Faux pearls

Summary: "The judge in SCOG v IBM is very likely to see the fake bankruptcy (in 2007) was a tactic to use the automatic stay as a weapon in the case and disallow resumption," claims Pogson

THE SCO case is not history yet, no matter how many times Groklaw is trying to tell us that. SCO, however, might be in the process of selling its software business. As Groklaw puts it:

What about the appeal? Isn't SCO planning to win? What happens to the assets is SCO were to win? I guess then Novell can't get them to pay off their damages, as the assets transfer without encumbrances. Oh, say. Another smooth move from SCO. SCO wanted payment of the costs to Novell to wait for an appeal, but the assets it wants to transfer asap. SCO really doesn't want to pay Novell, I guess. It sees the handwriting on the wall, and it wants the software business off the table and in a friendly pocket.

Pogson added a fascinating angle about why SCO declared bankruptcy 3 years ago, maybe in order to buy time.

While technically SCOG is correct that they are free to sue IBM the judge in SCOG v IBM is very likely to see the fake bankruptcy (in 2007) was a tactic to use the automatic stay as a weapon in the case and disallow resumption. After all, SCOG could have made this motion years ago to keep things rolling. If anything SCOG’s position is worse than it was in 2007 both legally and financially. I am amazed that a “trustee” for SCOG in bankruptcy should seek to squander the dwindling resources of SCOG on futile litigation. It seems the lawyers are rioting and looting the dying SCOG.

This is very relevant to Novell, which currently possesses UNIX and also looks for a buyer. ⬆