Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:29 PM EDT

Authored by: archanoid on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:34 PM EDT

Hmm. Not April 1st. Oh well. I can't say I'm surprised. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:38 PM EDT

Awwwww... ain't that CUTE!!?? The little company that thought it

could!! Too bad what it thinks it can do is steal software from a

few thousand people around the world, and that trash ain't gonna

wash. Have fun with that, SCO. How in the world the trustee could

think this is in the best interest of the company and its

creditors is completely beyond me. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: UncleJosh on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT

And, coincidentally, a couple of days before the next hearing in bankruptcy

court in Deleware. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT

PJ (July 4): I gather we all must wait to see what SCO comes up with next. No doubt the lawyers are thinking, trying to come up with something. Will they appeal? I can't imagine what. The judge ruled for them in almost everything during the trial.



What in the world does the prolonged silence mean? *snerk* Well, now we know! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:41 PM EDT

It does make me wonder what it would take to get Cahn removed. If he wanted out

now or as soon as all the money is gone is this how you do it? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:54 PM EDT

we can only hope that the appeals court refuses to hear the case or tells them 3

striks and your out and scotus does the same. Because you know they will. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT

Is there some limit on this?



Or can they just keep appealing?



This is a serious question. Regardless of whether this appeal is granted, does

the system allow infinite appeals?



Or when you go to court there is the very real possibility the issues are NEVER

resolved? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: polymath on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle...



Surprise, surprise, surprise. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT

This would be a fine place to put corrrections.

It might be helpful to summarize in the title ..

e.g. corrrections->corrections



If PDFs are involved, checking the original is recommended.

Thanks. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT

"...the district courts evidentiary rulings at trial..."



Really? Seriously? I thought they won all of those rulings... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:07 PM EDT

Please post here for topics not relevant to this article,

but on topic for Groklaw in general. The intersection of

law and technology might not be too far off the mark.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT

This would be a fine place for your posts relating to

the various Newspicks. Please help folks out by at least

giving the title of the Newspick, if not a link to the

pick itself. It is not uncommon for picks to sometimes

scroll rapidly down (really ... watch sometimes) and be

no longer visible well before your interest in PJs article

has waned. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:13 PM EDT

Authored by: electron on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:14 PM EDT

It seems to me that this sort of corrupt gaming of the judicial system is unique

to the USA.





---

Electron



"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:14 PM EDT

I can't see how continuing to squander money on hopeless appeals is going to do

SCO's creditors any good at all. Cahn is clearly not working for the benefit of

creditors which leaves a big question as to what is he actually doing other than

fattening the wallets of all the consultants he hires? It's beginning to look

more and more like a racket. Become a trustee, then make all the money flow to

your friends in the form of professional services. That is the only thing I see

going on here.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:18 PM EDT

Ye gods! What will it take to finally kill this case - crosses, stakes, garlic,

holy water!?!

[I mean the case, not the people involved, BTW]

Or maybe that's the wrong metaphor - perhaps more like a zombie - every time

it's buried it claws itself out of the grave and keeps shambling blindly

onwards. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:23 PM EDT

SCO is going to need money going forward.

They are going to get it one way or another,

by hook or by crook.



Perhaps Cahn should begin to take seriously some of

the money making opportunities that have been presented.



I still think non-exclusive non-transferable source

licenses can generate substantial income for now.

It also needs to be acted upon before all the bits

and know-how are gone.



I also think Cahn could auction off rights to the

unredacted versions of various redacted and/or sealed

court documents. These would be presented once all

possible appeals are lost, and SCO is to be dissolved.

Should SCO win, they can simply refund the winning

bids, and keep those documents. I would guess there

would be interest from a number of parties or people

in such documents. It would likely fetch the most

if the eventual access were auctioned off on each

document separately rather than all together.



(Of course I would want Cahn's neck to personally

be on the line if for any reason the documents cannot

be delivered when the time comes)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT

Realize that Cahn, Fatell, Gross, Yarro, and all their cronies know that SCOG is

practically worthless and the only thing SCOG is good for is as a litigation

lottery fund.



They're not interested in reviving SCOG as a going concern. All the feigned

outrage was and is just a stage play for the gullible. In reality, the SCOG

band of merry men are feeling roundly humiliated and dejected and have no desire

to face the world as a software company. They're too proud. You probably know

how it is when: you make a dumb move and instead of a "mea culpa," you

try to save face; but every additional move you make keeps burying you further

and further. And when the humiliation you were trying so desperately to avoid

finally catches up with you, it hits you with a force many times greater than it

otherwise would have. We shall yet see a [C]aldera formed in the Utah desert.

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:34 PM EDT

They're appealing everything, ... Ah yes, the pasta strategy. Throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ndowens04 on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:36 PM EDT

I wish they would give up, ugh. Can they ever get the point that they have lost

many times because nobody buys into their lies. Is this ever going to stop? I

guess they will keep trying until they win or have no money at all. They should

focus on running their business instead of using the courts for their dance

floor. I am sure there are plenty of other cases that needs to be taken care of

instead of wasting people's time. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cmcnabb on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:38 PM EDT

Albert Einstein has been reported to have once said that insanity was doing the

same thing over and over and expecting a different result. By this definition,

the fellows at SCO should be committed to their nearest mental institution.



---

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the

government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT

Not a troll, but seriously

has no one here been through a pump and dump before?



No takers on my bet, now $100

the bet is



SCO will one night/ weekend clean out their offices and be gone

without a trace



loser pays $100 to charity of winners choice.

Scanned receipt (jpg/PDF) must be provided within 3 weeks of losing the

bet



anyone can take this bet but I posted this when this started

and to this day no one has dared bet against me



i know exactly how this will end up, I lived through it first-hand [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: blaisepascal on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:04 PM EDT

If I understand the process right, this is what happens

next:



1. The case gets appointed a panel of three judges on the

10th circuit CoA.

2. SCO submits briefs detailing their appeal

3. Novell submits a reply brief

4. SCO submits a reply to their reply

5. The Judges hold oral arguments

6. The Judges issue an opinion.



If, as we exect, the judges decide to sustain the district

courts rulings, then SCO can appeal to the 10th Circuit

<i>en banc</i>, but unlike this appeal, the 10th Circuit can

decline to hear it. Similarly if SCO chooses to appeal to

the SCOTUS.



Hmmm, Novell currently has an outstanding petition to SCOTUS

regarding whether or not copyright transfer has to be

explicit. With the ruling as it stands, their petition is

moot, but with the appeal, it's still live. So if SCO won

their appeal and got another trial, they could still lose

the existing appeal, pulling the rug out from under the 2nd

trial... Interesting. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tz on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:09 PM EDT

No Suferatu allowed.



This is worse than the dismembered Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy

Grail.



Or the dead parrot sketch:



Ms Pamela: Look, matey, I know a dead corporation when I see one, and I'm

looking at one right now.



Delaware: No no They're not dead, they're, they're restin'! Remarkable corp, the

SCOrwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful logo!



Ms Pamela: The logo don't enter into it. It's stone dead.



http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm



Keep the red dress ready for a little while longer, sigh.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:34 PM EDT

Well, well, well, what have we here? I just looked up SCOXQ.PK on Yahoo!

Finance, and this is what I found:



Last trade: $0.0425 at 12:40pm EDT

Change: $0.00

Market cap: $917,490



N.B.: I had to disable JavaScript to get the market cap to stay on the page. The

funny part is, with JS enabled, the market cap dropped to $0.00.



So they have roughly 21.6M shares, and all that could get them at the current

going price is less than a megabuck.



Please, somebody, anybody, force this into Chapter 7 before they have a chance

to default everything over to Ralph Yarro. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:43 PM EDT



Oh! --Early. This was expected early next week on deadline with far more suspense. That SCO is so contrarian! They took the thrill out of it. That has saved a few clicks. It's a good time to sort things out. This keeps alive the Writ of Cert before the SCOTUS. As long as that is alive, it can moot anything that happens in the last trial and appeal. Given that this whole jury retrial experience corroborates what Judge Kimball originally did, the parties and Justices will have a hard time ignoring it as they will officially have to. In their Notice of Appeal they include basically everything. This is a precaution. They may not appeal everything in their brief. Why not appeal? They did so well their first time before the Tenth Circuit. The Circuit bent over backwards to help them. Even a murderer asks for probation. If you don't ask, you shall not receive. Maybe McConnell will cartwheel back by special designation. They will pray for their wildest dreams and hope for the Circuit's best. The Tenth have guaranteed jobs. A little awkward scrutiny never scared them. The SCOnks are surrealists. The question now is will Novell cross-appeal everything. They should given the way Judge Ted Stewart slammed the door on any reconsiderations consistent with the Tenth Circuits decision but not appealed by Novell. Remember one can not appeal anything that was not requested or objected to at trial. So the appeal is just repeating the pleadings of the trial after checking them for updates. Novell actually has far more to appeal than SCO. Another question is why Cahn, the Trustee of nothing, is bothering to appeal. Is there bargaining still going on? He must be guaranteed further expenses by an interested fairy because he is not going to pay out of his own pocket and SCO's pocket is running out. He could also fold before the brief is due with little damage. He is not using his judgment as to the merits of SCO's case. He says what he has to in court. After Chapter 7 there is Chapter IC from the Twilight Zone. He is doing someone's bidding. This is why a bankruptible company was used in the first place. The FUDmongers will not die. Is this scorched earth for spite? Guarantees and threats have been made. The message they are sending is do not dare to resist them. It will cost you either way. Dominance takes vigilance. SCO and BSF are merely their tools. A nearly omnipotent power does not see little setbacks in the little legal arenas of one country as anything other than the next step. The Judgment stands stronger after a jury and two bench trials. The first SCO appeal is negated. This greatly enhances the amusement value.

~webster~ Tyrants live their delusions. Beware. Deal with the PIPE Fairy and you will sell your soul.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ailuromancy on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:17 PM EDT

Judge Cahn plans to max out Yarro's loan. He might even convince Yarro to throw more money at professional services the litigation. If any part of the appeal succeeds, BSF have to argue it for free. Dear Santa, For Xmas, I would like Yarro and BSF to sue each other so they only waste their own time and money, and not Novell's. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:31 PM EDT

Now (and I know this could have been - and was - said from

the very beginning) this is getting ridiculous.



I mean, are they out to make it patently (oops!) obvious

that all they are doing is lining lawyer's pockets with

monies owed to creditors? Is this not a bit 'over the top',

even for this storied crew??



The lawyers I understand - you gotta keep the love goin'

until everyone gets a piece of the ever-diminishing pie,

dont ya know...but the US Trustee and his Firm? This is not

giving anyone - save the (many) players enriched by the

process - a very good impression of the US legal system.



PJ has "shined the light" on literally dozens of assorted

and sundry truly troubling high jinks, expensive frivolities

and pure nonsense put forth by this crew over the past 7

years, but these last few months while in Bankruptcy Court

take the cake. I am speechless



[ Reply to This | # ]



An Ethical Vacuum - Authored by: SK8TRBOI on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:35 PM EDT

Authored by: whitleych on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:50 PM EDT

Defensive appeal. They didn't last time and it cost them a thing or two. This

time they should appeal every single adverse decision that was made. In

particular, the decision that they could not pursue punitive damages, etc.

Yeah, it may cost them money to do it for no gain, but at least next time the

thing gets kicked back down they'll both be playing the but the appeals court

found for me game. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:51 PM EDT

People used to look forward to tSCOg declaring bankruptcy, as if that would

surely do them in once and for all.

Bankruptcy has not even touched this outfit! I'm all for the stake but they have

no heart to drive it through...



---

Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location

varies).



All the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Gringo on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:55 PM EDT

Couldn't $455 be better spent on things like paying off the poor pizza delivery guy that got stiffed when SCO declared bankruptcy, along with the bill they left unpaid at the local mom & pop run office supply store? What I am saying is there must be many good and decent citizen that have to do without something because all these high-powered lawyers want to play their lofty games in their ivory towers. Nobody cares about the little guys who are the backbone of society. $455 doesn't seem like much, but at least it would be something. Has Judge Gross ever given a thought for these people? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 12:17 AM EDT



money left in the litigation kitty.



BS&F obviously feel they need to keep working so they can drain it all out.



:)



Time for a dire straights rewrite -

'Look at them Bozos, that the way to do it, Money for nothing and appeals are

free'



DSM :( [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 02:04 AM EDT

Well, why not? It's (almost) free.



Can BS&F bill any kind of money whatsoever for the case as it goes along

(assuming that SCO does not win, ultimately)?



Perhaps this is a gambit to make BS&F pay back some of the

"capped" money after all, if they fail to go all the way - and

BS&F are refusing to pay the money back. What other sense could there be in

pursuing this dead case?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 02:22 AM EDT

SCO now has some more time to actually file their appeal.



Does this filing do anything more than simply give them a little more time?



If I were Cahn I would have BSF preparing an appeal (for free) and have Blank

Rome negotiating with Novell (and possibly IBM)to tie up loose ends.



His most powerful negotiating weapon at this point is the cost of continuing

this case.



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sscherin on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 03:09 AM EDT

As I see it SCO has no choice but to appeal.



If they don't the Novell case ends and IBM steps up to bat..

Without the copyrights IBM will wipe the walls with them..

Heck it would be same result even with them..



SCO's only hope is to keep dragging things out as long as possible and try for

a miracle. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 03:25 AM EDT

What, no arguments for approving their appeal? Or is it just not yet?







.





---

______

IMANAL





. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 04:11 AM EDT

Would this open the door for Novell getting their slander of title claims

reinstated? Getting another trial could make matters worse for SCO.. [ Reply to This | # ]



How? - Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:43 AM EDT But - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 08:46 AM EDT But - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, July 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM EDT How? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 10 2010 @ 03:28 AM EDT

- Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:43 AM EDT

Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:17 AM EDT

Actually I guess I'm not surprised (due to it being NewSCO) but just appalled

that this travesty of justice is allowed to go on and on.



SCO have had fair trials, fair appeals and have been allowed to drag this on for

a ridiculous amount of time. If this had been <some other company> vs

Microsoft or Oracle or Cisco etc then it would have been over years ago.

Proprietary vs Open Source politics is definitely in the background somewhere

gumming up the works (my own opinion by the way).



I have my own (tiny) company and if I failed in a case (in the UK) - it would be

over (perhaps after one appeal). Not dragging on and on ad infinitum.



The legal system has been as fair as possible to NewSCO - they have failed (as

they should have done) and now they must pay the price. This appeal is (IMHO)

just their way (yet again) of delaying the inevitable.



---

Microsoft Software is expensive, bloated, bug-ridden and unnecessary.

Use Open Source Software instead. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:25 AM EDT

The involuntary actions of a dead corpse maybe - they just don't know when to

lay down and die. Pity poor Novell - they're going to end up paying for this as

well.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:28 AM EDT

That's it - they're hoping for armageddon to arrive before these court cases

come to an end. God - I was in my 30s when all of this kicked off. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:57 AM EDT

Appealing clearly gives him some leverage to negotiate with Novell. Novell can contemplate the cost and expense of another trial, from which they have nothing to gain but everything to lose. What a position they are in! SCO has the full weight of the bankruptcy court behind them as they continue to harass Novell with a frivolous suite. This is terribly unjust. I can imagine Cahn like a cold-blooded chess player. Queen to rook four - and he sits back and contemplates his move, savoring the new position. Only, something is missing here, and what is missing is any sense of right or wrong. Ethics, morals - there are none involved for Cahn. He has his chess pieces to move around the board - the paid up contract with Boise Schiller, full immunity from any consequences. Novell has been forced into a duel in which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. It was even worse for them in the trail in front of Judge Steward, where they were forced to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Even so they won - but won what? They only won the prospect of having to face yet another appeal. What has Novell ever done to deserve such abuse from the legal system for which they pay taxes to support? Many years ago there was this television series called "V". It put forth the proposition that there are aliens living among us disguised as human beings. Only we could see that the aliens were actually lizards when there was nobody watching. There was this one scene where an alien, disguised as a judge, retired to his chambers for a little snack. At this point we didn't know for sure that he was an alien. In his office he had a terrarium with a couple of "pet" rats living in it. He picked up one by the tail, contemplated it for a moment, then suddenly opened his mouth much wider than any human could and swallowed it whole. We knew then beyond any doubt that he was an alien. Similarly, we see Judge Cahn opening his moulth wide to swallow Novell. Judge Gross was never compelled to permit SCO to embark on this path in the first place. There was a point way back when Novell explained SCO's game to the judge, calling it a "litigation lottery". It was clearly a difficult decision for Judge Gross, which he resolved by calling for a retired judge to oversee SCO in Chapter 11. Many of us had expectations that that might not have been such a bad idea, as we had hopes that such a person would quickly see through SCO's game and put an end to it. Personally, I had even greater expectations, like he would immediately do a full audit of the books and investigate former management. I think I can understand Judge Gross. Imagine you are the judge, and furthermore you are a bit intellectually challenged, but with a strong sense of fairness and justice. Though Novell has clearly explained to you why SCO should be sent to Chapter 7, you can't really grasp the plain language of the APA. Being a bit slow, and easily manipulated by a bunch of slickers, you consider what would happen if there was actual merit in SCO's position. Why then, it would be a travesty of justice to force them into Chapter 7, wouldn't it? So you do what Judge Gross did - get a legal expert to act as trustee and get to the bottom of this. Now I spoke kindly of Judge Gross, suggesting that this all began out of his sense of fairness. He could just as easily have denied SCO continued existence, and he can deny it now. The scales of justice are so out of balance now against Novell, that it defies logic. Novel will speak once more to Judge Gross, and I am convinced that if they get no sympathy from him they will appeal his decisions to a higher court. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 08:04 AM EDT

Scorpions leopards spots etc., etc.





---

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 | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT

This is also NOT the Chapter 11 Trustee.



This is Ralph moving his sock puppet.



Ralph has that 'loan' he made to NewSCO. NewSCO can't pay back the 'loan'.

NewSCO probably won't make payroll shortly (like this month?).



Under the terms of the 'loan', Ralph has control of the litigation, so this has

to be Ralph's decision.



This opens two questions:



a. When the litigation officially moves to Ralph's "Sock Puppet II",

has he actually scraped off all the adverse litigation (IBM counterclaims, Red

Hat, etc.) ?



b. Ralph was a director of NewSCO, a stockholder. Normally he would

nevertheless be insulated from liability for NewSCO actions (the corporate veil

thingy). Will so blatently taking over the litigation give the Nazgul a pretext

to move directly against Ralph? Which Ralph would have to defend against with

his own money.



Bonus Question: Does the transfer of the litigation to Sock Puppet II give BSF a

pretext to get out from under? Maybe not, but forcing Ralph to litigate the

continuation of the litigation (again on his dime) might give BSF the leverage

to make Ralph go away (eventually).



IANAL, IDEPOOTV

JG [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Rubberman on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 10:34 AM EDT

SCO, the company that wouldn't die - coming soon to a theater near you as

"Night of the Living Deadbeats of SCO"! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 10:48 AM EDT

Your headline states that SCO Appeals

This really can't be right

When just the word brings screams and squeals

They aren't a pleasant sight



There is no way that SCO Appeals

To either me or you

The merest glance at them reveals

An unappealing view



I hope the court for these Appeals

Don't read your headline wrong

But recognise the dodgy deals

That SCO did all along



Is there an end to these Appeals

That's my appeal today

Or do they go on till MacBride steals

What's all of our's today!







---

There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: HockeyPuck on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:02 AM EDT

I would really like to see Boise's great grandchildren finish this case. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:05 AM EDT

How much time does SCO have to present their arguments? In

Germany, you typically have a 2 weeks deadline to file an

appeal and another 2 weeks to file your arguments (the latter

accumulating with the former to a full 4 weeks). How long in

the US?



__

magicmulder [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:15 AM EDT

Although filing an appeal at this point looks like a strange brew of nerve and

stupidity to me, is there any chance that this is also just SOP? In the

dealings that I have had a legal defeat (patents), the attorneys used every

chance at an appeal as standard procedure.



Completely irrelevant to SCO tangent... we were on our last appeal for a product

where the examiner just did not get the novelty. The chemicals were described

were in prior art, but not the way they were combined. Anyone skilled in the

art would have predicted a solid, based on a read through the recipes. We

combined them to make a liquid that we could pump, pour, and meter. I took some

material with me to the examiner's office for that meeting when we were a hair's

breadth from a final rejection. When he saw the liquid, his eyes got wide, and

he approved our patent.



Again, that tangent has no reference to SCO; we actually had a reason to appeal

beyond filing one just because we could.



Regards,

mc [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:17 AM EDT

Ha ha ha!

What a farce! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 12:43 PM EDT

Heather O'Rourke - Poltergeist II: "They're baaaaack!"



Bob Denver - Gilligan's Island: "Uh oh..."



Sigourney Weaver - Alien: "Ohhhh, great!"



Don Johnson - A Boy and His Dog: "Now what'd they hafta go and do that

for?"



Irene Ryan - The Beverly Hillbillies: "I'll git my shotgun!"







[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 01:05 PM EDT

... isn't any further appeals going to be done by the Lawyers pro-bono? Please

someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that now the lawyers who

said it was a good idea to persue this whole ordeal ALSO get shafted? Am I wrong

for thinking this is a Good Thing? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sonicfrog on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT

OK. Here is the challenge. On what legal basis could SCO possibly challenge and

be granted an appeal? And remember, "I Lost" is not a winning argument

to qualify for an appeal... Or am I wrong on that??? [ Reply to This | # ]



Legal Arguments??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT Easy challenge - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:54 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 05:49 PM EDT

this will continue as long as it is in someone's best interest to do so. At the

point that either Novell or IBM takes an action that will make it not in

someone's best interest to continue it will end.



How to make it not in someone's best interest? I'm not sure, one thought would

be to bring criminal charges against some of the parties in this. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:00 PM EDT

SCO has entered a new business - they collect, what people spit in front them,

dry and sell it. As PJ gave her part to it, they promote it using her name.



Their new business is flourishing.



cb [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT

Millions of dollars spent over absolutely nada -- SCO has provided absolutely

*no* evidence, and yet they are able to keep this BS going for seven years even

though they've lost case after case, motion after motion.



And I thought I was jaded before. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: CaptainDangeax on Friday, July 09 2010 @ 06:45 PM EDT

I'm surprised SCO can appeal again. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how it works in

France. First trial, a judgment. Either party, or both can appeal. It means

second trial. Either party can then ask the "cour de cassation", which

does NOT judge the facts, but only verify the law has been well interpreted

during the 2 first trials. If (and only if) not, the "cour de

cassation" can send back the litigation to appeal court, for a third

judgement. But, if the "cour de cassation" says "everything OK

with the law", it's over. No more appeal. At first, French judges tend to

heavy the result, if the looser makes an appeal without strong statement. It's

also bad viewed if proofs are put on the table, proofs that could have been

shown during the first trial. Appeal is some kind of "quite ou

double".

The only way is to ask "cour de revision", only if new proofs are

coming out, strong enough to alter the judgments.

The truth is, French judges are very corporate and don't like to say

"justice got it wrong at first".

My appologies for my english. My question is "how come SCO to appeal,

appeal an appeal, and ask for a judge to over-rule ? What is this system where a

plaintif can gamble again and again ?" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 10 2010 @ 03:15 PM EDT

If this ever ends, it will surely qualify for "Zombie Kill of

the Week". [ Reply to This | # ]



Month, if not year. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 11 2010 @ 10:51 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 11 2010 @ 10:37 AM EDT