For the love of Betsy...give it a rest!!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cmost Jun 17, 2013 3:15 PM EDT |
Not this nonsense again! Talk about trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. What kind of judge makes this bonehead of a decision. |
| pmpatrick Jun 17, 2013 3:47 PM EDT |
Did you take a look at the judge's order granting the motion? Did you notice that IBM did NOT oppose the motion. Didn't think so. When SCO filed for bankruptcy, the case was pending and there were several outstanding matters to be resolved in the case. Under bankruptcy law, the case was stayed during the pending of the bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy, some fool apparently bought the assets of SCO including this case. At the conclusion of the bankruptcy case, the automatic bankruptcy stay was lifted and SCO went back to the court and asked that the case be reopened. The judge originally denied the motion hoping SCO would just go away. They didn't and on an unopposed motion to reconsider the judge granted SCO's motion and reopened the case because he really had no choice and he would have been reversed on appeal if he denied the motion. |
| vainrveenr Jun 17, 2013 4:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Did you take a look at the judge's order granting the motion? Did you notice that IBM did NOT oppose the motion. Many readers might find it helpful to become more aware exactly WHY IBM did not oppose the motion to resurrect this infamous case. Verbatim from the recent Groklaw article on this matter: Quoting:... And he [the judge] has essentially accepted the IBM suggestions on how to go forward, which SCO did not want to happen. I [PJ] was fairly confident he would, though, precisely because he's new and he surely needs some time and help from the parties to get up to speed. So it's going to go like this:(source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2013061516065416 ) Indeed, SCO and its current owners face sizable hurdles in their desires to resurrect and then ultimately prevail in this longstanding case. For further history of the case, see fine sites such as Groklaw's 'Summary of SCO v IBM' found at http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050315132709446 |
| cmost Jun 17, 2013 7:22 PM EDT |
@ pmpatrick Alas no, I didn't read the details. As someone who followed this absurd case years ago, I merely saw the headline and in knee jerk fashion was like WTF!?!? Sorry! |
| pmpatrick Jun 17, 2013 8:19 PM EDT |
@ cmost No disrespect intended even though upon rereading, my comment appears a bit on the snarky side. You're not the only one going WTF; the new judge who had this steaming pile of a case dumped on him is probably entertaining similar feelings. IMHO this judge is clearly annoyed with having this case dumped on him and is just looking for a way to stick it to SCO in short order so that his summary disposition will survive a likely appeal by SCO. |
| djohnston Jun 18, 2013 12:01 AM EDT |
I have just one question. Who is Betsy? |
| BernardSwiss Jun 18, 2013 1:38 AM EDT |
> I have just one question. Who is Betsy? That's a good question. She's an un-sung hero, she is... . it's a sad story, though. Betsy is the poor, over-worked, last remaining court clerk/stenographer still attached to this case, forced to not only follow but actually record every word, while desperately hanging on to her mental health and sanity. She's been ready to retire for a few years now -- but she's the last one who hasn't been invalided out for nervous exhaustion or major depression (no one new is willing to take the job on -- everyone has heard about it and knows better -- and some good people have quit rather than get that albatross hung around their neck). Her superiors keep telling her, "Soon now, Betsy... Really! Please? We just need you to stay on, just a little longer -- it should be over any time now." |
| djohnston Jun 18, 2013 1:54 AM EDT |
@Bernard, Good explanation, and so very true. I like it. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 18, 2013 9:10 AM EDT |
In my completely ignorant and yet fervent opinion, IBM didn't object because, as pointed out above, the case had only been stayed pending bankruptcy, and... ...by putting "The New SCO" into the position of having to EXPLICITLY state their claims, as you can see from the very nice "judge following IBM's suggestions", they do what was never possible before: To finally get explicit and specific claims out of SCO so they can be PUT DOWN LIKE THE RABID DOGS THEY ARE! Ah, excuse me. I get excited. My most cherished dream in all this is that "The New Judge" won't give in and give in and give in like the last one did every time SCO missed a deadline. |
| jdixon Jun 18, 2013 10:15 AM EDT |
> My most cherished dream in all this is that... I actually hope for more than that. I hope he finds that the case was without merit and frivilous and that the lawyers were negligent in bringing it before the court. And then penalizes the company and lawyers appropriately. I doubt I'll get my wish, but as long as I'm daydreaming... Say, anyone got a winning Megamillions ticket they want to give away? :) |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 18, 2013 10:28 AM EDT |
> And then penalizes the company and lawyers appropriately. Ha! There isn't enough money in circulation for that penalty. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!