Summary: Self-proclaimed "journalist" who plants stories for Microsoft has made transactions with SCO

GROKLAW'S editor, being a victim of Maureen O'Gara, has put forth the following question to the newly-appointed trustee of SCO:

How long ago did the idea to sue IBM over Linux first get mentioned? And why does SCO owe money to the creditors Maureen O'Gara, Alok Mohan, and a private detective? What was that money owed for? Wisely spent?

Does Microsoft have a compensation programme for those who "plant" stories, such as Maureen O'Gara [1, 2, 3, 4]? How does that work?

This case is still worth following because Novell is directly involved. From the latest post on the matter:

But for now, it's Utah's decision that is the one SCO has to deal with, because Novell filed for a rehearing en banc, and as I understand the rules, that puts us back to Go, with the picture being that the case is on appeal, with no final appellate decision. And SCO has to prove a complete chain of title, and I don't think they can. I don't think anybody can, actually. USL distributed the early code without copyright notices.

For a roundup of the SCO saga we have this page. ⬆