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
SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs - Updated 2Xs
Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:31 AM EST

Lots of bankruptcy filings, including a reply by SUSE in support of its motion for relief from the automatic stay and Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn has filed an Objection to Al Petrofsky's motion to compel him to comply with reporting requirements. And Ocean Park Advisors has filed an Amended Exhibit A. But that isn't the big news. The big news is that SCO has filed its Monthly Operating Reports, or MORs, for July through September, 2009. But interestingly, they are filed with a disclaimer that they are filed "consistent with the format and allocations of liabilities as previously adopted by the Debtors," because Mr. Cahn and his financial advisors simply have not yet had time to "review all of the historical information previously reported by the Debtors", so Cahn reserves the right to amend them once he has done a more thorough review.

"Historically," the disclaimer continues, "the Company may not have distinguished between direct liabilities of debtor and non-debtor companies." That would be the foreign subsidiaries, I expect, like Japan and Germany. "The Trustee with its financial advisors is conducting a thorough analysis of the intercompany arrangement among the debtors and the non-debtor subsidiaries and reserves the right to modify these MORs upon completion of its review." It cautions the reader not to rely on the information, as they are filing just to fulfill reporting requirements. I would take it that SCO may have more in the way of assets than is reported here, then. September says $1,287,030. And we will have to wait for the real MORs.

As for SUSE's Reply, it is so interesting I'll do a text for you and post it as soon as I can. But in a sentence, SUSE points out that without the arbitration being decided, there is no resolution of the copyright issue, which involves not only ownership but *value*. If SUSE wins the arbitration, it would mean SCO does not own "any UNIX copyrights that are needed to use the version of the Linux operating system that SCO and SUSE jointly developed" because SUSE has a license to use those copyrights and to sublicense them to others, like Novell and IBM. Second, SCO is required to release the Linux kernel code in UnitedLinux under the GPL, so even if it wins the copyrights from Novell, it still can't sue for copyright infringement, because that license expressly allows copying, modification and distribution.

Here are all the filings:

12/23/2009 - 997 - Exhibit / Amended Exhibit A (Summary of Hours by Professional) to First Combined Monthly Fee Application of Ocean Park Advisors, LLC for the Period of September 15, 2009 Through October 31, 2009 (related document(s) 985 ) Filed by Ocean Park Advisors, LLC. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 998 - Reply [Suse's] In Support of Its Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration (related document(s) 951 , 992 , 995 ) Filed by Novell, Inc., SUSE Linux GmbH (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 999 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service Regarding Reply [Suse's] In Support of Its Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration (related document(s) 998 ) Filed by Novell, Inc., SUSE Linux GmbH. (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1000 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of July, 31, 2009 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1001 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of July 31, 2009 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1002 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of August 31, 2009 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1003 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of August 31, 2009 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1004 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of September 30, 2009 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1005 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of September 30, 2009 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

12/23/2009 - 1006 - Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Motion of Petrofsky for an Order Compelling the Trustee's Compliance With Reporting Requirements and Setting Reporting Deadlines (related document(s) 990 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)

And no, they didn't file the MORs because of Al Petrofsky's motion to compel, according to Judge Cahn's Objection. These MORs were filed the same day as his motion, he says. [Correction: I misread the Objection. It is the MORs and the Objection that were filed on the same day.] The Objection is frosty about Mr. Petrofsky's inaccuracies as to the law and the facts, as you can see in paragraphs 11 and 12. His office told Petrofsky that they were being worked on and would be filed shortly, but he filed the motion anyway. Judge Gross will care about that. October's MOR is still being worked on, because October 30 is SCO's end of year, so there is more work involved. But even that will be filed in January. As to the Bankrupty Rule Petrofsky cited, it became effective in December 1, 2008 and applies to cases filed thereafter, not to this case unless the court says so, only "insofar as just and practicable". Courts have full discretion to alter the schedule anyhow, so if the court were to decide that the new rule applies to this case, which I sincerely doubt, Cahn asks for a hearing so he can present evidence as to why it should be altered in this very complicated case, which Cahn only entered after it had been going on for two years. He asks the court to deny the Petrofsky motion.

So, what was accomplished by this motion? I'd say absolutely nothing, which is what I predicted at its filing. I guess I can't say absolutely nothing, in that it has accomplished one thing. I'd opine that it has made Petrofsky's name mud in a certain courtroom in Delaware.

The legal mistake alone sinks his motion, I would think. Going into court without a lawyer is foolish. You can't pretend to be a lawyer and be successful. Law is complex, and even if you are a brainiac, if you are not a lawyer, you are not. And they'll argue rings around you, because they know what they are doing, and you don't. It's that simple.

But it goes deeper. The law world is polite. It sort of has to be, since it's the nonstop battleground for intellectual arguments. If you insult someone in a filing, accusing them of something, you'd better be 100% right in the sense of being able to prove it in a court of law, because you might just end up having to. In any case, it isn't going to be well received. Courtrooms aren't Slashdot. It's a different culture. When you are insulting *and* wrong on the law or the facts or both, you appear ill-mannered. Lawyers sometimes make that mistake, as we saw in the Wayne Gray filings, but it's so rare as to stand out, and it didn't work, as you may have noted. Nor should it work, in my view. Why, in heaven's name, would you be insulting and attribute bad motives to someone in a court filing? You can't possibly know motives in someone other than yourself. In the law, it's all about the arguments, not the people. It's one thing I like very much about the legal world, actually, that the standard for conduct is set very high. And if Petrofsky had hired a lawyer, his lawyer would have probably told him not to file this motion. It's not like I've never mentioned this before, so I have to wonder what is the actual purpose?

And the law is also very much about credibility. That's because often a matter is he said, she said, and it's a question of deciding who is most credible. Once you've lost your credibility, you've lost something meaningful.

Update: Chris Brown has prepared a chart of SCO's quarterly billings:

Update: Mr. Petrofsky has now submitted his reply:

12/24/2009 - 1007 - Reply of Petrofsky to Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Motion of Petrofsky for an Order Compelling the Trustee's Compliance with Reporting Requirements and Setting Reporting Deadlines (related document(s) 990 , 1006 ) Filed by Alan P. Petrofsky (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Revised Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit B: Blacklined revised proposed order) (Petrofsky, Alan) (Entered: 12/24/2009)


  


SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs - Updated 2Xs | 235 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Compliments of the Season Thread
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:38 AM EST
Merry Christmas PJ and all Groklawers!

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:40 AM EST
I use open Suse And I can not wait for the decision on ega;;lity. COUGH

[ Reply to This | # ]

MOR's document a collapse in Revenue, July 2009
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:52 AM EST
AR Current Billing shows major revenue loss this summer. The periodicity of the AR payments was down $700 in July 2009. This data is extracted from "amounts billed current period line on the last page of the MOR'. This was likely a loss of a major Japanese account-- as the SVRX reserve and the current accounts balance in Japan are both down.

The run rate extrapolating out from the last 3 months is about 6 Million total revenue/year. I expect the October revenue to show a 500K bump based on previous history, but total run rate going forward is likely less than 8 Million/year. Total revenue billed was 4 million for the last 6 months. "Amount Billed During the Period" from MOR's for SCO Operations

Oct-07 1914
Nov-07 1466
Dec-07 1549
Jan-08 1986
Feb-08 1221
Mar-08 215
Apr-08 1471
May-08 923
Jun-08 635
Jul-08 1564
Aug-08 680
Sep-08 778
Oct-08 1803
Nov-08 655
Dec-08 548
Jan-09 1463
Feb-09 558
Mar-09 571
Apr-09 1422
May-09 420
Jun-09 667
Jul-09 701
Aug-09 264
Sep-09 550

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPicks Thread
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM EST
Please reference the newspick in the title

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM EST
Please indicate the nature of the correction in the title

error->correction

with details in body.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:03 AM EST
Anything that may be of interest to this group that does not directly pertain to
this posting

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE's presumptive reply assumes a black/white world
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:20 AM EST
What if the arbitration does a: 'allows in part, denies in part' (ie: perhaps
using a date as a split point) split decision?

Just saying that to assume is folly... especially with SCO in the mix.

Best quote ever in this drama: "Yet the SCO Trustee does not even
attempt to explain the evidence and arguments that supposedly support SCO’s
position."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kevin McBride
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:21 AM EST
Still on $11k per month, I see. For doing what?

But I see that sales tax accounted for only $51. I guess there were not many sales!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE's Reply in support of its motion
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:26 AM EST
SUSE's reply in support of its motion to unstay basically takes Cahn's response
apart by the seams, pointing out the many contradictions, factual errors and
inappropriate applications of the law in the the Trustee's response. Wrong,
wrong, wrong dressed in polite language.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO Assets
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:36 AM EST
    I would take it that SCO may have more in the way of assets than is reported here, then.

    Or less. I haven't seen too many accounting "problems" where the company had more assets than they reported. If there are any surprises here, I would expect them to be more along the lines of the foreign subsidiaries doing worse than previously reported.

    For example, license revenue could have collapsed if customers simply stopped paying because they thought SCO wasn't going to be around to complain about it. Or, some of the big sales they announced a couple of years ago could have failed to materialise when the customers got cold feet over installing software from a company that was about to go under. Going after customers through the courts in places like Russia or India can be a bit problematic.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SUSE's Reply, Footnote 4
    Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM EST
    "As Mr. Petrofsky noted in his recent motion (Dkt. No. 990), information
    about the estate’s current condition or resources is lacking because required
    reports have not been filed, although some money was apparently received from
    the recent Autozone settlement (Dkts. 935, 971)."

    So now we know, Autozone paid SCOG some money. I wonder how much?

    ---
    SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:05 PM EST
    "If you insult someone in a filing, accusing them of something, you'd
    better be 100% right in the sense of being able to prove it in a court
    of law,"

    Sadly, having been there, that is not true. You can be slandered or libeled
    with impunity in a court filing, and in arguments before the judge. The judge
    is expected to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    The politeness part is true, and was a bit of surprise. The lawyer called me
    the most vile and reprehensible things with no heat of rancor or anger, just
    some concern that I was not yet in jail where I belonged. My attorney just
    responded with a list of facts, many of which were of the lack of facts
    supporting the other side. It was almost surreal.

    As to "Why, in heaven's name, would you be insulting and attribute bad
    motives to someone in a court filing?" Because it was the best chance of
    winning. And sometimes it works.

    Usually, (fortunately in my case too) in the end the facts matter more than
    the arguments, and arguments matter more than the people. So at least that
    point is correct. Usually the system works. Look at how much money and
    effort SCO has had to spend to subvert and delay the system as much as it
    has.

    Mike S.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    "legal mistake" - not
    Authored by: ak on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:16 PM EST

    PJ wrote:

    As to the Bankrupty Rule Petrofsky cited, it became effective in December 1, 2008 and applies to cases filed thereafter, not to this case, and even then only "insofar as just and practicable".

    I would strongly suggest to PJ to read more carefully before publishing such statements. The trustee wrote this:

    The Rule became effective on December 1, 2008 and, in accordance with the order entered by the United States Supreme Court, governs “in all proceedings in bankruptcy cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending.” Order of the Supreme Court dated April 23, 2008

    Even the trustee agrees with Mr. Petrofsky that the Bankrupty Rule governs proceedings pending on December 1, 2008.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    And we will have to wait for the real MORs.
    Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:25 PM EST
    "He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in
    hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:

    'Please, sir, I want some MOR.'" ;-)

    ---
    IANALAIDPOOTV

    (I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs
    Authored by: hopbine on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM EST
    Merry Christmas PJ and everyone.
    I Loved that line:
    Courtrooms aren't Slashdot.

    I get my legal advice from " Reddit"

    PJ - go take some time off

    Phil

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SuSE's Reply
    Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 04:20 PM EST
    SuSE's filing is yet another heads-SCO-lose, tails-SCO-lose outcome to the
    litigation follies.

    Every which way SCO turn, it seems, they face defeat. Yet still they cling to
    notion they are not dead yet, depleting scant resources all the while.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Floppy drive
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 05:14 PM EST
    You can make temporary images of the floppies on a machine that has a floppy
    drive, then mount those images in VirtualBox.

    In case you use Ubuntu 9.10, to save you a lot of frustration you should know,
    regular floppy drives don't work functionally in it, including granting
    VirtualBox direct access to the drive.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I'd like to be a Petrofsky fan...
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 06:00 PM EST
    but he's making a fool of himself.

    Cahn told him via email that he was working on getting the MORs filed.

    Al filed anyway. An insulting rookie mistake. A strategic blunder. Exacerbating
    and underscoring his mistake, he refers to and attaches his email exchanges with
    Cahn et al to the motion.

    And guess what? He's filed a reply to Cahn's objection.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Link to the Kim declaration
    Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 07:58 PM EST
    The declaration by Grant L. Kim referenced in the SUSE Motion can be found on Groklaw - of course... ;)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    ...SCO has already had more than two years of “breathing room” in which to reorganize.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 08:59 PM EST
    Speaking of "politeness"...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Aren't we sensitive. Al hits some nerves.
    Authored by: webster on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:36 PM EST
    .

    ...Thank Al for the MORs. Go easy on Al. He is not a lawyer and is
    overmatched. So why the blustery opposition from Judge Cahn when he filed the
    MORs the day of the Motion by Al. He should not have bothered with this
    opposition since it is moot. Does he plan to bill for this? Why dignify Al's
    Motion if it is now moot?

    Courts and clerks are actually very accommodating to pro se litigants, unlike
    PJ. One never sees a judge abuse and run out a pro se litigant. They often
    bend over backwards and take time to indulge them. Just because someone can't
    afford a few thousand dollars at hundreds per hour, doesn't mean they should be
    shunted aside in a court supported by his taxes. It is a tragedy that the
    courts only can do the bidding of those that can afford it. It is unthinkable
    that Judge Gross would give Al short shrift. Many judges take time to try and
    explain a bit to pro se litigants despite the likelihood of futility.

    Al may have some axe to grind here, but his motion was reasonable and hit a
    nerve. It caused Cahn to file MORs with asterisks AND this superfluous
    opposition, but he filed them with just the threat of such a motion from Al.

    Cahn doth protest too much. PJ too. Sometimes following the rules to a T is
    not the way things are done, especially when judicial discretion is involved.

    ~webster~

    .

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The Golden Rule
    Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:11 PM EST

    Why, in heaven's name, would you be insulting and attribute bad motives to someone in a court filing? You can't possibly know motives in someone other than yourself. In the law, it's all about the arguments, not the people. It's one thing I like very much about the legal world, actually, that the standard for conduct is set very high.

    It's not just law where this matters, it's everywhere. Politeness costs you nothing, and gains you good will with those not directly involved. The Golden Rule rules.

    That said, I understand Al's frustration. Some of the people involved do not seem to have been acting in a morally upright manner, and the case keeps dragging on, and on, and on... Still it wouldn't have cost him anything to be polite and proper in his filing, and he's shot himself with the foot gun.

    ---
    Wayne

    http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MORs, Cash -> NIL
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 01:11 AM EST
    A really quick and dirty look at the MORs for July, August, and Sept. 2009:

    Cash Loss for the quarter: $500,000 per Q.

    Cash Left at end of ->Sept.<- 2009: $1,200,000.

    SWAG of Cash Left at end of Dec 2009: $700,000?
    SWAG of Cash Left at end of Mar 2010: $200,000?

    Estimated Time until Legal Victory brings in biiig Profits:
    (assuming collective and continued insanity in legal system)
    Maybe December 2013?

    After Novell (trial Mar.2010, Decision: May 2010?) is SuSE (arbitration)(Oct.
    2010?) , and after that is IBM (2011?), and after that is Red Hat (2012?) . And
    after each of those is the Appeals Courts, and then the En-Banc Appeal Courts,
    and then the Supreme Court. 3 more years may be rushing things. (And that
    assumes that they win every single ruling and motion the very first time for all
    the issues in all the cases.)

    Depth of the Cash Hole-in-the-Ground: $5,500,000.

    These people are bleeding $2 Million a year in Cash losses. They don't have
    enough cash left to last to the guesstimated date of the Novell decision,
    assuming they actually won that.

    Yea, all the numbers are rounded and there have to be all sorts of things moving
    the numbers one way or the other.

    But they need something like 5-6 MILLION dollars to stay a going concern until
    Darl's Dream comes true. Best Case.

    Barring a Pipe Fairy, its over.

    IANAL, IANACPA, IDEPOOTV
    JG

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    MORs, MORs, MORs! How do you like Cahn? How do you like Cahn?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 12:19 PM EST
    Now I've got that old Andrea True songstuck in my head! Oh well, there are far worse tunes that could be stuck there.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 03:41 PM EST
    If you insult someone in a filing, accusing them of something, you'd better be 100% right in the sense of being able to prove it in a court of law, because you might just end up having to.
    Does this apply to SCO's accusations against IBM for things like illegally putting SCO owned copyrighted UNIX code into Linux? How about SCO accusing IBM of spoliation of evidence? Or SCO accusing Novell of Slander of Title? They have yet to prove any of these accusations that were in their court filings, yet their lawyers seem to be fairing no worse in the eye of the various courts.

    Or does this "rule" only apply to pro se litigants? Is there some bias in the courts against people representing themselves merely because they are not lining some lawyer's pockets with silver? If Al Petrovsky had hired a lawyer who had presented the same arguments, would he be taken more seriously by the bankruptcy court?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Petrofsky's ego more important than possible damage
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 09:22 AM EST
    The only way to really gauge the success of Petrofsky's involvement in this mess
    would be to know his motives.

    The way I see it Petrofsky is an Internet narcissist seeking attention and
    infamy. The attention of strangers on message boards is apparently narcotic to
    Petrofsky, who is invariably an arrogant, condescending boor to anyone he deems
    worthy of a response. Petrofsky is quick to correct others on minute details
    about hearing dates and other things in order to maintain his posture of
    superiority while he studiously avoids acknowledging his own numerous mistakes.

    His falling out with PJ years ago was over him wanting to post video of a
    hearing. PJ refused to do so without express permission from the court.
    Petrofsky, being the most important person in the universe, then expected PJ to
    have a debate on Groklaw about it wherein he'd be the vulgar, obstinate jerk he
    is until she acquiesced to his demands. Realizing that Petrofsky was an obsessed
    lunatic, the admins at Groklaw "sandboxed" him, a process whereby a
    troll can continue posting to a board and see his own posts while the rest of
    the board is spared from having to read them. When he discovered that was
    happening he again complained long and loud to whoever would listen. Petrofsky
    took his histrionics to other boards, and also published private email exchanges
    between PJ and himself on his vanity web site.

    A little band of net kooks exhorted by Petrofsky decided it was far more
    important to wage war on Groklaw than to contribute to efforts fighting SCO's
    massive FUD campaign. They built a site dedicated to anti Groklaw screeds
    (ipwars) and were infiltrated by and befriended some of the sickest anti Linux
    freaks on the Internet who still troll Yahoo and Groklaw occasionally. Their
    site attempted to maintain a posture of being anti SCO, but the only thing
    members were truly interested in was disparaging Groklaw. The owner of that site
    (a county budget guy who created an IT director job for himself and then
    promptly spent the budget on Windows weeks before setting up his anti Groklaw
    site) eventually joined Marbux in a bizarre and ill fated campaign around the
    ODF/OOXML issues that left many scratching their heads.

    In short Petrofsky had seen Groklaw as a spring board to celebrity and
    frustrated by PJ's refusal to jump to his demands, he waged an endless and
    ongoing campaign to discredit Groklaw and cast aspersions at PJ.

    He actually helped SCO stalk PJ.

    Every single thing he does appears to be motivated by his yearning for celebrity
    and his personal vendettas.

    Petrofsky clearly has absolutely no problem with the fact that a loose cannon
    like himself could seriously screw things up big time for IBM and/or Novell.

    If he had any respect or consideration at all for anyone else involved, he would
    let IBM and Novell's legal teams do battle with SCO without some know nothing
    who thinks he is clever pulling bonehead moves that could play Hell with their
    careful work.

    Then again Petrofsky seems so convinced of his own brilliance that it probably
    never occured to him that his antics might actually help SCO. Unless of course
    that is what he is doing, in which case he has been an invaluable asset so
    far.

    [ 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 )