For anyone wishing to discuss SCO issues, Linux.ca has a mailing list http://www.ss.org/mailman/listinfo/sco-issues/
Later
Dany Allard
Niels Voll wrote:
this site has better legal research and answers to any SCO related issues, than any member of this mailing list could ever provide:
http://www.groklaw.net/
personally I wouldn't mind, if this mailing list remains one of the few places in Linux land, which doesn't give SCO any attention
Frank Ledderhof wrote:
From the article:
"As he steeled for battle in the courts, McBride brought in lawyer Boies...His firm, Boies Schiller & Flexner LP, and other law firms associated with the case have received $1 million in cash and 400,000 SCO shares."
Anyone with a pseudo-legal background care to make a completely non-binding (if not outright anonymous! LOL) comment on how usual or common it is for a lawyer or firm to own shares in a company that it's representing? (Particularly when the case in question directly affects the value of the stock.) The vested interest is obvious, and I'm in no way suggesting that it's a conflict of interest. I'm just curious about any non-evident implications.
Anyone?
Jason Louie wrote:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595047068,00.html
Not sure if I should laugh or pity McBride.... think I'll do both.
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
