Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Highlights from SCO's 10K (Groklaw)
The SCO Group has finally caught up with its regulatory agency filings, and Groklaw picks out the highlights from the company's belated 10K. "Our Engagement Agreement with the Law Firms will require us to spend a significant amount of cash during fiscal year 2005 and could harm our liquidity position."
(Log in to post comments)
Highlights from SCO's 10K (Groklaw) Posted Apr 2, 2005 18:34 UTC (Sat) by rae (guest, #28986) [Link] Hey, the non-liquidity of SCO Group sounds just peachy-keen to me. Thesooner they're gone, the better.
Posted Apr 3, 2005 1:17 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] We do want to make sure they actually lose, first. We want to have a judge declare that they don't actually own any of the things they claimed. We want the bagholders not to end up able to trick anybody into thinking their shares are still, potentially, worth something.
Posted Apr 3, 2005 1:40 UTC (Sun) by Alan_Hicks (subscriber, #20469) [Link] I'm not so certain that an official lose in the courts is going to be any more powerful than SCO withering on the vine. Either way, it will not soon be forgotten and other companies in SCO's position will not be so keen on suing IBM (and possibly Novell, Red Hat, etc.) or making claims it can't back up against Linux (thanks in large part to PJ and the other good folks at Groklaw). No one wants to put themselves in SCO's shoes.
Posted Apr 3, 2005 11:00 UTC (Sun) by steven97 (guest, #2702) [Link] Why do you think nobody wants to be in SCO's shoes? If SCO goes out ofbusiness before this litigation is over, some well funded anti-Linux group or company could start the whole thing from scratch.
SCO's shoes Posted Apr 3, 2005 15:08 UTC (Sun) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] > some well funded anti-Linux group or company could start the whole thing from scratch.
Except they'd have to build a very strong case. SCO's allegations have been debunked, and lots of things in Linux that were assumed legitimate without anyone really making sure are now established to be so. I'm thinking in particular of the audit trail that's now built in the kernel development process. People are aware of the problem now, and they do keep an eye on code borrowings, so they're (even) less likely to be intimidated by bluff such as SCO's.
SCO's shoes Posted Apr 3, 2005 16:10 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Anybody picking up from scratch would not have to proceed with the public remarks by McBride et al. on the record, and binding. He has made numerous public assertions that, as he is a company officer, commit the company's prosecution as if they were testimony. Many of these assertions directly contradict what they are saying in court, and make it much easier to decide against them in such a way as to be proof against appeal. Somebody picking up the assets and then pressing claims again might not be bound by his remarks.
Furthermore, we need to see the company broken up, the books audited, and the entrails examined, to charge the principalswith fraud and worse, and get their ill-gotten gains confiscated. That can't happen if it all just fizzles.
Posted Apr 3, 2005 13:26 UTC (Sun) by dan_ (guest, #28710) [Link] For anybody who fully understands what as been going on surely this is asuccess story for SCO. * They had nothing to lose since they were going downhill anyway. * They pumped their share price up (presumably some got rich for that). * They're still going! * They've given Linux a lot of bad press. A sceptic might say that this is what Microsoft and Sun have publically given them money to do.
Posted Apr 3, 2005 15:56 UTC (Sun) by The_Flatlander (guest, #19245) [Link] >> We do want to make sure they actually lose, first. We want to have a judge declare that they don't actually own any of the things they claimed. <<
Not to worry. Though IANAL, this is a point that gets more-or-less constantly hammered on on both the Yahoo! SCOXE board and Groklaw: Once the litigation has gotten underway there is no power in Heaven or on Earth that will stop it. If SCOXE declares banruptcy tomorrow, the bankruptcy trustee will never-the-less have to stand up in court and listen to the Summary Judgement get read against Caldera International, d/b/a The SCO Group, Inc. Even if the SCOundrels run out of money BS&F can't back away from this tar baby, unless the court grants them such, they can't quit just because the SCOundrels can't pay them anymore; Silver and Hatch and the rest will have to continue to attempt to mount a defense against IBM's patent claims.
There are only two outcomes available at this point:
1) IBM and Caldera could reach a settlement. (Don't bet the farm on that outcome, btw.)
The Flatlander
Posted Apr 3, 2005 16:01 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Settling would be a bad thing. It would leave their claims unresolved, and the principals involved would not then face charges of fraud and criminal negligence. IBM's patent claims are an evil in themselves, and entirely unrelated.
Case will be dealt with regardless of SCOX bankruptcy Posted Apr 4, 2005 12:46 UTC (Mon) by gravious (guest, #7662) [Link] I hope you are right, I *want* you to be right (so we don't have to go through this again) but can you point me at some legalese that explains how you are right?
|
|
||||||||||||