want cheaper healthcare? reform the legal system and get the hmo's out of the game.
Where did GPP suggest that doctors should be absolved of legal responsibility? To reform a legal system that causes doctors to perform unnecessary cover-your-ass procedures does not mean remove responsibility.
It is not a he said-she said sort of thing. It is a "person who allowed a search which resulted in incriminating evidence" said - "cop that saw the evidence" said thing. Accused people tell stories that differ from the police all the time, juries still convict.
Quit living in a fantasy land, reasonable doubt does not favor a person that consented to a search which resulted in incriminating evidence and is now trying to hide it. The jury is going to think: "He is hiding something, he is guilty." The jury is not going to think: "OOOOOO an encrypted hard drive! Technicality! Ignore everything the officer said!"
It is not feasible that there is something else on the hard drive. If there was it would have been brought up already, the fact nothing but this 5th amendment argument was raised means there is nothing else. And if there was something else it is now waived and irrelevant. That argument is gone.
The only way the accused can rebut what the officer was is to get on the stand and testify. That is not going to happen because the only time an accused person should take the stand is when they have an air tight story which is sympathetic to the jury. Otherwise the prosecution will tear him a new one.
While it is true you don't have to open your trunk when stopped for a speeding ticket, that argument is irrelevant for two reasons. 1. This is a border crossing, not a traffic stop. Different rules apply, like it or not. 2. If you want to continue with the car analogy, a more analogous fact pattern is: The accused was stopped, he opened his trunk which has a combination lock voluntarily, the cops say the weed, the accused shut the trunk and refuses to give the combination. The incriminating evidence has already been discovered, the time to refuse to open the trunk already passed. He can't refuse to reopen the trunk now. This isn't a 5th amendment right, it is discovery.
This guy consented to a search, the search resulted in incriminating evidence that he is now trying to hide. No "what about" or "what if" hypotheticals are going to change the fact the accused already gave the prosecution all the evidence to convict him.
The 1st amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...."
The 5th amendment states: "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."
You cannot compare 1st and the 5th amendments, in the manner you did, because they do not have analogous effects. One prevents congress from making laws the other vests rights in an individual. You cannot waive your 1st amendment right because it is not granted by the 1st amendment, it is considered inalienable, and congress is prohibited from impinging on it by the 1st.
Also, this whole focus on the 5th amendment is a waste of time, Boucher cooperated with border patrol, he waived his 5th amendment right at that time. He told the cops everything. If he now wants to re-assert his 5th amendment right, he can, but the cops can testify against him. You cannot plead the 5th to prevent other people from testifying against you.
If you admit it is your laptop, you can plead the 5th at trial, but the cop can say "He said it was his laptop."
The cat is out of the bag, Boucher let it out, quit whining.
I believe in the democratic process. Let your representatives know how you feel.
Ontario Highway Transport Board http://www.ohtb.gov.on.ca/eng/main.html
Telephone: 416-326-6732
Fax: 416-326-6738
e-mail: ohtb@mto.gov.on.ca
10th Floor, 151 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2T5
Canada
Re:How long before the feds get involved?
on
Googling Security
·
· Score: 1
Obama is now president, The GWB 9-11 conspiracy theory is OVER, you are going to have to find a different windmill to joust.
Google flu tracker is an anecdotal "g-wiz" project that contains no individually identifiable material and has no real scientific value. Why would it be used as an argument in favor of data retention? Is getting the sniffles now a crime?
While despicable, sex offenders are not terrorists and the PATRIOT act is not used to gain information about them.
The patriot act was ready to go so soon after 9-11 because it is a poorly drafted pile of garbage that is not used for anything more than lip service.
If you want privacy, I can respect that, keep to yourself and be private. Don't put your private information in a place accessible to the public, like the internet. Don't start making up stories about how THEY are out to get YOU. That is not paranoia, that is megalomania.
You start out with a legitimate argument and then just dive into the absurd.
YES, CCF has legitimate concerns with who raised money for them. They can be peanalized if they do not follow the rules that allow them to be a 501 exempt charity.
NO, state of incorporation does not affect how CFF is treated under US federal tax code. For them to be a charity in the first place they must be incorporated under some state's laws, but that does not affect federal tax treatment and it does not affect the forum in which they may face lawsuits.
Why is this 5 Informative? It starts with a legitimate concern of federal tax treatment and then dives into a straw man argument of state of incorporation to draw a conclusion.
Please explain because I want to understand how state of incorporation (they must be incorporated somewhere to be a charity) affects federal tax treatment.
Wrong, neither of those entities are supposed to take care of this king of thing.
The correct agencies are the FCC and the FTC.
Here is an article about Caller ID fraud that gives the contact name and number for the FTC investigator in charge of this kind of thing. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/scorpio.shtm
It is from 2006, so the hierarchy may have changed, but it will send you to the right office. It the number doesn't work call - 1-877-FTC-HELP
Copyright (2003) United States Government, as represented by the Director, National Security Agency. All rights reserved.
The copyright notice says All Rights Reserved which means, the NSA claims have all the rights and the contractor has none.
The NSA contract isn't here to scrutinize so what ifs about "who really owns the code" are shots in the dark. Relying on the NSA's claim of ownership is a defense to copyright infringement. Everybody here can develop using the code without worrying about legitimate third party copyright infringement claims.
The fact that the public is able to download the software means the public has access to this software and it is not classified or FOUO.
So, everyone can safely conclude that they are allowed to develop using this code.
I don't mean to be argumentative, the parent post just didn't have a conclusion.
I believe the most fitting punishment would be to revoke all Scientology related copyrights.
This is an arguable criminal case and a criminal prosecution would be a waste of time. It is going to be near impossible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is, however, a clear abuse of rights granted by the copyright law. The fitting punishment is revocation of those rights.
Please save the nitpicking arguments about if there is such thing as copyright "rights", that is beside the point. If a child can't be trusted with privileges, you take those privileges away.
A bit of snooping tells me that Vodafone is the only network from which it is possible to send SMS to a Chinese registered mobile phone.
WRONG - I have sent and received text messages from people in the PRC, I do not use Vodafone.
I'm curious why such a large section of the world market is cut off from the west's wireless communication networks especially with the recent Olympics putting the spotlight on the nation in general.
WRONG - It's not. Since when did SMS become "the west's wireless communication networks"? Try actually dialing the phone number and talking. Chances are the article writer's friend is merely leaving off the international dialing code, a common mistake. China isn't Europe, you need to dial more numbers.
It is interesting that when forced to choose between the idea of "clueless n00b" and "evil authoritarian" the slashdot crowd jumped on the unsubstantiated and ridiculous assertion that a trivial form of communication is blocked by China. SMS DOESN'T MEAN BUGGER.
What ever happened to the scientific method and empirical data? Where is some evidence to back this up other than a single anecdote? How did this tripe get on the front page?
They transmit RF over co-axial cable lines to their customers.
"Transmit" is defined in the FCC regulations to cover cable companies' RF transmissions over physical wires. You need a franchise license from both the federal government, to transmit RF, and the local government, to get permission to place cable lines.
BTW, I don't know this for a fact but, I don't believe any person or company of any size needs a license to RECEIVE RF signals. Can you imagine the nightmare life would be if you needed a license for every pair of rabbit ear antenna in your house?
Looking at the example questions, the earlier questions look difficult, but unnecessarily so. What I mean by that is, they take what could be a straight forward question and then obfuscate it behind a bunch of random noise merely to confuse the test taker.
The newer example questions seemed more rationalized, they test whether you know the theory or formula needed to solve the question without throwing you a curve ball.
Would you rather encourage people to continue studying onto more advanced levels with easier tests, or throw them a GOTCHA question which will totally turn them off to the subject matter?
There is a difference between testing knowledge of the subject matter, and giving the test taker a hard time. A "difficult" question might be great to ponder when you have unlimited time, but in a time pressured test, it is not appropriate.
It is bad because we have to wait X more years until investors wise up and actually give GOOD services some money.
I think everyone would be better served by ignoring the DRM heavy sites. If there are no hits, investors will have no incentive to invest. There is no way to convince an investor that a site with very few hits has great potential for a return on their investment. If there are no hits then there is no potential. Eventually the music stores that are more consumer friendly will get investors.
Instead we have to wait while the same DRM heavy business model get regurgitated over and over, and the DRM-less modls get ignored.
Exceptions! Patent Attorneys and Maritime Attorneys.
Attorneys are not allowed to use those prefixes in a description of their profession unless they have passed special Federal bars, which are seperate from state bars.
Although many IP attorneys say they litigate patents, a Patent Attorney is the only one that can secure a patent from the patent office. Similarly a Maritime Attorney is the only type of attorney that can litigate in Maritime law tribunals.
From the article it sounds like this is just a novelty concentration for law school and nothing more.
Your reply totally side steps my point and nitpicks an irrelevant point of my argument.
Autonomous robots are too expensive for terrorists.
Terrorists have to cobjob stuff lying around to make "IMPROVISED explosive devices". IED by its very definition means something thrown together with found objects. They didn't go down to the local Baghdad Radio Shack and pick out the cheapest cellphone. It was laying around the house and they IMPROVISED something.
When you can IMPROVISE an autonomous robot from stuff lying around the house, post the plans on slashdot.
The whole reason the terrorists send humans is because they cannot afford the cost of a remote detonating device like a cell phone. Terrorists are Terrorists because they do not have enough money to become a legitimate Army. Terrorists normally don't even have enough money to get proper explosives, hence "Improvised Explosive Devices".
It is all a matter of cost, humans are cheaper and more plentiful to your average terrorist than autonomous robots.
Terrorists typically come from developing nations. Colleges in developing nations typically only teach engineering/science because that is what they need. People that goto college in developing nations typically have been tapped to be the leaders of their communities. It is a rare honor and they are going to study a major that has a clear and direct benefit to their communities. They are not going to study political science... because it is completely useless to them. (as opposed to somewhat useless to us) Liberal arts will not give their community food or water.
Colleges in nations outside of Europe and North America do not have the same liberal arts program. In fact, it is same to say that they have NO liberal arts program. When the dictator of your country kills everyone critical of his tyrannical rule, there are no professors left to teach critical thinking. When the only majors offered in a college are engineering or science people are going to major in those topics.
Also, engineering and science students in accredited western schools have to take humanities and social science course as part of their curriculum. You cannot make a comparison between the education received in a western college and one of a college in a developing nation.
This study reads like some poli-sci adjunct professor is lobbying for more federal funding.
To make this study creditable at all there has to be an in depth analysis of the options provided to the students, not just "violent people commonly study engineering" ergo "engineers are violent".
I believe the judge already has ruled the money is Novell's, what needs to be determined is how much money Novell is going to get.
How could that have happened? The trial hasn't occurred yet. We are still in pre-trial. The only thing the judge has ruled on is what evidence will be admitted at trial to determine the facts.
The finder of fact (jury or a judge in a bench trial) only makes determinations during the trial. We are still in the pretrial phase where the judge determines what facts will be displayed during the trial to the finder of fact. Contract interpretation is a determination of facts. Don't get ahead of yourself.
And don't confuse my words, SCO is going to loose, all I am saying is there is still a long road ahead. Just a healthy bit of pessimism.
No. SCO didn't go into Novell's bank account and withdraw cash, or route checks intended for Novell through SCO's bank account (although to the lay person it looks like it).
SCO was Novell's agent and therefore had the right to handle Novell's money, it is up to the judge to interpret the contract and determine if SCO violated its fiduciary duty and the terms of the contract. Although I would guess the judge is overwhelmingly going to side with Novell.
The order of debt satisfaction is: UCC secured creditors (people who leased SCO their cubes/chairs/appliances and filed a UCC section 9 lien with Utah sec. of state), Judgment holders (Novell, IBM, etc.), unsecured creditors, a whole bunch of other people, employees owed salary, shareholders (get whatever is left over).
So if SCO leased their office equipment there may be even less left to satisfy any judgments.
If you have precedent to back up your assertion I will tip my hat to you. But as far as I know, everyone who is owed money is a 'creditor', the legal basis of your claim is irrelevant. The order of creditor satisfaction in a liquidation is: 1. UCC secured creditors, 2. judgment creditors, 3. unsecured creditors, 4. (lots of other people), 5. shareholders are given any leftover assets.
Bankruptcy trustees are appointed based on their reputation. The bankruptcy trustee isn't going to do anything unless the law tells him to, because going against the grain damages one's reputation. Therefore the bankruptcy trustee is going to be a real pain in the ass trying to protect 'the SCO group' (the corporation) while simultaneously fighting creditors and 'the SCO Group' management.
So really the bankruptcy trustee has his work cut out for him, fighting off Novell and trying to figure out how Darl & Co. got the corporation into such a pickle.
Your burglar analogy is nice, but doesn't apply because this is a civil case, not criminal. A criminal never had the right to take something on your behalf, SCO could collect money for Novell, they just held onto it too long. But maybe Novell should talk to the Utah US attorney....
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but this is not good. Bankruptcy is like a protective cocoon that keeps businesses with cash problems safe from creditors. It is a way for SCO to stall further.
Bankruptcy prevents an entity's creditors from forcing liquidation of the entity's assets. If Novell won it's case against SCO, Novell could enforce it's judgment against SCO and force SCO to dissolve. If SCO was dissolved the case against IBM would disappear. Now that SCO has filed for bankruptcy it is protected from its creditors. Therefore Novell cannot get the licensing fees SCO owes it, and SCO can continue to exist.
Filing for bankruptcy is not SCO tossing in the towel, it is more like SCO knows it is going to lose, and is now trying to bite off Novell's ear to get Disqualified instead of Knocked Out.
Slashdot Mirror
want cheaper healthcare? reform the legal system and get the hmo's out of the game.
Where did GPP suggest that doctors should be absolved of legal responsibility? To reform a legal system that causes doctors to perform unnecessary cover-your-ass procedures does not mean remove responsibility.
It is not a he said-she said sort of thing. It is a "person who allowed a search which resulted in incriminating evidence" said - "cop that saw the evidence" said thing. Accused people tell stories that differ from the police all the time, juries still convict.
Quit living in a fantasy land, reasonable doubt does not favor a person that consented to a search which resulted in incriminating evidence and is now trying to hide it. The jury is going to think: "He is hiding something, he is guilty." The jury is not going to think: "OOOOOO an encrypted hard drive! Technicality! Ignore everything the officer said!"
It is not feasible that there is something else on the hard drive. If there was it would have been brought up already, the fact nothing but this 5th amendment argument was raised means there is nothing else. And if there was something else it is now waived and irrelevant. That argument is gone.
The only way the accused can rebut what the officer was is to get on the stand and testify. That is not going to happen because the only time an accused person should take the stand is when they have an air tight story which is sympathetic to the jury. Otherwise the prosecution will tear him a new one.
While it is true you don't have to open your trunk when stopped for a speeding ticket, that argument is irrelevant for two reasons.
1. This is a border crossing, not a traffic stop. Different rules apply, like it or not.
2. If you want to continue with the car analogy, a more analogous fact pattern is: The accused was stopped, he opened his trunk which has a combination lock voluntarily, the cops say the weed, the accused shut the trunk and refuses to give the combination. The incriminating evidence has already been discovered, the time to refuse to open the trunk already passed. He can't refuse to reopen the trunk now. This isn't a 5th amendment right, it is discovery.
This guy consented to a search, the search resulted in incriminating evidence that he is now trying to hide. No "what about" or "what if" hypotheticals are going to change the fact the accused already gave the prosecution all the evidence to convict him.
The 1st amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...."
... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."
The 5th amendment states: "No person
You cannot compare 1st and the 5th amendments, in the manner you did, because they do not have analogous effects. One prevents congress from making laws the other vests rights in an individual. You cannot waive your 1st amendment right because it is not granted by the 1st amendment, it is considered inalienable, and congress is prohibited from impinging on it by the 1st.
Also, this whole focus on the 5th amendment is a waste of time, Boucher cooperated with border patrol, he waived his 5th amendment right at that time. He told the cops everything. If he now wants to re-assert his 5th amendment right, he can, but the cops can testify against him. You cannot plead the 5th to prevent other people from testifying against you.
If you admit it is your laptop, you can plead the 5th at trial, but the cop can say "He said it was his laptop."
The cat is out of the bag, Boucher let it out, quit whining.
I believe in the democratic process. Let your representatives know how you feel.
Ontario Highway Transport Board
http://www.ohtb.gov.on.ca/eng/main.html
Telephone: 416-326-6732
Fax: 416-326-6738
e-mail: ohtb@mto.gov.on.ca
10th Floor, 151 Bloor Street West
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2T5
Canada
Obama is now president, The GWB 9-11 conspiracy theory is OVER, you are going to have to find a different windmill to joust.
Google flu tracker is an anecdotal "g-wiz" project that contains no individually identifiable material and has no real scientific value. Why would it be used as an argument in favor of data retention? Is getting the sniffles now a crime?
While despicable, sex offenders are not terrorists and the PATRIOT act is not used to gain information about them.
The patriot act was ready to go so soon after 9-11 because it is a poorly drafted pile of garbage that is not used for anything more than lip service.
If you want privacy, I can respect that, keep to yourself and be private. Don't put your private information in a place accessible to the public, like the internet. Don't start making up stories about how THEY are out to get YOU. That is not paranoia, that is megalomania.
You start out with a legitimate argument and then just dive into the absurd.
YES, CCF has legitimate concerns with who raised money for them. They can be peanalized if they do not follow the rules that allow them to be a 501 exempt charity.
NO, state of incorporation does not affect how CFF is treated under US federal tax code. For them to be a charity in the first place they must be incorporated under some state's laws, but that does not affect federal tax treatment and it does not affect the forum in which they may face lawsuits.
Why is this 5 Informative? It starts with a legitimate concern of federal tax treatment and then dives into a straw man argument of state of incorporation to draw a conclusion.
Please explain because I want to understand how state of incorporation (they must be incorporated somewhere to be a charity) affects federal tax treatment.
Wrong, neither of those entities are supposed to take care of this king of thing.
The correct agencies are the FCC and the FTC.
Here is an article about Caller ID fraud that gives the contact name and number for the FTC investigator in charge of this kind of thing.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/scorpio.shtm
It is from 2006, so the hierarchy may have changed, but it will send you to the right office. It the number doesn't work call - 1-877-FTC-HELP
Copyright (2003) United States Government, as represented by the Director, National Security Agency. All rights reserved.
The copyright notice says All Rights Reserved which means, the NSA claims have all the rights and the contractor has none.
The NSA contract isn't here to scrutinize so what ifs about "who really owns the code" are shots in the dark. Relying on the NSA's claim of ownership is a defense to copyright infringement. Everybody here can develop using the code without worrying about legitimate third party copyright infringement claims.
The fact that the public is able to download the software means the public has access to this software and it is not classified or FOUO.
So, everyone can safely conclude that they are allowed to develop using this code.
I don't mean to be argumentative, the parent post just didn't have a conclusion.
Reply to myself - revoke the copyright after a inquiry into who actually sent out the notices.
Because the copyright matter would be civil rather than criminal the standard would be much easier to meet than a criminal charge such as fraud.
I believe the most fitting punishment would be to revoke all Scientology related copyrights.
This is an arguable criminal case and a criminal prosecution would be a waste of time. It is going to be near impossible to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is, however, a clear abuse of rights granted by the copyright law. The fitting punishment is revocation of those rights.
Please save the nitpicking arguments about if there is such thing as copyright "rights", that is beside the point. If a child can't be trusted with privileges, you take those privileges away.
A bit of snooping tells me that Vodafone is the only network from which it is possible to send SMS to a Chinese registered mobile phone.
WRONG - I have sent and received text messages from people in the PRC, I do not use Vodafone.
I'm curious why such a large section of the world market is cut off from the west's wireless communication networks especially with the recent Olympics putting the spotlight on the nation in general.
WRONG - It's not. Since when did SMS become "the west's wireless communication networks"? Try actually dialing the phone number and talking. Chances are the article writer's friend is merely leaving off the international dialing code, a common mistake. China isn't Europe, you need to dial more numbers.
It is interesting that when forced to choose between the idea of "clueless n00b" and "evil authoritarian" the slashdot crowd jumped on the unsubstantiated and ridiculous assertion that a trivial form of communication is blocked by China. SMS DOESN'T MEAN BUGGER.
What ever happened to the scientific method and empirical data? Where is some evidence to back this up other than a single anecdote? How did this tripe get on the front page?
They transmit RF over co-axial cable lines to their customers.
"Transmit" is defined in the FCC regulations to cover cable companies' RF transmissions over physical wires. You need a franchise license from both the federal government, to transmit RF, and the local government, to get permission to place cable lines.
BTW, I don't know this for a fact but, I don't believe any person or company of any size needs a license to RECEIVE RF signals. Can you imagine the nightmare life would be if you needed a license for every pair of rabbit ear antenna in your house?
Looking at the example questions, the earlier questions look difficult, but unnecessarily so. What I mean by that is, they take what could be a straight forward question and then obfuscate it behind a bunch of random noise merely to confuse the test taker.
The newer example questions seemed more rationalized, they test whether you know the theory or formula needed to solve the question without throwing you a curve ball.
Would you rather encourage people to continue studying onto more advanced levels with easier tests, or throw them a GOTCHA question which will totally turn them off to the subject matter?
There is a difference between testing knowledge of the subject matter, and giving the test taker a hard time. A "difficult" question might be great to ponder when you have unlimited time, but in a time pressured test, it is not appropriate.
It is bad because we have to wait X more years until investors wise up and actually give GOOD services some money.
I think everyone would be better served by ignoring the DRM heavy sites. If there are no hits, investors will have no incentive to invest. There is no way to convince an investor that a site with very few hits has great potential for a return on their investment. If there are no hits then there is no potential. Eventually the music stores that are more consumer friendly will get investors.
Instead we have to wait while the same DRM heavy business model get regurgitated over and over, and the DRM-less modls get ignored.
I believe this "submission" a way to get people on the site so that lala can tell their investors "We had 1 million hits within one day of launch."
Slashdot fell for it and is now giving a never heard of site massive traffic which will appear positive to investors.
No, you need to be a specific type of attorney to get a patent for another person.
A natural people can represent themselves Pro-se infront of the patent office.
A corporation is not a natural person, it cannot represent itself Pro-se ever, it must be represented by an attorney.
Exceptions! Patent Attorneys and Maritime Attorneys. Attorneys are not allowed to use those prefixes in a description of their profession unless they have passed special Federal bars, which are seperate from state bars. Although many IP attorneys say they litigate patents, a Patent Attorney is the only one that can secure a patent from the patent office. Similarly a Maritime Attorney is the only type of attorney that can litigate in Maritime law tribunals. From the article it sounds like this is just a novelty concentration for law school and nothing more.
Your reply totally side steps my point and nitpicks an irrelevant point of my argument.
Autonomous robots are too expensive for terrorists.
Terrorists have to cobjob stuff lying around to make "IMPROVISED explosive devices". IED by its very definition means something thrown together with found objects. They didn't go down to the local Baghdad Radio Shack and pick out the cheapest cellphone. It was laying around the house and they IMPROVISED something.
When you can IMPROVISE an autonomous robot from stuff lying around the house, post the plans on slashdot.
The whole reason the terrorists send humans is because they cannot afford the cost of a remote detonating device like a cell phone. Terrorists are Terrorists because they do not have enough money to become a legitimate Army. Terrorists normally don't even have enough money to get proper explosives, hence "Improvised Explosive Devices".
It is all a matter of cost, humans are cheaper and more plentiful to your average terrorist than autonomous robots.
I think the study missed a huge point.
Terrorists typically come from developing nations. Colleges in developing nations typically only teach engineering/science because that is what they need. People that goto college in developing nations typically have been tapped to be the leaders of their communities. It is a rare honor and they are going to study a major that has a clear and direct benefit to their communities. They are not going to study political science... because it is completely useless to them. (as opposed to somewhat useless to us) Liberal arts will not give their community food or water.
Colleges in nations outside of Europe and North America do not have the same liberal arts program. In fact, it is same to say that they have NO liberal arts program. When the dictator of your country kills everyone critical of his tyrannical rule, there are no professors left to teach critical thinking. When the only majors offered in a college are engineering or science people are going to major in those topics.
Also, engineering and science students in accredited western schools have to take humanities and social science course as part of their curriculum. You cannot make a comparison between the education received in a western college and one of a college in a developing nation.
This study reads like some poli-sci adjunct professor is lobbying for more federal funding.
To make this study creditable at all there has to be an in depth analysis of the options provided to the students, not just "violent people commonly study engineering" ergo "engineers are violent".
I believe the judge already has ruled the money is Novell's, what needs to be determined is how much money Novell is going to get.
How could that have happened? The trial hasn't occurred yet. We are still in pre-trial. The only thing the judge has ruled on is what evidence will be admitted at trial to determine the facts.The finder of fact (jury or a judge in a bench trial) only makes determinations during the trial. We are still in the pretrial phase where the judge determines what facts will be displayed during the trial to the finder of fact. Contract interpretation is a determination of facts. Don't get ahead of yourself.
And don't confuse my words, SCO is going to loose, all I am saying is there is still a long road ahead. Just a healthy bit of pessimism.
No. SCO didn't go into Novell's bank account and withdraw cash, or route checks intended for Novell through SCO's bank account (although to the lay person it looks like it).
SCO was Novell's agent and therefore had the right to handle Novell's money, it is up to the judge to interpret the contract and determine if SCO violated its fiduciary duty and the terms of the contract. Although I would guess the judge is overwhelmingly going to side with Novell.
The order of debt satisfaction is: UCC secured creditors (people who leased SCO their cubes/chairs/appliances and filed a UCC section 9 lien with Utah sec. of state), Judgment holders (Novell, IBM, etc.), unsecured creditors, a whole bunch of other people, employees owed salary, shareholders (get whatever is left over).
So if SCO leased their office equipment there may be even less left to satisfy any judgments.
If you have precedent to back up your assertion I will tip my hat to you. But as far as I know, everyone who is owed money is a 'creditor', the legal basis of your claim is irrelevant. The order of creditor satisfaction in a liquidation is: 1. UCC secured creditors, 2. judgment creditors, 3. unsecured creditors, 4. (lots of other people), 5. shareholders are given any leftover assets.
Bankruptcy trustees are appointed based on their reputation. The bankruptcy trustee isn't going to do anything unless the law tells him to, because going against the grain damages one's reputation. Therefore the bankruptcy trustee is going to be a real pain in the ass trying to protect 'the SCO group' (the corporation) while simultaneously fighting creditors and 'the SCO Group' management.
So really the bankruptcy trustee has his work cut out for him, fighting off Novell and trying to figure out how Darl & Co. got the corporation into such a pickle.
Your burglar analogy is nice, but doesn't apply because this is a civil case, not criminal. A criminal never had the right to take something on your behalf, SCO could collect money for Novell, they just held onto it too long. But maybe Novell should talk to the Utah US attorney....
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but this is not good. Bankruptcy is like a protective cocoon that keeps businesses with cash problems safe from creditors. It is a way for SCO to stall further.
Bankruptcy prevents an entity's creditors from forcing liquidation of the entity's assets. If Novell won it's case against SCO, Novell could enforce it's judgment against SCO and force SCO to dissolve. If SCO was dissolved the case against IBM would disappear. Now that SCO has filed for bankruptcy it is protected from its creditors. Therefore Novell cannot get the licensing fees SCO owes it, and SCO can continue to exist.
Filing for bankruptcy is not SCO tossing in the towel, it is more like SCO knows it is going to lose, and is now trying to bite off Novell's ear to get Disqualified instead of Knocked Out.