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

Jim Hogan jim.hogan at gmail.com
Sat Aug 11 08:07:18 PDT 2007


Robin,

On 8/11/07, Robin Battey <zanfur at zanfur.com> wrote:
> Jim:
>
> That was uncalled for.

I am what I would think of as a casual member of this list (of no long
standing), so I want to respect the opinions of others who may have
been here much longer and who may have a better perspective on the
list's "tone"

> 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.

Now in this case, I was not 100% sure where Tprophet worked from what
he said, but made a 99% guess from what he said and from an email some
time ago.  Sorry, I did not see this as an "attack" (esp on his
company), more like teasing.  I fully understand that even great,
well-loved companies get sued.  But I think there are many companies
out there that could suite everyone's cause including their own if
they worked a bit harder to be well-loved.

> 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 would agree that it isn't over yet,  The chicken's heart is still beating.

> 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, I think it would suit my purposes and perhaps everybody's if I
kept my yap a little more tightly shut now and again.  This is a list,
not some wild BBS.  I will keep that in mind.

I will say, though, that I thought some of TProphet's assertions were
maybe what I would call nonchalant and I felt a need to respond to
them.  More, to the extent that I interpreted some of his responses
about the nature and function of the appeals court system in this
country (and about exactly what position judge Dale Kimball occupies)
to be pretty horribly condescending, well, I probably reacted to that,
perhaps badly.

Anyhow, at this point, I think that any use of the terms "SCO" and
"equity" in the same sentence should set off alarm bells and perhaps
be prohibited by the Grammar Police (or somebody).

I appreciate your point.  This might be a good place to say that (do
they really say this?)  "I will take it under advisement".

Thanks,

Jim

>
> -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
>
>


-- 
-*-  Jim Hogan
     Seattle, WA



More information about the Members mailing list