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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
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.


  View Printable Version


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 )