On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:35:56 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
<apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

>Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 19:01:48 +0000 (UTC), Tony Lawrence
>><apl@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
>>>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>>>>It was also interesting reading the SEC filings showing SCO's lawyers
>>>>refused to take the case on a no-win no-fee basis (due to the
>>>>certainty that they will lose), but instead took a 20% stake in the
>>>>company so they can join in the stock dumping frenzy too!
>>>
>>>So? They aren't stupid. Your point?
>
>>Some commentators had suggested that SCO *must* have a case, since the
>>lawyers were on contingency and would not have taken the case without a
>>likelyhood of success.
>
>>Now, it seems that the lawyers will get paid no matter what (it's been
>>suggested that they will get 20% of the recent Baystar/RBC investments),
>>so the suggestion that SCO *must* have a case based on the lawyer's
>>contingency now fails.
>
>OK. I can't imagine how anyone could think that a lawyer could have
>enough knowledge of the history of Unix etc. to have an opinion of
>value.

I agree with you, but some analysts (DiDio?) had made that suggestion.

Maybe after doing a lot of research, but that costs money, so it
>doesn't surprise me that they covered their butts. But beyond that,
>even if they understood it and though the case was good, the possibility
>of a buyout nullifying the case would have to be covered, and that's
>what this would do.

My point was that the lawyers *may* already have been paid $10M,
irrespective of any outcome.

>
>The latest crapola from SCO offering a "discount" for switching to
>some other OS is far more disturbing than this, I think.

I agree.