SCO FILED NOTICE on Tuesday that it will appeal Judge Kimball's final judgment in its unsuccessful lawsuit against Novell, wherein it tried to claim ownership of the copyrights to UNIX SVRx.
Refusing to admit its resounding defeat in US District Court, SCO hopes to persuade the 10th Circuit US Court of Appeals that it deserved a jury trial in SCO v. Novell. In order to do that, it will have to convince the appellate court that Judge Kimball improperly ruled that: Novell's counterclaims sought merely equitable relief rather than damages, and that the plain language of SCO's UNIX SVRx asset purchase agreement with Novell was clear and unambiguous, and therefore that no substantive facts were in dispute between the parties.
That reasoning led Judge Kimball to try SCO's lawsuit without a jury, finding for Novell on most of its counterclaims and assessing a judgment of over $2.5 million against SCO. In an even more important ruling, Judge Kimball also found that Novell, not SCO, owns the copyrights to UNIX SVRx, completely demolishing SCO's pretenses to claims over Linux.
Having fled into US Bankruptcy Court in Delaware in September 2007 in order to delay the trial of its related lawsuit against IBM, SCO has been steadily depleting its remaining funds. It would not be able to afford to appeal in SCO v. Novell if it hadn't earlier paid its lawyers more than $30 million in advance for both cases, including appeals.
But SCO is running out of time to file a voluntary plan of reorganisation in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, which is due by December 31. Unless it can quickly attract added capitalisation or other new financing, it could be headed into dissolution under Chapter 7 sometime next year. So it's possible that the company won't survive long enough to see its appeal decided, a process that could take anywhere between 18 months and five years.
Yet, supposing SCO somehow survives and emerges from bankruptcy, that will revive two other lawsuits that were stayed by its bankruptcy filing – SCO v. IBM and Redhat v. SCO – plus a Novell v. SCO arbitration in Switzerland.
The Swiss arbitration case seems relatively minor, and the Redhat case will remain stayed pending resolution of the IBM lawsuit, but the IBM litigation is a wholely different matter.
All of SCO's major claims in the IBM lawsuit were either dismissed or effectively eviscerated by rulings in SCO v. Novell before the IBM case was stayed, so only IBM's counterclaims against SCO really remain to be settled at trial.
Given the fact that SCO very publicly insulted IBM's corporate integrity, plus the tens of millions of dollars in legal fees SCO forced IBM to spend on its defence, the thousands of man hours IBM had to expend, and the truckloads of documents and millions of lines of software code it had to deliver to respond to SCO's bootless discovery, IBM most probably won't be well disposed to quietly settle the case or let SCO off lightly. If the IBM case goes to trial, IBM's unblinking Nazgul lawyers will be out for blood and the grinding of bones.
Novell's attorneys at Morrison Foerster are very good – the firm's website designation as www.mofo.com is both intentional and apt – but IBM's lawyers are, if possible, even more fearsome. Given a chance, they will launch SCO on a one-way journey into the heart of the Sun, then start looking for whomever they can find that put it up to this Linux lawsuit scam.
Now that prospect is almost enough to make one hope that SCO actually gets that far. µ
See Also
No
winner in Novell v SCO trial
Plus 370 more by using Search
L'Inq
Groklaw
Amusing article, and the levels of schadenfreude read new heights.. One-legged entities shouldn't start ass-kicking contests. 

However, with regard to:

"Given a chance, they will launch SCO on a one-way journey into the heart of the Sun, then start looking for whomever they can find that put it up to this Linux lawsuit scam."

..I have to say, I beg to differ. There's enough of a dayglo obvious trail of suspicious circumstantial evidence leading back to Redmond, littered with the corpses of sock puppets. No, the impossible thing would be to prove it in a way that you could make stick in court. Remember, the DoJ couldn't make allegations that a certain software house was an abusive monopoly stick, simply because they had more and better lawyers- and they managed to laugh it off until uncle Dubyah got in and made all the nasty legal problems go away. IBM's lawyers might have fewer fatigue and pity problems than the terminator, but they are seriously outclassed when it comes to the quality and quantity of team MS and its legal artillery. MS is fricken' huge- a marketing and litigation outfit with a software wing (these days). They play hardball. IBM aren't stupid enough to pick a fight like that unless they have some major aces up their sleeve such that even a bought legal system can't stop them.

The funny thing is the assumption from some folks that SCO were some kind of evil genius masterminds. Nope- just utterly unscrupulous, greedy dillholes. A few weasel words to set them going, point them in the right direction, and their avarice does the rest. Patsies, they did it to themselves (and that's what really hurts).

I see two irrelavant companies bickering over money whilst they hemorrage it.

In the end, this case will go down as two companies who, once on top, didn't know when to quit, irritated everyone in IT, and only padded the wallets of the lawyers & lawfirms they hired.

I personally don't know anyone with a direct relationship with SCO (or Novell for that matter) - but specifically with SCO, they're holding onto a name for money's sake and no good ever comes from that. If the simply closed up shop and liquidated their assets to anyone other than Microsoft, I'd be extremely pleased to see them disappear and an era end.

As far as Novell, if they have life in the future -- who knows. SuSE is the most interesting product they offer right now. Without the SCO thorn in their side, perhaps Novell would be in a better position. Time will tell. 

Doesn't anyone have a stake?
SCO is completely irrelevant.

They have no products or services that anyone wants or needs. They won't live long enough for the Novel ruling to be denied and IBM's lawyers to destroy them. I can't see anyone being willing to invest in a company that has nothing of value, just to help them appeal a ruling they lost. Will someone please kill and bury the "Zombie" company now please??