decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A Question About the SCO's End Game
Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:14 PM EDT

Do you think this might be possible? I have been reading about the most interesting Texas case, and I wanted to share it with you, because it has prompted a new thought. It's something that never would have occurred to me had I not read about the Texas dispute.

You know how we've been thinking that SCO's what-we'd-view-as-profligacy-with-money since it filed for Chapter 11 protection might be so that Novell can't get anything? That is still my leading thought, but after I read this account by John Council in Texas Lawyer, now also on Law.com, about a battle over control of a shoe company, I start to wonder.

The case is Jackson Walker v. Spira Footwear, a law firm suing for unpaid fees it says it earned representing the company in a shareholder suit. Its complaint was answered by counterclaims for professional malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, essentially claiming that the firm did not properly identify who its client was. The law firm denies all improprieties, of course, and I certainly have no way of knowing, but I'd caution you not to assume anything, as anyone can make allegations in a complaint or a counterclaim. It's a very complicated case, but the part I zero in on is an allegation that the value of the company was deliberately brought down so one faction could economically get control of the company's patent.

Note this part:

While the events leading up to Jackson Walker v. Spira Footwear are complicated and involve different factions wrestling for control of Spira, the company's allegations are simple: Jackson Walker forgot who its client was in the Spira shareholder suit, alleges Andy Krafsur, chief executive officer of Spira. It was a "failure to understand that when you represent a company, you don't represent the people from whom you take directions. You represent the entity," he says....

In the Spira shareholder suit, Jackson Walker took orders from new management in the company that was trying to devalue the business as part of a plan to obtain the rights to Spira's most valuable asset -- a patent for running shoe technology known as "wavespring," Spira alleges in the counterclaim....

As alleged in the counterclaim, Jackson Walker and the shareholder faction opposing Andy Krafsur "systematically and intentionally took actions to place the company in financial ruin."

On March 28, Jackson Walker filed a general denial to all of the allegations in Spira's counterclaim, asserting that "at all times it acted in good faith and in a reasonable and prudent manner." ...

On Aug. 11, 2006, the parties in Krafsur v. Krafsur entered into a Rule 11 settlement agreement that gave Andy Krafsur the option to buy David Krafsur and LeVert's shares of Spira for $2 million and take control of the company from the Lebows. If Andy Krafsur did not exercise that opinion, Spira would buy his shares for $2 million over a five-year period, the company alleges in the counterclaim.

When it became apparent that Andy Krafsur would exercise the option, Jackson Walker and Steven Lebow "systematically and intentionally took actions to place the company in financial ruin." In November 2006, the company lost $450,000, while $117,000 in bonuses were paid to certain Spira employees, Spira alleges in the counterclaim....

Once Andy Krafsur had regained control of the company and a new board of directors was appointed, Krafsur dismissed Jackson Walker as the company's firm. On March 5, 2007, Krafsur asked the firm to return Spira's files. That same day, Jackson Walker filed Jackson Walker v. Spira, seeking attorney fees. And on March 5, 2008, Spira filed its counterclaim.

Is a lightbulb turning on in your mind? Perhaps others more skilled than I, and more experienced, will have thought of this possibility already, but I certainly had not. Again, I want to stress that this is a theoretical, something to help us stay alert and notice details that otherwise might go unnoticed, as we try to explain the inexplicable SCO.


  


A Question About the SCO's End Game | 110 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT ... and very OT
Authored by: DMF on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:23 PM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

corrections thread (properly spelled)
Authored by: nsomos on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:26 PM EDT
There are good reasons to have the title of the
corrections thread properly spelled.

Please place your corrections here under this
properly spelled thread.

A short hint in the title is nice.

Should someone else introduce a properly spelled
corrections thread, I will gladly delete this one.
(provided that no one has posted beneath it already)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick Discussions Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:31 PM EDT
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

The patent
Authored by: DMF on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:31 PM EDT
What a very interesting thought, PJ.

Are we still in the dark about the subject of the "valuable patent"
that SCO set up a holding company for?

---

To play devil's advocate, though, Yarro is leading this band and he already
controls the company. Isn't it your idea that a third party would gain control?
Why, then, would Yarro be complicit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

had SCOG anything of real value
Authored by: nsomos on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:46 PM EDT
If SCOG had anything of real value, then I could be
easily convinced they are trying such subterfuge.

As it is they really have nothing. At most they have
annoyance value. For some time now the FUD has gone THUD.

(On a side note, I have now learned that once you post
another comment, you can no longer delete the previous
one you had, even if no one has posted beneath that previous
comment)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The question is...
Authored by: rsmith on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:53 PM EDT
What does SCO have that is valuable? Not much, as far as I can tell.

But if there is truth to this line of thought, the shadowy party interested in
acquiring SCOG should make it's move before Novell gets to say 'all your base
are belong to us' at trial.

The question is what the move would be? Certainly not chapter 7, where
everything gets sold to the highest bidder.

So I guess we should see a new 'reorganization' plan very soon now.

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • timeing of the deals - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 08:57 PM EDT
  • Dirt - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 08 2008 @ 09:24 AM EDT
    • Dirt - Authored by: Darigaaz on Tuesday, April 08 2008 @ 06:57 PM EDT
Over my head
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 07:56 PM EDT
I don't quite see the connection to SCO v. Novell (or SCO v. IBM). That or the
lightbulb is burnt out.

The market devaluation of SCOXQ.PK can't be linked to a plot by SCO insiders --
to the contrary, they've pumped the stock by asserting the strength of their
case against Novell and IBM. Even now, SCO's position is that it will appeal.

Instead, I think SCO realizes that the end is near and is waging a hostile
retreat, burning and pillaging ... depleting funds through bonuses, diversion to
subsidiaries, unnecessary professional services, etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting food for thought
Authored by: bezz on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 08:28 PM EDT
Might be worth looking at the Cattleback deal. I try to look at things as
objectively as possible in spite of knowing that SCO has been gaming the system
since the beginning. But I am now starting to get a feeling there are
undercurrents of a legal leaning towards gross mismangement or even potential
fraud involved with SCO management. Yeah, many at groklaw believe that is the
case, but making it in court is another matter.

Again, worth some more reading.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The spending motive
Authored by: Boundless on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 08:30 PM EDT
> ... that SCO's what-we'd-view-as-profligacy-with-money
> since it filed for Chapter 11 protection might be so
> that Novell can't get anything?

I can't speak for any other readers, but I've never
thought that. Which is not to say that I have a
counter-theory. I don't. It's just that spiteful
despoilation makes no sense, even in the alternate
SCOXQ.pk universe. It invites shareholder suits
that might pierce the suits.

If the money were buying credible delay, then I'd
suggest that mere delay is the motive, but it seems
to be being merely wasted. If following the money
lead to management pockets, then I'd suggest the
possibility of simple self-enrichment, but that
doesn't seem to be happening at Enron levels either.

Something else may be afoot. Keep looking.
The article at the top of the present thread
is the sort of thing worth considering.
________
IANAL - Barratries not included.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This game's too easy!
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 08:53 PM EDT
It's SCO in The Boardroom with Linux Rights.

translates as:

Darl in The Big Hat with No Cattle

either that or

Yarrow in to His Neck with Worthless Stock

oh, hang on... It might be:

Microsoft in The Records with Improper Connections.
(Balmer in the Shadows with Chairs (hehehe))

Yeah, that's it! Or could it be...

Lawyers in The Trough with Snouts.

Oh, I dunno.

---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question About the SCO's End Game
Authored by: skuggi on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 09:04 PM EDT
Thanks for the tip PJ!
-Darl.

---
-Skuggi.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They were days away from bk when the filed the suit to begine with
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Had they not filed the lawsuit aginst IBM they would have been bankrupt in a
matter of weeks.
Diluted stock price was the equlivent of about 20 cent.
They had about 6 mil in cash, and were burnning it way faster than now.

The original plan was to pump up the stock, get some capital, and stay alive a
while longer. Hopfully get someone to buy them out, or enter in the scam with
them.

I don't think SCO has any patents worth scaming for.

This theroy may have had more merit inthe Yarro vs SCO group dealings.

Dennis H.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This theroy may have had more merit in the Yarro vs SCO group dealings
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 09:07 PM EDT
This theroy may have had more merit in the Yarro vs SCO group dealings
Dennis H

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe
Authored by: Stumbles on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 09:32 PM EDT
Sounds like a good theory. But just what does SCO have
that is sooooooooo valuable, perceived or other wise that
would cause McBride to intentionally ruin the company? At
most all they have managed to scrap up is a few lines from
some header files...... hardly valuable.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Maybe - Authored by: Tyro on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 12:32 PM EDT
A Question About the SCO's End Game
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 09:33 PM EDT
Although I have an account, I'm posting anonymously just in case.

I had an experience very similar to this which suggests to me that it may be a
common practice. I started a company to develop and sell software and as
part of that I had developed IP which looked interesting and might even be
patentable. The CEO of the company said he would discuss this with some
patent lawyers and report back to the board. After the meeting he reported,
and it was minuted, that they were unenthusiastic. Shortly afterwards, it
looked like we had reached a funding crisis and two directors who had money
were willing to invest a small amount in the company but wanted so many
shares for the money it would give them control and devalue the company
from its then current state by about 90%. Fights ensued and eventually this
hostile takeover attempt was prevented but the company was in serious
financial trouble and worse, its reputation was also in ruins. Meanwhile,
when clearing out the former CEO's desk, a letter from the patent lawyers
was found that said they were very interested in helping us patent the
technology. The CEO had lied to the company board and was trying to
defraud the other shareholders. He clearly shared this information with the
other director and the pair of them plotted to drop the share price
substantially and get control at which point they would 'discover' that the
idea had been patentable and they believed the share price would go up
again giving them a huge profit. They failed but their behaviour destroyed
the company anyway. Worse, the company lawyers who had recommended
these directors, had sided with them and protected them from repercussions
so no-one outside the company would ever know that we had been
torpedoed from inside and we could never raise any funding.

Idiot behaviour like this is what kills good technology and companies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something valuable, not neccesarily a patent
Authored by: argee on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 10:20 PM EDT
The most valuable asset, by far, has been the ability of
SCO to hang a sword over Linux. Even today, they can do
this. The late April hearing will be appealed, so the
sword will still dangle.

They are trying to sell this jewell to someone.

Say they sell it to Company X. Now X can start the process
all over again, perhaps with a better chosen target for a
lawsuit, not IBM. Like little small companies.

If SCO sells out this nugget, declares BK and can't go
thru the April hearing, anything can happen.

Or some such variation of the above conspiracy theory.


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question About the SCO's End Game
Authored by: webster on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 10:55 PM EDT

PJ may be looking for something too profound. Hiding and wasting assets are part of that familiar end game called "scorched earth." A defeat is bad enough, but at least don't let the winners win.

  1. SCO never entertained the prospect that this case would not settle. Their reorganization plan is just a sale of a possible settlement. They hope IBM and/or Novell will settle against the prospect of $100 million more of appeals and legal fees. They lost whatever chance they had of settlement when they lost any prospect of a jury trial. SCO has a fortune less than nothing with Novell and IBM judgments against them on the way. Anyone that reads the August 10 Order realizes that they are years away from a slight chance at any positive news.
  2. Of course they are wasting their assets with lawyers and consultants. Better to pay their friends than their enemies.
  3. So the only type that would be interested in bailing out SCO would be a vulnerable pipe fairy, worried about retaliation, or an idle oil sheik with millions to burn after sharing a tent with a wealthier geek tycoon who whispered in his ear.
  4. In masters chess play they know early on when they are beaten from position, material and history. It is very amteurish to play out a hopeless game. SCO at best is a dead pawn walking. They are doomed to sacriice.
So, yes, PJ, it is SCO's end game, but it is not THE End Game. You are not in an end game when you are about to lose another pawn. Can dead pawns talk?


~webster~

Tyrants live their delusions. Beware. Deal with the PIPE Fairy and you will sell your soul.



[ Reply to This | # ]

AY But
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 10:57 PM EDT
SCO may have some assets in Unix, patents and litigation. The risk is almost
certainly dwarfed by the value of the counterclaims.

I haven't researched the cited case but is appears much simpler than SCO.

I'd pose a counter question. Who stands to gain from this? Who wasn't there when
this whole thing started? It seems there is no "new management" trying
to take over the assets.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

An asset value of zero would leave the risk/cost of the counter claims...
Authored by: tce on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 11:53 PM EDT
...As others have said months ago when the stock value dropped, buying the
SCOrapings off the street would also mean buying the liability of the counter
claims.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe Yarro's stock purchase from Canopy is the missing link
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 06 2008 @ 11:53 PM EDT
The settlement with Canopy involved Yarro aquiring all of SCO's stock. In that agreement we see

2.1 Representations of Seller. Seller hereby represents and warrants to Purchaser as follows:

  • (a) Seller has good and valid title to the Shares, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions on transfer and is legally entitled to sell the Shares hereunder, and such sale will not violate the terms or conditions of any agreement to which Seller is a party or by which Seller is bound.
  • (b) The execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby will not result in any violation or be in conflict with or constitute, with or without the passage of time and giving of notice, either a default under any provision of any instrument, judgment, order, writ, decree or contract or an event which results in the creation of any lien, charge or encumbrance upon the Shares.
  • (c) To the best knowledge of Seller, no event has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur immediately that would have a material affect on the assets, business, prospects, financial condition, or results of operations of the Company.

Part b) looks to be a very strong guarantee of some kind, but is written in such obfuscated language that I can't understand it. Part c) could also be construed as a strong representation.

I wonder if the idea isn't to totally trash SCO and then sue Canopy claiming that it misrepresented the value of the company when doing this deal. In that case the more thorough the trashing, the greater the potential claim for damages. And those damages wouldn't be part of SCO, so Novell wouldn't have a claim on them.

If this is correct then what we are seeing is the corporate equivalent of somebody deliberately trashing their own property so that they can claim the insurance.

It seems to me that if we want to understand why SCO is behaving in this strange way, we need to know who is pulling the strings. It isn't Darl. I think it is Yarro, in which case we need to examine very closely how he connects with the company and what impact the current course of the company might have on his interests.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shell game
Authored by: Tufty on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 12:10 AM EDT
This made me wonder if all these wonderfool offers to buy them out are just a
distraction. Watch the right hand while the left moves the pea.

Should Cattleback have had more attention? Is there more to Me Inc than meets
the eye? What is really going on in China? Ole', Billy boy paid a lot of
attention to China and countries Asian recently, is there a link?

No ideas, just some musings.

Tufty


---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

All this time and you still havent figured it out?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 01:03 AM EDT
hellooo... it's a freaking pump and dump.

People have been posting this for years.

open your eyes and read.

it's a pump and dump. that's it. that's all.

get it now? eeeeeeeeeesh

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question About the SCO's End Game
Authored by: jig on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 02:58 AM EDT


i doubt the premise.

filing a chapter 11 is basically a way to remove or subordinate any claims (and
i mean ANY claims, secured or unsecured) against the estate/business. SCO is
playing two games here. one, they are doing their best to funnel the last of the
funds out as administrative and ongoing business costs. second, IF they get a
plan that can be approved by a rational court, that plan can include a process
called "priming" where some third party lends money to SCO to get the
plan going, but they a prioritized security interest in some type of
collateral... this can be in pending suits, or it can be in IP. beyond that, SCO
can sell some property "free and clear" to a third party and leave
only an action against the (horribly insolvent) estate in it's place. things get
interesting when they sell something they don't own, but with something like the
"linux business", they can assign the biz to a third party and that
third party perfectly steps into the shoes of SCO... look up the legal term
"novation" -- normally assignments of contracts can only become
novations when the other party to the contract agrees, but in bankruptcy, it can
be automatic, or even against the wishes of the other party.

there's a lot of stuff that can go down in the next few months. ownership of
assets is very much up in the air, and bankruptcy basically opens up a lot of
switcheroo possibilities. the reason why i doubt the "devalue first, then
take over" premise is that they really have no need to devalue first, at
least as far as i can see.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Devaluation Theory
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 03:44 AM EDT
This approach would only really make sense to SCO after the August 10th Ruling
from Judge Kimball. Prior to that, as others have posted, this case has looked
like a "take the tiger by the tail pump-and-dump scheme" that had
unexpected bonus side effects (such as bringing Microsoft and Sun to the
table).

After August 10th, ie after filing for Chapter 11, the picture becomes much
harder to discern. For example, one obvious way that SCO could have run down
their value after August 10 would have been if they started to promptly pay some
of their existing creditors. Yes, granted that Novell are on that list for a
very large amount of money, but SCO, being SCO, would have argued to Judge Gross
that Novell's claims as to those monies would have to be determined by Judge
Kimball and meanwhile, what about all these other creditors? (Or would Judge
Gross have likely imposed a constructive trust on SCO at that point?)


I'm not so sure on this one. The only logical reason I can come up with against
the idea is that for SCO to attempt this act whilst under the careful, watchful
eyes of a bankruptcy court, a US trustee and the lawyers of multiple creditors
seems to be something that even Darl McBride might think twice about.


I've been coming to a slight variation on this one. Do you think that McBride
would be willing to give up his directorship of SCO if he could find a friendly
PIPE Fairy to buy him out, such that the PIPE fairy elects to spin off Me, Inc
and give it to Darl to run? So in other words, some large and powerful company
with an axe to grind against Linux could move the disputed IP into the hands of
a "middle man" company - something like SNCP for instance - and
meanwhile Darl gets Me, Inc to buy his silence?

Well, whatever the truth, it's all very weird.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO seems to have been busy recently
Authored by: jmc on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 05:11 AM EDT

They seem to have been busy over on SCO's website here (don't click or go via a proxy if you don't want your IP recorded), they seem to have been assembling all of their arguments in both SCO-v-IBM and SCO-v-Novell.

If you look at "Part 3: SCO's Linux copyright claim" there seems to be a fair amount we haven't seen before - I think it might have been in a slide show that Judge Kimball saw but the audience didn't. I've copied it here on my website to save people visiting the SCO site.

There seems to be plenty of stuff there which SCO is lying about - for example JFS in particular, but also streams, ELF etc. Also that item I copied clearly takes advantage of the muddle between the Linux kernel and systems using it. I think I can hear Richard Stallman saying "I told you so" from here.

I really wonder who they think the intended audience for all this stuff might be. They've lost all the Novell arguments once and I doubt whether any appeal judges will be reading it. The arguments with IBM were made over a year ago and I doubt whether Judge Kimball will be refreshing his memory from it either. Neither is some "white knight" very likely to believe what's written there and shell out megabucks to bail SCO out without seeing what Novell and even what Judge Kimball have to say.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps we give them too much credit...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 09:14 AM EDT
I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I have rarely been in a courtroom in my life,
but I think PJ may be giving SCO's management too much credit.

Here's how I see things. Back in 2003 SCO knew it's business model was failing.
Their only tangible products were a pair of outdated operating systems based on
UNIX code that hadn't evolved much in well over a decade. OpenServer was a
platform I had the misfortune to administrate and deploy back in the mid 90's
and even then it reminded me more of where SunOS was in the 80s. It was stable,
but that's all you could say about it.

Now, knowing Linux was going to end up killing their business, they decide to go
out in a blaze of glory and, being businessmen, make a personal fortune out of
it. So, how to do that? You launch a legal attack at your biggest competitor,
and the one competitor that uses it, markets it, and sells it with the deepest
pockets: IBM and Linux. Forget RedHat, forget Novel, forget the other minor
linux players, they are chump change for such targets. You cook up your story,
and yes, you know it's a complete fabrication, a total lie. This doesn't
matter. Why? You aim to pump up the stock enough that you can sell it slowly
on the sly in various deals and directly. Then you can smile sweetly as IBM or
some other company offers to pay you to make it all go away. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but it seems like most IP lawsuits, even those without any likely merit
tend to be settled just to make it "go away". This was likely in the
minds of SCO management in 2003.

Low and behold, IBM decides not only will it not settle, it files counter suits,
and actually requires that SCO turn over any so called "proof" and
further documents that not only proves SCO was lying, but the documents show
they KNEW there was no infringing code at all. Meanwhile, SCO is now besieged
with suits against it from Novel, and RedHat. And SCO is now trying to sue it's
own customers AutoZone and Chrysler. The suit against AutoZone is a spectacular
failure, and Novel's lawsuit completely gutted any claims to the same code SCO
says was misappropriated.

So, SCO is now caught in a web of it's own deceit. It has no case, and the
courts have repeatedly ruled against them spectacularly once they get past SCO's
stalling tactics. Meanwhile, SCO keeps spouting the same falsehoods and spin
doctoring the legal blows.

Now we are 5 years later, SCO is still doing the same old thing, the pump and
dump has ended, SCO's stock is now under worth less than a US penny, so now
they delay to unload as much money from the business into individual pockets as
possible, probably hoping the corporate safe harbor provisions for personal
financial liability will apply.

Has anyone actually considered that they are simply acting like a 5 year old
kid, caught in with it's hand in the cookie jar, but still claiming he didn't
despite being caught red handed? We've all seen this. Yes, it's stupid. Yet,
how many convicts in jail still claim they are innocent despite overwhelming
(non circumstantial) evidence that they are guilty? This seems to be just plain
old securities fraud, extortion, and slanderous defamation that went completely
wrong.

The only thing of value SCO actually has is code independently developed after
the APA went into effect. None of which was found in Linux by SCO's own
admission. So... all that's left are legacy OpenServer and Unixware customers
that haven't switched generally because there is no clear migration path from
$PROPRIETARYAPP to $MODERNPLATFORM. That's not worth a lot of money save to
people that specialize in migrating abandoned platforms to a more modern
platform, which is a one time consultant's fee.

I don't see an asset here, or am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

There seems to be a problem with agency
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 11:57 AM EDT
There are basically now three groups at the bankruptcy table: The SCO
stockholders, the SCO management, and the creditors. The interests of these
three groups are obviously divergent when it comes to the disposition of SCO's
remining assets. The stockholders interest is maintaining the company as an
going concern, or in the alternative, maximizing the residual value after a
liquidation. The creditor's interest is in getting the maximum portion of the
debts they are owed. Management's interest is in getting the largest share of
the assets for themselves.

The problem is that as of now two of these groups, the shareholders and
management, are represented by the same lawyers. The lawyers were also retained
by management. The question becomes, then, to which of these groups do the
lawyers owe their fiduciary duty.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Run in circles, scream and shout!
Authored by: rsmith on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 01:23 PM EDT
Remember that Boies told investors that he thought IBM would settle.

That is why I think SCOG's manglement has been running around like the
proverbial headless chicken ever since IBM declined to do so.

They wanted a nice little buy-off from someone with deep pockets, only to find
they angered an 800-pound gorilla: 'Eeep! What do we do now? Stall! Demand more
discovery! We might find something if we dig deep enough!'

The only 'credit' you can give them is that they're still dodging bullets
several years later. Probably hoping that their opponents will give up before
SCOG has to.

I think that the end game till be that chapter 11 becomes chapter 7 after SCOG
runs out of money. Darl et al can then still keep claiming that they never got
their day in court, keeping the way open for a next entity to buy the 'assets'
and keep flogging the dead horse.

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Question About the SCO's End Game
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 07 2008 @ 05:43 PM EDT
SCO has played in other technologies over the years. Maybe the Tarantella thin
client stuff they eventually sold to Sun left them with some patents? I can see
them trying to figure out how to start all over again and go after Citrix or any
of the other thin client vendors out there if they manage to get someone to sign
up to finance a rising from the ashes.

In addition to IANAL, I also have no information to support the above. I state
it as a conceptual, not actual example.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Like a poor chess player; SCOG has not clue of the end game n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 08 2008 @ 06:57 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Who says? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 09 2008 @ 08:08 AM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )