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?"

Comments

Re:Corporate Juries

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Corporate Juries

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Since when?...

[trolltalk.com]

"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:

1. didn't do what he was told to do, and as a result of his stupidity, I now have the government on my back - something it would have taken 10-minutes to draft a motion for a stay until trial, another 10 to find a court clerk to find a judge to sign off on it, and 10 more to fax a copy to all parties. And yes, even the government confirmed that this (my way) was the normal, and almost universal, method of proceding in such cases;
2. wasted MORE time doing shit I told him specifically NOT to do, and which only made matters worse;
3. in addition, is in violation of the contract we entered into;

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:

1. IBM: "Show me the writing!"
2. SCO: "Novell didn't give us any."
3. IBM: "Fuck Off and Die"
4. SCO: "Novell, we want the copyrights!"
5. Novell: "Nope - you didn't buy them because you didn't have enough money"
6. SCO: "Give them to us or we'll sue!"
7. Novell: "Fuck Off and Die"

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.