[SASAG] For those following SCO vs Novell, SCO vs IBM, etc

Jim Hogan jim.hogan at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 19:33:32 PDT 2007


Spam,

On 8/10/07, spam at tprophet.org <spam at tprophet.org> wrote:
> Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I just work for a company that is
> frequently sued (neither Novell nor SCO, incidentally).

In the sociology of litigation, I gather there's something of a truism
that lawsuits often result when the parties (often avoidably) become
estranged and just don't like each other anymore.  If your company is
frequently being sued, perhaps it should do some things to try to make
people like it?  Just a thought.  IANAL.

> So, take this reply with a grain of salt (perhaps the whole shaker if it makes you
> feel better).

I'd like my doctor to know that I keep salt around the house for this
purpose alone.

> I urge you to view this in perspective.

Why do you *urge* me?  I thought I *had* a perspective.  Dang, it must
be defective!  Sniff!

> This was a ruling by a Utah district judge.

I think I read that somewhere.  Hmmm, where was that?  Where was
that???? Oh, it'll come to me.....

> District courts are the lowest federal courts. The
> ruling, effectively, if allowed to stand, will put SCO out of business.
> So, it's likely that the judgment will be stayed pending appeal.

BSF got their money up front.  They could have money for a few weeks
or even a few months of this...so....

>  From a district court, you go to a circuit court (and sometimes two
> iterations of a circuit court: a hearing in front of a 3-judge panel,
> then a hearing in front of the entire circuit).

District court, circuit court.  I think I remember something like that
from civics class.  But it has been so long.  I hear there was once
even something called the Sublime Court, but that they were targeted
by an M&A guru in DC and got snapped up in a hostile takeover.

> It takes a heck of a long time to get on their docket. That's why this stuff often drags out
> for years.

"It takes a heck of a long time".  I think I remember hearing that in
civics class, too.  But I think I also remember the teacher saying
that the distinct, circular and sublime courts could *refuse* to hear
appeals.  Like if the appeals had no coffee grounds.  Yeah, I think
she said something like "no grounds for a peel".

So, you think, given Kimball's well-percolated ruling, that SCO has
grounds?  Any grounds at all?  What grounds do *you* think?

> As for the question of how to pay the lawyers... SCO is a public
> company, so they could issue additional stock or float bonds to raise
> funds. Or they can find a law firm that will take the case either on a
> contingency or in exchange for equity.

I gotta thank you.  My Friday evening was looking pretty dull and
humorless until these two fine sentences came shimmying along.

I am not sure, and I'll have to ask her, but I think you have managed
to meet the very stringent criteria for something my Dear Mom politely
calls an "optimist".

> I can all but guarantee than an appeal *will* happen, because the
> board of directors has a fiduciary
> responsibility to protect the shareholders' assets.

Never seen it, personally, but I'm told that a chicken will run around
for a while after you cut off its head.

> Doing nothing would
> wipe out the shareholders, exposing every corporate officer to
> *personal* lawsuits and even criminal liability.

Ummm, like most of them aren't exposed already?

Jim

P.S Oh, I remember now.  It was this on-line thing called Groklaw.  On
something called the World-Wide Web.


>
> -TProphet
>
> Jim Hogan wrote:
> > On 8/10/07, spam at tprophet.org <spam at tprophet.org> wrote:
> >> This is almost certain to be appealed.
> >
> > On what basis do you believe this particular ruling might be appealed?
> >
> >> Legal garbage like this  invariably drags on for years.
> >
> > At this point, in this case, it would seem that you presume that
> > Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP would be willing to work on this
> > supposed appeal (that "drags on for years") on a pro bono basis.
> >
> > Are *you* are in a position to fund the continued efforts of BSF?  SCO won't be.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >> -TProphet
> >>
> >> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> >>> Leeland wrote:
> >>>  > Well this is just a great way to end the week. I am going home on
> >>> this note!
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>  > Judge Kimball has ruled that SCO does not own the Unix or Unixware
> >>>  > Copyrights, instead Novell owns them and indeed had the right to
> >>>  > overrule SCO's attempt to force IBM to cease donating code to Linux.
> >>>  > Additionally, because of this ruling SCO now owes Novell more money
> >>>  > for licenses than it has liquid assets to pay.
> >>>  >
> >>>  > More info at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718
> >>>  >  Buh-Bye SCO.
> >>>
> >>> This is really it, then? I wonder who'll finance and drive the next
> >>> assault on OSS et al, now that SCO is about to fade, er, burn away...
> >>>
> >>> - Joe
> >>>
> >>> http://www.joeszilagyi.com
> >>> http://www.seattleology.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Members mailing list
> >>> Members at lists.sasag.org
> >>> http://lists.sasag.org/mailman/listinfo/members
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Members mailing list
> >> Members at lists.sasag.org
> >> http://lists.sasag.org/mailman/listinfo/members
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
-*-  Jim Hogan
     Seattle, WA



More information about the Members mailing list