IBM does billions of dollars in Linux buisness annually.   SCO began it's campaign of derogation against Linux and IBM in 2003.   Some estimates say that at it's peak the SCO matter slowed Linux adoption by as much as 20%.   Do the math.

SCO asserted IP rights against Linux which appear baseless.   As determined by a court, SCO does not own the UNIX rights it asserted as being infringed by Linux ... as well as never having demonstrated that Linux infringes them in any way.    All of these are reasons for damages and specifically identified as such in the Lanham Act.

There is also strong evidence that CEO Darl McBride and chairman of SCO's Board of Directors, Ralph Yarro, personally knew that SCO did not own the copyrights.

IANAL, but given the Utah court's Aug 10 2007 ruling, and the multiple public statements by SCO officers, including McBride and Yarro, Lanham damages look like a given if asked.

RedHat has similar claims, though certainly for a lesser amount.

No SCO reorganization plan should be accepted by the court which does not account for this potential liability.          All discovery in the IBM suit is complete and a trial would be scheduled within months of the suit being unstayed.    The "certification" of SCO's liability in this matter is only MONTHS, not years away once SCO emerges from the protection of the bankruptcy court.

Justice and judicial economy in this matter can be served only by denying any present reorganization plan and unstaying the IBM trial so that a dollar amount of liability can be determined.    Otherwise, with very high probability, SCO will return to bankruptcy court a year or two after emergence but with a liability that no possible reorganization or refinancing could ameliorate.