decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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
SCO Bankruptcy Hearing on Selling Assets to unXis Set for March 2 at 2 PM
Monday, February 28 2011 @ 11:53 AM EST

SCO claims that there is a hearing scheduled for March 2nd at 2 PM in the US Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. This is the big one, the hearing to decide if SCO can sell off its assets to the same folks they couldn't sell to last time when the court wondered if the deal showed good faith.

I know. You are thinking that they'll just cancel again. I don't think so. The last cancellation wasn't SCO. They'd filed their typical last-minute surprise filing on the eve of the hearing, thinking Novell wouldn't have time to research much, and then the judge postponed it. SCO only then revealed that Stephen Norris is still part of the unXis wheeler-dealers, and they provided more details about unXis and who is involved in the proposed deal and who is putting up the money. Then the hearing was postponed at the 11th hour. So Novell has had lots of time to research and find out all the details they can. Even we found out that one of the personages SCO proposes to set up as an advisory board is a Microsoft employee. Not that SCO revealed it, by the way. So, unless SCO throws more last-minute details onto the pile, it will be the first hearing in a long time where SCO won't be benefiting from their win-by-surprise strategy.

Here's the filing:

02/28/2011 - 1247 - Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 3/2/2011 at 02:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (Tarr, Stanley) (Entered: 02/28/2011)

If you are new or forgot, here is Novell's Objection, and SCO's response. If you plan to attend the hearing, you probably want to review all that, along with the filings of the others who have shown concern about the proposed deal, because this is some mighty subtle stuff SCO is proposing, and unless you look very closely, it would be easy to be misled.

For example, SCO listed as some of the items to transfer some copyrights that Novell owns. SCO listed them with a 2003 date, which is the date they tried to register them, only to lose at trial on the issue of copyright ownership, but the copyrights it is listing are pre-1995, except for one. So I have no idea how they think they can sell them. I can't sell your car, after all. Why, you ask? Um. Because I don't own it.

And then there is the complex argument SCO has that it will license, not sell, certain assets and that Novell is not a competitor. It's going to be hard to follow it all, if you don't prepare.

Here's the proposed "world-class advisory board" for unXis, once again:

  • William Bancroft, VP and General Manager of Unisys Global Outsourcing and Infrastructure Services
  • Jane Cavalier, President, Brightmark Consulting
  • Craig Feied, Director of the ER One Institutes for Innovation in Medicine
  • Jody R. Westby, CEO, Global Cyber Risk
  • Dennis Pombriant, Managing Principle of the Beagle Research Group
Mr. Feied is the employee of Microsoft, and there are more details at the link, if you were wondering what medicine has to do with SCO and unXis. In short, it's another SCO deal, just as odd as all the others, leaving us mere mortals wondering, are they kidding? Or what?

  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 )