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

Robin Battey zanfur at zanfur.com
Sat Aug 11 05:02:45 PDT 2007


Jim:

That was uncalled for.

Every large company gets sued, and TProphet works for a large company.  
While I don't like some of his company's practices (assuming he still
works for the same company he did a few years ago), I think your attack on
him and his company is a little out of line.

Corporations can find money in many ways, company-destroying decisions are
typically heard on appeal even without reasonable grounds, and lawsuits
against executive officers of a company become much more likely (and
likely to succeed) once the company has been convicted of illegal
activities (or *more* illegal activities).  True or not, it seems like
he's pretty much saying "don't hold your breath quite yet, it's not
necessarily over".  I agree with him.  (For the record, I rather despise 
what SCO has been doing recently.)

I've known TProphet for many years.  He's a solid guy with a solid head on
his shoulders.  He's just talking sense, even if it's not how I'd like
things to be.  I suspect it's not how *he* would like them to be, either, 
but I can't speak for him there.

-robin

Robin Battey
Manager of Network Services
UIEvolution, Inc

On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 07:33:32PM -0700, Jim Hogan wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at lists.sasag.org
> http://lists.sasag.org/mailman/listinfo/members

-- 

                              Robin  Battey
                            zanfur at zanfur.com

Messages from this address are signed with key 0x6A57B07D.  Fingerprint:
           3914 F63C A99C 8EC1 785B  8287 1D8B D2F3 6A57 B07D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sasag.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20070811/b663191d/attachment.bin>


More information about the Members mailing list