I have now a copy of the official transcript of the SCO bankruptcy hearing on July 27, 2009. It's a 527-page document, so it will take a while to go through it, and I have to clarify the rights issues before I can post it, which will take a while.
Meanwhile, I thought it would be useful to let you post any questions you would like answered. I'll then try to answer them later this evening. We know what the judge decided, to order the US Trustee's Office to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, and we had
our reporters there, but no doubt you still have questions. So ask away!
Here's one hilarious bit I can't help sharing, a snippet that will give you insight, from SCO's lawyer's, Arther Spector's, opening remarks:
MR. SPECTOR: Why in heaven's name does IBM care whether SCO sells its Unix business to Unxis ...? Why did IBM unleash its hordes of high powered attorneys coast to coast to depose anyone who might dare to testify for SCO? What possible reason does IBM have to oppose the sale? The only reason is that by the sale SCO would survive. And survive with the potent claims against IBM intact. IBM and Novell want to crush SCO and soon before the Court of Appeals can vindicate it. They know that once that happens, they will have to face juries to answer for what they have done to SCO.
The bankruptcy judge partly bought it, as you know, although he blocked the sale to unXis, questioning their good faith, which is of course why IBM and anyone would care about a sale to them, but for us, who have followed the SCO litigation so closely for six years now and saw SCO's malice toward Linux with no evidence on the table the public has ever seen, it's a wonderful laugh. SCO's "potent claims", indeed. What IBM and Novell "have done to SCO". SCO sued them, actually. And Novell prevailed totally against SCO's allegations of slander of title, which was what SCO sued Novell over, a claim which SCO humiliatingly lost. SCO is not appealing that claim. Just read it for yourself. Page 2 of SCO's appeal brief lists the issues on appeal, and SCO's claim of slander of title is not on the list.
As for IBM, it doesn't care who owns the copyrights or what happens in the appeal from that standpoint, because its position is that it didn't infringe them no matter who owns them.