|
|
| Any Questions About the SCO Bankruptcy Hearing? I Have a Transcript |
 |
|
Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:29 PM EDT
|
I have now a copy of the official transcript of the SCO bankruptcy hearing on July 27, 2009. It's a 527-page document, so it will take a while to go through it, and I have to clarify the rights issues before I can post it, which will take a while. Meanwhile, I thought it would be useful to let you post any questions you would like answered. I'll then try to answer them later this evening. We know what the judge decided, to order the US Trustee's Office to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee, and we had
our reporters there, but no doubt you still have questions. So ask away!
Here's one hilarious bit I can't help sharing, a snippet that will give you insight, from SCO's lawyer's, Arther Spector's, opening remarks:
MR. SPECTOR: Why in heaven's name does IBM care whether SCO sells its Unix business to Unxis ...? Why did IBM unleash its hordes of high powered attorneys coast to coast to depose anyone who might dare to testify for SCO? What possible reason does IBM have to oppose the sale? The only reason is that by the sale SCO would survive. And survive with the potent claims against IBM intact. IBM and Novell want to crush SCO and soon before the Court of Appeals can vindicate it. They know that once that happens, they will have to face juries to answer for what they have done to SCO.
The bankruptcy judge partly bought it, as you know, although he blocked the sale to unXis, questioning their good faith, which is of course why IBM and anyone would care about a sale to them, but for us, who have followed the SCO litigation so closely for six years now and saw SCO's malice toward Linux with no evidence on the table the public has ever seen, it's a wonderful laugh. SCO's "potent claims", indeed. What IBM and Novell "have done to SCO". SCO sued them, actually. And Novell prevailed totally against SCO's allegations of slander of title, which was what SCO sued Novell over, a claim which SCO humiliatingly lost. SCO is not appealing that claim. Just read it for yourself. Page 2 of SCO's appeal brief lists the issues on appeal, and SCO's claim of slander of title is not on the list. As for IBM, it doesn't care who owns the copyrights or what happens in the appeal from that standpoint, because its position is that it didn't infringe them no matter who owns them.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
Not likely to be any in such a short post, bit still.
Please title error -> correction.
with details in body.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:37 PM EDT |
Please indicate which in the title and follow the guidelines below the next
window.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
Any extra interesting tidbits here.
Again, please pay attention to the guidelines below. Instructions for HTML in
red.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nice summary of SCO saga on the Inquirer - Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- Murdoch signals end of free news - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- Off Topic- Pixel Qi product page says they are working on low power HDTV screen! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- CIO.com - Bing Search Tainted by Pro-Microsoft Results - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 03:17 PM EDT
- Microsoft Patents XML Word Processing Documents - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- Who predicted this response - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- Microsoft granted patent #7,571,169 for XML Word Processing Documents - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 03:53 AM EDT
- Sony boot-licking - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 06:18 AM EDT
- Study: 89.7% prescription drug advertisements sponsored by bing.com are illegal or ... - Authored by: gaston on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- Dear RIAA ... - Authored by: grouch on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 10:19 AM EDT
- SCO's plan to return rejected by court - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 10:37 AM EDT
- Software might be subject to warranties for defects - Authored by: tedavids on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- SCO vs. Linux: an end in sight? - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- The Value of Linux Job Skills Rises 50% - Authored by: bbaston on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- SCO files change-of-control agreement for Ken Nielsen - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Ubuntu patent policy - Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Off Topic - TRUSTEE - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 08:57 PM EDT
- Ubuntu Users Upset that Canonical wants to make $$ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 10:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DMF on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
... it's a public document, presumably un-annotated. What rights issues could
there be?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sirwired on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
I always thought court transcripts were a matter of public record and therefore
in the public domain... is this not the case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Why wouldn't GPL issues (Caldera's distribution history and the fact that
Caldera and The SCO group are the same company) be added as a factor in future
SCO problems?
It would seem to me that the GPL and the Caldera/newSCO distribution history,
would, at some point, make their case (litigation for profit scheme) run into a
WALL (the fact that they distributed, and contributed to GNU GPL LINUX).
Why have the lawyers and judges not even directly addressed this issue as a
SCO-stopper? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
| Did the judge say one more time that SCO was doing its very
best? ---
Erwan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UncleJosh on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
| To mangle Hanlon's
razor "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
greed and incompetence." And uses "that" and "which" correctly in one sentence
to boot :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
My question is: has Judge Gross actually read Judge Kimball's ruling?
SCO is saying that action is the key to their recovery, so it's certainly
relevant to the bankruptcy. Shouldn't it be incumbent on the judge handling the
bankruptcy to actually be somewhat familiar with the key matters in the
case? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UncleJosh on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:33 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
I think the judge has already said that he doesn't want to retry in bankruptcy
court any of the issues which are before other courts. He therefore isn't going
to take any sides on the legitimacy of any of SCO's other cases.
He can't say that SCO's lawsuits have merit without examining them in detail. He
also can't say they don't have merit for the same reason. If he were to takes an
position on them, he would just get dragged in deeper and deeper. SCO *wants*
him to state an opinion on their cases, because they want to transfer those
cases to his court. This is the trap they are laying for him, and which he is
avoiding.
What the judge has done is to simply dodge that issue and leave the problem up
to a trustee. He has however recommended that the trustee should be someone who
has extensive legal background in order to be able to evaluate the merits of
SCO's lawsuits.
In other words, he is recommending that someone be appointed who can form his
own opinion without relying on the advice of the existing management or BSF.
That seems to give ample latitude for a trustee to close down SCO while giving
no opening for SCO to appeal the bankruptcy judge's rulings.
I don't believe that a trustee is as bound by rules as a judge is, so he isn't
as vulnerable to lawyers who are playing games with the system. Also, the SCO
lawyers will then be working *for* the trustee instead of against him.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sumzero on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:54 PM EDT |
the opening remarks by spector seem to be indirectly arguing the merits of the
court cases. everything else in the quoted remark hinges on accepting that they
have significant value and merit.
were they not ordered to not do that?
sum.zero
---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.
alan j perlis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
Even though my hands ache from typing most of the last week full bore to catch
up hospital transcription accounts for my job, I'd be willing to catch a few
pages out of this lot. In fact, I'd be willing to coordinate getting the
transcription done if it would help at all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
Well, the *claims* ARE potent. Just 'cause they aren't backed up with equally
potent FACTS, well....what do you want? An egg in your beer? (A slightly
mystifying quote from my beloved Mum B-) )[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
why not toss them out on their keisters right now?
Just curious (and PO'd ... so OK, not "just" curious) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
1. How long does it take to get a trustee in place and actually doing
anything?
2. Are Darl and others out immediately, or not until a trustee comes in?
3. Does Darl continue to get paid while the trustee does his/her work?
4. Same question as 3 above, except in regard to anyone else working at SCO?
5. What happens to the money owed to Novell?
6. Does SCO continue to get to burn through $ until they run out, regardless of
the debts owed?
7. If the trustee comes in, finds an incomprehensible mess, won't it take months
to put any changes into place?
8. If a trustee comes in, and somehow reaches the conclusion that the only hope
for SCO to emerge from bankruptcy is to win all their various lawsuits, does he
get to allow SCO to continue down this litigation path as long as the money
holds out, including money owed to Novell?
Basically my questions involve timing and $ issues - how long will things take
to change, and who gets $ now and later.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
I understand likely limitations on publishing the transcript right now as-is.
But what about a transformative work? Perhaps an audio-book or interpretive
dance?
(mostly just kidding)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
Closed at 10.75 cents. It was in the 13 to 16 cent range for
many months. The rats are leaving the ship.
This is getting *very close* to the price of wallpaper.
But still quite a bit higher than tissue.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 09:49 PM EDT |
| Groklaw has a phenomenal collection of documents and analysis of all
the
relevant cases. The amount of information is daunting. But I think
it would
be possible to create a summary page that the trustee or others
could use to
assess SCO's chances of rehabilitation via the litigation
lottery and get
pointers to where they can find further information.
Of course the trustee
may never even look at Groklaw but I think such a
summary page would be very
useful anyway. There seems to be
an "information gap" between the people who
have been following this
closely (mostly Groklawers) and people who are new to
the game.
Wouldn't it be good to have one page newbies (and newsies) can go to
that will quickly get them up to speed on the overall picture? This
would
also be useful when people are looking back on all of this years
from
now.
Brevity will be key. For the Novell case, a short summary along with
highlights of Judge Kimball's ruling and highlights from the APA and
amendments should suffice. Of course there would be links to the entire
documents.
For the IBM case, a summary along with highlights from IBM's
summary
judgment motions should do very well, again with links to the
supporting documents. IMO the key points are that SCO does not own
the
copyrights but even if they did, they presented almost no evidence
of
infringement. A few juicy quotes from Darl might also be appropriate.
We've
done all the work. We have all the information. We are often
frustrated that
other people still get snowed by SCO. I think we should
boil it down into a
form that will make it easier for others to grok the
overall
situation.
---
You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 10:16 PM EDT |
I do have a couple of questions for PJ, who from the vantage point of the
transcript can probably shed some light on the events of July 27.
PJ, can
you give us a clue about how the exchange between the parties went on about the
subject of appointing a trustee as the better option for all involved, also what
was the context for the discussion about the Bayer emails and whether it was a
strategic blunder or a hit on the part of the IBM lawyers.
Your outstanding
work is appreciated.
FUDbar (currently not logged in)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 06 2009 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
Does the transcript include the part where SCO argued that the hans breyer
emails should be stricken?
Presumably, the actual content and testimony would not be relevant (or maybe not
even included in the transcript?) But the arguments over them should be, right?
It was one of the big things that made me go "hmm" when I read the
hearing reports.
What were the legal reasonings? Hearsay of hearsay or something?
And I wonder how the judge came to the conclusion that the mobility business was
worthless, without considering this testimony? But that's not going to be in
the transcript.
--Jpvlsmv not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 12:04 AM EDT |
Who hasn't any judge said:
"SCO, you have x days to show us code that you can prove you own the
copyright to or the case is dismissed with prejudice"
seems like they could have done that more than 4 years ago and saved a lot of
money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
|
Yeah, I'm a computer geek. I'm also an engineering geek, an
environmental geek, etc.
We've spent the last 6 years now wondering
why anyone would believe anything the SCO Group said. Well, there's a lot of
fools in the world, that's true. But there's another factor involved, the
Conspiracy Theory.
Runn
ing an Engine on Mountain Dew
Paul Pantone, a Utah resident invented
the GEET Fuel System over 25 years ago, and is unhappy that it isn't in wider
use. He's also just recently released from a Mental Institution, where he claims
he was unlawfully confined, and his followers claim that corrupt officials in
the Utah State government are behind Paul's incarceration.
Now I'm
posting only the one, because it's Utah based, and for some reason the State of
Utah seems to be home to more scams and Multi-Level Marketing companies than any
other state. But believe me, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are
curious try here
and here for
some conspiracies that make the SCO claimed IBM-Novell conspiracy to damage them
look rational.
---
Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
Just a quick note to let you know I suddenly have
the flu, so I'll have to swing back by tomorrow to
answer your questions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FLU Can Be Serious - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- PJ, take care of you! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- Get well! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 02:44 AM EDT
- Get well soon, PJ - Authored by: billyskank on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 02:53 AM EDT
- Rest up! - Authored by: jbb on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 03:14 AM EDT
- Get well soon! (seconded) - Authored by: gaston on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 07:37 AM EDT
- Misquote ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- Get Well - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- get well. hope you feel better soon [n/t] - Authored by: sumzero on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- If You Can Read This, Go Back to Bed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 01:18 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
One of the reporters at the hearing mentioned that the court made recordings
available "almost instantly".
Would the audio be available for dissemination?
---
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: Ian Al on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 05:59 AM EDT |
In the article PJ reported how Spector totally misrepresented the litigation as
being a deliberate and premeditated attack by the defendants on the plaintif.
Is the trustee likely to retain a lawyer to speak for SCOG in the bankruptcy
court or will (s)he represent the company? Remembering that a fool has himself
for a lawyer.
SCOG will still need lawyers if a sale or auction is planned. SCOG will still
need lawyers for all the litigation even if it is only to present the settlement
arrangements to the courts. Will Spector now spend more time with his family?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Linux: Viri can't hear you in free space.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 07:40 AM EDT |
When you are feeling better, could you please check if there isn't more in the
transcript than what MikeD reported from the hearing? I think Mr. McBride
testified during the evening session; some earlier comments on the possible
ramifications of his testimony are
here and
here. MikeD reported this
exchange:
Spector: When did MerchantBridge/Norris/Gulf Capital take
lead as buyer?
McBride: When they put down $250,000
deposit.
Spector: When was this company formed?
McBride: Was formed for
specific purposes of this deal.
Spector: Why is seller not assuming
APA?
McBride: They don't need it. It's not an executory
contract.
Objections! Darl not qualified as expert on this.
Judge:
Upholds Novell objections.
Is there anything more? This may
become a crucial point if the Tenth Circuit overturns Judge Kimball and remands
the copyright question(s) to trial. How soon could such a trial take place,
another year? Meantime, what of SCO's reorganization scheme r.e. spin off the
Unix business and retain the litigation, which IANAL apparently hinges upon
whther the 1995 APA is an executory contract? Presumably SCO will want to go
forward with that regardless of whether the copyright question(s) are finally
settled.
Get well soon -- inquiring minds want to
know!
Thanks.
---
Once they have you asking the wrong questions,
they don't have to worry about the answers - Slothrup's Third Proverb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
What can a Linux company do to avoid that they end up like Caldera?
I mean imagine you have a stock of patents for defensive purposes, how can you
avoid that a future hostile management will abuse them?
What are your proposals? Is there a standard conveant? Is there any unilateral
document to sign as a statement that you endorse the GPL? Is there any document
to sign where you prevent your own company to do stupid things.
Think of Ulyssees and the sirens.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
An interesting question here is how does Darl's testimony here compare with the
assertions made in the Novell, IBM, and other SCO cases. In particular, what
did he say about his Unix as trunk with branches argument, and how did he argue
that the Unix business could be transfered without the consent of Novell as
specified in the APA. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: caecer on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
Now that the court has ordered that a trustee be appointed, do the current
officers of the company become more personally liable for any of their actions
with respect to the company before the trustee is actually appointed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vb on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
The testimony by Steven Norris gave details about the new company called unXis.
Did Norris say what his role is in the new company? Previous reports seemed to
indicate that Norris is more like a broker than a buyer and he has no role in
unXis.
What is the capitalization of unXis? One report gave a very low capitalization
figure that I think is too low to believe. What figure does the transcript say?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Between the new trustee and the lawyers... I can't believe they think there is a
cat in hecks chance of winning, and I doubt they'll have to give any refunds.
So, shock horror, if the trustee should decide there is no merit going forward -
I'm sure they'll be able to console themselves somehow...
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DMF on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
When are the stays released on IBM and Red Hat? (et al.)
Okay, the first offensive series is petering out; now SCOX has to go on defense.
Let the Nazgul Fly!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
Over 48 hours, and Darl the Mouth has yet to say anything. I guess he still
hasn't picked his jaw up off the floor where it landed Wednesday with a big
thud. He likely thought the evil day wouldn't come, but it did, he and Ralph are
out of a job, and gone from this saga. That is unless the Nazgul pierce the
corporate veil, in which case he'll be dragged back in kicking and screaming. We
can only hope.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
Multisearch
Note: I support Ubuntu at every opportunity but...
I think we need a
promise that this addon will not be installed by default in the final
9.10.
It should not be opt-out.
It should be
uninstallable.
If it looks like spyware and it quacks like
spyware...
Spyware
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia:
Spyware is a type of malware that is installed surreptitiously
on personal computers to collect information about users, their computer or
browsing habits without their informed consent.
---
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: webster on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
..
It's not like this was a surprise. Why didn't they have anyone lined up? Are
they having trouble getting one?
Is there a snag? IBM unearthed some very serious questions about the use of SCO
money during bankruptcy. There was also an executive payment from supposedly
personal funds. Deponents can stonewall a party, but since this stuff is known
to the US Trustee, maybe it's a factor requiring a more irresistable
investigation.
A simpler explanation might be Judge Godot on the Court of Appeals. Judge Gross
referred to him. Everyone wants to freeze and wait. The Court of Appeals may
have accepted the challenge and gone into waiting mode to see what the trustee
finds. Nothing like writing a decision that supports a scandal.
The above may be Friday night convolutions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bigbert on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
"Why in heaven's name does IBM care whether SCO sells its Unix business to
Unxis ...?"
Kindly clarify "Unix business".
"Why did IBM unleash its hordes of high powered attorneys coast to coast to
depose anyone who might dare to testify for SCO?"
Dude, YOU sued IBM, not the other way around.
"What possible reason does IBM have to oppose the sale?"
Umm.... see answer 1 above.
"The only reason is that by the sale SCO would survive. And survive with
the potent claims against IBM intact."
What "potent claims"? SCO does not own the copyright, therefore the
case against IBM is null and void. And besides, dude, SCO distributed Linux AT
THE SAME TIME as suing IBM.... which sorta, you know, makes the claim somewhat
less than potent.
"IBM and Novell want to crush SCO and soon before the Court of Appeals can
vindicate it. They know that once that happens, they will have to face juries to
answer for what they have done to SCO."
They have DEFENDED themselves against SCO's unfounded scam. Any jury will find
that SCO is the scoundrel, not IBM or Novell.
Question at large: at what stage does the civil case make way for the criminal
case? Mr. Spector, do you really want to be part of this?
---
--------------------------
Computo, ergo sum.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
| This caught my eye:
The debtor in possession or the trustee, as
the case may be, has what are called "avoiding" powers. These powers may be used
to undo a transfer of money or property made during a certain period of time
before the filing of the bankruptcy petition. By avoiding a particular transfer
of property, the debtor in possession can cancel the transaction and force the
return or "disgorgement" of the payments or property, which then are available
to pay all creditors. Generally, and subject to various defenses, the power to
avoid transfers is effective against transfers made by the debtor within 90 days
before filing the petition. But transfers to "insiders" (i.e., relatives,
general partners, and directors or officers of the debtor) made up to a year
before filing may be avoided. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(31), 101(54), 547, 548. In
addition, under 11 U.S.C. § 544, the trustee is authorized to avoid transfers
under applicable state law, which often provides for longer time periods.
Avoiding powers prevent unfair prepetition payments to one creditor at the
expense of all other creditors.
uscourts.gov Am I reading this right? Would the Trustee
have the ability to undo certain deals even before SCO filed for bankruptcy? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
The trustee won't need to ask IBM's or Novell's lawyers much of anything, it
seems to me, especially if he wants a nonpartisan viewpoint. Kimball's opinion
is already out there. It can't be put back into the bottle. Kimball's recitation
of the background is indispensable.
The only way the appeals court can overturn is with a wholesale rewrite of
contract law and abolishing how many years of parol evidence rules.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- oops - Authored by: snakebitehurts on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- oops - Authored by: snakebitehurts on Friday, August 07 2009 @ 10:20 PM EDT
- oops - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 03:01 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 09:42 AM EDT |
At the beginning, there was concern in the Linux community that there might be
some legitimacy to SCO's claims of its "mountains of copyrighted code"
somehow ending up in Linux. "Show us the code", the community said,
and we will fix whatever infringement is there.
Of course, there never were any "mountains of code" shown, the closest
thing was a couple dozen lines of standard header files and malloc.c and
whatnot. SCO showed this code behind closed doors at SCOforum around 5 or 6
years ago, and I vaguely recall that a German journalist took photos of a couple
of SCO's slides and those found their way onto the Internet. And the provenance
of those code snippets was immediately investigated, and the community laughed
loudly because it was all BSD code.
I still believe, that prior to that SCOforum, the SCOundrels (Darl, et al.)
really did believe that they had something! They searched their codebase and
compared it to Linux, and found a lot of matching lines. They could probably
see if IBM had contributed those lines (though I doubt they bothered to check).
What they did NOT realize, is that both Linux and SCO's preciousss Unix
codebase, received those lines of code from BSD under a very permissive license.
So there was nothing illegal or improper about them.
Until the code from SCOforum was revealed and mocked by the community, I think
Darl and his accomplices did not realize that they had no case. They proceeded
very aggressively, and got caught with their pants down at SCOforum. "MIT
deep divers" and all that, notwithstanding. From that point on, they *had*
to know they had nothing. For at least 5 years now, they have been dragging out
their various court cases and delaying the proceedings as much as possible, all
the while *knowing* that there was no substance to their allegations. For the
first year or two, they put out a lot of press releases and got friendly pundits
(such as MOG and lyons) to shill for them, all to try and pressure IBM into
settling and giving them boatloads of undeserved money.
Fortunately, they mis-read IBM from the beginning. IBM was pretty certain that
they had not done anything wrong, certainly not on the grand scale SCO was
claiming. IBM could see that SCO's bluster was having some (small but non-zero)
negative impact on IBM's reputation and their Linux business. IBM's reputation
and customers' trust of them, was on the line. That is far, FAR more important
to them than the few millions of dollars it would take to play out the court
cases with SCO to their ultimate conclusion. SCO wanted a buyout and
settlement, but that would not clear IBM's name and reputation. Only finishing
the court cases and having the legal system declare that SCO was completely in
the wrong and IBM was a saint, would suffice. Throughout the IBM vs. SCO case,
IBM's lawyers have been very careful not to do anything that even *seems*
sleazy---in contrast with SCO's lawyers, who used every sleazy trick they could
during the case to try and get a small advantage (not turning over responsive
documents until the last minute, raising new issues in their sur-replys, etc).
The Nazgul's filings were always a joy to read--clear, concise and polite.
SCO's were a terrible jumble of distortions and accusations, and infuriating to
read because of how they skirted around (or outright distorted) the truth.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 12:50 PM EDT |
From one of the courthouse reports:
"[Mr. Nielson] Said SCO has enough cash to operate until 7/31, but would
not say they wouldn't have enough *after* 7/31 and in fact, new numbers
were..."
I thought I read in another report that he had said they would only have cash to
operate through 8/31; is this true?
thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cash burn rate - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Cash burn rate - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- Cash burn rate - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 08 2009 @ 10:42 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 10 2009 @ 11:39 AM EDT |
#893 referencing a (nonexistent?) #892
Could that be the Notice of Appointment of Interim Trustee??
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
