|
|
| AutoZone's Emergency Motion to Stay Denied |
 |
|
Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:18 PM EDT
|
I am hearing first word from the court that AutoZone's Emergency Motion to Stay was denied, and SCO will be allowed to proceed with discovery. This is not yet confirmed 100%, but an eyewitness tells me that is what happened. I am seeking confirmation and will update when I have further word. Keep in mind that they were allowed to do discovery before under the original order, so from that standpoint it's a stand pat order. AutoZone, who knows how silly it all is, gave it a shot, but the judge intends to do limited discovery, and that is his decision. The problem really was that no one completely understood what the judge had ordered. Now we know. That really is all that happened.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: schmidt349 on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
| ty [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
Unfortunately, SCO's real intention seems to be harrasing any customer who
attempts to migrate away from their software under the cover of a highly
intrusive (and expensive) discovery process. From my limited experience with
the legal system, discovery can be used as a weapon to try and overwhelm the
other party into a favorable settlement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:41 PM EDT |
| the Court's requirement that SCOX serve AZ with its grounds first, before
proceeding with discovery?
This sounds as though the Court accepted SCOX'
statement that they needed to do (wide-open) discovery to see what there might
be that they could complain about. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
of all the courts involved, this one seems the least on top of the ball. this
worries me.
and no, it's not time to panic.
sum.zero[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
There is a local court here that is called the drug court.
There is also a family court.
The judges that handle these cases do it all day and they know these subjects
and the legal issues cold.
We need something like this for conputer related IP cases.
I have a funny feeling that some judges (not all) get really glassy eyed (like
most others) when the detail of the insides of what happens in a computer are
being discussed.
Not that this judge is not smart... just that one has to wonder what all these
judges really know (and who do they have advising them if they don't know much
about IP or computer technology)???
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
If that's what happened perhaps the judge felt he had to let it go ahead, since
he told them they could. He might also feel a little burned by SCOG, since he
made it clear that they had better have good grounds.
I'd really like to see or hear the transcript.
Fortunately it's only for a short time.
Unfortunately SCOG is likely to request every document AutoZone has and will
likely request discovery be extended.
Also fortunately even if a preliminary injunction is granted, which seems
unlikely, it will probably tell AutoZone to stop doing things it never did.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Is there any penalty for SCO to proceed with discovery and NOT eventually file
for a PI? Seems to me the judge tied discovery with intent to file for PI. He
also put a time limit on it, so SCO can't drag it out. Am I wrong?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elcorton on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:05 PM EDT |
I was expecting SCO's statement to AutoZone of the basis
for its claim to PI to be disallowed, and SCO to be given
time to serve a new one. Fortunately, I was wrong.
Moving for a PI is the worst thing SCO could do, second
only to not moving for one. It will have to present evidence
that Linux infringes UNIX copyrights (or that AutoZone used
UNIX shared libraries in its migration to Linux, which we
already know it didn't). That's what SCO has been trying to
avoid doing in the IBM case from the beginning.
SCO will also have to convince a Federal judge that it has
clear title to the UNIX copyrights, when another Federal
judge has said it doesn't.
If SCO wanted to move for a PI, it would have done so at the
beginning of the case, as is usual in a copyright action. The
judge's action more or less forced SCO into it. The result
(if SCO doesn't balk, as it should) will be a quick mini-trial
and denial of the motion, on the grounds that SCO has
failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
So just what is this discovery going to prove? That AZ was
truly guilty of dragging their feet responding to an audit
request?
I don't get it.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesKatt on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Perhaps Autozone should move to have SCO's claim removed on the basis
that SCO has no ownership of the copyrights or IP in question and thus has
no standing.
---
I ANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
First, the judge gives SCO very specific, narrow grounds for discovery,
then says "If this doesn't apply, don't do it". SCO goes on a
fishing expedition. If the judge grants AZ's motion, SCO appeals.
Instead, the judge lets SCO go fishing. When they come back, if they
don't file for an injunction, or their discovery was deeper than he gave
permission, it's contempt. So, the judge gets to open a huge can of
Whoop Ass on them, with no grounds for an appeal by SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
| Worth a look. But I sort of assume SCO won't depose this guy, since it
would
destroy SCO's case.
SCO lies re AZ Unix to Linux
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Maybe the judge didn't see the reason to stay ALL proceedings until the IBM, Red
Hat or Novell cases concluded.
If there is a question of injunctive relief the judge may want to dispatch that
rather than wait on IBM, Novell and Red Hat. -- BUT --
I am not sure how the logic would work though -- If there is a valid question as
to whether or not SCO owns copyrights...
IMHO (and IANAL) logically this motion should have been granted at least in part
(until Novell is complete) to see if SCO is entitled to anything.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:30 PM EDT |
Now think, if a SCO troll were posting messages in the hope that they would
irritate a judge reading them, and give said judge(s) a subconcious bias against
the Open source movement, how much would those messages differ from some of
those posted in this thread?
Its already clear that Sco et al etc are incapable of or have no intention of
differentiating between posted comments and actual PJ/Groklaw originated
material. So anything you post could be taken as representing the opinion of the
Open source movement. And I suggest that a "bunch of cowboys with no
respect for the law" is exactly how SCO would like the Open Source movement
to be portrayed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 06:41 PM EDT |
I haven't said this before, just in case SCO read it, and I didn't want to give
them any tips :-)
But the problem with Autozone's emergency motion is that it is based on the
premise that SCO is abusing discovery.
Now the thing is, the statement of SCO's basis of claim for a PI - combined with
our knowledge of SCO's behaviour in other cases -- suggests that SCO may
*intend* to abuse the limited discovery. But.... all the Nevada court has to go
on is the statement of basis of claim, which when viewed in isolation, is
somewhat thin evidence of SCO *intending* to abuse limited discovery.
What's more, SCO's lawyers probably said to the court "How does AutoZone
know that we intend to abuse the limited discovery? We haven't even served out
interrogatories or done any depositions yet"
And the most likely response from the judge would be to raise an eyebrow, think
or say to SCO "you better not abuse discovery"... and let the limited
discovery move forward.
-- ALL THE ABOVE IS A **GUESS** -- I haven't read any report, except the very
short PJ report at the top of this story.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
Shouldn't one wait to know something before falling off the deep end condeming
the judge? Shouldn't it be Think first, then speak?
Some people are wound a bit too tight is all I am saying. Relax, have a merlot
and wait for some information.
There is always time for invective, when the facts are known.
Or better yet, instead of useless anger, write something intellegent adding to
the conversation. The more this is done, the better the reputation of Groklaw
would be.
Emulate people like Quartermass, if more people did it, the world and Groklaw
would be a better place.
Thanks to Quartermass and others like him. It makes groklaw worth reading even
though one must wade through so much emotional babble; crying about consipracies
and bribed judges.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
| My forecast, which could be out at the left-field wall, as far as you can get,
is that SCOG will go for a PI against the use of Linux without paying SCOG their
Danegeld.
This prognostication is based on the simple observation that SCOG's
Structure, Sequence, and Organization (SSO) theory of non-literal copying is
accepted in the Ninth Circuit (which includes NV), in preference to the AFC test
for infringement used in the circuit (tenth?) containing Utah.
My guess is
that SCOG will go for the anti-Linux SSO PI, and try to get AutoZone to settle
for buying a bunch of SCOsores licenses at a reduced rate. SCOG will try to
bludgeon AZ into settling, even at only a nominal fee for SCOsores, so that SCOG
can claim a victory. It can be tempting to buy off a crook, paying his
extortion, to get him to leave you alone. I hope AZ isn't so dumb as to believe
the SCOG crooks would ever stick to a deal. To a SCOGling, once a patsy, always
a patsy.
--Bill P [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 07:20 PM EDT |
| it's unprofessional, unkind, and unwelcome [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 07:27 PM EDT |
Dear Friends,
After all this critisism about my initial posting, I do have to come forward and
apologize in front of all of you. No, I am NOT a troll, nor am a SCO insider, as
some had suggested.
Just like you all, I love Groklaw, but also take this whole story close my
heart. Perhaps too close. So, I just over-reacted. No more, no less. Please
excuse me for this rant.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
| Link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
I find that I am increasingly of the opinion that Autozone's attempts to
stay the case probably are not in its best interests. At the moment, most of
the case is on hold pending the outcome of the IBM and/or Redhat cases yet what
is at issue is not the SysV source itself but parts of Openserver, specifically
its libraries.
Openserver would have actually been owned by oldSCO.
They created the operating system, therefore they would have had the copyrights
to the parts they had written and they had the right to sell that work to
newSCO. It would be logical to assume that newSCO owns the copyrights to
Openserver and to the libraries at question. This case has nothing to do with
the SysV code so why wait for IBM when that case is all about SysV and nothing
at all to do with the libraries?
We already know that Autozone did not
use those libraries; they have publicly stated as much and, as I have said
before, from my own practical experience I am inclined to believe them. So what
do they have to lose from allowing the case to proceed? If I were in their
shoes, I would audit every system on every site just to make sure that the files
in question were not copied by mistake, ensure that physical copies of that
audit were made and then yell "Come on if you think you're hard enough!" at TSG.
In other words, I would let the case proceed and I would let them do discovery.
In return, I'd have from them any information they have that originally
indicated that the libraries were in use in the first place and find some way to
use that information against them.
If Autozone's IT department is like
any other IT department I have worked for, they have evidence in the form of
documentation of how their migration was performed. They will also have the
testimony of those who actually carried out the work, and they have the migrated
system itself. If they have not used the libraries, then they hold all the
winning cards. Without there being evidence of the libraries on Autozone's
systems, TSG has no case. So why bring the original motion to stay in the first
place? Delaying only plays into TSG's hands by dragging proceedings out more
than is necessary.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jim Reiter on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
TSG has been on the attack. IBM counterclaims are the first counter attacks on
TSG. In six days we will see some action on the IBM counter claims. What happens
there is more important than the AZ matter.
Now is not the time to panic.
TSG has made many claims which they will have to defend at some point in time.
When your enemy is cutting his throat with a dull knife you must be patience,
give him time to do the job in a proper fashion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
Now we won't have to worry about appeal.
And when this is over, scox will be given even more rope, then more than that,
then even more. Then when that's done scox will be given more rope to hang
themself, then some more rope, then more than that. Finally scox will be given
more rope, then some more rope, then . . . .
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 09:05 PM EDT |
Can AutoZone appeal this judges decision? It seems from the yahoo transcript
that Judge Jones wasn't even interested one iota from the word go about the
AutoZone argument.
This implies several possibilities:
1. Judge is letting SCO hang itself
2. Judge is deliberately delaying things to see what happens in the IBM, Novell
& Redhat cases before making a decision
3. Judge is on the take (hey it does happen) - if governments can be bribed,
then so can Judges I don't care what anyone says...I wasn't born yesterday
4. SCO has a case and the judge is being fair
We'll have to see the exact transcript of the court system, but if it looks like
AutoZone got a raw deal then i'm worried.
Dave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
Is this something that can be appealed? Even if an appeal were to be
successful, would it be a good idea?
I don't think that the IBM/SCOG hearing on the 15th will have much impact on
the AZ case if IBM wins on its summary judgement motions as the SCOG is alleging
misuse of static libraries which it seems to have a valid claim to.
AZ seemingly will have to tough out the discovery phase with objections to
the relevance of the SCOG's requests and see how it plays with the judge.
I think that the AZ team will try to show to the judge that the SCOG has no
right to a P.I. and that discovery is not warranted. Or has the judge already
passed that stage?
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
Cant AZ just respond to discovery requests that they think is out of bounds of
the scope of the limited discovery granted by the judge with
"We are sorry we cannot give you the material requested on the grounds that
the case is stayed by order by the Court. Your request is not within the scope
of the exception of that order."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 09:47 PM EDT |
Once nothing is discovered, perhaps AZ will have the option
to counter for the "strip search." :)
If I was SCO, I would tread lightly.
#include "disclaimers/ianal.h"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dr.Dubious DDQ on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
I'm losing track of all of the lawsieges SCO has
going...
Isn't
this the case where everyone was wondering why
the heck it was filed in
Nevada? Was that ever figured
out?
<AluminumFoilDeflectorBeanie
mode="on">It wasn't
because SCO had an insider or knew a "favorable" judge
or
something there, was
it?</AluminumFoilDeflectorBeanie>
I'm
thinking that, really, I just missed the "here's
why the case was brought in
Nevada" explanation, and, no,
I DON'T actually believe, particularly, that
there was
some sort of secret arrangment in Nevada that SCO was able
to
arrange, but it sure makes a nice conspiracy theory,
particularly with the
judge seemingly behaving a bit
belligerently against Autozone and seemingly
being
disposed to be nice to SCO (at least according to my
reading of the
apparent "eyewitness accounts"),
doesn't it?.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 09 2004 @ 11:01 PM EDT |
Really, this ruling shouldn't come as a surprise. If you go back to the Groklaw
transcript (here) of
the hearing and read it carefully, you'll see that Judge Jones pretty much said
"I'm going to let SCO do discovery to see if a preliminary injunction is
justified":
Stone (SCO counsel): So Your Honor, if I
understand you, you're going to allow us to have some discovery on the
infringement issue, to be able to show that there's irreparable harm that could
potentially arise from the ongoing infringement....
Judge Jones:
Enough to present an issue for preliminary injunction.
AutoZone
argued in its motion that Judge Jones said/meant something else, but IMHO that
was just trying to give the judge a chance to back out of his "mistake"
gracefully.
Trouble is, I don't think Judge Jones made a mistake. I'm
not saying that I agree with the ruling, but I think he did it deliberately.
Judges in general, and Federal District judges in particular, have a lot of room
for initiative in how they manage their cases. (e.g. Judge Robinson staying
Red Hat sua sponte.) I think Judge Jones decided "this is all
going to be settled by IBM anyway, so let's stay everything -- including
any possible irreparable harm that might be done while we're waiting. Show me
some, SCO."
I am not insensitive to the ruling costing AutoZone some
bucks to deal with the discovery -- although I will point out that they are
spending less now than before everything else was stayed. It's disgusting that
they have to spend a dime on this horsemanure, but that's civil litigation for
ya.
But I'd like you to think about this. Judge Jones very
specifically limited discovery to this one topic: whether or not a PI is
appropriate. It's not a "fishing expedition". Please note the quotes around that
phrase. AutoZone counsel has already used it in court -- in the hearing, and in
the Emergency Motion.
Now ask yourself: has SCO once in all
these cases failed to overreach themselves? Do you really think they will
restrain themselves to the boundaries the judge set for them? Do you think they
won't go fishing?
And when they do, the AutoZone counsel will point
this out, and the judge will see them for what they are, and they will have
stunk themselves out of yet another court.
Ooh, I wanna watch.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
<rant>Imagine having your workplace in a room almost surrounded by seats
where anyone can come in and see what you are doing. Everything said to and by
you is recorded. Your files will be open to all. Everything from deciding who
to believe, what rule to apply and whether to postpone a case is exposed to all.
Your thought processes will be exposed to all. Your reputation and competence
will soon be fixed and known to all. You won't get to see other judges. You
will create your own little world. Everyone will defer to you whether you are
right or wrong. Your quirks and capacities will be compared to other judges.
You will go into areas where you have no experience. You will have some
training and your own experience but you will get no feedback or criticism from
the supplicant parties or deferential others. You may have a take on what is
going on in cases before you that could be one of several and possibly outright
wrong. Usually in these things you just have lawyers writing and arguing until
evidence is taken in the end.
As a judge you will be scrutinized, deciphered and labelled. The humbling
thing is that whatever that label is, it is probably true. It will be the
product of your record, the observations of court staff, lawyers, and the
public. A judge may be pro government, pro plaintiff or defense. He may be slow
on the law but fair at trial. he may give you a fair trial but a terrible
sentence. He may give you a terrible trial but a good sentence. Since judges
have long or permanent terms, there is little that can be done about those that
don't work out. Some judges aren't permitted to sit on certain assigments.
Some are incapable of handling a full or average calendar without backing it up.
Some can do the work of three other judges. But this rarely goes on for
long--even judges don't like to do other judges' work. Why does it take some
judges 15 seconds to issue a bench warrant and then another 5 minutes. Why do
some judges spend hours talking with the lawyers about what they are going to
talk about at some future time? Why do some take 15 minutes to take a plea
while others take 50?
Temperament is paramount. I've seen judges rise in the ranks and even go to
higher courts just on their courtroom manner. It is also infectious. Lawyers
rarely misbehave in front of well-tempered, confident judges.
All this is to say that your case often depends on what judge is assigned to
your case. Sometimes when you know that, you know all about your case. It is
even more important than what your client has to say to you.
</rant>
Without the transcript this is speculatin'. But the posture of this case now is
incurably awkward. You really can't have a stay of the case and at the same
time investigate the possibility of a PI or move for a PI.
The judge is winging it. He is not going down the beaten path which is either
proceed with the case, stay it, or proceed with the PI. But a Stay at the same
time as an investigation for a preliminary injunction is impossible,
inconsistent, a mere fiction. The demands of a PI force the parties to get into
the merits and thus discovery.
AZ is going to follow the rules and the law. SCO is going to do whatever the
court lets it. They will try fishing. AZ will insist on a showing by SCO first
of the likelihood of prevailing. They will want SCO to tell them what is
relevant --CODE. They will serve the same discovery that IBM has. We will have
another "who goes first battle."
SCO will want to fish for Unix-in-Linux code which AZ will say is irrelevant to
the case since it is about a SCO UNIX license. AZ will point out the same thing
that IBM has: SCO goes first so that we know what is relevant. So it will end
up right back on the judges lap with motions to Compel. So the show will
continue to be on the side and not in the circus.
This hybrid suit may be a product of obstinance and inexperience. Simplicity
and established procedures are there for a reason. A simple stay would have
been far superior. This is a fumble. We will get a repeat of the IBM discovery
battle or a rash of innovative motions for this Quasi PI action.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 03:13 AM EDT |
Judge in this case obviously isn't interested in the big picture. Otherwise, SCO
would never even get a chance for the PI based on two simple facts:
1. They do not deserve the presumption of having the copyrights - they did not
register them in a timely manner.
2. There is a dispute releted to copyright ownership in front of another judge.
How on earth does this judge justify this fishing expedition when SCO can't even
satisfy the mere basics? What's the point of discovering when it isn't even
clear they own the darn thing? How can there be "irreparable harm"
when it isn't even clear that the "harm" is on them?
Oh dear, oh dear...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Once again... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 05:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 05:00 AM EDT |
It may not be rare for judges to make blunders, be biassed or
even prejudiced, but the mere granting of this is no evidence
of any of those.
Without the transcript, we don't know whether SCO met the
conditions orally, whether AutoZone made a mess of a local rule
or what. Probably "what" :-)
Without the order, we don't know the conditions that the judge
imposed.
A point that many people may have missed is that SCO claimed
that migration would not have been possible without copying
certain dynamic libraries from SCO Unix to Linux. Now, that
would be a clear breach of copyright, and hence grounds for the
case. For all I know, SCO might have been told that they
could check for such files, and nothing else.
As many people have said, let's see the evidence before judging
the judge!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: haceaton on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 08:29 AM EDT |
It seems to me that the discovery was only granted because "other
issues" were raised in this case, namely static-shared libraries from Open
Server (although they aren't mentioned in the complaint). Why didn't AZ just
tell the judge, look, we are not using those libraries so why don't you simply
issue an injunction against us using them. That way the whole case is stayed,
and both parties are saved the time and expense of discovery until the other
cases are decided. That's efficient for everybody. If the judge doesn't want to
limit a PI to the open-server libraries then it's a wonder why he granted any
stay at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: turambar386 on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 12:47 PM EDT |
One thing I don't understand is why the judge would allow the "limited
discovery" without really ruling on the transfer part of AZ's motion.
It's obvious from the transcript that he wanted to keep the case, but if he was
going to grant the motion to dismiss but allow discovery towards a PI, shouldn't
he have made a ruling on the transfer first?
If SCOG is granted a PI, could AZ appeal on grounds that the case should have
been transferred?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
| Link
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
The unofficial transcript (on scofaq.org) shows that, near the end of the
hearing, BSF attorney Stone says that they haven't really issued any
interogatories yet. He says that the Greer deposition (24 Sep) will provide a
strong indication whether AZO used TSCOG code in Linux. So BSF have held off on
any other action. The judge basically ignores this line, but you can see that
Stone is lining up for an extension to discovery.
Same old same old.
---
The SCO Group's secret project to develop Artificial Stupidity has obviously
succeeded!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Not so sure - Authored by: RPN on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
moonrealestate2000 on the yahoo board called it with the
one-line
message:
Bagholders will try to sell their stock on good news to
new hagholers, who won't show up, thus the stock will go down.
I
expect that, for the most part, there are only two groups WRT buying SCO stock:
'Bag-Holders' and ignorant buyers.
SCOX is going to have a relatively
steady feed of incomming ignorant stock buyers who have heard some tidbit about
SCO and figure it might be worth dabbling in.Everybody else who owns their stock
and has done some real investigation knows that they want to sell it (or is
holding it for some future miracle).
When there is bad news, the 'bag
holders' know that there's no sense trying to sell, thus the steady influx of
ignorant investors have little to buy, and the stock goes up. When there's
good news, everybody tries to dump their stock. The same steady stream of buyers
finds a glut and the price drops.
I expect that there very few (if any) who
have reasonable knowledge of SCO's state and are still interested in buying
in.
When I say 'ignorant' here, I mean no insult.. I'm using the bare
dictionary definition of ' lacking information or knowledge". ---
Powerful,
committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it
to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rao on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
The judge said that SCOG is entitled to discovery if and only if they are
entitled to a preliminary injuction. The only way this makes any sense at all
to me is if the question of whether they are entitled to a PI is answered before
the discovery starts. The judge would seem like the only person in a position
to make this determination but it did not sound like he planned on doing this.
Can anybody explain this or point out the error in my logic?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rao on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
OK, there may be more to it than I realize but from what I remember this
case comes down to SCOG saying that AZ used there libraries under Linux and AZ
says they did not. This question is easily resolved by a simple inspection of
the executable file and possibly the run time environment (I'm still confused by
the library being described as "static shared").
I don't see any fuzzy
issues like "derivative works" or anything like that. The library was either
linked into AZ's code or it wasn't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2004 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
You are right to be worried. In reality anything goes.
The US legal
system is quite rigged.
There is always suspicion in regards to
Judicial bias.
(To make matters worse, the Judicial branch is self protecting
and covers itself
up)
http://www.startribune.com/stonline/html/westpub/disclose.htm
"Over the period studied, the report said, 28 judges made 63 requests
to censor their entire financial disclosure report. The conference granted 55 of
those requests, or 87 percent. In those cases, only the name of the judge was
released"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40982-2004A
ug4_2.html
There is a financial threshold beyond which corporations
including Microsoft are substantial and effective political entities, lobbying
and influencing US
policy.
"http://www.opensecrets.org/"
If large
corporation can have political clout in the White House it is a natural
extention to attempt influencing the judicial system as
well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3031717.stm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38783[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
