Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice? - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice? - Linux ; On 12 Sep, 17:17, gutless **** fake ewic "amicus_curious" fud wrote: > My own assessment is that the article would be compelling to most > people who do not have a built-in hatred for SCO and/or Microsoft. > Let us ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?

  1. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?

    On 12 Sep, 17:17, gutless **** fake ewic "amicus_curious" fud wrote:

    > My own assessment is that the article would be compelling to most
    > people who do not have a built-in hatred for SCO and/or Microsoft.
    > Let us see what eventually happens on appeal.- Hide quoted text -


    Why not get some 'journaists' to interview the Judge off the record,
    then leak the information and call for his honours resignation for
    being biased ..



  2. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:1189764310.120378.315380@19g2000hsx.googlegro ups.com...
    > On 12 Sep, 17:17, gutless **** fake ewic "amicus_curious" fud wrote:
    >
    >> My own assessment is that the article would be compelling to most
    >> people who do not have a built-in hatred for SCO and/or Microsoft.
    >> Let us see what eventually happens on appeal.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > Why not get some 'journaists' to interview the Judge off the record,
    > then leak the information and call for his honours resignation for
    > being biased ..
    >
    >

    Too late for that. For this tactic to be effective on appeal, the judge has
    to violate the judical ethics rules during the trial. "You snooze, you
    lose" is the term for this. As a good example of how to spot this, read
    about how Judge Jackson, prejudiced against Microsoft by Microsoft's
    prevailing on the appeal of Jackson's prior rulings and the dismissal of his
    friend Larry Lessig from the taxpayer's teat as a Special Master, violated
    all sorts of ethics during the DOJ/States trial.


  3. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?

    amicus_curious wrote:
    > .. As a good example of how to spot this,
    > read about how Judge Jackson, prejudiced against Microsoft by
    > Microsoft's prevailing on the appeal of Jackson's prior rulings and the
    > dismissal of his friend Larry Lessig from the taxpayer's teat as a
    > Special Master, violated all sorts of ethics during the DOJ/States trial.


    No, actually Judge Jackson spoke to some journalists in private, MS
    lawyers leeked the information and then called for his removal.

    "Judge Jackson agreed to be interviewed several times after testimony in
    the trial had ended, with the understanding that his comments could not
    be published until the case had left his courtroom"

    http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...s/09trial.html

    "He also reportedly denounced Microsoft’s
    executives in strong terms as arrogant and intransigent, id. at
    A123-A125, and “secretly divulged to reporters his views on the remedy
    for Microsoft’s antitrust violations,”

    http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001...-0236.resp.pdf

    --

    you're not helping billg at all, fuddie ..

  4. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?


    "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    news:feg75t$54k$1@news.datemas.de...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >> .. As a good example of how to spot this, read about how Judge Jackson,
    >> prejudiced against Microsoft by Microsoft's prevailing on the appeal of
    >> Jackson's prior rulings and the dismissal of his friend Larry Lessig from
    >> the taxpayer's teat as a Special Master, violated all sorts of ethics
    >> during the DOJ/States trial.

    >
    > No, actually Judge Jackson spoke to some journalists in private, MS
    > lawyers leeked the information and then called for his removal.
    >
    > "Judge Jackson agreed to be interviewed several times after testimony in
    > the trial had ended, with the understanding that his comments could not
    > be published until the case had left his courtroom"
    >
    > http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...s/09trial.html
    >
    > "He also reportedly denounced Microsoft’s
    > executives in strong terms as arrogant and intransigent, id. at
    > A123-A125, and “secretly divulged to reporters his views on the remedy
    > for Microsoft’s antitrust violations,”
    >
    > http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001...-0236.resp.pdf
    >
    > --
    >
    > you're not helping billg at all, fuddie ..


    My, my, my! Did the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals get it
    totally wrong? Poor Judge Jackson, the victim of circumstance. That's what
    you get when you trust these high ranking judges with interpreting the law.
    Better to ask the COLA folk and get the straight answer, particularly when
    it involves Microsoft.


  5. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?

    Micoshaft's Asstroturfer amicus_curious wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    Corporation:

    >
    > "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    > news:feg75t$54k$1@news.datemas.de...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>> .. As a good example of how to spot this, read about how Judge Jackson,
    >>> prejudiced against Microsoft by Microsoft's prevailing on the appeal of
    >>> Jackson's prior rulings and the dismissal of his friend Larry Lessig
    >>> from the taxpayer's teat as a Special Master, violated all sorts of
    >>> ethics during the DOJ/States trial.

    >>
    >> No, actually Judge Jackson spoke to some journalists in private, MS
    >> lawyers leeked the information and then called for his removal.
    >>
    >> "Judge Jackson agreed to be interviewed several times after testimony in
    >> the trial had ended, with the understanding that his comments could not
    >> be published until the case had left his courtroom"
    >>
    >> http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/biztech

    articles/09trial.html
    >>
    >> "He also reportedly denounced Microsoft?s
    >> executives in strong terms as arrogant and intransigent, id. at
    >> A123-A125, and ?secretly divulged to reporters his views on the remedy
    >> for Microsoft?s antitrust violations,?
    >>
    >> http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001...-0236.resp.pdf
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> you're not helping billg at all, fuddie ..

    >
    > My, my, my! Did the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals get it
    > totally wrong? Poor Judge Jackson, the victim of circumstance. That's
    > what you get when you trust these high ranking judges with interpreting
    > the law. Better to ask the COLA folk and get the straight answer,
    > particularly when it involves Microsoft.



    Its better than asking Micoshaft's Asstroturfers spliffing away and
    posting drivel generated in an imagined make believe world of their own.



  6. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?


    "7" wrote in message
    news:sQOOi.28426$c_1.2077@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    > Micoshaft's Asstroturfer amicus_curious wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    > Corporation:
    >
    >>
    >> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    >> news:feg75t$54k$1@news.datemas.de...
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>> .. As a good example of how to spot this, read about how Judge Jackson,
    >>>> prejudiced against Microsoft by Microsoft's prevailing on the appeal of
    >>>> Jackson's prior rulings and the dismissal of his friend Larry Lessig
    >>>> from the taxpayer's teat as a Special Master, violated all sorts of
    >>>> ethics during the DOJ/States trial.
    >>>
    >>> No, actually Judge Jackson spoke to some journalists in private, MS
    >>> lawyers leeked the information and then called for his removal.
    >>>
    >>> "Judge Jackson agreed to be interviewed several times after testimony in
    >>> the trial had ended, with the understanding that his comments could not
    >>> be published until the case had left his courtroom"
    >>>
    >>> http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/biztech

    > articles/09trial.html
    >>>
    >>> "He also reportedly denounced Microsoft?s
    >>> executives in strong terms as arrogant and intransigent, id. at
    >>> A123-A125, and ?secretly divulged to reporters his views on the remedy
    >>> for Microsoft?s antitrust violations,?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001...-0236.resp.pdf
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>>
    >>> you're not helping billg at all, fuddie ..

    >>
    >> My, my, my! Did the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals get it
    >> totally wrong? Poor Judge Jackson, the victim of circumstance. That's
    >> what you get when you trust these high ranking judges with interpreting
    >> the law. Better to ask the COLA folk and get the straight answer,
    >> particularly when it involves Microsoft.

    >
    >
    > Its better than asking Micoshaft's Asstroturfers spliffing away and
    > posting drivel generated in an imagined make believe world of their own.
    >
    >

    You lack originality. That is a good quality for an OSSer.


  7. Re: Did SCO get Linux-mob justice?

    Micoshaft's Asstroturfer amicus_curious wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    Corporation:

    >
    > "7" wrote in message
    > news:sQOOi.28426$c_1.2077@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
    >> Micoshaft's Asstroturfer amicus_curious wrote on behalf of Micoshaft
    >> Corporation:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
    >>> news:feg75t$54k$1@news.datemas.de...
    >>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>>> .. As a good example of how to spot this, read about how Judge
    >>>>> Jackson, prejudiced against Microsoft by Microsoft's prevailing on the
    >>>>> appeal of Jackson's prior rulings and the dismissal of his friend
    >>>>> Larry Lessig from the taxpayer's teat as a Special Master, violated
    >>>>> all sorts of ethics during the DOJ/States trial.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, actually Judge Jackson spoke to some journalists in private, MS
    >>>> lawyers leeked the information and then called for his removal.
    >>>>
    >>>> "Judge Jackson agreed to be interviewed several times after testimony
    >>>> in the trial had ended, with the understanding that his comments could
    >>>> not be published until the case had left his courtroom"
    >>>>
    >>>> http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/06/biztech

    >> articles/09trial.html
    >>>>
    >>>> "He also reportedly denounced Microsoft?s
    >>>> executives in strong terms as arrogant and intransigent, id. at
    >>>> A123-A125, and ?secretly divulged to reporters his views on the remedy
    >>>> for Microsoft?s antitrust violations,?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2001...-0236.resp.pdf
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>>
    >>>> you're not helping billg at all, fuddie ..
    >>>
    >>> My, my, my! Did the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals get
    >>> it
    >>> totally wrong? Poor Judge Jackson, the victim of circumstance. That's
    >>> what you get when you trust these high ranking judges with interpreting
    >>> the law. Better to ask the COLA folk and get the straight answer,
    >>> particularly when it involves Microsoft.

    >>
    >>
    >> Its better than asking Micoshaft's Asstroturfers spliffing away and
    >> posting drivel generated in an imagined make believe world of their own.
    >>
    >>

    > You lack originality. That is a good quality for an OSSer.


    Thats it get angry on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation.
    And spliff till you drop!
    So whats new in your neck of the woods?
    Has the price of asstroturfing post has gone up recently
    or are you just making do with only what they can afford to give you?



+ Reply to Thread