Summary: SCO's procrastination may lead to a situation where Novell no longer bothers to fight for UNIX ownership

NOVELL is being wooed by up to 20 entities/companies (mostly amoral hedge funds and the likes of them) after it put itself up for sale. It is expected that Novell will reveal the details soon and then hold an auction. What would happen to the SCO case? Groklaw has taken a look at some material as it ranted about justice being just a process in the US juridical system; SCO just keeps appealing decisions it does not accept and if enough time passes, Novell might have its leadership replaced and SCO's persistence might pay off. From Groklaw we have:

I was looking around, trying to find a case where a judge directed the jury to rule a certain way or decided the jury was wrong and so overruled them. As you know, SCO is asking the judge in SCO v. Novell to overturn the jury's verdict, as one possible form of relief it would like. So that's why I started researching.

This post concentrates on Susan Anthony and women's voting rights, but the point of the matter comes at the end where it says: "Law is a process, not a day's event, a marathon, not a sprint." Can SCO undermine the law by procrastination? Let's hope not. It's not exactly procrastination, but SCO keeps buying time to ensure the FUD sticks for 7 years. ⬆

"On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO's strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO's financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital."

--Bruce Perens