Groklaw thinks that the SCO case is going to be shown to be without any foundation at all, writing "we know it's poppycock."
Groklaw also says that SCO is running out of money for its legal expenses and is suggesting that IBM's successful legal strategy has confounded SCO's case and shown that SCO doesn't have a proper case to make.
Say SCO actually does have to own up to losing the case and wasting thirty million bucks or more of its cash on a no-hope lawsuit; will CEO Darl McBride resign? Will Microsoft come clean about its backing of SCO for the purpose of putting indirect pressure on Linux users and prospective users?
What will SCO customers and partners think of the company, once its lawsuit is shown to be baseless?
Will IBM look to recover its legal costs from SCO for what it has called a frivolous and baseless suit? It might think it has a duty to its shareholders to do so. The shareholders would probably agree.
The company might look to be compensated up to what? Forty million? Fifty million? Whatever its legal costs were. Maybe some damages on top? The Santa Cruz Operation, seemingly Microsoft's poodle, is heading towards becoming a pretty sick puppy.
For SCO 2007 looks likely to be a year of reassessing what it is about as a company and what its business is really about. It may, literally, be a make or break year for SCO.