MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on May 14, 2019 19:07:54 GMT
OK, this is ridiculous. The stay was lifted ONE YEAR ago. Nothing has happened in the case since then. That's absurd.
Or has something happened and we didn't notice?
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on May 14, 2019 20:15:49 GMT
Nothing that I've seen. There have been a TON of headlines in financial press, all the same ("SCO amends IBM complaint again"), but all "new" from 10 years ago. I think that one financial rag ran that story by mistake and everybody has been picking up on it. But anything real and substantive? Not a murmur that I've heard.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jun 13, 2019 19:08:00 GMT
I honestly don't know the answer to this question... Is it possible for an outside party (us, in this case) to "jog the court's elbow" and remind them of this case, with the intent of having the court reach out to the parties to say "c'mon, guys - it's been long enough..."?
My gut feel is that we lack standing to make such a request.
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Jun 15, 2019 0:52:35 GMT
Yes, and I fear that you are right. It is not at all clear if anyone except the SCOundrels in the form of their bankrupcy trustee, or IBM, (and their respective legal teams) have standing to give the legal system a prod.
<rant> In software terms there is a need for Garbage Collection which would clean up unwanted cases by forcing the appropriate action, but I don't know if any group of politicians anywhere have had the collective intelligence to make a legal system that works efficiently (by current and expected near future trends on both sides of the Atlantic they never will), possibly by employing people who would in a real world industry be called Progress Chasers.
If SCO vs IBM had been a proper industrial project seeking a technical solution it would have been done and dusted in less than 6 months. The legal system has to grow up to be fit for purpose in modern times. No sign of that yet.
</rant>
I feel much better after having said that!
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Feb 12, 2020 20:07:09 GMT
At this point I'm becoming doubtful that we'll ever get a resolution on this. SCO (whatever is left of it...) doesn't want to, and IBM sees it as an unneeded expense. Much as I'd like to see it "officially" over, I think it's about as over as it's gonna get. I'd love - LOVE - to be wrong.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jul 13, 2020 19:55:33 GMT
Latest entry (from a couple of months ago, sorry...) out on courtlistener.com says "Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case as settlement judge. (rks)" Judge Warner was assigned to the settlement phase back in 2015 (2015/06/23). I'm unclear on the meaning of him no longer being assigned to the case. Does this mean that settlement has stalled (assuming it ever really started in the first place)? And if that's the case, could this mean that there may (may...) finally be some movement on resolution?
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 22, 2020 12:55:43 GMT
Latest entry (from a couple of months ago, sorry...) out on courtlistener.com says "Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner no longer assigned to case as settlement judge. (rks)" Judge Warner was assigned to the settlement phase back in 2015 (2015/06/23). I'm unclear on the meaning of him no longer being assigned to the case. Does this mean that settlement has stalled (assuming it ever really started in the first place)? And if that's the case, could this mean that there may (may...) finally be some movement on resolution? It could mean anything — the judge might be moving, terminally ill, being promoted, transferred, or whatever. The case has been going on a long time. Heck, it’s nearly as bad as the story in Bleak House by Dickens.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Jul 24, 2020 13:35:27 GMT
Read somewhere that Judge Warner is retiring.
|
|