Thread Jester Ping
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or removed from the pinglist...
Posted on 06/28/2006 5:29:59 PM PDT by WL-law
It doesn't matter what purpose they earmark it for--it allows PP to perform more abortions, since they don't have to fund the other services now.
Just pointing out Gates donations go to mostly worthwhile causes and not directly for abortions as you attempted to claim According to that article Gates gives more for world health problems than the entire US government. How much do you Linux guys that want all software to be free give? A single dime? Who then?
And we all know that pedophiliac priests who molest children are all lauded as saints since their efforts "mostly go to worthwhile causes" right?
Sorry--that argument won't wash. I'm proud I don't give a single dime to PP, the UN, or any other global "humanitarian" cause. My money isn't going to fund murder.
I already showed you Gates grants aren't spent on abortions, when I said mostly worthwhile I was referring to contraception.
Tell us who in your supposed utopian "free software world" gives a dime to any worthwhile cause? If you have any, let's then compare to the billions Gates has given to fight diseases alone.
..and I already told you I know you refuse to learn. My comments are for any lurkers who happen upon this thread.
So you admit no one in your socialist utopia gives any donations to worthwhile causes? They don't have any money, or need for it right, so who then is donating their time, since they donate their time to the free software utopia?
Looking at what SCO has accomplished in court, I personally don't see it going to trial.
The only way this could go to trial is if the lawyers and executives for IBM are actually stupid enough not to file motions for dismissal or summary judgment.
...And the stronger the message will be to other would-be extortionists.
Oh yeah, Microsoft doesn't outsource anything. Any Microsoft isn't just outsourcing the low-level tech support and coding jobs, it's outsourcing the high-level architecture and engineering jobs.
Complete BS, I'm sure you're probably aware too.
Microsoft's business model doesn't require massive amounts of overseas employees. Microsoft needs basically only sales and supply chain support, plus some evangelism. Actual work with clients to integrate Microsoft products is usually done by local companies ("Microsoft Partners").
IBM does that with its own people since it is in large part a services company, thus the higher body count.
Hello Captain Obvious, maybe the FREE software?
IBM already has one in the pocket for when the judge says it's time for such filings.
I realize I can't teach a willfully stupid dog new tricks.
This is true...
My point though is that filing either of these motions seems to be an obvious at this point...8^)
Thread Jester Ping
A low-volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or removed from the pinglist...
***********************
What would the exact legal procedure be for IBM if SCOX now attempted to dismiss the case?
Authored by: entre on Thursday, June 29 2006 @ 07:32 AM EDT How would this end run play out?
# ]
************************************
I think that if IBM were to allow TSCOG to survive, it would send a *VERY* wrong signal ........
I don't think this journalists gets it!
June 29, 2006
Judge Hands IBM a Small Win Against SCO
By Sean Michael Kerner
*****************************************************
IBM has won a minor battle in its legal war with SCO over alleged misappropriated portions of Unix code.
Judge Brooke Wells of U.S. District Court Central Division District of Utah has issued a ruling in favor of IBM granting its motion to limit SCO's claims in part.
The dispute between IBM and SCO dates back to March 2003 when SCO filed a suit alleging IBM in some way misused its Unix software license and inappropriately shared Unix trade secrets with the Linux development community.
The order specifies that IBM's motion to limit SCO's Claims Relating to Allegedly Misused Material "seeks precluding SCO from using certain alleged misappropriated items because of a lack of specificity."
It includes some harsh language for SCO from the court, which takes issue with SCO for not being as forthcoming with details as it should be, as IBM alleges.
"In the view of the court, it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put 'all evidence on the table,'" the court order states.
Judge Wells' order indicates that, as per previous court orders, it was incumbent upon SCO to disclose the materials that they feel IBM allegedly misappropriated. In the court's view, that has not happened.
"Given the amount of code that SCO has received in discovery, the court finds it inexcusable that SCO is, in essence, still not placing all the details on the table.
"Certainly if an individual was stopped and accused of shoplifting after walking out of Neiman Marcus, they would expect to be eventually told what they allegedly stole," the court order states. "It would be absurd for an officer to tell the accused that 'you know what you stole; I'm not telling.'"
A spokesperson for IBM declined to comment on the ruling, noting that IBM does not comment on legal actions in progress. SCO was not immediately available for comment.
While there will likely be more court action between the two, the case itself is not expected to go to trial until February 2007.
See #38.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.