On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:44:08 +0100, Doctor John wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The SCO trustees aren't really involved in the case.  The appeals court
>> just overturned the decision of the lower court (except for the monies
>> due Novell from SCO's license to Sun = more drain on the SCO bank
>> account) and told the lower court that a jury has to decide the
>> ownership back here in Utah.
>> 
>> 
> I stand corrected

It's been very poorly reported in the press, so it's not surprising that 
individuals have the details wrong.  I've followed it fairly closely 
(thanks in part to Groklaw) since it potentially affects my paycheck. :-)

>> Personally, I think it's likely SCO will not emerge from bankruptcy
>> (though this ruling does give SCO something to take back to the
>> bankruptcy court to say "we have money coming", so that court may hold
>> off on throwing them into Chapter 7).  I'm biased, but I don't think
>> SCO will prevail.
>> 
>> 
> Personally, I hope not but something's happening
> 
> http://sev.prnewswire.com/banking-financial-services/20090824/
LA6565824082009-1.html
> Do they really think that they might attract further investments or is
> this part of a smokescreen?

IMHO it's all smokescreen.  I think they're still trying to get things 
lined up for Steven Norris to buy them, even though that's effectively 
been shut down, at least for now.

> Groklaw is understandably cynical; see Update 5 on
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182

Yeah, though PJ has been pretty cynical since day 1.  I find Groklaw has 
great information, but personally I don't care for PJ too much; I've 
tried to explain a few things to her that she got wrong historically, and 
she accused me of astroturfing. <shrug>

>> But I think you're right, this could drag on past our lifetimes at this
>> rate. ;-)
> 
> ...and possibly our children's lifetimes ;-)

Indeed. :-/

Jim

Post a reply to this message