decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Was Cancelled; Patent Sold, Order Signed - Updated
Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:08 PM EDT

Bankruptcy court gets more and more weird. Today's scheduled hearing in SCO's bankruptcy was cancelled at the last minute. No one told the U.S. Trustee's Office, I gather, since our reporter showed up and so did that office's representative. Meanwhile, the order approving the sale of the patent was approved and signed by the judge.

They should just skip hearings. Why would the public need to know what is going on behind closed doors? Just sign SCO's proposed orders, and let's get this show on the road.

Yes. I'm kidding. There is a notice that a hearing was "cancelled/rescheduled." I have no clue. But if they mean there will be another hearing on this later, it makes no sense, because the order says that there was adequate notice of the motion, and everyone had ample opportunity to be heard, including the U.S. Trustee's Office, that the order is final and immediately effective and no one can argue against it now.

Here are the filings and notices:

04/20/2010 - 1112 - Virtual Minutes of: 04/20/2010
Appearances: NONE.
Proceedings: VACATED: CNO Filed - Order Signed.
(vCal Hearing ID (106018)). (related document(s) 1107 ) (SS) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

04/20/2010 - 1113 - Order (A) Approving The Sale Of The IP Asset Free And Clear Of All Liens, Claims, Interests, And Encumbrances And (B) Granting Related Relief. (related document(s) 1099 ) Order Signed on 4/20/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (BMT) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

04/20/2010 - 1114 - HEARING CANCELLED/RESCHEDULED. Amended Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 04/20/2010)

Update: We have the document about the hearing cancelled/rescheduled now, and it is about this hearing, and it simply says that the order was signed and no hearing was required. If you open it with a text editor, instead of a PDF viewer, you can see it was probably created at a quarter to eleven local time:
xap:CreateDate 2010-04-20T10:45:04-04:00
xap:CreatorTool PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2
xap:ModifyDate 2010-04-20T10:45:04-04:00
By that time, our reporter was already en route. You can see the same thing in Adobe in Properties: "Created: 04/20/2010 10:45:04 AM". I think that would mean, since the hearing was at 4 PM, that there was plenty of time to contact the U.S. Trustee's Office. For that matter, there was time to post it so the public didn't drive for 3 hours both ways.

Here are some more filings, and note that HP is entering the stage:

04/19/2010 - 1109 - Order Setting Omnibus Hearing Dates. All hearings will be held at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware (Related document(s) 1108 ). Omnibus Hearings scheduled for 5/17/2010 at 04:00 PM., 6/21/2010 at 03:00 PM., 7/12/2010 at 01:30 PM., 8/16/2010 at 10:30 AM. Signed on 4/16/2010. (LCN) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

04/19/2010 - 1110 - Certificate of No Objection regarding Motion of the Chapter 11 Trustee for Order Under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(a) and 363 and Fed. R. Bankr. 2002 and 6004 (A) Approving the Sale of the IP Asset Free and Clear of All Liens, Claims Interests, and Encumbrances Pursuant to 11 U.S.C Section 363 and (B) Granting Related Relief (related document(s) 1099 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 04/19/2010)

04/19/2010 - 1111 - Notice of Appearance Filed by HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY. (Neal, Ramona) (Entered: 04/19/2010)


Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Was Cancelled; Patent Sold, Order Signed - Updated | 421 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
sarcasm goes here...
Authored by: ilde on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:15 PM EDT
Or should we call it annoyance?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today's Bankruptcy Hearing Was Cancelled; Patent Sold, Order Signed
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:18 PM EDT
Does it seem to anyone else that this is starting to look suspiciously like a
judge that is in someones pocket?
I would hate to think so, but like the emperors wife, not only must you BE above
suspicion , you must be SEEN to be above suspicion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: edfair on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:22 PM EDT
wrong > right

Ed Fair -- the "Over-the-hill" one

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here please
Authored by: edfair on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:24 PM EDT
HTML for clickies

Ed Fair -- the "Over-the-hill" one

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick discussions here please
Authored by: edfair on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:25 PM EDT
Please put article name in title.

Ed Fair -- the "Over-the-hill" one

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expressions of boggled disbelief here
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:36 PM EDT
<Insert NSFGL comment>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note the order: 1113 - approval, 1114 - cancel
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 11:44 PM EDT
This really is becoming a Gross Cahn job.

"We don't need no steenkin hearings, what are they
going to do, take me out back and shoot me?"


You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Quick Observations
Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 02:32 AM EDT
If you read the linked exhibit, you will see that it is a copy of a "patent
assignment" document. It looks like a boilerplate set of paragraphs to me,
but I could be wrong. A couple of points jump off the page...

First, the document goes to great length to articulate how all the benefits
transfer to the purchaser and how the seller (assignor in the language of the
document) makes no future claims on this intellectual property. Nowhere in the
document does it state the implicit fact, therefore, that the assignee
(purchaser) also assumes any liabilities linked to the patent.

Now I'll concede that the idea of a patent having liabilities is a bit of a
stretch - and of course the wording of the document does include the to be
expected "no warranty, expressed or implied..."

Does anyone know if it's "typical form" for a patent transfer to not
discuss potential liabilities in this way?

Second point of note was that the document reminds us that Edward Cahn was
appointed Chapter 11 Trustee on August 25th, 2009. That's almost *8 months* ago.
And what, exactly, does the Trustee have to show for that period of time? How
many creditors paid? How many MoRs filed? How many reorganisation plans
submitted? Has the company returned to profitable operations? If so, why is the
Trustee still at the helm?


[ Reply to This | # ]

forever barred asserting such liens
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 02:34 AM EDT
"forever barred asserting such liens"

could/should have been

"forever barred asserting such lies"



[ Reply to This | # ]

So what happened?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 02:41 AM EDT
The representative of the United States Trustee did not know
of the cancellation? was not told? Well, there is the possibility
that McMahon lunched longer than expected, and didn't/couldn't
check his email before setting off for the courthouse. He seems
too demure to complain at what appears to be an affront to the
representative of the Federal Government tasked with ensuring
that the rights of the creditors are not ignored.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Cancelled/Rescheduled
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 02:58 AM EDT
Do we know what time that notice (1114) was filed?
The pdf of the Order (1113) appears to have been
created at 10.22am 20 April. I know, I know, cue
convoluted arguments on devious clock setting hacks....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bankruptcy Court - The smell is getting worse
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 03:37 AM EDT

RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't the US Trustee have something to say?
Authored by: Tolerance on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 04:11 AM EDT
I'm somewhat taken aback by this, since the order does declare 'adequate notice'
and yet it obviously wasn't enough for the US Trustee. Normally one would expect
some blowback, but I suppose a state court can ignore federal displeasure.

Or can it?

Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is a US Bankruptcy Judge a federal or state official?
Authored by: Tolerance on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 05:06 AM EDT
Wondering about federal (US Trustee) vs State (Delaware) conflict; in the
SCOBK-1113.pdf order Judge Gross described himself as "US Bankruptcy Judge
for the District of Delaware".

So is he a federal judge or a state judge? I'm guessing Federal because he
earlier found himself able to ignore Federal Bankruptcy deadlines and didn't
seem to care when the US Trustee called him out on it.

If Federal, I suppose he is appointed rather than elected. Are there impeachment
proceedings available? Who would have standing to bring them?

Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing docket items
Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 06:14 AM EDT
The BK Timeline page currently shows filings through docket number 1108. These
latest filings are docket numbers 1112, 1113, and 1114. Does anyone know what
docket numbers 1109, 1110 and 1111 are? Could one of them be a certificate of no
objection to the sale of the patent? It has been standard operating procedure in
this bankruptcy for the judge to simply sign an order and to cancel a hearing on
an item if a certificate of no objection has been filed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh look, he found his rubber stamp. N/T
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 07:12 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sell Quickly, Before Bilski Ruling
Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 09:37 AM EDT
There may be good reason for haste. If the Supreme Court's ruling in the Bilski
case (possibly today?) is unfavorable to software patents, the value of the
patent could drop, perhaps to zero.

Eschew obfuscation assiduously.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If I were HP
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 10:14 AM EDT
I would want to be at the firesale should any
SYSV Unix copyrights go on the block.

Oracle should buy the pizza man's interest
and be there too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • If I were HP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 04:19 AM EDT
    • If I were HP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 09:59 AM EDT
    • which pizza man? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 10:26 AM EDT
      • which pizza man? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 24 2010 @ 12:32 AM EDT
Thanks to the reporter
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 01:55 PM EDT
Thank you for going all the way down there and sorry it turned out to be a
wasted trip.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Just sign SCO's proposed orders, and let's get this show on the road"
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, April 22 2010 @ 08:46 AM EDT
PJ may think that it is a joke, but the judge may just adopt
her idea.

I wonder if the bankruptcy court can, out the blue, take over
the SCO vs. IBM case. SCO would certainly love to deal with
this judge, so why not just give SCO, again, what it wants?

[ 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 )