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
Explanation? Cahn is a scumbag. | 401 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
a possible explanation for SCO's motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 07:00 AM EDT
There are quite a group of lawyers identified as representing the movant: two from HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. (one being Brent O. Hatch) and no fewer than six from BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (including David Boies, Robert Silver, Stuart H. Singer, and Edward Normand).

These last four are not cheap to hire.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLC. have been fully paid in advance to pursue these claims through to the end of all possible appeals,and David Boies was specifically named in the hiring agreement to be available for court appearances, so there is no additional cost, and at this point they are very cheap to hire, as there is no way for SCO to recoup the fee that they already paid, so they are basically appearing pro bono at this point.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a possible explanation for SCO's motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 11:33 PM EDT
By demanding that his counsel proceed in all possible directions, Cahn is going
to be costing them a pretty penny. They might be willing to come up with real
cash to get off the hook.

If I understand you correctly, Kahn is trying to extort money from his own lawyers?

That's... That's... Diabolical!

Unlikely, but diabolical.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

a possible explanation for SCO's motion
Authored by: benw on Monday, May 27 2013 @ 04:41 AM EDT
Can it really be said that SCO is "costing IBM money" at this point?
Yes, it's
strictly-speaking true that there are outgoings under the SCO column at
Armonk, but consider whatever IBM is still paying to SCO:

A. It's effectively a sunk cost. They've been paying their own "SCO
tax" for a
decade now, rightly or wrongly, and that's going to continue for a little longer

yet, regardless. So consider the money as dead money regardless.

B. IBM gets value out of it. They have earned goodwill in the Open Source
community and the tech community at large. They have earned respect from
(potential) friend or foe. They have gained a lot of expertise and won on many
important points of law and evidence. That all ain't worth nothing. Those
victories add to the value of the business. There will be battles to come on all

of these issues and IBM is better prepared for them now.

C. IBM has a market capitalization of a quarter of a trillion dollars. The only

way SCO could have cost IBM is by winning any part of their case -- any
combination of getting a *huge* cash settlement and/or an ongoing stream of
revenue from IBM's open source business and/or generating uncertainty over
IBM's future prospects. SCO was never going to make a dent in IBM through
legal fees.

I almost see this last move by SCO as a sort of "suicide by cop",
where there's
really a desire for closure on BSF's part.

Unless, of course, Xinuos is poised to do something spectacular at the last
minute.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

the explanation for SCO's motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 12:42 PM EDT
Kahn is still getting paid. Quite well. No reason to stop when there is no
downside. The company is bankrupt, the worst that can happen is the BK judge
tells him to go home.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Explanation? Cahn is a scumbag.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 28 2013 @ 07:10 PM EDT
Don't read anything further into this.
He's a corrupt lawyer judge scumbag.
He's above the law and he knows it.
It's the old boy network working to it's finest.
The system is broken, he knows it, and is taking as many people to the cleaners
as he can because there are no repercussions.

Don't argue it, don't deny it, call me a whacko if you want but I *AM* right
about this, otherwise he wouldn't still be trying these hijinx.

[ 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 )