|
AutoZone Settlement Agreement Filed With the Court: It's The End To All That |
|
Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 10:55 PM EST
|
The AutoZone settlement and release agreement has been filed. Or as the song says, it's signed, sealed and delivered:
12/08/2009 - 119 - STIPULATION of Dismissal (Stipulation and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice As To All Claims) by Plaintiff SCO Group, Inc.. (Pocker, Richard) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
Here's what that type of agreement and release looks like. As you can see, the release part means that whatever they accused each other of, it's settled and neither can bring it up again or ask for anything associated with that claim to time indefinite, even forever. Unless it's SCO, under new management, and they line up some folks who heard talk by the water cooler that they didn't really mean it to mean *forever*. Kidding. It means forever, unless the lawyers goofed and wrote it so badly that some fancy pants lawyer sees an opening twenty years later. So this is The End to AutoZone's nightmare. Yay!
|
|
Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 11:02 PM EST |
That's off-topic, not Old Testament or on-time [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 11:03 PM EST |
If any, and since this is short, I don't expect many [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 11:07 PM EST |
Think I got the trifecta on the standard categories. I've not had that in a
long time![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Trifecta? - Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 09:33 AM EST
- Trifecta? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 11:43 AM EST
|
Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 11:09 PM EST |
I believe the song was "Signed ... sealed ..... delivered....I'm
yours". No "and". Yet, if it was me, I come with
"if"s and a "but".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No "ands" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 02:58 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 11:18 PM EST |
I don't know how important this will be, but as PJ says, "unless... some
fancy pants lawyer sees an opening."
Part of the Stipulation states "with each party to bear its own attorney's
fees and costs." However, the form "attorney's" is singular,
meaning "pertaining to one attorney."
I can see some litigious opportunist, up to and including Darl himself, pouncing
on that and turning this into an unsettled matter.
Is there any chance that a court could be sympathetic to a claim based on a
grammatical error like this? I'd like to think they'd all toss such a suit, but
recent events in the Novell case suggest otherwise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- nitpick - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, December 08 2009 @ 11:37 PM EST
- nitpick - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 04:36 AM EST
- nitpick - Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 06:46 AM EST
- nitpick - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 11:46 AM EST
- nitpick - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 12:23 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 12:06 AM EST |
Err... I think P.J. had it right the first time. SCOG is notorious - at this
point - for playing word games including, but not limited to, ignoring any parts
of a contract that doesn't suit their purpose.
"All"... doesn't actually
mean all except when SCOG wants it to mean all. "Paid in perpetuity"... doesn't
mean perpetuity, SCOG can still cancel a contract when they feel like it. The
list goes on.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 05:36 AM EST |
Settlement value.
Wont we be able to tell,looking at sco's numbers
as to what their settlement costed them ?
Or will those numbers be hidden from their balance sheets ?
I got the feeling SCO had to fork out :)
Ric[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 07:07 AM EST |
This calls for a celebration. I'll raise a glass of absinthe to celebrate this
later today, after I've finished my usual workday.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 09:10 AM EST |
I'm not sure that it's good for the rest of SCO's victims, in that the
settlement is sealed. Now I understand that there are reasons for allowing
settlements to be sealed, however all too often it appears that the reason for
sealing is to hide something.
In particular it seems that they are trying to hide a smelly, rotten, fish, in
the form of the information we need to find out who exactly is responsible for
this travesty.
OK, I've finished ranting now.
---
Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 10:31 AM EST |
especially when other cases are involved
Microsoft, in particular, are notorious for using them to bury evidence that has
been found in discovery[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 10:57 AM EST |
Any one know how much money Autozone lost on this suit.
In the alternate universe where Mt McBride wears a beard..
SCO sued the bank and got BILLIONS IN BAILOUT money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, December 09 2009 @ 08:59 PM EST |
pity it was sealed.
---
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 | # ]
|
- One down... - Authored by: jmc on Thursday, December 10 2009 @ 03:07 AM EST
|
|
|
|