It's official: the jury ruled in SCO v. Novell that Novell owns the copyrights that SCO was trying to claim. That pretty much puts paid to all of SCO's dreams of a litigation-lottery win in the IBM case too. IBM's not inclined to settle, and pretty much all that's left is IBM's counterclaims against SCO. SCO has a few scraps of claim left, but all the evidence they're presented put together doesn't amount to enough to make a porn starlet's bikini.
Here's the actual jury verdict form.
Showing posts with label sco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sco. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, October 23, 2009
SCO v. world in a nutshell
To borrow from Darl's favorite cattle-rustler metaphor:
Darl had some cows on his ranch. He noticed that some of the cows on other people's ranches had the same brand as his, so he decided to get a posse together to go after those cattle rustlers who'd stolen his cows.
Then it was discovered that the brand wasn't Darl's, it was the brand of a completely different ranch that'd sold cows to just about everybody in the valley. And worse, as it turns out Darl hadn't even bought those cows, some of his own hands had found them wandering on his land and put them in with the rest of the herd. So now not only are the other ranchers mad at Darl for accusing them of stealing cattle when they hadn't, but some of them are accusing Darl of being the cattle thief.
But poor Darl's still positive that somebody somewhere had to have stolen some cows that should've belonged to Darl if he could've afforded to buy them.
Darl had some cows on his ranch. He noticed that some of the cows on other people's ranches had the same brand as his, so he decided to get a posse together to go after those cattle rustlers who'd stolen his cows.
Then it was discovered that the brand wasn't Darl's, it was the brand of a completely different ranch that'd sold cows to just about everybody in the valley. And worse, as it turns out Darl hadn't even bought those cows, some of his own hands had found them wandering on his land and put them in with the rest of the herd. So now not only are the other ranchers mad at Darl for accusing them of stealing cattle when they hadn't, but some of them are accusing Darl of being the cattle thief.
But poor Darl's still positive that somebody somewhere had to have stolen some cows that should've belonged to Darl if he could've afforded to buy them.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
What SCO management knew
Lewis Mettler comments on RedHat's filing in the SCO bankruptcy. Now, I disagree with him about SCO management. Darl has been through this kind of thing before. I think SCO's management knew exactly how flimsy and baseless their case was. Whatever their lawyers told them, I think they knew the reality. They'd simply decided that the strength of their case didn't matter. They figured IBM would settle because it was cheaper than fighting and winning.
SCO's problem was just that they miscalculated how IBM would figure the costs. If it's cheaper to settle than to win a lawsuit, you settle. SCO calculated the cost of settling as just the dollars IBM would have to pay them. IBM, though, felt that settling would be taken by their customers as an admission that the accusations had some merit. Since the accusations were that IBM had broken contracts just to make more money, they felt that'd negatively affect their business. Their software business runs around $6 billion a year, so even a 1% drop in business from customers getting nervous about IBM not honoring contract terms would be $60 million a year in lost revenue. That makes settling a lot more expensive, and IBM decided it was cheaper to throw a few tens of millions of dollars at defending their good name than to put hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue at risk.
SCO weren't deceived by their lawyers. They didn't believe they ever had a case. They simply figured that IBM would pay Danegeld if it wasn't too much. And they were wrong.
SCO's problem was just that they miscalculated how IBM would figure the costs. If it's cheaper to settle than to win a lawsuit, you settle. SCO calculated the cost of settling as just the dollars IBM would have to pay them. IBM, though, felt that settling would be taken by their customers as an admission that the accusations had some merit. Since the accusations were that IBM had broken contracts just to make more money, they felt that'd negatively affect their business. Their software business runs around $6 billion a year, so even a 1% drop in business from customers getting nervous about IBM not honoring contract terms would be $60 million a year in lost revenue. That makes settling a lot more expensive, and IBM decided it was cheaper to throw a few tens of millions of dollars at defending their good name than to put hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue at risk.
SCO weren't deceived by their lawyers. They didn't believe they ever had a case. They simply figured that IBM would pay Danegeld if it wasn't too much. And they were wrong.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
News from SCO
Two bits of news about SCO. First, in the bankruptcy case the US Trustee has moved to convert SCO to Chapter 7 liquidation. Second, in the appeal of the judgement in the Novell case, the appeals court heard oral arguments and my first impression is that they weren't impressed with SCO's arguments.
In the appeals hearing, it sounded very much like at least two of the three judges were looking at the contracts themselves, and at SCO's arguments, and going "You know, you're arguing that when the contract says "excludes" it really means "includes". We aren't buying that.". I expect the appeals ruling won't be favorable to SCO.
On the bankruptcy front, the next hearing is June 12th. I suspect the appeals ruling will be in in at least a preliminary form before then. If it goes against SCO, that pretty much shreds the last hope SCO had for postponing the inevitable. And SCO really doesn't want to end up in Chapter 7. When that happens the current executives lose their jobs and the US Trustee takes over management of the company. He's got no dog in the fights between SCO and Novell and IBM, his only interest in them will be to settle them at the minimum cost to the bankruptcy estate. And he'll have access to all SCO's corporate and legal records. Attorney-client privilege won't apply because, as of his appointment, he'll be the client. If he finds records showing SCO knew they didn't have a case when they filed it, he'll have no problem whatsoever filing a sworn statement to that effect in a settlement deal and turning over the records to back it up. That could place BSF in a very bad position. Not that they're in a good one now, mind you.
I've said it before: SCO miscalculated the cost to IBM of fighting. SCO assumed IBM would look at the demand for a few million dollars and count it cheaper than the cost of fighting it out in court and winning. IBM looked at a threat to half or more of their annual revenue world-wide (their gross revenue tops $100 billion), multiplied by decades, and decided a few million was cheap. I can imagine the conversation with their lawyers: "You know it's going to cost to fight this." "Yes, we know. Here's a quarter of a billion for the initial deposit, call us when it gets low and we'll add more.". To give you scale, that's half a percent of the first year of the revenue at risk. IBM's looking at 50 years, most likely (which is less than half the time the company's been in business, they've got current product lines that're nearly that old).
In the appeals hearing, it sounded very much like at least two of the three judges were looking at the contracts themselves, and at SCO's arguments, and going "You know, you're arguing that when the contract says "excludes" it really means "includes". We aren't buying that.". I expect the appeals ruling won't be favorable to SCO.
On the bankruptcy front, the next hearing is June 12th. I suspect the appeals ruling will be in in at least a preliminary form before then. If it goes against SCO, that pretty much shreds the last hope SCO had for postponing the inevitable. And SCO really doesn't want to end up in Chapter 7. When that happens the current executives lose their jobs and the US Trustee takes over management of the company. He's got no dog in the fights between SCO and Novell and IBM, his only interest in them will be to settle them at the minimum cost to the bankruptcy estate. And he'll have access to all SCO's corporate and legal records. Attorney-client privilege won't apply because, as of his appointment, he'll be the client. If he finds records showing SCO knew they didn't have a case when they filed it, he'll have no problem whatsoever filing a sworn statement to that effect in a settlement deal and turning over the records to back it up. That could place BSF in a very bad position. Not that they're in a good one now, mind you.
I've said it before: SCO miscalculated the cost to IBM of fighting. SCO assumed IBM would look at the demand for a few million dollars and count it cheaper than the cost of fighting it out in court and winning. IBM looked at a threat to half or more of their annual revenue world-wide (their gross revenue tops $100 billion), multiplied by decades, and decided a few million was cheap. I can imagine the conversation with their lawyers: "You know it's going to cost to fight this." "Yes, we know. Here's a quarter of a billion for the initial deposit, call us when it gets low and we'll add more.". To give you scale, that's half a percent of the first year of the revenue at risk. IBM's looking at 50 years, most likely (which is less than half the time the company's been in business, they've got current product lines that're nearly that old).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
