SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead

SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead

Summary: SCO, the company that started the Linux lawsuit madness, is now in Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but the Linux intellectual property FUD lives on.

SHARE:
sco_logo2
SCO, now facing Chapter 7 bankruptcy, is finally pushing up the daisies.

SCO has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It's joined the choir invisible. This is an ex-company. With apologies to Monty Python's Dead Parrot sketch, SCO, the company behind a series of foolish anti-Linux lawsuits, is finally really and truly dead.

SCO, which has been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since the fall of 2007, has now gone into Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The difference is that in chapter 11 there is some plan, albeit not very rational in SCO's case, that the company can eventually return to normal business. In Chapter 7, all that's left is to close and padlock the doors and then sell the furniture.

As Pamela "PJ" Jones, founding editor of Groklaw, a leading intectuall property legal news site, said, "Did you ever think you'd see this day? I confess I did not. I thought SCO, now calling itself TSG, or so they told the world, would never let a outsider trustee come into the picture, which they will have to in Chapter 7..."

In SCO's case, with 3.7-million in debt and not quite $150-thousand left in cash, there's really is much for a trustee to do except to switch out the locks and put up the closed sign. SCO's Unix operating system properties, OpenServer and UnixWare were spun out to a new company, UnXis, last year. There really is nothing less.

Even now, believe it or not, SCO still has delusions that the court will rule that its IBM lawsuit will somehow be resumed and that a miracle will happen and that they'll win the lawsuit. That's about as likely as a certain deceased Norwegian Blue parrot getting up from his rest to voom through his cage's  bars.

While SCO never came close to shutting Linux down, it did help set up a pattern of intellectual property lawsuits and threats that plague Linux to this day.

Microsoft, for example, makes more money from Linux-related patent agreements with Android vendors than it does its own mobile operating systems. Recently, Microsoft, which helped bankroll SCO's lawsuits in the early and mid-200s, has successfully gotten a company using Linux servers to pay it for unspecified Linux-related patents).

SCO may be all but dead, but it's anti-Linux IP FUD lives on stronger than ever.

Related Stories:

Microsoft profits from Linux patent FUD

Microsoft inks patent deal with service provider using Linux servers

SCO is dead, SCO Unix lives on

Twenty Years of Linux according to Linus Torvalds

Topics: Linux, Legal, Microsoft, Open Source, Operating Systems

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

44 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead

    SCO RIP
    RickLively
    • RIP="Rest in pieces"?

      Just wondering.
      John L. Ries
      • No, "Rot into Putrefaction"

        "Remand in Prison",
        "wRithe in Pain"...
        Zogg
  • This is actually a good counterexample...

    ...for the notion that if a corporate lawyer files a lawsuit, the defendant must have done something wrong.
    John L. Ries
  • Wrong again, as usual

    Wrong, SJVN, SCO has a very bright future ahead of it (just filling in for the most pathetic trolls on the web, where is everybody? ;-)

    Seriously, very wise investing there, Microsoft. Can't wait to relieve myself on your grave. :-)
    thebaldguy
  • SCO didn't die soon enough

    I hear Daryl McBride now lives in Redmond
    Over and Out
    • Daryl McBride = Circus Clown

      The investors was dumb to keep that guy on and should of ejected him well before they sued their own Customer Discount Autoparts. It was always so stupid when asked what do you own what do you have then everyone owes you money for there was never a clear answer and McBride could not once provide a clear answer.

      He was one of the most Pathetic Tech CEO's in history.
      wpreece
      • The investors never did eject him

        The bankruptcy trustee did that.
        John L. Ries
  • SCO is finally “Dead Parrot” dead

    Oh no, now what will I do with my SCO in the City shirt? Maybe it will become a collector's item. Microsoft didn't help fund SCO's lawsuits, they bought unix licenses for their services for unix product.
    Loverock Davidson-
    • MS paid $76 million for a Unix license?

      Is that what the Redmond folks call value hunting?

      In reality, MS paid $16 million for SCO 'Licenses' , twice as much as any other SCO licensee in history, and another $50 million to SCO via an investment bank, so yes, LD, MS did bankroll the failed lawsuit. Just another loss to MS.

      Get your head out of the sand, or wherever it is.
      That adds up to 76 million reasons to not trust MS.
      anothercanuck
      • I do trust them

        Because they are acquiring licenses the proper way.
        Loverock Davidson-
        • So then you must love Linux

          As all Linux distros adhere to any applicable GPL versions.
          anothercanuck
          • No

            Because the GPL is a terrible license that claims to be free but is anything but.
            Loverock Davidson-
          • Your entitled to your opinion.

            But maybe you should read a GPL before commenting. I think your concept of 'free' is incorrect.
            Anyone is 'free' to use, modify and distribute GPL code. How much more free can it be?
            anothercanuck
          • more like forced instead of free

            Maybe you should read the GPL, especially the part where it says you are forced to give up your code. That's not being free.
            Loverock Davidson-
          • No one said, "No Strings Attached, They Said Free"...

            "Maybe you should read the GPL, especially the part where it says you are forced to give up your code. That's not being free."

            Giving up your code is a condition of using the Free product (if your statement is true). You are Free to not use it (which I am guessing you chose to and it makes you happy). I think most people would consider it Free based on the accepted definition of Free they same way that the First Amendment gives a U.S. citizen Freedom of Speech, but not insure that what he/she says 1)won't be used against them in a court of law or won't cause customers to boycott their store if they chose to say something that is unpopular.
            jkohut
          • Forced?

            Loverock seriously where do you get these illusions? Your not forced but clearly SCO/Caldera took more then they gave. Not to mention they even distributed stuff they were suing their own Customers over using. Discount Auto Parts licensed and paid and still was getting sued to pay more from the same company.

            Not once did Daryl McBride and SCO offer anything back that his company used and modified according to the GPL.

            The GPL is in good faith if you take from the Open Source Community and use something that is an improvement, enhancement or modified that you take you give that back to the community. It doesn't say anywhere your FORCED nor do they send out anyone to your door to do it.

            If more got the whole Open Source / GPL / GNU thing they would understand the benefits. If you take you should give that simple.
            wpreece
          • Free to sell the software?

            I am not sure if they are free to sell the hardware.
            DontUseGoogleAtAll!
          • Sco / Caldera never was true to the GPL Standards

            False Loverock, If the SCO group was adhering to true GPL they would of had a real CEO who knew the difference between Earth and OZ. Other Linux Companies that stuck to the code survived and has continued on. The partial or in between companies have all fizzled.

            Richard Stallman, my friend John 'Maddog" Hall and Linus could educate you on what true GPL is. SCO's Daryl McBride never got it because he was not educated enough in the LINUX/UNIX world. He destroyed a Company that could of been a huge success instead it was driven in the ground.
            wpreece
          • All due respect

            anothercanuck, you're replying to a bot. It's either a brilliant product of programming, designed to foster love for Linux by its blatantly stupid anti-Linux rants, or it's just a horribly designed Windows advocate (probably created through VS dragging-and-dropping).

            It's programmed to smile when it gets responses. Please don't feed it. :-)
            thebaldguy