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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
The Hon. McConnell, Lucero & Baldock Deny Novell Petition for ReHearing - And Darl's "Ed" Letter - Updated
Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 09:10 PM EDT

The same three appeals court judges who decided to send the copyright ownership issue in SCO v. Novell back to Utah for a jury trial, including the now-retired Judge McConnell, have denied the Novell petition for rehearing. Judge McConnell wrote the original ruling, so it's hardly a surprise that he would feel it was just right. But none of the appellate judges asked for an en banc hearing either, according to the decision. Novell asked for both. Here is the decision in its entirety:
Appellee’s petition for rehearing is denied. The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. As no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the court requested that the court be polled, that petition is also denied.
It was only sent to those in "regular active service". I gather that is how it's done, but I have no idea if that is typical. So back it goes to Utah District Court, to a new judge, Ted Stewart, appointed by President Clinton.

Of course, Novell could appeal this denial, I think. This is the kind of issue that ends up before the Supreme Court, frankly. I don't know if Novell will bother, but the decision doesn't match other court decisions, so I hope they do -- it's the kind of thing the Supreme Court sometimes decides to settle. And I've heard the 10th Circuit has a tendency to overrule Utah. I don't know why that would be, but that is what I've heard.

SCO is on life support, last I checked, so who knows if they can last long enough to make it to the Supreme Court, though. To tell you the truth, with Darl McBride threatening to sue to block the Chapter 11 Trustee's survival plan for the SCO Group, now that he's been "terminated", I'd say this thing could go on for years and years and years, particularly since Boies Schiller is paid to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It would not amaze me at all to see the copyright ruling before that court someday.

Here's the ruling:

10/20/2009 - Open Document - [9703322] Order filed by Judges Lucero, Baldock and McConnell denying petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellee Novell, Inc.

On the topic of Darl McBride and the Chapter 11 Trustee, retired Judge Edward Cahn, Darl McBride sent a letter to him allegedly on Sunday, then "released to the press" according to Maureen O'Gara, in which he claims that he had funds lined up, sort of, from Cerberus, but no one from Blank Rome followed up on his lead. So here's what he wants -- to be made the head of SCOsource Licensing. Here's a snip from the letter. I'd call it a "Dear Ed" letter, but there's no "Dear":
When we met in Blank Rome's office in Philadelphia on August 28th, you tasked me to go into the financial markets to see if I could drum up interest in SCO's big win that it got in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Novell case that was issued on August 24th. I took on that assignment and in a matter of just 3 weeks, was able to get several significant funds to take a hard look at investing/lending money into SCO. The most promising of these investors was Cerberus Capital Partners, one of the largest hedge funds in the country. Cerberus sent us a term sheet that would include a $25 Million credit line, $3 million of which would be accessible within weeks, and invited us to enter into discussions to negotiate/counter the terms of the potential deal that they were proposing.

After bringing this term sheet to you, Bonnie Fatell, Bruce Comer, and Mark Fisler, I was told that I should let Bonnie and/or Ocean Park Advisors take over the deal and negotiate the terms with Cerberus. I deferred to your request. However, no one ever contacted the principal at Cerberus that we were dealing with. Bruce and/or Mark told me on three different occasions that they would call Cerberus. I even set up two different times that Bruce said that he would call Cerberus to talk to them about the deal. I confirmed with the Cerberus executive I have been dealing with on Friday that he in fact has never been contacted by Blank Rome or Ocean Park Advisors to negotiate the terms of the deal.

I have been told that no one has had time to follow up with Cerberus because they are too busy trying to cut expenses. I also have come to understand that Bruce and Mark are billing SCO $500 per hour and that Bonnie and other Blank Rome attorneys are billing SCO more than that. Yet with as many as 7 attorneys or financial people involved with SCO, I find it a serious breach of fiduciary duty of the Trustee's office that no one at Blank Rome or Ocean Park Advisors ever pursued the Cerberus opportunity. Yet, the billable hours continue to rack up for the Blank Rome attorneys and firm that represents you as Trustee while you are also a Blank Rome employee.

If Cerberus, or anyone else for that matter, in fact was willing to put up serious funding within a matter of weeks that would allow SCO to pay off creditors and also take care of shareholders, employees and customers, the ultimate fees that Blank Rome would bill on the SCO case would be significantly lower than path that you have chosen. While I get that a bankruptcy trustee has broad powers, the facts of the Cerberus deal appears to be an abuse of the powers in which you have been entrusted. This whole situation looks like a serious conflict of interest to me.

Pleasant, huh? NOT. I don't know if he thinks that will sweeten the air to threaten like that, but believe it or not, the very next part of the letter asks for a job. The man is just dying to sue Linux end users:
SCOsource Licensing

SCO's expert witnesses have given strong support of SCO's claims that the Linux operating environment has misused SCO intellectual property. There are over 20,000,000 Linux servers worldwide that SCO now has the opportunity to provide licensing support. SCO's license price for its IP is $699. The total market opportunity for this licensing program worldwide is $14 Billion dollars. A quick, cheap settlement with IBM would totally bury this significant financial opportunity for SCO. [Remainder of paragraph redacted for confidential information].

Options

Where do we go from here? While I obviously disagree on some key decisions that your office has taken in the SCO case, I believe that there is an opportunity for a win/win from where we currently stand. It has to do with the SCOsource licensing program. I believe that the value that I provide to SCO as CEO is significant. I believe that my $127/hr rate is, at a minimum, more valuable to SCO than the $500/hr that the bean counters at OPA [Ocean Park Associates] are billing SCO. But, if you disagree with me and feel that I should step down as CEO, then I would propose that you shift my role to be the senior licensing executive over the SCOsource program. I would agree to a comp plan that would be heavy on performance incentives and much lower on base salary. I also know without a doubt that I can help you raise capital into SCO given the recent positive 10th Circuit ruling. This could be a side project. The million or so dollars that you want Ralph Yarro [former chairman of SCO] and other shareholders to contribute in the form of a DIP [debtor-in-possession] loan may pay Blank Rome/OPA fees but it's not going to solve the broader issue of ensuring that creditors are paid in full and allowing the SCO cases to go to trial.

In the final analysis, if you believe that you want to go at the SCO battle alone without my services at all, then I will take the necessary actions to protect the interests of all SCO estate stakeholders. Those interests don't include winding the company down and settling the legal cases for pennies on the dollar for what they are worth.

Man, oh, man. I know how I'd feel if I got a letter like that. No. I wouldn't hire him after that to clean the offices even. But then I never did respond in a positive manner to threats. I don't know if the dates are true, for that matter. I don't know if the letter was really sent on Sunday or which day he was really fired. For all we know, the letter was composed today. Who knows with these folks? Judge Cahn knows. But I would take this as the first strike in the litigation to follow. Remember the letters to Novell? It's the same M.O. And it would not amaze me to see the dates of the alleged termination and when he was told about it turning up in court. So we'll find out someday. Hopefully not in another six years. I also take this letter, if it is accurate, as an indication that someone with money wants to harass Linux users further.

I don't know if we can trust the rest of what she reports either. For example, she says the SCO Group is currently being run by Jeff Hunsaker, Ken Nielsen and Ryan Tibbits, but in reality the Chapter 11 trustee runs the company now. He replaces them all, though they can work under his oversight. So, with that caveat, she also claims that both Hunsaker and Nielsen are leaving the company, Hunsaker by the end of the month. We'll see.

I trust nothing, personally, but it's interesting to watch, don't you think? And it may be the start of the next chapter of the SCO saga. Put this in the "FYI - We'll See File".

[If you want to read the entire letter, it is at http://dotnet.sys-con.com/node/1150867/ ]

Update: Might this be why no call was made to Cerberus? The Wall St. Journal, in the article, Clients Flee Cerberus, Fallen Fund Titan:

Investors in hedge funds run by Cerberus Capital Management LP, whose audacious multi-billion dollar bet on the U.S. auto industry went bust, are bolting for the door, clinching one of the highest-profile falls from grace of a superstar in the investment world.

Clients are withdrawing more than $4.77 billion, or 70% of the hedge fund assets, in response to big investment losses and their own need for cash, according to people familiar with the matter.

That article is dated August 29, 2009. The day before, the New York Times reported similarly:
While Mr. Feinberg said most of the firm’s clients continue to support the investment strategy, the mass exodus of investors is another black eye on the firm’s already-tarnished reputation. The New York firm, which prefers to operate out of the public eye, has suffered from several high-profile investments that left the funds down 24.5 percent last year — most notably its investment in Chrysler.

Some of those positions have recovered slightly, but the funds were unable to participate in the broad market recovery this year because they had very little new cash to invest, according to a person close to the firm.

BusinessWeek this month reported some more hopeful news:
Soon, the firm plans to file for an initial public offering of its fire arms manufacturer Freedom Group Inc., according to people familiar with the matter. Freedom Group, with an estimated $474 million in sales, is one of the largest manufacturers in the world of fire arms and ammunition for the hunting, shooting sports, law enforcement, and military markets. Its brands include Remington, Marlin, Bushmaster, Harrington & Richardson. Cerberus declined to comment.

The decision to take the company public comes on the heels of the wildly successful listing of Cerberus’ Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings —a former Bayer maker of plasma-derived protein therapies that the firm bought in 2005

However, note this report in the Detroit News, published today, on trying to save Chrysler after Cerberus's management:
Rattner tells a dramatic back story of Chrysler's near-death experience. Daimler AG, which bought Auburn Hills-based Chrysler in 1998, had "badly run" it, he wrote, as did its successor, Cerberus Capital Management LP.

Rattner described Chrysler as "larded up with debt" and "hollowed out by years of mismanagement." It "never had a chance" under Cerberus.


  


The Hon. McConnell, Lucero & Baldock Deny Novell Petition for ReHearing - And Darl's "Ed" Letter - Updated | 233 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Hon. McConnell, Lucero & Baldock Deny Novell Petition for ReHearing
Authored by: charlie Turner on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 09:15 PM EDT
Time to order the popcorn by the truckload.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 09:27 PM EDT
Put the error->correction or s/error/correction/ in the tag line

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM EDT
Please stay off topic, polite, and clickie-full

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 09:30 PM EDT
You can pick your friends, and you can pick your news, and here you can even
pick your friend's news. Remember to put the name of the article in the title
and use clickies in your comment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do these SCO clowns plan...
Authored by: tanstaafl on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 10:05 PM EDT
...to pack a jury with clueless folk so they can win one for the Darl? It's
really depressing that if U have enough money, U can outlast your opposition
regardless of the worth of your claim. granted, the courts have to decide that
worth, but come on! after six years, they can't show any infringing code?

fortunately, they do seem to be running out of money, but UNfortunately, the Bad
Guys are busy funding other trolls. sigh ... the price of liberty is eternal
vigilance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On McBride's claim he learned of the firing on Monday
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 10:28 PM EDT
Darl changed his email to a "hotmail" account just after 7AM MDT on 10/16/09

Part of the mythos of the El ingenioso hidalgo Darl Quijote de la Mancha is his claim that he learned of his dismissal via the internet on Monday morning. This is repeated in the Maureen story and in the Salt Lake Trib account.

However, a newly activated DarlMcBride twitter account posted this early Friday (10/16) morning:
As of today, my new email address is darlmcbride@(redacted).com
With (metadata) class="published timestamp" data=" time:'Fri Oct 16 14:22:49 +0000 2009
7:22 AM Oct 16th from web

The twitter account is almost surely genuine (cross linked with Hunsaker, Brazell and similar accounts)

What is the strategic reason for repeating the Monday-via-the-internet "little white lie" to O'Gara and the Trib reporter.

Is this due to some legal technicality for a suit, or just a pattern of distortion?

post by Stats_for_all-- a no-account type.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 10:37 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

This is why I am so afraid of a jury trial. Why I'm so afraid of ANY trial in
this mess. McBride and company have been operating like the fix is in. From
the initial ruling to this denial, they seem to be right. Plain logic or proper
procedure have no place in this, and SCO has found themselves a 1-UP loop --
every time they get knocked out, they have another life in reserve.

So I am starting to think that, should this ever make their goal of reaching a
jury trial, it will be a victory for them and damage to FOSS in general and
Linux in particular. Since the Utah judges don't seem to care, IBM and company
had to force the Delaware judge to do the right thing, here's the question...

Is there ANY way to end this with the good guys winning?

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

If I were Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 11:04 PM EDT

If I were Novell, I would appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. Firstly, I think it is a legitimate legal issue. Secondly, what does Novell have to loose? SCO will probably go broke before the appeal is complete.

All Novell needs to achieve is delay. After sufficient delay, SCO will go bankrupt of its own accord.

[ Reply to This | # ]

He's delusional
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 12:07 AM EDT

SCO's big win that it got in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Novell case that was issued on August 24th.

The "big win", remember, was essentially just a decision that the copyright ownership case shall go to jury trial. SCO is no closer to a "win" than it was 6 years ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Letter is at least Civil
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 12:45 AM EDT
Within the legal context. The MOG article is a vicious attack on the Trustee.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

The conversion death warrant
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 12:53 AM EDT
I think that when this order becomes final Novel can go to Judge Gross and ask
for it's 2+ Million. Or to put it another way game over.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are these paid to do, exactly?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 01:48 AM EDT
"As no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the
court requested that the court be polled, that petition is also denied."

Novell brings up a valid point, backed up by the law and case law, and they put
in concise and simple language that even I can understand, and none of the
judges even wants to look at it?

What is there job? What do they do for a living?

[ Reply to This | # ]

where is he pea?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:01 AM EDT
Do we have a chart showing the ownerships and transfers for the unix copyrights?
AT&T > AT&T & BSD ?> novell ?> sco > caldera >
newsco. I think that if they explain to the jury that they sold the business to
the company now known as Tarantella, who sold it to the linux company Caldera,
who then bought a division of Tarantella and renamed itself SCO. That the jury
will loose track of which shell has the pea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • which pea? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 04:08 AM EDT
    • which pea? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 10:20 AM EDT
If you believe that you want to go at the SCO battle alone without my services at all
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:20 AM EDT
"If you believe that you want to go at the SCO battle alone without my services at all"

What kind of writing is that?

I made a Google search on "If you believe that you want" and got 29,000,000 hits. Here are some of the early results.

"If you believe that you want to be part of space development, then let us know at info@marsdrive.com"

"You might even want to check into adult Sunday school groups that the church offers, if you believe that you want to stay active."

"If you believe that you want certain things, its best just to get those registries in which people go to the store, have it printed, look at it and buy ..."

"If you believe that you want to participate in the IVF Money Back Guarantee program, you must complete the following steps: ..."

"If you believe that you want to be with your ex for the rest of your life and you think, "I would die happy if we spent the rest of our lives together," you ..."

"If you believe that you want to go to heaven some day and also believe that 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a ..."


Somehow, all of them seem to pertain to this guy.



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The point of bankruptcy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 05:51 AM EDT

Isn't the whole point of bankruptcy to come up with a plan to get out of debt that you cannot afford?

Darl's 25M dollar deal sounds like a loan to me. He doesn't mention the terms but I doubt they are favorable to SCO.

If the trustee is focused on restructuring the business so it is profitable, he would be looking at CHANGING THE WAY SCO IS DOING BUSINESS and not simply borrowing more money and continuing with business as usual.

I'm sure that SCO is better of without Darl. What I'm not sure about is if they have any hope of getting back to a sensible business model THAT IS NOT LITIGATION BASED.

[ Reply to This | # ]

appearancee of potential conflict of interest
Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 06:32 AM EDT
When Judge Cahn first asked Judge Gross to allow him to hire his own law firm I
raised questions of possible conflict of interest and was told by others here
that there was nothing to worry about and this kind of thing was normal. I
continued my argument based on the "appearance of impropriety" and how
that might come back to bite Judge Cahn in the future. I'm saying that even
though there may be no real conflict of interest, there is the appearance of a
potential conflict of interest, and that should be enough to cause an honorable
person to change course and hire an independent law firm that he has no
financial interest in.

Just look back at all of the messages on Groklaw concerning Darl hiring is
brother to do legal work for SCO, and you can see how easy those that disagree
with Groklaw could say the same things about Judge Cahn hiring Blank Rome to
assist him in his work as trustee of the SCO bankruptcy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible letter from the Trustee.
Authored by: Waterman on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 08:02 AM EDT
Dear Daryl,

Pound sand.

Thanks,
Ed

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does Darl have standing?
Authored by: lannet on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 08:34 AM EDT
I will take the necessary actions to protect the interests of all SCO estate stakeholders
My understanding from comments elsewhere in this forum is that Darl does not own shares in TSG. If that is the case, does he have standing to try to undertake litigation as indicated?

---
When you want a computer system that works, just choose Linux.
When you want a computer system that works, just, choose Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The only thing that matters: When will SCO run out of money?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 11:29 AM EDT
The only thing that matters now is when will SCO run out of money?

It seems to be that there are so many people on its teats sucking money from it.

This includes the trustee and the trustee's appointed lawyers.

The only way for SCO to die is to die from lack of income to pay all the
bloodsuckers that lived off of it for the past several years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, what's really going on?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 12:27 PM EDT
If I understand this correctly, Novell's petition got circulated to all the (active) judges in the circuit, and none of them said, "Hey, that's bad enough, we really ought to take another look at it."

Not just McConnell. Not just the other two. All (9? 18?) judges thought it was OK to put the Circuit's stamp on the decision as it stood.

This is too broad for it to be a case of "the fix is in". I'm sure that some people can conceive of a world where all the judges in one circuit could be bribed and/or influenced, but I can't.

That means that all these judges really think this decision is OK. Think about that for a minute. Are they all blind? Are they all nuts?

Or are we missing something about this decision?

Novell's appeal was clear and understandable. It seemed clearly correct, and it seemed right when it said that it was important for the Circuit to clear up the precedent. Barring conspiracy or insanity, why don't the justices see that?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle: Darl a mite weak on the legalities stuff
Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 12:31 PM EDT
The restructuring of SCO marks the ending of an era, according to Rob Enderle,
president and principal analyst of the Enderle Group.

"McBride drove SCO down an aggressive litigation path but lacked the
background in the legalities," Enderle told LinuxInsider.

[ Reply to This | # ]

McBride is (intentionally?) confusing
Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 01:25 PM EDT

His comments read as if the _IBM_ trail was appealed and sent back, which it isn't.

I guess that this is on purpose. Because the appeal in the Novell case certainly doesn't guarantee a win in the IBM case.

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Denied - And Darl's "Ed" Letter
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Well, well, well. So, either another appeal or go to Jury trial.

You know what, I'm going to vote for a jury trial.

A clear writing transferring copyrights the APA and amendment is not. My money
right now is that anyone using common sense can see that. And I am betting the
jury will use common sense. With all the huffing and blowing that has been
going on, the Jury will not appreciate the smoke and mirrors. Of course were I
even in the jurisdiction, by this point I would be clearly in-eligible.

I would have to agree with Darl though that not calling the investment group is
a ding. A simple "show us the money and put it in writing and we'll get
back to you" wouldn't hurt. Of course after three failed attempts, one
might question if the boy has cried wolf once too often.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The question for PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:26 PM EDT
Given that lawsuits against the Trustee have been apparently threatened by Darl,
it's time to ask a few questions that hopefully PJ (or some other knowledgeable
legal eagle) can answer:

1) Do deposed managers of a bankrupt firm, in their capacity as such, have any
standing to sue a trustee (acting under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code) in
their capacity as managers, especially for things unrelated to compensation
due?

2) Do estate shareholders--the corporations owners prior to bankruptcy--have any
standing to sue, and under what conditions?

3) In general, under what conditions is a Trustee liable to be sued by any
interested party? How common are such suits, and how often are they
successful?

4) Darl seems to suggest that the Trustee's relationship with the firms the
trustee has engaged to assist him, are improper or unusual. Any truth to this,
or is it common practice for a bankruptcy trustee to hire counsel, consultants,
etc. whom he regularly does business with, to assist him (or her) in carrying
out his duties?

Obviously, the quick and dirty answer is "anybody can sue anyone for
anything"--but I'm more concerned about lawsuits which have merit. (Not
that that hasn't stopped McBride before, of course...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

MOG and Darl, up in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:26 PM EDT
"A funny thing happened on the way to the media. I just happen to run into
MOG with a couple of letters that happened to be about the way the court trustee
is handling things. So to save a trip, I gave them to her."

Ok, can someone explain why anything SCO/Darl wants "outed" in the
media comes through MOG, and only MOG? Why not any of the mainstream computer
media outlets, let alone mainstream media? Are they sleeping together? She talks
about "ties" between IBM and PJ. But the only obvious ties are her,
Darl and SCO. She is their lapdog.

I would be very interested what some "deep divers" can find relating
to MOG, SCOG (MOG, SCOG. oh my) and Darl et al. I would bet there are some $$$
exchanging hands. Of course, we all know what a psycho MOG is after her article
trashing PJ. So it could just be her and her version of the world. But it is too
strange if you ask me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: If you want to read the entire letter
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:55 PM EDT

And give Maureen O'Gara hits? No thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Going Forward - Darl's "Ed" Letter
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 03:03 PM EDT
I seem to remember seeing somewhere that Darl did not think he needed to forward
to Novell monies collected for Unix licenses. However as far as I can
determine, SCOg still has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to collect
whatever Unix license fees there are out there and forward it to Novelle and
receive the five percent back.

Now I don't know how much that is, whether it is a hundred dollars or a hundred
thousand or more. But the point is that with the trustee now in charge, and
Darl out, Novell should be expecting those payments.

There has never been any dispute, except in Darl's mind, about that.

Further, while fees collected before SCOg filed for bankruptcy might have
vanished down the rabbit hole, money after the filing need absolutely to be
accounted for.

That money post bankruptcy filing is not money SCOg can do with whatever they
want. It's been what, a year now, since they filed.

Time for Novell to demand a new accounting if they've not been receiving their
money. This, in my personal opinion is a new cause of action!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jarndyce v Jarndyce
Authored by: PM on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 03:38 PM EDT
This is the biggest legal farce since Jarndyce v Jarndyce in the 1800's (That
was the ficticious case in Bleak House where a whole estate was dissipated on
legal expenses over some decades).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deja vu all over again
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 22 2009 @ 01:44 AM EDT
$3M cash & a line of credit. Sound familiar? Like maybe the same deal that
drew objections from everyone and their brother, and that even SCO leaning Judge
Gross found serious deficiancies with?

If I were the trustee, I'd ignore it too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Hon. McConnell, Lucero & Baldock Deny Novell Petition for ReHearing - And Darl's "Ed" Letter
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 23 2009 @ 10:09 PM EDT
lol. $127/h. That sounds like a lot of money, but for a big
company CEO its utter peanuts. Sounds like Darls personal
finances are not as healthy as he'd like. In fact it sound
like a pattern.

Welcome to Clerk world Darl, its mind numbing and sometimes
demeaning, but down here we at least get to leave the job in
the office after 5. Make sure you clean your coffee cups after
you finished.

[ 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 )