|
|
| Agenda for Wednesday's Bankruptcy Hearing: SUSE & Petrofsky |
 |
|
Monday, December 28 2009 @ 01:50 PM EST
|
The agenda for the hearing on Wednesday in the SCO bankruptcy is now available. It's SUSE's motion to lift the stay that will be argued and the Petrofsky motion to compel, and maybe some uncontested housekeeping issues. So this is one hearing not to miss, if any of you can attend. It begins at 10 AM. Same place. The usual suspects.
Relax. Just kidding. Please also keep helping with the
Comes exhibits project. We've made excellent progress, but I want to finish soon, so I don't start losing my hair. It's only a bearable task if many of you help. And I thank all those who have already helped out. Did you see that one of the law firms that represented the plaintiffs in this litigation
just won on appeal, and Microsoft will have to pay their attorneys' fees? $5.6 million. You know, a few million here and a few million there, and after a while you're talking real money. Maybe, I was thinking, as I was reading the exhibits from Comes, maybe it'd be cheaper to just behave in the first place.
Here are all the latest filings:
12/28/2009 - 1008 - Certificate of No Objection Re: Dkt. No. 984 (related document(s) 984 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
12/28/2009 - 1009 - Certificate of No Objection Re: Dkt. No. 988 (related document(s) 988 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
12/28/2009 - 1010 - Certificate of No Objection Re: Dkt. No. 983 (related document(s) 983 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
12/28/2009 - 1011 - Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 12/30/2009 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
There will maybe be argument on some uncontested matters, such as the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to sell some minor assets without having to cross some i's and dot all the t's you normally have to. And there's the motion to sign a new lease [PDF] with Canopy for smaller digs and another about hiring Hatch Dodge [PDF] as SCO's special litigation counsel. That's Senator Orrin Hatch's son's law firm. And SUSE has a motion to file some exhibits under seal.
These were all uncontested, so there may be no need for them to be argued at the hearing. But you know bankruptcy court by now. And the truth is, you never know for sure what will happen until you get there. So do try to be there.
The SUSE motion is the one that deeply matters, of course, although it's all going to be interesting. That's SUSE's motion to lift the stay so the Swiss arbitration can go forward. If you do attend, please pay particular attention to any arguments regarding the GPL.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 01:56 PM EST |
| Is it still a going concern? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RFD on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 02:07 PM EST |
I am planning to attend, but unfortunately my laptop keeps getting the BSOD, so
I will not be able to post until I get home--about a two hour drive from
Wilmington. Hope to see others there.
---
Eschew obfuscation assiduously.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 02:18 PM EST |
And don't forget to use HTML for clickies.
---
Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 02:20 PM EST |
hahahaha..
Stealing a competitor's code: $0
Branding/Marketing/Selling stolen code: $50,000,000
Litigating competitor into the stone age: $100,000,000
Profits from stolen idea: $500,000,000
People who think it is cheaper to innovate: Priceless.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Peter Baker on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 02:29 PM EST |
If anyone can provide me with Swiss date/time I'll give it a shot getting there.
The only caveat is that my diary hasn't settled yet for the new year..
As for it being cheaper to behave than litigate: it is a simple cost/benefit
decision. It appears that up until now the behaviour of MS has had insufficient
impact on the bottomline and on their reputation. That suggests to me that
fines were indeed too low and were just budgeted as the cost of doing business.
Even in the EU I'm not sure if MS is going to change now Neelie Kroes has moved
- the new person may not have as strong a backbone, but I may do that person an
injustice.
What I ind interesting is the noises I hear from some non-US people: some of
them are really, really fed up with the US attitude as it harms their business
in other countries. That was interesting to hear - not that it has as yet
changed anything but it suggests that breaking up MS could have interesting
effects too.
Just musing :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Swiss agenda - Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 03:07 PM EST
- Swiss agenda - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 05:53 PM EST
- Swiss agenda - Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 07:30 PM EST
- Swiss agenda - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 09:22 PM EST
- Who is replacing Kroes? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 09:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 02:53 PM EST |
.
PJ also says key on the GPL.
Judge Gross: If he gets into this discussion, it will indicate how much he
understands about this litigation. He is more likely to let the parties run on
and then decide immediately or soon thereafter. He may stick to a shallow
financial evaluation.
Judge Cahn, SCO Trustee, Attorney Bonnie Fatell: Their position is complex. It
may just reflect their pleadings heretofore, i.e. the arbitration adds expense
and time SCO doesn't have. They will argue for their prompt jury trial as
decreed by the Court of Appeals. They may downplay that important aspects* of
the Jury trial are contingent on the arbitration. Indeed the arbitration can
cause the jury trial to be a mistrial and have to be re-tried, cp. the judgment
on the Monopoly monies in the first Novell trial, non-jury by Kimball. If they
suffer a burst of rationality, they would relent and go for the arbitration
first. But unfortunately they have to remain a little FUDdish for settlement
purposes and to maintain the "merits" of their nuisance value.
Novell: They want the arbitration to proceed but won't shed tears in the well
of the Court. The undecided arbitration gives them powerful irrefutable
defenses to liability and damages in the jury trial. If the decision goes
against them, it would be worth an appeal to the District Court to get a
full-blown judge involved.
US Trustee: If they choose a side on this issue, it may weigh heavily.
Odds are that the SCO Trustee, [former Chief] Judge Cahn will get what he
wants.
~webster~
* Like liability, damages, licensing, GPL, rights to sue, etc.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 03:31 PM EST |
I just don't see Judge Gross going against Judge Cahn. He seems to be in love
with the guy and won't go against anything he asks for. Judge Gross still seems
to believe that SCO can actually get out of the mess they made. Judge Cahn
doesn't seem to care that SCO wants to steal stuff that they don't own. So
there seems to be a complete lack of interest in what is right, wrong and the
law.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LaurenceTux on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 04:39 PM EST |
okay so if TSCOG loses parts or all this hearing how bad could it get??
The Bankruptcy Stay gets lifted and the arbitration goes forward: TSCOG goes to
"final countdown mode"
what else is going on??
Could this mess be close to done by my birthday?? (April 4 btw)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- By your birthday? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 05:03 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 05:14 PM EST |
| A number of recent articles have implied that the deployment of the Hatch
lawfirm presents the "new" Judge Ted Stewart with a conflict due to the
political ties Stewart has with the Senator Orin Hatch.
Complicating this neat scenario of Utah power politics
is the membership of Ralph Yarro in a virulent political grouping opposed to
Orin Hatch and Bob Bennett. Link ties to the Facebook Group
titled Vote
Out Bob Bennet And Orin Hatch
Ralph Yarro was an early and enthusiastic
member of this group (it only has 29 members).
The triggering event was
Hatch's decision to break with Republicans and vote to end debate on the
nomination of
Cass Sunstein as the Regulatory Czar, allowing his
confirmation.
The facebook page states its position (in True Godwin)
as:
Bob Bennett and Orin Hatch voted to confirm Cass Sunstein as
the Regulatory Czar.
He is anti gun rights for citizens (think hitler),
anti freedom of speech, and cares more about animal rights than human rights.In
fact he thinks animals should sue humans! What a disgrace of a person.
This
man is a dangerous radical who will do his best to steal our freedoms and grow
government control...and They have not honored their roles as representatives of
utah and the people of the USA by confirming him.
Ralph
Yarro's political affiliations place him on the extreme right wing in Utah
politics. He is engaged in a "tea party" inspired revolt against Orin
Hatch.
Post authored by Stats_for_all [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 29 2009 @ 08:04 AM EST |
You know, a few million here and a few million there, and after a while
you're talking real money.
The original source of this quote,
attributed to former Senator
Everett
Dirksen, was "a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon
you're talking real money". This is more appropriate to
MIcrosoft.
Microsoft's annual revenue is in the region of $60
billion. Even one billion dollars is not really a large impact on that. Given a
choice between: (1) risking a billion dollars in fines every year, and (2)
losing 2% of its market share, Microsoft will choose to risk the fines. It's
possible that a decision which could result in a billion-dollar fine might not
even be seen as important enough to make it to the CEO, but would be decided at
a lower level.
Anything less than a billion dollars will have no effect
on Microsoft. A few million, or even a few hundred million, is just like pocket
change or petty cash. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Lazarus on Tuesday, December 29 2009 @ 01:21 PM EST |
Seriously?
Don't they have a 10 year old child to look at names?
I'm waiting for the Dodge Hatchback jokes.
---
Any incoherancies on my part should be blamed on my use of Vicodin.
Unfortunately, it's for my back, so I'm not quite a House clone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
