On Tuesday 09 August 2005 21:43, John Wilson wrote:
> On August 9, 2005 12:18 am, Kaj Haulrich wrote:
> > JoeHill wrote:
> > > Well, here I go posting 'old' news again, but for those (like
> > > me) who are not glued to their RSS feeds 7/24:
> > >
> > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050804095846895
> >
> > The article predicts the bankruptcy of SCO...?
> >
> > Have you ever heard of MicroSCOft ..?
> >
> > Kaj Haulrich.
>
> You're missing the point, Kaj.
>
> The counterclaim that started all of this talk is from Novell
> where, among other things, they claim that 95% of the money paid
> to SCO by Microsoft actually belongs to them under terms of the
> agreement they had with Santa Cruz Operation and now have with
> SCO by means of successor rights.
>
> Further, Novell is requesting that a trust be set up to ensure
> that should the ruling on the counterclaim be positive that there
> will be some money left for them.
>
> Another telling feature of all of this is that a week has passed
> with nary a peep from SCO who usually bluster about these things.
> This is not like SCO who usually howl at the moon about things
> like this.
>
> Rumour also has it that SCO is behind in their legal payments.
> Way behind.
>
> Meanwhile, do you seriously think that MS will plow money into
> SCO when there is a very real possibility that Novell will end up
> pocketing it? :-)
>
> ttfn
>
> John
That's certainly good news, John. And thank you for correcting my
ignorance... Guess I have to study Groklaw more intensely. But why
can't Microsnot just pay Boyes & Co. - undercover, eventually ?
Kaj Haulrich.
--
** Sent from a 100% Microsoft-free computer **
*** Running Linux Mandriva 2005 LE ***
____________________________________________________
Want to buy your Pack or Services from Mandriva?
Go to http://store.mandriva.com
Join the Club : http://www.mandrivaclub.com
____________________________________________________
