Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business Caldera

Darl McBride Leaving SCO? 126

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the take-the-money-and-run dept.
JoGiles writes "Linux-watch is reporting that while The SCO Group may go on to pursue its plans with a $100 million buyout, it will do so without its longtime CEO Darl McBride. Buried in the proposed MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between Unix vendor and Linux litigator SCO and SNCP (Stephen Norris & Co. Capital Partners) is the note that "upon the effective date of the Proposed Plan of Reorganization, the existing CEO of the Company, Darl McBride, will resign immediately.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Darl McBride Leaving SCO?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    hip hip!..
  • ...is an anagram of Lard [google.com]
  • Pending approval... (Score:5, Informative)

    by LinDVD (986467) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:35AM (#22445548)
    Assuming all of this stuff is approved by the bankruptcy courts for starters. I find it amazing how the tech media latches on to what MIGHT happen and not what actually HAS happened. "The SCO Group" didn't get any money yet, but many in the tech media act like they did.

    Of course, that quasi-journalistic slut, MOG, projects that McBride's leaving was a goal of the Groklaw audience, when in fact, it never was.

    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:51AM (#22445652) Homepage
      THIS is actually the most important point of all.

      And are there any possibility to let the court know what the public opinion on this is? The Chapter 7 [wikipedia.org] should be more appropriate.

      At least SCO weren't eligible to file for Chapter 12 [wikipedia.org]. Wonder what would have happened if they also were owning a huge farm in the midwest too...

    • by burnin1965 (535071) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:16PM (#22445806) Homepage

      Assuming all of this stuff is approved by the bankruptcy courts for starters.


      Good point. The quick headlines that were generated for stories are highly inaccurate, i.e. its not a $100 million buy out and it looks to be only $5 million at first glance.

      It could turn out after a full review of the facts that this is just another attempt to perpetrate additional theft of Novell's cash through the bankruptcy court as was the last attempt to sell Novell's assets [groklaw.net].

      We'll have to wait and see how Novell and IBM respond in the bankruptcy court.

      • by penix1 (722987) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @01:35PM (#22446250) Homepage
        I suspect that if it is a real offer the judge will approve it for two reasons. First, there are clauses that cover owed expenses in the event of loss(es) at trial(s) and second it gets this out of his court. it will be awfully hard for a creditor, even one that has so much at stake as Novell, to complain when SCO is floated this "loan" to have an objection if it will get them paid. That is, after all, why we are in the bankruptcy court in the first place.

        The objection to the first sale was because there was no clause covering losses of the cases. Also, they were trying to sell property in dispute. That isn't the case with this offer. This is a hostile takeover plain and simple.

        I predict the judge will allow it *IF* there is some up front money involved such as a trust or some such to cover a fall through. I don't think the agreement on its face will carry the day. In short, money talks.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tony Hoyle (11698)
      I don't think this buyout will be allowed. The assets of SCO are in dispute - probably mostly owned by Novell at this point.. and the market cap of SCO is only 2.5M anyway. If they're found to owe more than that there's no company left to be bought.

      • by poetmatt (793785) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @04:06PM (#22447294) Journal
        It's not truly a buyout. However, it is not uncommon in bankruptcy for a company to take out a new loan that is used to pay off all the old ones (aka consolidate loans). In this situation its kinda shady how they're doing it, because they're trying to save Darl from being responsible for everything...that is the bigger kicker here if this actually goes through, not just the money infusion.
    • Of course, that quasi-journalistic slut, MOG...
      I'm sorry, you lost me at the "quasi" part.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by thomas.galvin (551471)

      Of course, that quasi-journalistic slut, MOG, projects that McBride's leaving was a goal of the Groklaw audience, when in fact, it never was.
      Of course not. Getting covered in honey and dropped onto a nest of fire ants, sure, but leaving SCO? Nah.
    • please tell us why this matters? I so sorry, I just don't see it...
    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe they wanted to dump Darl cuz he wuz a croooook! Which he certainly is! He and his ilk stole my money by takin part in a years long stock swindle that still is ongoing today, and under our immoral laissez-faire capitalist system he and his cabalistas did not even have to use a pistola, just our crooked laws for corporations. Wonder how long Darl will live after he is no longer useful to microsoft and all its politico sock puppets. The history of discarded strawmen shows not much kindness for them.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by someone1234 (830754)
      I think the desire of the Groklaw audience is to put McBride and his criminal band into jail.
      His early leave is not so much wanted. This way he will probably get out of view with his ill-gotten money.

      Of course, i might be wrong, i'm just one of the above mentioned audience.
  • so long, and thanks for all the grief.

    wanna bet one dollar that he'll sue SCO and/or SNCP as soon as he's kicked out ?
    • by gbjbaanb (229885)
      I doubt he will, he'll be awarded a massive payout "in recognition for hiw work over the last years" and to "compensate him for future earnings", etc etc.

      Its happened before, and will happen again... in fact, it happens everytime a company fails. Sometimes it makes me think that working for a living is such a stupid thing to do.
      • Re:so long... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gnasher719 (869701) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:16PM (#22445800)

        I doubt he will, he'll be awarded a massive payout "in recognition for hiw work over the last years" and to "compensate him for future earnings", etc etc.
        Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he got sued by Novell rather soon (not that this would have to do anything with him leaving, they will sue him anyway). Darl McBride got a huge bonus for making the company profitable - however, the only profits that the company made is money that according to Novell was actually theirs. That will be decided in the courts in April or so. I am quite sure that if the court decides for Novell, and Novell cannot get all their money from SCO, and the bonus paid to McBride turns out be incorrect, then Novell will go for his own money.

        It is not something that companies would normally do, but in this case there are exceptional circumstances.
    • Not the real bad guy (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:50AM (#22445648) Homepage Journal
      I think Darl was just a front, as Ransom Love was for Caldera. Ralph Yarro was the real boss of both. I guess he's out too (not sure), but IMO the new investor is pursuing the same program, and Microsoft is still behind it.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        IMO the new investor is pursuing the same program, and Microsoft is still behind it.

        Bruce, now that Vista has bombed at the Corporate offices, you think Microsoft will still have an incentive to pursue Linux in court?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Bruce Perens (3872) *
          Bruce, now that Vista has bombed at the Corporate offices, you think Microsoft will still have an incentive to pursue Linux in court?

          They haven't given up yet. Look at all of the OOXML dirty fighting they've done recently.

      • by pembo13 (770295)
        What's with all the ACs replying to you?
        • What's with all the ACs replying to you?

          I just reply to the questions and don't look at who is asking them much. I don't think Slashdot ACs were ever a good idea and I make the most pessimistic assumption about them posislble: there is really only one anonymous coward, and he works for Microsoft, Bin Laden, and the Antichrist (and I'm not even a Christian).

      • FWIW, I met Ralph Yarrow a few months back and asked him about this whole lawsuit deal. Basically, I tried to get him to admit it was a mistake. His view of it is that IBM ingeniously turned public opinion against SCO, and he has the proof that SCO should have won the lawsuit--but he couldn't tell me what the proof was because of the lawsuit. (What's up with that?) Oh well. Just for the record (and I know I'm committing slashdot suicide for saying this), I think Ralph Yarro is a pretty decent guy, just f
        • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Sunday February 17, 2008 @12:57AM (#22450440) Homepage Journal
          There are some people in the world who are entirely confident in their moral rightness, no matter how wrong they are. Such a person will seem forthright, etc., in a chance encounter. But I think you do see that he was clearly wrong about IBM: that company did not turn public opinion against SCO. I had a role in turning public opinion against SCO, and you did, and some zillion other Free Software / Open Source fans did. Mr. Yarro was still unable to accept, when you spoke with him, that there was a large community who fought him because they were morally offended. His own feeling of his moral correctness doesn't fit that, so to him it must not be true.

          Bruce

          • And, when you get right down to it, a lot of people simply will not allow themselves to be wrong; the more you try to press them on it, the harder they'll fight back. See pretty much any religious argument in history.

            The problem is, people who have that sort of surety tend to attract followers, especially amongst people who aren't sure of themselves. So people who have this utter assurance tend to become leaders, even when they're headed straight for a cliff they refuse to admit exists...
          • I offer another similar but non-equivalent explanation.

            Sometimes people are unconsciously affected by their environment, and what they are supposed to do. As in, if you work at a company, you somehow adopt some of its corporate culture, and adopt a mindset aligned with the company. When you're tasked to do something, and you accept the task, you subconsciously convince yourself that what you're doing is right. I'm no psychologist, but this is what I observe from my own experiences and from other people's ac
        • Do you know how many people found Herr Hitler charming? (i know, I lose the discussion, yeah, whatever).

          That is simply not a defense of character....
    • by Tolkien (664315)
      But he doesn't lack enough money to be bought out to have enough money to sue them...
  • It's "up to" $100M (Score:5, Informative)

    by eddy (18759) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:38AM (#22445560) Homepage Journal

    A fairly important distinction, as anyone with Cable or ADSL will know.

    I can assure you, when Novell is awarded the money SCOXQ.PK owe them, there will be none there.

    • It's really important to spread this point. People think that SCO has a $100M "War chest" now. Not so.
      • What? How then will the SCO board of directors award a big, fat departure bonus to McBride for all he's done for the company, its stockholders, its clients (especially those that he sued), and of course the IT industry in general?

        Perhaps we can take up a collection.
  • I tought now it supposed to be Final Battle with ultimate evil of Carlyle group and SCO, all those good names like Bush, Bin Laden, Gates, McBreid, and all of sudden he is leaving? No Death Star explosion in the end?
    • Smoking Bacon (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      SCO receives money from Stephen Norris, who is connected with Prince Waleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud [google.com], who can be seen here [blogger.com] with Bill Gates?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sherpajohn (113531)
        Mr. Norris was a co-founder of the Carlyle Group (and ironically the current head of that group is the ex-CEO of IBM ;).

        Its all BIG money though...which begs the question - why? I mean does any really believe this up to $100M investment in the walking corpse of SCO is based on the possibility of them doing well business-wise? As many have pointed out its more likely a small fee to ensure that a) the anti-Linux FUD machine keeps operating b) a few scoundrels gets paid off and disappear c) certain skeletons s
        • by gbutler69 (910166)

          Mr. Norris was a co-founder of the Carlyle Group...
          Holy Crap Batman! You mean Chuck has betrayed us? He's gone over to the Dark Side?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by daniel23 (605413)
          Mr. Norris was a co-founder of the Carlyle Group (and ironically the current head of that group is the ex-CEO of IBM ;).

          This is nothing but speculation, spy vs. spy, but...

          doesn't IBM have a strong interest in SCOg's existence right until the day of the judgement? They invested a lot of time, reputation and money into this defence and may want to harvest a judgement that settles a number of questions once and for all.
          They could have saved themselves a lot if they had bought SCO earlier but this would have e
          • by m0nkyman (7101)
            That was my first thought on seeing this as well... Who has something to win by SCO staying alive just long enough to finish the court case... the added bonus is that if IBM owns SCO when it goes down the toilet, nothing gets buried that they don't want buried....
  • This saviour of SCO appears to know what it's doing.

    Darl has been a total idiot all the way, making FUD with no proof. In the end pretty much nothing he said held any wait.
  • by davejenkins (99111) <slashdot.davejenkins@com> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:43AM (#22445594) Homepage
    I fear that we're in for a long ride on this one. Back in the Day, we all figured that the SCO lawsuit would be quashed within 6 months. I remember a talk at a LinuxWorld several YEARS ago where Eric Raymond or someone openly challenged them to show us all where the 'infringing code' was. Several years ago...

    Lawsuits around the GPL and Linux codebase will become a permanent fixture. Our dreams of a single case to finalize up everything nice and tidy are never going to come true. I have every confidence that Open Source will survive, and the GPL will remain intact, but the lawsuit will always be there-- there's just too much potential money sloshing around, and law schools keep pumping out the evil.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mangu (126918)

      Lawsuits around the GPL and Linux codebase will become a permanent fixture

      Except for that quotation that often gets mentioned here: "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", or something like that.


      They can't remain locked in step 3 forever.

    • Well, there's not much question that we've beaten this case before hearings started. It is better to have the verdict and NOT settle or just let the case die than to leave it dangling. But I agree that it is possible for abusers to delay a case for 5 years before hearings even start. I would think that whatever subsequent cases happen, judges and defense will be informed by this case.

      Bruce

      • by TheLinuxSRC (683475) * <<slashdot> <at> <pagewash.com>> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @02:24PM (#22446556) Homepage
        I would think that whatever subsequent cases happen, judges and defense will be informed by this case.

        I think this is probably the most important point you make with regard to future lawsuits.

        The courts in the SCO cases have given SCO every opportunity to produce evidence to back their case. SCO has spent millions trying to find that evidence and by the time they realized it did not exist they had already dug themselves in way too deep and could not back out.

        Also, as a result of the SCO cases, the BSD lawsuit agreement [groklaw.net] was brought out in to the public. What is interesting here is the amount of Unix code that is now licensed under a BSD license. It is my understanding that BSD licensed code can be included in the Linux kernel and released under the GPLv2 along with the rest of the Linux kernel.

        Being that there is no Unix code illegally included in Linux, it would seem this avenue of attack is no longer open (or at minimum, not feasible). What worries me more is the next logical vector of attack, patents. I agree with a statement you made earlier, "I think Darl was just a front, as Ransom Love was for Caldera. Ralph Yarro was the real boss of both. I guess he's out too (not sure), but IMO the new investor is pursuing the same program, and Microsoft is still behind it.".

        Microsoft themselves could never sue a Linux company directly for a couple of reasons. First of all MS does not need the bad publicity it would bring. They currently have the perfect scapegoat, why not continue using it? Secondly, Microsoft has anti-trust issues to concern themselves with that their scapegoat does not have.

        The only solace that I find in the fact that the next war will be based around patents is that the courts have become better educated in technology and that Linux has been virtually exonerated of any copyright issues. Quite frankly, patents scare me.

        • I'm not so sure about the patents thing. Microsoft is already throwing around the old 235 patents bullshit. I think anyone can see that these patent violations don't likely exist. Aside from Microsoft, what patents does SCO hold that are relevant to Linux or even UNIX? They can try to FUD it like the copyrights, I suppose, and try to go to court again without a shred of evidence.

          In response to many posts I've been seeing about MS being involved in some way with this $5 to $100 megadollar deal? I doubt it
        • Agreed. I have been trying to figure out if there was any reason for someone to couple a patent attack with SCO and if that was part of the reason for this deal. But it doesn't make sense. We have to start pushing hard, in the US, on patents. We're working on creating an American FFII to pursue this.

          Thanks

          Bruce

    • by Epiphenomenon (977580) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:24PM (#22445852)
      It's bizarre and sad that first Turing and von Neumann invented programmed machines, then the Unix folks invited everyone to write good things that other people could use, and now, the fact that someone owns software means that if you want to write a program and give it away, you have to prove that no-one owns it. It's not that code wants to be free. A lot of it doesn't. But why should the code that does want to be free have to go to court first?
    • by burnin1965 (535071) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:47PM (#22445988) Homepage

      Back in the Day, we all figured that the SCO lawsuit would be quashed within 6 months. I remember a talk at a LinuxWorld several YEARS ago where Eric Raymond or someone openly challenged them to show us all where the 'infringing code' was.


      In a way it was quashed in about 6 months. Based on their stock price [yahoo.com] the fairy tale was over quickly as it became apparent to any rational being that it was all BS. And requesting the code was the most obvious blow to their case as any argument against pointing to the publicly viewable code was simple nonsense.

      Other than a few "journalists" with questionable credibility no sane person believed a word coming out of tSCOg's mouth pieces once they refused to show the code. And the ultimate blow was when the judge explained how close they came to losing the entire case on a summary judgment because they failed to produce even the most minute amount of evidence [silicon.com] to support their reasoning for being in court in the first place. That statement from the judge was based in part on all the outrageous claims the tSCOg mouth pieces had been spewing in the media and their failure to simply show the code.

      Yes it has dragged on for years, and yes it cold drag on for more years, but the game was up long ago and most people know that. Now all we can hope for is that IBM and Novell will be willing to continue spending cash on the lawsuits long enough to ensure the perps and backers of this scam lose significant face.

      And you are right, no matter how this ends it will never be the end, there are several people making massive profits who feel threatened by open source and they will continue to fund idiotic attacks like this as long as its a financially viable option for them. There are also the rabid anti-FOSS individuals who will rant until the end of time because they are so enamored by the likes of Microsoft that they'll believe and rabidly support every piece of FUD they are spoon fed.

      Yeah, its not over, and we'll never hear the end of it. But life goes on.
    • by drew (2081)
      Lawsuits will always exist wherever there is money. You don't have to have a valid complaint or even a reasonable expectation that you will win in order to sue somebody. If there's enough money there, and somebody can come up with a halfway believable story about how it should have been their money, then there will always be people willing to file a lawsuit, regardless of how outlandish their claims are, whether because they've actually deluded themselves into believing they have a legitimate complaint,
      • by jacquesm (154384)
        spot on. I've been fairly successful in business as a programmer / analyst, nobody ever bothered me, then the webcam thing happened and we got 'visible'. Within a few short years I was up to my elbows in lawsuits by all kinds of weirdos that wanted a piece of the pie. Keeping a very low profile seems to be a good recipe to reduce this kind of trouble.
  • Luckily Darl McBride took most of the spotlight for SCO's action. SCO still has a fare amount of "Good Will" (In accounting it is not how nice or moral the company is "Good Will" is name recognition) With Darl Fired from SCO, SCO has a chance for a comeback because it is not their products that caused its downfall but poor and immoral leadership. As for the normal day to day business I never heard any major problems, I have heard more problems dealing with Microsoft, IBM, and Sun then dealing with SCO.
    • by eddy (18759)

      >SCO has a chance for a comeback because it is not their products that caused its downfall

      BWAHAHAHAH!

      You sir, are deluded.

      I can only conclude that you haven't read their SEC filings for the last six years or so, where they admit that their products are not competitive. They're not competitive because their products SUCK.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        it's not because their products suck. is because their product is a unix for x86 platform, so it have to compete with "good enough" products that are pretty much free (as both in freedom and beer) like linux, xBSD, solaris x86.

        and in the higher end, even on open patforms like sparc, it's tough to beat HP/IBM/Sun.

        since the days of old SCO (now tarantella), they always operated on a niche. now this niche disapeared, or was taken by the newcomers. old SCO realized that, got rid of the unix business and wen't o
      • Difficulty in competing is different then having bad products. Linux, *BSD are free OS that are Unix or Unix like enough to have minimal learning curve. SCO main business was Unix for the x86 Platform. SCO Unix could actually be better then Linux and *BSD but because you have free alternatives potential customers are willing to make the tradeoff they figure the benefit of free outdoes the benefit of paying for some feature, or benefit. Sun, IBM, HP and Even Apple (successful Unix venders) provide hardwar
        • by jack455 (748443)

          Difficulty in competing is different then having bad products. Linux, *BSD are free OS that are Unix or Unix like enough to have minimal learning curve. SCO main business was Unix for the x86 Platform. SCO Unix could actually be better then Linux and *BSD but because you have free alternatives potential customers are willing to make the tradeoff they figure the benefit of free outdoes the benefit of paying for some feature, or benefit. Sun, IBM, HP and Even Apple (successful Unix venders) provide hardware lock in as a competitive advantage. The OS Will run smooth because the hardware will run smooth, Because people still need to pay for hardware anyways they may consider going with a Unix vender. But if you are on commodity hardware then you have a huge uphill battle just to try to sell your OS.

          Red Hat cooperates with CentOS, a free beer clone of Red Hat. CentOS, by your argument, would have a huge advantage over Red Hat in terms of Linux marketshare. Puzzlingly, that turns out not to be the case. In corporate use, Red Hat is the market leader, even though their support costs are some of the highest in the industry. Additionally Sun, HP, and IBM all sell hardware with a Linux install optionally available. And BTW, Apple is not, strictly speaking, a Unix vendor. Their OS is Unix-based, though. And

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld (263942)
      Luckily Darl McBride took most of the spotlight for SCO's action. SCO still has a fare amount of "Good Will" (In accounting it is not how nice or moral the company is "Good Will" is name recognition)

      Nope, not close.

      Good will appears on the balance sheet as an asset when a company buys another and pays more than the value of the fixed assets. So if company A buys company B for $100 million and company B has $10 mill worth of equipment (machines, desks, etc) the $10 mil is added to capital and the $90 is

  • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:44AM (#22445606) Homepage Journal
    Folks,

    This is not a $100 Million dollar offer. That was hyperbole. There will be a line of credit, but going in there is only a couple of million to take the stock profit and then what they need to pursue the case and pay off interest on existing debt as it is billed. Say $10 Million max. Remember that the Benchmark investment was unwound? This one will probably go through the same thing.

    Bruce

    • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:47AM (#22445616) Homepage Journal
      Oops, that's "take the stock private".
    • by Vellmont (569020)
      That makes a lot more sense. I didn't quite understand how any sane investment group would expect to make back $100 million on this dumb SCO case. But a 10 million dollar risk at a perceived chance to make a lot more makes more sense.

      At this point in the ruling though, I just don't see how they intend to win the case.
    • by toxic666 (529648) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:17PM (#22445808)
      And the interest rate is LIBOR + 1,700 Basis Points. That translates to 20% - 22.5% annual interest (using LIBOR rates over the past 1 year) which must be paid MONTHLY. SCO has lost money every single quarter of its existence, except for its blockbuster one in which it sold licenses to Sun and MS (which the court found to be improperly converted in its preliminary summary judgments). And now they have to pay credit card rates for financing?

      Hello conspiracy theorists! This "deal" is nothing more than a cover to take the company private in an attempt to protect it from investigation into the PIPE fairies who funded its litigation from the word go. And you can bet (based upon the failed York deal they tried to shove down the BK court's throat in November) it was cooked up by people more powerful and "financially creative" than the existing SCO management.

      Don't be surprised if an attempt to limit his liability is Darl's Golden Parachute.
  • You know why Caldera/SCO has gone down hill so far? The name of the CEO.

    I hear the name "Ransom Love" (Caldera's founder) and into my head comes a dude with a cravat, an ornate basket hilt rapier, a big black hat with a feather in it, possibly a lacy handkerchief in his pocket which was a favour of some Maiden in a past adventure.

    I hear "Darl McBride" and I just think frilly pink dress and cowboy boots.

    The Ransom Love look may look foppish today, but is still cool in a mid renaissance kind of way, but D

    • I hear the name "Ransom Love" (Caldera's founder) and into my head comes a dude with a cravat ... I hear "Darl McBride" and I just think frilly pink dress and cowboy boots.


      To me, "Ransom Love" sounds like a pimp's name, and "Darl McBride" sounds like a drag queen.


      Well, those are just the images that come to my mind, YMMV, of course.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @11:48AM (#22445624)
    Darl McBride will leave a rich man. At least richer than he is now. From my own estimates, he will leave at least US$ 10 - 14 million richer. At 4% interest in a fixed deposit account, Mr McBride can live a pretty decent life even in America's most affluent neighborhoods for virtually no work to be done.
    • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Saturday February 16, 2008 @01:09PM (#22446120)

      McBride can live a pretty decent life even in America's most affluent neighborhoods for virtually no work to be done.
      I know there's no justice in this, but we really don't want this guy doing any more work.
    • Hmm... I guess I'm not the only one here who'd say it ain't a bad prospect to see that man never mess with IT again, so it's fine by me if he can do that.
  • So maybe Darl will be a regular Joe Average employee rather than an executive? I'd hazard a guess that Darl will find a gracious home somewhere in recognition for his diligent service, but it's not out of the question that he might stay on to fetch coffee for the prince or something.
  • SCO is a strawman (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If SCO dies, the community will go after Novel and other MS puppets. So it costs less to give $100M to resurrect SCO and keep it alive as a troll to take the role of the bad guy. What is $100M for a company with annual profits near $40B?
  • The headlines and article contents are not 100% accurate. After reading the MOU [groklaw.net] it turns out that they are only paying $5 million, not 100.

    The other $95 million is a line of credit from which they can borrow at a whopping 17% interest rate.

    I could be wrong but this looks more like a pay off for the perps and a privatization veil to cover their tracks once they pay off the coming judgments using the line of credit and then allow the entire scam to vanish into vapors.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:03PM (#22445724) Homepage

    This plan has a better chance than the York debacle, but IBM and Novell will certainly want to see the money. If Norris Capital Partners has to front the 100 million in escrow this could get interesting.

    For Microsoft this has to be like being caught in an endless corporate version of Fatal Attraction. Backing the SCO litigation probably looked good when the Vista release was delayed but now SCO has them by the short curlies. MS has to keep coming up with cash for their demanding paramour. And it's getting harder to design deniable sources for that cash. Hard to say what SCO has on them, maybe they keep threating to go state's evidence on the anti-trust behavior. Maybe MS thinks it's worth a couple hundred million to keep the litigation cloud intact. I'm leaning toward the former. This can't be worth it from a business strategy perspective. It's expensive and it's not working. If anything it's backfiring. It's the kind of advertising that Linux can't normally afford.

    It's really hard to tell if this is calculated malfeasance or serial incompetence. With Microsoft it's sometimes hard to tell the difference.

    Most definitely this doesn't have anything to do with McBride, other than I'm sure they'll want to keep him quiet. Which means making sure he's happy, which will likely involve a large sum of cash when he leaves.

    This whole thing is such a loser. If MS would put that time and money into developing an operating system and other software that provides value to the user, they could forget all this stupidity with SCO. It's tacky, pathetic and...should be...beneath the dignity of a world class company.

    • by Faylone (880739)

      It's really hard to tell if this is calculated malfeasance or serial incompetence. With Microsoft it's sometimes hard to tell the difference.
      The thing about a corporation is that it can in fact be both, each from different people.
  • Did I disappoint you or let you down?
    Should I be feeling guilty or let the judges frown?
    'Cause I saw the end before we'd begun,
    Yes I saw you were blinded and I knew I had won.

    [...]

    Goodbye my lover.
    Goodbye my friend.
    You have been the one.
    You have been the one for me.
  • ...let's raise $100mil and get this clown out of there. Isn't it worth that much to have him gone? Then again, he has provided a lot of entertainment over the years... :)
  • He wanted to spend more time suing his family for theft of his genetic source code.
  • Here is the article: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080214125705140 [groklaw.net] After a lot of searching, the friends/money trail lead to a pig hiding in the corn field. I'm sure that his retirement from M$ will act as a poor excuse this time.
  • So this, then, if approved, will have the now much maligned SCO scontinuing, most likely - just not at the hands of the litigious Darl McBride.

    You know what? I kind of hope this gets approved. McBride's name is already mud, so he doesn't deserve to be with this company or running it. Some of the board have already left. (Is Sontag still there?) Basically, this would be a wise business and bankruptcy decision - resuscitate the company, but resuscitate it without those responsible for running it into t

    • Actually they plan on suing IBM for more money and to go more aggresively after Novel.

      At least thats what I read from the last SCO story here. What is odd is IBM's former chairman is the CEO of the Caryle Group. The Caryle Group has been mentioned in Fareignheight 9-11 as a proment pro war defense consulting group that backed Bush and milked huge government contracts with Haliburtin and DOD. I think Bush SR. is on the board of directors but I could be wrong.

      This company is a rat and even less ethical than t
  • by eck011219 (851729) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @12:48PM (#22445998)
    ... or does "Memorandum of Understanding" sound like the most boring D&D object ever? "You kill the orc. As he dies, he drops the Memorandum of Understanding, detailing the conflict between you and him and the specifics of its resolution. +2 mediation points."
  • How much do you want to bet that he will pull a Rick Belluzzo and get a nice high-paying job at Microsoft or one of its proxies?

  • Considering MS was tied to the case in a manner of giving some sort of support, perhaps it a who knows who line of financial support that traces back to MS?

    Don't know but isn't it interesting that it seems SCO lawsuits may continue beyond bankruptcy of failed attempts?
  • pay no attention the man slipping out behind the curtain with all the money in his pockets and the plane tickets to the Caymans
  • Hopefully he'll remember to turn off the lights.
  • MSsco exit strategy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by harvey the nerd (582806) on Saturday February 16, 2008 @06:11PM (#22448236)
    If one takes the "dirty, deep pockets connnection - cost minimization exit strategy" hypothesis seriously, this deal makes a lot of sense - starting with a "separate (extricate) the point man from his crimes" strategy". That way, being "safely away" from the scene of final SCO act or implosion, this may enable some diffusion of hard earned hostility to SCO, muddle and bury evidence, and the (ex)CEO is much less likely to have to rat out the significant others, especially if everything "settles" for a few cents on the dollar and fades away with the normal "defend" clauses to previous bad management. Of course society has been the big economic loser all along here, and the moral justice is a farce on the way to a 3rd world, corporate run tyranny.
  • Why LIBOR + 17%? (Score:2, Informative)

    by stites (993570)
    The terms on the proposed loan read like the fine print in a credit card agreement. The interest rate starts at LIBOR + 17%. Some of the other fine print says:

    "Payments: The Reorganized Debtor shall pay accrued interest on the outstanding principal balance in arrears monthly on the first day of each month commencing on the first day of the month following the Closing Date. The entire unpaid principal balance, together with any accrued interest and other unpaid charges, shall be due on the first day of the
  • I hope they give him a real golden parachute--made out of real gold, and make him test it--from the space shuttle. It would be worth the $100 million just to see the Darl-th Star like a meteor...

    Just kidding. I just hope he's happy living under the bridge in retirement.
  • I am getting so SICK SICK SICK of hearing about SCO.

    Let's examine the meaning of life!

    At least until some of those lawsuits actually get resolved or settled, that's about the only thing more newsworthy than this slowly moving train wreck.

    *bangs head against brick wall*
  • Perfect solution to the whole SCO controversy:

    1. Novell buys up all the outstanding shares of SCO
    2. Novell performs a short-form merger with SCO
    3. Novell drops all the lawsuits with prejudice
    4. Novell milks out what it can from SCO's assets
    5. SCO ceases to exist.

    The beauty of step 2 is that you don't even need the approval of SCO's directors to do it. All you need is posession of 90 percent of SCO's outstanding shares.
    • That's not a perfect solution. It's not even a good solution, because it means that the lawsuits will not finish going through the courts and establishing precedents. What is needed is a situation in which - once this is all over - no one will ever again dare to pull what SCO tried to pull. A Novell acquisition of SCO would not provide that.
  • The MOU also spells out that as part of the "Proposed Plan of Reorganization, SCO will continue to pursue aggressively the Company's claims in the Novell/IBM Litigation and other pending litigation, including The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone."

    There is no mention in the legal documents of any intention to devote any resources to SCO's software businesses. So, while McBride may soon be gone, if the bankruptcy court approves this deal -- SCO's board has already approved it -- SCO will be more aggressive than ev
  • He's going to work at McDonalds.

    *ring ring*
    BK: Hello, Burger King, how may I help you?
    Darl: Hello, my customer, McDonalds, has patents on the meat you use.
    BK: I'm sorry, what?
    Darl: That is our beef and you aren't authorised to use it.
    BK: Can you prove it? I'm going to get my manager.
    Darl: You can sell those whoppers but you have to buy a license from us for $699.99 for each one
    BK: *click**beepbeepbeep*
    Dark: Hello? Hello? I'm getting my lawyers to send you a letter, they're going to arrest you.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

Working...