'

SCO vs. Novell: When and how did Elliot know?

The jury verdict is in:the customer testified that it thought it was buying the everythingthe seller testified that it thought it was selling everythingthe jury says the transaction was improperly recorded and therefore didn't happen!Huh?

The jury verdict is in:

  • the customer testified that it thought it was buying the everything

  • the seller testified that it thought it was selling everything

the jury says the transaction was improperly recorded and therefore didn't happen!

Huh? Say what!? To say I'm astounded is putting it mildly.

But it all raises two interesting questions:

  1. if this verdict rests (as it appears to) on one Novell guy's contention that he was acting on board instructions to not sell what the buyer thought they were buying (and Novell's CEO thought they were selling) hasn't SCO just been handed another legal gold mine? and;

  2. what's Elliot's play in this? Were they the in-case-we-win broom to sweep things under the carpet? (because now Novell's board faces the fine job of explaining to shareholders why they're either not pursuing SCO's case against IBM or why they are. A horrible choice either way.)

Wow! I can't wait for the next installment!