Without those IP rights, SCO didn't have a leg to stand on in all its other anti-Linux lawsuits against IBM, Novell, Red Hat, et. al. So, now SCO can start again right? Ah wrong. It's much more complicated than that. Here's what really going to happen next.
Read more »What happens next in SCO vs. Novell
http://blogs.computerworld.com –
- Login to post comments
Darl McBride: On trees, branches and leaves
http://www.groklaw.net –
I've been going through the testimony at the July 27th hearing in SCO's bankruptcy, the one that resulted in the court ordering the management out of control and a Chapter 11 trustee appointed. It's fascinating to compare what was testified to under oath at that hearing with what was testified to under oath at the SCO v. Novell trial last May.
Read more »Berger Singerman's Bill for May Shows One Buyer for SCO
http://www.groklaw.net –
This is very odd. Remember at the last bankruptcy hearing on June 15 SCO represented that there were several different possible purchasers SCO was considering? Both SCO CEO Darl McBride and Frank Caplan, a lawyer for Berger Singerman, testified about that. Caplan mentioned at least four deals.
Read more »
Category: Legal Tags:
Say Goodbye to SCO
http://boycottnovell.com –
SCO may no longer have just a yard sale for court money; it seems more like a final liquidation. Will Novell receive a penny?
Read more »- Login to post comments
Novel's appellate brief filed: asks court of appeals to affirm lower court
http://www.groklaw.net –
Novell has filed its brief in the appeal of SCO v. Novell. It's 87 pages, so I haven't read it yet myself. I'll swing back by after I read it. But the quick look at the index and the closing words indicates Novell is asking the court to affirm the lower court: "For all the above reasons, the district court judgment should be affirmed."
Read more »Category: Legal Tags:
- Login to post comments
The SCO v. Novell Summary Judgment Motions: Chart
http://www.groklaw.net –
Erwan has put together for us a chart of all the motions in SCO v. Novell that were decided prior to trial in the August 10, 2007 Order and the final two motions decided after trial in the July 16, 2008 Order.
Read more »
