[SASAG] For those following SCO vs Novell, SCO vs IBM, etc

spam at tprophet.org spam at tprophet.org
Fri Aug 10 18:19:09 PDT 2007

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I just work for a company that is 
frequently sued (neither Novell nor SCO, incidentally). So, take this 
reply with a grain of salt (perhaps the whole shaker if it makes you 
feel better).

I urge you to view this in perspective. This was a ruling by a Utah 
district judge. District courts are the lowest federal courts. The 
ruling, effectively, if allowed to stand, will put SCO out of business. 
So, it's likely that the judgment will be stayed pending appeal.

 From a district court, you go to a circuit court (and sometimes two 
iterations of a circuit court: a hearing in front of a 3-judge panel, 
then a hearing in front of the entire circuit). It takes a heck of a 
long time to get on their docket. That's why this stuff often drags out 
for years.

As for the question of how to pay the lawyers... SCO is a public 
company, so they could issue additional stock or float bonds to raise 
funds. Or they can find a law firm that will take the case either on a 
contingency or in exchange for equity. I can all but guarantee than an 
appeal *will* happen, because the board of directors has a fiduciary 
responsibility to protect the shareholders' assets. Doing nothing would 
wipe out the shareholders, exposing every corporate officer to 
*personal* lawsuits and even criminal liability.


Jim Hogan wrote:
> On 8/10/07, spam at tprophet.org <spam at tprophet.org> wrote:
>> This is almost certain to be appealed.
> On what basis do you believe this particular ruling might be appealed?
>> Legal garbage like this  invariably drags on for years.
> At this point, in this case, it would seem that you presume that
> Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP would be willing to work on this
> supposed appeal (that "drags on for years") on a pro bono basis.
> Are *you* are in a position to fund the continued efforts of BSF?  SCO won't be.
> Jim
>> -TProphet
>> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>>> Leeland wrote:
>>>  > Well this is just a great way to end the week. I am going home on
>>> this note!
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > Judge Kimball has ruled that SCO does not own the Unix or Unixware
>>>  > Copyrights, instead Novell owns them and indeed had the right to
>>>  > overrule SCO's attempt to force IBM to cease donating code to Linux.
>>>  > Additionally, because of this ruling SCO now owes Novell more money
>>>  > for licenses than it has liquid assets to pay.
>>>  >
>>>  > More info at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718
>>>  >  Buh-Bye SCO.
>>> This is really it, then? I wonder who'll finance and drive the next
>>> assault on OSS et al, now that SCO is about to fade, er, burn away...
>>> - Joe
>>> http://www.joeszilagyi.com
>>> http://www.seattleology.com
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Members mailing list
>>> Members at lists.sasag.org
>>> http://lists.sasag.org/mailman/listinfo/members
>> _______________________________________________
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at lists.sasag.org
>> http://lists.sasag.org/mailman/listinfo/members

More information about the Members mailing list