|
SCO's Dec. 1 Bankruptcy Hearing Cancelled: New Date Jan. 18 |
|
Monday, November 29 2010 @ 09:58 PM EST
|
Another cancellation of a hearing in the SCO bankruptcy. The December 1st hearing is canceled. Are they hoping to keep canceling until the 10th Circuit rules on the SCO appeal? I'd wager that is the game, actually. I can just imagine: after the January 20th oral arguments, they'll tell the court that the judges seemed fascinated and engaged by SCO's arguments, so we should wait for their ruling. Or if it's scheduled just prior to the hearing, they will tell the judge that we should wait because the oral argument in the appeal is days away. And the judge will agree. So from that perspective, why have a bankruptcy hearing before January at the earliest, eh?Lo and behold: "The next hearing is currently scheduled for January 18, 2011 at 10:00 a.m." If you are in the mood for a hearing, and you are anywhere near San Francisco, oral argument in Psystar's appeal of its loss in the
Apple v. Psystar case is scheduled for tomorrow:
25 - Notice of Oral Argument on DECEMBER Calendar.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor
( ) ** 10-15113 Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp. Of course, call the court to make sure there hasn't been a last minute change, but it's set for 9:30 AM in the James R. Browning US Courthouse, United States Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, California 94103. If you go, leave your digital stuff at home and quietly take notes.
Here's the notice of canceling the SCO hearing:
11/29/2010 - 1207 - Notice of Adjourned/Rescheduled Hearing // Notice of Hearing Cancellation Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 12/1/2010 at 10:30 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
Mr. Singer will be arguing the appeal:
11/29/2010 - Open Document - [9818783] Oral Argument Acknowledgment Form filed by SCO Group. Served on 11/29/2010. Manner of Service: ECF/NDA.
He did extremely well last time, if we judge only by results and not by whether it's past the point where it makes any sense to continue at all, so SCO likely feels if it ain't broke, don't fix it. He is very skilled, and he's particularly good at coming up with arguments that make little sense after you analyze them carefully but are so complex and sound plausible enough on first hearing that judges might not totally dismiss them, and frankly on an appeal, that's enough sometimes to get another shot.
I wanted to mention also that we spent the weekend making some updates to our Transcripts page, adding links to all the trial transcripts in both SCO v. Novell trials, so that it's a lot easier to find what someone said in 2008 and compare
annotation of SCO's Reply in its appeal of its loss to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that we needed a better map if we want to keep up with SCO's endlessly morphing tales. If you are planning to attend the January hearing, you might find it helpful to review before you set out.
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:09 PM EST |
Summarize error->correction or s/error/correction/ in the Title box to make
it easy to scan the correction threads
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:10 PM EST |
Please stay off topic here. Use HTML links for clickie goodness.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- For those who argue that SSDs will wear out, what about this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 06:15 AM EST
- Today's (or yesterday's) xkcd - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 06:48 AM EST
- FAT written by Bill Gates? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 09:21 AM EST
- This looks like a bad patent: - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 09:34 AM EST
- Google Wave reborn... - Authored by: bbmaniac on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 09:39 AM EST
- Antitrust: Commission probes allegations of antitrust violations by Google - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 01:48 PM EST
- IMDB gets bingified ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 02:37 PM EST
- The drive to prevent consumer choice continues - Authored by: say_what on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 04:00 PM EST
- "Father of British Computing" passes away at 97 years old - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 08:19 PM EST
- "Experts-exchange" issuing DMCA Takedown notices - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 04:09 AM EST
- Gordon Brown pleads Gary McKinnon's case - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 08:36 AM EST
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:12 PM EST |
Please put the title of the News Picks article in the Title box and include an
HTML clickable link to the article in your comment for the reader's convenience
after the article has scrolled off the News Picks sidebar.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:15 PM EST |
Despite how little credibility SCO's position at this point
might engender from any rational perspective, I would (again!)
caution our little community to take Singer seriously. I was
there last time and the man tap danced circles around Novell,
helped along by an obliging McConnell's questions.
There were only a few times where Baldock, etc, seemed to put
a stutter in his verbal step but he recovers quickly and
despite his laughable apperance (down to the bow tie), he
really is proof of dont-judge-the-attorney-by-his-suit :D
---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:15 PM EST |
Find a Comes v Microsoft document, transcribe it with HTML markup, then
post it
here as a comment, posting as Plain Old Text but with the HTML
tags to make it
easy for PJ to copy and paste.
The easy way to find a document that needs
transcriptions is on the
Comes v.
Microsoft Exhibits by Number pages and scroll down to find one without
a
transcription. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:16 PM EST |
How To
Kill A Zombie --- IANALAIDPOOTV
(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 10:34 PM EST |
At what point can someone file a motion requesting that the court force a
hearing to go on record? Even if that someone must be a party with a financial
interest in SCOXQ.PK, I find it difficult to believe that all such parties are
willing to keep their questions to themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 29 2010 @ 11:52 PM EST |
Copying from another of my comments: Surprise! Surprise!
Surprise!
The thing I'm most curious about for December in SCO's
bankruptcy is
wondering if the next bill from Ocean Park will have any time for
answering stats_for_all's
question. I'm also wondering about how much time was spent "working trying
to get bidders qualified." Nothing much seemed to show up on the previous bill,
but there were some notes that discussion of the sales were excluded from the
bill.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 12:06 AM EST |
Will it ever end?
>>SCO's endlessly morphing tales<<
How long is the court going to put up with this nonsense? I don't see how they
can be telling it one way one day and another way the next and still be telling
the truth. IIRC, lying under oath is perjury, or does SCO have some sort of
immunity to that? Or is it that lawyers are not under oath and can say anything
they want?
Yes, I'm being cynical.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 12:11 AM EST |
Anyone that is surprised that the hearing is canceled doesn't
know SCO or the Bankruptcy court very well. One of the
creditors should say something, but it costs money to do so.
Perhaps they have lost enough on SCO and will just wait for
the slow cheap death.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 12:25 AM EST |
Seriously -- are we still going to be reading about the SCOx bankruptcy
proceedings ten years from now?
This same judge pushed the Nortel bankruptcy through with lighting speed, when
RIM was seeking just a week delay.
And the bankruptcy bidding rules for Nortel were set up to make it impossible or
nearly impossible for one company to buy Nortel and keep it intact.
Which is exactly what RIM wanted to do. Yep, a Canadian company wanted to keep
another Canadian company Canadian. Apparently that was a no-no with the
bankruptcy judge.
So how DOES one grease a bankruptcy judge's palm and how much does it cost?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sscherin on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 02:29 AM EST |
OK I called it.. I still stand by my predicted Feb 7th court date.. Who wants to
join the pool??
Predicted Dec 1st hearing canceled [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 01:39 PM EST |
With the auction of SCO's key assets due a month ago, weren't there some
considerations of when the transaction would close?
How can the hearing on that auction be delayed 2 months for such a critical part
of the SCO restructuring (ha) plan? I thought it was urgent to get the auction
through so that SCO could go forward.
When are we going to see information about the bidders, offers, etc. With
specificity.
--Joe[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Lack of Bidders? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 03:55 PM EST
- Sarcasm? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 01:43 PM EST
- Auction results - Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM EST
- You forgot - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 05:22 PM EST
- Specificity? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 05:30 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 06:42 AM EST |
"If you are in the mood for a hearing, and you are anywhere near San
Francisco, oral argument in Psystar's appeal of its loss in the Apple v. Psystar
case is scheduled for tomorrow:
25 - Notice of Oral Argument on DECEMBER Calendar.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:30 a.m. Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor
( ) ** 10-15113 Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
Of course, call the court to make sure there hasn't been a last minute change,
but it's set for 9:30 AM in the James R. Browning US Courthouse, United States
Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, California
94103. If you go, leave your digital stuff at home and quietly take notes.
"
The recording is available at
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2010/11/30/10-15113.wma
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 07:09 AM EST
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: wharris on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 08:10 AM EST
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 09:13 AM EST
- Yes it does - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:01 AM EST
- Yes it does - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:45 AM EST
- Yes it does - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 04:33 PM EST
- Does it? - Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:56 PM EST
- Does it? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 11:19 PM EST
- Does it? - Authored by: bprice on Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 05:09 AM EST
- Does it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 02 2010 @ 11:13 AM EST
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:50 AM EST
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 09:23 AM EST
- Apple v. Psystar - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:35 AM EST
|
Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 12:52 PM EST |
Death
Taxes
And SCO delaying another court date.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 09:45 PM EST |
One theory of how the behavior of Kahn and Gross can be
explained as honest an non-malicious is a theory which I
have mentioned in posts a few times with no response. I
call it the "Death Row Warden" theory, and here it goes.
1. Chapter 7 bankruptcy for a company as a legal person is
like public execution for a natural person (human being):
The authorities move in and forces its existence to end.
2. Chapter 11 bankruptcy suspension is like being
incarcerated on death row with the possibility of appeals or
clemency cancelling the impending execution.
3. In the US there is a tradition that the prison officials
go to extreme measures to ensure the survival of death row
prisoners while allowing them to appeal their death sentence
in every possible way, causing both prisoners and victims
much agony as they wait for years before execution (or less
frequently, release).
4. As judges, Cahn and Gross are undoubtedly aware of that
tradition and may even have been involved in that process
during their careers as judges and lawyers.
5. Thus Cahn and Gross may believe they have an equivalent
moral obligation to keep tSCOg alive until all their appeals
have been completed, on the odd chance that in the final
rulings, tSCOg wins, thus cancelling their debts to Novell
and IBM while getting enough millions in damages (plus
interest) to fully cover their ordinary debts.
6. Out of that same theory they are likely to ignore demands
from tSCOg's legal opponents (IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Autozone
etc.), especially if complying with those demands would
allow those opponents to win their litigation by default due
to the death of tSCOg.
7. As "death row wardens" overseeing the Chapter 11
detention of tSCOg, they feel equally obligated to allow
tSCOg to pursue any and all legal strategies to prevail in
their existing litigation, even when that means signing off
on dubious legal filings suggested by the original tSCOg
legal team.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|