|
|
| Microsoft Slinks In - MSLI Appears in SCO Bankruptcy |
 |
|
Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 10:22 PM EST
|
Now it's getting interesting. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' father's law firm, known as the firm that represents Microsoft, has just filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance and Demand for Notices and Papers [PDF] in the SCO bankruptcy on behalf of MSLI, Inc., otherwise known as Microsoft Licensing, one of the creditors on SCO's list. In fact, one of the 20 top creditors [PDF], owed $125,000 or so. That would give them a seat at the creditors committee table, presumably, should they so desire, if a committee is formed later. I guess filing as MSLI instead of Microsoft Licensing is like putting on sunglasses, hoping no one will notice you.
But we do notice! One thing I noticed is that it isn't just a request or demand for notices. It's also an appearance, meaning they can speak. Here's Oracle's Request for Special Notice [PDF] to show you the difference. Or for even more contrast, here's American Express's [PDF]. They want to see all the goings on as far as paperwork is concerned. Microsoft does too, but it is also appearing, in addition to asking for filings.
Now, we'll have to wait to see to what degree they mean that, as it's possible that they are simply using a form that covers all the bases. Sometimes law firms do that. I can attest to that. But it's something that leaps off the page.
Sun appeared [PDF] as well as filing a request for notices. So that would be the closest comparable filing. Then again, both Sun and Microsoft might well wish to speak at some point if the topic turns to those agreements they signed with SCO back in 2003, let alone the money they are owed. If you are attending tomorrow's hearing, please keep an eye out for a new lawyer or lawyers.
Microsoft lists a number of sections in both the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. To save you time, in case you are curious, here they are. Sun lists only the first two: -
§ 1109. Right to be heard:
(b)
an equity security holders’ committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee, may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter.
-
Rule 9010. Representation and Appearances; Powers of Attorney
(a) Authority to act personally or by attorney.
A debtor, creditor, equity security holder, indenture trustee, committee or other party may (1) appear in a case under the Code and act either in the entity's own behalf or by an attorney authorized to practice in the court, and (2) perform any act not constituting the practice of law, by an authorized agent, attorney in fact, or proxy.
(b) Notice of appearance.
An attorney appearing for a party in a case under the Code shall file a notice of appearance with the attorney's name, office address and telephone number, unless the attorney's appearance is otherwise noted in the record.
-
Rule 2002
-
Rule 3017
-
Bankruptcy Code § 342. Notice
So, any of you who are attending the hearing Friday, keep your eyes peeled for a new lawyer. He'll be the one with the sunglasses. Joke. Joke.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 10:29 PM EST |
Looks like the Borg have shown up.....
Resistance is futile [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 10:32 PM EST |
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if I give some.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft CEO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 11:44 PM EST
- Microsoft CEO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 07:59 AM EST
- Microsoft CEO - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 08:10 AM EST
- Microsoft CEO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 08:13 AM EST
- Microsoft CEO - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 08:18 AM EST
- CEO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 09:30 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 10:33 PM EST |
| See the red info and the Important Stuff on the Post a Comment
page.
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially if
I give some. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Today's Vista experience - Authored by: kawabago on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 02:10 AM EST
- Win a Custom, Open-Source Mini Monster PC from Popular Mechanics - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 02:31 AM EST
- Penguins on a plane - Authored by: bilateralrope on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 05:27 AM EST
- Linux + Intel's new "Penryn" Core 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 10:50 AM EST
- SCO bankruptcy docket: #212..213 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 11:55 AM EST
- Off Topic - SCO the book - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:22 PM EST
- Review: "Gosh, gOS is good"/$199 PC to Restock - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:35 PM EST
- How Microsoft spins news and tries to create a false perception in the market - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 10:35 PM EST |
| Help us understand your context by showing the News Pick in your comment's
title.
---
--Bill P, not a lawyer. Question the answers, especially
if I give some. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 10:39 PM EST |
|
Marc Barreca features the work he did for MSFT in the MarchFirst
Bankruptcy.
SCOX watchers should remember that Bert Young was CFO of
MarchFirst as it spiralled towards bankruptcy. He was later a defendant in a
civil fraud case brought by the trustee.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 11:32 PM EST |
Here is a quote from the Nov 6 hearing, I think from a Novell lawyer talking
about the United Linux agreement.
He is talking patents, not copyrights, so maybe he has not learned as much over
the years as he thinks.
IF this is for real, I wounder why SCO never argued this aginst Novell ni Utah?
Dennis H
Quote
I think --
3 and I'm not expert in patent law, but I've learned some stuff
4 over the years and there's a doctrine, I believe, in patent law
5 called an implied license. This is a license that's deemed to
6 have been given when the parties agreed it would be given and
7 it would be unjust not to, regardless of whether there's
8 actually a writing, a specific written license which would be
9 nice, because its evidence.
end quote[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CraigV on Thursday, November 15 2007 @ 11:48 PM EST |
I can't help but wonder if MSLI's job is to try to protect
the corporate veil from being accessible by IBM in the end
game. For example, to create an opportunity to move
certain documents to another entity where they might be
unreachable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:05 AM EST |
"I guess filing as MSLI instead of Microsoft Licensing is like putting on
sunglasses, hoping no one will notice you."
Ah, yes, I do so love Groklaw. It takes a certain eye and attitude to take
virtually anything and try to turn it into a conspiracy theory. This is
certainly not the site it was when it started.
So, going by the search for the truth (that is what this site is still about,
isn't it?), what is the legal name for MSLI, Inc? If the legal name is
"MSLI, Inc", then wouldn't they *have* to file as "MSLI,
Inc" instead of "Microsoft Licensing"? But that wouldn't sound
as good for the groupthink...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft Slinks In - MSLI Appears in SCO Bankruptcy - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:24 AM EST
- Whose conspiracy theory? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:38 AM EST
- Microsoft Slinks In - MSLI Appears in SCO Bankruptcy - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:20 AM EST
- Microsoft Slinks In - MSLI Appears in SCO Bankruptcy - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:27 AM EST
- The company you keep - Authored by: eochaidh on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 03:53 AM EST
- It works in this country!! - Authored by: MadTom1999 on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 04:19 AM EST
- The Halloween docs, the Goldfarb declartation, MS public statements will fresh up your memory - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 06:51 AM EST
- My, my, we ARE in a bad mood this morning - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 08:34 AM EST
- Here, Pilgram, drink this Kool-aid...n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 09:04 AM EST
- expecting the worst from MS... rarely results in surprises (n/t) - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:48 PM EST
- Maybe the real conspiracy is being masked - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 02:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:22 AM EST |
This all reminds me of that Weekend Update segment on Saturday Night Live called
"Really?"
"So your top accounting people got better job offers? Really, SCO?"
"So all the money you collected for Novell is spent, and all the other
money you now have can't be given to them? Really"
"And York thinks there's a lot of money to be made from ME and future
Linux litigation, and you want to sell it to them without hearing any other
offers? Really?"
"And Microsoft now seems to think you may owe them some money after all?
Really, SCO?"
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:50 AM EST |
Why do I get the feeling that this whole Bankruptcy thing is just another
chapter (no pun intended) in the FUD saga?
We should watch MS lawyers... see if they recommend "as creditors"
that Darl and cohorts get to do exactly what SCOG has proposed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Baker on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 02:22 AM EST |
Their statements could prove interesting - they can pretty much say what they
want in court which strikes me as one possible motive..
---
= P =
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 04:58 AM EST |
They want to protect themselves against the possibility of exposure of
incriminating evidence which exists within SCO. Of course they would show up!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 05:11 AM EST |
SCO Xenix and SCO UNIX, long had Microsoft intellectual property included in the
distribution.
One of the first things you noticed on a booting a sco box was the number of (C)
Microsoft Corporation messages that flew past.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 05:50 AM EST |
You're all wrong! Concealing complicity and avoiding peircing the veil? Never!
Promoting the York sale? No way! Getting that patent into the MS trolling
vaults? Nonsense!
Oh, wait a minute, that last one was mine.
Anyway, it's not about the money. That's the same comment that PJ made about the
appearance of IBM and Novell big guns over tiny debts. That and the UST not
being able to beat up interest in the creditors' committee.
I got to thinking about what might be on the judge's mind. We know what Novell
and IBM really want, but he is only just getting to grips with the Novell
position. We know what Novell and IBM are about, but the judge may only have a
hazy recollection of IBM mainframe computers. However, the judge will be very
aware that Microsoft are very rich, that his computers probably run Windows and
that Microsoft are total losers. I mean, total losers of the major DOJ
anti-trust case.
I'm sure the judge won't bother with the sort of speculation you (alright, I) am
likely to conjure up. He cannot escape that Microsoft are not in it for the
money, not noted for abiding by the rule of law and are in his courtroom.
Before he reaches any other conclusions he will wait for Microsoft legal
legalese to come his way. He will know what Microsoft are up to long before we
do.
OK, one last go. Vista is doing worse than any of us realise and Microsoft need
every penney they can get. I hope the judge hurries up and tells us what is
really going on.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Genuine Advantage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 08:37 AM EST |
So, any of you who are attending the hearing Friday, keep your eyes peeled for a
new lawyer. He'll be the one with the sunglasses. Joke. Joke.
After Microsoft's alliance with Disney theis attorney could have a boad case of
Mickey Mouse ears too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jamis on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 09:22 AM EST |
| Nice Acronym, PJ! Still laughing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 09:59 AM EST |
| So, is Microsoft trying to pull off a Paper Thin
Disguise or a Str
angely Effective Disguise? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:28 PM EST |
And his name will be Arthur. ;-)
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 12:40 PM EST |
>it is also appearing
So what happens if Microsoft shows up and tells the judge, as
a creditor: "the sale to York is a wonderful idea, for the
creditors. The US Trustee got it all wrong"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 01:54 PM EST |
From 1994 to 2001, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP employed Jack
Abramoff, a Republican lobbyist later convicted for his illegal activities.
Abramoff was hired by partner Emanuel Rouvelas following the Republican takeover
of Congress: according to the Seattle Times (1995), although the firm's
representatives were half Democratic and half Republican, they "didn't have
a conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to the new
Republican leadership."
Abramoff emerged as the firm's star shortly after joining the law and lobbying
firm. A press release claimed Abramoff to have influence with US House Speaker
Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey. After Abramoff began to have legal
troubles, spokespersons for Gingrich and Armey claimed that Abramoff had
fabricated the references, and that they did not know him personally.
Preston Gates reimbursed Abramoff for trips he funded to Saipan; the firm was
later reimbursed by Marianas officials. When Abramoff left Preston Gates for
Greenberg Traurig in 2001, he took with him a team of lobbyists that formed the
core of "Team Abramoff". He also took with him trade secrets the firm
had developed for influence peddling such as those developed through Slate an
online political magazine established by Microsoft that was later sold to the
Washington Post, the news source Abramoff credits in Vanity Fair with initially
discrediting him in the eyes of his clients, possibly in retaliation for Team
Abramoff.
Today adversaries at his old firm continue scapegoating Abramoff for practices
that under the leadership of Bill Neukom, continue even today. Those practices
involve lobbying Seattle Business Journals to put the firm in the best possible
perception. In July of 2006 the 15 year editor of the Seattle Weekly "bowed
out" likely owing to these efforts. The Seattle Weekly was the most vocal
of the papers in regards to the connection between Abramoff and the Gates
Family. The paper disclosed that Abramoff was responsible for bringing Ralph
Reed on as a subcontractor in 1999 and working with Grover Norquist, two figures
now prominent in what has become LobbyGate.
In January 2006, CNMI Governor Benigno Fitial demanded that Preston Gates &
Ellis and Greenberg Traurig return much of the money originally paid for
lobbying services, claiming that "the positive benefits of those services
have been undone by the wide scandal brought on by the criminal charges against
Abramoff."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Gates_&_Ellis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 16 2007 @ 04:38 PM EST |
"Daddy! Daddy! The big bad bullies beating up my friend SCOG, ya know,
the loser nerds I funded to fib for me?, are coming after me now! Beat them up
Daddy! Please, please, please Daddy go beat them up for me!"
If this weren't so perfectly predictable and a sham it would almost be laffable.
What will Dad Gates be willing to do for Bill that BS&F or the others
won't? You don't suppose he'd be willing to misrepresent the situation, then
hide behind a "familial privilege" claim do you?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
