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
So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:29 AM EDT

Novell's recent Answer and Counterclaims has some asking, now what happens? What does it mean? To help you out, I found two articles that I think grasp the possibilities. First, there's Frank Hayes's article, "Novell to SCO Group: Drop Dead." At least one reporter has comprehended the magnitude of what Novell has done, I see, and found a simple way to express SCO's worst case scenario. Hayes begins like this:
You might not know it from some of the coverage, but The SCO Group now appears to be facing annihilation in its lawsuits against IBM, Novell, Red Hat and Linux users AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler.

That's since last Friday, when Novell finally had to file its response to a lawsuit SCO originally filed waaaay back in January 2004. . . .

If "annihilation" seems like too strong a word, understand this: If Novell gets the preliminary injunction it's asking for, SCO will no longer have any money. None. SCO would be out of business -- something IBM, Red Hat, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler could never have made happen.

And Lamlaw's "Just what happens if SCO files for bankruptcy?" looks at some things that happens when a company in the middle of lawsuits files for bankruptcy.

Here's the effect he thinks it would have on SCO:
What would bankruptcy "do for" or "do to" SCO?

Well, generally a bankruptcy filing permits the company to get their affairs in order while holding off paying creditors for awhile. That is nice, you say. But what else does it do?

It puts a "trustee" in charge. (That means someone else.)

The trustee in bankruptcy is going to be picked (or approved) by the bankruptcy court and effectively replaces current management. Now normally this replacement is not so dramatic. After all a trustee on the list would not likely know how to run an airline company or a computer software company. But, a trustee would know law suits.

All of sudden neither the current lawyers for SCO nor the current management at SCO would be calling the shots. You know, the shots across the bows of IBM, Red Hat, DaimlerChrysler, Autozone, Novell or even all those Linux customers. . . .

Certainly, if a review of the IBM or Novell cases showed solid evidence that could help SCO at trial, those cases would likely continue. The same would be true with both the Red Hat and Autozone cases. But if the review only discloses smoke, mirrors, fraud, deceit, false public claims and misrepresentations, substantial changes could be in the works. . . .

[T]he trustee is only going to care about protecting the SCO corporate assets and getting out from money losing cases and business plans. If there is proof of copyright ownership, copyright violations, contract breaches, etc., then fine. If not the books get closed out. Just keep in mind that Red Hat, IBM and now Novell have sued for damages caused by SCO's false public statements. And the trustee will be making its own decision on those key issues as well. Should the trustee decide SCO does not hold those copyrights, SCO is done. Get out the fork.


  


So, Now What Happens to SCO? | 471 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections, if any, go here, please.
Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:35 AM EDT
Corrections, if any, go here, please.

---
I Grok... Therefore... I am.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Authored by: rsi on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:40 AM EDT
PJ: Get that Red Dress pressed and ready! We may be planning that celebration
party soon! ;^)

[ Reply to This | # ]

And UNIX ownership?
Authored by: grubber on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT
And if SCO folds, what happens to the UNIX ownership that SCO legitimately owns?

[ Reply to This | # ]

No more smoke and mirrors!
Authored by: ray08 on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT
Well, at least no more mirrors, he-he.

---
Caldera is toast! And Groklaw is the toaster! (with toast level set to BURN)

[ Reply to This | # ]

O/T and other neat stuff here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT
And please make links clickable...

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

FWIW, PJ and everyone
Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:49 AM EDT
I've been reading Frank Hayes' column for years in computerworld weekly. It's
kind of biting but usually hits very close to the mark IMHO. I can recommend his
"shark tank" articles for twisted and ironic humor value.

---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

The wheels of justice grind with glacial slowness...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 10:50 AM EDT
"...Should the trustee decide SCO does not hold those copyrights, SCO is
done. Get out the fork..."

And a fitting end it would be, would it not?

However, having just picked up my newly refurbished and highly polished tinfoil
hat from the blacksmith shop, I'll venture to volunteer that I won't be too
greatly surprised to discover that certain 'northwesterly' interests might be
concerned about what could be uncovered by a bankruptcy court trustee in the
corporate office of SCO.

If this is the case, somehow, SCO may suddenly find 'new' investors that will
keep it out of bankruptcy court. Otherwise a court appointed 'trustee' might
begin to wonder about some of the machinations of Mike Anderer, Baystar, RBC and
other mechanisms cooked up to fund SCO, not to mention the conversations that
took place in Redmond among certain parties that might, just possibly, be
regarded as a conspiracy in restraint of trade and/or to further or extend one
or more monopolies by, perhaps, a convicted monopolist for instance.

Whoops, I think I just dented my tinfoil hat again...

Gid'day Mates!



---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Silence is deafening
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:12 AM EDT
[Cross posted from Y!]

Its been almost a week since Novell filed its answer in court. Usually the SCO
gang of criminals immediately gets busy dialing up the news folk telling them
their side of the story. Like they did with the Davidson memo and every other
time a potential negative news item came out.

But this time is different. Novell is laying claim to all the worldly posessions
SCO's got and they haven't got a thing to say. How unusual.

What is up Darl? Cat got your tongue?

Busy making get away plans?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Help, help! Preliminary Injunction?
Authored by: the_flatlander on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT
Wait! A couple of articles on this issue list Novell as having asked for a
Preliminary Injunction, but they haven't really, have they?

IANAL, but I've been told a pleading isn't a motion.

Would one of you informed legal types that hang out here please comment?
Please?

The Flatlander

[ Reply to This | # ]

My question is.......
Authored by: pfusco on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:30 AM EDT
When will Kimbal make a ruling on this?

---
only the soul matters in the end

[ Reply to This | # ]

May I be a conspiracy theorist, too?
Authored by: JJ on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:37 AM EDT
I've suspected for a long time that Darl went to Bill and asked him what it
would be worth if he were to sap Linux's curtain walls. Under this scenario
Bill would answer 50.000.000 USD. However, Bill couldn't just hand over the
tens and twenties right there, so Darl cooked up a Scheme(tm) whereby Bill would
"purchase" a license to use Darl's copyrights in Linux, thus
legitimising Bill's corruption and simultaneously assisting the sapping. Of
course, it could have been Bill going to Darl initially, and it could have been
Bill who devised the plan.

Now, the 95% going to Novell is a problem. Did Darl know about that? If so,
did the license terms avoid the necessity of paying that portion to Novell? And
if they did, is that why Darl is fighting so hard to keep from showing them to
IBM?

-JJ

Scheme(tm) is a trademark of The SCO Group, Inc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Authored by: thatseattleguy on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:42 AM EDT
I found this comment on the blog following the Computerworld story - could not have said it better:

"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with." - Darl McBride, May 2003

Oh, savor the delicious irony of it. If ever McBride made a statement that should ring in his ears for all of eternity, this has to be the one.

The original contract and asset purchase agreement between Santa Cruz and Novell may be the checkmate move and stake through the heart of this most ill-advised attempt to hold up IBM and loot the jewels of thousnds of open source developers.

OMG, I just love it!

Gary

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the individuals?
Authored by: aasmodeus on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:46 AM EDT
So what happens to the greedy people who did all the hard work to get SCO to
where it is today? Do they just dust off their hands and start anew somewhere
else with some other investors' money?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unfortunately, both articles present unlikely scenarios
Authored by: anesq on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:56 AM EDT
The first article suggests that SCO is out of luck if Novell gets its
preliminary injunction, based on its inability to pay. But PIs forcing the mere
payment of money (as opposed to something else, like giving access to books for
an audit, or prohibiting some action like hiring away a key employee with trade
secrets (see the recent Microsoft / Google thing)) are exceedingly rare. Money
can always be paid later (with interest) in the view of the legal system.

Making it even less likely the Novell will get a PI is the delay they made in
requesting it. If it were really an emergency, they would have asked for their
relief as soon as they became aware of it. Instead they waited over a year.
There are several cases that suggest that waiting more than 3 months to request
a PI pretty much doom it except in the most extraordinary circumstances (which
aren't here).

In the second article, there is a suggestion the trustee will review everything.
While that would certainly be true in a Ch. 7 liquidation, its most likely that
SCO would file a Ch. 11 reorganization. While a trustee may be appointed in a
Ch. 11 case, generally the case is instead controlled by a so-called
"debtor in possession" - the same people who were there before. Even
if a trustee were to be appointed, it would be after some time and some showing
the debtor in possession was wasting SCO's assets (which is clearly possible
here, but it takes time).

IAAL, BIANYL. I'm also not a bankruptcy attorney, so while I'm pretty positive
the above is accurate, it could play out differently based on something I'm not
seeing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Officers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 12:01 PM EDT
A while back SCO changed compensation plans for the officers. I also seem to
remember contingencies for the end of the lawsuit. I am normally confused and
too lazy to review the mountains of data that PJ has compiled but do the
officers come out ahead because of these changes?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Devils advocate
Authored by: dacii on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 12:03 PM EDT
Ok, dont flame me, I'm not an optimist... so what is the worst that the Judge K.
could decide on Novell's response. Could he just take it under advisement?
Could he deny it? As you can see I have no legal knowledge, so I aould really
like to know what is the worst that could happen?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 12:10 PM EDT
I can't wait to help stick the fork.

Can someone get a court order or something to keep SCO, Microsoft, Sun, Anderer,
Baystar, and anybody else from having document shredding parties. I not only
want to stick the fork in I want to have a ceremony, help dig the ditch, and
have a party on top of the grave along with everybody that helped them create
this fiasco put in jail (of course if appropriate).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's What Happens to SCO:
Authored by: pscottdv on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 12:14 PM EDT
I see a lot of exuberance over Novell's request for a trust fund...a lot of
expectation that this will finally break the log jam in these cases. I really
don't see how anyone who has watched Kimball in action over the last two
years(!) could possibly think that he is going to grant this preliminary
injunction to Novell.

I could practically write Kimball's order myself. The injunction will be denied
because it is too early in the case to decide on the merits of Novell's claims.
Novell will be invited to resubmit the request *after discovery is over*.
Kimball *always* works this way. His basic message to everyone concerned is
always "stop bothering me, get on with discovery."

I think Kimball's hope is that discovery will somehow make everything go away
eventually and he won't have to actually make any real decisions.

After the injunction is denied, everyone will whine about it until PJ writes an
article about how this is actually good news...Kimball is just being
careful...avoiding reversal on appeal...Novell can resubmit after
discovery...blah, blah, blah. Following PJ's article everyone will post about
how great this ruling is, how great PJ is, how great Kimball is, but how the US
justice system sucks.

On the plus side, Kimball is certainly going to force SCO to let Novell see the
MS and SUN licenses. On the minus side, he is going to let SCO seal them, so
*we* won't get to see them until someone leaks them.

IANAL IANAP BICSAPWISO
(I am not a lawyer. I am not a Prophet. But I can spot a pattern when I see
one).

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ as SCO's Trustee
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT
Perhaps Judge Kimball will select PJ as SCO's bankrupcy trustee? ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Darl C. McBride be sued for "Slander of Title"?
Authored by: wendelbrooks on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 12:32 PM EDT
Does anyone know if Darl C. McBride can be sued for "Slander of Title"
by IBM or Novell?
If I recall correctly, it was him who made false public statements about
"millions of lines of code", or was it not?

How is the law in the US? If a CEO makes false statements "slandering"
other competitors by accusing them in public to have violated IP, can he be held
responsible by law as a private person with his private property for his actions
in the function of a CEO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:00 PM EDT
I fully expect, at some date, SCO to go out of business and am looking forward
to it. (It seems like it might be sooner than I thought, though :) I have not,
however, ever heard anything encouraging about what will happen (if anything) to
the SCOundrels behind this whole extortion attempt.

The way I see, Darl & the boys have been sitting back for the last couple of
years, raking in million$ with their salaries and stock schemes. If SCO goes
under, they still personally profited greatly. Sure, their reputations are bad
but, big fat hairy deal, really. Bill will probably arrange some cushy jobs for
them somewhere.

I just don't understand this legal insulation that corporations provide to their
executives and board members -
in this case, if it turns out like I think it will, the regular investers and
ordinary SCO workers are the ones that are going to lose, and the executives
will laugh and move on to their next scam. I've worked in companies with crooks
like these running it, and that's why I left private industry and I'm much
happier working in the Public Service now.

PJ, you've repeatedly mentioned your respect for the law and legal system, and I
wish I could feel the same way. To me, it still seems as though the only real
winners in the legal systems of the US and Canada are the lawyers, and that
people are not represented equally under the law - those with the most money can
wear the other side down, and can afford better lawyers (or just lawyers in the
first place). If SCO had attacked a small company, there's no question the end
result would be very different.

Please understand I am not trolling, and I have the greatest respect for Groklaw
and read it every day. I would simply like to understand and be able to feel
better about the whole thing than I currently do.

Tim (Never signed up because I never had anything to say - before now).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was MS license payment a loan?
Authored by: Winter on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:10 PM EDT
I vaguely remember having read that the money MS paid was not "direct"
license money. To circumvent the Novel payments, it was constructed as some kind
of a loan.

However, I cannot find it anymore. Maybe this was just speculation.

Rob

---
Philosophy of Science assignment: "A theory that explains all the facts is bound
to be wrong because some of the facts will be wrong" (F.Crick)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO still claims ownership of the copyrights
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:11 PM EDT
The Dear Linux User letter is still up on the SCO website.

Alan(UK)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What I would Like to Know
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Why would Santa Cruz buy nothing for $100 million dollars.

They basically collect 5% of 24 million or whatever the Sun Microsoft license
agreements came out to. Plus whatever piddly revenues they would generate from
Unixware.

I could be wrong but the yearly interest on $100 million dollars would be worth
more than the 5% and the revenue from their sales. As far as any type of ROI I
just don't see it.

$100 million dollars is alot of money for nothing.

Question? Where was Novell when the Sun / Microsoft licensing agreements were
made and why didn't they take legal action at that time. They must have known
that they should have recieved that revenue. Shouldn't they have filed a breach
of contract?

I see this a being more a case where The SCO Group made a huge blunder in filing
for slander of title.

Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not cheering for SCO on this one but these
questions i just don't.

I have all the faith that Linux will come out of this whole mess untarnished.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell did it's homework - So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:20 PM EDT
I have long been of the opinion that the Novell VS SCO Group issue of who owns
copyrights would have to be resolved before any other case made sense.

Frank Hayes points out that had SCO filed a contract suit against Novell and got
that resolved before doing the rest of the stuff, they might have had some
chance.

They didn't, and the question is why not?

Possible answers I've seen posted here include:

It was a pump and dump stock scheme. Sueing IBM pumped the stock prices, and
the holders of the stock dumped it around 20.

SCO wanted to be bought out by IBM, and IBM would pay to make the expensive
nuisance suit go away.

They were following Microsoft's marching orders to slow the adoption of Linux so
they would have a chance to get Longhorn out and lock in their market share.

Regardless of whether any of the above apply, the fact is they had represented
to the investing public that they owned siginficant intellectual property,
namely the copyrights to Unix, and Unix had been copied into Linux. It was well
known at the time that Linux was growing rapidly, and if they could extort from
even a small percentage of the installed base some sort of fee, they would be in
the money.

My suspicion is that they represented to some investors that they had this
valuable intellectual property, and that they would get a lot of money for it,
if they had something with which to start the lawsuits. Remember Baystar wanted
them to forget about the Unix business and focus on the litigation.

But once they sold the bill of goods, they had to deliver on the product. Thus
their attempt to rope Novell in on their scheme. Had Novell agreed, perhaps
with some percentage of the license fee from SCO Source to facilitate the
turning over of the copyrights, the story might be slightly different. This may
not be so far fetched, because, if I remember right, there is some connectivity
between Novell and Caldera.

Novell refused. We don't know why, but there are a couple of items. Novell had
become a Linux distributor themselves, and it would mess up that business.
Novell also had the wherewithall to do a code comparison between Unix and Linux.
Novell also knew what was in the BSD agreement, and would know what was open
from that viewpoint. I strongly suspected that someone knowledgable at Novell
who knew both Linux and Unix, knew that proving copying would be a hard fight.
Under that scenerio, it would only be prudent not to turn over copyrights,
particularly after Novell received a SCO Source threatening letter from SCO.

After getting investors on board with their valuable IP, SCO couldn't very well
say oops, first we have to force Novell to live up to the amendment and transfer
those copyrights they promised. Instead, they claimed slander of title.

Meanwhile in an attempt to raise more revenue for their legal battle, they
convinced Sun and Microsoft that the products of those companies would be more
valuable with additional Unix licenses.

It has been posted here that Novell's preliminary injuction request might be in
jeopardy because of the delay between the filing of the slander of title suit,
and Novell's response, rather than Novell's requesting dismissal.

Novell has been going about things in a very professional and business like
manner, documenting everything that needs to be done to build a strong case that
SCOGroup has not lived up to the APA. Novell has properly repeatedly requested
an audit in very polite terms and given SCO adequate opportunity to respond.
They have been working on this case since they first told SCO they could not
revoke IBM's license. Remember the "give them enough rope to hang
themselves" thinking that's been the reason Judge Kimball has been so
accomodating to SCO's unreasonable requests? Well Novell has requested the
money they are owed repeatedly, and now that SCO is upside down, with no ability
to pay the 24. and change million, Novell has surely given SCO enough rope.

The really beautiful part about all of this is it is so cut and dried, that
Judge Kimball can make some decisions on some of this with little fear of an
appeals court overturning anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How easily can they pull out?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT
I'm guessing that with all the counterclaims flying around now, they can't just
walk away and say 'Oh sorry; we made a mistake'. They need to defend against all
the counterclaims and given the mess they're in, they are probably currently
persuing the course that's in the best interests of their shareholders. If they
admit that they have no case, they'll get gutted by counterclaims very quickly

[ Reply to This | # ]

Response of counter claims - So, Now What Happens to SCO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:49 PM EDT
Novell is responding to SCO's slander of title suit. They step by step go
through SCO's complaint and deny or admit specific things.

When IBM filed their 9'th counterclaim, it was in response to a particular part
of SCO's complaint. SCO attempted to expand that to allow them to ammend their
complaint.

Novell, to my mind, has now expanded the suit to include breech of contract
where SCO did not pay monies owed. Does this now open the door so SCO can
ammend their complaint, and add a lot more garbage, like Novell contributed SCO
valuable IP in their Linux activities and now owes SCO five billion?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy - Ch.7 vs. Ch.11
Authored by: justjeff on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 01:54 PM EDT
Many moons ago, I worked for a company that filed chapter 11 bankruptcy. Ch.11
is for reorganization, when the company expects to stay in business. Ch.7 is
liquidation, when the company is not going to stay in business and assets are
sold off in order to pay creditors.

In Chapter 11 (and this might vary state by state) a trustee is not appointed,
however, the court forms a creditors' committee. The creditors and the court
can influence and must approve company management decisions. The goal of Ch.11
is to simultaneously allow the company to execute a strategy to become
profitable, and maximize the creditors' repayment.

Under Chapter 11, Darl will still be running the show, but he will have to
answer to the creditors - Novell - and to the court. The creditors do not get
to go fishing through the company's books, but when Darl offers a strategy,
they do get to say, "Oh really? Convince us." The creditors can be
as naive or as hardnosed as they choose.

This, of course, only if Judge Kimbal grants Novell's request for the creation
of a trust for the disputed revenues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Would McBride's "profit" bonus be taken back if revenues go to Novell instead?
Authored by: jdg on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT
So I have a question. If Novell wins the point about the revenues from the two
licensees, I presume that newSCO will need to restate earnings for several
periods (all since the beginning of the suits?). If this is the case, the
"profit" that newSCO earned would turn into a loss. A loss would
imply that McBride did not deserve the handsome bonus that he was paid. Would
this have to be returned?

---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Couldn't SCO sell the APA?
Authored by: jpgraves on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT
I assume that SCO could sell it's Asset Purchase Agreement with Novell and
whoever bought it could decide to continue this scheme. The contract is
obviously transferable as that was how SCO got it in the first place. The
remainder of SCO's assets could be sold, but I would think they would be of very
little interest to any buyers (except maybe to M$ and then it would just be a
"Thank you very much for falling on the Linux sword".)

Regardless, I don't think they'll be able to secure a "Get out of jail
free" card in exchange for the assets. I'm hoping Darl et al will draw the
"Go to jail. Go directly to Jail, do not pass Go" card.

Cheers,

jpg

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who can end a court case?
Authored by: cmc on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 02:46 PM EDT
This is all speculation, of course, but *if* SCO were forced into bankruptcy,
and if they wanted to bow out of the court cases gracefully, could they do that?
Could they just say "We withdraw" and that be the end of it, or would
the other side (IBM, Novell, etc) have to agree, especially with counterclaims
in the picture? My personal feeling is that IBM, Novell, etc. should allow
these cases to continue to completion. Otherwise, the issues may come up again
in the future under the same or different ownership or management.

cmc

[ Reply to This | # ]

What if..
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 03:16 PM EDT
What if Microsoft and Sun didn't actually purchase SysV licenses? Maybe SCO just
made that claim in public to keep it from looking like MS and Sun were just
funding the lawsuit in order to combat Linux. Maybe they were holding off on the
audit requests to keep the truth from being revealed for as long as possible. It
is a longshot, I know, but it wouldn't be the first surprise in this whole
sordid mess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • My Guess.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 03:47 PM EDT
  • What if.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 04:42 PM EDT
    • What if.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 04:58 PM EDT
      • What if.. - Authored by: frk3 on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT
Why SCO may hang on
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 03:29 PM EDT

An interesting article on short trading The Motley Fool

With 4.1 million SCO shares sold short, it may be profitable for the current holders, to squeeze out these; by keeping the stock price high.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM, Linux and the GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 03:53 PM EDT
If Novell strangles SCO and they have to drop all of their claims against IBM,
Red Hat etc.. where does that leave IBM? Aren't they the ones that want to put
linux and the GPL through court so that it will stand up stronger in potential
cases that may happen in the future. Don't they want that declaration from their
9th counterclaim.

What happens to the lawsuit in it's current state if it's dropped. Is it a mis
trial and it was all for nothing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Strategy?
Authored by: MplsBrian on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 03:58 PM EDT
As we've seen for several years now, SCO's strategy has been delay. Ask for
more time, ask for more code, etc. With what tactics might they be able to
delay Novell now? It, on the one hand, seems like they have to find a new way
to change the subject. Presumably they'll argue timeliness of Novell's request
(for the trust), as others have speculated. That might extend their life as a
viable company, but how much delay can they ask for in discovery to defend their
copyright?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Easy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 04:30 PM EDT
SCOSource licenses for MS, SUN and others
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT
We know that SCO sold their "IP licenses" to MS, SUN, EV1 and some
other un-named companies and the assumption from Novell is that these licenses
were in fact SysV licenses.

Now I can't imagine that Novell have been given a copy of these contracts from
SCO, MS or SUN, but I wonder if one of the other companies has been in contact
with Novell and shown them what they bought ?

I sure hope so, because I don't trust SCO/MS/SUN to produce a copy of the
contract that hasn't been hastily modified to avoid paying Novell any fees.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Idiots guide to American Bankruptcy Code?
Authored by: TAZ6416 on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 05:10 PM EDT
Is there such a thing? Thanks to Groklaw I understand Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, but I assume (perhaps wrongly) that there are are other Chapters you can file under?

Thanks,

Jonathan

Donkey Does London

[ Reply to This | # ]

An end, but not the right one
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 05:38 PM EDT
I would prefer to have Linux determined free of any infringing code in court.
SCO "just" being steamrollered by financial issues is not
satisfactory.

If this is the way it all ends you can bet your kids college money on a phrase
like "Linux has never been proven to be clean" from Microsoft et
al...

Linux_Inside

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO in breach of contract?
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 06:45 PM EDT
Caldera (as the SCO goup) did not abide by the contract with Novell;
They did not drop the IBM, Autozone and Chrysler suits as they were told by
Novell.



---
"Numerical superiority is of no consequence. In battle, victory will go to the
best tactician."
~ George Custer (1839-1876)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has Novell Always Interpreted the APA The Way They're Doing Now?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 06:47 PM EDT
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but reading this press release from '03 on Novell's website got my attention a little bit.
PROVO, Utah — June 6, 2003 — In a May 28th letter to SCO, Novell challenged SCO's claims to UNIX patent and copyright ownership and demanded that SCO substantiate its allegations that Linux infringes SCO's intellectual property rights. Amendment #2 to the 1995 SCO-Novell Asset Purchase Agreement was sent to Novell last night by SCO. To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996...
Novell was unaware of Amendment #2 back then, and acknowledges Amendment #2 support SCO's copyright claims? How does this square with Novell's current arguments?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Andrew Orlowski chimes in - the register
Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 07:50 PM EDT

<a
href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/02/novell_sco/">Novell
moves for sudden death in SCO case</a>

Not an article to get excited about but worth reading as part of the overall
reaction to Novell's bombshell.

Cheers

Doug M

[ Reply to This | # ]

As I see it:
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 04 2005 @ 11:18 PM EDT
The judge is going to see the Novell filing for what it is; a knockout blow.
Judges don't like to crush a company before a trial.

My prediciton is that Novell won't get what it's asking for.

Sorry for the cold water on the party, and I hope I'm wrong.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )