Message ID: 235616
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2005-02-13 10:34:00
Subject: Re: SCOG guilty - schedule delays
I respect your opinion. But, I
can tell you this: for over a year I've been reading all these posts about how the
judges finanally understand, and there is no way for scox to wiggle out of it now,
etc.
Those posts are usually made by the more informed posters here. And
those posts have been almost consistantly wrong. Wrong more times than I can remember.
18 months ago nobody thought it would be going on this long, but here we are.
Some of the best posters here are familiar with the legal system, and have a
certain respect for the judges. But, I think, that respect has made those posters
appologists, and they sound increasingly unconvincing to me.
How many times
have we witnessed this pattern: informed posters post about the impending doom for
scox, and explain why - in a convincing way. Then the judges make an outlandish
jaw-dropping pro-scox decision.
Then we see back-peddling and appologies.
A lot of "well, this was only to be expected, it's all perfectly routine . . . but
*now* the judges understand, *now* the judges know it's a scam." Now when I read
those sorts of posts I think: "yeah right, I've heard it all before. I'll believe
it when I see it."
All JMHO of course. Don't ask me to go back and research
who said what and when. It's all just an impression I've developed.
Message ID: 235618
Posted By: chad_hangingus
Posted On: 2005-02-13 10:37:00
Subject: Re: SCOG guilty - schedule delays
<< I see an even-handed treatment
of IBM and SCOG by the judges, and wouldn't have it any other way. >>
I'd
qualify that by saying it's as even-handed as our crappy federal court system allows.
And Kimball made the boldest and most direct statement he could at that stage of
the case.
Walter still makes a good point that it's been two years without
evidence and that's two years too long. You shouldn't be able to get a case like
this off the ground powered merely by speculation. But that's exactly what happened.
Actually, beyond that it was powered by outright lies.
I agree with Walter
that it's not right. But we disagree that Kimball's ruling was in any way positive
for SCO. Kimbal handed the SCO legal team a jar of vaseline and told them to get
ready to bend over.
Message ID: 235623
Posted By: diogenese19348
Posted On: 2005-02-13 10:59:00
Subject: Re: SCOG guilty - schedule delays
<<
Walter still makes a good
point that it's been two years without evidence and that's two years too long. You
shouldn't be able to get a case like this off the ground powered merely by speculation.
But that's exactly what happened. Actually, beyond that it was powered by outright
lies.
I agree with Walter that it's not right. But we disagree that Kimball's
ruling was in any way positive for SCO. Kimbal handed the SCO legal team a jar of
vaseline and told them to get ready to bend over.
>>
That is an interesting
question. Why is SCOX allowed to ask for more discovery when it is pretty clear
they had no basis for this case in the beginning?
"Viewed against the backdrop
of SCO's plethora of public statements concerning IBM's and others' infringement
of SCO's purported copyrights to the UNIX software, it is astonishing that SCO has
not offered any competent evidence to create a disputed fact regarding whether IBM
has infringed SCO's alleged copyrights through IBM's Linux activities."
I
take that as more than astonishing. I take that as a statement that SCOX has been
on a two year fishing expedition. They had nothing to start this case with. Nothing.
Everything they said they had was a lie. That said, why are they being granted more
discovery at this point?
So OK, it is not copyrights, but contract issues.
Dig it. It's not what they said in public, but let's run with it. Does SCOX really
hold the IBM AT&T contract as successor. Not according to Novell, and that case
needs to be settled before this one because the fact of the contract ownership has
to be settled. Frankly, since IBM had a fully paid up irrevicable license there
is a big question why SCOX would even be involved. There were no more payments to
be made.
So was there any contract between IBM and OldSCO, and if so what
did it say? That would probably be the only sticky point.
Like Walter and
a lot of other people, I am really annoyed at SCOX being able to demand more discovery
when they had zip cause to start this lawsuit to begin with. That aside, that was
an amazingly strongly worded opinion by the judge. I am just not sure why he didn't
take the next step. At least CC10 could have been settled.
Message ID: 235627
Posted By: karl_w_lewis
Posted On: 2005-02-13 11:06:00
Subject: Re: SCOG guilty - schedule delays
>> I agree with Walter that it's
not right. But we disagree that Kimball's ruling was in any way positive for SCO.
Kimbal handed the SCO legal team a jar of vaseline and told them to get ready to
bend over. <<
I have certainly given walterbyrd a fair amount of teasing
over this issue, (I hope he didn't think me mean spiritied about it), but the judges'
latest rulings have left me believing that walterbyrd has been right all along.
Pull up a chair, snug down your tin-foil hat, and I'll tell you why...
If you accept that all the participants know, and have always known, that the
law suit was a losing proposition, you'd be hard pressed, I believe, to come up
with an explanation for the SCOundrels' behavior other than they are running a stock
kiting scheme. And there is no way anyone will convince me that any lawyer looked
at this case and said, oh, we can win this. (Proof? Look at BS&F's "contingency"
payment agreement. Right.)
The judges can't declare the the SCOundrels the
winners, with or without a jury, because the appeals courts will just take that
victory away as rapidly as it was awarded. What to do? Simple. Delay. Everything
hinges, all the way around, on stretching this thing out as long as possible. The
judges can talk mean at the SCOundrels every stinking day from now until the end
of time, and the stock scam will continue without pause. Only ajudication stops
this thing, and the judges, if you accept that they are co-conspirators, are committed
to avoiding that as long as possible. The genius is that *delay* can't be reveresed
on appeal. Arguing over delays only causes... *more delay*.
IANAL, but I
read Kimball's ruling. He stated, flat out, that the SCOundrels had given him no
reason to turn IBM down, so... he turned IBM down. "Until the close of discovery."
And that ruling came out right after a ruling from Wells that will likely stretch
discovery out many, many more months. Even if IBM fights, as they've indicated they
intend to do, that only stretches things out further.
Fear of reversal is
the usually cited cause for all this judicial caution. Great. Is there anyone, other
than Biff, who believes that an appeals court is going to rule that the trial judge
*should* have allowed a fishing expedition into the defendant's database? Is that
what appeals courts usually do? (Did the SCOundrels' cite any such case in their
objection to IBM's motion? Nope - becaue there is none.)
No, there is something
rotten in Salt Lake City, and it stinks all the way 'round the world.
KWL
IANAL. I expected this thing to take a long time, but I did not expect the courts
to say one thing, and rule the other way.
The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "walterbyrd", "chad_hangingus", "diogenese19348", karl_w_lewis" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.
Copyright 2005 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.