SCO's Finances, Legal Case Take Hits

geomon writes "This afternoon, SCO will host a conference call where they will present '04 third quarter financial data. The news isn't expected to be comforting to SCO investors as they are coming up a bit short; earnings and dividends will take a substantial hit. The only bright spot for the company is the settlement with BayStar, a deal that will leave most of the cash they received from the investment house in the hands of SCO management, if only for a short time." Reader ak_hepcat writes "Groklaw has posted the text for the latest IBM memorandum in its case against SCO. In a nutshell, IBM accuses SCO of not only wrangling the legal process to keep delaying the eventual resolution of this case, but they go so far as to pull the curtain away and show that this table never had any legs to begin with. I'm no marksman, but I can tell when something is full of holes."

Comments

Looney Tunes

[sethadam1]

Reading SCO news is like watching someone fall out of a tree and hitting every branch on the way down.

It used to amuse me, now it annoys me. I'm just waiting for them to shrivel up and go away.

Re:Looney Tunes

[ElForesto]

I've had the opposite reaction. They used to annoy me, now they amuse me. Normally you have to PAY for this kind of entertainment.

I wonder what Gene Amdahl thinks?

[e9th]

As much as I side with IBM here, it does seem a bit ironic to see IBM complaining about a competitor "perpetuating fear, uncertainty and doubt."

You're Kidding, Right?

[endeavour31]

Please do not rely on a litigant's motion papers to prove a point. These are documents made to persuade a judge and as such are nearly advertisements. Wishful thinking aside, until the judge GRANTS IBM's motion nothing is settled. I am sure SCO's motions look pretty too - - it is not as if both sides lack for decent lawyers. In most cases anyway a judge will let the jury decide. Summary judgements are rarely granted unless discovery has proven a FACTUAL point which does not need to litigated. Defendents always file these motions which are sometimes useful in limiting the scope of the lawsuit but rarely result in a complete win.

Evidence

[MarkusQ]

Evidence? Proof?

I've seen a lot of people say that as if it were accepted fact, but I don't recall ever seeing any proof.

SCO license purchases don't count.

I realise that Microsoft can't be unhappy about SCO's actions, but surely they have more productive things they could spend money on than funding a competitor's doomed legal adventures...

I've no idea why you think license purhaces don't count, since it's a pretty standard money laundering technique. But we've also learned that Microsoft initiated the Baystar inventment and while they claimed that there was no financial involvement from Microsoft, a white paper on Baystar's own website lists Micosoft and Vulcan ventures as two of their major investors. It has also come out that two of the other "licensees" (SUN & EV1) were influenced by Microsoft in their descision to purchase licenses (CA, the other major licensee, was given the license as part of a settlement agreement).

That pretty much covers all of SCO's funding in this venture. If you run down the standard checklist:

• Microsoft has the means to fund SCO's FUD
• Microsoft has the motive to fund SCO's FUD
• Microsoft has the oportunity to fund SCO's FUD
• To the extent that there is any evidence at all about the source of SCO's funding, in each case the ultimate source appears to be Microsoft.

That's why people seem to state it as an accepted fact; while it may not be proven it would certainly be the smart way to bet.

-- MarkusQ