|
SUSE's Reply, Cahn's Objection to Motion to Compel, and MORs, MORs, MORs - Updated 2Xs |
|
Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:31 AM EST
|
Lots of bankruptcy filings, including a reply by SUSE in support of its motion for relief from the automatic stay and Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn has filed an Objection to Al Petrofsky's motion to compel him to comply with reporting requirements. And Ocean Park Advisors has filed an Amended Exhibit A. But that isn't the big news. The big news is that SCO has filed its Monthly Operating Reports, or MORs, for July through September, 2009. But interestingly, they are filed with a disclaimer that they are filed "consistent with the format and allocations of liabilities as previously adopted by the Debtors," because Mr. Cahn and his financial advisors simply have not yet had time to "review all of the historical information previously reported by the Debtors", so Cahn reserves the right to amend them once he has done a more thorough review. "Historically," the disclaimer continues, "the Company may not have distinguished between direct liabilities of debtor and non-debtor companies." That would be the foreign subsidiaries, I expect, like Japan and Germany. "The Trustee with its financial advisors is conducting a thorough analysis of the intercompany arrangement among the debtors and the non-debtor subsidiaries and reserves the right to modify these MORs upon completion of its review." It cautions the reader not to rely on the information, as they are filing just to fulfill reporting requirements. I would take it that SCO may have more in the way of assets than is reported here, then. September says $1,287,030. And we will have to wait for the real MORs.
As for SUSE's Reply, it is so interesting I'll do a text for you and post it as soon as I can. But in a sentence, SUSE points out that without the arbitration being decided, there is no resolution of the copyright issue, which involves not only ownership but *value*. If SUSE wins the arbitration, it would mean SCO does not own "any UNIX copyrights that are needed to use the version of the Linux operating system that SCO and SUSE jointly developed" because SUSE has a license to use those copyrights and to sublicense them to others, like Novell and IBM. Second, SCO is required to release the Linux kernel code in UnitedLinux under the GPL, so even if it wins the copyrights from Novell, it still can't sue for copyright infringement, because that license expressly allows copying, modification and distribution.
Here are all the filings:
12/23/2009 - 997 - Exhibit / Amended Exhibit A (Summary of Hours by Professional) to First Combined Monthly Fee Application of Ocean Park Advisors, LLC for the Period of September 15, 2009 Through October 31, 2009 (related document(s) 985 ) Filed by Ocean Park Advisors, LLC. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 998 - Reply [Suse's] In Support of Its Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration (related document(s) 951 , 992 , 995 ) Filed by Novell, Inc., SUSE Linux GmbH (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 999 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service Regarding Reply [Suse's] In Support of Its Motion for Relief From the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration (related document(s) 998 ) Filed by Novell, Inc., SUSE Linux GmbH. (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1000 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of July, 31, 2009 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1001 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of July 31, 2009 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1002 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of August 31, 2009 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1003 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of August 31, 2009 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1004 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of September 30, 2009 (The SCO Group, Inc.; 07-11337) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1005 - Debtor-In-Possession Monthly Operating Report for Filing Period As of September 30, 2009 (SCO Operations, Inc.; 07-11338) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
12/23/2009 - 1006 - Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Motion of Petrofsky for an Order Compelling the Trustee's Compliance With Reporting Requirements and Setting Reporting Deadlines (related document(s) 990 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 12/23/2009)
And no, they didn't file the MORs because of Al Petrofsky's motion to compel, according to Judge Cahn's Objection. These MORs were filed the same day as his motion, he says. [Correction: I misread the Objection. It is the MORs and the Objection that were filed on the same day.] The Objection is frosty about Mr. Petrofsky's inaccuracies as to the law and the facts, as you can see in paragraphs 11 and 12. His office told Petrofsky that they were being worked on and would be filed shortly, but he filed the motion anyway. Judge Gross will care about that. October's MOR is still being worked on, because October 30 is SCO's end of year, so there is more work involved. But even that will be filed in January. As to the Bankrupty Rule Petrofsky cited, it became effective in December 1, 2008 and applies to cases filed thereafter, not to this case unless the court says so, only "insofar as just and practicable". Courts have full discretion to alter the schedule anyhow, so if the court were to decide that the new rule applies to this case, which I sincerely doubt, Cahn asks for a hearing so he can present evidence as to why it should be altered in this very complicated case, which Cahn only entered after it had been going on for two years. He asks the court to deny the Petrofsky motion.
So, what was accomplished by this motion? I'd say absolutely nothing, which is what I predicted at its filing. I guess I can't say absolutely nothing, in that it has accomplished one thing. I'd opine that it has made Petrofsky's name mud in a certain courtroom in Delaware.
The legal mistake alone sinks his motion, I would think. Going into court without a lawyer is foolish. You can't pretend to be a lawyer and be successful. Law is complex, and even if you are a brainiac, if you are not a lawyer, you are not. And they'll argue rings around you, because they know what they are doing, and you don't. It's that simple.
But it goes deeper. The law world is polite. It sort of has to be, since it's the nonstop battleground for intellectual arguments. If you insult someone in a filing, accusing them of something, you'd better be 100% right in the sense of being able to prove it in a court of law, because you might just end up having to. In any case, it isn't going to be well received. Courtrooms aren't Slashdot. It's a different culture. When you are insulting *and* wrong on the law or the facts or both, you appear ill-mannered. Lawyers sometimes make that mistake, as we saw in the Wayne Gray filings, but it's so rare as to stand out, and it didn't work, as you may have noted. Nor should it work, in my view. Why, in heaven's name, would you be insulting and attribute bad motives to someone in a court filing? You can't possibly know motives in someone other than yourself. In the law, it's all about the arguments, not the people. It's one thing I like very much about the legal world, actually, that the standard for conduct is set very high. And if Petrofsky had hired a lawyer, his lawyer would have probably told him not to file this motion. It's not like I've never mentioned this before, so I have to wonder what is the actual purpose?
And the law is also very much about credibility. That's because often a matter is he said, she said, and it's a question of deciding who is most credible. Once you've lost your credibility, you've lost something meaningful.
Update: Chris Brown has prepared a chart of SCO's quarterly billings:
Update: Mr. Petrofsky has now submitted his reply:
12/24/2009 - 1007 - Reply of Petrofsky to Objection of Chapter 11 Trustee to Motion of Petrofsky for an Order Compelling the Trustee's Compliance with Reporting Requirements and Setting Reporting Deadlines (related document(s) 990 , 1006 ) Filed by Alan P. Petrofsky (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Revised Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit B: Blacklined revised proposed order) (Petrofsky, Alan) (Entered: 12/24/2009)
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:38 AM EST |
Merry Christmas PJ and all Groklawers!
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:40 AM EST |
I use open Suse And I can not wait for the decision on ega;;lity. COUGH [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:52 AM EST |
AR Current Billing shows major revenue loss this summer. The periodicity of the
AR payments was down $700 in July 2009. This data is extracted from "amounts
billed current period line on the last page of the MOR'. This was likely a loss
of a major Japanese account-- as the SVRX reserve and the current accounts
balance in Japan are both down.
The run rate extrapolating out from the
last 3 months is about 6 Million total revenue/year. I expect the October
revenue to show a 500K bump based on previous history, but total run rate going
forward is likely less than 8 Million/year. Total revenue billed was 4 million
for the last 6 months.
"Amount Billed During the Period" from MOR's for SCO
Operations
Oct-07 1914
Nov-07 1466
Dec-07
1549
Jan-08 1986
Feb-08 1221
Mar-08 215
Apr-08
1471
May-08 923
Jun-08 635
Jul-08 1564
Aug-08
680
Sep-08 778
Oct-08 1803
Nov-08 655
Dec-08 548
Jan-09
1463
Feb-09 558
Mar-09 571
Apr-09 1422
May-09
420
Jun-09 667
Jul-09 701
Aug-09 264
Sep-09
550
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM EST |
Please reference the newspick in the title
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:02 AM EST |
Please indicate the nature of the correction in the title
error->correction
with details in body.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LocoYokel on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:03 AM EST |
Anything that may be of interest to this group that does not directly pertain to
this posting[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- In God we trust, all others bring data. - William Edwards Deming - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Banks and their C.D.O. packages - Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:49 AM EST
- Caldera Network Desktop - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:56 AM EST
- First phase of analysis - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:59 AM EST
- The "Credits" file - note Yarro appears! - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:01 PM EST
- The SRPMS directory - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:10 PM EST
- The RPMS directory - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:11 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:31 PM EST
- One way - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:46 PM EST
- One way - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 02:36 PM EST
- VirtualBox - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 01:39 PM EST
- VirtualBox - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 02:34 PM EST
- VirtualBox - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 04:00 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: inode_buddha on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 01:41 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 02:00 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 03:51 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 03:53 PM EST
- FSF binutils is a GPL package - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 04:30 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 09:58 PM EST
- Email? - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 08:53 AM EST
- Email? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Email? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 26 2009 @ 02:09 AM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 06:14 PM EST
- Problem, can't examine RPMs. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 27 2009 @ 12:24 AM EST
- Caldera Network Desktop - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 03:16 PM EST
- RPMs - Authored by: Tufty on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 12:22 AM EST
- RPMs - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 12:26 AM EST
- Weird Hypothetical Question - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 02:00 PM EST
- Happy Chrimbly, everyone. - Authored by: Vic on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 07:33 PM EST
- FAT32 lot of help Microsoft Backup is - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:48 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:20 AM EST |
What if the arbitration does a: 'allows in part, denies in part' (ie: perhaps
using a date as a split point) split decision?
Just saying that to assume is folly... especially with SCO in the mix.
Best quote ever in this drama: "Yet the SCO Trustee does not even
attempt to explain the evidence and arguments that supposedly support SCO’s
position."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:21 AM EST |
Still on $11k per month, I see. For doing what? But I see that sales tax
accounted for only $51. I guess there were not many sales! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:26 AM EST |
SUSE's reply in support of its motion to unstay basically takes Cahn's response
apart by the seams, pointing out the many contradictions, factual errors and
inappropriate applications of the law in the the Trustee's response. Wrong,
wrong, wrong dressed in polite language.
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:36 AM EST |
I would take it that SCO may have more in the way of assets than is
reported here, then.
Or less. I haven't seen too many
accounting "problems" where the company had more assets than they reported. If
there are any surprises here, I would expect them to be more along the lines of
the foreign subsidiaries doing worse than previously reported.
For
example, license revenue could have collapsed if customers simply stopped paying
because they thought SCO wasn't going to be around to complain about it. Or,
some of the big sales they announced a couple of years ago could have failed to
materialise when the customers got cold feet over installing software from a
company that was about to go under. Going after customers through the courts in
places like Russia or India can be a bit problematic.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM EST |
"As Mr. Petrofsky noted in his recent motion (Dkt. No. 990), information
about the estate’s current condition or resources is lacking because required
reports have not been filed, although some money was apparently received from
the recent Autozone settlement (Dkts. 935, 971)."
So now we know, Autozone paid SCOG some money. I wonder how much?
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:05 PM EST |
"If you insult someone in a filing, accusing them of something, you'd
better be 100% right in the sense of being able to prove it in a court
of law,"
Sadly, having been there, that is not true. You can be slandered or libeled
with impunity in a court filing, and in arguments before the judge. The judge
is expected to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The politeness part is true, and was a bit of surprise. The lawyer called me
the most vile and reprehensible things with no heat of rancor or anger, just
some concern that I was not yet in jail where I belonged. My attorney just
responded with a list of facts, many of which were of the lack of facts
supporting the other side. It was almost surreal.
As to "Why, in heaven's name, would you be insulting and attribute bad
motives to someone in a court filing?" Because it was the best chance of
winning. And sometimes it works.
Usually, (fortunately in my case too) in the end the facts matter more than
the arguments, and arguments matter more than the people. So at least that
point is correct. Usually the system works. Look at how much money and
effort SCO has had to spend to subvert and delay the system as much as it
has.
Mike S.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ak on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:16 PM EST |
PJ wrote:
As to the Bankrupty Rule Petrofsky cited, it
became effective in December 1, 2008 and applies to cases filed thereafter, not
to this case, and even then only "insofar as just and
practicable".
I would strongly suggest to PJ to read more
carefully before publishing such statements. The trustee wrote
this:
The Rule became effective on December 1, 2008 and, in
accordance with the order entered by the United States Supreme Court, governs
“in all proceedings in
bankruptcy cases thereafter commenced and, insofar as
just and practicable, all proceedings
then pending.” Order of the Supreme
Court dated April 23, 2008
Even the trustee agrees with Mr.
Petrofsky that the Bankrupty Rule governs proceedings pending on December 1,
2008.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 12:25 PM EST |
"He rose from the table; and advancing to the master, basin and spoon in
hand, said: somewhat alarmed at his own temerity:
'Please, sir, I want some MOR.'" ;-)
---
IANALAIDPOOTV
(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hopbine on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 04:15 PM EST |
Merry Christmas PJ and everyone.
I Loved that line:
Courtrooms aren't Slashdot.
I get my legal advice from " Reddit"
PJ - go take some time off
Phil[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 04:20 PM EST |
SuSE's filing is yet another heads-SCO-lose, tails-SCO-lose outcome to the
litigation follies.
Every which way SCO turn, it seems, they face defeat. Yet still they cling to
notion they are not dead yet, depleting scant resources all the while.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 05:14 PM EST |
You can make temporary images of the floppies on a machine that has a floppy
drive, then mount those images in VirtualBox.
In case you use Ubuntu 9.10, to save you a lot of frustration you should know,
regular floppy drives don't work functionally in it, including granting
VirtualBox direct access to the drive.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 06:00 PM EST |
but he's making a fool of himself.
Cahn told him via email that he was working on getting the MORs filed.
Al filed anyway. An insulting rookie mistake. A strategic blunder. Exacerbating
and underscoring his mistake, he refers to and attaches his email exchanges with
Cahn et al to the motion.
And guess what? He's filed a reply to Cahn's objection.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clemenstimpler on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 07:58 PM EST |
The declaration by Grant L. Kim referenced in the SUSE Motion can be found on Groklaw - of course... ;) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 08:59 PM EST |
Speaking of "politeness"... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 10:36 PM EST |
.
...Thank Al for the MORs. Go easy on Al. He is not a lawyer and is
overmatched. So why the blustery opposition from Judge Cahn when he filed the
MORs the day of the Motion by Al. He should not have bothered with this
opposition since it is moot. Does he plan to bill for this? Why dignify Al's
Motion if it is now moot?
Courts and clerks are actually very accommodating to pro se litigants, unlike
PJ. One never sees a judge abuse and run out a pro se litigant. They often
bend over backwards and take time to indulge them. Just because someone can't
afford a few thousand dollars at hundreds per hour, doesn't mean they should be
shunted aside in a court supported by his taxes. It is a tragedy that the
courts only can do the bidding of those that can afford it. It is unthinkable
that Judge Gross would give Al short shrift. Many judges take time to try and
explain a bit to pro se litigants despite the likelihood of futility.
Al may have some axe to grind here, but his motion was reasonable and hit a
nerve. It caused Cahn to file MORs with asterisks AND this superfluous
opposition, but he filed them with just the threat of such a motion from Al.
Cahn doth protest too much. PJ too. Sometimes following the rules to a T is
not the way things are done, especially when judicial discretion is involved.
~webster~
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, December 24 2009 @ 11:11 PM EST |
Why, in heaven's name, would you be insulting and attribute
bad motives to someone in a court filing? You can't possibly know motives in
someone other than yourself. In the law, it's all about the arguments, not the
people. It's one thing I like very much about the legal world, actually, that
the standard for conduct is set very high.
It's not just law
where this matters, it's everywhere. Politeness costs you nothing, and gains you
good will with those not directly involved. The Golden Rule
rules.
That said, I understand Al's frustration. Some of the people
involved do not seem to have been acting in a morally upright manner, and the
case keeps dragging on, and on, and on... Still it wouldn't have cost him
anything to be polite and proper in his filing, and he's shot himself with the
foot gun.
--- Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 01:11 AM EST |
A really quick and dirty look at the MORs for July, August, and Sept. 2009:
Cash Loss for the quarter: $500,000 per Q.
Cash Left at end of ->Sept.<- 2009: $1,200,000.
SWAG of Cash Left at end of Dec 2009: $700,000?
SWAG of Cash Left at end of Mar 2010: $200,000?
Estimated Time until Legal Victory brings in biiig Profits:
(assuming collective and continued insanity in legal system)
Maybe December 2013?
After Novell (trial Mar.2010, Decision: May 2010?) is SuSE (arbitration)(Oct.
2010?) , and after that is IBM (2011?), and after that is Red Hat (2012?) . And
after each of those is the Appeals Courts, and then the En-Banc Appeal Courts,
and then the Supreme Court. 3 more years may be rushing things. (And that
assumes that they win every single ruling and motion the very first time for all
the issues in all the cases.)
Depth of the Cash Hole-in-the-Ground: $5,500,000.
These people are bleeding $2 Million a year in Cash losses. They don't have
enough cash left to last to the guesstimated date of the Novell decision,
assuming they actually won that.
Yea, all the numbers are rounded and there have to be all sorts of things moving
the numbers one way or the other.
But they need something like 5-6 MILLION dollars to stay a going concern until
Darl's Dream comes true. Best Case.
Barring a Pipe Fairy, its over.
IANAL, IANACPA, IDEPOOTV
JG [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 12:19 PM EST |
Now I've got that old
Andrea True songstuck in my head! Oh well, there are far worse tunes that
could be stuck there. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 25 2009 @ 03:41 PM EST |
If you insult someone in a filing, accusing them of something, you'd
better be 100% right in the sense of being able to prove it in a court of law,
because you might just end up having to.
Does this apply to SCO's
accusations against IBM for things like illegally putting SCO owned copyrighted
UNIX code into Linux? How about SCO accusing IBM of spoliation of evidence? Or
SCO accusing Novell of Slander of Title? They have yet to prove any of these
accusations that were in their court filings, yet their lawyers seem to be
fairing no worse in the eye of the various courts.
Or does this "rule"
only apply to pro se litigants? Is there some bias in the courts against people
representing themselves merely because they are not lining some lawyer's pockets
with silver? If Al Petrovsky had hired a lawyer who had presented the same
arguments, would he be taken more seriously by the bankruptcy court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 28 2009 @ 09:22 AM EST |
The only way to really gauge the success of Petrofsky's involvement in this mess
would be to know his motives.
The way I see it Petrofsky is an Internet narcissist seeking attention and
infamy. The attention of strangers on message boards is apparently narcotic to
Petrofsky, who is invariably an arrogant, condescending boor to anyone he deems
worthy of a response. Petrofsky is quick to correct others on minute details
about hearing dates and other things in order to maintain his posture of
superiority while he studiously avoids acknowledging his own numerous mistakes.
His falling out with PJ years ago was over him wanting to post video of a
hearing. PJ refused to do so without express permission from the court.
Petrofsky, being the most important person in the universe, then expected PJ to
have a debate on Groklaw about it wherein he'd be the vulgar, obstinate jerk he
is until she acquiesced to his demands. Realizing that Petrofsky was an obsessed
lunatic, the admins at Groklaw "sandboxed" him, a process whereby a
troll can continue posting to a board and see his own posts while the rest of
the board is spared from having to read them. When he discovered that was
happening he again complained long and loud to whoever would listen. Petrofsky
took his histrionics to other boards, and also published private email exchanges
between PJ and himself on his vanity web site.
A little band of net kooks exhorted by Petrofsky decided it was far more
important to wage war on Groklaw than to contribute to efforts fighting SCO's
massive FUD campaign. They built a site dedicated to anti Groklaw screeds
(ipwars) and were infiltrated by and befriended some of the sickest anti Linux
freaks on the Internet who still troll Yahoo and Groklaw occasionally. Their
site attempted to maintain a posture of being anti SCO, but the only thing
members were truly interested in was disparaging Groklaw. The owner of that site
(a county budget guy who created an IT director job for himself and then
promptly spent the budget on Windows weeks before setting up his anti Groklaw
site) eventually joined Marbux in a bizarre and ill fated campaign around the
ODF/OOXML issues that left many scratching their heads.
In short Petrofsky had seen Groklaw as a spring board to celebrity and
frustrated by PJ's refusal to jump to his demands, he waged an endless and
ongoing campaign to discredit Groklaw and cast aspersions at PJ.
He actually helped SCO stalk PJ.
Every single thing he does appears to be motivated by his yearning for celebrity
and his personal vendettas.
Petrofsky clearly has absolutely no problem with the fact that a loose cannon
like himself could seriously screw things up big time for IBM and/or Novell.
If he had any respect or consideration at all for anyone else involved, he would
let IBM and Novell's legal teams do battle with SCO without some know nothing
who thinks he is clever pulling bonehead moves that could play Hell with their
careful work.
Then again Petrofsky seems so convinced of his own brilliance that it probably
never occured to him that his antics might actually help SCO. Unless of course
that is what he is doing, in which case he has been an invaluable asset so
far.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|