decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Ch. 11 Trustee Cahn Opposes SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay - Updated
Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:40 AM EST

Edward Cahn, SCO's appointed Chapter 11 Trustee, now making decisions for SCO, has filed an opposition to SUSE's request to lift the bankruptcy stay so the arbitration can go forward. And Al Petrofsky has filed a motion pro se demanding that SCO file its missing MORs.

The Cahn objection to SUSE's request can be summed up simply. SCO has limited funds, and Cahn doesn't want to spend them on the arbitration. The trial in Utah is set for March, and if SCO loses and the jury decides it doesn't own the copyrights, then there will be no need for the arbitration to go forward. If, on the other hand, it wins, then it can proceed with the arbitration issues because, as footnote 5 puts it, "resources may become available to the Debtors if they prevail at trial". SCO has to pay the lawyers for the Swiss arbitration. That is not covered by the agreement with Boies Schiller, and the lawyers in Europe are on top of that. Then they'd have to hire experts. Cahn tells the court that it should defer to his judgment on how to proceed in the various litigations.

Some of us might prefer to see the money spent on the arbitration than on financial advisers. But there is something else, something Cahn doesn't mention, namely that when Judge Dale Kimble ruled on Novell's motion to stay, back in 2006, granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and sent the SUSE claims to arbitration, he also said that if the arbitration was still ongoing when all the rest was ready for trial, he would then decide if the trial needed to be stayed until the arbitration was concluded:

If the arbitration concludes before the parties are ready for trial in this matter, then the court will address the preclusive effect of the arbitrator's ruling on the claims in this case. If this case is ready for trial before the arbitration concludes, the court will revisit the issue of whether to stay the trial on the APA and TLA claims pending the conclusion of the arbitration.
Novell relied upon that commitment, as it had a right to. That is, essentially, all SUSE is asking for, that the stay be lifted so all that can go forward, in that the arbitration is still pending, and the trial on the APA claims is about to begin. Each affects the other, but of the two, the arbitration matters most. While Kimball didn't want to waste time, so allowed both to go on separately simultaneously, he did recognize that the arbitration could have a preclusive effect on the Utah matters. And he left open the possibility of staying the trial on the issue of the APA, namely who owns the copyrights, if the arbitration had not yet concluded. Maybe Novell will end up asking the new judge to look at this question, if the bankruptcy court doesn't lift the stay. He, at least, is not supposed to look at things all tilted in SCO's favor the way bankruptcy court seems to. And somebody has to honor Judge Kimball's order that the matter of staying the trial would be revisited if the arbitration wasn't finished when it was ready to begin.

If SUSE wins the arbitration, then it won't matter who owns the copyrights. No one will be able to sue on the basis of the copyrights. So it would moot SCO's litigation strategy. SCO will be precluded from using them against Novell or any sublicensee, and since the GPL makes it possible, that would include all of us, including IBM. So that means that doing the Utah trial first is actually wasting assets in the sense that the copyrights only have value if SCO can use them to sue people. So figuring that piece out is what matters. Can they sue? Finding out if SCO owns the copyrights is only useful if SCO can use them in litigation. So deciding whether SCO has any rights to sue anybody is more important than whether it owns the copyrights. It saves assets too, because SCO has to pursue the arbitration if it wins in Utah. So it's a two-step process. The other way, doing the arbitration first, has the value that it moots the Utah copyright claims completely, from all that we've read in the filings if SUSE prevails.

Here are the new filings:

12/13/2009 - 989 - Notice of Address Change and Preference for No Redundant Non-Electronic Service Filed by Alan P. Petrofsky. (Petrofsky, Alan) (Entered: 12/13/2009)

12/13/2009 - 990 - Motion to Compel - Motion of Petrofsky for an Order Compelling the Trustee's Compliance with Reporting Requirements and Setting Reporting Deadlines Filed by Alan P. Petrofsky. Hearing scheduled for 12/30/2009 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 12/23/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Proposed Form of Order # 3 Declaration of Alan P. Petrofsky) (Petrofsky, Alan) (Entered: 12/13/2009)

12/14/2009 - 991 - Certificate of Service of Motion of Petrofsky for an Order Compelling the Trustee's Compliance with Reporting Requirements and Setting Reporting Deadlines (related document(s) 990 ) Filed by Alan P. Petrofsky. (Petrofsky, Alan) (Entered: 12/14/2009)

12/15/2009 - 992 - Objection to SUSE's Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration (related document(s) 951 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C-1 # 4 Exhibit C-2 # 5 Exhibit C-3) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/15/2009)

Petrofsky apparently believes that Judge Kevin Gross's bankruptcy court runs like the Army. It doesn't. If this judge cared about the rules the way Petrofsky does, SCO would have been in Chapter 7 long ago. The judge wants to enable SCO's litigation gamble, or so it seems to me, and that is what he is doing. He evidently sees it as SCO's only hope of staying alive and maybe paying off its creditors. He doesn't know what UNIX is, very likely, or the history of it, or the tech, or why it's obvious Linux would never misuse anyone's IP. It's written in public, on the Internet, so getting caught would be inevitable, after all. And he likely has no clue how the GPL has already written SCO's doom. But he thinks in old fashioned IP terms. So he thinks he is doing the right thing. His job is to protect SCO from creditors, in large part, and he has.

As for the MORs, I'm sure the picture they'd paint would be awful, and he doesn't care about that now. He's hitched SCO's wagon to the litigation star. He isn't going to send them into Chapter 7 prior to the Utah trial in SCO v. Novell unless somebody makes him. And who will make him?

Given the complexity of the SCO bankruptcy, and the prior litigation, and the Wayne Gray detour, not to mention the termination of Darl McBride and the others, the Ch. 11 trustee has been busy. And I've no doubt that is how the judge will view the matter, that he has to be given time to figure out where up is, and he gets to define what is reasonable. What the judge charged him with doing as his first task was to evaluate the litigation, not file the paperwork about the continuing bleeding of assets that is no doubt the reality. But let's face it. When SCO began, it was flush. Now it's bankrupt. And the judge has done nothing to address that. It is what it is. This is, after all, the judge who asked what would happen if he didn't abide by a timing rule, would they take him out and shoot him? Bankruptcy court is more seat of the pants, and that is what we have been watching play out. It is shocking, of course. I don't disagree. But I doubt motions to compel will fix what is wrong in this picture.

And I expect the judge to let Cahn do whatever he wants to do.

A lot of what is filed in the arbitration is sealed, so we can't be certain of all the details, but if you would like to review the arbitration story, here are some links:

Update:

Cahn has now filed a correction:

12/18/2009 - 995 - Notice of Service // Notice of Errata With Respect to Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Suse's Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration (related document(s) 951 , 992 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/18/2009)

Here's the hub of the correction:
"Paragraph 19 on page 6 of the Trustee's Objection incorrectly stated that in early 2008 some of Novell's claims where stayed in favor of the SUSE Arbitration. This statement was in error - none of Novell's claims were stayed in favor of the SUSE Arbitration. This notice of errata is filed to correct that statement."

  


Ch. 11 Trustee Cahn Opposes SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay - Updated | 255 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Come Here:-
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:49 AM EST
Please show the before & after so that they can be fixed easily.



---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Posts
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:52 AM EST
you know the rules....

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Comments : Post 'em Here
Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:56 AM EST
don't forget to let us know which one you are talking about

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing MORs
Authored by: ak on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 04:20 AM EST
Those MORs seem to be required by law. The trustee and the judge might be able
to ignore or violate the law but that does not change the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ch. 11 Trustee Cahn Opposes SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 04:33 AM EST
This kind of seems logical to me.
The effect of the GPL is essentially 'arse about face' to the way people look at Imaginary Property.

The primary differences I see is :-
Proprietary Software : "My preccccciousssss"
BSD : Attributed? Yes? Then we don't care
GPL: Share and share alike

That last one can really mess peoples thinking up, it's likely most haven't done that since they were
children and have forgotten how to.

Some Never did and still won't

Some will never believe the grown ups could

I think Judge Chans decision is based on the Golom aspect of IP because that's the one he understands,

If the sharing aspect ever hits him SCOG will be toast in very short order.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ch. 11 Trustee Cahn Opposes SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 05:36 AM EST
I see Ed Cahn's point. Keeping the stay on the arbitration is the most efficient
use of whatever he can recover from the sofa. I can see Judge Gross' point. His
job is to renew SCOG as a going concern if at all possible even if it destroys
shareholder value, dashes creditors' just expectations and results in a lack of
judicial recompense for companies hit by SCOG's frivolous litigation. He is
certain to deny raising the stay.

I can see PJ's point. The judge replacing Judge Kimball hasn't got any interest
in Cahn's or Gross' bankruptcy objectives. If that judge decides that SCOG v
Novell must be stayed for his judicial efficiency until the arbitration is
completed then it is the case of the stayer, stayed. Both courts are stayed by
the other.

Cahn's hopes for some copyright based dosh gets stayed and, along with it, any
hopes of success in the litigation wars. Knight to Bishop 3.

No, I have no idea what that means.



---
Regards
Ian Al

Did you drive here? I patented that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ownership of copyrights doesn't matter if Novell wins Arbitration?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 05:54 AM EST
Care to explain, PJ?

PS anything along the lines of "If you would understand, as I do, how the
GPL works, you would understand" ... doesn't count.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some thoughts on Cahn's objection
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 06:48 AM EST

Thus spake Cahn:

This Court has already considered the precise issue that it is now being asked to reconsider — whether the automatic stay should be lifted to permit the SUSE claim against the SCO Group to proceed in arbitration in a Swiss tribunal.
Cahn cites in the footnote to SCO Group's 2007 motion to "impose" the stay on the arbitration. (SCO Group's motion was not to impose the stay; it was a motion to enforce the existing stay.) But there is a difference between a motion to put a stay in place that does not already exist, and a motion to declare that an existing stay applies to a subsidiary litigation. And in either case, the 2007 motion did not ask for a lift of the stay. So this is a mischaracterization of the previous motion.

Cahn further spake:

This Court's application of the Rexene factors to the facts in the Gray Motion also is instructive with respect to the SUSE Motion. Focusing on the Trustee's very limited resources and the need to maintain the Debtors' business and evaluate other litigation, this Court found that the prejudice to the Debtors' estates from lifting the stay would be "substantial and irreversible." Memorandum Order at p.4. The facts are no different here. The Trustee continues to have limited resources and will devote substantial time over the next several weeks to prepare for the trial phase of the Utah Litigation, as well as continue to operate the Debtors' business. Having to devote critical and limited resources to the arbitration, including without limitation, attorneys' fees, costly travel expenses and payments to the arbitrators, is prejudicial to these estates. There is no need for the SUSE Arbitration to go forward at this point. In fact, the similarity to the position taken by Mr. Gray in the Gray Motion is uncanny.
And in the footnote to this paragraph, Cahn says
Although the Debtors were not asserting any claims in the Gray litigation, Gray was urging this Court to compel the Trustee to participate. here SUSE is asking this Court to do the same thing — allow the arbitration to proceed so SUSE can prevent the Trustee from asserting claims the Trustee has determined not to pursue at this time.

A few things about this:

  • First, Cahn is trying very hard to equate the SuSE arbitration with the Gray motion to lift the stay. The two are not parallel by any means. The SuSE arbitration is contractually required by the UnitedLinux contracts, whereas the Gray motion invoked no such contractual obligation.

  • Cahn also argues that having to conduct the Novell trial and the arbitration will be too much expense. On the contrary, the Utah trial at this point only figures little in the expense picture. As Cahn notes, discovery is done, the expert reports are in, and as we know, the attorneys in the litigation are under a fee cap, so the monetary drain on the estate from the trial should be minimal. And as for effort, Cahn speaks here as if he will be litigating the trial himself, rather than the attorneys the estate has already retained and paid. So it seems to my IANAL-type eyes that his time requirement for the actual trial will be less than he paints here.

  • Also, I cannot for the life of me make sense of the footnote. There are apparently some claims in the Novell litigation with Cahn is choosing not to pursue "at this time". I wonder what those could be?

Finally, Cahn speaketh:

Finally, SUSE argues that the Trustee is being dilatory in not allowing the arbitration to proceed, as it involves potentially significant claims of the estate. Respectfully, this Court should defer to the Trustee's judgment that before these estates pursue potential claims against SUSE, the estate should adjudicate its claims against Novell. As stated previously, the Trustee has limited resources and it is his conclusion that the litigation should proceed in Utah in the first instance.
In other words, "trust me, Your Honor, I know what's best, and shouldn't have to defend it to you or anyone else." I find that a bit disconcerting, especially in a court of law.

I'll be very interested in seeing how Novell replies to this.

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Imagine Edward Cahn on a bus
Authored by: ailuromancy on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 07:12 AM EST

Would he say: "My funds are limited. I should not have to waste them on bus fare. You should let me ride for free."

If he cannot afford to enter arbitration that is legally required in order for him to pursue his nuisance litigation then he should get off the bus and walk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Al Petrovsky
Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 08:15 AM EST
I am guessing that he wants to see the MORs so that he can see whether or not SCO should be in Chapter 7 now, or very soon. I have never understood why he makes so much effort over a tiny investment, unless he feels that it is for the public good, but if he can force the MORs to be filed he will be accomplishing something very worthwhile. If he than asks Judge Gross to send them into chapter 7, even better.

But will Judge Gross listen to him? Time will tell.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

resources may become available to the Debtors if they prevail at trial?
Authored by: kh on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 08:41 AM EST
Huh? What resources? Is there a PIPE fairy fluttering about in the wings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is a broader public-policy issue here
Authored by: barbacana on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 09:40 AM EST

If this judge cared about the rules ... SCO would have been in Chapter 7 long ago. The judge wants to enable SCO's litigation gamble, or so it seems to me, and that is what he is doing.

If you have been reading newspapers or watching TV in the past year, you'll have noticed that about 10% of Americans are unemployed. And that this number is unlikely to decrease anytime soon. And that a major reason for this is that banks are not lending to small- and medium-sized businesses, which is where most new jobs are normally created.

Now, there are a number of reasons banks aren't lending. But if I owned a bank, and saw how a Delaware bankruptcy court treats creditors, I would not want to lend any money to a company incorporated in Delaware. If I lend money to a company and it goes bankrupt, I expect to lose some of the loan. That is a normal business risk. But I expect to be partly paid back out of whatever assets the company has got when it goes belly-up. Maybe I get back 70%, or 50%, or 40% of what I am owed. I don't expect the bankruptcy judge to turn round to the creditors and say, in effect. "Get lost. The directors of the company want to blow the remaining assets on lottery tickets. They might win the jackpot, so I'm going to let them do that."

That is not in the public interest because it discourages lending to small/medium businesses. Whether it's the law or not, I can't say, not being a lawyer. But it for sure is not in the interest of the United States.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not like the Army, just laws applied
Authored by: dwiget001 on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 09:43 AM EST
From the article:

"Petrofsky apparently believes that Judge Kevin Gross's bankruptcy court
runs like the Army."

No, I do not get that at all.

I think Al just wants the court and the trustee to follow the existing law or
procedures for bankruptcy, nothing more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Their lightbulb has not yet come on ...
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 10:07 AM EST
SCOG may be reading Groklaw, but it seems like they
have not been understanding it.
It is as if their lightbulb has yet to come on.

I could understand Darl being delusional. It may have
been part of his job description. Cahn and the new
team have no such excuse.

There are at least a half dozen or more places where
SCOG must prevail, before they could hope to collect
dime one from IBM. SCOG's case is hopelessly toast.

It is sad and stunning that the new team just does
not understand and does not seem to realize this.

While I do believe that SCOG could be turned around
and made modestly profitable, continued litigation is
NOT the way to do this. Every penny spent on litigation
from this point onward is egregiously wasted.

I now fear that perhaps SCOG may have garnered some
token payment from AutoZone and that Cahn has been
emboldened by this and as a result mistakenly thinks
there is some merit in going forward with litigation.

One day this whole SCOGGY litigation mess will be
suitable for an 'EPIC FAIL' poster.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"...the arbitration could have a preclusive effect..." and distortive
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 10:23 AM EST
.

Without the arbitration decision the trial is not only speculative, it is
distorted by the fact that Novell can argue the United Linux agreement as a bar
and defense to SCO claims. SCO can not argue against that without a favorable
decision in arbitration. SCO will be defenseless. They shouldn't want a trial
before the arbitration. This United Linux agreement defense must come into the
trial. Even a limited jury trial to ownership of the copyrights would leave the
United Linux agreement relevant to damages. They would have to leave damages
out of the trial. If they won the arbitration, they could have another jury
trial on damages, and probably only the damages since the arbitration victory.


No judge wants to waste his precious time on a speculative or moot trial,
especially this new guy, Stewart, presuming he understands.

If Stewart and Gross get hooked up in a pot-sitting contest, Stewart has the
upper hand. He doesn't care about the bankruptcy. If Stewart doesn't wait for
the arbitration, there would indeed be a smelly wind in Denmark.

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ch. 11 Trustee Cahn Opposes SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 10:33 AM EST
It seems like most of what this filing by Cahn is filled with is the same old
half-truths and falsehoods that SCO and BS&F have been spewing all along.
It's almost as if Trustee Cahn has decided that the boys at Boies have so much
experience with the details of the litigation that he has deferred to them to
write this without doing any fact checking of his own. Judge Gross asked for an
ex-judge to be appointed as the case trustee specifically because he wanted
someone who could evaluate these cases with an independent viewpoint, but it
doesn't seem like Trustee Cahn has done anything but drink from the kool-aid. I
can't believe that he reviewed the APA as amended independently and came to the
same conclusion as Darl & Co. I also can't believe that he reviewed the
internal SCO memos that showed that SCO had determined that there were no
protectable copyrighted UNIX code in Linux before they ever hired Darl.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ch. 11 Trustee Cahn Opposes SUSE's Motion to Lift Stay
Authored by: Gringo on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 10:40 AM EST

I'm just blown away by all this - how the Trustee is pursuing exactly the same course as the previous regime running SCO did. Only the Trustee, it seems, gets much less scrutiny/oversight than the minimal amount the previous regime received. Really, the shareholders that are behind the litigation lottery couldn't have asked for more.

I just read the transcript from the October 23/2009 bankruptcy hearing. I hadn't seen this before, but do remember reading quotations from it. In this, the trustee confirms via the testimony of Ms. Fatal "that we will be selling off the assets and we will be retaining the litigation." I just think this is so unjust/unfair that they could sell their assets then go ahead and attack people with impunity, without fear of retribution - having no assets to lose. There is something very wrong here.

I also noted how they hope to mortgage their revenues to get some tip (trustee-in-possession) financing. That certainly won't help them sell their Unix business if the income from it is mortgaged. It seems clear that they want to simply blow all the money on a lottery ticket, leaving nothing but a smoking creator in the ground should they fail to win the lottery. This is exactly what we hoped would be avoided once the court appointed a trustee. What an unbelievable outcome!

[ Reply to This | # ]

You know I kind of agree with the Ch. 11 Trustee
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 11:32 AM EST
If the Novell litigation is resolved in Novell's favor most of the other
litigation including the arbitration is moot.

It is also the least cost to SCO and probably quickest to a decision. Cranking
up the Arbitration would probably take longer than the anticipated trial date.

---
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 | # ]

Circular stays?
Authored by: DMF on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 12:11 PM EST
What happens if the District Court in Utah decides that the case should be
stayed pending the SUSE arbitration?

My head hurts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It all makes sense...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 01:11 PM EST
... if you think of it as theater.

I don't mean that Cahn is posturing. No, I mean, think of the plot of a
Hollywood blockbuster. You think you've got the villain contained. The monster
has been crippled. The problem is solved. And then...

Then you find out it's not over after all. The monster is still rampaging.
It's more dramatic that way.

So, we thought this was over once we got the trustee running the show, and Darl
was kicked out. But the monster is still rampaging (or trying to, anyway).
It's going to take the full stake-through-the-heart treatment to put this
monster down.

It's frustrating. It's annoying. It's wasteful. It's even a miscarriage of
justice. But it's great theater.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

why aren't they "dead" yet?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:05 PM EST
this is becoming non-sensical...

I was of the distinct impression CH11 was a limited time period and failure to
get things sorted out in time led automatically to CH7.

SCO are running rings around this bankruptcy court and effectively hiding under
their skirts whenever things aren't going their way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Circular stays
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM EST
How do circular stays get resolved? Is there precedence that the last order
stands? Is the order that closes the circuit moot? Does it get appealed to the
supreme court in this case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Circular stays - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:46 PM EST
Question: Bankruptcy jurisdiction
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 02:29 PM EST

We know that the stay is imposed on Novell as SUSE's owner. What if SUSE was not a wholly owned subsidiary of a US based company?

What if Novell were to sell off SUSE to a company based in Germany that had no US offices? Would the Delaware bankruptcy court have jurisdiction to stop the arbitration?

If not, could Novell, in the process of selling SUSE, license in perpetuity any and all rights to linux/Unix that transfer (there by having one's cake and eating it too)?

Following that train of thought, the arbitration proceeds, SCO's rights regarding any code transferred into linux are voided. Novell and IBM petition the courts to act on the arbitration decision; SCO's claims are judged mote. What does Judge Cahn do? Settle the counterclaims or drive SCO into chapter 7 (or is that the same thing?)?

If I thought this would work and had the money, I'd do it myself, just to watch the lawyers scramble like cockroaches when the light comes on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Petrofsky the only creditor who matters?
Authored by: vb on Thursday, December 17 2009 @ 12:52 AM EST
It's not surprising to see Petrofsky file this demand for the missing MORs.
What is a little surprising is that he's the only creditor to make such a
demand.

I lost count of the number of months that SCO has been in bankruptcy, but I
would expect the creditors who got sucked into this mess to have an interest in
seeing where they stand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )