decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:32 PM EDT

IBM has now filed an Objection [PDF] to SCO's Motion to Authorize /Debtors' Motion for Authority to Pay an Expense Reimbursement to York Capital Management. Remember that one? The one where SCO said it had a "moral" duty to pay them, despite being under no contractual obligation to do so? York was the entity that first offered to buy assets from SCO, but the court blocked it, pointing out that the Utah court ruled that Novell owned the assets being proposed to be sold, and then when given a chance to resubmit, instead SCO dropped that reorganization plan without prejudice to resubmit. But despite the deal never happening, SCO claims a moral obligation to pay York's expenses. Here's what IBM calls that: "Nonsense." I'll show you that part of the Objection, and then I'll tell you what I think it means.

First, IBM's chief argument:
7. Approval of an expense reimbursement is not warranted where the purchaser did not enter into a legally binding agreement with the debtor, there was no information on the value of the proposed sale, and there was no evidence as to the time, effort, expense or risk that the purchaser contributed to the proposed sale....

8. Here, the proposed deal died at the negotiating table. York did not sign an agreement, attract any bidders or contribute to any sale. There is not even any evidence that the promise of expense reimbursement was necessary to attract York to enter into its non-binding commitment. York did nothing for the estate: no benefits given, no risks assumed. In fact, the failed transaction actually harmed SCO, which needlessly spent time and money presenting and defending the Sale Motion before its time, and IBM, Novell and the United States Trustee, who were required, also needlessly, to spend their own time and resources to respond by the objection deadline (as well as to this Motion).

9. SCO argues that failure to award the Expense Reimbursement will harm the estate, because "[i]f SCO does not honor this commitment, future negotiations may be made more difficult.... Nonsense. First, SCO never entered into a binding commitment to York. Second, Stephen Norris Capital Partners LLC came to the table (albeit with another non-binding commitment) even though this Court had not approved the York Expense Reimbursement.

10. If the Expense Reimbursement is treated instead as a use of property of the estate or a transaction out of the ordinary course of business under section 363(b), the Motion still does not meet the minimum requirements for approval. The use of assets out of a debtor's ordinary course of business requires, among other things, proof of "a sound business purpose".... SCO has not adduced a sound business purpose for the underlying York transaction, let alone for an expense reimbursement for which York provided no benefit to SCO's estate. The Motion displays only an eleemosynary purpose with the estate's scarce funds in favor of a not impecunious beneficiary. The Motion should be denied.

This is a little bit of lawyer humor. As you've seen, there is a certain decorum expected of lawyers. This can lead to subtle humor, as it does here. And IBM has always shown itself a master of this form of humor. Eleemosynary means essentially charitable, coming from the Latin and Greek words for alms and pity:

The source of eleemosynary is Medieval Latin eleemosynarius, from Late Latin eleemosyna, "alms," from Greek eleemosyne, from eleemon, "pitiful," from eleos, "pity."

IBM's joke then by using that word, eleemosynary, is that it is saying that since SCO has no legitimate business purpose in wishing to pay York, it must be out of a charitable impulse, but bestowed on an entity, York (plus client), that has more money than SCO, obviously, and doesn't need alms *from* the poor, meaning SCO. In short, it's a nonsensical giveaway.

IBM also takes a moment to point out to the court that if SCO is worried about causing expense to others, each incomplete and withdrawn SCO reorganization plan, with all the trimmings, costs folks money, folks SCO clearly feels no obligation to reimburse, or even prevent damage to, which it could do by filing a real plan instead of putting everyone through what Novell's attorney at the last hearing called another "fire drill".

So, if York and its client don't need the money, and there is no contractual obligation to pay York, and there's no business reason to do it, why would SCO dare to file such a motion?

I've been thinking a lot about that. Here's my theory, for what it's worth. It's the only theory that in fact does make any sense to me. Two pieces to my theory: First, I think someone pulls the strings that make SCO dance. No company would otherwise go into court and look so idiotic on its own volition. They must feel some compulsion from an external source. And if there is no legitimate purpose and they must couch it in nonsensical terms, that doesn't rule out that there is some purpose to the proposed payment, one SCO wishes not to detail in court.

Second, I think it must, therefore, be a group or an individual who has been an insider from early on, wishing to get some money back or some chance to recover something from this disastrous SCO litigation debacle and also wishing to keep control of and continue the litigation lottery scheme. SCO is seeking to give away up to $150,000 for nothing in return, so I think we must assume that there is something that SCO at some point got and wishes to pay back, at least in part, or some hope that future money will still be offered. Were they not in bankruptcy, I'm sure SCO would have paid York. So it would be fascinating indeed if it were possible to follow that trail by examining the books. Only Chapter 7 can make that happen, I think, so we are watching some mighty fast dancing to try to avoid anything like that happening, while skimming off whatever one can first, in case it all blows up anyway.

I think that rules out Microsoft. They certainly helped SCO in the beginning by taking out a license I don't think they needed, from what we know so far, and Microsoft employees continue to argue in favor of SCO here and there, but I don't believe they'd risk so much for such peanuts as this SCO motion offers York. So whoever York represented, I think it can't be Microsoft. It has to be someone who'd care about $150,000, in short, according to my thinking, and I am fairly certain that would not be Microsoft. Plus, Microsoft is too legally smart to even try a motion like this, I believe. They may not be good at writing software, but they built a monopoly at least in part by being mighty clever legally. Too clever by half, one might argue, after the EU Commission fines, but it certainly worked for a long time. This motion is a joke, small-town, unsophisticated, and for that reason, I can't believe Microsoft would touch it with a ten-foot pole. So my conclusion is that whatever role Microsoft may or may not have played, that isn't who York represented.


  


IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense" | 136 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: om1er on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:37 PM EDT
Please show the corrections in the title.

---
August 10, 2007 - The FUD went thud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: om1er on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:38 PM EDT
And if possible, make any hyperlinks clickable.

---
August 10, 2007 - The FUD went thud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: om1er on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:39 PM EDT
Discussions of items in the News Picks on the right belong here.

---
August 10, 2007 - The FUD went thud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Authored by: ChocoNutDancer on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:47 PM EDT
I think it's simpler that. SCO would rather spend all the money rather than pay
it to Novell (and IBM) when they lose in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Objects ... I'm puzzled also
Authored by: nola on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:54 PM EDT
As PJ says, this doesn't sound like MS work. I'm sure that MS is concerned about

keeping the company records from public view, but this isn't the way. So I have

no idea ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

$150,000 for nothing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 06:56 PM EDT
Where do I sign up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Getting access to the books
Authored by: bezz on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 07:12 PM EDT
There are ways to get access to the books short of conversion to Chapter 7.
Upon cause notice and a hearing, parties in interest or the US Trustee may
request a case trustee, examiner or independent fiduciary. In this case, it
appears an independent fiduciary carries the biggest hammer because it assumes
the DIP is in possession of something that belongs to others and has shown
attempts to use that asset in its reorganization plans that harm the interest of
the owner. The others also get to the books, but are not there to protect a
specific asset.

The independent fiduciary will get access to the books because SCO has claimed
in court that none of Novell's money is left -- that was different money. Since
there is already a judgment that the Sun and MS money was converted, the
independent fiduciary will have to have access to the books to determine where
it went, if it went anywhere at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The link could be obvious...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 07:29 PM EDT
...follow the money.

Who has the largest investment in tSCO Group?

Ralph Yarro.

Remember what happened during the 'Yarro Case' when he was ousted from The
Canopy Group. He sued Canopy, who in turn countersued. One of their claims was
that Yarro had misappropriated $20,000,000.00 by "a series of self-dealing
and wasteful transactions."

Doesn't that last statement seem somewhat familiar in relation to the way tSCO
Group is behaving?

Look for a link between Yarro or one of his many companies (ThinkAtomic for
instance) and York Capital Management, or rather, with the people at the top of
those organisations - I wouldn't be surprised to find Yarro serves on a board of
directors that also has senior York people on too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Zugzwang!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 07:40 PM EDT
I don't have anything particularly insightful to say, but I learned a new word
today. SCO has maneuvered themselves into this situation, and I think that
finally, at long last, they've run out of maneuvering room. And I just enjoy (in

the manner of David Letterman) saying the word: Zugzwang!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What the "Nonsense" case is really about
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 07:48 PM EDT
Suppose one or more people pulling the strings in SCO were to receive $50,000 -
$500,000 dollars (pick your own number) for every week the lawsuit drags on,
creating FUD in the linux marketplace. The sum might not be paid right away,
and could be eventually channeled through a third party for some
innocuous-sounding service without attracting much attention. SCO does not
have a legal contract with the third party wanting to delay the trial.

How would this even come up in discovery? It wouldn't.

The third party is not the third party you know publicly, but a lawyer friend of
a friend of the third party so it is also pretty indirect, but it comes from
someone with a lot of money who has done the calculation and figures that for
every week of delay in the linux marketplace, MS (or pick your favorite third
party) benefits.

"I'll throw so many lawyers at them that it will take them years to get it
out of court." This case is only about delay.

For several years this has been my theory of the case, and it is looking better
all the time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM responds: "an eleemosynary purpose"
Authored by: om1er on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 08:13 PM EDT
I, being a geek, do not follow sports. Nevertheless, I am aware that one
effective technique in sports is to intimidate and trash-talk your opponent.

In an odd way, the law firms in this "SCOG vs. The World" have been my
equivalent of sports teams. The objections filed by the lawyers opposing SCO's
motions have been filled with some of the most learned, and humurous, trash-talk
I have ever heard. SCOG has been repeatedly humiliated in bankruptcy court by
the other lawyers. Those lawyers are not holding back much at all - it is
fairly obvious there is not any respect or trust of SCOG left.

I am somewhat surprised it is allowed. But that doesn't mean it isn't
warranted.

Do they teach how to do this in "Writing Objections 101" at law
school, or are these lawyers just having a good time winging it?

---
August 10, 2007 - The FUD went thud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 08:18 PM EDT
I think the reason for all these SCO plans is simpler than conspiracies about
Microsoft pulling the strings (though I wouldn't be surprised if it were
otherwise):

The facts and the law are against SCO. Therefore, the only hope they have is in
getting shut up money. SCO threatened IBM but got a fight instead of a handout.
I believe the Microsoft and Sun payouts were meant as intimidation to suggest
credibility or likelihood of prevailing. IBM did not blink. So then SCO
anticipated getting lucky by finding something juicy, in discovery, with which
to blackmail IBM and force their hand (based on Darl's comment about looking
forward to seeing what they could get in discovery to use against IBM). This
too proved to be a dead end.

Meanwhile SCO has been trying every trick they can come up with to avoid a
judgment on the facts. Knowing they have no hope there.

Then along comes bankruptcy and these supposed buyout plans -- all of them
nonsensical. I do not believe any of this has been by accident. Both the York
and especially the SNCP machinations served what appears to have been their
purpose -- more intimidation. Jettisoning liability and/or getting up to $ 95
million more to drag out the farce. Who would want that? Wouldn't you rather
settle? But IBM and Novell recognized this as attempted intimidation into
settlement and called them on it (see Novell's objections to the SNCP gaffe).

Even in a recent MOG article she writes about this impending third sell-off
attempt as being capable of inducing heads (i.e. Novell's and IBM's) to roll. I
rather expect their eyes to roll.

But throughout all this, there has been a common theme -- one of trying to be as
annoying as possible, or seem as threatening as possible, in order to induce
settlement. It's been threat after threat after threat, while simultaneously
doing whatever possible to generate delay and avoid judgment on the facts. When
speaking to the press and, especially in the failed sell-off motions, notice how
the supposed possibility of favorable settlement gets trumpeted.

Thus, it is my strong belief that all these wacky deals are intimidation tactics
to scare IBM and Novell into paying SCO off. Just as was the case before the
lawsuits were filed when SCO and their lawyers were telling people that they
expected IBM to quickly settle rather than fight. Over five years later...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Many consultants
Authored by: argee on Friday, April 11 2008 @ 09:25 PM EDT
PJ, I don't think its just one person getting this
peanut money. It could be several, and different ones
at different times.

Example. Ex-SCO employee Joe Blow goes to work for York, and
getsthe $150,000 or a part of it, etc etc.

Its a way of passing out Novell's money to the "good old
boys."


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO being eleemosynary.....
Authored by: fuego451 on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 12:18 AM EDT
...while York is not impecunious.

These IBM attorneys are great!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • oops - Authored by: fuego451 on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 12:21 AM EDT
Why Pay York? I Think it's Obvious.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 12:41 AM EDT
SCO is seeking to give away up to $150,000 for nothing in return, so I think we must assume that there is something that SCO at some point got and wishes to pay back, at least in part, or some hope that future money will still be offered.
SCO did get something from York. They got an excuse to have an exclusive period for submitting re-organisation plans. They claimed to have a new source of funds (York). When that fell through, they then found another front (SNCP). You couldn't understand why York would want to get involved in this. The reason is simple. SCO offered them money to put on a charade that York had no intention of following through on.

You will notice that in the previous article that they were asking for that period to be extended by another month. After that month is gone. SCO would find a reason to ask for still more time. There is nothing new here. This is just the same old tactic as before - delay, delay, delay.

Once the exclusivity period is over, other parties can submit their own plans. These will include firing all the top managers and liquidating the company. SCOG/Caldera has never been profitable (the one profitable year was based on money that a court has already ruled belongs to Novell). There is no realistic plan to make it profitable. It would be pretty difficult to argue against facts like that.

Once the company is liquidated, the party's over. No more big director's salaries. No more big bonuses for losing money. The remaining money is given to Novell (after the trial), and any pennies that might be left over are distributed amongst the creditors. Then the shareholder lawsuits start to be filed against the directors, since of course all the greedy investors who wanted in on the IP bonanza are going to claim they were mislead (as opposed to just being idiots).

The real secret is that there is no secret plan to save SCO. They're just bailing water out of a sinking boat and trying to hang on for a bit longer because there is nothing else they can do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO isn't one mind
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 02:33 AM EDT
Someone made a decision to move to reimburse York. Who did that? A lawyer
wrote the document. Who told the lawyer to write the document? Would SCO's
board be involved in a decision like this, or would it be Darl or someone else
that called their lawyers and told them to give money to York?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I disagree, fundamentally
Authored by: elderlycynic on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 03:52 AM EDT
I think that it is about time to abandon the conspiracy theory.

Once upon a time, there probably was one, but that was when SCO
had some leeway to play such games. My interpretation of their
current behaviour is that they are simply reacting to events
in the way that they have got used to. This is not zugzwang,
because they aren't forced to react - they just aren't thinking
any more. I will bet what capacity they have for rational
thought is tied up in trying to find some scheme to avoid
the imminent Judgement of Kimball. And every Groklaw reader
knows what that implies!

IBM's interest is, as people say, to keep the zombie moving
long enough to get THEIR judgement, and possibly to get hold
of the so-far-hidden documentation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 04:05 AM EDT
PJ explains, very reasonably, that Microsoft are not asking for the consolation
prize money and that seems a strong argument. However, as we see from the affair
of the porky pipe-fairy, Microsoft try to distance themselves from this sort of
thing by arranging a string of intermediaries.

I would expect that the intermediaries would be very interested in the money. I
still think that Microsoft could be at the back of this, even at this late
stage, since the effort is all in support of an ironclad veil.

The argument against is that Microsoft don't care about concealment as
demonstrated in the desecration of ISO with OOXML.

Perhaps the difference is that illegality would be easier to demonstrate with
the SCOG cases than with the ISO outrage.

---
Regards
Ian Al

When nothing else makes sense, use Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"that rules out Microsoft" ?
Authored by: ak on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 04:37 AM EDT
PJ wrote:
I think that rules out Microsoft.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why this strange motion was filed ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • decoy? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 07:06 AM EDT
The bigger picture?
Authored by: BobDowling on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 05:12 AM EDT
I'm not so ready to rule out MS, but until you are ready for the counterstrike
the identity of the puppetmaster is irrelevant. What matters is to see the big
picture so that we can prepare for the future rather than fight incident after
incident.

I have a model that accounts for SCO's behaviour in sacrificing themselves and,
more importantly, their scorched earth policy. The critical policy is that
Novell and IBM should get nothing from SCO's dead husk and should spend vast
amounts of their own money that they will never recover.

So, attach your tin foil helmets. Here goes.

I think the whole SCO vs. The World set of cases is a single battle in a much
larger war. The puppetmaster is sending the sign that any victories in battle
will come at enormous cost. The message is sent that it is not economically
worthwhile to fight. Ultimately the shareholders will ask their boards to
convince them that it is in the interests of the shareholders for these legal
battles to be fought.

My theory makes a prediction that it can be tested against. Once SCO is a
smouldering wreck a second legal case against the rights to Linux will be
launched, this time against an entity with shallower pockets. It too will have
little or no foundation but the plaintiffs will have the spectre of this case
hovering over them. "It took IBM how long? How much?" Even if they
decide to take up the case and win, they may not survive. Even if they do they
will still lose out economically. Then will come the third case. And the
fourth. And so on. Five years and millions of dollars each.

Never mind the lawyers. How long before the shareholders fold?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Authored by: DeepBlue on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 05:16 AM EDT
IMO Their purpose is simply to spend the estate so Novell gets nothing and be as
annoying and expensive to others as they can be whilst doing so.

---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they
can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they
can't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 05:55 AM EDT
Two things that came to mind when I read the excerpts. First to jump out was the
apparent overuse of the word "nonsense". It did not take long for me
to realize it is the only term acceptable to Court and PJ that accurately
describes the situation.

Second, (this has been going on since this thing that we have began) is the
desire to spend money and time on everything except SCO's obligations. Product
development and support and general obligations to creditors seem to be on the
back burner of a non-functioning stove. Unless you happen to be an investment
banker or attorney, who they want to pay out of a sense of moral obligation for
questionable services rendered, you only look forward to spending more money to
prevent them from giving it away knowing full well that you will not receive
anything, because there will be nothing left.

Truman's motto was: "The buck stops here."
SCO's motto seems to be: "The buck is not to stop."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motivation - IBM Objects to York Payment: SCO's Argument is "Nonsense"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 09:35 AM EDT
"...it would be fascinating indeed if it were possible to follow that trail
by examining the books. Only Chapter 7 can make that happen, I think, so we are
watching some mighty fast dancing to try to avoid anything like that
happening,..."

Maybe they don't really want to pay the 150k. They just need to be able to tell
someone "we really, really wanted to pay you but that nasty bankruptcy
judge wouldn't let us."

It is one thing to simply say, you didn't work hard enough and the deal fell
through, so we won't pay you back, and something else to say, we wanted to pay
you but our hands were tied and it's out of our control. This implies that once
they are out of bankruptcy and back in business they will fulfill their
obligation.

I don't think anyone at York would doubt SCO tried to pay them. This keeps
their "integrity" intact.

The fast and loose wheeling dealing that SCO management is used to, just doesn't
work in the environment they find themselves in, with everything being examined
by fifty thousand eyes. If they could just put a deal together without lots of
people nit-picking it apart, they might yet scrape out of this. If only the
judge would let them present their case in secret, this thing would quickly be
over and everyone could go home.

It seems that someone wants to keep the litigation going, protecting the
precious Unix intellectual property, and wiping Linux off the corporate map.
However, the equity that backs up the Stephen Norris Capital Partners LLC loan
is the expected revenue from winning the suits against Novell on appeal, and
then against IBM. What is a hundred million against half of the five billion
windfall from winning against IBM?

If you don't buy a lottery ticket, you can't win. But if you buy only one, you
have a chance, small as it is. If you buy a hundred million, you have a better
chance, but still the odds are against you. (Ever try to fill out a hundred
million lottery ticket forms?)

It may well be that right now, no one is pulling SCO's strings except the bleak
prospect of going out of business. The only thing of "value" SCO
really has now is the prospect that maybe they have the winning lottery ticket,
and whoever bails them out will get a slice of the winnings.

Right now, they probably don't care who they tick off, just as long as they stay
in business. Once they get past this current emergency, they can start
operating like a normal software company again, hiring developers and engineers,
and continue improving their product, and re-building their customer base.

I am not saying they have a gnats chance in a tornado of pulling it off, I am
just trying to figure out the mind set that would give us the events we are
witnessing.

Some how, I get the impression that this whole mess, from the very beginng of
the first press release, was the result of a poorly thought out busines plan,
and perhaps some other company thought, aha, we can point at this and say
"see, we told you so".

There is no doubt at all that SCO had something very valuable, and that was the
preceived licensor of Unix. That was who the licensees made their royalty
payments to. But that value was a fragile thing. Instead of settling for the
golden eggs the goose laid, they decided to get them all in one fell swoop and
killed the goose to get all the eggs at once, probably because the eggs the
goose was laying were getting smaller. I guess they didn't want to use the
proceeds from those eggs to properly feed the goose.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Spite, not greed
Authored by: JeffK on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 11:38 AM EDT
I think it's just a scorched earth policy -- but that doesn't address the
question of why they're pursuing it. After all, corporations don't have
feelings, and I don't see this (or anything) helping SCO survive. So, barring
simple greed (which you suggest, but which I don't see), I figure it's either
irrational flailing or ulterior motives on the part of the human actors.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • If it is Yarro - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 13 2008 @ 12:09 AM EDT
Cattle rustlers -
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 12 2008 @ 05:14 PM EDT
That's who!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Adduced, eleemoysanary, impecunious.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 13 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT
Did someone at IBM tell their lawyers, "Look we are spending all this money
where are my $10 dollar words?" or "Look at Novell's lawyers, they
are making bold moves, let's see some lawyering!" Or maybe it is for the
benefit of the judge who at least gets to enjoy some fine lawyering. Perhaps
some of IBM's lawyers see an opportunity to stretch their wings. What could it
hurt? It puts a finer point on Novell's rhetoric and the contrast in styles may
just offer SCO or other would be advesaries a more dizzying and daunting
perspective.

Thanks Groklaw, I can't remeber the last time I got to learn four words in a
day. (I also learned more usages of penurious from this)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyerspeak
Authored by: Stevieboy on Monday, April 14 2008 @ 05:27 AM EDT
I wish some of these lawyers would put their thesauruses away.

"nonsense" - excellent word with no hidden meanings - easily
understood.

but....

"eleemosynary" - why not just say charitable?

"adduced" - why not just say argued?

Something tells me that the judge also has to get his dictionary/thesaurus out
on a regular basis.

Mind you, I'm just a simple engineer - being straightforward in your
communications only pays 50-60K a year whereas using archaic and/or obscure
language pays a thousand bucks an hour. Maybe I should use my online thesaurus
more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )