|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
SCO was paying Novell the license fees that they were collecting on their behalf
all along, except that early on in this saga, there was a 6 month period where
SCO was not paying Novell, and Novell asked the court to force them to pay them
what was theirs, and SCO started paying again, including the 6 months worth that
were in arrears at that point. The only amount that they did not pay Novell that
I am aware of, is the portion of the Sun license that the Utah court ruled was a
SVRx license, plus interest. I think the total was somewhere around $3.3
million.
At a certain point during the bankruptcy, they ordered their Japanese subsidiary
to stop collecting the license fees, and Novell no longer got paid, but SCO
didn't have any more of Novell's money at that point because they were no longer
collecting it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rocky on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
On a slightly related note, I found a mistake (joke) in the original
article.
"the entire bankruptcy was motivated by fear of having
to petulant refusal to pay Novell."
There, I fixed that for
ya! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, September 28 2012 @ 07:33 AM EDT |
Wasn't there meant to be some sort
of escrow account set up
to protect Novell's
royalty money that had been collected on their behalf?
You may be thinking of the constructive trust that
was
set up to protect the amount of the Sun and Microsoft
license money that
the Court ruled should have gone to
Novell. After tracing how much of it was
left, approx. $600k
was put in the trust.
Did Novell
get any of this?
According to the June 2010
Stipulation
between Edward Cahn and Novell, the money was to be
paid to
Novell by June 14 (one week after the entry of the
order approving the
Stipulation).
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
