sco financials

[Shaun Branden]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 01:19:08PM +0930, Mark Newton wrote:

> Groklaw reports that IBM has filed for summary judgement.  They're
> aiming to kick-out SCO's entire case and receive judgement on several
> counterclaims in one swell foop without needing to go to trial on
> any of it.

Good call, but I think that it relates to the Novel information from
last week. Here is a quick summary from the Yahoo boards:

"
Novell today amended their counterclaims against SCOX.
I urge anyone to go read the filing. It is 36 pages but very carefully
and clearly written and absolutely convincing:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story...

The short summary of this well argued filing is:
1) SCO (actually Caldera) history makes it clear it was an incompetent
company failed to compete in the Linux market
2) As a result of this failure they changed their strategy (and name) to
rely on pure fraud by claiming to own IP they didn't actually own. As part
of this strategy they have assumed the 'SCO' identity.
3) Caldera/New-SCO has been losing money throughout its operations.
4) Caldera/New-SCO had "made a profit" only in one short period in 2003 when
it (unjustly) kept about $25M of SCOsource from Sun, Microsoft and others
without remitting these proceeds to Novell as it was required to do
according to the Asset purchase agreement between (Old) SCO and Novell.
5) Novell has NOT transferred any patents and copyrights to (Old) SCO.
Clearly, (new) SCO cannot own copyrights that weren't transferred. Let's
make this clearer: there was NO instrument of conveyance on the "Unix
copyrights" between Novell and old SCO. Major note: Judge Kimball agreed
with Novell on this. This is a slum-dunk to Novell.
6) SCO has explicitly admitted it doesn't own thise copyrights by
repeatedly asking Novell to transfer them (ample documentation of the
correspondence between Darl McBride and Jack Messman exists).
7) SCO has refused to allow Novell to audit its agreements/proceeds from
SCOsource as it was required by contract.
8) SCO essentially owes Novell about $25M. Much more than it can pay at
this moment.
9) SCO is dissipating its assets rapidly, in part to avoid those payments
to Novell.

Novel is asking the court to attach SCO's assets so it can justly get what
SCO ows it.

The facts are solid and the case is strong. Unlike SCO's weak IP theories,
the Novell case is strongly supported by undeniable verifiable facts and
documents.

Can someone spell bankruptcy before the IBM trial?
"

They may have caught on to the Summary Judgement matters before close of trade, but I think it is still to come.

It should be interesting overnight.

shaun
-- 
Top-posting "This term is generally used pejoratively with the
implication that the offending person is a newbie, a Microsoft
addict (Microsoft mail tools produce a similar format by default),
or simply a common-and-garden-variety idiot." - Eric Raymond