CASE CLOSED!

Maybe I should say cases closed. The door has slammed shut on the SCO litigation machine. The judge writes in the Memorandum Decision and Order about SCOsource, "Finally, while SCO's witnesses testified that the copyrights were 'required' for SCO to run its SCOsource licensing program, this was not something that SCO ever acquired from Novell." He totally got it. He noticed Darl McBride admitted that SCO didn't need the copyrights. It couldn't be any better if I'd written it myself.

Was the jury misled or confused? Not at all, the judge writes: "The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO's witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation."

"The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith," Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.

And now it is -- finally -- time, once again, for my red dress! And a huge thank you to Michael Jacobs and the team at Morrison & Foerster, who never gave up but, more importantly, showed that you can fight hard and win with ethics and dignity, and to Sterling Brennan of Workman|Nydegger, who was frankly absolutely wonderful at trial.

SCO's stock I see is today worth a nickel. I consider that overpriced, personally. It's not worth a plugged nickel. Well, I know nothing about stocks, so don't go by me. Here's what I can't wait to read: SCO's press release. Remember when they put them out after all major court events? And Rob Enderle, Dan Lyons, and Maureen O'Gara. Can't wait. Say, didn't Paul Murphy say he'd stop blogging if SCO lost? Promises, promises.

And may I be forgiven for simply stating the obvious? Groklaw was never biased. We merely had sufficient expertise to call it right. And we did. SCO really did fall downstairs, hitting its head on every step. Here's the real question, though. How come Boies Schiller couldn't call it right, when a mere paralegal could, and so protect its client from going forward with a case that to me was obviously a loser from day one? Maybe they tried. But review this 2003 teleconference transcript from our Transcripts page with Mr. Boies in attendance and decide for yourself if they were dragged in or willingly jumped. It's so puzzling to me.

There may be an appeal, you say? Yes, true. I hope there is one, because Boies Schiller has to do it for free, under its contract with SCO, and they claim they are already in the red on this case. I'd call that a healthy learning experience.

You know what else I can't wait to hear? What SCO's trustee Edward Cahn tells the bankruptcy court now. First he told it that SCO had worthy claims, then he said they had a 50-50 chance, all to justify going forward with this turkey of a case, at huge expense to SCO.

And to all the folks who said viciously untrue things about Groklaw, apologies would be most welcome.