Slashdot Mirror
Did SCO Get Linux-mob Justice?
An anonymous reader writes "According to Fortune's legal blogger Roger Parloff, "once in awhile a judicial ruling comes down that's so wrong at such a basic level that you're just left scratching your head". He claims that Judge Kimball's "102-page ruling (about SCO) was greeted with widespread rejoicing and I-told-you-so's", but "the problem is not that Judge Kimball's view of the facts is wrong". Was the ruling unfair?"
The title, however, is inflammatory, probably just to make us read it.
I clicked just because it was CNN. I was incredibly disappointed to find that it was a really old story about SCO from the Cable news network instead of something from the Cunt News Network. Cable news network? WTF is that? You guys should have told me...=(
I need to get laid I think...
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I have only looked at the excerpts of the contract included in TFA, but I don't see where people are getting the obvious conclusion that the copyright was not transferred in writing. The doctrine on that point is that it is an evidentiary rule like the statute of frauds and that no precise language is needed to effect the transfer. Appellate courts have also remarked that the transfer does not have to be the Magna Carta and that a simple one line document will do.
... including source code . . ., such assets to include without limitation" as including the copyright, then the written transfer requirement should be satisfied based upon this precedent.
If you interpret the language from the contract that says Novell is transferring "all rights and ownership of UNIX
Especially considering all the context of SCO's dishonest poaching of Novell's frequent "naivete" (corporate competitive incompetence, which is not a crime, though exploiting it can be).
If I took this article seriously at all (like if the writer had bothered writing it as "news" instead of waiting over a quarter-year "vacation" before writing it, before taking a long Winter's nap), I'd look into whether he has a history of writing fluff for Gates or Microsoft, or maybe just hating on IBM. There's little chance he has any actual sympathy for SCO itself, unless he fights for the right of corporations to lie to each other and abuse the court system as life support for their dead corporation's stock.
--
make install -not war
So, since corporations are "persons", can a person on a jury consist of the corporation, with its board of directors voting to instruct its designated executive to report the voted decision? Otherwise, corporations aren't getting their rights protected.
--
make install -not war
No, I'm pointing out that the entire treatment of corporations as people at all is absurd. Just because I'm "excluding the middle" that corporations have some human rights but not all, doesn't mean the middle is worth including. The only basis for treating corporations as people with rights to any degree is an old fraud that's been perpetuated solely for profit, and insulting to the basis for the actual rights of actual people.
Saying a corporation is a person is what corporations do to obtain rights at least equal to humans (sometimes better, because they're not subject to liabilities including imprisonment or death). That's no straw man, it's precisely the target of what we're talking about, a central point in the story we're discussing: whether a corporation has a right to a jury trial. It might be treated as if it does, but that's the only real fallacy here.
--
make install -not war
And your redundant post is a sneaky attempt to suppress a post that you have failed to successfully argue against in this thread by making the same attempted points that I debunked.
So I must insist that you are myopic.
--
make install -not war
"Wow are you full of shit and yourself.
Let's make this simple - you do not have a better grasp of legal fundamentals than those who do it for a living.
I've had to fire lawyers too many times in the past and do it myself (civil and criminal cases) because, even with a decade or two of experience, they are STILL woefully ignorant of the law.
Sometime in the next month I will AGAIN be forced to fire a lawyer with several decades of experience who:
I knew I should have done like I always do - represent myself. Anyone can draft their own motions and argue their own cases.
The majority of lawyers are stupid, ignorant, and lazy. Their idea of "keeping up to date" in their field is to gossip; any "updates" to their knowledge - real learning - are done at your expense, in the court, at $250/hour.
The SCO case is not that complicated:
The rest is just translating this from layperson's terms to terms the court can accept (in other words, motions in legalese), same as any other legal proceding.
Kevin Smith on Prince