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.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO v. Novell is done | 111 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO v. Novell is done
Authored by: egan on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 07:03 PM EDT

Before someone else says, "But Yarro and friends have a lien on the SCO v. IBM lawsuit...", indeed that might be case. IIRC that is true, but Yarro et al will still be looking at a steep uphill ordeal to realize anything out of that lawsuit.

Assuming they can get the cause of action assigned to them by the bankruptcy court in Ch. 7 dissolution, they will still have to pay expenses to pursue the matter to trial. IBM won't just pay them off to make the lawsuit go away, because it regards this as a matter of upholding its corporate honor.

So Yarro and his merry band of opportunists might be faced with having to shell out for more discovery and any expert witnesses, etc., in order to take SCO v. IBM to trial. And it's likely that IBM can bury them in discovery costs alone, making the potential return on investment for Yarro's group even more unattractive than it already is. They put up a couple of million dollars already as a loan to SCO secured by the lawsuit, but they'll have to be daft to be willing to open their checkbooks again to pay expenses for further litigation and an eventual trial and possible appeal.

They might in fact be that stupid, but they could have to pay several million dollars more to prove it. So I tend to doubt that they will.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )