Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Unix Operating Systems Software Businesses Caldera The Almighty Buck

SCO Goes Private With $100 Million Backing 411

AmIAnAi writes "Just when you thought it was all over, the SCO story takes a new twist. SCO has received $100 million financing from Stephen Norris Capital Partners to get them out of Chapter 11 and go private 'The move gives Stephen Norris, whose namesake founder was a co-founder of private equity giant The Carlyle Group, a controlling interest in SCO, which now has a platform to continue its court battle with Novell Inc. over royalties from the Unix server operating system, SCO's main business ... According to a statement from the company, SNCP already has a business plan for SCO that includes pursuing its legal claims.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Goes Private With $100 Million Backing

Comments Filter:
  • by Scareduck ( 177470 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:35PM (#22426274) Homepage Journal
    ... the Stephen Norris group. When do the judges get sick of barratry?
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Naw, this is just the continued confluence of two shitty (and shittily implemented) concepts: patents and capitalism, coming together to form one big hole of crap.

      Y'know, this is the first time I wish Slashdot was more like fark, so I could post that pic of the guy saying "Aw geez, not this shit again!"
      • This is not capitalism at work, it's predatory behavior and something anti-trust lawyers should sink their teeth into. There is no reasonable expectation of return on SCO's "business" because SCO is full of shit and every decision has been against them. This is just another $100 million that M$ does not mind pissing away. The "investment" harms the reputation of all involved.

        • by turbidostato ( 878842 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @09:19PM (#22429202)
          "This is not capitalism at work, it's predatory behavior and something anti-trust lawyers should sink their teeth into."

          Then it *is* capitalism at work by its very definition. Why do you think you need anti-trust laws but because growing monopolies is a known ill-effect of capitalism in action?

          I don't think I need to say anything about the relationship between predatory behaviour and capitalism, do I?
          • by nebosuke ( 1012041 ) on Friday February 15, 2008 @05:05AM (#22431948)
            Capitalist free markets, as described in every econ text I've studied, assume the objective, universal enforcement of market regulations on all participants, not a total lack of regulation (that would be anarchy, not capitalism). Capitalism thus differs from socialism or communism not by lacking market regulation, but in that the latter two advocate a privileged, active market role for the state.

            A 'pure' free market does not refer to a lack of regulation, but a market in which the government enjoys no special privilege over private enterprise. The logical conclusion of such a system would result in privatized police forces, fire companies, etc. competing on equal terms with the analogous government entities. Both government and private enterprise would still be subject to regulation.

            Consequently, capitalist arguments against anti-trust laws are not inherent to capitalism in general, but are made from the position that that class of regulation does not result in a more productive economy. In contrast, regulations that capitalists generally consider to be necessary for a healthy free market economy would be contract law and property law.

            Then it *is* capitalism at work by its very definition. Why do you think you need anti-trust laws but because growing monopolies is a known ill-effect of capitalism in action?
            No. The existence of anti-trust laws does not provide an argument either for or against the efficacy of capitalist free markets, as there is nothing anti (or pro) capitalist about them.

            I don't think I need to say anything about the relationship between predatory behaviour and capitalism, do I?
            Predatory behavior is alive and well in all socio-economic systems. They simply provide different mechanisms by which one becomes either predator or prey.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          This is just another $100 million that M$ does not mind pissing away.

          I don't understand how this cash injection serves Microsoft's interests. SCO is on track to lose all of its court cases. This will only serve to confirm that Linux has a clean code base.

          What Microsoft should do is sell SCO a dozen of its 236 bullshit patents it claims Linux violates and have SCO launch the patent lawsuits. Then Microsoft can pretend to be innocent and avoid a patent Armageddon scenario with IBM and other players.

    • It gets better (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Scareduck ( 177470 )
      Looks like one of their senior people is in with George Soros []. So they have potentially some very serious money behind them now.
    • by leftie ( 667677 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:48PM (#22426516)
      "The Big Guys Work For The Carlyle Group
      What exactly does it do?

      To find out, we peeked down the rabbit hole.

      FORTUNE Monday, March 18, 2002

      The Carlyle Group, a Washington, D.C., buyout firm, is one of the nation's largest defense contractors. It has billions of dollars at its disposal and employs a few important people. Maybe you've heard of them: former Secretary of State Jim Baker, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, and former White House budget director Dick Darman. Wait, we're just getting warmed up. William Kennard, who recently headed the FCC, and Arthur Levitt, who just left the SEC, also work for Carlyle. As do former British Prime Minister John Major and former Philippines President Fidel Ramos. Let's see, are we forgetting anyone? Oh, right, former President George Herbert Walker Bush is on the payroll too..." []

      So now the Bushes are going to send Jim Baker to court to steal Linux.
    • Groklaw Coverage (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:50PM (#22426552) []

      Can't believe they forgot the Groklaw link!
  • by grub ( 11606 ) <> on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:35PM (#22426276) Homepage Journal

    Man oh man...

    This news completely ruins my day.

    I just know that tonight while my lady is receiving the annual ~Valentine Fisting~ my mind will be on SCO and their ridiculous lawsuits, not on the work at hand. She'll know something is bugging me, get pissed off and make me stop. I'll have KY to my elbows for nothing.

    Thanks SCO.

  • ...that sucks.

  • Brilliant! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheOldSchooler ( 850678 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:37PM (#22426296)
    What kind of genius investment group thinks sueing IBM is a winning proposition?
    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      One does wonder how anybody with 100 million after seeing all the rulings on this case go against SCO would be STUPID enough to think this is a good idea.
      Maybe they are going to sue the lawyers for getting them into this. Or Microsoft for talking them into this....
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by orclevegam ( 940336 )
        Someone needs to take these people outback and beat some sense into them. How much of a moron do you need to be to take a look at the smoking crater that's left of SCO and decide that it looks like a good investment of $100M. Shit, take that money and put it into a random startup, your at least as likely to get your money back, if not more so, and they'd be more deserving of it.
    • by Kazymyr ( 190114 )
      Perhaps someone needs a $100M tax writeoff...
    • Re:Brilliant! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:51PM (#22426556)
      It's not about winning money. It's about making sure SCO's corporate veil isn't pierced.

      If that hive of villainry fails, some of their dealings could see the daylight. And at least a couple of big companies are really interested in making sure this doesn't happen. So they funnel money into the sinking ship to keep it afloat or make it sink in a secluded place -- it's better to lose some cash than have the dirt revealed.
    • by eln ( 21727 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:51PM (#22426560)
      They're business plan isn't ONLY suing IBM. From what I can gather from the article, it's a brilliant and guaranteed to succeed three-pronged approach involving suing IBM, suing Novell, and selling a product no one has used for 15 years. They can't lose!
    • Roberts. Alito. Scalia. Thomas. Kennedy.
    • This is just in keeping with something my dad taught me many years ago:

      A fool and your money are soon partners.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Colin Smith ( 2679 )

      What kind of genius investment group thinks sueing IBM is a winning proposition?
      One with a largely infinite supply of money.

    • by WebCowboy ( 196209 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @07:44PM (#22428102)
      Nobody running a successful LBO firm is stupid enough to make this ridiculous lawsuit the central part of an execution plan.

      The Statements in the release are quite lawyerly indeed. The funding is in place, IN PART, to "see SCO's legal claims through to their full conclusion". PJ interprets this to mean "continue to attack Linux", and indeed the deal suggests that is something these investors would like to see returns from: the vast majority of this $100M is not hard cash to be handed over in one lump sum loan, it is a "line of credit" to fund continued operations and part of financing this line of credit would be, IIRC, 17% of any monetary judgments in SCO's favour.

      However, I cannot believe that the smart people behind SNCP sincerely think they have a good chance of actually WINNING the lawsuit. I think it's more of a "lottery ticket"--lawyers make sure their butts are covered, and that they'll be able to screw ove...errr I mean "receive compensation" under all circumstances. "Continue to pursue" litigation "to their full conclusion" could very well be code words for "finally put it to rest". They apparently have a plan that includes the legal stuff but haven't released details (and taking SCO private would mean they don't ever have to do so). That plan very likely incorporates (or entirely consists of) a contingency plan. It looks pretty bleak to reverse the decision on copyright ownership, but they can appeal a judgment on royalties owed to Novell and get out of paying tens of millions. The same goes for any counter-suits from the likes of IBM or Red Hat. SNCP may think they have the ability to get SCO out of hot water without paying out as much (or any) money.

      In short, their legal strategy might (wisely) be a defensive strategy to cut their losses and move on. To paraphrase that cute song "if I had a (hundred) million dollars", well, I'd "buy me a SCO" too actually, and that would almost be my legal plan, though I'd be more apt to not put too much effort in "cut the losses" and settle out of court. If I was some LBO billionaire dude I'd buy SCO, and when judgment came I'd say "here's your money Novell", and subsequently settle all other disputes quickly. Then I'd promptly GPL UNIXWare and OpenServer and use what's left of the technical people to refocus SCO as a "solutions provider" to target the thousands of SCO users around the world with UNIXWare/OpenServer-to-Linux migration plans. Anything of redeeming value in the newly-GPLed legacy OS products would then be incorporated into a "LinuxWare" distribution tailored to be as close as possible to a drop-in replacement for existing SCO customers.

      The background of SNCP and their "middle eastern partners" really make me uncomfortable though. Those stated partners include the Saudi prince who is Bill Gates' investment partner in the Four Seasons hotel chain. These are legally-savvy business tycoons. I cannot see them taking the "Mark Shuttleworth act of benevolency" approach that I'd take. They are no doubt acting with convincing insider knowledge. I think that there might be a few motivators for this investment:

      * They might have a convincing legal argument to overturn some of the judgements against them--for example they might be able to retain copyright to at least portions of UNIX, and that would at least allow the IBM lawsuit to move forward and keep the FUD coming for Microsoft.

      * They are trying to stem customer migrations to Linux. I have no doubt that even if Microsoft isn't tied to this deal that BillG *is* in some capacity, and he obviously has the betterment of Microsoft in his self interest. The business plan outside the legal battle may be in fact to steer SCO customers towards Microsoft solutions, and perhaps to eventually have MSFT absorb SCO entirely. If you combine that with the first point, that would mean MSFT could end up with some UNIX copyright ownership--a great piece of IP to leverage if you wished to embrace, extend and extinguish *real* UNIX operating systems of all kinds (like
  • Yikes (Score:3, Funny)

    by locokamil ( 850008 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:38PM (#22426310) Homepage
    Man oh man, talk about a massive waste of money. Does SCO even produce anything anymore? I thought SCO was basically Darl in a hotel room somewhere with two of hookers doubling as his "legal team"...
    • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Informative)

      by milsoRgen ( 1016505 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:43PM (#22426406) Homepage

      Does SCO even produce anything anymore?
      Well yes... UnixWare [], OpenServer [] and Smallfoot [].

      Certiainly doesn't look like a winning product portfolio, well not in their hands at least.
    • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Interesting)

      by samkass ( 174571 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:46PM (#22426480) Homepage Journal
      When looking at companies, the products are important but only as indicators as to the people behind them. When Amazon was losing money hand over fist, its shares were still sky-high because people believed that Jeff Bezos and his team were a good bet. I can't imagine how anyone could feel that, after everything, SCO could possibly have assembled a $100M team. I don't know how to say this without offending the dozens of people left at SCO, but you'd have to have some form of brain damage, or be really, really desperate for gainful employment to still work there.
      • Re:Yikes (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:12PM (#22426878)
        I don't know. I was talking to someone whose spouse still worked there. We mentioned the lawsuit (peripherally, not really wanting to bring it up since I figured it would be a sore subject).

        They started talking about how IBM and Novel stole a whole bunch of their Intellectual Property and put it into Linux, and how Linux is nothing but a bunch a thieves.

        I just sat there biting my tongue and changed the subject quickly, but it was really odd talking to someone "on the other side of the fence" who was a developer, and not in management.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          They started talking about how IBM and Novel stole a whole bunch of their Intellectual Property and put it into Linux, and how Linux is nothing but a bunch a thieves.

          Unbridled arrogance combined with a complete disconnection from reality? There is only one explanation -- SCO has been taken over by Scientology.

  • by Ldir ( 411548 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:39PM (#22426316)
    ... that we can boycott? (Or is Microsoft, in fact, at the root of it?)
  • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Philodoxx ( 867034 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:40PM (#22426348)

    Step 1. Pile money onto a sinking ship

    Step 2. ???

    Step 3. Profit!

    I have a very poor financial outlook for the near future, why can't somebody give me $100 million? Hell, I'll use that to make legal claims about somebody else's IP! I can probably even develop an operating system nobody in their right mind would use.

    • THe ??? bit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:11PM (#22426870)
      Hire your brother (Kevin McBride) as a lawer and pay him a pile of legal fees (thereby getting the money out of the sinking ship and back onto dry land, but out of reach of the investors).
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Step 1. Pile money onto a sinking ship

      Step 2. ???

      Step 3. Profit!
      Enough with the vista jokes already!
  • Calm down, everyone (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <> on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:40PM (#22426358) Homepage Journal
    It's abundantly clear that SCO's court case isn't going anywhere and this is a really poor investment. I agree that we should look for who is back-stoping the investment (as last time), because nobody in their right mind would make this investment expecting to make a profit. I don't think it's even worthwhile for FUD value any longer. We've essentially won this case already, there isn't really any going back.


    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:47PM (#22426494) Journal
      I think, in a backwards way, it's a good thing. There's some concern in some quarters that SCO evaporating before the questions it raised would leave those questions unanswered, and that someone might try this stunt again. Now everything, including what SCO owes Novell, will get a full hearing.
      • That's a hell of a lot to pay for what are essentially academic questions by now (e.g. "is McBride frickin' nuts, or just that incompetent?) I mean, the courts have pretty much started rolling the big ol' legal snowball down a hill that ends in "nope - SCO has no case here".

        Unless Linus Torvalds issues a press release with some huge-arsed confession in it, this is pretty much a done deal.

        And, whoever ends up owning SCO will still have to face countersuits from both Novell and IBM.

        WTF, over?


    • I guess I'm more cynical than average. The only time I believe a case has been won is if the losing party agrees that they lost and stops pursuing any further claims.

      I'd also love to find out what this new cash infusion is supposed to accomplish. Did Darl pull one last trick over a hapless investor? Or is there something else entirely going on? Because on the face of it, SCO is dead, even with an extra $100 million to blow through.
  • Norris? (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:40PM (#22426360)
    When I mis-read it, I thought: "Chuck Norris can make SCO viable!".

    I'm glad it's just *Stephen* Norris.
  • by C_Kode ( 102755 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:41PM (#22426376) Journal
    Lets take inventory.

    * Taking a beating in court.
    * Its only valid business is a dying operating system.
    * Your customers and pretty the entire tech industry hates you.
    * The company is in chapter 11.
    * The company has a negative cash flow.
    * The judge in your case appears to hate you because of your court practices.
    * I hate you.

    Yeah, lets throw $100 million at them...

  • Connect the dots (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:41PM (#22426378)
    Thanks to spacelifeform on GL: []

    NEW YORK: Four Seasons Hotels, the manager of 74 luxury hotels, said Monday that it had agreed to be taken private by Bill Gates, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and the chief executive for $3.8 billion, including debt.

    Who is Stephen Norris, []

    Looks like there could very easily be some behind the curtain financing of this through foreign nationals.

    Mr. Norris acted as a principal financial advisor to Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal Al Saud of Kingdom Holding Company, in structuring and negotiating the re-capitalization of Citibank, which returned over $15 billion in profits on about $590 million of equity invested. He also advised or played a key role in other Kingdom Holding Company investments. He was appointed by former president George H.W. Bush and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as one of five governing members of the $100 billion Federal Retirement System Thrift Investment Board.

    Since 1997, Mr. Norris, and certain members of his team, have worked on a number of investments including real estate investments in Europe and the United States. They were involved in amongst others the privatization of Thompson CSF, the recapitalization of Suez, the acquisition of portions of Credit Foncier's real estate portfolio in Paris by the German firm of IVG, the formation of Nomura's (London) bid for a Dutch mortgage bank, the offer by a major Saudia Arabian investment firm for Lamborgini in Italy, and the formation of a bid by Leucadia International's for the Labouchere Bank in Holland. He also negotiated and structured investments in Synxis Corporation, which was backed by George Soros and Mr. Norris, and MARC Global Holdings.
    • by p0tat03 ( 985078 )
      So... clearly this guy knows WTF he's doing. So what's the secret here? We gotta be missing something... A guy like that doesn't just throw $100M around for nothing.
      • by spun ( 1352 )
        He does if he or his partners are already in it, deep and dirty, and they don't want the dirt seeing the light of day. Call it $100M in hush money.
    • by uss ( 1151577 )
      My wife went to law school and is now a practicing Attorney at a pure IP (Intellectual Property) NYC firm for a few years now.

      There is an ongoing mad scramble to snag IP assets of all kinds.
      (Key word: ALL KINDS)

      I have been a long time IT person, and I happen to also be able to this peek into this neo-IP world, so I have a sense of deja vu -- similar to the dot-com frenzied land-grab --except that there are NO joe six packs doing the investing, just ultra-rich+ultra-smart professionals.

      If anything is
  • Oh good (Score:5, Funny)

    by Morkano ( 786068 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:42PM (#22426386)
    Oh good, looks like Novell and IBM can acually get some money out of SCO now.
  • Legal Claims (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 )

    According to a statement from the company, SNCP already has a business plan for SCO that includes pursuing its legal claims.

    My understanding was that the company imploded because it was ruled that they did not own the Unix copyright, upon which the majority of its legal claims were based. What legal claims could they possibly have left?

    Also, buying a company for the sake of being able to earn legal awards should be illegal, strictly as a matter of financial sanitation. A good solution to this would be a sta

    • Also, buying a company for the sake of being able to earn legal awards should be illegal, strictly as a matter of financial sanitation.

      But everyone on slashdot knows that if you walk into court with more money than your opponent, you greatly increase your chances of winning, as the RIAA has taught us. The same is true of businesses. Let's say that SCO were to go after Ubuntu. Would you want someone to be able to invest in Ubuntu for the purposes of the court case? What if someone took some code that Ubuntu owned that was under the GPL and sold it for millions and millions of dollars. Could someone invest in Ubuntu in hopes of them recover

  • by Jay Maynard ( 54798 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:43PM (#22426416) Homepage
    Novell is now assured of getting every penny they've got coming to them.
  • oblig (Score:2, Funny)

    by nih ( 411096 )
    i for one welcome our new SCO rescuing, wait, ffs!
  • The same Carlyle Group that the president's dad is a part of? Expect anti-terror operations against linux users to commence.


  • OH MY GAWD!!

    Make it stop!! This was an interesting story to follow two or three years ago. Now, it's just brutal! Stupid people with more money than brains... Walk away from SCO. It's dead. Make it stop!! Feel like throwing money away? Drop me a line - throw some at me. I promise you, you won't get it back. Just like you won't get any money back from SCO.

    Oh my gawd!
  • Now maybe Novell will have where to get their money from.
  • They have some kind of business, much less a main business?
  • At least the resources to stand against them exist. Unless IBM alone does a complete about face then the legal issues will eventually be settled for good or ill. I believe that if IBM pursues and rightly win's this confrontation then in a way its a good thing because it means that on the condition of win that Open Source will have a firm base on which to develop for the forseeable future. FUD will be dead. If they lose, then we'll just have to cooperatively organized our legal defense funds I guess beca
  • quoting Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)

    by christian.einfeldt ( 874074 ) <einfeldt.digitaltippingpoint@com> on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:49PM (#22426534) Homepage Journal
    Pamela Jones wrote []:

    "Hahahaha. Maybe this is the key?

    SNCP has developed a business plan for SCO that includes unveiling new product lines aimed at global customers. This reorganization plan will also enable the company to see SCO's legal claims through to their full conclusion.
    That's code, I think, for 'this will enable the company to continue to attack Linux'."
  • by russ1337 ( 938915 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:53PM (#22426590)
    Its like some really bad slasher flick where the bad guy just..... won't.... fucking.... die...., and the audience gets tired of all the inventive ways in which they are bought back to life....

  • by WarJolt ( 990309 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @05:53PM (#22426592)
    After a nuclear holocost the only thing left will be cockroaches, twinkies and SCO. If you chop off the heads of SCO lawyers they continue to live for a week. Just when you think they're dead those tiny little litigating arms start moving again.
  • I am worried (Score:4, Insightful)

    by syphax ( 189065 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:10PM (#22426840) Journal
    There's that old saying,

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    Stupidity cannot adequately explain this move, which leaves...
  • One clarification (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drgould ( 24404 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:16PM (#22426920)
    SCO is proposing to go private.

    Right now they can't buy paperclips without Judge Gross's permission (ok, I'm exaggerating, but only a little).

    The US Trustee, Novell and IBM are all going to over the plan with a fine-tooth comb and the judge isn't going to approve it just on SCO's say-so. This could be like the York deal that SCO tried to push though last year, all smoke and mirrors.

    So don't go getting your shorts in a bunch just yet.
    • Re:One clarification (Score:4, Informative)

      by fermion ( 181285 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @07:49PM (#22428166) Homepage Journal
      Further clarification. I believe this deal, if it happens, is initially only worth $5 million.

      My first impression is that the bankruptcy are having, or are about to have, some expanding negative effect. This seems a relatively cheap way to solve the problem. If SCO is private, pays off all debtors, then they can defend against external scrutiny, and are free to do as they wish.

      The $ 100 million dollar pledge is simply there to say that the company will be funded well enough to pay off future obligations, should they manifest. Furthermore, the additional monies do not seem to be an investment, but a line of credit that the firm will have to repay.

      So, in effect, this is appears to be some sort of fancy consolidation loan. Certainly likely done as some sort of personal favor, but I bet no one losses money on it. One hears about these kind of tax shelters all the time.

  • SCO Sitcom (Score:5, Funny)

    by EEPROMS ( 889169 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:24PM (#22427024)
    Watching the shenanigans of SCO has turned into the geek equivalent of Dallas [] for geeks.

    This week on SCO
    Novel "oh my god!, Im sure I killed him"
    SCO "Im baaaaack and I have 100 million dollars"
    Red Hat "what crack monkey gave him money ?"
    • by EEPROMS ( 889169 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:36PM (#22427228)
      Meanwhile in the Valley

      IBM "Im going to fist you till you scream Oracle"
      Oracle "your disgusting, say you truly want me again that turns me on"
      IBM "I....."
      Oracle "whats wrong ?"
      IBM "I just felt a stirring in the source.... almost like millions of programmers said WTF!!"
  • Wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:36PM (#22427226) Homepage
    > SCO has received $100 million financing

    SCO has received nothing except offer (which is probably contingent on many conditions). They cannot accept it without permission of the bankruptcy court. To read some actual facts go to Groklaw.
  • by kilgortrout ( 674919 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @06:44PM (#22427326)
    And you can't do a deal like this without authorization from the Bankruptcy Court. This will probably all be part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization the details of which have yet to be filed by SCO. The devil is in the details with these things and you can be sure SCO will be out to screw all general unsecured creditors; that's pretty much par for the course in all Chapter 11 plans. Also, expect a lot of Bankruptcy Court litigation over the status of Novell's claim, i.e. SCO will attempt to lump them in with the other general unsecured creditors and Novell will assert its trust theory. At any rate the post petition funding here will not be available to SCO's pre-petition creditors, including Novell. All those claims are dealt with in the CH 11 Plan and are discharged by the approval of the Plan.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday February 14, 2008 @10:58PM (#22430052) Homepage

    This doesn't do that much for SCO. It gives Novell, IBM and Red Hat cash to go after. Remember, there are substantial legal claims against SCO, and those claims are on much stronger grounds than SCO's claims against anybody.

    SCO is headed for their day in court:

    U.S. District Court - District of Utah - Court Calendar
    Honorable Dale A. Kimball
    Tuesday, 04/29/2008
    08:30 am: SCO Grp v. Novell Inc (2:04-cv-00139-DAK-BCW) Bench Trial

    The only question in that trial is how much money SCO owes Novell. SCO will appeal, but they are unlikely to win.

The Macintosh is Xerox technology at its best.