Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business Government IBM Novell The Courts News

SCO Preps Appeals Against Novell and IBM 163

Posted by samzenpus
from the harder-to-kill-that-the-tarrasque dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like SCO will be emerging from the almost dead soon, with new owners and $100 million on board. SNCP is adjusting the business strategy, according to this report on TG Daily, SCO is saying goodbye to CEO Darl McBride and is also preparing to appeal the summary judgments in the cases against Novell and IBM. If you have thought the chapter was closed, think again. Those $100 million can go a long way (even if SCO has to pay 17% interest on it)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SCO Preps Appeals Against Novell and IBM

Comments Filter:
  • Now that's a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:08AM (#22659452)
    Use your bail-out money to dig the hole deeper.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dpilot (134227)
      Don't forget that as part of the deal, SCO gets rid of its biggest impediment, its heaviest boat-anchor, perhaps one of the most negative factors during the previous trials...

      Daryl and his big moouth.
  • What the hell? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ctishman (545856)
    Who keeps giving/lending these clowns money?
  • by Strange Ranger (454494) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:12AM (#22659482)
    It looks like SCO will be emerging from the almost dead soon, with new owners and ... is also preparing to appeal the summary judgments in the cases against Novell and IBM.

    This time please use holy water and lawyers made of silver.
  • by MintMMs (909563) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:13AM (#22659492)
    Doesn't the bankruptcy trustee have to approve the sale first? The article sounds like this is already a done deal.. Dang, I need to start reading Groklaw again.
    • Dang, I need to start reading Groklaw again.

      No kidding. And here we all thought PJ was going to have to start looking for a new job soon.
      • by gtall (79522)
        Seems to me that about half of the articles on Groklaw are now about things other than SCO. Groklaw has already been moving into other areas, typically ones under threat from Monkey Boy and The Thugs (new hit boy band), but not always. Groklaw will be around for a long time.

        Gerry
      • by Captain Nitpick (16515) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @06:35AM (#22661244)

        No kidding. And here we all thought PJ was going to have to start looking for a new job soon.

        Obviously PJ arranged the new funding so Groklaw could continue operating.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by theskipper (461997)
        And here we all thought PJ was going to have to start looking for a new job soon.

        She would have had plenty of time to find one...IBM offers excellent severance packages. :)

    • by Jaywalk (94910) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:11PM (#22664586) Homepage
      It's always important to notice when an article starts off with "The SCO Group plans ..." and then doesn't seek out any verification or outside opinions. It's probably another lazy journalism piece where the author simply rewords a press release and calls it "news". All this article does is lay out a motion with no investigation into the context.

      For example, you would think he would have noticed that Novell has already objected [groklaw.net] to the reorg because of the sketchy details. Like, does SNCP even have access to that kind of money? There is this article [itjungle.com] that says Norris might have Middle East connections, but no explanations of why those connections would want in on the SCO case. Or how much of the bill they'd be willing to cough up. The schedule's a bit iffy too. Novell points out that SCO's hanging on to the "definitive documents" on the reorg and isn't planning on releasing them until the day that objections to the reorg are due. Read carefully and you'll see that objections are due by March 26th at 4:00pm, while the documents are to be released on March 26th, but with no time stated. Any bets on SCO planning on providing those at 4:01pm?

      Keep in mind that SCO has already proposed and scrapped [groklaw.net] a bailout deal. In that one, they were playing a shell game where all the company's assets (and execs) went one way, while all the company's liabilities went the other. Needless to say, the courts weren't going to let that happen.

      The bottom line is that this is SCO, so you already know it's a scam. It's just a matter of waiting and watching to determine what kind of scam they're trying to run this time.

  • But who knows stranger things have happened. Do they still have the money to bribe a judge ?
  • by gmac63 (12603) <gmac63 AT charter DOT net> on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:16AM (#22659520) Homepage
    This is like a bad Ed Wood movie. "Plan 10 from SCO"
  • Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by schon (31600) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:17AM (#22659530)
    They won't be emerging from the almost dead, and they won't have $100M, and it's not 17%

    They're still almost dead - this deal doesn't change anything about the fact that they owe a ton of cash to Novell, and will soon owe more to IBM.

    The $100M is really $5M, plus a LOAN of *up to* $100M.

    And the loan's interest rate is 17% plus prime (so closer to 21%.)

    This is like you claiming that MBNA invested $50,000 in you when you signed up for a new credit card.
    • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:52AM (#22659750)

      Using this 21% loan to file appeals is a lot like using your credit card to buy lottery tickets.

      They're that desperate, and I can live with that.

      • by jk379 (734476) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:06AM (#22659848)
        At least with a lottery ticket you have some odds of winning...
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Alsee (515537)
          Heay, there's always the possibility that the judge will get a brain tumor and rule in favor of SCO before running off to New York City to take up naked mime breakdancing.

          Investor Brochure:
          Invest in SCO, a New Businessplan for the New Economy.
          Give us money and we'll make all your dreams come true.

          -
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Alsee (515537)
        using your credit card to buy lottery tickets

        Remember kids, never commit suicide....

        until after you've maxed out your credit cards and triple checked all your lottery ticket results.

        -
      • by mpe (36238)
        Using this 21% loan to file appeals is a lot like using your credit card to buy lottery tickets.

        Can you have a credit card if you are bankrupt?
        • Yes, lenders love giving (high interest rate) credit cards to people who have declared bankruptcy. These people have erased their old debts, proven that they get themselves into debt (and will thus generate lots of interest and fees for lenders), and cannot declare bankruptcy again for six years. Lenders love targetting, I mean, "serving" that segment of the market.
          • by z80kid (711852)
            No kidding.

            When my mother died recently, I was surprised to find that she had 2 credit cards. She had declared bankruptcy a few years ago and had no assets. The cards were from the same issuer, and each had something like a $2,000 limit and and interest rate of 25%.

            When I called to let the issuer know that she had died, the rep wanted my name and address so that they could arrange payment. I just laughed at him. So he said he'd send the bill to her address on file.

            Yeah, good luck with that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by gstoddart (321705)

      They won't be emerging from the almost dead, and they won't have $100M, and it's not 17%

      They're still almost dead

      Why am I suddenly reminded of the Princess Bride??

      Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
      Inigo Montoya: What's that?
      Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and lo

  • Inaccurate subject (Score:5, Informative)

    by EssenceLumin (755374) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:19AM (#22659540)
    First of all this is at least a few weeks old. Check Groklaw. Second they are not giving SCO $100 mil outright. They are giving $5 mil with an option to loan another $95 mil over 5 years.
    • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudsonNO@SPAMbarbara-hudson.com> on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:59AM (#22659800) Journal

      First of all this is at least a few weeks old. Check Groklaw. Second they are not giving SCO $100 mil outright. They are giving $5 mil with an option to loan another $95 mil over 5 years.

      ... and they're even backtracking on the whole deal now, saying it depends on due diligence, etc ...

      It's YASPS - "Yet Another Stock Pump Scheme". Darl, contrary to his public protests, is VERY happy to be getting out/cashing out.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by YaroMan86 (1180585)
        Sure is. I couldn't imagine a more ideal time:

        1. Take control of a second-rate UNIX distributor 2. Squander all the products that were being made to the point there is no actual product development taking place. 3. Hire your lawyer brother and go after giant technology companies *and* customer companies simultaneously for copyrights you *know* you don't have. 4. Tie up the court system for more than five years. 5. Go bankrupt. 6. Get bought out. 7. ??? 8. Profit!!!

        Step seven might multiply into numero
      • This is the only explaination that makes sense. If the loan terms actually are what is reported here, there is no way they can really afford to make any more trouble. It would give the brass a way to cash in on this disaster and make it worth their while. Unfortunately IIRC SCO has been delisted. Hmmm.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tomhudson (43916)

          They're still trading in the pink slips. Tht's why they issued some shares with a strike price of 8 cents when they were around a nickel, then went on this latest crusade to pump the price back up. Nice way to double your money without spending a penny.

  • by dunezone (899268)
    Enron tried this I think, don't really know if they do much anymore though.
    • Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)

      by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:48AM (#22660086) Homepage Journal
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EOG [yahoo.com]

      Read the business summary and note the previous name. Bankruptcy, especially Chapter 11, doesn't mean a company disappears. If there are parts of the company that are viable, a reorganization means these parts get a new lease on life.

      Cheers,
      Dave
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anne Thwacks (531696)
        If there are parts of the company that are viable, a reorganization means these parts get a new lease on life.

        But in this case, there are no legitimate viable parts of the business. Suing your customers is NOT a viable business, and suing your suppliers for owning stuff you stole from them isn't either.

  • poetic justice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by peektwice (726616) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:20AM (#22659550)
    In a way, it's kind of poetic that these trolls are going to get raped by a loan shark (SNCP) at 17% interest. 95 million times 17% times 5 years is 80.75 million dollars, not compounded. That's an ass raping if I ever heard of it. Plus, they're going to have to pay 37 million to Novell, if they lose their appeal. It feels like something much deeper and more sinister is going on here, and it stinks. I just can't put my finger on it yet.
    • Re:poetic justice (Score:5, Interesting)

      by clem.dickey (102292) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:12AM (#22659878)

      Don't forget that the loan shark gets a controlling interest in the company. What are the chances the shark (acting as SCO) is going to ask itself (SNCP) for millions of dollars to pay a judgment to Novell? If/when that happens, the shark needs to ask itself whether its worth the risk, even at 21%. It only makes sense if SNCP really believes that SCO can get the Novell judgment reversed on appeal and win some money from IBM. That could be a big, risky bet.

      The deal appears to be that SNCP is committed to loaning SCO $95 million, but only once. If the SNCP loans SCO $95 million on Monday and SCO repays the loan on Tuesday, it appears that the commitment has been fulfilled.

      • by shaitand (626655)
        What are the chances that SNCP is running a distinct risk of being considered to be embezzlers. Especially since SCO has no income and that interest they expect to return a profit over the principle and the $5m buyin is coming directly out of the other shareholder pockets.
      • The deal appears to be that SNCP is committed to loaning SCO $95 million, but only once. If the SNCP loans SCO $95 million on Monday and SCO repays the loan on Tuesday, it appears that the commitment has been fulfilled.

        Hmm...
        If SCO has the $95 million in its bank account, even for just one day, which debt must be paid first? In other words, would they maybe have to pay Novell first?

        I think there are a lot of open questions here, and even an experienced lawyer might find it difficult to predict the outcome.

    • Re:poetic justice (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dbIII (701233) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:19AM (#22659918)
      I think the deeper and sinister bit is that Darl created a corporate train wreck and funneled a lot of the legal fees directly to his brother. IMHO that was the plan all along - IBM was the wall to audaciously run into and linux was the excuse, and whatever cash fell off SCO was the goal. I think it's worth paying attention to where he goes next and what happens there. To some people he would look like the underdog that got the share price up, took on IBM and he would have beat them too if it wasn't for those darn educated communist geeks and their penguin. He'll have an opportunity for a bigger scam next time.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Alsee (515537)
        Ok Tux, you lead the way into SCO headquarters while I look for clues in this refrigerator!
        Ruh-uh, Reejay! Roo rarey!
        Not even for a Tuxsnack?
        Roh-ray!

        -
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nguy (1207026)
      I'd find it more "poetic" if McBride served some prison time.
    • Basically, after the loan shark and their lawyers are done, they are going to be so far in debt that Novell will never see a dime. That might in fact be their strategy.
  • by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:35AM (#22659628) Homepage

    They don't have squat until the BK court approves it. Even then they only get 5 million and 95 million in flash cash. If the trustee tells them to put the money in escrow against potential judgments from IBM and Novell, that will flush this deal. This is all show but I haven't figured out who the audience is supposed to be. The BK court isn't going to be impressed.

    I'm not sure what they're going to appeal. SCO dug themselves a really deep hole, an appeal is a long shot.

    No one with a brain would loan SCO a nickel. It would take a cash cow like Microsoft to convince anyone to get in bed with SCO. Maybe that answers who the audience is supposed to be. Like there are serious players who think SCO's IP claims have merit. Ooooo, scary. If that's the case this is to business strategy what the Zune is to Apple.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Like there are serious players who think SCO's IP claims have merit.
      Maureen O'Gara?
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:42AM (#22659680)

    Why in the world would someone take $100 Million perfectly good dollars and just throw them into this worthless money pit? Incidentally, if you write SCO as $C0, and then move the C to the front, you've got, "See? $0." And it seems to me that's what everyone ends up with who touches this thing with a 100 million foot pole! Who in the heck wants SCO's OS anymore? You know what? Even if they do want it, does anybody really want software from a company that might disappear at any moment due to all this litigation drying up it's well of money? Where will they get support?

    Especially, why would they do this when Linux and the *BSDs are so far superior at this point due to the efforts of millions and the incredible amount of support, mindshare, and money behind them from individuals, small businesses, large businesses, and even governments. Not to mention that all modern Apple Macs are running a UNIX operating system that can accomplish all, or at least nearly all, of the functions that can be accomplished by any other UNIX or UNIX-like system out there. Not to mention further that all of the aforementioned OSes are superior in an uncountable number of ways to SCO's OS. Not to mention that the entire code to Linux and the *BSDs is available for your perusal or participation, as with a tremendous variety of programs that are run on these systems, from Apache to something that starts with a Z. Why would anybody pay good money to SCO for it's stuff when SCO is acting like the bully at the playground and when all of this is available for free, both libre and if you want to download and build stuff yourself, gratis...

    In my opinion, SCO is no longer a software company, but a litigation company.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      In my opinion, SCO is no longer a software company, but a litigation company.

      They have been for years. Did you just now notice this? Or are you stating this for the benefit of the few people who don't know? (Obviously, that would include some fairly wealthy people... or people with ulterior motives.)

  • by Bob54321 (911744) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:48AM (#22659728)
    I think this [penny-arcade.com] comic applies here too...
  • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@alum. m i t .edu> on Thursday March 06, 2008 @12:53AM (#22659754) Homepage

    Even a large infusion of cash is unlikely to do SCO any good. They have no income to speak of and no product likely to generate any. Their lawsuits have no chance of succeeding given the ruling that they never acquired the Unix copyrights from Novell. Even in the extremely unlikely event that this is overturned on appeal, they still have to prove infringement of their copyrights, which, with discovery complete, they have still been unable to do, and they have to overcome the problem that they themselves distributed Linux under the GPL, which is a huge problem for them. Finally, no matter what happens, they are going to have to pay millions to Novell since they failed to pass on to Novell the income from their franchise to sell Novell's Unix property, for which they (SCO) were merely to receive a 5% fee. Money will pay the lawyers a little bit longer, but it isn't likely the lawyers can postpone the end very much.

    • by shaitand (626655)
      This won't win their case. This is nothing more or less than SNCP attempting to float SCO long enough to embezzle a profit from the other shareholders with a loan. Of course the other shareholders have no say in the matter since SNCP now has a controlling interest. In other words, its simple fraud.

      Even if they have no income, as long as they sell stock they have cash flow and you can bet that case flow will go back into paying the 21% interest and minimum payment on whatever SNCP loans them. I'm sure they'v
      • by belmolis (702863)

        What makes you think SCO can sell stock? Nobody will buy it other than kooks or anti-Linux folks willing to pay to harass Linux. SCO has already been delisted! And what assets do you think they have? Nothing much. I don't think there's anything worth stripping.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by yuna49 (905461)
        This is probably a question only a bankruptcy attorney can answer, but where would SNCP stand in the ranking of SCO's creditors? Would loan repayments to SNCP take precedence over payments to Novell and IBM?

        BTW, is there anybody here who believes that crap about SCO and mobile markets? They have about the same ability to compete in the global mobile marketplace as I do.
  • Put SCO down (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TopSpin (753) * on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:04AM (#22659836) Journal
    SCO is a penny stock now. Somewhere between $0.17 and $0.20 [pinksheets.com] a share. Market cap is $4.3 million.

    How many of you would contribute $50 to take a controlling interest in this festering pimple of an "IP" company? If the next ~80,000 /. regulars that read this were willing the company could be taken over and put down, permanently.

    Create a non-profit (name it SLASHX, perhaps) or some other legal entity, raise funds and buy shares. The percent of ownership remaining appears on a sidebar with a link to some collection agency. Make Stallman or some other credible figure chairman and just keep buying shares till "we" hold 51%.

    I'm no financial guru. Perhaps the idea is naive. However, you can damn well bet I'd contribute.

    • Re:Put SCO down (Score:5, Interesting)

      by greg1104 (461138) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Thursday March 06, 2008 @02:12AM (#22660198) Homepage
      IBM could have bought them out at a couple of points cheap--when they started this lawsuit they weren't trading for that much more than they are now. They didn't because it's more important to make an example of these idiots, and therefore to the larger group of potential future intellectual property trolls, as to what happens when you mess with companies because you think using Linux makes them vulnerable. No one should even consider spending a penny to buy them out, they need to die the hard way to make that lesson stick.

      Also, it's quite possible Novell will own them anyway before this has finished playing out, because of the $37M SCO owes them. This shell game with loans won't necessarily change that. While they're posturing hard now, I have my doubts as to whether these "angels" will really cough up all that money when the courts force the company to do that.
      • by mpe (36238)
        IBM could have bought them out at a couple of points cheap--when they started this lawsuit they weren't trading for that much more than they are now. They didn't because it's more important to make an example of these idiots, and therefore to the larger group of potential future intellectual property trolls,

        Most likely too SCO never had any assets worth anything to IBM. Thus IBM shareholders would not approve IBM buying SCO.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by lysse (516445)
        In fact, as I understand it it's not so much "SCO owes Novell $37m", more "SCO is holding Novell's $37m hostage".
    • Re:Put SCO down (Score:5, Informative)

      by neurojab (15737) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @03:02AM (#22660442)
      How many of you would contribute $50 to take a controlling interest in this festering pimple of an "IP" company? If the next ~80,000 /. regulars that read this were willing the company could be taken over and put down, permanently.

      It's too late for that. SCO is in bankruptcy court, in chapter 11 proceedings. This means that the current stockholders have effectively no say in what goes on at this point. It's up to the SCO to come up with a reorganization plan that will allow it to continue to operate. Generally a reorganization plan includes cancelling any and all common stock, as does theirs "On the Effective Date, the existing common stock and common stock equivalents of SCO Group shall be cancelled and extinguished." Anyone buying the stock now is hoping for a miracle and that SCO will somehow continue to operate without completing chapter 11 reorganization.

      In summary, doing this would neither give you control of the company now, nor when they exit chapter 11. ... not a financial expert either, but did own WCOM stock :)
      • by SEE (7681)
        Yeah. The only reason to buy shares of SCO now is if you want SCO stock certificates to ritually burn, use as toilet paper, or the like.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Jason Levine (196982)
        Not to mention the fact that, even if you did manage to buy control of SCO, you would inherit the pending lawsuits against them. You could easily drop your end of the lawsuit against Novell, IBM, etc, but Novell and IBM's countersuits wouldn't magically go away. And once the judgment came down requiring you to pay Novell their money back, you'd be back in Chapter 11 (or worse). So while it makes for a nice fantasy to think of a bunch of geeks buying SCO's bloodied carcass, it's just not a practical reali
    • Why buy it and put it down, when they are quite comfortably burying themselves?

      Sure, this is taking more time, but each defeat is another reminder that their original case had no merit. That's a good thing for the world to know.
    • Re:Put SCO down (Score:4, Interesting)

      by KokorHekkus (986906) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @07:39AM (#22661496)
      Guess I'll answer this question again: it can't be done. The value of the common stock has nothing to do with how much it will cost to take over the company since they have had a so called "poison pill"-plan in place for years exactly for that reason. It's all in the hands of the board of directors. If you take a look at their 10-K you'll see the following under "Risk Factors"):

      We have adopted a stockholder rights plan. The power given to the Board of Directors by the stockholder rights plan may make it more difficult for a change of control of our company to occur or for our company to be acquired if the acquisition is opposed by our Board of Directors.
      And the following from the 10-K clearly illustrates exactly how little control the common stock owners have over the company:

      Our Board of Directors currently has the right, with respect to the 5,000,000 shares of our preferred stock, to authorize the issuance of one or more additional series of our preferred stock with such voting, dividend and other rights as our directors determine. The Board of Directors can designate new series of preferred stock without the approval of the holders of our common stock. The rights of holders of our common stock may be adversely affected by the rights of any holders of additional shares of preferred stock that may be issued in the future, including without limitation, further dilution of the equity ownership percentage of our holders of common stock and their voting power if we issue preferred stock with voting rights. Additionally, the issuance of preferred stock could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire a majority of our outstanding voting stock.
      Bold is my added emphasis.
      So as soon as anyone acquires anywhere close to enough stock to make a voting difference the board of directors will just issue more voting stock which they will control. Source:http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetchFilingFrameset.aspx?dcn=0000891020-07-000020&Type=HTML [edgar-online.com]
  • Won't stick (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frantactical Fruke (226841) <renekitaNO@SPAMdlc.fi> on Thursday March 06, 2008 @01:42AM (#22660048) Homepage
    I had the impression that in both cases the judges have been extremely scrupulous in framing their judgments to rule out successful appeals. It's not as if SCO had any facts to present for consideration, let alone new ones. Appeals to clearly shut cases get dismissed, right?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder if there's any way to find out who else this firm has invested in? I'd like to contact those companies and explain that I'm boycotting them and their products out of spite.
  • by dmgxmichael (1219692) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @02:00AM (#22660154) Homepage

    I don't care how slick the lawyer is, SCO had a summary judgment against them. Provided the judge in the case dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's those things are damn near impossible to successfully appeal. I'd put the odds against successful appeal at 20 to 1. More likely than not the appeals court will simply say, 'No' and that will be the final whimper of SCO.

  • by microbee (682094) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @02:05AM (#22660180)
    is a death will.
  • by poetmatt (793785) on Thursday March 06, 2008 @02:31AM (#22660310) Journal
    Just a FYI, this deal has not been approved. So all this "SCO is going to be saved" stuff, has no factual basis whatsoever. Bankruptcy court would have to approve of it, and that is not likely at all. So the slashdot article here = incorrect.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TropicalCoder (898500)

      article here = incorrect

      This is one of the worst articles I have ever seen! Not one bit of investigation was done, while there is voluminous information readily available elsewhere on this topic. It is like posting some company's press release and calling it news reporting. My first impulse was to do a little research to find out who is this TG Daily. Apparently it sprang from Tom's Hardware, but both are owned by TG Publishing LLC, a Bestofmedia Group company. The author is Wolfgang Gruener, a senior ed

  • Darl just walks away?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      That's one of the problems with US corporate law. There are reasons, perhaps good ones, why corporate officers aren't directly penalized for making wrong decisions (in a company running legally and ethically, the company can and will administer appropriate penalties). However, when the top officers of a company like SCO or Enron do the things that they have done, there needs to be personal responsibility.

      Not that it's simple to draw the line.

  • If I were NOVELL and IBM I'd be having a party, thats a 100 million dollars that can they can collect in damages. Before there was basically nothing to collect. Now they can win AND get some $$$.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...