Slashdot Mirror
SCO Denied Motion To Change IBM Case Again
Rob writes "SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time
has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present
their respective evidence with specificity. Despite repeated public declarations
that it has evidence Linux contains Unix code that infringes its copyright, SCO
has yet to present any evidence to the court." Bad news for them all around, lately.
Since when can you not change your case multiple times over the years? And since when do they have to show evidence? Isn't SCO's word good enough? This is a travesty! There is no justice!
Starsucks
SCO Group Inc's attempt to change its legal case against IBM Corp for the third time has been denied by the judge, who has also set the two companies a deadline to present their respective evidence with specificity. **snip** Bad news all around, lately.
Ok, why exactly is this bad news? Sounds like what we've all been screaming for. The judge finally says "put up or shut up - no more delays!"
Unless I'm reading it wrong. Am I?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
When has vaporware is ever been proven to exist? The case needs to stick to the facts.
Darl should not worry about loss of income.
He already proved that he is a hell of a soap story writer. The MPIAA will gladly embrace him when this little mess is over.
Maybe I drink too much coffee.
Don't investors typically eventually say "ain't gonna happen" and walk away? Is there an obvious reason why this hasn't happened yet?
I am a
I believe either the tags were left out, or the bad news is in referral to bad news for SCO, not bad news for Linux.
"Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world; unreasonable people persist in trying to adapt the world to themselves
The sarcastic implication being that it's bad news for SCO. Kind of like when an obnoxious player on the opposite team sprains an ankle: "aww, tough luck, buddy."
I am a
It's bad for SCO. :) It's probably bad for anyone getting paid for time spent on the case. :) Other than that, I can't think of anyone it is actually bad for. Except maybe dentists, as there won't be so much gnashing of teeth at the delays.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There's a lot of discussion on Groklaw about what happens when tSCOg goes bankrupt.
The minute tSCOg loses the first of the many cases it has going, it goes bankrupt. Its fate is then in the hands of the bankrupcy trustee and the creditors. My guess is that all the cases then get settled out of court on terms agreeable to the creditors. In the case of IBM this means a declaration that Linux is totally unemcumbered by anyone's Unix IP.
Not sure what planet Rob and Zonk are from, but to most of us this is good news.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
give up while you can.. americans can not detect sarcasm at all for some reason ;)
No idea what it said before, but right now the "Bad news" links to the slashdot article where Novell's judge declined to kill the SCO vs. Novell lawsuit. So "Bad news all around" means that everyone's got their share of bad news no matter whose side you're on.
The cbronline.com article says the SCO/IBM case will drag out at least through February 2007! Does that sound excessive to anyone besides me?
/. will have plenty of future front page material.
I guess
Judge Kimball is on to them.
We non-lawyers think of judges as impartial watchers of the courtroom. Sometimes they are. Most of the time, though, they pick a winner and spend the rest of the case guiding the decision the way they think it should go and covering themselves for appeal.
That's how it's been with SCO v IBM. After months and months without any credible evidence, after seeing the SCO group twist his words and the words of Magistrate Judge Wells (who's handling much of the pre-trial bickering), he began to take on a more aggressive tone. He hasn't been on IBM's side, but it looks like he has seen the inevitable result and is trying to make sure his decision doesn't get turned over on appeal.
So when The SCO Group tried to amend their complaint based on an out-of-context reading of IBM's Ninth Counterclaim (a request for a ruling that IBM didn't infringe SCO's copyrights), he said no, that the counterclaim must be read in context. He said they were just delaying. if he thought they had a snowball's chance in July, he might have allowed the change.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
It's a kind of weird inverse vaporware: the code exists, and runs, but you can't know where it is. Ordinary vaporware you know where it is (inside the offices at Duke Nukem Forever) but you have no idea what it looks like.
That the only comment so far moded as +5 Interesting is the one that points at a Groklaw discussion.
/. are more relevant today than they will ever be, and this is not a joke!
Oh, man, both comments and moderators on
You can't handle the truth.
SCO's new motto:
No evidence, no customers, no future.
(And the only way you can convince me that Daryl McBride isn't a worthless cunt is by providing a signed statement from a gynacologist)
And that friends, is where the nuts hit the grinder.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I'd say it's bad news all around because the case won't go to trial until 2007. 2007! How SCO has been able to stretch this case out until 2007 is beyond me.
I furthermore guess that this bidder will be Sun, because it's a major licensee of SCO IP and would ABSOLUTELY NOT want to be in a position of having it's Solaris based on the IP of any other potential acquiror.
Then we'll have some peace for a while, as whomever ends up owning this IP will not have the stomach to continue the lawsuit; but it'll stay in some uncontested limbo forever.
Other reasons why I think it'll be Sun: Some of sun's management like to see themselves as an operating-systems-IP company. They want to own the part of SCO that IBM licensed to be better positioned in their "IP sharing partnership" with Microsoft. etc.
No, it's just rude to be sarcastic.
I read the summary the same way at first, and was puzzled.
a beer or two later, and it made sense:
bad news [for them] all around, lately.
Company spokesperson Blake Stonewell took a more conservative posture. "Of course we would have prefered to present recently discovered new evidence of IBM's further misappropriation of our intellectual property to the Power architecture". Stonewell further added "this ruling is actually a major victory for us. IBM has consistently resisted any depositions of upper management, who orchestrated the wholesale theft of our code and trade secrets for inclusion in the derivitive linux kernel".
Bert Young, Chief Financial Officer of the SCO Group said "we are pleased by the now definitive revised schedule", and added "because legal fees have been capped for the duration of this trail and any appeals, we believe now concentrating on this already well establish course of action will best serve SCO's shareholders. We look forward to the final resolution of this suit, and the opportunity to expand our SCOsource licensing revenue."
About SCO
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers to grow their businesses everyday. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of thousands of resellers and developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit www.sco.com.
SCO, and the associated SCO logo, are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.
This news release contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may vary materially from the expectations contained herein. The forward-looking statements contained herein include statements about the consummation of the transaction with SCO and benefits of the pending transaction with SCO. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described herein include the inability to obtain regulatory approvals and the inability to successfully integrate the SCO business. GNAA is under no obligation to (and expressly disclaims any such obligation to) update or alter its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
SCO: Sorry Judge, we have the proof, but see it's on a WinFS computer right now, and see we kinda need more time. Cuz well, the computer is really far away see, and I tried to put it on this usb stick, but the computers here, close by, can't read WinFS yet. See? So we are going to kinda have to postpone this thingy until Longhorn....errr, I mean MS releases the WinFS updates. But in the meantime, can we kinda change our arguments, then we can come back to this later?
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't
SCO *IS* bad news
FGD 135
That sadly is true. There's an American on my MSc course in the UK who doesn't seem to understand sarcasm at all, we have to keep telling him we're not being serious, and then he usually says "oh you were being ironic". I gave up explaining the difference between the two after a few attempts.
A woman astrologer in former Soviet Russia is suing SCO for giving the lawsuit game a bad image.
Bad news to the SCO group in court.
For the rest of us, in that the court refused to put the dying beast out of its, and our misery.
Auctioning off the assets is by no means automatic. The creditors have to agree. My guess is that given who the creditors are (IBM for instance), that ain't going to happen.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
SCO is like the Daleks. They just won't die.
Hey , give em a break, it was a looooong weekend, and recovery can be slooooow.
Short!
Short!
Let it ride out
These are the things you can do without
Come on
I'm shorting on you
Come on
In crapping times
You shouldn't have to pump up your stocks
In up and downs
We really ought to know
Those one track minds
That took you for a sucker boy
Kiss your ass goodbye
We shouldn't have to jump for joy
but we will defintely will short your joy
(Chorus)
Unix gave you life
And in return you gave them hell
As cold as ice
I hope you live to tell the tale
I hope you live to tell the tale
(Chorus)
And when you've think you've got it locked
IBM could wear you down
We really love to break your heart
We really love to break your heart
(Chorus)
Yeah american is teh dumb, just like there presidant.
It is about time that this got resolved. Either IBM wins and we continue to enjoy Linux or SCO wins(yeah right) and we start using BSD or a stripped Linux that has to be rebuilt. Although I prefer option 1.
from the bench in this one. no evidence + inability to make the same argument twice + inability to do anything with the discovery evidence from the other party = goons without a case.
SCO has no assets, no case, no future.
so, I suppose, some pinhead dude from Wail Streak will start pumping SCO stock hard any day now. that is a sure sign, folks...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I read this as:
Bad news for SCO group all around. Which I feel it is.
All depends on context.
The coverage that SCO got in the media when they claimed that Linux had stolen code in it was enormous. Not only did they get tons of coverage with a resulting boost to their stock price, but dozens of professional opinion expressers signed their NDA and gave statements to the effect that SCO's case was a slam dunk and that Linux was full of stolen code. Years later after yet another clear sign that SCO in fact has NO evidence, the press is almost entirely silent on the issue.
So either noone cares that SCO basically used the press to execute a brilliant pump and dump scheme against the entire industry (which would be a notable story by itself), or the press has a definite anti-Linux bias. Either way, the press has a lot to answer for in this case.
Basically when Santa Cruz and IBM worked on the project known as Monterey in the late 90s, it was understood that both companies would use code developed from the joint venture in their products. SCO claims that IBM used the jointly developed code on Power based machines when the original agreement only specified that IBM could use it on Intel machines. They filed in October 2004 to change the claim to add this to the current suit. They wanted more discovery and time to pursue this new claim.
In the current lawsuit, the deadline for changing the claim was February 2004. Under certain circumstances, a party can go beyond deadlines but only for "compelling reasons." SCO's compelling reason was (1) they "just discovered" this fact and (2) IBM filed a counterclaim (9th) that requires them to research it.
IBM's answer to the court was convincing and many fold. They produce documents, emails, presentations, public announcements from Santa Cruz as far back as 1998 that describe how IBM was to use code from the joint project in Power. They also produce IBM public presentations, software documentation, and public announcements about the same thing. Finally they presented industry reports and discussions from tech magazines both online and offline from 2000 that discusses IBM's use of the code. IBM ironically points out that SCO provided some of this source material to IBM in the lawsuit filings.
IBM's message is simple: (1) Santa Cruz knew. If SCO is the legal and corporate successor to Santa Cruz, then it is SCO's duty to know everything that Santa Cruz did. (2) Since SCO provided some of the material, SCO had to know since 2003 when they filed the lawsuit. (3) Even if SCO was totally clueless about Santa Cruz's materials and it's own filings, a simple search online up to 4 years ago would have uncovered the fact that IBM was going to use the code in Power.
As far IBM's 9th Counterclaim, IBM chose to reduce/clarify the scope so that it was not as broad and SCO's new claim would have no relevance.
On a side note, one of IBM's statements is interesting:
SCO wanted to convince the judge that no more discovery would be necessary to add this new claim saying that they had already done a lot of work. But IBM asks the question: If they have compared our closed source AIX with their Unix, why do they claim they couldn't compare open source Linux with their Unix without our AIX source code?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well, if you've ever watched parlement in Canada, the UK or anywhere else, the word "honourable" takes on an entirely different meaning.
Just another reason editor's notes shouldn't be included. I doubt editors are clueless, but this comment doesn't prove it.
Most of the time, it is like the guy who tries to add something to a conversation just to be in the conversation. Adding nothing but fulfilling an ego.
I wouldn't put it like that. It's just a very different culture to here.
Offtopic but maybe USA should split into 2 or 3 separate countries: west coast, centre, east coast or just coasts as one. It would stop the bickering over "moral" values and make the world a safer place.
You do know that the definition of sarcasm is "bitter speech intended to hurt".. where as being verbally ironic is where you say the opposite of what is intended (such as in the example above of the field player).
"Bad news __for them__".
nuff said.
Ransom Love sold all his stock when the lawsuit started. link
Seems to me like this company is going to tank within the next 2 years. Might be a good time to short their stock and hope for a delisting/bankruptcy. What happens to a short position when a company is delisted: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/03/082803. asp
Yeah, you could have enjoyed that burrito at least twice. Once going in, and the second time when you get to see the look on the faces of those who are stuck being around you eight hours later...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
But the other "bad news" that is linked is GOOD for SCO. (Novels motion for dismissal in SCO's slander suit against them is denied.)
In that example yeah you are correct, but a fuller definition is "the use of remarks which clearly mean the opposite of what they say, and which are made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in an amusing way". The amusement part is the important part of the definition, although sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
not true - that's just part of the definition. Other parts are :
... a taunt. esp. one ironically worded. ... 3. A smart or clever rejoinder, a jesting or witty quip.
Sarcasm :
Taunt :
Sorry, but I got about 2/3 of the way through this before I realised this is not a parody. Funny and disturbing.
Bitter and proud of it.
I believe Daryl [sic] McBride to be a most
worthwhile vagina.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
You, sir, are an honourable gentleman.
(Lincoln, the -Liberal- Republican, of the party that later became the modern-day Democratic Party, as opposed to the modern-day Republican Party that derives its roots primarily from the Whigs.)
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Looks like American English dictionaries and English English dictionaries give different definitions, unless you are being deliberately selective in your quote.
I agree with this post.
Not exactly.
Birth of the Republican Party
Organized in Ripon, Wisconsin on February 28, 1854, as a party opposed to the expansion of slavery into new territories, the Party is not to be confused with the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson or the National Republican Party of Henry Clay. The ideology of the reborn Republican party, however, did follow that of the early Democratic-Republicans. During Jefferson's presidency, he was called a "Republican", but the reference was to the party now known as the Democratic-Republican Party. That party later split into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The latter was formed in the winter of 1833-1834 but was defunct by the time of the American Civil War.
The first convention of the U.S. Republican Party was held on July 6, 1854, in Jackson, Michigan. Many of its initial policies were inspired by the Whig Party, which by then was in decline. Many of the early members of the Republican Party came from the Whigs, the Free Soil Party, and American Party. Since its inception, its chief opposition has been the Democratic Party.
John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856, using the political slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Frémont." Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party grew especially rapidly in Midwestern states, where slavery had long been prohibited, and in the Northeast, culminating in a sweep of victories in the Northern states. The ensuing election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial north ensued.
From SCO's perspective, it probably would have been just as well to have been delisted. I'm still not sure if getting delisted wasn't their real plan for this year, but they chickened out for some reason.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
In this case, SCO is pretty much like Infinium Labs(TM). By "pretty much", I actually mean "ass-raping it's investors"; and since Infinium Labs has ass-raping as it's trademark, there's bound to be a lawsuit there.
This country will eventually collapse in on itself (implosion), due to the number of laws and lawyers. The Muslims will love that, let me tell you right now, but that's besides my point.
The Phantom Console. The Phantom Lawsuit. The only people who win are the lawyers and the CEO's when they've been squirreling away their millions. Timothy Roberts will be able to start his own pr0n company from the money he has made off this "venture", and stream the content using the console he just liquidated. He is totally going to win out on this one by screwing over his investors.
Just like Darl McBride after he retires with all this MSFT cash...
Actually, The Santa Cruz Organization (ie. "Old" SCO) was considered quite "cool" around 1992. This was when they were still a company actively involved in the development and engineering of high-performance PC-based UNIX operating systems, of course. OpenServer and OpenDesktop were quite revolutionary in the early 1990s. Remember, Linux was in its infancy at this point, as was 386BSD.
Unless you went with Coherent or XENIX (also co-developed by SCO, by the way), your choice for a rock-solid UNIX on Intel PCs was OpenServer. And it did perform and served many companies very well. That is why today's The SCO Group is still able to obtain some revenue from their OpenServer products. While horribly outdated today, they were excellent and innovative products in the early 1990s.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Well, we've established that relationship. What I want to know is when are they going to find the burrito in the SCO case?
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I will be soooo glad when this is over.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
When people bring up some "new" SCO "development".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Yes it is amusing how the Republicans of old used to stand for most of the things "liberal"-Democrats stand for these days. Rebublican was the party of Lincoln who said for example: "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration". Or John Quincy Adams: "America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She well knows that she might become dictatress of the world but she would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit."
Very very sad really.
Dad is a Federal circuit court judge (former Chief Judge of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals) and my cousin is on the Michigan state bench. That's the Honorable David R. Hansen and the Honorable Katherine L. Hansen, respectively. Dad was appointed to the state bench in 1976 by the (Republican) Governor Robert Ray; he was appointed to the Federal bench for the District of Northern Iowa in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan; he was appointed to the appellate bench by President George H.W. Bush. Officially, Dad has no political party--he's not allowed to, as part of the Federal code of judicial ethics--but I think you can probably figure out from his appointment history that Teddy Kennedy doesn't send him Christmas cards.
My cousin Katherine, on the other hand, was appointed to the Michigan state bench by Governor Jennifer M. Granholm. Governor Granholm, as you are no doubt aware, is so far in the left wing of the Democratic Party that she was honored with floor time at the last National Convention. I'm not sure whether her judicial ethics allow her to have a party affiliation or not, but... you can draw your own conclusions.
Why does this matter? Because whether I look at a Federal judge repeatedly appointed by Republicans, or whether I look at a State judge appointed by a dyed-in-the-wool lefty Democrat, I see the same thing: namely, brother, you are wrong, and have no idea just how wrong you are.
Judges try very hard to be impartial in all hearings... impartial to the point of rudeness. If you step into court and claim that the sky is blue, both Dad and Katherine will interrupt you to ask whether you're going to introduce meterologic testimony into the record attesting to that fact. (Well, Katherine would probably have the good grace to wait until you were finished. Dad's approach is the kinder of the two, though; when Katherine quietly pulls the rug out from under your feet, thoroughly confounding the last ten minutes of your argument, you long for the rough kindness of an interruption.)
It makes it hell trying to have normal conversations with them, by the by; they have a very hard time disengaging from judicial-think. When I say that I think I did well on an exam, Dad wants to know precisely what evidence leads me to that conclusion. When I talk to Katherine and mention that I have a paper submitted to Black Hat 2005, Katherine doesn't say "that's nice"; she insists that I sit her down and teach her enough computational theory so that she can decide for herself my odds of getting published.
Both of them live and die by a mantra: neither one of them gives half a damn what you know, they only care what you can prove.
Nor are they "watchers" of the court in any sense. They are the administrators of the court. They're the ones who decide the ground rules of the court hearing. They decide these ground rules based on pleadings; attorneys for one side say that under one Supreme Court ruling, the standard for evidence should be this, while attorneys for the other side say that decision didn't foresee this particular eventuality and it should be discarded. Only a fool would claim they are "watchers". They are not combatants in the courtroom, in the sense of trial lawyers, no, but they are both the arbiters of fairness and the executors of decisions. If you're able to convince the judge of a fact, then brother, your job is done. At that point the other attorney isn't fighting you anymore, he's fighting the judge, and that's a fight the other lawyer is--with greater than 90% certainty--going to lose.
Impartiality is difficult to attain. The best solution judges have found, either on the Left or on the Right, is ruthless, r
Sell the stocks for food
telnet into root
wheel is here again
CEOs smoking crack
Hey - He's the one
Who wants to... sing-the-free-software song
That he likes to bundle along
And he likes to claim his own
But he knows not what it means
Don't know what it means, when I say:
He's the one
Who wants to... sing-the-free-software song
That he likes to bundle along
And he likes to claim his own
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means when I say GNU(h)...
He can sue some more - NASDAQ is his whore
Heil the trademark tune - Novell pwns teh root
He's the one
Who wants to... sing-the-free-software song
That he likes to bundle along
And he likes to claim his own
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means when I say GNU(h)...
He's the one
Who wants to... sing-the-free-software song
That he likes to bundle along
And he likes to claim his own
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means when I say GNU(h)...
He's the one
Who wants to... sing-the-free-software song
That he likes to bundle along
And he likes to claim his own
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means when I say GNU(h)...
He's the one
Who wants to... sing-the-free-software song
That he likes to bundle along
And he likes to claim his own
But he knows not what it means
Knows not what it means when I say GNU(h)...
Knows not what it means [x2]
Knows not what it means when I say GNU(h)...
without prejudice
yes. you read it wrong.
Bad news for them all around, lately. (emphasis added)
for them. bad news for them. for sco. them. the news is bad news for sco. all-around, this revelation bodes poorly for sco.
Ahhh, to be expected...
Score: -1, not troll, not off-topic, just -1.
The facts remain: SCO has yet to show one line of proof, they keep changing the lawsuit to reflect something entirely different and Microsoft is still funding them (at least I assume they haven't run out of $30 million yet).
and all the guppies swallow press-releases whole.
[heavy sigh]
That was great, but how does it contradict what I said?
Now, quit laughing. I know that judges are impartial (or "apartial", which is a distinction without a difference). But once the trial starts, they know who's got it and who doesn't. They intentionally keep their minds open - judicial think, you called it.
A mind isn't open if it isn't processing what it's being given. They don't give a ruling before all the evidence is in, but much of the time the ruling would be no different if they did.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
While some might see this as a new era of harmony and cooperation in the IT world, I'll be sad to see the greatest of the court jesters get plowed under. Even though it will be pretty damn funny while it's happening.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is all well and good now that everyone is beginning to realise that the "emperor" has no clothes.N WCDMR
Lets not forget just how Nasty they were getting.
Not only fundamentally threatening the most innovative part of computer software in the last decade (open source), but also using legal standover tactics to extort money from big corporations (Chrysler) and "exposed ISPs" EV1 for example.
They must have known from the start that they had no leg to stand on (how could they not have?). They should all be sent to jail IMHO. an example of 14 months ago shenanigans.... http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2004030101326
Move along... there is no sig here.
From the few americans that I've managed to talk to , I thought it was something slightly different... that they don't tend to pitch their voices differently at all when they are being sarcastic (which everyone else I talk to does), and hence its difficult for .. well , me at least , to know when they are being sarcastic.
this leads to an assumption that they're just being rude all the time.
maybe I'm wrong , i don't know.
The short sellers dont have to buy to cover if SCO goes under and their stock stops trading. Your broker will not require you to cover, if the stock no longer exists.
I am currently short on this stock and planning to stay short as long as it takes. Most of the shorts I know are planning to stay short until the very end. And the end is near for SCO as they are running out of money fast.
Spot on - at the moment we begin arguing about the political background of a judge being relevant we have lost.
Being a facist, communist, or a feudalist shouldn't make you guilty or not guilty - or change what was meant by the constitution. Sure, there may be borderline cases where that reflects your leanings but, while they may be interesting cases, they shouldn't be *that* far reaching.
I think the issue that causes is that in some circles, and some judges, this becomes less true. Some low, some high. Some judges allow "creative thinking" to get out of things, others rule based on thier feelings (for the latter - see Judge Judy on TV). Many see people who rule with thier political feelings as an expressway into getting thier agenda's enforced, but that is purely short term thinking - works great as long as the judges always agree with your political bent, terrible when they do not.
The 8'th circuit court is one of the saner as far as I can tell (but then I'm neither a lawyer ot a judge - just a political junkie). I would rather have 9 of them one level up than the group we have now, regardless of thier political ideas.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Knowing they're going under, SCO has launched an effort to gather capital from people willing to bet on a long shot by starting this ridiculous action. They had good reason to suspect it'd work. Not that they'd win; chances were always slim for that. But the slim chances attracts the long shot bettors/investors. And with the influx of cash, the price goes up. And when the shit comes down, they'll be able to sell out at a higher price. Even the loser takes home a purse.
I bet they're real nervous now. They probably expected to be bought out by now by IBM or someone just to stop the irritation.
In my happy place I dream of the judge taking SCO away from Darel and company (after sentencing them to an ethics treatment center and changing their names to include 'Bonehead'), and appointing EFF to administrate it on behalf of its new owners, OSDL.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
You forgot the Evil Laugh. The Evil Laugh is very important in this sort of situation.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Yeah, 'cos as we all know, there is no such thing as a Muslim American, only a potential traitor.
Asshat.
Invertebrates do not have a cunt.
It's clear that the name of the holding group (Can o' pee) is unlucky and affecting the court case. To change the bad luck they need to change it to something with better resonances. The Can o' worms Group?
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
sarcastic humor is a true artform, one mostly mastered by the British. It's rarely appreciatated by us americans primarily due to limited exposure to it; most recently we've seen the sarcastic humor of Anne, the british MC on the tv show "The Leakest Link" (she's now retired from the show). The contestants always seen to they'll enjoy jousting with Anne and quickly discover that she can deal the death of a thousand cuts.
Maybe part of the problem is Americans seem to think a society based on the least common demoninator is fairer than one based on the greatest common denominator.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I thought it was something slightly different... that they don't tend to pitch their voices differently at all when they are being sarcastic
Ok I think you've actually hit on it there. Tough to pitch your voice when you're typing.
For example, am I being sarcastic with the following:
"That's a good idea."
Now, there's at least two ways to say the above. Stress the "good" and you're being positive. Stress the "That's" and you could sound sarcastic.
Unfortunately... both look the same when you type.
As for the whole Americans and sarcasm thing, well...maybe you've just gotten an unlucky sample of Americans. We're actually a pretty sarcastic lot. Watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for an example of American sarcasm in action. :)
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
He's paid to make, well, JUDGEMENTS. Like "You win, and you lose" type of thingies.
Imagine that.
Dumbass.
Thanks for the interesting explanation. I'm not saying I believe it completely (in the spirit of dogged skepticism), but I hope that it was mostly accurate because it's the most hopeful thing I've read in some time.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Never
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
In view of which, it seems churlish to criticise your maths, but your conclusions seem overstated:
While it's true that (under those conditions) the odds of 3 Republicans is 1 in 8, ditto the odds of 3 Democrats, that makes the odds of 3 the same (of either breed) 1 in 4. Which isn't really 'overwhelming' odds against, is it?
Still, none of this contradicts your main points, of course. And even where the odds of a cross-party panel are 'only' 3 in 4, the huge proportion of unanimous results is still very telling. (It'd also be interesting to see how many of the 3% of non-unanimous results are cross-party.)
Here in the UK, of course, judges aren't generally seen as political. Doddery old fools who last had a new thought in 1962 and have no idea who the Beatles are, certainly; but not political. M'lud. :)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
You're right; my statistics were in error. I foolishly considered only one possibility (all Republican appointees) and not all possibilities.
I made another goof. Generally speaking, Dad's colleagues don't wear their appointments on their sleeve. New judges come on and old judges retire, and the dynamic changes from year to year. Since the last time I bothered to learn the political makeup of the court, President Bush has appointed a few new judges. It's now significantly skewed towards Republican appointees. The 97% unanimity figure dates from a few years ago, though, prior to the new wave of appointees.
To bad.
It was about time that IBM changed the dull black (with a little blue button) to something more appealing to the human eye.
IMB's cases are outdated.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
The two parties really can only have issues that the country is divided on. Over time:
1) The issue becomes unimportant
2) The issue is resolved and one side wins out
3) The issue stays unresolved and different aspects of the issue dominate
That's how you get parties switching positions.
At the risk of getting modded "offtopic" again, what is sad is that the parties do not seem to stick to their "core principles" and are willing to shift over and become what used to be their "worst enemy". It speaks volumes to corruptibilty of politics and short memories of those involved.
American Swiss and Cheddar are all Cheese. The assertion did not specify a TYPE of Cheese, which is irrelevant....
"What is the difference between God and a Superior Court judge?
God does not think He is a Superior Court judge!"
heard from a former prosecuting attorney and former public defender (though not, one would guess, at the same time...).