Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

You've got that back to front | 155 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

You've got that back to front

Authored by: FrankH on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT

Novell was supposed to get 95%. SCO got 5% as an administration fee.

(If I remember correctly, even that isn't strictly true. The agreement was that
Sco would hand over 100% of the licence fees and Novell would pay SCO 5%. SCO
passing over 95% was probably found to be more efficient.)

---
All right now, baby it's all right now.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You've got that back to front - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
You've got that back to front - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 07 2012 @ 07:28 PM EDT

Novell's money? -- What about the 401K

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 03:43 AM EDT

Actually, what springs to mind was the lawyering just before the Chapter 11 -
you know, when SCO were saying that there was no need for a constructive trust
for Novell's Moneys, not really, because SCO had *plenty* of money to spare for
that..... While the same lawyers were writing the Chapter 11 paperwork in the
background. I am surprised the judge hasn't taken offence at that, I have found
in the past openly lying to them then running to another judge for a better
decision tends to get them somewhat irate....

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Novell's money? -- What about the 401K - Authored by: Igrepdou on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 10:35 AM EDT
Novell's money? -- What about the 401K - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 08 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT

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 )