Deseret News | Few surprised at SCO plight

Reader comments
Few surprised at SCO plight

Phil | 12:30 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

Who cares if IBM could drag out the civil suit for years. Bad reporting. Did this reporter read the court decision a week ago that was all over the press.

Gray | 2:01 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

IBM had no interest in dragging out the trial. Quite to the contrary, since it invested heavily in Linux, it's main interest was to get rid of any uncertainty asap. It was SCO's lawyers that used every opportunity to delay the trial. However, after all these years, they weren't able to show evidence of any serious copyright infringements. And then the summary judgment in the Novell case showed that they never really had a contract that was confirming they own the copyrights. This couldn't have escaped their attention, and there's evidence that they knew from the very start.

So, in retrospective, when there wasn't a chance of winning, what was the real reason for this kabuki theatre? It only accomplished one thing: Generating uncertainty about Linux among customers for some years. Qui bono - who profited? Well, certainly those companies selling non-Linux systems. And two of them were very eager to provide SCO with more than 25 millions in 'license' payments, even though Darl McBride couldn't show them a contract proving he really owned what he allegedly sold them: Sun and Microsoft. Federal prosecutors, beware!

Mike | 7:38 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

The house of cards has finally collapsed. Darl knew from the beginning that his lawsuits against IBM and Novell had no merit. He was simply delaying the eventual demise of his company by suing IBM and Novell. People within SCO should stop "pointing the finger" at others for their decline and stand up and take accountability for their own actions.

Comments continue below

Darl McBride | 9:13 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

Hey, you fools! Don't you realize how much money I banked over the years? So what if I ran a great company into the ground? I needed that money, because I'll never be able to work in IT again.

Bucky | 9:58 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

Hmmm. That comment with Darl McBride's name on it sounds fishy. It doesn't sound like him. I used to know Mr. McBride pretty well. He was a very decent guy. Right or wrong, I think he believed his cause was just. If you don't want to take credit for your comments at least don't discredit a decent person's name.

Alternate | 10:12 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

Does anyone remember the olf USFL that tried to "sue" the the NFL in order to survive. Well SCO is a lot like the USFL. They played the lawsuit game once as Caldera when they bought Dr Dos and then sued Microsoft. They won a settlement and some money and everyone took a trip to Tahiti. I guess they wanted another trip so they went after IBM hoping for another settlement and money. Well in 5 years or less, SCO will be no longer. But then, maybe they will change their name and sue someone else.

Lesson Learned... | 11:44 a.m. Sept. 18, 2007

The lesson to be learned here is... Technology companies should focus on making a living from inovation and technology, not through law suits.

Parleyp | 3:00 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

"The lesson to be learned here is... Technology companies should focus on making a living from innovation and technology, not through law suits."

Truer words were never spoken.

Wrong Analysis | 7:57 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

If you look at the legal proceedings, it was NOT IBM that succeeded in keeping the case going for years, it was SCO. Time and time again they delayed and changed course, hoping that either the FUD that they were dispensing would get to the court, or that Novell and IBM would tire of them and offer to settle. Fortunately for software industry, neither of these events occurred.

Indecent | 9:08 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

"I used to know Mr. McBride pretty well. He was a very decent guy."

Perhaps at one time, he was. I would assert, however, that he no longer is. His company (The SCO Group) has been prosecuting baseless lawsuits for some years now. If he (was) "a very decent guy", then why didn't he, as CEO, call a stop to the lawsuits when the fact that they were baseless became apparent? (Judge Kimball remarked on the lack of evidence a year ago.)

Now, with SCO petitioning for Chapter 11, Darl STILL hasn't called off the lawsuits. He also hasn't issued anything remotely resembling an apology--something I'd expect "a very decent guy" to do when he's in the wrong.

TomS | 9:29 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

I'm surprised anyone who looked at the claims and evidence did not expect this result. It was clear in 2003.

SCO made loud, public claims, but never had any proof. The contract signed in 1995 was clear, Novell kept the copyrights, retained license control and revenues. IBM owned the patents. After giving SCO 4 years to show some proof of their claims, the Judge had to rule against them.

Any sane lawyer would have told SCO they had no case, just the reverse. Every suit SCO filed will be decided against them. Expect stockholder suits, sanctions, fraud charges and Lanham claims to follow, if SCO is NOT sold at auction.

Bankruptcy Court Judge Gross MAY allow the stayed hearings to proceed, as it may help to resolve the Chapter 11 hearings. Finding SCO owes Novell $25-37 Million will move this to Chapter 7. Once Judge Kimball found that SCO diverted (stole) money due to Novell, to fund the lawsuits, SCO was "busted".

IBM, Novell, Redhat and Autozone would have loved to resolve this in 2003. SCO's dragged this out hoping to avoid this very outcome.

See the extensive coverage of this case on PJ's blog, Groklaw.

Mark Lange ProSCO | 9:31 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

I've been monitoring the SCO cases from the begining, and I'm also a shareholder. I'm happy with our legal representation and very moved that Mr. McBride personally attended the first bankrupcy hearing. SCO is not insolvent--managment is just trying to protect the value of it's claims for SCO's owners. Just because a lot of people purport to believe something doesn't make it true.

Louis | 9:59 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

Mark, when you consider that SCO only has 402 stockholders left, you are clearly in the minority in feeling that SCO "is just trying to protect the value of it's claims for SCO's owners."

Spectator | 10:09 p.m. Sept. 18, 2007

Anyone with even the most superficial familiarity with the case should be able to see that SCO has been playing for time, while IBM have been trying to hurry to a judgement. They want one *before* SCO implodes so there's no lingering doubt.

In particular, see the discussion surrounding document #523 (6 Oct 2005), IBM's voluntary dismissal of its patent claims, which it gave up specifically to avoid discovery delays requirested by SCO (document #508).

In motion after motion (and in contrast to its public protestations), SCO has asked for delay, and IBM has objected. The only delay that IBM has countenanced is having SCO v. Novell go to trial first.

And SCO managed to delay *that* by filing for bankruptcy the day before the trial.

SCO's true goals have always ben a little obscure, but they seem to revolve around being as annoying as possible for as long as possible. IBM would like this settled and gone.

IBM can play the delay game - witness the antitrust suit where they outwaited the Department of Justice - but they aren't trying it here.

Raoul Duke | 1:07 a.m. Sept. 19, 2007

What happened to the accountants? Why did one half of accounting "disappear" (they quit or were fired) recently? Were they given the choice "quit or be fired"? Or were the given a choice "sign false accounting or be fired"? Because we _know_ from the Ch. 11 motions, SCOXQ needs (and got) $20K to hire temp accountants, so they can't claim "We fired them because we needed the money."

Lies, lies, and more lies. I certainly hope Novell deposes the former accountants and presents their testimony at the 5 Oct hearing.

Mark, it's unfortunate that you "have been monitoring the SCO cases from the beginning" without even the slightest comprehension of what was actually transpiring. You would have better invested that time (and money) in the funny pages. Just because _you_ believe something, despite the _findings_ of a Federal District Magistrate, with access to all the filings (which I doubt you've read), including the unredacted versions (which I _know_ you haven't read) doesn't make it true. I guess, in your mind, reading newspaper stories for 4 years makes you smarter than Judge Kimball, right? So much for due diligence. It was inevitable that you and your money would soon be parted.

David | 1:09 a.m. Sept. 19, 2007

Mark

I hope you are not hoping for too much return on your SCO stock. By the time Novel is paid up there won't be much left, and I am sure here are others in the wings who would love to finish them off, Lanham act anyone? They went to Novel asking them to assign the copyrights to them before this started so they KNEW they didn't have them. Boies had to know his as well, so the case should never have gone forward. You are really, really happy with the legal council???
SCO should have stuck with marketing Linux instead of attacking it. I hear they had quite a good distribution going. They lost customers by suing former customers, Daimler Chrysler and Auto Zone. No one wants to be stuck with litigious company's like that. With a bad name like that it is hard to see any future for "hipcheck and shout" As some one said, they can shout but I don't think anyone will listen!

TemporalBeing | 8:05 a.m. Sept. 19, 2007

Don't forget that it was SCO, not IBM or AutoZone or DiamlerChrysler or Novell or Red Hat or any one else, that took the "play it out in court as long as we can" approach. They appeal everything under the sun several times over as well. So they only have themselves to blame for this.

Todd Knarr | 10:37 a.m. Sept. 19, 2007

I'd note that, at the very start of the suit against IBM when SCO was claiming that IBM copied SCO's code into it's AIX operating system and thence into Linux, IBM responded properly with a simple request: identify which bits of SCO code we're supposed to have copied, and which spots in AIX and/or Linux we copied it to. Now, SCO claims to own their code, so surely they have the source code itself. Linux is public, anyone (including SCO) can download the complete source code to every released version of Linux any time they want. SCO asked for and got the complete code to every version of AIX. One would think they'd be in a good position to answer this question, no?

Yet when we look at the IBM suit, almost every bit of the delay in it has been from SCO trying to NOT answer that simple, basic request from IBM. Why is that, do you suppose?

Felix | 1:32 p.m. Sept. 19, 2007

I am puzzled why would a reported choose to quote Enderle of all people for this story. So far, he was wrong 100% in his "industry analysis". It's like quoting one of 88 professors for Nifong's legal options. Speaking of which, McBride may look to Nifong for what future holds for him...

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.