Slashdot Mirror
Stay Lifted, Novell Vs. SCO Can Go Forward
A number of readers suggest we check out Groklaw, where PJ is reporting that a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay so that its trial against SCO can proceed in Utah. The judge concluded that Judge Kimball is the best one to decide how much SCO owes Novell, and that SCO cannot make any "reorganization" plans — including any "fire sale" of assets — until it knows this figure.
The system works..... it works slowly, it costs huge amounts of money, but it does work......
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
a bankruptcy judge has granted Novell's request to lift the stay
Yes, he's lifting the stay, much like one would lift the active portion of a guillotine.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I remember a quote where one of SCO's own lawyers said they were under a "death sentence" in Utah, so that's very appropriate. In fact, I was about to submit this exact story under the title "SCO's Stay of Execution Lifted" but I was obviously too late.
Now it will get REALLY interesting when we see how Darl's comments about the Utah judge come back to haunt him when they all have to go back there...
SCO has been a dead man walking for a long time now. It's just that we're finally about to watch their cremation. Anyone remember to bring marshmallows?
Of course the real question is how Maureen O'Gara spins this to favor SCO.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I'm interested to read just what Darl McBride said. I just Google searched for it and didn't find anything.
Could someone please post links to some of the "horrible things"?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
And that's exactly where I think this has indeed been a fiasco. SCO never, not for one moment, in court or out of it, actually justified its claims. There's something desparately wrong with a legal system that takes four years to work its way through absolutely nothing at all. It's repugnant that discovery can take this long. The minimum threshhold for any litigation ought to be showing some evidence for your claims immediately after filing, not using discovery and countless motions and countermotions to keep it going for years and years.
People call all of this a victory. It's not, it's a goddamned shame that crooks like McBride can use the court system like this. I'm not saying you should have all the evidence for your claims, but SCO did claim to have all these lines of code, which they never actually produced, and so far as I'm concerned day one before the judge should have gone something like this:
SCO Lawyers: We have all these lines of code demonstrating that our intellectual property was stolen.
Judge: Please provide the code.
SCO Lawyers: Well, we don't actually have it, so to speak. You know, it's code, and it's a lot of pages, and we want IBM to release their code so we can compare it to our code to show what we claim.
IBM Lawyers: Your honor, here's the complete Linux source code, as well as a complete revision history. We downloaded it off the Net just like SCO can.
Judge: So, provide the infringing code.
SCO Lawyers: Well, we can't at this moment...
Judge: Case dismissed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"The system works..... it works slowly, it costs huge amounts of money, but it does work......"
Three simple reasons to say "the system" does NOT work:
Justice my arse! If the software industry worked as slowly as justice, and as expensively, we'd be using a $5,000 abacus instead of a computer.
Think of it - there's still all the BS appeals. Justice isn't looking all that appealing now, is it, unless you, like justice, are blind AND slow.
Kevin Smith on Prince
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
In any case, just because Judge Gross is reserving the right to order a constructive trust for himself doesn't mean he won't decide to order one once Kimball rules anyway.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Microsoft wouldn't touch SCO with a pole, regardless of length. First of all, it's SCO's creditor committee -- soon to be headed by Novell -- which gets to determine what happens with SCO's assets. Secondly, SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. Kimball's decision made it perfectly clear that SCO's rights could not be used the way SCO was attempting to use them. Finally, Microsoft tries to leave the impression that any FUD is not coming from them, preferring to fund a cat's paw like SCO to do their dirty work. It would be far more likely for Microsoft to fund a patent troll to attempt to pull off an "emergency" purchase of assets from the bankruptcy.
Oh, wait . . .
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Oddly enough, they are looking for .NET programmers here. Also note that their development is in New Delhi. Perhaps the Indians don't realize the type of company they are working for?
Novell will end up taking the remains of SCO in payment, including getting Unix back (the rights to sell it, since they already own the IP). They may even end up open-sourcing Unix just to forever lay such claims to rest. After all, Unix now has no real value, as recent (lack of) sales indicate.
Since this is in Bankruptcy Court, the Bankruptcy Judge will determine if SCO has enough cause to justify spending someone else's (Novell's) money (which, when put in a Trust pending appeals, would kill SCO by itself) to spend on lawyers for an appeal. Since by this time SCO will have no operating capital, and no future, the Judge will say no, hand the remaining assets to Novell and tell everyone else, "Sorry, there's nothing left for you!"
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
The reason SCO was able to do that is that while the system is designed to thwart foot-dragging by defendants, it doesn't do as much to prevent foot-dragging plaintiffs.
Right. But in bankruptcy court, that's reversed. The debtor isn't in charge. The court, the U.S. Trustee, and the creditor's committee are. Notice how, since SCO declared bankruptcy, their wierd legal moves have been shot down fast. SCO's "emergency motion" for a quick sale - deferred by judge without even asking SCO. Quick asset sale to York under wierd conditions - withdrawn once the creditors objected. Novell lawsuit - unstayed.
Judge Kimball's calendar has an open day on December 11.
The matter of disbarment and other "lying through your teeth when there was no evidence at all" sort of lawsuits is yet to come.
Then again, many may play the Ken Lay Gambit, and simple die out from under the charges.
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
WTF are you talking about? "Judge Judy" was very much a "real" judge up until her retirement in 1996, albeit a small claims judge. She got her television show thanks to a large amount of press about her outspoken nature in real courtrooms. While the "court" in her show is merely an agreed-upon arbitration session, she is demonstrating much of the same behavior that she became famous for when in public service.
More to the point, Judith is not the only judge known for rather outlandish behavior. Judge Samuel B. Kent is also well-known in the legal community for his humorous and razor-sharp wit, especially in his written orders. One of his more famous incidents was when he dismissed a case for being "asinine tripe".
Last but not least, you do not "disbar" a judge to remove him/her from office. Judges are either elected or appointed officials. Disbarring means they can't practice as a lawyer anymore. (Annoying, but not a huge problem for someone not appointed by the Bar.) Judges must be impeached or dismissed from office like most other government officials. Disbarment usually follows impeachment or dismissal to prevent the Judge from continuing to practicing law after being dismissed.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You don't need any evidence to file a lawsuit. There's a lot of reasons for that, but one of the most important ones is that often it's the defendant who has got the evidence. That's particularly true in employment discrimination cases for example. If the courts required evidence just to file, a lot of people wouldn't get their day in court and the justice system wouldn't function as intended.
I'm not going to defend SCO by any measure, but they would probably say that they didn't have any evidence because Novell was hiding it all. And that they need discovery to get the incriminating emails, meeting agendas, testimony from employees, etc. So there's a lot of discovery for you.
The whole process sounds very odd and wasteful from the outside, but there is a legit reason for the way things work. A cheaper alternative is arbitration, which we all agree to whenever we click "I accept." So maybe that will change soon, but I don't necessarily think that will be to consumers' benefit.
Look you mentally insufficient SCO hack, your company lost because it had a business plan that was nothing more than extorting ill-conceived licensing fees.
It must be tough to be a dim-witted SCO astroturfer when the company barely exists and is about to be delivered lock, stock and barrel to Novell.
What a pathetic rube you are, you twisted piece of rotting monkey flesh.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.