SCO Puts a Cap on its Legal Expenses

prostoalex writes "The SCO Group reached an agreement with the lawyers to limit the litigation expenses to $31 million until the IBM lawsuit is resolved. The company already paid $12 million to Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Kevin McBride and Berger Singerman, which provide legal services to the company."

Comments

Until Microsoft slides more money under the door

[justanyone]

Enough for now...
Until Microsoft slides more money under the door...

goodbye CS... hello law school

[xannik]

I need to get me a piece of that. :-)

Re:goodbye CS... hello law school

[tomhudson]

Lawyers have morals? Since when?

Q. Why do they use lawyers for testing instead of lab rats. A. 1. PETA won't bomb your lab if you use lawyers
2. Lab assistants won't get attached to them
3. There are some things lab rats just won't do.

Now, having said all that, some lawyers are ok - just look at the ones working for IBM.

Mind you, you have to wonder just how far a lawyer can stretch things before he's a willing participant in misleading the court. They MUST know that some of the arguments they (SCO) have made are outright lies and legal fiction. . .

God Bless The Laywers

[NETHED]

You know, I think the Lawyers are on our side FOR ONCE. They are milking SCO dry. Anyway I could contact them so they would have to bill SCO? I know, lets SLASHDOT the Lawyer office, and make sure that they bill SCO.

Better be quiet, FBI might come knocking (*AGAIN*)

Re:God Bless The Laywers

[Donoho]

even though I think they only have to last until MS comes out with Longhorn

ROFLMAO Sweet, then they're as good as dead.

Re:God Bless The Laywers

[rkent]

I know you're kidding but it's still a sad commentary on the way the legal profession has undermined the economy. Those lawyers have done nothing for SCO and yet they have greatly enriched themselves from shareholders' money.

And who do you blame for this? The first response to jump to mind should be "whatever jackass decided to pay the lawyers so much for such a hopeless lawsuit". An old saw in the legal profession is that the reason lawyers are such assholes, is that clients are such assholes (see my profile for more about my stake in the whole debate). A lawyer is the agent of his client's interests in the legal realm; simply that and nothing more.

Here's a question for some legal expert. Since Boies et al were paid in stock a while back, they are now a major stockholder in SCO, 25% as I recall. I wonder if they can therefore be sued by any parties who have a grievance against SCO?

No. As another poster said in this thread, the very point of setting up a corporation is to establish a firewall for legal liability. There are a couple of recourses, though:

1) If you think the lawsuit is truly malicious and has no plausible basis in fact, you could sue SCO et al for bringing a frivolous suit, but you would have to have standing (i.e., actually be injured yourself). You could accomplish that several ways, but being an IBM principal or employee, or someone else whose livelihood "depends" on Linux would be a good start.

2) If you are a shareholder of SCO, you could bring an action against the board of directors, personally as individuals and in their role as directors, and probably McBride and other "wayward" executives. The basis for this would be that the management of SCO is doing things that are actually against its shareholders' best interests (as confirmed by the miserable performance of SCO stock), and thus violating securities regulations.

See how it always comes back to the company, not the lawyers? It's because they can only be as mean as SCO tells them to be. Actually, I'm kind of surprised that someone hasn't tried #2 yet; I guess there's always the hypothetical possibility they'll prevail and make some money, but it seems much more likely that they're tilting at windmills and wasting money that would be much better spent on, oh, R&D or something.

So where's the rest going?

[tomhudson]

From the article:

SCO Group said it paid its attorneys roughly $12.6 million under the agreement for outstanding legal fees and expenses. For future legal fees, the company is to pay a total of $12 million plus contingency fees, it said.

Okay, that gives a total of $24.6 million. Which leaves $6.4 million unaccounted for. Or is this what McBride is going to have SCO pay Kevin?

Cap

[tuxter]

Executioner puts cap on Darl McBride's head before throwing the switch......

Planning for the Countersuit

[Magickcat]

After all, they need to save their cash for the money they'll loose when it comes to the countersuits after they loose. All in all, it's great to see SCO planning ahead.

I want first dibs on an official SCO ergonomic chair when the sell off comes around.

Re:Planning for the Countersuit

[tomhudson]

I want first dibs on an official SCO ergonomic chair ...

I hear they're made out of wood, with arm and leg straps, and a metal cap with a hood, all connected to some big dynamo.

Don't you mean you want first dibs on throwing the switch?

Yikes

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do I keep seeing the Disney logo in that caldera logo? why doesnt Mickey Mouse sue them into oblivion?

Re:Wow.

[evilroot]

Are you kidding? I know if it were me I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep for taking large amounts of money from SCO! And I have MORALS!

Re:Suing IBM is 'patently' insane

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking on IBM is a little more crazy than taking on entire Chinese Army.

Yeah, no kidding.

The Chinese army has nukes, but nobody will use nukes because they destroy so many lives and businesses, wipe out economies, and make areas uninhabitable for decades.

IBM has lawyers, and everyone uses lawyers as a first strike, despite the fact that they destroy so many lives and businesses, wipe out economies, and make areas uninhabitable for decades.

The question is, is it better to elect a rich businessman from a large multinational, or a lawyer? I would have rather voted for a plumber, they take all your money, but at least leave you with a working shitter.

I spoke with David Boies yesterday

[tuxlove]

Yesterday David Boies (SCO's lead attorney) was on the Ronn Owens show on KGO-AM, taking calls from listeners. The topic was supposed to be his new book, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear his justification for his horrible work with SCO. So I called and asked him.

He seemed a little daunted by my opening, in which I told him I had lost all respect for him. When faced with the question of "Why!?", he predictably said "everyone's entitled to a defense". Never mind that SCO's on the *offense*... His justification basically boiled down to the simple, "the courts will decide if SCO's claims are legitimate". In other words, he doesn't give a shit. He just wants the money, win or lose.

I have worked with attorneys before, more than once, and the ones I worked with didn't want a case unless it seemed somewhat meaningful, and definitely very winnable. The money was important, but reputation was moreso. Bad reputation translates to less money for the shortsighted, quite often.

I guess this simply shows he's a whore, moreso than most attorneys.