What Next?

rsteinmetz70112

April 20 2010

Now that these have been submitted do they each get a shot at rebutting the
other and is there another filing by both after that?

Or does the Judge just decide?

---
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

10:14 AM EDT

When?

MSS2

April 20 2010

Rough guess on how long it's going to take Stewart to rule on this? Days?
Weeks? Months? Years?

12:47 PM EDT

Trustee Edward Cahn - SCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Anonymous

April 20 2010

"And keep in mind that this filing from SCO is signed off on by the Chapter
11 trustee Edward Cahn."

And that is what I find most troubling of all in this whole mess. The only
thing I can think of is that the trustee has to pretend things are exactly as
SCOG has portrayed them in an effort to maximize SCOG value, whatever that is.

One must remember, Novell argued for a trustee. That individual has an
obligation which has nothing to do with whether or not SCOG acted badly in
bringing on these lawsuits.

I can only guess that he was handed a bag of old, rotten, moldy, dried out
lemons, and is trying to make a refreshing lemonade drink. Lots of artificial
flavoring being used here.

02:30 PM EDT

Trustee Edward Cahn - SCO's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

April 20 2010

Excuse me, but he does not have to pretend to things
that are not so. He has a duty not to do that.

04:32 PM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100420092828671&title=Trustee%20Edward%20Cahn%20-%20SCO%27s%20Proposed%20Findings%20of%20Fact%20and%20Conclusions%20of%20Law&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=846217#c846259

Why not contact Edward Cahn?

hagge

April 20 2010

Hi PJ,

wouldn't it be worth a try that you or some other competent Groklaw member
contact Mr. Cahn with the intention to explain the whole thing from another
view. I have the impression that Mr. Cahn is completely influenced by SCO and
does not see the wood for the trees anymore. And maybe if someone explains him
some of the facts with a different view, then he might grok (pun intended :) the
whole situation a little bit more.

I don't know if someone like him will answer to such a request from ordinary
people like you and me, but isn't it at least worth a try?

Hagge

07:15 PM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100420092828671&title=Why%20not%20contact%20Edward%20Cahn%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=0#c846325

In a word NO

dmarker

07:45 PM EDT

A complete waste of time. Cahn knows what he is doing & is and will
continue to do it & our input has no value.

07:45 PM EDT

In a word NO

hagge

April 21 2010

Well, I thought we are a little bit more idealistic here and try to find the
good in the people. Maybe we are hitting on deaf ears, but maybe not. We can
only tell if we have tried. Maybe Cahn really does not know or understand the
other side and talking to him could get the ball rolling. As I understand, he
should decide for the benefit of *all* involved parties, not just SCO. It's just
that he works at the headquarters of SCO and gets delivered one prejudiced and
biased information after the other. But probably he would be thankful for some
different insight. And I don't expect that SCO will voluntarily tell him about
Groklaw or similar information sources.

The problem is that if Mr. Cahn has some questions about something, he will ask
people at SCO and will always get the same totally biased answers. But let's
assume we can really make contact and Mr. Cahn tries to wipe the first comments
away with some insight questions, and hey, PJ can answer them in a totally
casual way, and no matter what question Cahn continues to ask, PJ (or whoever)
has a profound answer, don't you think this will at least get Cahn start
thinking a little bit, get some doubts, scrutinize some of the answers he got
from SCO?

04:50 AM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100420092828671&title=In%20a%20word%20NO&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=846334#c846462

In a word NO

Vic

April 21 2010

> And I don't expect that SCO will voluntarily tell him about
> Groklaw or similar information sources.

Judge Cahn's lawyers have already submitted a bill for reading Groklaw...

Vic.

06:25 AM EDT

In a word NO

hagge

April 21 2010

Well, good idea! I'll also try to file a bill for reading Groklaw to Mr. Cahn.
Maybe I get it through, too, and get some money for it. :)

Seriously, I would say that talking to someone personally is quite different to
reading a few pages on a website. We all know how much time it takes to
understand the whole SCO situation. Where you would have to read quite a lot to
find the one piece of information you are looking for, some capable person can
give this information in a few seconds. So this is much more efficient.

But hey, it was a suggestion. We all discuss a lot how little influence we have,
but did we ever try to change this by entering the scene directly? Not only
observing and complaining about the unfair world, but acting ourselves. The
worst thing that could happen is that we don't get heard. Then the effect is
zero, exactly as it is now, too. But if not, if we actually can "make
contact", every little piece of correct information we can get there is an
opportunity to set the record straight.

08:28 AM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100420092828671&title=In%20a%20word%20NO&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=846480#c846512

In a word NO

April 21 2010

This is not an appropriate suggestion. Don't anyone
from Groklaw contact anyone. That is the end of
this thread.

09:03 AM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100420092828671&title=In%20a%20word%20NO&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=846512#c846526

Accepted, but why?

hagge

April 21 2010

OK, I accept this decision. But may I ask why?

03:31 AM EDT

Accepted, but why?

maroberts

April 22 2010

Even I can answer that one.

Unsolicited "help" from outsiders has often been known to cause
problems. In terms of the politics of the issue, we do not want our viewpoint
remotely associated with "crank" or extreme behaviour. Its not
Groklaws battle directly, we are simply interested observers.

PJ and various other contributors have placed an immense amount of research
material on the site, and Novell, SCO or any other "real" party is
free to use or ignore this material as they wish. What Groklaw has done, more
than anything else, is make the relevant history and legal decisions available
so it is vastly more difficult to file lawsuits detrimental to the progress of
Linux and Unix.

05:19 AM EDT

Accepted, but why?

hagge

April 22 2010

OK, thanks for the explanation. So Groklaw has an opinion on one hand, but does
not want to get directly involved with the cases it observes on the other hand.
And it keeps a data base of the case documents -- as objective as possible --
for researching purposes and to serve *all* actually involved case parties.

10:38 AM EDT

Accepted, but why?

April 22 2010

If I thought getting involved would work, it might
be different, but if Groklaw ever did get involved,
it would be attorney-based and directed by me, so
as to maximize effectiveness. I see that the one
attempt at activism by someone at least claiming
to be anti-SCO in fact helped them at every turn.
And so it will be if any of you try to tilt things
by actions without legal representation.

It never works out, or so rarely as to make headlines,
so to speak. I also remember that the very first
person to suggest activism on Groklaw, back in the
Radio days, turned out to be rather clearly a SCO
supporter. It wasn't apparent to most here, but
it was to me, for reasons I won't go into now, but
thankfully when I suggested not doing what he said
to try, everyone cooperated. What he was suggesting
was that everyone send a letter with a return address
supplied.

Can you imagine what SCOfolk would have done with
that info, even if he had meant well?

Deeper, when you suggest involvement in a world you
don't know a thing about, you risk stepping on
people's sense of propriety, even without meaning
to, and that never helps. Judges are not accustomed
to getting letters about a case except maybe from
kooks. And do you seriously suggest that Cahn
doesn't know, after discussions with both IBM and
Novell?

12:00 PM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100420092828671&title=Accepted%2C%20but%20why%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=846724#c846737