MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Mar 31, 2016 16:05:58 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Mar 31, 2016 21:06:15 GMT
It appears that there aren't many details to be had. Docket # 1165 is available on Groklaw; it's the notice of appeal, and reads as follows: Then there's # 1166, which is a form letter from the court notifying parties that the appeal has been entered, and it has the preliminary record attached. That's an interesting read: the header on the first page lists case number, judge assigned, jurisdiction, jury demand, nature of suit, etc. One field in particular jumps out at me: "Demand: $0". SCO mentioned that there were some damages experts reports, but I guess they didn't go look them up. But... really? Judge Cahn, if this case is the only asset your client has left, aren't you even curious about what its value could be? Or are you afraid to look? Here's a basic table of contents for the preliminary record: Page Content 1 Heading 1 Parties 12 Docket 117 Notice of Appeal (docket #1165) 120 Clerk's Judgement (docket #1164) 121 Partial Judgment (docket #1123) 124 Partial Summary Judgment (docket #1159, re #782) 170 Partial Summary Judgment (docket #1160, re #783)
And finally, there's docket #1167, which is the Court of Appeals issuing a case number (16-4040, SCO Group v. IBM) and a form letter of general instructions.
So, if you're afflicted with terminal insomnia, or just want to see what happened to all of SCO's claims in one single 114 page continuous smackdown, this makes a good read. Otherwise - well, you've seen it all before, pretty much. It could be worse: next will be the transmission of the entire supporting record, which I'm not going to go through.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Mar 31, 2016 21:08:07 GMT
My stomach turns. Will it ever really truly be over. Need we wait for Heaven and Earth to pass away, and all the elements to dissolve in a fervent heat, before the lunatics at SCOG ever give up?
I truly hope that IBM will press their Lanham act counter-claims.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 1, 2016 9:37:06 GMT
Terminal insomnia? That's me all right.
The SCO v. IBM case is the zombie of litigation. It just won't go away.
After all, what do they have left to lose?
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Apr 1, 2016 18:52:51 GMT
I was SO hoping this was an April Fools post...
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Apr 4, 2016 11:50:10 GMT
But this is good because it is eroding the profit which BSF would have been making. Their fixed up - front fee must be nearing exhaustion by now. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch of shysters. As far as I can tell, they will be obliged to defend the remnant of the SCOundrels all the way through any Lanham Act claims by IBM.
But their fee most likely does not cover defending McBride and associates if the corporate veil is pierced. For that, he will need to pay for his own lawyer, possibly out of the meagre margin he may be making on some minor Web service things whose names I have forgotten. This may hit him severely in his bank balance and lead to personal bankruptcy. Always assuming that IBM go for the real culprit, instead of giving up once SCO is done.
It may be a simple business decision. Will IBM make a profit, ie extract more from McBride than their additional legal costs? That seems very unlikely, so it depends on how much they value upholding their corporate integrity in court, and they may decide that is achieved once SCO is history.
I know that most of us here would like the corporate veil to be pierced and the villains punished, but somehow I can't see that it is likely to happen now. But I would like to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 4, 2016 14:10:07 GMT
But this is good because it is eroding the profit which BSF would have been making. Their fixed up - front fee must be nearing exhaustion by now. We do know that BSF was paid in SCO Group stock. What we don't know is: 1) Whether the contract placed limitations on when they could sell the stock 2) When they sold the stock The payment happened during that very short period of time when SCO Group stock was high, above $20.00 per share going by memory. Again, going by memory, it didn't stay high for long, so a delay of a month in selling the shares could have reduced profits tremendously. Another consideration is that the 'payment' did not cover costs of things like faxes, photocopying, and all those extra expenses we don't think a lot about. Currently the receiver is working on a severely constrained budget. Judge Cahn may be able to float some small loans from gamblers, but the series of courtroom losses has to have put a crimp in the funding stream. And Judge Cahn has to pay for every little expense out of that small stream of money... So yes, The SCO Group could continue fighting this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Or they could run out of money tomorrow. BSF is locked in, has no choice in the matter, and probably wishes that they'd never heard of The SCO Group. All of this comes from PJ. She wrote an explanation back when the BSF deal happened, and then an explanation of how this would impact the bankruptcy when Judge Cahn took over. I have no idea where to find this on Groklaw, I'm going by memory. Luckily I have a fairly decent memory, even with all the morphine. Wayne
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Apr 4, 2016 19:21:54 GMT
"Fairly decent" seems a bit of an understatement... (and I really hope the need for morphine goes away soon, for whatever it's worth)
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Apr 4, 2016 23:07:21 GMT
For a time, Boies, Schiller and Flexner agreed to receive payment from SCO in the form of 400,000 shares of stock: www.networkcomputing.com/storage/crn-interview-scos-darl-mcbride-and-chris-sontag/1581967366"David comes on, he's now a shareholder, he's rowing with us ..." I don't think it was ever distributed. The offer of stock was waived in a new Engagement Letter from October 31, 2004: www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465904033567/a04-12714_1ex99d1.htm"... the Three Original Firms expressly waive any right to receive the 400,000 shares of SCO common stock referred to in the letter agreement between SCO and BSF dated November 17, 2003." BS&F was paid something like $26 million overall in capped fees. Everything beyond that comes out of its hide, until a recovery from IBM. Supposedly it is in the red, supposedly leading to new rules about the conditions under which it would take on new cases. This is all from articles of several years ago.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 5, 2016 15:11:22 GMT
"Fairly decent" seems a bit of an understatement... (and I really hope the need for morphine goes away soon, for whatever it's worth) Unfortunately that won't happen. I get to live with this for the rest of my life. Unless they come up with a way of giving me a brand new spinal column! Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 5, 2016 15:19:02 GMT
For a time, Boies, Schiller and Flexner agreed to receive payment from SCO in the form of 400,000 shares of stock: www.networkcomputing.com/storage/crn-interview-scos-darl-mcbride-and-chris-sontag/1581967366"David comes on, he's now a shareholder, he's rowing with us ..." I don't think it was ever distributed. The offer of stock was waived in a new Engagement Letter from October 31, 2004: www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1102542/000110465904033567/a04-12714_1ex99d1.htm"... the Three Original Firms expressly waive any right to receive the 400,000 shares of SCO common stock referred to in the letter agreement between SCO and BSF dated November 17, 2003." BS&F was paid something like $26 million overall in capped fees. Everything beyond that comes out of its hide, until a recovery from IBM. Supposedly it is in the red, supposedly leading to new rules about the conditions under which it would take on new cases. This is all from articles of several years ago. Excellent digging. I was on the year end investor teleconference just after BSF was hired. David Boies was also on, and spoke about how he was convinced by the evidence SCO Group provided. I'd love to know what he thinks now. Trial lawyers loose half of their cases on average, so loosing is not a big deal. And while this case may have been high profile to start, most of the world would have forgotten it after six months, so it isn't going to impact the reputation of BSF all that much. Unless we can turn up the heat a little! Who here writes, and had either a connection with a tech website that will print their stuff, or has a blog? Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Apr 15, 2016 20:40:32 GMT
Anyone have a Pacer account? SCO's Docketing statement in the 10th should have been filed by now. GL seems to be dormant at the moment.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Apr 16, 2016 13:28:41 GMT
Anyone have a Pacer account? SCO's Docketing statement in the 10th should have been filed by now. GL seems to be dormant at the moment. LOL. Wish I could afford one. I'm on permanent disability now, which totally sucks. Wayne
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on May 19, 2016 19:01:32 GMT
I don't have Pacer access, but we're way past the response deadlines in 1166/1167, and I would have thought that there would have been *SOMETHING* about this in trade news by now. Have I missed something? Or are we just moving at the same "speed of smell" pace we've seen so much of in this case?
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on May 19, 2016 22:26:04 GMT
|
|