 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/unix_sco_judge_reversal/
OMG it's back on again. I'm going to die before this is decided. WTF do
the SCO trustees think they're playing at?
(any comments Jim?)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:10:06 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/unix_sco_judge_reversal/
>
> OMG it's back on again. I'm going to die before this is decided. WTF do
> the SCO trustees think they're playing at? (any comments Jim?)
The SCO trustees aren't really involved in the case. The appeals court
just overturned the decision of the lower court (except for the monies
due Novell from SCO's license to Sun = more drain on the SCO bank
account) and told the lower court that a jury has to decide the ownership
back here in Utah.
Personally, I think it's likely SCO will not emerge from bankruptcy
(though this ruling does give SCO something to take back to the
bankruptcy court to say "we have money coming", so that court may hold
off on throwing them into Chapter 7). I'm biased, but I don't think SCO
will prevail.
But I think you're right, this could drag on past our lifetimes at this
rate. ;-)
Jim (all opinions are my own, etc.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John escreveu:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/unix_sco_judge_reversal/
so friggin' pathetic.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> The SCO trustees aren't really involved in the case. The appeals court
> just overturned the decision of the lower court (except for the monies
> due Novell from SCO's license to Sun = more drain on the SCO bank
> account) and told the lower court that a jury has to decide the ownership
> back here in Utah.
>
I stand corrected
> Personally, I think it's likely SCO will not emerge from bankruptcy
> (though this ruling does give SCO something to take back to the
> bankruptcy court to say "we have money coming", so that court may hold
> off on throwing them into Chapter 7). I'm biased, but I don't think SCO
> will prevail.
>
Personally, I hope not but something's happening
http://sev.prnewswire.com/banking-financial-services/20090824/LA6565824082009-1.html
Do they really think that they might attract further investments or is
this part of a smokescreen?
Groklaw is understandably cynical; see Update 5 on
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182
> But I think you're right, this could drag on past our lifetimes at this
> rate. ;-)
...and possibly our children's lifetimes ;-)
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John <joh### [at] home com> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/25/unix_sco_judge_reversal/
> OMG it's back on again. I'm going to die before this is decided. WTF do
> the SCO trustees think they're playing at?
> (any comments Jim?)
With the amount of money SCO has lost in this whole fiasco (did you check
what happened to SCO's stocks immediately after the first ruling that SCO
lost?) and what it's still spending on this fool's errand, I'm really
wondering that even if SCO wins, how much it has to extort money from
other companies before it can call it even.
I wouldn't be surprised if they will never get their money back. Thus it
just becomes a question of principle and pride. Which can only hurt SCO's
PR (even more than this already has).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:44:08 +0100, Doctor John wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The SCO trustees aren't really involved in the case. The appeals court
>> just overturned the decision of the lower court (except for the monies
>> due Novell from SCO's license to Sun = more drain on the SCO bank
>> account) and told the lower court that a jury has to decide the
>> ownership back here in Utah.
>>
>>
> I stand corrected
It's been very poorly reported in the press, so it's not surprising that
individuals have the details wrong. I've followed it fairly closely
(thanks in part to Groklaw) since it potentially affects my paycheck. :-)
>> Personally, I think it's likely SCO will not emerge from bankruptcy
>> (though this ruling does give SCO something to take back to the
>> bankruptcy court to say "we have money coming", so that court may hold
>> off on throwing them into Chapter 7). I'm biased, but I don't think
>> SCO will prevail.
>>
>>
> Personally, I hope not but something's happening
>
> http://sev.prnewswire.com/banking-financial-services/20090824/
LA6565824082009-1.html
> Do they really think that they might attract further investments or is
> this part of a smokescreen?
IMHO it's all smokescreen. I think they're still trying to get things
lined up for Steven Norris to buy them, even though that's effectively
been shut down, at least for now.
> Groklaw is understandably cynical; see Update 5 on
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090824142203182
Yeah, though PJ has been pretty cynical since day 1. I find Groklaw has
great information, but personally I don't care for PJ too much; I've
tried to explain a few things to her that she got wrong historically, and
she accused me of astroturfing. <shrug>
>> But I think you're right, this could drag on past our lifetimes at this
>> rate. ;-)
>
> ...and possibly our children's lifetimes ;-)
Indeed. :-/
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
