SCO's Lawyers Analyzed 331
byteCoder writes "Today's Wall Street Journal has an article (subscription required) which highlights the arrangement disclosed by this freely available SEC filing made between SCO and its law firm (run by lawyer David Boies) giving the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of "a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation." (Search down for "Arrangement with Counsel".) Apparently, if SCO is taken over while litigation is pending, Mr. Boies' law firm could stand to earn 20% of yesterday's market cap of $247M = $49.4M plus the premium associated with the increase in stock price due to the takeover. Of course, if SCO is successful in getting any part of their requested $3Bn in damages from IBM, the payday to the lawyers would be much greater."
Ew, gross (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ew, gross (Score:3, Funny)
Contingency (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of civil trials do work like this, and I'm not quite sure why this is frontpage worthy.
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Contingency (Score:3, Interesting)
There're banking on a buyout allright. But will IBM come to the rescue? I'm putting my centavos on MS. They would get to come in, be a hero to the Linux community and then have a player on the inside. (Possibly two, now with redhat's repsotioning.)
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
Re:Contingency (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's try again. Despite what SCO says, SCO does not own the rights to UNIX. The term UNIX is trademark The Open Group. UNIX OS certification is available to any vendor who can make a UNIX variant and pays the bucks to get it certified UNIX-compliant.
Hell, even SCO's variant is not certifiable as a modern UNIX.
So, let's confuse the issue even more by saying we're running Linux - the first and only post-UNIX operating system (it's all about positioning and branding. We make it quite clear that Linux is not a modified version of UNIX, but was written from the ground up, AND we make it equally clear that a POS like SCO is ancient history).
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Insightful)
The counter-suits, on the other hand, ARE based upon the fact that SCO does NOT control UNIX, does NOT have the right to issue licenses for linux (which is what they had threatened to do), and that, if there was in fact any SCO code in linux (an assertion that they have failed miserably at every time they tried to "prove" it), it's already covered under their gpl-ed release of Linux.
As for the so-called code, code is not patentable, just copyrightable. Since SCO waited too long between the initial writing of the code and filing for a copyright, their maximum damages are set by statute at $150,000.00. But the suit isn't about that. It's a contract dispute with IBM over terminating Project Monterey.
The GPL specifically forbids SCO or anyone else from encumbering gpl-ed software with additional licenses, so SCO does not have the right to issue licenses for the kernel. As for the GPL's validity in court, the courts have decided in its' favor. see bottom of text: MySQL vs NuSphere [mdlug.org]
Re:Contingency (Score:3, Interesting)
The actual situation is even worse for SCO, as there is a 3-year limitation beyond which civil damages cannot be awarded Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 507: [cornell.edu]
Remember, SCO has yet to file a lawsuit against ANYONE for copyright infringement. They're SOL against the linux 2.
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Interesting)
I've sometimes suspected that this is the reason some aspects of Windows that are copies of some unix idea get greatly mutated. They can't just use all of the same technology directly the same way without being in danger of producing a unixy enough system that it might violate that previous agreement. So they make stupid changes perhaps just to cover their ass legally.
Re:Contingency (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
Dismantling really doesn't mean much in that context.
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
Yes, and what motivates them to flail around, trying to appear as dangerous and destructive as possible.
"We don't want to destroy Linux, but if it happens, tough luck".
I sure hope their lawyers would end up in the same PMITA prison, but what are the odds of that happening?
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the crux of it right there. The lawyer's job is usually to win the court case, and payment is contingent upon that happening. However, in this case SCO doesn't really have a legal prayer. Apparently that fact was discussed right up front--If we're only getting paid if we win, then we're not taking the case, says Boies, because we won't win.
On the other hand, there seemed a strong enough possibility that if they make enough noise and get big blue mad enough, maybe they'll get bought out just to settle things down.
So instead of fighting the court hopeless battle, Boies's primary objective is to inflate the company's stock price. That means getting a lot of attention (hence the invoices to the fortune 1000 companies--that gets them noticed (more so than just the law suit) in places like Fortune and the WSJ. Then, they use their extensive media attention to spread a hell of a lot of FUD. Waves of it, loads of it. They don't hve to prove anything--that a losing battle anyway. They just have to look all important.
And suddenly their stock goes from just pennies to $18/share. As stated by another poster here, Boies has already reaped part of his reward by getting $10M from SCOs recent stock offering.
This is the biggest Wall Street con job since Enron, if not bigger.
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
This would allow SCO to claim that the Boies firm was working on 'contingency', and not be actually lying. If people assumed that the lawyers were going to get nothing at all if they lost (and therefore that they must have considered the case exceptionally strong), it's not SCO's fault if they jumped to conclusions.
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
This would be the normal contingary bases
$3 billion case against IBM, Boies, Schiller & Flexner stand to gain 20% of the fee... or 20% of the etttlement.
This only proves that one of the tactics of sco was to be bought by some 3 letter company to solve their cash problems.
Re:Contingency (Score:4, Redundant)
The SCOmbags have had to effectively pawn part of their company to the lawyers for several months to get them to do the work.
And if the company is bought out, the lawyers see their money regardless of the half-assed job they have done (see Groklaw).
Re:Contingency (Score:3, Insightful)
Except why on earth would IBM buy SCO unless they thought they were going to loose the case? IBM has deeper pockets than SCO, and a vested interest in proving that their new business ventures are sound. Buying SCO because it is cheaper than defeating them would make it look like IBM has something to hide.
So this clause is only a reasurance that if the lawyers are doing a good job, with much inv
Re:Contingency (Score:2, Insightful)
Because the loss of faith in their product during a long trial would cost them more? Not an uncommon case at all.
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Insightful)
The inclusion of a payment based on the value of any sale of the company is definitely interesting and goes directly to the heart of at least one of SCO's strategies.
Re:Contingency (Score:2, Insightful)
What law firm would spend $$ on a case if they knew that the potential outcome could be the buyout of their client by the opposition and not have a condition for remuneration set for this in the representation agreement?
Ok , my client agreed to be bought by IBM so they make out well. The case gets dropped. I'm left with nothing when it was my effort in bringing forth the case that caused the buyout.
Its a logical consideration to have this clause in the contract.
Its not a logical representation contract o
Re:Contingency (Score:2)
If you think you're going to win and receive a few billion in damage, you BUY BACK stock as fast as you can. It'll be worth a fortune. The company and the execs would be rolling in money.
If you think you're very very likely to lose, the converse is true. You don't want to be near the stock, once the price crashes thr
Re:Contingency (Score:5, Interesting)
They would do depositions, private detective work, pick up and deliver evidence,
Many of the lawyers and legal firms were of the opinion that they didn't have to pay any of the bills for this until the cases were settled.
So that company got into a serious cash flow problem at one point. They had hundreds of thousands of receivables, but not enough cash coming in on them.
At some point, they couldn't make their quarterly tax payments because of the problem. They were audited and the IRS found several thousand more in taxes they owed.
But the company just didn't have the money.
The president/owner of the company told the IRS that he wished he could turn over that much of his receivables to the IRS. The IRS agent replied that they could.
So he spent the weekend pouring over the receivables and identified enough to cover the tax debt of the oldest, most difficult to collect receivables that they never thought they had much of a chance to collect.
The following Monday, he gave the list to the IRS.
The IRS agent started calling the lawyers and law firms.
"Hello. I'd like to confirm that you own XYZ company (some dollar amount). Can you confirm this?"
Lawyers know that if you admit the debt and say you are going to pay it later, you can often put off paying it for years, but if you deny the debt, it becomes a legal matter and they can drag you into court real fast and get a judgement against you. I saw one lawyer who was very wealthy but got ticked off at someone over very late delivery of a $50,000 computer take years to pay the debt just to teach them a lesson.
So they all admitted that they owed the debt.
The IRS agent then said, "I'm Agent (insert name) of the IRS and we've been assigned this debt. I expect you to have the check in the mail by tomorrow morning."
He collected every single penny of every one of those ancient receivables.
Re:Contingency (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the most important thing to remember is that the person who decides not to pay employment taxes is a thief. Period. In order to kep their company going, they stole money from their own employees. Say that you owe me USD$100 and I ask you "Hey, look, I owe my neighbor $10. Can you just give me $90 right now and then let him have the $10 when he drops by this afternoon?" You agree to do so, but when the neighbor shows up you refuse to give him the $10. What
My thoughts (Score:4, Funny)
Equity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Equity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Equity (Score:2)
Lawyers are meant to take into account their clients best interests, not just blindly do whatever is asked of them.
Note th
Re:Equity (Score:2)
Re:Equity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Equity (Score:5, Interesting)
"EC 5-7: The possibility of an adverse effect upon the exercise of free judgement by the lawyer on behalf of the client during litigation generally makes it undesirable for the lawyer to acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of the client of otherwise to become financially interested in the outcome of the litigation... a reasonable contingent fee is permissible in civil cases because it may be the only means by which a non-lawyer can obtain the services of a lawyer of his or her choice..."
So, in your opinion, is this the case? Can SCO not afford an attorney? I suppose, if you were a lawyer, you would argue that they can't afford the attorney of their choice because that particular attorney is demanding a contingency, but this defense is so broad it would make this clause worthless, so it is probably not what the Bar Association meant.
The conflict of interest arises because the attorneys are supposed to represent SCO's best interests. Now, what if SCO's best interests were to drop the litigation and continue as an independent entity? Wouldn't that present an ethical conundrum for Boies et al? To wit: best interests or get paid? I am not saying that the lawyers wouldn't do what is right, only that the conflict exists.
Re:Equity (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Equity (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the timing of the payment makes any difference as to whether this should be considered equity... even Common shareholders do not get paid for a sale until the sale is made. The question is, then: if Boies et al were a de facto 20% owner of the company and is involved in day-to-day management decisions, is he accountable for them and to whom?
(1) I would think that their criminal accountability as a member of management for a fraud is no less
Nothing has changed hands (yet) (Score:3, Insightful)
so it is not an issue.
giving the law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 20% of the proceeds from the settlement or of "a sale of SCO during the pendancy of litigation.
The law firm won't receive anything until/unless a) the suit is settled, or b) SCO is sold in the meantime. In the first case the law firm will be collecting its fee from the settlement; they are working on contingency* (as described elsewhere in this thread). In the second, SCO will have a new owner, and the law firm's fee wil
Re:Nothing has changed hands (yet) (Score:3, Insightful)
I call this 'essentially' equity because there are circumstances where the attorneys are not entitled to a piece of the value of the business, although it is hard to envision these: (1) the lawyers lose the case, (2) the company is not sold and (3) the company continues to be worth something. I think it is number three that will be difficult to achieve without either one or two.
Re:Nothing has changed hands (yet) (Score:2)
Re:Equity (Score:2)
Re:Equity (Score:2, Insightful)
If it were the judge that owned 20%, then well...
"LLP"? (Score:4, Funny)
Close (Score:3, Funny)
Thank god for IBM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank god for IBM (Score:2, Funny)
.....SCO SCHMO (Score:4, Insightful)
OR creating sufficent legal costs for IBM that it's cheaper to buy them than fight it out in the courts.
They might also be trying to cripple linux with uncertainty in much the same way as AT&Ts courtcase did with *BSD years ago, but linux' critical mass is far larger.
Unless of course some guy at SCO what's to buy a heap of IBM stock at a slightly discounted price?
Seriously, there HAS to be a conspiracy theory in here somewhere.
That is actually a fair thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, one of the "likely" ways to settle the lawsuit would be to buy SCO and get control of the Unix assets. If IBM concludes that they are likely to lose, then they NEED to buy SCO, rather than letting SCO run around destorying Linux. Remember, Linux is worth more to IBM that SCO's current marketcap.
So, if the lawyers are entitled to part of the settlement, should they get part of the sale? Absolutely. The most likely scenario for IBM to "settle" would be to purchase SCO and/or SCO's assets for some sum of money, and then terminate the lawsuit. How could the lawyers NOT be compensated for that when they are entitled to a percentage of a cash settlement?
Alex
Re:That is actually a fair thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Inadequately cynical (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but this runs contrary to current
Re:That is actually a fair thing (Score:5, Insightful)
This case is just one of those things which are so unbelievably sleazy that they're not illegal because no-one ever imagined anyone would stoop that low. Create a nuisance lawsuit on extremely tenuous grounds in the hope someone would buy you out in order to shut you up. I've been thinking up to now that it would be nice if IBM crushed this quickly and put us all out of our misery, but now it's apparent that it would be better for IBM to draw this out as long as possible to make sure they bankrupt the scumbag lawyers.
If they're allowed to win this one we're going to see a spate of similar cases - not necessarily anything to do with software or open source, but small companies with just the minutest possibility of an extremely complicated case against larger companies going to law to, essentially, blackmail money out of them. They need to lose, and lose very badly, pour encourage les autres.
Re:That is actually a fair thing (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/02/19/164
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/17/237
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/04/004
All that and a cool mill (Score:5, Interesting)
> In addition, this modification may result in the payment to such law firm of up to $1,000,000 and
> the issuance of up to 400,000 shares of SCO's common stock.
Okay.. So, they are paying thier lawyers either 1) 20% of the settlement for what they beleive is their most valuble asset (The Unix IP), 2) 20% of the company value, *and* up to $1M + up to 400K stock shares.
Wouldn't it have been cheaper to buy a few law firms? That is a friggin ton of compensation. And for that (plus the small price of their reputations and soul) they get some really bad legal service. [groklaw.net]
With management making decisions like that it's no wonder the only asset the company really has anymore is stupid. But at least they have plenty.
Re:All that and a cool mill (Score:2)
Frankly, in this deal, I think the law firm's management is the
Re:All that and a cool mill (Score:2)
Doing one search on the most limited database in Lexis costs $10. One search on something pretty complex--like searching all federal cases--costs around a hundred bucks. And you need to do a lot of searches to do a case like this....
Even bad lawyers cost a s
Re:All that and a cool mill (Score:2)
Re:All that and a cool mill (Score:2)
Not to mention 20% of the proceeds from the sale of all those SCO/Linux licenses.
I can't see Boies eating too many lawyerly dinners on the proceeds of *that* though.
As I read it, Boies & Co. already got $10M (Score:5, Interesting)
Thus, the lawyers are no longer working strictly on contingency, they have received a lot of money up front (or, in the middle, anyway.)
thad
Re:As I read it, Boies & Co. already got $10M (Score:2)
Big Surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Just typical really. At the end of the day when we're analysing this - when SCO is loooooong gone and Linux is still alive and kicking - although probably hurt by this - we're not going to have to wonder who benefited from all this. The SCO execs are going to be chuckling into their martinis, the people who bought SCO stock and were smart enough to sell it high are going to feel smug and the lawyers are going to walk away rich.
The Linux community is hurt by this, the shareholders who hold on too long are hurt by this, the employees at SCO are hurt by this, Linux customers (and possibly IBM customers are hurt by this) and the people who are slinging the FUD get to walk away with guaranteed millions.
Is it legal to sue lawyers I wonder? Show that they had a vested material interest in damaging businesses by dragging this out as long as possible? Show that they used deliberately deceitful tactics and were complicit in outright lies, obfuscations and unfair practices and maybe tack on a suit for encouraging their customers to pursue illegal activities (violating the GPL and anything else SCO has done that turns out to be against the law).
Basically, is there a way to mire these guys in court for the rest of their lives to that their guaranteed millions dry up? IBM's got billions to throw at this... is there a business case to be made for making an example of the lawyers themselves? Maybe discourage other unethical lawyers from taking up similar cases and causes? Anyway, just my morning rant. Going to go get more coffee and I'm sure the day will be all smiles and sunshine afterwards.
Re:Big Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
C= scumbags...Only IBM... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm always reminded of the incompetance/greed of Commodore and their ruling class. Those guys made off big. In their last years, the CEO was making more than IBM's CEO even then the company was losing millions upon millions (he did give some of it back in the last year though - how kind).
Here was a company with great products (well, the Amiga-based stuff anyway) run by people whose only possible thoughts ran to corporate meetings in Bermuda and grabbing all the cash they could before it all went down.
After the liquidation (which was a sad affair I happened to attend in West Chester, PA), a bunch of shareholders got together and decided to sue the former execs for malfeasance. It never went anywhere. Basically, they were outspent before they began. But in the case of SCO, it would indeed be interesting to see if a corporate entity like IBM would get involved in pursuing these guys after it all goes down.
Capatalist... (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, I cannot say I blame the lawyers. If they did not take that kind of an offer, another firm would, and if you get 3B out of IBM (snowballs chance in hell I know) and you get the typical 40% out of it...damn...
then again, the paranoid in me sees this as being a nice payback to Dave from MS. Make a little dosh, take a crack at being set for life, and oh, if you start to lose we will buy the company at an inflated price, meld all of the IP claims into our own, let the memory of this fade away and try again in a another couple of years. Thanks for the surrender Dave! We love you!
(this post not spell checked)
MCR UAF MOD user
Re:Capatalist... (Score:2)
If I offered you millions of dollars to supply torture equipment to (e.g.) North Korea, or explosives to Al Quaeda, would you do it? If I offered you millions of dollars to supply contaminated food to famine victims, would you do it? If, ten years ago, I had offered you millions of dollars to supply anthrax to Saddam Hussein, would you have done it?
No-one is obliged to do unethical things. Ju
Re:Capatalist... (Score:2)
Re:Capatalist... (Score:5, Funny)
Is this a serious offer, or just another of those goddamned rhetorical questions?
What a great way of life.... (Score:4, Informative)
MS anti-trust......he "won" (and I use won very loosely)
2000 pres election.....enuff said
SCO....talk about hitching your wagon to a broken down pony
But even though his legal genius is not serving him, he will still be stinky rich. Much richer than the vast majority of people who pour their heart and soul into Linux and the Linux community while he and his incompetent lackeys try to rape the Linux community on behalf of the SCO assholes.
There is truly little justice in the world. It is unfortunate that he will not be able to join McBride and his crew in Federal-pound-them-in-the-ass prison. That would be justice.
The Perfect Slashdot Article (Score:5, Funny)
This article's a dream come true all of us who post on Slashdot without first reading the article. Finally, we've got a good comeback for all those pests who tell us to go RTFA (read the fucking article.)
I hope this begins a trend, and I look forward to many more Slashdot stories centered around articles I don't have subscription privileges to read. You can count on me and hundreds of others to post responses to these stories, confident in the knowledge that we have no clue as to what the article says, and knowing nobody else does either.
Again, fantastic work!
Re:The Perfect Slashdot Article (Score:2)
Sorry to mess up your plan. But here is a nice result on a google search for username / password
http://academics.smcvt.edu/sburks/BU331.htm
Slashdot their account so they learn security discipline.
David Boies (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a shame that such a talented legal mind, one who did such a nice job in the U.S. government's prosecution of Microsoft on anti-trust charges, has sold out to the dark side.
Oh please (Score:2)
Read the article without subscribing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read the article without subscribing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Mainstream press picked up on this... (Score:2, Informative)
CNN's article... [cnn.com]
IBM's lawyers, I hear, are very expensive ones (Score:2, Insightful)
Has anyone noticed... (Score:5, Funny)
Can we countersue SCO for environmental damage?
WHERE IS BOIES? (Score:2)
MS ? (Score:4, Informative)
During the quarter ended April 30, 2003, SCO entered into a licensing agreement with Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft"). The initial licensing agreement allowed Microsoft, at its election, to exercise two options to allow Microsoft to acquire expanded licensing rights with respect to SCO's UNIX source code. During the quarter ended July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid for the first of these options. During SCO's current quarter, ending October 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised and paid $8,000,000 for the second option.
Wow, nice to see that on paper.
wow!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
"SCO has also sent letters to many large companies suggesting that their use of Linux might leave them infringing on SCO's copyrights. It has offered to free them of legal risk in return for hefty license fees. If any company decides to pay such licenses, Boies Schiller would be entitled to 20%, according to the filing."
20% from each license....
SCO's motives? (Score:3, Interesting)
Dilution of shareholder equity (Score:4, Insightful)
Disney should sue SCO. (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sort of joking, but in all honesty that's actually how I've always interpretted that logo. It wasn't until this morning that I realized the red part of the logo is actually a big letter C. If I can make the mistake, so can others.
To anyone actually working at SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
Conspiracy! Conspiracy! (Score:3, Redundant)
Don't take this as a sign that SCO has lots of friends in low places. Really all this means is that people who ought to know aren't confident that they'll be around much longer.
open source buy-out (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:open source buy-out (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like SCO has cash flow problems... (Score:4, Informative)
Everyone assumes the original deal between SCO and Boies was a straight contingency agreement. Given the size and resources of the defendant, the amount of time and money required to prosecute the claim, and the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, I can't believe it was. Even if there was a contingency agreement, though, it may well have been conditioned upon IBM settling the case within a certain period of time. Now that settlement is a remote possibility, Boies may have demanded money to continue with the case, and SCO couldn't come up with the cash. The company's 8-K talks about "credits for amounts received as discounted hourly fees". If they had actually retained Boies on a contingency, there wouldn't be any hourly fees.
The language of the SEC filing ("...in the process of finalizing...", "...subject to a definitive agreement...") clearly indicates that this is a deal SCO has pitched to Boies (or vice versa). It's also clear that part of the money ("...certain licensing fees...") is coming directly from Microsoft. Since no lawyer in his right mind would negotiate a fee agreement downward, Boies' firm undoubtedly stands to make more money under the deal, but on the back end.
In a nutshell, this is the scenario: SCO brought Boies in to force a quick settlement. When that didn't happen, Boies' fee agreement reverted from contingency to hourly. In fact, it appears that Boies may have been paid something for not settling the case, since the 8-K also talks about a credit for "prior contingency payments." In any event, Boies and his firm are now working on an hourly basis, which SCO can't afford. To keep him on board, they've offered him (or he's offered them) the deal stated in the 8-K.
Given SCO's well-documented compliance problems with IBM's discovery requests, one can only wonder whether Boies' firm has cut back its work on the case until the compenstion issues are resolved.
Re:20% of Zero (Score:3, Funny)
--
If you can, help others. If you can't, at least don't hurt others -- the Dalai Lama
Re:20% of Zero (Score:2)
I hope they find a way to sue SCO if they lose, something like misrepresenting the facts of the case in order to get the law firm to take them on.
(IANAAL, I have no idea if this sort of thing would be allowed, but in this case it should :)
Re:Lawyers greedy shock (Score:2)
Under doctor-patient confidentiality I'm not supposed to inform you that they are nuts, but I can tell you they are greedy.
Re:Lawyers greedy shock (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, there has been a lot of speculation that the real aim of the lawsuit was to get IBM to buy SCO just to shut them up. This arrangement adds weight to this suggestion because the lawyers have been given a big incentive to try to make it come to pass.
The problem with a buyout is: (Score:4, Interesting)
If IBM buys them out (or someone else), and the court cases just go away, then the people who want Linux and the GPL to be discredited have won anyway.
I'm not sure how this can be resolved in a good way. We wait for the legal system to rule, it takes years. If IBM buys them out, it's basically paying extortion, sets a _very_ bad precedent, and allows the FUD to remain.
Am I seeing this wrong? Does someone have a realistic positive outcome, and a path to get there?
Re:The problem with a buyout is: (Score:4, Interesting)
Since they didn't, now Big Blue isn't going to do it. It woul dlook very bad, it would set bad precident, and it would leave the field open for the next money grubbers who can make some vacuous claims. No, now they are committed.
The best part here is that, if they lose, they have a good chance of validating the GPL, and closing off one more avenue of FUD, like a junky collapsing an overshot vein. Thats a nice win.
Now it may take a while, but victory will be worth the wait. Besides, Big Blue has pockets deeper than some governments - my prediction is that by the time this is finished SCO will be little more than 3 letters on court filings.
-Steve
Re:Lawyers greedy shock (Score:5, Interesting)
Now we see:
1. Novell bought out SuSE. (one down)
2. Redhat won't be messing with the desktop anymore. (twp down.)
3. Sun Microsystems has all but said "Linux is for the birds". The'll ship boxes with it if you want, but don't reccomend it. (Three down.)
And now this thing about the laywers getting a cut if SCO sells out.
Now we must ask, who is right now looking around and buying stuff up: Novell's out, since they just got SuSE. MS's looking for searchengines and feeling the market... So if the "deal" was, if SCO could take out three Linux companies, or at least shift their focus, they'd get bought out.
I just hope it isn't six. If MS buys them out this month, I'll sleep a lot better.
The only Gem in this whole mess is that IBM is staying true and HP is continuing with its Pro linux initiative. I haven't had a driver issue in either windows or linux/Mac OSX since.
Best,
Re:Lawyers greedy shock (Score:2, Insightful)
You are beeing a bit too gloomy. Here's my take:
Open Source will survive. I believe we have a 90% chance of getting SCO slapped down. If so, the community and GNU/Linux will thrive.
Long live Tux!
Re:Lawyers greedy shock (Score:5, Interesting)
Redhat is focusing on selling products that will make it money. So Redhat won't make boxed sets of their cheapest product anymore, but who were buying them anyway? You've always been able to get it in tons of books, magazines, on the net etc., and Fedora is taking over the mantle. So what you have is a situation where companies still get support if they pay for it, just as before, and consumers get a ditro, just as before, but the name will be different, and they'll have to go to some cheap CD packager to get CD's of it much like most people have been doing anyway.
Sun? Who cares about Sun except Sun itself?
All in all I see the Novell and Redhat events as good - it will likely help both companies, which will only mean better business penetration for Linux, and that will filter down to consumers eventually.
Re:Lawyers greedy shock (Score:2)
Re:Remaining cases ? (Score:2)
Re:Remaining cases ? (Score:2)
This probably explains why he's allocated his most retarded and junior staff [groklaw.net] to work on the case.
Although the odds of winning are probably akin to playing the lottery, he's clearly only investing the lawyerly equivalent of a dollar in paying for his ticket.
Re:They actually lubed up and bent over? (Score:2)