Well, if rebuffing IBM’s $7 billion offer as too low the weekend before last was a negotiating tactic then the gambit has blown up in Sun’s face according CNBC.

Following a Bloomberg story saying Sun wanted IBM to come back to the table – a story that made no mention of price – CNBC rustled up its own sources who told the cable channel that IBM had washed its hands of the whole affair.

First CNBC heard IBM wouldn’t touch Sun now with a 10-foot pole having been told by the Justice Department, the SEC and the European Commission that it would be in for a six-nine month review that would mean financial and business practice disclosures that IBM is not prepared to make, preferring to lie low and not attract attention.

CNBC said it was told Sun had reached out to IBM in a letter Tuesday offering to be utterly flexible on price and terms.

IBM had reportedly not told Sun it wasn’t interested when CNBC ran with its story.

Bloomberg had reported that – trapped in a dark alley with nowhere else to go – Sun was ready to restart takeover talks with IBM provided IBM put more starch in its commitment to actually close the deal despite whatever regulatory hurdles it had to vault.

Supposedly IBM had trimmed the price it was willing to pay to about $9.40 a share after due diligence and after being asked for guarantees that it would acquire Sun no matter what trouble the pair run into with the regulators.

Sun was supposedly willing to take a lower price of $9.55, down a dollar, in exchange for such an undertaking.

The Sun board was reportedly split over whether or not to accept the IBM offer with chairman Scott McNealy supposedly leading the nays. Presumably it would have been stupid to accept if the deal might not have gotten done.

CNBC said Sun then reached out to other companies again and got nowhere.

It reportedly talked to HP, Dell, Intel and Cisco. Cisco CEO John Chambers said Wednesday in Korea that if Cisco was interested it “would probably have already moved.”

CNBC said the problem would have been the server market share that IBM would have had. Combined with Sun it would have been something like 42%, enough to set off the European Commission.

CNBC also claimed that after doing due diligence the competitive position IBM would have had vis-à-vis HP with its 30% share of the server market didn’t look as attractive as it did going in.

Then CNBC came back with a different story. It said that IBM was an old hand at getting acquisitions past regulators and that wasn’t the REAL deal breaker. The REAL deal breaker was those executive contracts that Bloomberg eluded to days ago, the ones we said would get stockholders’ hackles up.

According to CNBC “The deeper issue is something IBM discovered during the due diligence process: A series of unusually structured contracts that Sun has with many key partners. Further, there’s a ‘change of control provision’ in many key executive contracts that Sun apparently was unwilling to unravel, and that was one of the reasons why IBM walked. I’m told this isn’t a ‘golden parachute’ or ‘poison pill,’ but simply a provision that forces the buyer to shell out tens of millions of dollars to a small group of Sun executives if the company is acquired. When IBM said it would have to lower the price of its offer to accommodate for that provision, Sun said no.”

Wall Street is still hopeful since Sun’s stock price was up 4.4% Thursday to $6.40.

CNBC however says it heard that McNealy wants to make a Michael Dell-like return as CEO and that unless Sun is willing to rewrite those employment contracts and take $9.40 a share IBM’s outta here.

IBM’s reported interest in Sun and its baggage still befuddles many in the computer industry particularly at the price being quoted.

SCO filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver Tuesday.

Yes, miracle of miracles it finally got a final judgment out of Utah District Court Judge Dale Kimball.

That’s the hall pass it needs to challenge his devastating summary judgment of August 10, 2007 in which he basically decided that Novell owns Unix – having supposedly only licensed it to SCO in 1995 – and that Novell was perfectly within its rights to order SCO to drop its claims against IBM and Sequent for allegedly poaching Unix code and sticking it in Linux.

SCO of course contends that Kimball utterly ignored the basic rules of civil procedure in issuing that summary judgment against it – and truth to tell Judge Kimball has an impressive string of overturned summary judgments to his name.

A summary judgment’s not supposed to weight evidence, champion one side’s interpretation of facts over the other’s, or decide that one set of witnesses is more credible than another.

As any first-year law student ought to know, when there are two sides to a story, as in SCO v Novell, a judge isn’t supposed to pick one and issue a summary judgment.

That’s the business of juries.

And that’s especially true when a case is governed by California law, which bends over backwards to give the plaintiff – in this case SCO – the edge in extrinsic evidence and especially when all of Novell’s old management – who did the original deal – testified for SCO.

But Judge Kimball denied SCO a jury.

He preferred the testimony of a couple of old Novell lawyers from back when Unix supposedly transferred from Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation about what the Santa Cruz Operation, SCO’s predecessor company, and Novell’s intentions were rather than what the guys in charge said.

The lawyers claimed SCO only licensed Unix, a word that appears nowhere in the 1995 transfer documents – or anywhere in fact before 2004 when SCO sued Novell for claiming to still own Unix.

Novell’s old management – who testified they never heard of any license – thought they sold all of Unix to SCO – old Unix, new Unix, UnixWare, all versions, all releases – and wrote letters to Novell’s customers in 1996 saying exactly that.

So, if the 10th Circuit overturns the SCO summary judgment, SCO’s slander-of-title/breech-of-contract/copyright infringement case against Novell will go to a jury back in Utah and, if SCO wins there – and moot courts suggest it will – well, then, the question of whether Linux stole Unix code will again be troubling Linux users, particularly IBM’s Linux users.

If SCO loses the appeal, it’ll probably be turning its assets over to Novell.

Now, to get the final judgment out of Kimball, SCO had to do some horse trading with Novell, which was doing what it could to delay SCO’s drive to Denver according to what SCO says in other court filings.

For instance, it had to agree to forsake forever some of its breach of contract, copyright infringement and unfair competition claims against Novell and it had to agree to put $625,486.90 into a constructive trust.

The claims SCO is giving up relate to post-1995 Unix code, which only represents a small part of SCO’s case against Novell, but – since it was obviously important to Novell – it also suggests there’s probably some real stinker in there that SCO never found. If such a thing exists and SCO ever does find it, well, only Novell is safe.

And since SCO is still protected by the cloak of the bankruptcy court in Delaware where it sought sanctuary from Judge Kimball – and the chance that Novell would be empowered to seize all of its assets – it doesn’t have to immediately write Novell a check for the $2,547,817 plus interest that Judge Kimball decided this July (and probably rightly too) that SCO owes Novell for some rights it sold Sun back in 2003.

The interest, Judge Kimball now says, works out to $918,122 in “pre-judgment interest through August 29, 2008, plus $489 per diem thereafter until the date of this judgment,” which would be November 20.

Sun’s lawyers may be interested in the Novell-written final judgment that Judge Kimball signed.

Looks like Novell put one over on the old boy, who was evidently asleep on the bench.

Judge Kimball now says that “SCO was not authorized…to amend, in the 2003 Sun agreement, Sun’s 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell, and SCO needed to obtain Novell’s approval before entering into the amendment.”

In English that means (or might mean given this confusing string of judicial fiats) that, contrary to what Judge Kimball decided in July – and despite a warning brief filed by SCO – he has now signed a piece of paper saying that SCO’s whole deal with Sun wasn’t legit.

In July he said only part of the SCO-Sun deal, which brought SCO a total of $9,143,451, exceeded its rights.

Heck, that’s why he awarded Novell only $2.5 million from that deal that Sun negotiated with SCO, then the industry-recognized owner of Unix, to get the confidentially provisions governing its 1994 Unix buy-out agreements with Novell lifted so it could open source Solaris.

Novell has reportedly been looking for some leverage against OpenSolaris, which competes with Linux – and in which Novell has a serious vested interest – and may have just gotten it – if the decision ultimately stands.

Judge Kimball’s apparently wavering position on Sun – he left untouched his ruling that Novell isn’t entitled to any of the revenue that SCO got from licensing UnixWare and incidental SVRX code to Sun – looks like another head scratcher for the appeals court to sort out.

It generally takes 10-12 months to get a decision out of an appeals court counting from the time a notice of appeal is filed. SCO’s concessions to Novell may have shaved six months off of the clock starting.

Novell, by the way, could also appeal.

Despite published obituaries to the contrary – and a lot of gleeful humming of “Ding, Dong, The Witch is Dead” – SCO’s legal bills for appeal are already paid and it claims it will have the money to pursue its case.

It currently has until the end of the year to file a reorganization plan with the bankruptcy court in Delaware.

© 2012 LinuxGram Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha