Okay, time for a serious question. IBM has money, and SCO's lawyers gave them a fee cap. So this endless litigation is not wrecking anyone's life. Mostly it's

Okay, time for a serious question. IBM has money, and SCO's lawyers gave them a fee cap. So this endless litigation is not wrecking anyone's life. Mostly it's just an annoyance to IBM and to SCO's lawyers. But suppose it weren't IBM. Suppose SCO were suing me. Or you. Being hounded for over a decade by the ghost of a company, which remains in existence solely for the purpose of suing you sounds horrible. And since I/you may very well have done nothing wrong, this is an unacceptable situation. Now, I would hope that a good judge would realize this. Just about all the articles I've read concerning this case are about the court asking SCO to clarify something. And, indeed, here we read: > So it's going to go like this: > 1. SCO must file a brief statement identifying the claims .... So I would imagine that our hypothetical good judge would stick up for me/you by simply saying to SCO, "You need to make a clear statement about what you are claiming, and we're not going to waste any more time with you until you do." But then I wonder why the judge couldn't simply have done that in this case, too -- a decade ago.