Appeals Court Overturns 2007 Unix Copyright Decision 330
snydeq writes "A federal appeals court has overturned a 2007 decision that Novell owns the Unix code, clearing the way for SCO to pursue a $1 billion copyright infringement case against IBM. In a 54-page decision (PDF), the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was reversing the 2007 summary judgment decision by Judge Dale Kimball of the US District Court for the District of Utah, which found that Novell was the owner of Unix and UnixWare copyrights. SCO CEO Darl McBride called the decision a 'huge validation for SCO.'" The case over who owns Unix will now go to trial in Utah.
Years of appeals (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Years of appeals (Score:5, Funny)
We'll be using quantum computers before the appeals run out.
Actually, quantum computers will be using us.
Which brings curious questions about the future and soviet russia.
Re:Years of appeals (Score:5, Funny)
In, or out, of Soviet Russia, quantum computers use you, or you use them. It's impossible to know until it is observed.
Re: (Score:2)
But ... but observing it will change their behaviour and we'll have to start over!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right, like we're all still pimply faced youths stuck in our parents basement with no romantic prospects. Some of us have wives now, you know, so... um... never mind.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, well, this is what we in the comedy business like to call a 'joke.' These are short anecdotes designed to elicit a laugh. Oftentimes, they are not literally true, but instead play on common stereotypes. For instance, while I did have pimples as a youth, I did not live in my parent's basement and after the age of 17, I did not lack for romantic prospects. But the 'geek' stereotype insists we all must have been awkward social losers, and the 'married' stereotype says that we married folk do not have sex,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jokes aside, what does this mean for Linux? Is it protected from SCO coming after anybody who makes a *nix based OS?
Doesn't mean anything new.
All it is saying is that (i) SCO owes Novell more than before, and (ii) summary judgements were not the right means of decision - that a jury needed to hear some of it.
There is nothing saying that Linux infringes anything, that IBM did anything improper (as this is SCO v. Novell, not SCO v. IBM), or anything else. Just that it needs to be tried by a jury instead of a judge.
Oh, and don't forget - Darl & Co are no longer in charge of SCO; the bankruptcy court is in the p
wtf (Score:2, Insightful)
Did it become april fools day when I wasn't watching?
Re:wtf (Score:5, Informative)
It's a clear case of the "badsummary". Just check Groklaw [groklaw.net].
As I have understood it, it was only summary judgment which was overturned. IOW, there would be a trial.
Will they never die? (Score:5, Funny)
It's like a zombie infestation. Didn't scientific research recently prove that violence was the only solution to that?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't scientific research recently prove that violence was the only solution to that?
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)
Therefore the FIRST refuge of the competent (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, they did do a but of modelling on the slow zombie infestation and you HAD to act hard and quick or else the zombies would win.
The BBC had something on it recently on their website.
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I'm sure that fictional quote will be a great comfort to you during the coming zombie apocalypse. You hippies need to live in the real world occasionally.
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Funny)
"If violence isn't your last resort, then you didn't use enough violence." -- The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates [schlockmercenary.com]
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Funny)
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)
"The competent would have long since resorted to it."
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Insightful)
Violence is the last refuge against the incompetent.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -- Salvor Hardin, Foundation (Isaac Asimov)
"The competent make it their first refuge." -- jimicus, Slashdot
That is litterature (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The point wasn't that violence is ineffective, the point was that there are always better ways of accomplishing goals than use of violence, and if you can't think of them, you're (in Terry Pratchett's words) "not only not the sharpest knife in the cutelry drawer, you might not aven be a spoon".
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine in the cushy world that Terry lives in.
Quite a lot of people (most infact) don't have that luxury.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ghandi showed Asimov's Hardin epigram to be true
Ghandi's tactics worked against a Britain weakened by WW I and on the brink of defeat in WW II. It might have been a bit different against Nazis, or Stalin, or Imperial Rome, or ... but you get the idea.
Re:That is literature (Score:4, Interesting)
It's trivially easy to make up cases where violence cannot be avoided.
For example, Bob the bomber is about to press a button that will caused hundreds of deaths. Sam the sharpshooter is in position to kill Bob. Should Sam shoot? Either way, violence is committed.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is quite clear that all along in history, violence solved a lot of problem.
It did, but it was never the most expedient way to solve the problem, because it resulted in the destruction of people and property. Asimov's maxim is not about pacifism; it is about using more effective tools of war (like espionage, political influence, psychological manipulation, propaganda or even assassination) that do not destroy valuable resources.
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Funny)
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"
Of course violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. For the rest of us, it's waaaay before last. It's like third.
No, fourth (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's 4th. Just ask the guy with the "4 boxes to defend liberty" thing in his sig.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Competent people turn to violence much sooner.
Re:Will they never die? (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody understands that quote anymore (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if it's the mostly American readership (a nation known for preferring violence over sex), but almost nobody here seems to understand that quote. It doesn't mean "only the incompetent use violence as the last resort", or "wars are wrong and everybody should love each other". It is not a pacifist maxim; It's more a reflection on the means of conflict. It means "if you use violence, it will be the last thing you do, and will prove your incompetence to handle the situation". The Foundation books made it clear that Asimov's definition of violence did not include things like armed deterrence, espionage, psychological manipulation, or even assassination if it meant avoiding a large scale conflict. It meant direct physical violence that results in death of people or destruction of property. In that light, violence is a proof of incompetence, because a competent leader would be able to take over the people and property to use them to his own ends, rather than destroying them.
Re:Will they never die? (Score:4, Informative)
One girl told him bluntly: "My mother says violence never solves anything."
"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn't your mother tell them so? Or why don't you?"
They had tangled before - since you couldn't flunk the course, it wasn't necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You're making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seem to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn't you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow. Anybody who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that 'violence never solves anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedom."
- Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
After meeting politicians so pretty much the same.
Re:Not Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Asimov was not a scientist
His Ph.D in biochemistry would disagree with you.
Re:Not Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have thought that most people would conside professors of biochemistry to be scientists...
Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182 [groklaw.net]
It's important to note that the Appeals court hasn't said that the copyrights do belong to SCO. They've only found that a decision regarding copyright ownership based on the APA wasn't something that should have been decided in a summary judgment and that the decision should've been made during the jury trial.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Hardly. Considering SCO still owes Novell, and that this ruling only overturns a summary judgement, doesn't make Novell's copyright claim much weaker.
This case is not about end-users, but about whether SCO even has standing to begin to sue Linux end-users. Which it doesn't (the nature of their copyright deal with Novell was pretty clear, but apparently not enough for a summary judgement).
In the very unlikely event that SCO wins this case, big end-users like IBM may again have to begin to worry about defending against SCO's bizarre claims.
Until then, this case has about as much impact on Linux users as one of the many claims against Apple, Microsoft or Sun have on their respective products' end users.
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that SCO might not survive long enough to persue the case against Novell. They're in Chapter 11 already and McBride & co have been kicked out in favor of a bankruptcy trustee who is likely to move SCO into Chapter 7. There it will be taken apart and the pieces sold off. Even if SCO avoided Chapter 7, the $3 million SCO payment to Novell was upheld. So SCO would have huge debts to pay off while fighting a legal battle against Novell. Even if they somehow survived that, IBM's Nazgul... I mean lawyers are waiting on the other side. The average Linux shop won't have anything to worry about from SCO for *years* even under SCO's best case scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet Zombie Jesus, you're right. Just when Kimball had finally figured it out, SCO get gifted a blank slate to write their ills on anew. Cue a Mystery Investor in 3... 2... 1...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:4, Informative)
This has nothing to do with Linux, it is merely an argument over Unix copyrights. SCO has never been able to show any Unix code in Linux. Their beef with Novell centered on the Unix copyrights.Their beef with IBM wandered around witlessly for awhile and finally centered on Unix in AIX or contract disputes involving the Monterrey project. SCO hasn't been making noises about Linux for awhile...for good reason, other then putting Linux on their own servers for download, they have nothing to do with it.
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Not hardly. SCO hasn't proved it owns the Copyright.
It also has failed to prove that ANY Unix code is in Linux - remember, discovery is over in SCO vs IBM, where they alleged that very thing. And they didn't manage to come up with any infringing code.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And given that ... WITH a trustee managing it (not the board)
* SCOG is currently in chapter 11 bankruptcy
*
* AND has to pay $3m - that it doesn't have - affirmed from the original summary judgment order
it is unlikely they will initiate any NEW lawsuits in the near future.
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Novell points out that the Judge affirmed the payment ($3million) SCO was ordered to make to Novell, so there's hope yet.
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Regardless of where this one goes, I'm not sure that opening up the path to renewed litigation against IBM could ever be seen as a good thing.
They'll be ripped to pieces the moment that starts. They're called the Nazgul for a reason.
Re:Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't there some line about SCO having entered an ass kicking contest against a monster with eight legs and no ass (IBM) ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us still ascribe to the theory that SCO was hoping to either be paid off or outright bought out by IBM. Their market share was crashing and the Caldera distro was going nowhere. IBM, who has substantial amounts of money and resources invested in Linux, wasn't about to tacitly admit, even to make the SCO problem go away, that it had breached any licensing agreements, and called the bluff.
But there are all sorts of shady aspects, like Microsoft's clever tricks at getting money into SCO's hands and a
Re:Stronger than "Ordinary Nazgul" (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, even the ordinary Naz aren't enough here. Companies as big as IBM always have a scary "Iridium Team" or such. You know, one guy is 6'11" with the eidetic memory who serves as the walking caselaw and the bombshell woman with the 228 IQ to run the speeches. They only serve one case per year and charge $666 per hour, but they end the nonsense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a story in a book - I think it's called "The Million Dollar Lawyers" - about a company that was fighting IBM in court. One lawyer looked out the window and saw a huge funeral procession - lots of limos, a continuous parade of black limousines - going down the street, and remarked to his fellow lawyer, "Wow, that's some funeral, I wonder who it was."
The other lawyer just snorted and said, "Funeral, hell, that's just the IBM legal department returning from lunch."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, please, now that they've been tossed another lifeline, Uncle Fester Investments [theregister.co.uk] will drop $3 million pocket change on them to keep this rattling on.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds about right. Who better to decide a complicated copyright case than a bunch of people who can't think of a way out of jury duty?
Re:Groklaw coverage - no change of copyright ever. (Score:5, Informative)
Note that:
1- Novell board voted not to approve sale of any UNIX copyrights before this APA deal ever was signed.
2 - Santa Cruz Operation (original SCO) never took Novell to court at all (maybe they knew that the APA and Amendment were both clear to them and that they didn't get copyrights)?
3- The original SCO (Santa Cruz Operations) never did not do a final transfer of copyright paper work from NOVELL. That paperwork never happened, and Santa Cruz Operations never changed the UNIX code to show they had registration rights to the code). So they KNEW something.
4- Santa Cruz Operations SEC filings never said they owned UNIX ever. DARL when Caldera/newSCO/The SCO group did say this in their SEC filings (why the change of tune, when the one who did the deal never declared this in SEC filings at all)?
5- DARL and newSCO (TheSCO Group who became TheSCO Group by changing their name from Caldera), asked Novell for the copyrights BEFORE trying to sue LINUX users and IBM, etc.
6 - Santa Cruz Operations after the deal only collected 5% income from sales so why did they need the deal when Santa Cruz Operations already had RIGHTS to develop a "branch of Unix", why pay more money to do the same thing? Hmm, maybe to use the LIST of licensees that they go to market something else to the list (like Tarantella)?
7 - So ask yourself why the US court system has to go thru an expensive trial on this at all?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In complex matters like this a jury trial is a meaningless formality and everyone knows it. Despite countless mind numbing hours of explanations to the jury about the intricacies of copyright law, the jurors won't have a clue on what the case is really about. So the real decisions will be made at the appellate level and perhaps even by the Supreme court.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we need to rehash this? (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO released a Linux distro, thereby waving any rights to pursue Linux vendors for copyright violations [at the time]. If people inserted UNIX code *after* SCO was involved then maybe there is a case...
But you can't try and release a distro, profit from it, then sue later saying the distro which you licensed under GPL included your copyrighted [non-gpl] code...
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the only things that SCO has shown is in linux that was infringing to begin with was also part of their own linux distribution, and thus, as long as it is properly referenced as GPL'ed code, can be used in other GPL'ed code projects including other linux distributions.
Re: (Score:3)
Car/tangible goods analogies utterly fail in this type of circumstance.
That said, "I didn't know," is not grounds for nullifying a contract.
This is more how it went down: Caldera distributes Linux under the GPL. Caldera buys what's left of SCO. Caldera renames itself to "SCO Group". SCO Group claims Linux stole from SCO's intellectual property.
So the questions are more whether (a) Caldera/SCO Group's acceptance of the GPL wiped out all future claims they might have against Linux, and (b) whether they
Unsurprising, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
....all this means is it'll have to go back to trial to decide the issues. I kind of figured this would happen; Kimball's summary judgment was premature.
(yes, I skimmed through the long-ass PDF)
The same verdict as Kimball granted could potentially be reached again, this time with a full court proceeding. What it does do is delay the other cases even longer, as the Novell case decision is really required before any of them can proceed.
See you in 2012.
Re:Unsurprising, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, isn't the world supposed to end in 2012? I can see it now: SCO will win the trial and the resulting warping of reality will cause pigs to fly, hell to freeze over, Linus to switch to Windows, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, supposedly, cockroaches are the ones expected to survive the apocalypse; SCO will be around. :-/
still money pumped down from Redmond? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO (somehow) had the foresight to negociate a fixed price deal with BSF.
Besides with the Court Appointed Trustee running the business, they could very well pull the plug on the whole thing IF they felt that the millstone of these proceedings could jeopardise their 'escape' from Chapter 7.
I just wish they would roll over & die but I would expect Darl and his cronies to try to keep this going for as long as possible. (Sigh)
NOT ! (Score:5, Informative)
Appeals court only determined that the contract is a mess, and cannot be interpreted on its own. The court agreed that SCO owes Novell a large portion of the
money it received from SUN , and that a full trial is required to figure out the rest. Again this is just more delay for SCO, but SCO will soon be in Trustee-ship under chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means that it is HIGHLY likely that these cases will be closed by SCO itself, and settled in favorable terms to Novell & IBM.
Darl will not be in control of SCO once the trustee is assigned, and then we'll really get to find out who's been behind this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Smart Judge---he just provided for continued employment of many lawyers for a few more years. Self feeding system :-)
Code ownership... (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that there is the ownership of some code, but how much code can really be said to belong to one entity. BSD was spawned from the idea of creating a UNIX-like operating system, but was not using code from UNIX. So, when you say "UNIX", it is important to look at the code base and where each piece came from. All things considered, there are standard methods of doing things that are taught in school that may have originated from the old UNIX code, but are now considered a standard way of doing things. Can you say that everyone who uses code they have learned in school now runs the risk of copyright violation because the code may look identical to pieces of the "copyrighted" UNIX code?
This is where a lot of the problems will come from in these lawsuits from SCO. Also, if AT&T put a lot of code out into the public domain back when they owned System V, then it can't be taken back at this point. Does anyone know how much of the so-called UNIX code is actually held under the copyright at this point?
Re: (Score:2)
No BSD is UNIX, or at least a flavor, and the BSD's can really be considered direct descendants of the original UNIX developed at BellLabs. I believe you are speaking of Linux which is a UNIX like OS but is not derivative of the original UNIX.
Good news and Bad News (Score:2)
The good news is that this doesn't mean that SCO owns UNIX. It just means that the appeals court thought that SCO deserved a jury trial. SCO would need to present their evidence to a jury and convince them that SCO purchased the copyrights. Meanwhile, Novell would be shooting down SCO's arguments and presenting their own evidence. If the previous trial is any indication, SCO will stumble and delay it's way through always acting as though Novell was holding back on giving them that crucial piece of evide
Oh Gawd... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the "justice" system, where it's Pay to Play all day, every day. This is a consequence of electing legislators who are predominantly lawyers; if you can't make a living from arguing the law, you can always get a job making up new ones.
chipper (Score:2)
I, for one, can't wait to have a fantastic 'SCO IS DEAD' party when Darl's zoo finally gets thrown by the bankruptcy trustees onto history's trash dump where it, IMHO, belongs!
ObPython: "He's not quite dead yet!" (Score:4, Funny)
King Novell: "Your case was butchered in the courts, you creep!"
Prince SCO: "I was saved at the last minute."
King Novell: "How?"
Prince SCO: "Well, I'll tell you."
[music begins playing, the townspeople begin dancing and singing, "He's going to tell, he's going to tell!"]
Re:ObPython: "He's not quite dead yet!" (Score:4, Funny)
I was thinking more that we should send the Crimson Permanent Assurance after SCO's offices.
Re: (Score:2)
i'd rather we sent the Master Chief.
Payment Liability Affirmed, Ownership Remanded (Score:5, Insightful)
ignorance (Score:2, Informative)
Did the moron who wrote this bunch of lies actually bother reading what happened?
Even though SCO lie in just about every press release for years why do people spout the lies they tell :(
make it stop (Score:2)
How can this thing keep coming back?
I am so sick of hearing about it.
I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if this SCO business will resolve itself before Duke Nukem Forever is released...
Oh... (Score:2)
...SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!
No, this cannot be!
Now we're at the mercy of a twelve-pack of idiots who hold linux's future in their palms?
I would rather trust engineers with my life, and that's saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least this statement is more accurate then the crap the press is spewing. The press is saying SCO won on appeal. There did these guys go to school. They didn't win, they're just getting a new trial because Kimball didn't bring in a jury.
In the next trial, sco, if they still exist after bankruptcy will get creamed again.
I really don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
where the hell SCO is getting the money from to pay for a decade of litigation. How has SCO managed to survive two recessions and continue to base a business model solely around endless litigation? Dear SCO: I have a great idea for a futile court case, who is your angel investor? PS: Your money would have been better spent hiring engineers and developing new products.
Re:Is it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO will likely be gone long before this ever gets settled.
While I dont want SCO to win, I hope the end result is nothing to do with SCO running out of money.
I like that the little guy can sue the big company, they just happen to be wrong in this case.
IBM has maintained all along that there was NO infringing code.
I hope that is how IBM wins, it might help stop some of the FUD that has been spread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go with "lolwut?"
Re: (Score:2)
This one says "Oh good, the world isn't ending after all"
Re: (Score:2)
Still a liar though.
Re:Blah, blah, blah. (Score:5, Funny)
I made a call to Microsoft's customer support to let them know that I will continue to use Linux on every PC I own regardless of how many judges they buy off.
I hope you realize that you took Vikram in Bangalore way off script with that support call.
Re:Blah, blah, blah. (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you realize that you took Vikram in Bangalore way off script with that support call.
No, although the guy did have a strong Indian accent, he said his name was Steve. He also referred me to his manager, (also named Steve, incidentally), and HIS manager (Steve, again). They had to be in the US. What are the odds of all three guys being named Steve in India?
Re: (Score:2)
2. Appeal to death anyone who disagrees with you.
3. Slowly bleed money for a decade or so.
4. Die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really do not understand why the Directors have not run Darl out of town with tar and feathers for destroying SCO.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's working! SCOXQ is up from .09 to .26 !
Looks like Wall Street thinks Unix is worth about ... $400,000.
Re:first (Score:4, Insightful)
Oops - that should have been $4,066,000.
Damn those floating decimals!
Re: (Score:2)
x 1/probability of success
DUCY?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn! I should have bought SCO stock yesterday.
Re:Novell should... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that would mean more confusion in the end, and it would encourage the nextSCO to pull the same stunt: Sue a company with big pockets on claims without merit und wait for the company to reward you with buyout money.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would reward thieves and encourage a whole raft of me-too lawsuits.
Re:Novell should... (Score:4, Insightful)
People asked the same question about why IBM didn't buy out SCO at the beginning.
The argument against, IIRC, pointed out that in so doing they'd be sending a strong message to the IT industry: "Fuck with us, and we'll buy your company for enormous gobs of cash and all your directors will be able to retire with massive golden parachutes!".
Re:WOOT!! FINALLY (Score:5, Informative)
Actual facts:
1/ The ruling leaves SCO owing Novell $2.5 Million + Interest.
2/ The rest of the case (including copyright ownership) goes to a jury trial.
3/ If SCO somehow wins they get no money.
4/ SCO then gets to go ahead with the IBM lawsuit which they were losing badly.
5/ The SCO management has been ordered (by the bankruptcy judge) to be replaced by a trustee. A trustee who may or may not continue the lawsuits. He/she may choose to try and negotiate a way out to stop the bleeding.
6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial.
So the trustee has a problem. The company money is owed to Novell and they don't have the cash to continue until the case goes to trial (which will be delayed due to the new judge needing time to come up to speed).
Only then can they go on with the IBM trial. To make money off the IBM trial they need to have won on the key issues in the Novell trial (copyright and right to waive), they also need to beat the IBM lawyers (who are not nicknamed the Nazgul for nothing).
Even if somehow the trustee can be persuaded to fight these cases and manages to win what are the odds that neither Novell or IBM would appeal? What are the chances that SCO can survive long enough to fight through the appeals if it comes to that?
At most this is a lesser defeat for SCO. So long as they owe Novell the money and still have to fight the trial they are still doomed. The chances that the trustee would be willing to keep the company bleeding to fight dubious lawsuits is pretty low.