Authored by: creysoft on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 05:24 PM EST |
Now that's FUNNY. Seriously, I'm not sure what SCO *does* plan to do with all
this discovery. I guess they'll just use it as an excuse to delay procedings for
another 10 years...
---
Fear th3 Platypus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 05:28 PM EST |
Started by an IANAAP (I Am Not An Anonymous Poster)--hope everybody's happy
now.
BTW, only "correction" I can conceive of is changing "fake
story" to "Fake News story", following the pattern of the
subtitle on Humorix. ;)
---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or Learn About--on Groklaw!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadScientist on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AntiFUD on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 05:34 PM EST |
Forget RICO and Lanham Act, this is going to require FEMA and will be declared a
Superfund site by the EPA - and there is no doubt that SCOG's claims of needing
all these papers (not Magistrate Judge Wells' Order requiring IBM to Destroy a
few forests) will place the blame for this environmental hazard squarely on
SCOG's shoulders.
The potential firehazard will require a new pipeline from the Hoover Dam. An
anonymous spokesbeing was heard to utter the words "This could cost
Billions!"
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Eric Damron on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 05:39 PM EST |
It's very amusing to me the way that SCO and its shills can put a positive spin
on the most horrible of news. I can hardly wait for IBM to hand SCO their head
on a silver platter. I'm sure SCO will proclaim that it got the best of IBM!
SCO: "Look at what a great platter we have now!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 05:45 PM EST |
"...prevent oversized piles from collapsing and killing innocent
bystanders."
I loved that part. funny stuff.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: retiarius on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 06:26 PM EST |
there is the twice-told tale from the
antitrust days of yore in U.S. v. IBM,
involving an observation by two of the
vastly-outgunned government attorneys
attending a case conference at some venue
in upstate new york.
one lawyer, looking out a window while
munching on a sandwich, wondered aloud about
a very long line of limousines overflowing
a circular driveway. it was just a few
of the ibm/cravath, swaine, & moore
assigns coming back from lunch...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 07:11 PM EST |
My favorite part is the "Brown Alert". A not too subtle reference to
a different form of waste product.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 08:16 PM EST |
If I was IBM, I would hire my own guards to stand over those documents 24/7. We
already know how SCO reguards their property (reading confidential emails in
open court), I don't think I would trust them one second with my cofidential
code.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 08:30 PM EST |
Have a notion that Kimball-Wells actually want IBM to appeal the discovery order
to the 10th Circuit. Judicial economy. Gets them off the hook, may speed things
up now, faster than trying to guess how long SCO should be allowed to rummage
through all of it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 09:37 PM EST |
Its likely that they are going to get something, even after Magistrate Wells
adjusts the order. And what they are going to get is going to be
informationally large, as in humongous. And SCO can't use its own employees to
analyze it. They are going to have to hire outsiders. It looks like SCO has
two choices: (1) ignore this discovery info, or (2) go broke hiring someone to
review it. What's worse, there is almost certainly nothing to find in there.
So what is the expectation as to what SCO is going to do. The phrase, "be
careful what you wish for" comes to mind.
JG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 12 2005 @ 10:25 PM EST |
I bet they won't even look at the code, just like they claim they have not
looked at the code that was delivered.
they're looking for notes & emails.
They want to threaten IBM with some embarassing emails, threaten IBM into
settling.
SCOG DOES NOT CARE about AIX code or Dynix code.
It's the exact same thing they were after from Palmisano's emails.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 02:54 AM EST |
... will SCO ask for in their request for a delay do you think?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Toon Moene on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 06:04 AM EST |
I think this one's the best:
> We thought about delivering this software in its original
> punch-card form, but we figured even the court would find
> that absurd.
*Even* the court ...
---
Toon Moene (A GNU Fortran maintainer and physicist at large)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:14 AM EST |
What is the consensus on SCOG's main objectives going forward with the IBM
litigation? I emphasise "going forward", not what they were hoping when they
initiated their action. What are the main objectives of their lawyers and do
they conflict with those of their client?
- Prop up their share
price
- Attract additional capital
- Get bought out
- Minimize the costs
of the litigation
- Spread FUD about Linux
- Keep themselves as individuals
out of jail
- Win damages in court
- Stall until
bankruptcy
- Other
I appreciate that these objectives are somewhat
interrelated. Nevertheless, it is probably useful to work out the primary
motivation to predict how SCOG and their lawyers are going to react.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:31 PM EST |
I found this pun rather amusing :)
(taniwha, forgot password, too lazy to sort it out right now)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 13 2005 @ 11:43 PM EST |
Just not the kind the article mentions.
The entire fiaSCO might serve as the basis for more than one Ph.D. dissertation.
Here are some possible titles:
"Corporate blindness, greed, and self-destruction: How SCO management's
greed proved its undoing"
"SCO v. IBM: Bogus case serves as wake up call for accountability in
open-source authorship"
"Not doing your homework before taking Big Boys to court: The SCO
disaster"
Any others?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|