|
The Agenda for Dec. 5 Hearing - 363 Group No Longer "Objects" |
|
Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:04 PM EST
|
Here's the agenda for Wednesday's bankruptcy hearing:
239 -
Filed & Entered: 12/03/2007
Notice of Matters Scheduled for Hearing (B)
Docket Text: Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 12/5/2007 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) The only item that will be argued on Wednesday is the Cattleback patent sale motion, asking the court to OK it as not fraudulent. Interestingly, "the Debtors have been informed that 363 Group, Inc. no longer objects to this matter". Heh heh. I hope they're in therapy now to work through those identity issues we couldn't help noticing. So that card was played and is over. Novell and the U.S. Trustee Joseph McMahan still do object. And how. So that will be the fireworks planned for the day. All the rest of the matters, like the Boies Schiller application, are either resolved or will be continued to another day. I'm thinking it might not be altogether perfect to join the Cattleback agenda day. Nah. Joking. Like they care any more what we think of them.
Here's the maybe item, but only if they resolve everything, about Boies: -
The Boies Schiller application to be hired as special litigation counsel, which the U.S. Attorney Joseph McMahon opposed -- they are trying to work out a resolution, but if they are unable to do so, they request that the matter be set for a hearing on January 8 at 10:00 a.m.
So if they resolve everything, all that will happen on Wednesday is an order will be presented to be signed. If not, you won't hear it argued on Wednesday.
All the rest have been resolved:
- The Mesirow application -- no objections were filed, so presumably this should fly on up
-
The motion to hire a CFO temp. The U.S. Trustee opposed certain aspects of the motion, but they've resolved all the issues, and an order will be presented to the court for signing.
-
The application to use banks as before, no objection, so the order will be presented for signing at the hearing
- The Tanner application to be accountants - nobody objected, so "this matter is going forward"
- Motion to deem efiling appropriate (not filed, but by A. Petrosfky) - the court isn't positive what relief is asked for, but if he wants to file motions electronically, no one is opposed, but there is this notation: "To the extent that Mr. Petrofsky is requesting to e-file documents ad pleadings, the Debtors do not oppose the relief being sought. If Mr. Petrofsky is requesting different or additional relief, the Debtors would like the opportunity to respond." So SCO is asking for something more clear, if the motion is more than about efiling, which is already not only allowed in US courts but required. So that may be why they are not sure what he means. I guess it would be more accurate to say that they want to *make* sure of what he means.
So, cowboy hats for Wednesday. It's center ring.
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:06 PM EST |
If any.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:06 PM EST |
I'm not sure those work together. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:07 PM EST |
Please, remember to quote the article in your comment's
title. --- Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Erwan on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:08 PM EST |
When using HTML tags, remember to use the "Preview"
button. --- Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:28 PM EST |
The Spanish Inquisition on [redacted] has noted that SCO filed for small entity
status with the Patent office at the end of 2006.
The "unexpected" also
cites wikipedia reference that indicates that Small Entity status is not
available to patentees if the patent has been licensed to a non-qualifying
entity. This is prevent the obvious abuse of the creation of shell
entities.
SCO's May 19, 2003 PR on its IP license to Microsoft explicitly
states that it licensed its patent to Microsoft.
It clearly appears that SCO
is unqualified for small entity status due to its license activity, OR the May
19, 2003 Press Release mistates the facts.
SCO Licenses
UNIX Patents and Source Code to Microsoft
LINDON, Utah, May 19,
2003 -- The SCO® Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX® operating
system, today announced it has licensed its UNIX technology including a patent
and source code licenses to Microsoft® Corporation. The licensing deal ensures
Microsoft's intellectual property compliance across all Microsoft solutions and
will better enable Microsoft to ensure compatibility with UNIX and UNIX
services.
Wikipedia Citation on Small entity status in Patent
cases:
Wiki link,
small entity status
Patent data including, small entity filing for
patent number 6,529,784 at Public pair
Portal -- navigate to patent number, and transaction history tab-- direct
Links expire.
Sig: Stats_for_all [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 03:39 PM EST |
I suspect once the US Trustee objects to something that really slows it down.
Add the similar objections from Novell and this one either needs serious work or
will die on the vine.
So much for that.
When does the real action begin to happen? All these motions, they are just
eally last minute options, a sideshow, to the main case of bk. When does the bk
actually get analyzed, isn't there supposed to be a reorg plan (maybe not, it
seems the lawyers haven't been working on it based on their billings), was the
bk possibly fraudelent, all the good questions that atually matter. When do we
get into that?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 04:32 PM EST |
Just Asking.
---
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: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 04:42 PM EST |
OK, so I'm willing to assume that the 363 bid was just theater. And I've heard
over and over that I should have plenty of popcorn, but...
I don't get the point of the play. (I doubt that it was just to entertain us
here on Groklaw.) Was this for the judge and/or the trustee? If so, what did
SCO intend that they conclude from it?
Or was it really just a transparent, amateurish attempt by SCO to get some more
bonuses for the execs, and by Ocean Tomo/363 to loot some assets on the cheap?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 04:52 PM EST |
The interesting thing about patents is most have no profit potential and are
never used in a product, or brought to market. In the end, most are simply a
bunch of worthless papers.
Ah, but the scam potential is high. If you imagine that this patent, like most,
is useless, then follow the money. Money that ordinarily would be instantly
recognized as a payoff, bribe, under-the-table, kickback, outright theft, bogus
asset transfer, loan fraud, depreciation fraud, and the like, all looks quite
legit.
The only thing better than a patent is "goodwill" but few fall for
that one.
(Yes I am an inventor.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patents and Scams - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 05:13 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 05:29 PM EST |
... learned for the first time that other attornets at Morrison & Foerster
... represent the proposed buyer of U.S. Patent No. 6,529,784 from Cattleback
...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 05:36 PM EST |
How curious. SCO wants *more specificity* from Mr. Petrofsky [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 05:41 PM EST |
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/attic2/attic2_022.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: flip23 on Monday, December 03 2007 @ 07:06 PM EST |
Sorry if this seems off topic. A recent article in Fortune suggests: "judge
Kimball’s August 10 ruling looks vulnerable on appeal — since, among other
things, he appears to have passed judgment on the relative credibility of
various witnesses, which judges are not permitted to do in ruling on a summary
judgment motion" Despite what the author claims in this article, this was
not his contention in his previous article, "Did Sco get Mob Justice"
but rather: "as any second-semester law student knows, a judge can grant
such a motion" (summary) "only when, as innumerable courts in every
state and federal jurisdiction have repeatedly written, “the evidence, viewed in
the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion [i.e., SCO, in this
situation], shows there are no genuine issues of material fact.”" First I
don't see anything at all in Kimball's motion to suggest that he considered the
credibility of witnesses in making his decision. I just don't see it. Secondly
the part of the contract regarding copyright is not ambiguous, it says very
clearly: no copyrights are being transferred. That's about as material fact as
you're ever going to get. No!? Obviously I am not a lawyer: it boggles my mind
that this could even be in court at all, let alone, for so many years! SCO will
certainly appeal the summary motion and any other decision of Kimball's. So how
does a judge in Maryland go forward with the backruptcy before the issues are
decided by a court in Utah? And what's up with Fortune/CNN and this moron who is
pumping out these really dumb specious and biased articles? So may idiots are
really gunning for this terrible little company? Really, why? I read Kimball has
a 75% rate of overturns, not true.
message to SCO fans: Maligning the judge isn't going to help your buddies at
SCO. And what do you gain anyway? The victim(s) here are IBM Novell, Redhat,
Autozone, Chrysler, the system of justice, and the common sense notion of right
and wrong in general not little ole SCO. They have been given much much more
than the benefit of the doubt both in the press and in the courts.
disclaimer: Though I don't appreciate Microsoft, I don't like linux, I hate it,
I don't want to study up on an operating system I simply want it to work. And I
certainly don't have any sympathy for the likes of IBM. My interest if any is
that the dishonesty and self righteous gall of SCO is just too offensive.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|