasdaq Marketplace Rules 4300 and IM-4300, that the Company's securities will be delisted from The Nasdaq Stock Market and that trading in the Company's common stock will be suspended unless the Company requests a hearing to review the determination."
SCO are appealing the decision (so no surprise there), but it's doubtful that they will be able to remain listed. Prior to the news being released shares were trading at 0.20 (up 0.04). Could this be the final nail in SCO's share price coffin, or will the price rise again on the bad news?
Should their appeal fail then SCO (SCOX) will be delisted on September 27.
As a side note, Groklaw points out that the day before they filed for Chapter 11, they gave a rather large pay rise and bonus to Ryan Tibbits. Nice work if you can get it. Help run a company into the ground AND get a $50,000 bonus and a pay rise for it. Where do I sign up?
SCO are appealing the decision (so no surprise there), but it's doubtful that they will be able to remain listed. Prior to the news being released shares were trading at 0.20 (up 0.04). Could this be the final nail in SCO's share price coffin, or will the price rise again on the bad news?
Should their appeal fail then SCO (SCOX) will be delisted on September 27.
As a side note, Groklaw points out that the day before they filed for Chapter 11, they gave a rather large pay rise and bonus to Ryan Tibbits. Nice work if you can get it. Help run a company into the ground AND get a $50,000 bonus and a pay rise for it. Where do I sign up?
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
It's the end of the World as we know it
We live in strange times my friends. Personally I think it may herald the end of the world. Let's face it, within two days we've had Groklaw commenting on how nice that Mr Darl McBride seems, followed today by Dan Lyons - one of SCO's pet reporters - admitting that he was completely and utterly wrong about the whole SCO affair, and that Groklaw were right.
The end is at hand people! Repent! REPENT!
The end is at hand people! Repent! REPENT!
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Lest we forget
Sometimes it is easy to forget that there are people behind the stories.
I'm going to take SCO as a good example. It is all too easy to vilify the people involved based on the media reports. We'll take Darl McBride as a prime example of this.
I'm not going to claim that he's an angel. Far from it. Is he misguided? Sure. Stubborn? Definitely. The living embodiment of all evil and the father of lies? Probably not.
Regardless of what he has said over the years as the mouthpiece of SCO, there is a real person there. What has brought this to mind is a Groklaw article written about the first day bankruptcy hearing. Seven Groklawyers were in attendance, and after the mornings hearing managed to speak with Novell's lawyers, and then snatched a few words with Darl himself:
"After the hearing I introduced myself to Darl McBride. I told him I was one of those Groklaw people. He smiled and told me he admired our passion. There is a time and place to ask a CEO questions and a courthouse hallway is not the place to ask tough questions. I asked Mr. McBride how he was holding up through this ordeal. He told me that he knew it would be tough. He said that what he had not expected was the toll it has taken on his family. When he said that I was looking him in the eye and there was a brief sadness in his eyes and a quiet voice that surprised me. I wished him and his family well. As a human being, he seemed to be a nice guy. If only he had chosen a different path ....."
I'm certain that over the coming weeks, if not months, there will be things said that will really rile us about this whole sordid affair, but it is worth taking pause that there are real people (some of whom are likely to loose their livelihoods) behind these headlines.
I'm going to take SCO as a good example. It is all too easy to vilify the people involved based on the media reports. We'll take Darl McBride as a prime example of this.
I'm not going to claim that he's an angel. Far from it. Is he misguided? Sure. Stubborn? Definitely. The living embodiment of all evil and the father of lies? Probably not.
Regardless of what he has said over the years as the mouthpiece of SCO, there is a real person there. What has brought this to mind is a Groklaw article written about the first day bankruptcy hearing. Seven Groklawyers were in attendance, and after the mornings hearing managed to speak with Novell's lawyers, and then snatched a few words with Darl himself:
"After the hearing I introduced myself to Darl McBride. I told him I was one of those Groklaw people. He smiled and told me he admired our passion. There is a time and place to ask a CEO questions and a courthouse hallway is not the place to ask tough questions. I asked Mr. McBride how he was holding up through this ordeal. He told me that he knew it would be tough. He said that what he had not expected was the toll it has taken on his family. When he said that I was looking him in the eye and there was a brief sadness in his eyes and a quiet voice that surprised me. I wished him and his family well. As a human being, he seemed to be a nice guy. If only he had chosen a different path ....."
I'm certain that over the coming weeks, if not months, there will be things said that will really rile us about this whole sordid affair, but it is worth taking pause that there are real people (some of whom are likely to loose their livelihoods) behind these headlines.
More from SCOland
The SCO saga has finally reached the interesting stage. Let's have a recap of the last couple of days worth of news.
Friday: SCO files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Share prices drop to 0.38 (down 43%).
Sunday: Half of SCOs accountants resign or are fired.
Monday: SCO requests permission with the Bankruptcy court to hire temporary accounting staff. SCO file a notice of late filing with the SEC about their missing 10Q. Apparently now that they've lost most of their accounting staff they're having difficulty keeping up. Share price drops a further 40% finishing at 0.22 (as the days range was from 0.15 - 0.31 the price could drop further today).
So what is the plan for today? Well the bankruptcy hearing is set for 8.30am, with Novell making a showing with their lawyers too.
Even if the courts accept SCOs request for Chapter 11 protection, there is still a real chance that Novell will get its money back BEFORE the creditors get a chance to pick over the carcass. Depending on what is said, SCO could still end up going into Chapter 7 - which would mean that the company would be liquidated to pay its debts.
My personal opinion is that at the point where the SCO management changes (and there is a real possibility that the bankruptcy court may insist on that) then it will be Game Over for SCO.
I'll update this post later on today rather than posting hundreds of SCO related posts.
Update 1 (13:10): SCO's 10Q has now been filed.
Update 2 (22:40): Well, that's it for the day. SCO survived the first Bankruptcy hearing. Novell asked for their money to be placed in a trust, which the Judge denied. Novell are to request a lift on the stay of the Utah trial (the one where just how much SCO owes will be decided). The next bankruptcy hearing is set for October 5, to give everyone who SCO owes money to chance to have their say. Shares finished at 0.16 (down 28%).
Friday: SCO files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Share prices drop to 0.38 (down 43%).
Sunday: Half of SCOs accountants resign or are fired.
Monday: SCO requests permission with the Bankruptcy court to hire temporary accounting staff. SCO file a notice of late filing with the SEC about their missing 10Q. Apparently now that they've lost most of their accounting staff they're having difficulty keeping up. Share price drops a further 40% finishing at 0.22 (as the days range was from 0.15 - 0.31 the price could drop further today).
So what is the plan for today? Well the bankruptcy hearing is set for 8.30am, with Novell making a showing with their lawyers too.
Even if the courts accept SCOs request for Chapter 11 protection, there is still a real chance that Novell will get its money back BEFORE the creditors get a chance to pick over the carcass. Depending on what is said, SCO could still end up going into Chapter 7 - which would mean that the company would be liquidated to pay its debts.
My personal opinion is that at the point where the SCO management changes (and there is a real possibility that the bankruptcy court may insist on that) then it will be Game Over for SCO.
I'll update this post later on today rather than posting hundreds of SCO related posts.
Update 1 (13:10): SCO's 10Q has now been filed.
Update 2 (22:40): Well, that's it for the day. SCO survived the first Bankruptcy hearing. Novell asked for their money to be placed in a trust, which the Judge denied. Novell are to request a lift on the stay of the Utah trial (the one where just how much SCO owes will be decided). The next bankruptcy hearing is set for October 5, to give everyone who SCO owes money to chance to have their say. Shares finished at 0.16 (down 28%).
Sunday, 16 September 2007
It's all over, or is it?
So now that SCO has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy does that mean it's all over?Well, not quite. It may extend SCO's life by another six months whilst they are "reorganising." Or will it?
That will be the interesting thing. Chapter 11 bankruptcy should protect SCO from their creditors whilst things are rearranged to allow them to pay their debts and continue trading.
This may not be enough to defend them from Novell for long though.
The money from the SCO licenses to Microsoft and Sun is Novell's and was supposed to be handed in full to them, after which the "finders fee" would be returned to SCO. Instead SCO have been spending Novell's money on the case.
The loophole in Chapter 11 is that funds like this may end up being returned, as Novell aren't creditors but the owners of the funds. In other words it was never SCO's money to spend.
The court cases are temporarily on hold - but the drama may not be finished.
Saturday, 15 September 2007
Friday, 14 September 2007
SCO Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
I'm not too sure if I'm surprised at this or not - but the next chapter in the SCO saga seems to be Chapter 11: bankruptcy.
On Monday the Novell trial was supposed to set just how much SCO owed from their licenses to Microsoft and Sun, so the timing of this announcement would seem to indicate just how secure they believe their position to be - ie. totally boned. Or to put that another way, they probably don't have enough cash reserves left to pay Novell what they owe them.
To quote Darl McBride President and CEO, The SCO Group. "Chapter 11 reorganization provides the Company with an opportunity to protect its assets during this time while focusing on building our future plans."
As to what this means to the court cases (SCO vs Novell / SCO vs IBM) remains to be seen, although it certainly looks like after four years the end is in sight.
Shares in SCO Group Inc (SCOX) closed at 0.38, down from 0.65 which is a drop of 43.08%.
On Monday the Novell trial was supposed to set just how much SCO owed from their licenses to Microsoft and Sun, so the timing of this announcement would seem to indicate just how secure they believe their position to be - ie. totally boned. Or to put that another way, they probably don't have enough cash reserves left to pay Novell what they owe them.
To quote Darl McBride President and CEO, The SCO Group. "Chapter 11 reorganization provides the Company with an opportunity to protect its assets during this time while focusing on building our future plans."
As to what this means to the court cases (SCO vs Novell / SCO vs IBM) remains to be seen, although it certainly looks like after four years the end is in sight.
Shares in SCO Group Inc (SCOX) closed at 0.38, down from 0.65 which is a drop of 43.08%.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Darl McBride interview with Wired magazine
I was going to write something on the Darl McBride Wired interview, but this sums up my opinion better than I ever could:
If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier and uglier until it gets so ugly you can hardly bear to look at it.
-- Roald Dahl - the Twits (1979)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
