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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

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

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Why not Groklaw? | 279 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why not Groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 04:41 AM EDT
Well how about a DIRTY cent... but no more!!!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Wouldn't the liotigation assets include some of them?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 08:24 AM EDT
Wouldn't the "litigation assets" include all of their historical
internal lawyer-client communications? Even if someone at SCO has destroyed
them, or if Yarro ot them as part of the prior assets that he got, I would
venture that BSF kept copies. If so, whoever purchases those assets would now be
the client, and could therefore wave the attorney-client privilege and publish
all of said communications. If there's anything in there where someone admitted
early on that they didn't own the copyrights, or that they knew that IBM hadn't
copied anything, but that they forged ahead with the litigation anyway, wouldn't
that open up Yarro and Darl for personal liability?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why not Groklaw?
Authored by: jmc on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 10:07 AM EDT
Are you sure the records wouldn't be there?

If you were buying the only asset left - the theoretical litigation proceeds
when SCO gets gazillions from IBM, wouldn't that necessarily include ALL the
paperwork on SCO's side in the case, including all the lawyers' comments about
whether the case would get anywhere?

After all, having bought the asset and when you find it isn't actually worth
anything aren't you going to go after BS&F saying that they never warned you
unless you have the paperwork available to prove they did? Some of those letters
will say things like "despite the support you've got from X, Y and
Z".

That said, I agree with the sentiment about not parting with a single penny in
SCO's direction.

I'm sure it'll come out eventually. Maybe many of us will have started pushing
up the daisies first but eventually.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Darl's Brother - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 30 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT
Why not Groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2012 @ 03:21 AM EDT
> Plus to tell you the truth, I'd rather die than give SCO one
red cent.

Hyperbole aside, no you wouldn't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )