Robt. Miller wrote:
> On 2006-08-21, John Bailo <jabailo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Doug Mentohl wrote:
> >> Pamela Jones, Network World (US online)
> >> Aug 15 2006 07:57:12
> >>
> >> So, just where do things stand legally in the Linux world, post-SCO?
> >> What has changed as a result of the SCO saga? If a Son of SCO shows up
> >> in the future, is the community prepared? What is now in place that
> >> wasn't there when SCO first showed up in 2003? Here is a brief summary
> >> to bring you up to date.
> >
> > Is it really over?
> >
> > The claims were reduced...but isn't there still litigation?
>
> I was under the impression that what remained, IBM wanted to remain.
That's about the size of it.
If you look at the disclosures that IBM has been requesting, it's
pretty obvious that IBM is looking for deeper pockets. IBM is not only
looking to cross-examine SCO corporate officers, but they are also
pulling disclosures that link Microsoft to a criminally fraudulent act.
IBM could win back legal fees, and companies who paid SCO royalties
based on fraudulent claims, as well as companies who have pending
cases, could also recover money from BayStar and it's principle
investors at the time of their funding of the SCO lawsuit.
SCO can't simply drop the suit, because in Utah, filing fraudulent
claims is a really bad thing, and the Judge could even award tripled
damages to IBM. Where would SCO get $9 billion in cash? Perhaps from
a friendly billionaire or two who helped arrange funding in the first
place?
|
|
