SCO Wants Summary Ruling, Wants To Appeal Unix Ownership Decision

An anonymous reader writes "SCO is asking the court to enter a final judgment on the Unix ownership issues so that it can seek an immediate appeal. The logic for this, according to Groklaw Editor Pamela Jones, is that SCO would rather appeal right away so it can try all its claims at IBM, should it successfully appeal the judge's order. 'Otherwise, SCO has to wait until Novell goes through trial to a verdict and then appeal, and while it is in the appeal process, IBM would go forward in its now much smaller version, based on the August 10th ruling ... The trial starts, though, in less than a month and it will last less than a week, so none of this makes any sense if you look at a calendar. I think, therefore, it must be about FUD, so it sounds like SCO is on the move again.' The text of the request is available online. "

Settlement

[COMON$]

There is NO WAY a settlement could possibly pay for the cost of this legal fiasco. SCO's dignity was shot a long time ago, even if they do prove their case they will still look like an ass and their ship will sink.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

"Dead Cat Bounce"

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

"Even a dead cat dropped off a roof will bounce a little" The stock will bounce up a little bit with the announcement and the investors will have a chance to mitigate their losses slightly. Yawn. /sbin/shutdown -h now

Of course, they have no choice

[Opportunist]

They HAVE to appeal. Everything else would be suicide. It's all they got. It's like not appealing a death sentence. Not appealing it means that you already lost. What could they lose? Nothing. What could they gain? Survival.

Did anyone really think they wouldn't?

Re:Stick a Fork In Them

[iminplaya]

Hey, penny stocks are not the worst investments you can make. You can net a "pretty penny" if you have a good sense of timing.

Re:Settlement

[Xtifr]

It's not about the company any more making money any more. Bankruptcy is pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point. However, the longer the company holds on, the longer the money it technically shouldn't have any more can be spent on executive salaries (and bonuses--Darl has earned all sorts of bonuses for his "creative" approach to company management).

Re:Stick a Fork In Them

[nuzak]

> there appear to be many people out there who still think that SCOX has value.

Las Vegas is proof that people think slot machines have value. It's speculation, not a value investment.

Re:Stick a Fork In Them

[hawk]

Maybe if you make that "Indian casinos".

Las Vegas is not in the same business as Indian and other local casinos and lotteries. They are in the gambling business, while we are in the fantasy business.
-
People play there trying to win; people come here (typically) knowing how much they will lose (with a hope to beat the odds). They get off the plane or climb out of the car, and for however many days, they're in a fantasy world.

The best example may be the guys that would never step foot in a bimbo joint, but that take their wives to a "topless revue"--and she enjoys it! Look at the lines for those--they're generally not a bunch of guys, but primarily couples.

For vegas, gambling is a major part of the shtick, but it's just a part of the alternate world of the fantasy.

hawk

Re:Settlement

[COMON$]

Exactly, I am not a business guru, but the only positive I can see with that company is padding the executive's pockets. If I were an engineer or dev at SCO I would be fleeing.