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
New take on the old handiman's logic | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT
Is it SCO's birthday or something?

10 year-old cases shouldn't be allowed to play in Federal Courts without posting
a bond of Beeelions.

---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Geez... Someone must have shares in a popcorn company. ;-)


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's count the Judges
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:59 PM EDT

    Judge Kimball - original
    Judge Campbell
    Judge Waddoups
    Judge Sam
    Judge Benson
    Judge Nuffer
That's a lotta Judges to be going through.

If the wikkipedia article is correct. There's only three Judges left to pick up the baton:

    Jenkins
    Shelby
    Stewart
Not much time left for SCOg before some Judge will have to respond to them :)

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:06 PM EDT
And just after they finished shredding those "old business"
documents too... but I don't imagine THAT would have anything to do with their
renewed bravado.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic.
Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:37 PM EDT
Place off topic posts here...

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and
bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

They do have a point...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:59 PM EDT
On the one hand, I am amused to see SCO twisting slowly in the wind, approaching
the inevitable Chapter 7, running out of money to even pay lawyers to appear in
court for them. In fact, I kind of view this farce as a game of chicken between
the District Court in Utah and the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware: "You want
us to revisit that pile of rubbish? You won't declare Chapter 7 like any sane
court would do? Well, don't think we're going to waste our time hearing it. We
can stall longer than SCO will have money."

On the other hand, SCO really does have a point. A year and a half to even get
a motion heard on whether they can reopen the case? That seems unreasonably
slow, even by the pace of District Court actions. (Which makes it seem like the
District Court is in fact deliberately stalling - maybe I'm not just being
cynical in the previous paragraph. The only other possibility is that SCO has
had a really bad streak of luck with respect to judge availability. Couldn't
happen to a more deserving group.)

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks thread
Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:35 PM EDT
Here is where we ignore SCO and talk about the rest of the
world.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and
bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think I have just one question.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:44 PM EDT
Who is still left at SCO? Anybody, anybody?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fantasy fiction
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:47 PM EDT
Until this moment I never believed in zombies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder how many Judges read Groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:26 PM EDT
That probably explains the endless recusals.
DIE SCO DIE !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Those who didn't object
Authored by: BJ on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:28 PM EDT
... to SCO's recent destruction of its business
records will have to do without my outrage in
this.
Sorry. There's only 25 hours in a day.

bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

Zombies never die
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:38 PM EDT
This is the lawsuit that never ends,
it goes on and on my friends.
Someone started it not knowing what it was,
And now it goes on and on because...

[repeat ad nauseum]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I guess they think they have shredded all the incriminating evidence now
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 08:19 PM EDT
With the incriminating evidence shredded, it's time for one more try.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somehow Monty Python comes to mind
Authored by: AH1 on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 08:59 PM EDT
I am actually surprised that the request didn't include the words "Make
them come back so I can bite their legs off." In reality that seems to be
all that is left of TSG.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:40 AM EDT
Can we bring back tarring and feathering just once? I'd be happy to contribute
some tar. They can supply the feathers from their flock of "flying"
pigs.

Then they need to be run out of town on a rail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Someone has money to burn...
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:10 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 | # ]

So, who is this SCO now?
Authored by: kh on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:17 AM EDT
What relationship to the old SCO are they?

Do they still own anything? Apart from some possibly mythical right to sue?

Do they actually produce anything, do anything?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Obligatory quote...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:54 AM EDT

"It's not dead, it's just resting"

For those not familiar with that quote, it's the Dead Parrot Sketch. -pm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:08 AM EDT
If the destruction of the business records has been done then how can SCO bring
a new case. The records are destroyed so what evidence can they use. (I am sorry
I do not understand the law in this area.) If they found something new then
surely there maybe a case for not making it available during discovery and then
if they have the evidence, so claimed, then they perhaps did not destroy all the
documents but only selected ones.

All seems to be too a bit too convenient.

About time this was put to bed. I am glad I do not have shares or would have
even considered buy shares. I have a theory about "honesty in
business" and this on the surface of it seems a classic case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ring Around the Rosie with SCO?
Authored by: TheMole on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:36 AM EDT
Ah, what a beautifully subtle reference, PJ!

When, as a young lad we sang this nursery rhyme at school, it was explained that
the words date back to London in 1665 and refer to the symptoms of plague.....

RA

[ Reply to This | # ]

Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:36 AM EDT
The Rasputin of the American business world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Frivolous remarks...
Authored by: polymath on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 07:07 AM EDT
How do you spell zombie? SCO

[ Reply to This | # ]

keep in mind...
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:44 AM EDT
How long have we been waiting for SCOX to produce the contents of Blepp's
briefcase? 1 year on the motion is relatively speedy, in comparison. I can't
believe that it's taken this long to produce even a few lines of the 'mountains
of code,' and I mean a few lines that were not improperly copied from BSD.

mc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is that pops it's head up or rather pulls it out...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:48 PM EDT
...only to re-insert it?

Good LORD... You'd think they'd have figured this out by now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New take on the old handiman's logic
Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 09:29 PM EDT
pseudocode, in lieu of a flowchart:

if thing.moves:
    if not thing.should_move:
        if thing.moving_on_own_volition:
              thing.apply ( shotgun )
        else:
                thing.apply ( duct_tape )
else:
    if thing.should_move:
          thing.apply ( wd40 )

You would not believe how long it took me to get the indenting right!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Believe it or not, SCO pops its head up again ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 12:34 AM EDT
Just curious, what would the burden of proof be to re-open the case? What sort
of grounds would serve as the basis to deny the motion?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The cheek of them!
Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 04:02 AM EDT

With all the delays, legal dancing and running-away SCO did, I find it terribly cheeky that they should now ask the court to please hurry up. If SCO had felt an urgency way back when, they would still have some assets left for IBM to win.

[ 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 )