|
|
| SCO Files Motion to Amend Complaint And Add Affirmative Defenses |
 |
|
Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:24 PM EST
|
SCO has filed, on February 4, a Motion, and a Memorandum in support of their motion, asking the judge for permission to amend their complaint and add claims and affirmative defenses. This appears to be directed at IBM's Motion to Strike several of SCO's affirmative defenses. One sentence in the Motion reads: "Moreover the revisions address the concerns raised in IBM's Motion to Strike portions of SCO's Affirmative Defenses, thereby rendering moot IBM's Motion to Strike." They hope. Rand has the motion for us already as text.
The documents don't reveal what exactly they wish to add, and we won't know until we can get the attached exhibits, that reveal that information, from the court. Exhibits A and B were filed in paper form. At least that is my first impression on a quick read-through. They have also filed some documents to be used as Exhibits tomorrow. Once again, I don't see David Boies' name on the motion. Here are the documents:
SCO's Motion for Leave To File Amended Pleadings
Notice of Filing Plaintiff's Exhibits for Use at Hearing on February 6, 2004
Plaintiff SCO's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings
****************************************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
David K. Markarian
BOISE,SCHILLER & FLEXNER L.L.P.
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys
for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
|
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintif,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, a New York corporation,
Defendant.
|
PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED
PLEADINGS
Case No. 03-CV-0294
Hon: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
|
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defandant, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"),
through
its undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rules 15(1a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and applicable Local Rules, files this motion for
leave to file its Second Amended Complaint and Amended Affirmative
Defenses to IBM's Counterclaim, and in support states:
1. SCO's proposed Second Amended Complaint is attached
hereto as
Exhibit "A". This proposed amended complaint serves to streamline the
pleadings and adds claims that have arisen since the filing of the case.
2. SCO's proposed Amended and Additional Affirmative
Defenses to IBM's
Counterclaim are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". These proposed
amendments reflect the countinuing investigation into the allegations
and issues raised by IBM in its eleven count counterclaim, including
four separate claims of patent infringement, and serve to better frame
the issues for this Court's determination. Moreover, the revisions address the concerns
raised in IBM's Motion to Strike portions of SCO's Affirmative Defenses,
thereeby rendering moot IBM's Motion to Strike.
3. No prejudice will result to IBM by the granting of
this Motion.
The current discovery cut off date is not until August 4, 2004 for fact
discovery and October 22, 2004 for expert discovery. Moreover, the
Court set February 4, 2004, as the deadline for amending pleadings.
4. In addition, great prejudice will be suffered by SCO
if it
precluded [sic] from amending its pleadings and affirmative defenses.
Moreover, the recent stay of IBM's discovery obligations have [sic] limited
SCO's ability to assess the case and fashion and plead defenses to
IBM's Counterclaim. It is anticipated that IBM may reveal through
discovery additional material relevant to the issues raised by its
Counterclaim and that SCO may in fact request a future opportunity to
futher align its claims once IBM's [sic] resumes the process of
complying with its discovery obligations.
SCO has filed concurrently herewith this Memorandum of Law In Support
of its Motion for Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint and
Amended Affirmative Defenses to IBM's Amended Counterclaim.
Dated this __4__ th day of February,
2004
|
Respectfully submitted,
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOISE, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J Heise
David K. Markarian
by________(sig: Brent O. Hatch)__________
Counsel for
Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant
|
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:32 PM EST |
You've /.ed pacer!
(First Post!!!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST |
Pamela,
One thing I find strange is that this stuff is posted on the Internet so quick
now (and you find it!).
Is this part of the law to allow all to see (as opposed to the old days of
public announcements in newspapers, lamp-posts stickers etc.) - and normal in
the USA?
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turing_Machine on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:39 PM EST |
Quickie OCR pending. I'll just do the quickie, and let those who know how it is
supposed to be formatted do the rest.
---
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after is just a
mediocre brain, something like the President of the AT&T --Alan Turing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST |
| What does this mean ? What exactly has SCO done ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST |
Is putting pacer links a good idea?
Would it be better to put the pdf files on Groklaw?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PDF locations - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:44 PM EST |
PJ;
IANAL - please explain what this might mean. Is it likely the judge will allow
such an amendment?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST |
| "the recent stay of IBM's discovery obligations have limited SCO's ability to
assess the case",
Sweet Jebus, I can't believe they're still bringing
this up.
EARTH TO DARL: THE JUDGE AIN'T BUYING IT. Let it go
already. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unbelievable! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:09 PM EST
- Unbelievable! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST
- Unbelievable! - Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:30 PM EST
- Appeal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:46 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:46 PM EST |
Congrats PJ, I'm glad to hear the news. :)
www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1514794,00.asp
Linux needs the community, and people like you are the reason why the community
is so valuable. You may not code, you may not write manuals, but what you do
is as important.
And thank you Groklaw community. You are worth it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ruidh on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
The file says it's attachment A but none of the attachments have been scanned.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
SCO keeps harping on their claimed need for massive discovery on AIX source code
so they can look for infringements. Isn't this a massive waste of everybody's
time when an pure "law" ruling on the contract language might render
the entire issue moot? If IBM is permitted to do whatever they want with their
own code, what difference does it make how much, or which, code they did it
with?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST |
| "Exhibits/Attachments to this document have not been scanned. Please see
the case file."
Will they eventually be scanned? Or does somebody want to
run over to the courthouse and view the case file and give us a summary of what
the meat of this filing is? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Mutter - Authored by: AdamBaker on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:07 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
I must not have the right perspective on something. Why does SCO have
affirmative <b>defenses</b>? Are they not the ones bringing suit? I
understand IBM has made motions, but the ramifications of these isn't always
clear.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:55 PM EST |
Hmmm, in
pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000100.pdf
It says....
"It is anticipated that IBM may reveal through discovery additional
evidence relevant to the issues raised by it's Counterclaim and that SCO may in
fact request a future opportunity to further align it's claims once IBM's
resumes the process of complying with it's discovery obligations."
Does that sound like fishing... "we reserve the right to change our mind on
what we think IBM did wrong once IBM shows us what it did and we can find
something"?????
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of any other idiot...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TerryL on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST |
Is it normal for people to "remind" the judge what the law says, as
in...
pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000102.pdf
????????
---
All comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
of any other idiot...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST |
This is interesting;
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/2015207 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Following money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST
- Following money - Authored by: beast on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
- Following money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 08:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:03 PM EST |
This shouldn't come as any surprise. SCO said they would add new complaints.
They indicated they would be copyright, and maybe these are. What isn't a
surprise is that they waited until the deadline for amended complaints before
filing.
I wonder if this will weight with Judge Wells in the test for
'dilatory motive.
What also seems to be the norm for SCO is the very
shoddy "Memorandum of Law" that accompanies the plea. IANAL but even
I could have written it. It is very little but a minor
enlargement of the plea itself.
I would have expected the memorandum to
address each of the points in the 10th circuit test. For each point I would
expect a brief discussion of how the point does not apply in this case, with
each discussion supported by case law.
I would feel cheated by a lawer
who charged big bucks and delivered work like this. ---
Thomas
Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:05 PM EST |
And once again, SCO files documents of EARTH SHAKING importance at the last
possible minute ...
There is a bit of Russian folklore that claims the rich always travelled with a
few peasants in their sleighs. When the wolf packs got uncomfortably close,
they would throw a peasant off the back of the sled. While the wolves stopped
to devour the peasant, the rest of the group either escaped ot at least bought a
bit of time.
SCO is running out of peasants, and one can hope Her Honor the Wolf/Judge has
had her fill of dodging the peasants SCO keeps hurling at her. It's time for
this sleigh to come to the end of its journey. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ScoundrelLV on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:13 PM EST |
How is this not a bad or dilatory faith movement?
Can they not show quotes from Darl where he goes
to say something along the lines of
"We don't want to show the code because it would be fixed"
As showing bad faith.
Also listed in 102?
"repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed".
IANAL (obviously), so can someone explain why the judge would let the motion to
allow amended pleadings?
Or do they want this thrown out and give themselves wiggle room so that the case
cannot be summarily dissmised with predjudice? Or at least grounds to re-hear
this case on appeal?
My $0.01 guess is this. SCO's plan is
1) Make the motion for leave give them room to add an amendment.
a) If they get the motion granted fine. Ask for more
time to amend. They won't really amend because they
eventually have to show cause. They will make noise
about amending at every last minute and ask for more time but it just
won't happen.
b) They don't get the motion granted also fine. They will have grounds for
appeal if/when the case is summarily dismissed with predjudice.
2) Debate the compliance of their discovery. Well we're not compliant? Well we
need more time then. You're going to sanction us for not complying? Well
that's grounds for appeal. The judge is clearly biased.
3) Constantly pound the desk by saying we can't have a case until IBM provides
discovery.
What do you think?
Also how does public statements made by Darl & Co ever get brought into
court? The statements are definitely inflammatory. Can they in some way be
used to show "bad faith" as mentioned above?
Thanks for letting me vent
Scoundrel
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST |
"It is anticipated that IBM may reveal through
discovery additional
evidence relevant to the issues
raised by its Counterclaim and that SCO may
in fact
request a future opportunity to further align its claims
once IBM's
resumes the process of complying with its
discovery obligations."
If they keep harping on this same old point, it looks like
doomsday for SCO. Heise knows the gig is up. He
is going to bat for his
client to render the appearance of
giving value for the 12 million donuts
handed to them on a
silver platter by McBride. Let's face it: SCO has been
had by BS&F, and Heise is laughing all the way to the
bank.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:28 PM EST |
Tell me I'm wrong, and that there is just an OCR/typo there!?!
They can't even spell the name of their (Boies') law firm????
--johnE (still not registered)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:34 PM EST |
It looks like there are two stories that need telling when all this is over.
The first is the simple story of a company that went insane; the second story is
the failure of the "technical" media to understand what is going on.
The SCO v. IBM story is not one you can tell just by re-printing the occasional
press release but that is exactly what most news sites have done. Only now,
almost 12 months after the start of the affair have some of the reporters
actually started to question the SCO position.
Maybe it's not "All The Presidents Men" material, but the apparent
lack of critical reporting is striking and worrying. How many other important
stories are treated as superficially?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST |
The good news is that SCO definitely broke through the
200 day moving average today headed down today which
translates into a sell signal for technical investors. If
tomorrow SCO goes futher negative one could began to
see a major sell off next week.
With this in mind one should expect to see a new set of
SCO dirty tricks presented tomorrow which hopeful will not
fool the market into reversing SCO's current momentum
down. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST |
| And where do I go? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST |
| Is it the magistrate judge (Wells), or the trial judge (Kimball)? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST |
In filing two days prior to the hearing, can this be construed as a delaying
tactic by SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 05:55 PM EST |
SCO continues to make fun of the legal system. I wonder if SCO's case will
become the law schools' new textbook example of bad faith.
Do any of Groklaw's reader-lawyers think this will being any reforms to the U.S.
legal system? Australia and Germany come to mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brendthess on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:20 PM EST |
A couple of different things struck me about this. Mind you, IANAL, and haven't
had much in the way of dealings with legal paperwork, but...
-
Why is the date hand written on the lines "Dated this ____ day..." and
"...server by mail ... on the ____ day...". Did they not know when they would
be serving this until the last minute? How long was this sitting, printed out,
that they did not know when they would be delivering it (other than sometime in
February).
- Was this really filed at 5:06 PM as indicated on the
'102.pdf document? If they printed this out long enough ago that they had to
leave a space to write in the dates, then why did they have to wait until the
courthouse was actually closed to file their paperwork?
From looking
at the Court's web site,
you see that the hours of the clerk are 8:30am to 5:00pm. How does filing at
5:06pm (or at least getting it recorded at 5:06pm -- these may not be the same,
although they should be within a few minutes of each other) match with the 'Us?
Trying to delay?' smile of innocence on SCO's face?
---
I am not even
vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are you listening to me? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST |
. . . so why should they get any more time now?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST |
| I got a distinct deja-vuey feel, like IBM could use the same arguments and
citations themselves. SCO version:
The Foman Court held that
courts should permit a party to amend its pleadings
[i]n the
absense of any apparent or declared reason - such as undue delay, bad faith or
dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failures to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing
party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. - the
leave sought should, as the rules require, be 'freely given.'
Now, the IBM version:
The Foman Court
held that courts should permit a party to amend its pleadings
only
[i]n the absense of any apparent or declared
reason - such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
movant, repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed,
undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,
futility of amendment, etc. - the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
'freely given.' ---
The Wright brothers were not
the first to fly an aircraft...they were the first to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL
and whatever) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST |
Just had to share this.
An industry magazine/news web-site recently published a
Linux success story, but unfortunately asked our friend Mr
Enderle for a counter-balancing opinion. Nothing wrong
with asking for a counter-balancing opinion, but as usual
Mr Enderle went beyond the usual FUD with out-right lies
which the author allowed to go unchallenged (through lack
of knowledge, not malice).
I choose to challenge them in a very polite letter to the
editor in which I pointed out Mr Enderle's un-truths. The
Editor has now replied to me to say that after reviewing
the article and asking around a bit, he has now decided
that they will no longer use Mr Enderle for future
articles.
So, there's a tactic for people to fight Mr Enderle's FUD
in the press. Serious sites do take their journalistic
standards seriously, and don't like being played for
fools. Remember, keep it very polite, keep it short and
specific, don't argue with opinion but with verifiable
facts, and don't spout bizarre conspiracy theories.
The editor has asked me to keep his decision confidential,
so unfortuately I can't tell you who it is, but I felt I
could share this much with you.
John.
P.S. I really, really should register some day.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST |
My guess is that these motions will not be heard tomorrow.
Best case for SCO: They are given more time, but discovery from IBM remains
stayed untill they complete motion; probably another month. No other motions are
heard. Sactions listed if they still do not produce.
Worst case for SCO: Sanctions for violation of compel order. Maybe remove right
to ammend discovery material provided to IBM so they cannot add anything that
they find in discovery from IBM to their case.
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST |
"THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,"
i know this is not anything new, but it just clicked in my head. i assume that
there is some kind of legal(tax) reason why a company in utah would incorperate
it's self in delaware.
if it is a simple answer could someone enlighten me.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST |
If the Second Amended Complaint seeks to streamline pleadings, could this mean
they want to eliminate some complaints? If so, would that reduce the information
they have to provide at the hearing tomorrow?
OT: Congratulations, MathFox, on the clean look of these pages. The clear and
uncluttered design is refreshing compared to so many gaudy sites that send a
barrage of distractions from their purpose.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:12 PM EST |
IANAL but it appears to be that SCO have made a massive stupid error in this
filing.
Quoting from their motion (emphasis added)
SCO's
proposed Amended and Additional Affirmative Defenses to IBM's Counterclaim are
attached hereto as Exhibit "B". These proposed amendments reflect the
countinuing investigation into the allegations and issues raised by IBM in its
eleven count counterclaim, including four separate claims of patent
infringement, and serve to better frame the issues for this Court's
determination. Moreover, the revisions address the concerns raised in IBM's
Motion to Strike portions of SCO's Affirmative Defenses, thereeby rendering moot
IBM's Motion to Strike.
Now if you look at IBM's Amended
Counterclaim, it is not "eleven count" - but thirteen count (IBM's
original counterclaim was 11
counts)
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031102104937393
I'm sure this point will come up, and SCO might even say it's another
scriviners (sp?) error
But, that is unlikely to work in
that:
1. SCO has already had two other errors of this type on pending
motions for tomorrow. This is beginning to stretch credibility.
2. They
have already filed exhibits. If their exhibits respond to the non-Amended
version of IBM's counterclaim, they are in deep-doo-doo either way:
(i)
If the court refuses their amendment, perhaps on the point that they are not
even referring to the correct document (IBM's amended counterclaim)...
self-explanatory.
(ii) If the court accepts their amendment, they have
just deleted their affirmative defenses to 2 of IBM's 13 counterclaims (as they
seem to be working from only 11 counterclaims).
IANAL, so this is just
IMHO
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RDH on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 07:43 PM EST |
| Yeah, I probably shouldn't post this stuff, but it's the only way I can make
sense out of what is possibly going on in the minds of SCO.
This is satire.
If the concept is foreign to you, or if you are completely devoid of a sense of
humor, please do not read any further. Satire is intended to poke fun at an
issue or otherwise make a person think about the issue in a different light.
Anyone who takes this as the literal truth needs to stay away from satire.
**************************************************************
Darl
McBride Files for Extended Fishing License
Scud News Service
5
February 2003
Lindon, Utah – Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, filed papers today
for an extended fishing license at the county clerk office. Mr. McBride has been
attempting to fish in the same waters for nearly a year, and he has requested
that his license be extended to continue his venture.
“So far I haven't
caught a thing,” Mr. McBride was heard saying to the office receptionist. “I
keep trying to use the same bait, but nothing is biting.”
The clerk tried to
instruct Mr. McBride on the proper method for obtaining the correct license, but
Mr. McBride opted to talk over the clerk.
“Some of the locals have been
telling me it's a dry hole, but I think they're just trying to make me look like
an idiot without any good cause. I keep telling them there's fish in there, and
they just ignore me,” McBride stated in a gruff manner.
The receptionist
once again attempted to offer the man advice. Mr. McBride stood staring that the
receptionist as if what had been said to him was utter nonsense. There were
several long moments of uncomfortable silence.
“I don't think you heard me
correctly,” McBride told the receptionist. “There are fish in there and I know
it. No one can tell me different. I don't care how long I have to wait, I'm
going to keep on fishing until I hook something. A fish has to bite sooner or
later because the laws of probability says it has to.”
“Sir, this is isn't
about the laws of probability,” the receptionist countered.
“Sure, it is.
Just because a fish hasn't bitten yet doesn't mean there isn't any fish there.
They way I see, if I tell enough people there are fish there, then a fish is
bound to show up,” McBride said and sounded to be on the verge of
hysterics.
The receptionist did wait for further argument and wandered away
to help another customer. Those who were waiting in line behind Mr. McBride
began to talk among themselves and did not appear to want to engage the man in
any form of conversation. Mr. McBride continued to talk at length regrading his
certainty that fish were, indeed, present in the spot.
Resident police
officers were called into the office to try and calm Mr. McBride as he became
more adamant that his rights were being trampled regarding his fishing license.
Upon inspection, it was found that McBride's license was limited in the first
place, and that the extension for which he was applying related to an entirely
different season. The officers intervened with the receptionist, and Mr. McBride
made one final appeal.
“If you would only listen to me,” McBride begged.
“I'm telling you there are fish there, and I'm going to catch me
one.”
Before the clerk could reply, one of the people in line came forward
and offered a compelling argument.
“Darl, you've been fishing in a bucket
that has a hole in the bottom, and you ain't even close to a river!” The woman
stated. “Besides, you need to apply for the license at the Division of Wildlife
Resources, not the county clerk.”
Mr. McBride did not have any further add
except to say that he knew there were fish somewhere in the world.
(CL) 2004
RDH, Ltd. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:20 PM EST |
Can someone explain this for me? Sorry to be legal dolt, but it sounds like SCO
is playing the same game they did in the media.
Just any day now we're going to come back with SOMETHING REALLY BIG! And we
really mean it this time. Something major. We can't define exactly what that
is, but, trust us, it's HUGE!
And, by the way, you really smacked us up side the head last time and we're
about to cry because now we're having a hard time keeping this charade going.
Is that pretty close, or am I seriously off base somewhere?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 09:36 PM EST |
| This is
unbelievable. A top lawyer from Microsoft is to head the American Bar
Association's antitrust section. What next, hire a lawyer from Enron to run
the corporate fraud section ? What the hell is wrong with these people ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:02 AM EST |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5154413.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO & IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
|
|
|
|
