Third Caveat - SCO does seem to keep going and going. A bit more history -
o A while back there was a Judge verdict, that, as a matter of _law_, SCO did not own the copyrights. (There was no copyright transfer, ergo, the copyrights had not been transferred. That issue is now going to the supreme court, and actually may have a chance of being reviewed - the question is - "Do you need a copyright transfer for copyrights to be considered transferred"
o That was overturned, and it went before a Jury Trial. Once again, the Jury agreed - no transfer of copyrights.
o SCO asked, as a matter of Law, a ruling that clearly the copyrights had been transferred. Denied.
Now, we'll see what else is up SCO's sleeve. Admittedly they are in bankruptcy, and the Bankruptcy official has been put in charge of the organization - so presumably future behavior will be profit maximizing and somewhat rational.
o A while back there was a Judge verdict, that, as a matter of _law_, SCO did not own the copyrights. (There was no copyright transfer, ergo, the copyrights had not been transferred. That issue is now going to the supreme court, and actually may have a chance of being reviewed - the question is - "Do you need a copyright transfer for copyrights to be considered transferred"
o That was overturned, and it went before a Jury Trial. Once again, the Jury agreed - no transfer of copyrights.
o SCO asked, as a matter of Law, a ruling that clearly the copyrights had been transferred. Denied.
Now, we'll see what else is up SCO's sleeve. Admittedly they are in bankruptcy, and the Bankruptcy official has been put in charge of the organization - so presumably future behavior will be profit maximizing and somewhat rational.