Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Groklaw's PJ Says SCO's Demise Greatly Exaggerated

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the still-looking-for-a-fat-lady dept.

The Courts 152

blackbearnh writes "Last week, the net was all abuzz with speculation that SCO was finally gone and done for. With the final judgment in SCO v. Novell in, and SCO millions of dollars in the hole to Novell, it seemed like the fat lady had finally sung. But like most things in the legal system, it isn't nearly that simple. O'Reilly Media sought out Groklaw's Pamela Jones, and got a rundown of what's still alive, and why a final end to the madness may be many years away. 'Summing up, it looks bleak for SCO at the moment, but let's enter the alternate realm of SCO's best-case scenario in its dreams: in that realm, SCO wins on appeal, which one of SCO's lawyers indicated might take a year and a half or five years, and the case is sent back to Utah for trial by jury, which is what SCO wanted (as opposed to trial by judge, which is what it got), then everything listed above (except for the IPO class action) comes alive again, presumably, depending on what the appellate court decides. Then SCO is in position once again to go after Linux end users, as well as IBM, et al.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please (5, Funny)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949989)

Make it stop. Please. I beg of you.

Re:Please (0, Troll)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950087)

hedge your bets. Buy dirt cheap SCO stock.

This is not a troll.

--

If they're under 16, you're only allowed to do them in your head! (re: multiplication tables, too)

Re:Please (5, Funny)

blackbearnh (637683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950187)

Too late, SCO's been off the market for a while. Just before they went under, I bought 10 shares at 0.50/share, then paid the $15 to get a physical certificate so I could frame it and put it in my bathroom, along with the rest of the toilet paper. Which is why you can find my name in various court documents in the SCO Bankruptcy, since I registered as a creditor. I'm getting bumped off, though, because they challenged and I don't have the time and energy to do all the hoops to stay on the list.

Re:Please (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950247)

I agree. They can only keep this going with money. They don't have any, so it's not going to be five more years of crapola.

SCO is dead.

Re:Please (3, Insightful)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950483)

I agree. They can only keep this going with money. They don't have any, so it's not going to be five more years of crapola.

SCO is dead.

SCO have become what was suggested to them, a company that only does legal action. The employees and directors are getting paid well during this time.

Other companies who like the idea of Linux in a quagmire have provided money for 'licences', and will continue to do so.

Re:Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950335)

You know lots of people, myself included, joked about doing that. You actually did it. I salute you sir! Would love to have some SCO stock to laugh at from time to time.

Envious+1

Re:Please (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950587)

since I registered as a creditor. I'm getting bumped off, though, because they challenged and I don't have the time and energy to do all the hoops to stay on the list.

Perhaps you should try to understand the difference between a creditor and a shareholder? A little hint to you: does SCO owe you any money?

Re:Please (5, Informative)

blackbearnh (637683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950663)

According to multiple folks I consulted, I'm still a creditor, I'm just the VERY last in line to get anything. Which, practically speaking, means I'd never get anything anyway. But it was an easy way to get copies of all the bankruptcy proceedings, since they had to send me a copy of everything.

Re:Please (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950885)

According to multiple folks I consulted, I'm still a creditor, I'm just the VERY last in line to get anything.

Were these folks lawyers?

I believe that shareholders are entitled to documents resulting from the bankruptcy proceedings -- you did not have to file as a creditor to get them. As I suggested above, I don't think SCO owed or owes you any money, so I suspect (but IANAL) you are not a creditor. If the company or its assets are eventually sold, you may be entitled to some money, but as you noted above, only after all the creditors have been paid.

Re:Please (3, Interesting)

blackbearnh (637683) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951077)

Oh yes, they were lawyers, albeit providing advice pro bono. One is even a bankruptcy attorney, who gave me explicit advice how I could have stayed in the game had I wanted to make the effort.

Re:Please (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951757)

Oh yes, they were lawyers, albeit providing advice pro bono.

In that case, I will defer to their expertise.

Re:Please (2, Interesting)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951001)

If I read him right, he IS a creditor. He paid $15 for the stock certificate, but they tanked and didn't send him one. So he is entitled to his $15 back.

By Uncle bought two CD Burners for $500/piece (should give you the time frame on this) and the company tanked before shipping the drives. The whole thing wound through the bankruptcy process to get him some money back. They couldn't just ship the drives, because the "assets" of the company had to be sold and the creditors paid in order. So they took his money, but the drive still belonged to them until they shipped it.

Re:Please (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951611)

...frame it and put it in my bathroom, along with the rest of the toilet paper.

I don't think that's how you're supposed to use toilet paper.

Re:Please (1)

honest_aly (877511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952057)

SCOXQ is still available on Sharebuilder.com .13/share right now.

I agree (0, Troll)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950239)

The second "groklaw" story in 3 hours. What gives? is someone being paid to plant them?.

Most /.'ers stopped reading groklaw when they saw the type of deleting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H moderating that goes on over there.

Who cares any more? It was a decent site once, however, when they started just deleting dissenting voices. Nuff said.

I do expect to be modded out of existence (0, Flamebait)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950877)

However, this is /. not groklaw, so I won't be deleted :-)

So, stuff you, Groklaw shills, troll somewhere else. Anonymously of course.

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951095)

With SCO gone, Groklaw might have lost its gravy train, whatever it was worth.
Sure it/she reports on different things, but come on, Groklaw was about SCO.

In other words... (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25949993)

In other words, SCO is a zombie. It can't be killed by normal litigation. Argh, kill it with fire! Do it now!

Re:In other words... (2, Funny)

sveard (1076275) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950035)

A bullet through the head should kill it. I saw it on TV once, I think it was a documentary.

Re:In other words... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950281)

Not if they were las plagas (which aren't technically zombies...).

Re:In other words... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951817)

Just remember that cutting off the head won't kill it. Its arms and legs will be gone but the head will still be around biting and yelling at people, like Jack Thompson.

Re:In other words... (0, Redundant)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951969)

Just remember that cutting off the head won't kill it. Its arms and legs will be gone but the head will still be around biting and yelling at people, like Jack Thompson.

This deserves a +5 Funny if for no other reason than the best Jack Thompson reference ever.

Why limit yourself? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25952161)

> A bullet through the head should kill it. I saw it on TV once, I think it was a documentary.

I see no reason for us to limit ourselves in trying to kill SCO. I mean, while SCO has zombie-like traits, they could also be described as a hydra (each lawsuit getting cut off leads to more lawsuits).

Therefore, the most obvious course of action is to try every means of killing it we can think of in the hopes that at least one method words. And even those methods which do not work are likely to provide entertainment.

Speaking of which, does anyone know where to buy pitchforks in bulk? I'm trying to get a good deal. I could also use some volunteers...

Re:In other words... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950089)

In other words, SCO is a zombie. It can't be killed by normal litigation. Argh, kill it with fire! Do it now!

Well, they're kind of like Beelzebub. You can't kill them but you could probably eradicate them from the earth back from where they came. So you'll need a Jesus kind of figure ... anyone know if Torvolds is free in the next couple days? If he is, tell him to bring a shit-ton of penguin water ...

Re:In other words... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950853)

You can't kill zombies with ice or water. We need flames. Maybe we can send baestie up their ass... Cash cow? Apple? Steve would surely love to see Redmond going up in flames!

All joking aside... the real battle is IBM and Novell Vs Microsoft. In the sense of "First they ignore you, then laugh at you, then hate you, then they fight you and then you win", the road to Linux on the desktop is 80% completed. May IBM and Novell win...

Re:In other words... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950269)

Then the title of the documentary is obviously:
The Incredibly Strange Company Who Stopped Living and Became a Mixed-Up Zombie

Re:In other words... (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950385)

In other words, SCO is a zombie. It can't be killed by normal litigation. Argh, kill it with fire! Do it now!

Nuke it from orbit! It's the only way to be sure...

Re:In other words... (1)

pm_rat_poison (1295589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950487)

No! What about the radiation? Won't that create a zombie apocalypse? Ah! We're doomed anyway!

Re:In other words... (1)

Lost Penguin (636359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950957)

^^^^I came here to say that.
Of course this is Utah, so it might look better after the blast.

Re:In other words... worse than zombies... (2, Insightful)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950617)

they are worse than Cylons. They seem to be "killable", but keep replicating. Hell, they don't even improve models. You need to find the Resurrection Ship and put a nuke in its colon.... preferably making it a HUGE swollen colon, that no deep space Ben-Gay nor Preparation H can favorabley re-sequence...

SCO should be SCO^3, which could stand for: "Self-Contained Organism, Secreting Copies Over Secret Channel Outputs"

Or, SCO could be a tag/jingle for: "Semi-Conjugative Ogres: Screwing Companies Over"

Re:In other words... worse than zombies... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950921)

[...]You need to find the Resurrection Ship and put a nuke in its colon.... preferably making it a HUGE swollen colon, that no deep space Ben-Gay nor Preparation H can favorabley re-sequence[...]

You want to take on Microsoft?

The only way to do that is to make sure no major retailer wants to sell Windows and preloaded Windows computers

Good luck with that!

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951165)

Duke, Nukem, Forever

(Please).

Re:In other words... (0, Offtopic)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951487)

We need to kill its parent process! Where did that $100M come from? Pitchfork and torch time!!!

PJ trying to save Groklaw (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25949995)

PJ, the arch-censor of Groklaw, desperately needs you to believe this, lest IBM quit funding Groklaw and she has to go out and find a REAL job.

Bologna. (3, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950537)

PJ, the arch-censor of Groklaw, desperately needs you to believe this

To believe that it's possible, or to believe that it's probable?

It seems like if she was looking for job security she would be arguing that it's probable. Instead she's arguing that it's possible. And we all know what possible means. I have a lottery ticket in my pocket. It's possible I've won. Sure as hell wouldn't call it probable though.

And FWIW, Groklaw does far more than merely keep an eye on SCO. Just the other day there was a good article about the Bilski ruling over on Groklaw. The Groklaw front page also has items about the cyberbullying case, and Harvard having a youtube channel.

If there's one thing PJ has probably learned from following the SCO story from the beginning is that you don't put all your eggs in a single basket.

Re:PJ trying to save Groklaw (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950619)

Case's over, Darl. IBM dropped the big one.

Re:PJ trying to save Groklaw (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951865)

Got an axe to grind, or just felt like tossing some FUD about?

OT but I don't care (5, Insightful)

halcyon1234 (834388) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950015)

WTF is up with the userpage! It was bad I get slapped with the dumbass firehose-with-Idle's-stylesheet, but now I don't even have a tab for my comments.

If I want Firehose, I'll go to to Firehose. (I don't, and wont)

If I want Idle, I'll go to Idle. (I don't, and wont)

If I want my userpage to be a clean, simple and informative interface, I'll click on my username in the upper right. Oh wait, I can't!

If you want to dick around with the userpage, fine. Just give me a checkbox that says "opt out of this crapfest" like you did with the index and comments.

Re:OT but I don't care (4, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950665)

holy crap I was about to post the exact same thing. The style sheet is the least of it. I still haven't even figured out how to tell if anyone's posted a reply to any of my comments. Now you have to click every comment... and reading my entire comment on my user page is just useless. I already know what I said, I'm looking for the replies. This is supposed to be a "discussion" not "oooh, shiny, look at all the cool crap I wrote. I must be awesome. So awesome that every time I go to my user page I want to read what I wrote over and over."

When idle got jacked it didn't bother me because I almost never go there... but user pages? really?

Re:OT but I don't care (0, Offtopic)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950677)

Comments link works for me...

Re:OT but I don't care (3, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950683)

To add to this the comments page is no longer rendering correctly on iPhone Safari firmwire 2.2. The overlays on the right block the comment scores.

Re:OT but I don't care (3, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950913)

The comment scores are all goofy now anyway. They all appear to be one less than the actual score when you're reading the comments in the discussion thread.

Re:OT but I don't care (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951387)

My best guess is that it's not factoring in your karma bonus.

Re:OT but I don't care (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951317)

It's broken on Konqueror and OS X/Safari and Firefox. We didn't want you to feel left out.

Re:OT but I don't care... HEY! I have an idea: (1, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950705)

Let's create a Slug-In (Slash-plug-in) that links our content to Facebook, then create a group called:

"One Million Slashers Against the "NEW" Slashdot Layout", LOL!

Hell, we might even be able to "share"/donate karma, and overrule the SlashLords who engage in or idly stand by while ogres abuse the moderation and scoring system out of retribution and user-burying (in a "don't feed the trolls" mentality)...

But, first, the Slug-In Plug-In. But, i wonder if Facebook could be slashdotted, or if Slashdot could be "faced", hehehe...

Re:OT but I don't care... HEY! I have an idea: (2, Insightful)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951821)

Jeesus, some people (like whomever modded me off-topic) just hate to have (or let others in on) fun. Don't you realize that LAUGHING or helping someone laugh is a lot more healthier than disparaging a single person? Not as if i'm a politician with so much power over others that i MUST be under scrutiny for the good of the public.

I thought i was being funny. Maybe YOU don't know the issues of facebook for f/b users who hated "their" view of their profiles changing. There is a parallel here.

Besides, last week i saw to my dismay, LOTS of what qualified as "redundant" comments -- as many as 20 in a sub-200-comment topic -- and virtually NONE was marked redundant. This tells me i have one or more foes who sign up looking to slam-dunk/grind or agitate people.

Slashdot's moderation systems asks people to concentrate on being positive. Apparently, slashdot doesn't seem to track and reign in people who "stalk" or abuse karma/moderation points.

If i am so worthy of being bitch-slapped/fucked with and having my scores capriciously capped, slashed and turned from a positive rating/description to redundant/off-topic/troll, then WHY is my Karma never changing. Is that, too, another issue with Slashdot's karma and scoring systems? That could very well BE why these pages are being reshuffled. Maybe slashdot's core controllers are finally sick and tired of cowardly stalkers who never get listed as foe/hater, and gleefully do damage to people.

I virtually NEVER attack specific people here. I don't mod people, mainly because MY sense of humor often is at variance with others', and so, who am i to say what IS humor to a broad spectrum of readers here. It makes me feel good, and my day a few notches better when someone takes their time to comment back and on the occasion when they mod me up, or at least find some way to avoid undercutting me. Undercutting is, to me, a vindictive, petty way to suppress someone, literally censor them, by forcing others to have to read below -1 just to sleuth out player-hate victims.

This isn't a grouse: it's what i see/feel going on. I at first hated the new layouts, and to some extent thought the previous was better, but now, if the long range goal is to bury player haters, i whole-heartedly hope VA/slash adopt a player-hater tracker!

Re:OT but I don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951289)

Somebody in the chain is incompetent, lazy, and/or blind. Whether it is the CEO at the top or the code monkey at the bottom is irrelevant; the failboat has left the dock and we are all passengers on it.

For some reason, this situation reminds me of the quote from The Matrix Reloaded: "A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure." Only I'm not quite sure what the triumph is.

Re:OT but I don't care (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951613)

Here, here! WTF happened to "simple usable table of your comments" and "logical tabbed interface along the top?"

BRING BACK SNACKS^W THE OLD USERPAGE!

Help them out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950045)

Everybody pay your $699 license fee so they can afford to appeal.

All this sh#t makes my head spin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950049)

Since Micro$oft == SCO and Micro$oft == Novell, isn't this farce a tad nonsensical?

Re:All this sh#t makes my head spin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950263)

I'm not sure I know who this Micro$oft company is. Do they print tiny paper money?

Re:All this sh#t makes my head spin. (0, Troll)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950365)

Yes, and they do it very frequently.

Re:All this sh#t makes my head spin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950279)

hey twitter, good to see you

The One (4, Funny)

Tyrannicsupremacy (1354431) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950109)

I sure hope this SCO doesnt start killing all the other fantasy dimension SCO's and absorbing their power...

Re:The One (2, Insightful)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951545)

When I consider SCO, the single digit that comes to mind is not the number *one*...

Re:The One (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951699)

binary 4?

SCO is like a comic book supervillian (0, Redundant)

Tragedy4u (690579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950151)

Even when it appears to die in the last issue, there's a miraculous and vengeful comback story.

Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950213)

It seemed like the fat lady had finally sung. But like most things in the legal system, it isn't nearly that simple. O'Reilly Media sought out Groklaw's Pamela Jones...

Wait, did you just call PJ a fatso? How does that help?

What sort of Jury? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950375)

I always thought that in America, a jury was a jury of peers, by which I presume they mean peer to the defendant, not to each other. (Now, mind you, that is an opinion formed from many years of watching TV, not on actual legal definitions or documentation of what constitutes a jury.) So, if SCO is getting a jury trial, who or what constitutes the jury? Companies? Submarine patent holders? Victims of hostile takeovers? Who are SCO's peers?

Or do I have the whole concept wrong?

Re:What sort of Jury? (2, Funny)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950465)

The jury is composed of servers running various flavors of Unix.

Re:What sort of Jury? (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951213)

You missed a perfectly good opportunity for a Beowulf Cluster joke. It looks like you're new here, so we'll let it pass, this time.

Re:What sort of Jury? (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950501)

The "jury of your peers" thing is more accurate when you are talking about a criminal case. In reality, you are entitled to a jury selected from a panel that represents a cross-section of the community in which the case is venued. If you are on trial for a crime, venue will be where the crime was committed and the jury will consist of people who live there, which likely are your peers on one level or another. But the actual term "jury of your peers" is just a handy moniker for journalists and TV writers, not a legal term that describes the right to trial of cases by jury.

Re:What sort of Jury? (2, Interesting)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950685)

I always thought that in America, a jury was a jury of peers, by which I presume they mean peer to the defendant

I suspect this language is really a hangover from English law, where a peer of the realm (ie. someone with a seat in the House of Lords) was entitled to be tried by other peers of the realm, whilst commoners (ie, the rest of the population) were only entitled to be tried by other commoners. I have no idea if this right still exists for peers of the realm.

Re:What sort of Jury? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951441)

Correct. I'm pretty sure that an British lord must still be tried by a jury of lords. However, a "jury of your peers" in the US is mostly a tautology--in the US there is no titled nobility, and thus *everybody* is your peer

Re:What sort of Jury? (2, Informative)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951605)

Wikipedia says otherwise:

the right to be tried by fellow peers in the Lord High Steward's Court and in the House of Lords, abolished 1948;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage [wikipedia.org]

Use at your own risk

Re:What sort of Jury? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951775)

Learn something new every day.

Re:What sort of Jury? (0, Redundant)

fumblebruschi (831320) | more than 5 years ago | (#25952133)

You are correct that it is a holdover from British law, but it does not refer only to the Lords. It comes from the 39th Article of the Magna Carta, which reads:

Nullus liber homo capiatur, vel imprisonetur, aut disseisiatur, aut utlagetur, aut exuletur, aut aliquo modo destruatur, nec super cum ibimus, nec super cum mittemus, nisi per legale judicium parium suorum vel per legem terre.

legale judicium parium ("the lawful judgment of his peers") means exactly what the parent thinks it means: that the defendant shall be judged by a jury of people of his own condition. A commoner would have a jury of commoners, a lord would have a jury of lords. Since the United States Constitution does not recognize differences among the condition of citizens in the sense that Great Britain does, by definition any American citizen is the peer of any other. So every defendant in every American jury trial gets a "jury of his peers".

What kind of question is that? (1, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950901)

It will be a jury of people, of course. A "jury of your peers" means that it will be a jury of regular citizens taken from the area you live in. It does not mean some special test is performed to make sure they are in every way equal to you.

The jury of your peers thing was designed to prevent two things:

1) The government stacking the jury with it's own people. For example the government making a law saying "All jurors must be active law enforcement officers and must pass special selection of the prosecution." The jury must be selected from the population at large, they don't get to limit it to only people who are likely to be favorable to them.

2) The government picking jurors from a place that is biased against the defendant. For example suppose a black person is accused of a crime. Then suppose the government goes and flys in people from a location known to be highly racist to sit on the jury. Well, you can't do that. The jurors come from the venue where the rial is held.

That's what jury of your peers is all about. It means that the jury will be chosen from the body of citizens in the area where the trial happens. They don't get to stack the deck. There are then further interviews and challenges from both the prosecution lawyer and your lawyer. However neither side gets to limit the pool a prior.

It doesn't mean that you get to have a jury of people who are your exact age, race, IQ, political beliefs, and so on.

Re:What sort of Jury? (2, Funny)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951287)

I always thought that in America, a jury was a jury of peers

Flapping was too much of a problem, so now only the jury foreman gets an AS number.

Tiny correction (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950399)

"Last week, the net was all abuzz with speculation that SCO was finally gone and done for."

s/speculation/hope/

SCO's Future (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950411)

If they continue their litigious behavior, perhaps $CO can file bankruptcy again. Either that or go head to head with someone a little more like themselves, the Church of $cientology, which would be terrific entertainment.

Whoa! (1)

fuego451 (958976) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951459)

Scientologists vs Mormons ~ Another epic battle between aliens and predators.

If wishes were horses than beggars would ride... (1)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950467)

Groklaw is a wonderful resource. That said, PJ is trolling here. She she herself has rather authoritatively explained, there is no legal basis for SCO to attack the clear meaning of the original Agreement (contract) with hearsay evidence - especially from second and third hand sources. This is an insurmountable legal obstacle, unless the 10th Court of Appeals wants to make new case law. (From looking at their record, it looks like they don't).

But hell, if we're thinking implausible nightmare scenarios, Barack Obama could have a heart attack right now, Biden and Hillary could split, the Republicans could win on that basis, McCain could have a heart attack in a couple of months, and we could be all saying "President Palin" a year from now.

Hey, could happen. Right?

PJ is not a real person. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950559)

So...

At first it was because she did not want to have the lines blurred between the info she presents and the person who presents it.

what is her excuse now.

PJ is not now and has never been a real person. The ones who say they met her are full of shit and liars.

How about one face to face interview about anything PJ. Just to prove you are a PERSON not a group of people with an agenda.

Re:PJ is not a real person. (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950729)

Sorry dude.

She's a real person. There's a little too much mythos and drama sometimes about that fact, but yeah, she's real.

On the other hand, so are you, despite your AC status.

Re:PJ is not a real person. (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950783)

Chill out. Just wipe the "SCO" section off your resume and you'll be fine. Besides, your avatar Maureen O'Gara already outed her ("MY GOD, SHE'S A J.W.!!!").

Re:PJ is not a real person. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951103)

Besides, your avatar Maureen O'Gara already outed her ("MY GOD, SHE'S A J.W.!!!").

Cut O'Gara some slack. She probrably got tired of PJ waking her up early every Saturday morning.

PJ Trolling, why (0)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950581)

hush your mouth my puppy, if this really were groklaw, you'd have just been deleted.

Re:If wishes were horses than beggars would ride.. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950883)

But hell, if we're thinking implausible nightmare scenarios, Barack Obama could have a heart attack right now, Biden and Hillary could split, the Republicans could win on that basis, McCain could have a heart attack in a couple of months, and we could be all saying "President Palin" a year from now.

Hey, could happen. Right?

No. Supposing Obama died of cardiac arrest and Biden died or refused to take office, the current sitting Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would become president until a new president qualifies. (The specifics of how a new president qualifies are unspecified -- this would be left up to Congress)

Re:If wishes were horses than beggars would ride.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951189)

So GP just got the mechanism wrong. To get a president Palin, the simplest way is probably for Biden to die, retire, refuse to take office, etc. Obama nominates Palin (real likely) and Palin is confirmed by the Senate (not a gimme). Then Obama would need to die, step down, be impeached, etc. At which point Palin becomes president. Very low probability, but still possible.

Re:If wishes were horses than beggars would ride.. (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951715)

>No. Supposing Obama died of cardiac arrest and Biden died or refused to take office, the current sitting Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, would
>become president until a new president qualifies. (The specifics of how a new president qualifies are unspecified -- this would be left up to
>Congress)

I don't know where you get that idea. If, say, the Speaker of the House becomes president, it's clearly "for keeps", until they leave office or the term expires. Congress doesn't get a take-back unless they make a case for impeachment. The 20th Amendment leaves it unspecified as to what happens if a President-Elect is merely incapacitated (or found to be ineligible, not going there) before inauguration day. If you read the testimony of Sen. Cornyn, you get the idea that succession amounts to a person taking the role of an "Acting President" where they don't actually become president, except by virtue of their *role*, and could be removed from office by removal from that role. Is Cornyn right? He makes a pretty good point about all the Cabinet members living in DC, but he sort of misses the point that if a nuclear strike took out all of DC, the question of "who is President?" would be pretty damned far down the list of important concerns for anyone.

There's also a potential reading of the 25th Amendment and Article II that could create this scenario: President and Vice President both killed. Before the Speaker of the House can be sworn in, House votes Commander Taco in as Speaker. Is the new President the person who was Speaker at the moment the President was killed? Or at the moment of the swearing in? Or does this move make Commander Taco ineligible and we move down the list?

If the list passes the Speaker and Senate pro-tem, and a Cabinet member takes office, can the House appoint a new Speaker who can replace that Cabinet member, and if that happens, is that person still President (I say yes,

And what happens if the President is merely wounded, incapacitated, but the Vice President is killed?

At this point it's a foregone conclusion although still speculative, that Obama is the President-Elect -- remember that the election is still two weeks away. Maybe they will all vote for Ron Paul or Xenu.

Sorry, you're wrong (1)

StevenMaurer (115071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951737)

While Barack Obama is currently called "President Elect", technically he really isn't yet. All that has happened so far is that he has won the majority of Presidential Electors pledged to him. According to US Code at 3, USC 7, the date that the Electoral College meets to actually vote for the next President of the United States is the first Monday following the second Wednesday in December. In 2008, this will be on December 15.

What happens if a "President-Elect" dies before being elected by the college? Answer: the electors pledged to that candidate get to vote for whomever they want. If half the Democratic electors voted for Hillary and the other half voted for Biden, then John McCain could theoretically become President in 2008.

(After the electoral college election, the standard rules of succession hold. So if Obama died on Christmas, Biden would be our next President.)

Again, none of this is likely. But it could happen. Let's be all very nice to Renegade's nervous looking Secret Service detail.

PJ has ulterior motives... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951069)

PJ's Groklaw website is community-funded by donations. It's in her best interest to keep one of the hottest threads in the history of her website going on and on for as long as possible since that means more folks will visit the site, and hopefully contribute a donation.

Now, just imagine if she ran the site as an ad-sponsered website instead, she could be rolling in the cash.

Predictable action movie ending (1)

fataugie (89032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950489)

Honest to God, just when you think it's over...out comes the villian who you thought was
finished comes back wheeling a knife/machette/bazooka/half frozen Codfish.

Re:Predictable action movie ending (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950687)

Murphy: You know, on TV you always got that guy that jumps over the sofa.
Connor: And then you gotta shoot at him for ten fucking minutes, too.

-Boondock Saints

Holocaust movies are fiction (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950503)

Just like the actual event.

(CAPTCHA: fabled) HA HA.

Nuke them from orbit, (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950643)

just to be sure

Where will SCO get the money? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950699)

SCO still has to get out of bankruptcy. Unless they find an outside investor, that's hopeless. In this market, they're unlikely to find an outside investor. They'll have trouble getting financing in any form. I expect Chapter 7 liquidation by spring.

Anybody who buys SCO for the litigation rights gets stuck with the potential liability in the IBM lawsuit. That's a big liability, IBM has good lawyers, and IBM was winning when the bankruptcy put that suit on hold. IBM made $11 billion in profits last year on revenue of $105 billion, so they can continue to afford Cravath lawyers.

Re:Where will SCO get the money? (1)

pcfixup4ua (1263816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950959)

One Word ..... Microsoft!

Okay, so SCO can appeal (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950723)

I mean, appealing is just about always an option. But is there really any realistic chance of it succeeding and their dream coming true? Are we talking "SCO's hypothetical chances of winning SCO v IBM when all we knew was Darl's BS statements to the press" chances, or "SCO's chances of winning SCO v IBM after the judge demanded all their evidence and all they showed was errno.h" chances? As I understand it, you can't win an appeal on a factual basis, the appeal is instead all about any procedural errors made during the main trial that could be the basis for overturning the result. And as far as I can tell, the judge did everything possible to follow procedure and give SCO as much rope as they needed to hang themselves. So, on what basis is SCO going to argue their appeal? Are there any possible levers there? Or is this just another delay tactic they know ultimately won't work?

Re:Okay, so SCO can appeal (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951177)

As I understand it, you can't win an appeal on a factual basis, the appeal is instead all about any procedural errors made during the main trial that could be the basis for overturning the result.

Kinda/sorta. Appeals courts don't decide the facts of the case. Appeals are about matters of procedure or law.

And as far as I can tell, the judge did everything possible to follow procedure and give SCO as much rope as they needed to hang themselves. So, on what basis is SCO going to argue their appeal? Are there any possible levers there?

Well, it's possible that SCO could argue that the judge either misinterpreted or otherwise failed to apply the law correctly in any number of areas. As far as I can see, most of these areas would probably relate to evidence that was excluded by the judge before the trial even began -- during the discovery phase.

That's if -- and only if -- SCO has the money to keep the paying the lawyers. And I believe the bankruptcy court still has the right to prevent SCO from filing any appeals until the bankruptcy is fully settled.

Re:Okay, so SCO can appeal (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951355)

As far as I can see, most of these areas would probably relate to evidence that was excluded by the judge before the trial even began -- during the discovery phase.

Except that was mostly in IBM, not Novell.

Re:Okay, so SCO can appeal (1)

deck (201035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951533)

The procedural error in The SCO Group's view is that they were not allowed a jury trial. They have thrown a bunch of other stuff into the application for appeal but that is their main point. If the appeals court overturns Judge Kimballs final rulings and any preliminary rulings it would go back to his court for a jury trial. I don't know if Darl McBride and company are slick enough con-men to pull off fooling a jury but they might. Even in a civil trial, I believe that hersay evidence is inadmissable.

Pipedream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25950743)

Anyone else read that statement and immediately think that SCO is chasing a pipedream? If they think they can survive financially and somehow go after IBM again in five years to recoup their loses I want whatever they're smoking.

Boggled (3, Insightful)

polyomninym (648843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950839)

After years of hearing about their BS tactics, trying to sue all sorts of businesses, I don't even know what they do anymore. I'm partly joking, but you rarely hear anything about them beyond court cases. Usually, you hear about a company doing something dumb/stupid for a while, then you hear about some product they are releasing or something new they are doing; you know, like companies that provide a service or a product. Not with SCO. I just don't understand how any company like that could ever expect new customers or continued contracts with any dignity. I know they shot themselves in the foot so many times, but most companies I've seen do this in the past are at least worked on something substantial while lawsuits continue. end rant

I love that line from "Thank you for smoking..." (1)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#25950975)

"I'm doing a school project, daddy. It's about what makes America great. What does?"

"Why, that's simple -- it's our endless system of appeals."

[paraphrased, of course]

But the saga of Dune... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951109)

But the saga of Dune... was far from over

Oh no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951403)

Wouldn't you please die already? This isn't funny anymore. Hell, it isn't even boring. It's plain scary.

New tag needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25951447)

LawyersAlwaysWin

New SCO theme song? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25951495)

"Still Alive" by Jonathan Coulton?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?