The SCO Vs IBM Zombie Shambles On (uscourts.gov) 127
Long-time Slashdot reader UncleJosh writes:
At the end of last October, the 10th Circuit issued an opinion overturning the lower court's summary judgement in favor of IBM on one of SCO's claims, sending it back to the lower court for trial. Shortly thereafter, IBM filed for a re-hearing en banc. On January 2nd, the 10th circuit essentially denied IBM's request, issuing a slightly revised opinion with the same conclusions and result.
The charge being reheard accuses IBM of "stealing and improperly using [SCO's] source code to strengthen its own operating system, thereby committing the tort of unfair competition by means of misappropriation" -- though that charged is based on an implied duty that SCO says IBM incurred by entering into a development relationship with SCO. "SCO believes that IBM merely pretended to go along with the arrangement in order to gain access to Santa Cruz's coveted source code."
The court's 46-page document adds that "We are now almost fifteen years into this litigation."
The charge being reheard accuses IBM of "stealing and improperly using [SCO's] source code to strengthen its own operating system, thereby committing the tort of unfair competition by means of misappropriation" -- though that charged is based on an implied duty that SCO says IBM incurred by entering into a development relationship with SCO. "SCO believes that IBM merely pretended to go along with the arrangement in order to gain access to Santa Cruz's coveted source code."
The court's 46-page document adds that "We are now almost fifteen years into this litigation."
My god (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody PLEASE put a stake in it.
Re:My god (Score:5, Informative)
That's for vampires. Zombies require a headshot.
Re: (Score:1)
Traditionally, you give zombies food with salt in it. Then they realise they're dead and stumble back to their graves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which explains SCO right now.
'Cuz they were WAAAY salty after losing all of their cases.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I usually don't recommend doxxing, but can't someone provide names of the people behind this scam attempt?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that zombies were adopted by PID 1 so that they could finally die.
Re: (Score:2)
"Remove the head or destroy the brain"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Groklaw.net used to cover this really well, back when PJ was running it.
The trick here is that the judge managing SCO's original attempts put his buddy in charge of managing SCO's bankruptcy, basically on a permanent retaiiner. It was like getting his brother-in-law a job closing an estate: he draws a salary as long as the bankruptcy is in progress, charges by the hour and has absolutely *zero* reason to ever finish the job. If he can scam it right, he can also do exactly what SCO got caught doing: find a s
Re:My god (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of jurisdictions allow voting at 16.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked, 15 is still < 16.
Re: (Score:3)
No, for zombies you need to fill their mouth with salt and then sew their lips closed to keep them from spitting it out.
What it should have added... (Score:3, Interesting)
"We are now almost fifteen years into this litigation and still neither side is broke, like seriously wtf!"
Re:What it should have added... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh SCO died of bankerupcy long ago. The last thing they did was sell off the right to sue to lawyers and promptly shat the bed and died.
Frusturatingly for IBM, the one claim that stuck was that SCO owed IBM a *lot* of money, but instead of the handing over that money they spent it all on lawyers refiling again and again until there was nothing left for IBM to claim.
Which ought be completely illegal, but apparently it is not.
Re:What it should have added... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the time when it should be legal to harvest the organs of CEOs to compensate the damaged party. The heart's probably unusable (provided it's present) but the rest should be usable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, you have to do without spine and heart, but compensate with an extra helping of guts...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What it should have added... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a way out of this. It is really rather nasty and has to do with legally targeting the law firm. Fund all cases against the Law Firm. Find all of their cases and help fund the opposition and let everyone know, use that Law Firm and you will likely lose because IBM will fund the opposition for a share of the action. Let's see who toughs it out then!
Re: (Score:2)
Considering what we've heard from them over the years, the gastrointestinal tract is also unusable; it seemed to work backwards.
Perhaps the sphincter is still squeaky clean.
Re: (Score:1)
As others have pointed out Groklaw [groklaw.net] provided ongoing coverage of SCO vs the universe matters until August, 2013. At that point PJ gave up the ghost [groklaw.net] and quit running Groklaw. Groklaw's SCO vs IBM timeline [groklaw.net] continued to be updated with documents, including the summary judgement decision [groklaw.net] that was just overturned and returned to the district court for trial. That opinion has a decent history of the case with regards to SCO's only remaining claim against IBM.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Microsoft isn't the only one, but they're relevant in this case because they appear to have been the instigator and source of funds. The evidence *doesn't* seem to be conclusive, but it's considerably stronger than just "highly suggestive".
History of the Zombie (Score:5, Insightful)
During that case there was a great deal of fancy footwork by TSG's lawyers (Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLC), who were hoping to get the case to a jury trial without having to turn over the specifics of their "evidence" to the Court and thus to IBM. Their tactic of not showing their hand had two aims: to bluff IBM into thinking that their case was stronger than it really was - and to hold back the most damaging accusations until they could be delivered in front of a jury without giving IBM the ability to prepare a response.
Duelling motions came to a head and eventually, after giving TSG all the lattitude he could, Judge Kimball announced that he would rule on an IBM motion to compel TSG to pony up their evidence. Before that could be discussed in a hearing [literally just a couple of days before] TSG filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. It is worth noting at this point that when TSG filed for bankruptcy they were technically and legally solvent, but the Bankruptcy Court accepted their petition regardless.
At that point everything on this thread of the story went a bit strange.
The Bankruptcy Court appointed one Judge Kevin Gross to preside over the bankruptcy. Judge Gross then appointed a Trustee to be the caretaker for the Chapter 11-protected TSG - and this Trustee was himself a retired Judge. [Sorry, this gentleman's name and that of his company escapes me].
From this point forward, the Trustee continue to try and fight the court case, all the while submitting invoices to TSG for their services. Although there was quite a bit of noise from this point forward, nothing substantive came of the appointment of this Trustee other than - in the opinion of this observer, anyway - the Trustee being able to milk the last of the liquid assets out of TSG and to push the company from not-quite-Chaper-11 through to brink-of-Chapter-7 bankruptcy.
At that point, with no more juice to suck out, the Trustee seemed to lose interest and the whole thing went quiet.
Until now, that is.
It's probably worth pointing out that the Trustee is itself a law firm, staffed, of course, with Law Clerks and Lawyers. Such an entity does of course go through brief periods of time when there is not enough work to keep every employee engaged on client-funded business. Rather than lay off an employee when that happens, the Firm will of course assign them activities which it hopes might have a future beneficial value. If miracles could happen and if TSG could prevail in even the tiniest part of an argument against IBM, then there would be a payout from IBM to the corpse. At that point, the Trustee would be able to reactivate any deferred invoices that they had accrued during the time that TSG has spent as a zombie.
In other words, the original gang of SCO Group folk (Darl McBride, Sanjay Gupta and friends) that filed the original complaint are long, long gone. The zombine is now being prodded along by the company of the Bankruptcy Court-appointed Trustee. Finally, this looks to have become nothing more than a time-card-filler for that law Firm, who occasionally have enough spare time on their hands to write another motion and prod the zombie...
Let's all hope a Court gives them a nice big slap for wasting Court time...
Re:History of the Zombie (Score:5, Informative)
Years of this litigation were documented at https://www.groklaw.net/ [groklaw.net]. The trustee is Edward Cahn.
http://www.groklaw.net/article... [groklaw.net]
Thank you! (Score:2)
Re:History of the Zombie (Score:5, Interesting)
Years of this litigation were documented at https://www.groklaw.net/ [groklaw.net]. The trustee is Edward Cahn.
http://www.groklaw.net/article... [groklaw.net]
And how fitting that his last name is pronounced "Con" because that's what this whole thing is.
In the very first paragraph of this most recent filing by SCO we see The Big Lie repeated:
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (Santa Cruz) entered into a business arrangement with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) to develop a new operating system that would run on a more advanced processor manufactured by Intel Corporation (Intel). The parties signed an agreement memorializing this collaborative effort and called it Project Monterey. Another technology company, The SCO Group, Inc. (SCO), then acquired Santa Cruz’s intellectual property assets and now brings this lawsuit for IBM’s alleged misconduct during and immediately after Project Monterey.
The original SCO, The Santa Cruz Operation, sold their Unix business to Caldera. After the sale, Santa Cruz, the original SCO, changed their name to Taligent. It wasn't until a few years later, just before filing their original lawsuit against IBM, that Caldera changed their name to The SCO Group.
The name change was done for the sole purpose of facilitating this lawsuit and creating confusion -- pretending that The SCO Group is the original SCO. An example of this was seen in 2004 when The SCO Group announced on their website the 25th anniversary of the company. The problem is, Caldera, the predecessor to The SCO Group, was only founded in the early 90s. 2004 was the 25th anniversary of the original SCO not the current phoney, pretend SCO.
Re: (Score:2)
After the sale, Santa Cruz, the original SCO, changed their name to Taligent.
Tarantella. Taligent was an IBM spinoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there not a point whereby the judge says proceedings are taking too long, IE deadlines and will close a case if those deadlines are not met?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a scenario where a plaintiff were seriously ill or otherwise unable to act... or a mirror of this case, but one in which the plaintiff actually had a legitimate complaint and weren't a shake-down artist. In these alternate scenarios, we'd want the law to give the party the time they needed to move their case forward. So I think that, for these reasons, a court will default to a position where it will allow the time if
Re: (Score:2)
Re:History of the Zombie (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a helpful article on Groklaw which covers this point:-
http://www.groklaw.net/article... [groklaw.net]
in which there is discussion of an expression used by Magistrate Judge Wells during an evidentiary hearing. The analogy she used was that The SCO Group were essentially trying to perform the equivalent of accusing a shoplifter from stealing from Neiman Marcus [a US catalogue-based retailer, for non-US readers]. The Magistrate Judge basically told The SCO Group that what they were trying to do was (in accusing IBM of being the "shoplifter") say, "This thing we claim you stole. It's in the catalogue. You figure it out."
The two legal Teams (BSF for The SCO Group and CSM - Cravath, Swaine and Moore - for IBM) duelled on this point during the hearing, with IBM actually using the BSF/TSG cited cases against them, showing that the cases proved the opposite of what BSF/TSG were claiming. Even this wasn't enough to have the claims thrown out by the Magistrate Judge.
I would venture that the only reason that these claims remain and that this entire fiasco is still underway is simply because the original TSG filed for Chapter 11 literally just before a definitive ruling from Judge Kimball that would have blown their case out of the water. I'll go further: TSG filed for bankruptcy when they did precisely because they knew that the ruling would go against them and would sink their case. Their hope was that they could file for Chapter 11, swim along beneath the surface for a bit, then return with a new argument or new case when Judge Kimball got re-assigned. What they hadn't banked on was Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross deciding that the reason that The SCO Group got in such a mess was because of mis-management and deciding to appoint a Trustee. In some cases, after all, the Chapter 11 company is allowed to continue under existing management but simply with a protection-from-creditors shield in place long enough for them to be able to dig themselves out from under their troubles. Useful for legitimate Chapter 11 claimants, after all...
I'm bound to mention, as an aside, that in the view of this observer there was something decidedly fishy about the appointment of the Trustee, Cahn. During one of the bankruptcy hearings, Judge Gross made a comment on his decision to appoint a Trustee along the lines of: "Given the nature of the circumstances of this applicant - and the legal nature of their worries - it would be nice if we could find a Trustee with, I don't know, some form of legal background..."
And then, as if by magic, along comes (retired) Judge Cahn to save the day...
What followed - and again, in the view of this observer - was a relationship between Gross and Cahn which stretched the boundaries of due process. It would be an exaggeration for me to say that Judge Gross was fawning over the opinions of Judge Cahn, but it was abundantly clear that the former held the latter in the highest of regard and was entirely willing to let Judge Cahn do pretty much whatever he asked for - the rulings were getting signed off thick and fast and every bit as quickly as they were made.
In a situation like this it is true to say that there were losers all round, but the one thing I found most egregious were the "incidental" victims. For example, I recall that one of the creditors [who didn't get a dime, all the while Judge Cahn paid his own company to conduct legal research into the court case] was a small Mom-and-Pop pizzeria, not far from TSGs offices, who had provided the company with "pizzas on account". I just came away with this vision of Darl McBride and Co all sat round a meeting room table, with open pizza boxes piled high while they filled their faces, only to have them chortling
Explain the economics of now (Score:3)
I get that at one point SCO had assets worth plundering and probably some recurring income from licensed patents. But hasn't all of that basically been drained off?
I'm wondering what motivates anyone TODAY to sink money and resources into this case. It looks like it requires a multi-million dollar up front commitment to continued litigation combined with a very low chance of a significant payout.
The backers seem like they would be better off just investing those resources in equities. If there's any equi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> My guess is that their only hope of any more money is to get something (win, settlement...) out of the case
That is true, but the real reason for continuing is that to stop would be a breach of contract and they may have to pay the one time fee back, or some other penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe a law firm would negotiate representation that required them to sink a lot of hours into a losing cause.
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the 80's, SCO was the only Unix available for the X86 platform. But the price was about $400-500, which was past the finch point of most software geeks at the time. You can't help but wonder what would have happened if they dropped the price to $99, and gave the world a decent alternative to MSDOS. Would SCO occupy the space that Linux has since filled?
Re: (Score:1)
I seem to remember that it was originally Xenix and sold by Microsoft - who sold it off to The Santa Cruz Operation.
Phil.
Re: (Score:2)
That was the maddening thing at the time - the UNIX wars which prevented it from becoming the standard OS. That was a war in which everybody lost. For desktop computing UNIX and OS/2 were the only decent OS's (looking to the future) available. All of the other proprietary OS's had no potential for long term use - being tied to their particular proprietary platform, or just outright sucking (or both).
At the time I thought that the biggest challenge facing the desktop computer industry was settling on a domin
Re: (Score:2)
> That was a war in which everybody lost.
"The Unix wars are over. Unix lost."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost everything in that statement is wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason it continues is: early in the case BSF (TSGs lawyers) needed to buy themselves out of owning part of the case though no one really knows. The price was a fixed price + limited costs deal until the case was finished.
BSF cannot just walk away, discovery was finished before the bankruptcy leaving negligible ongoing costs, the case continues at BSFs expense and essentially free for the trustee. Doesn't take much chance of a win or reward to beat free.
And the reason TSG wouldn't show their case claims
Re: (Score:3)
Sanjay Gupta and friends
Sandeep, not Sanjay the TV doctor.
Re: (Score:1)
>>> Judge Gross then appointed a Trustee to be the caretaker for the Chapter 11-protected TSG - and this Trustee was himself a retired Judge. >>>
He was retired and also utterly ignorant of computers and software in respect to technology and in respect to business. He sincerely believed the TSG stories.
Anyway. He did milk the remaing liquid funds for his personal fees, but he had free legal services from the original TSG lawyers who pocketed a $30m global fee covering everything from here t
sco vs. ibm posts and slashdot... 2 great tastes (Score:3)
Flashback to 2003.
Reading daily updates on slashdot
Reading daily updates and comment threads from PJ on groklaw
I can't believe that 15 years later this lawsuit lumbers on.
How many tens of millions of dollars (hundreds of milions?) have both sides spent on this lawsuit?
does sco actually own the code? (Score:3)
Hadn't we decided earlier (like, over a decade ago) that SCO didn't own the rights to the source code, that it never transferred from Novell? Or am I misremembering. This has gone on sooooo loooooong....
Re: (Score:1)
That's my understanding as well. I have to wonder what happened to cause the judge to reverse this. Maybe he was baffled with bullshit?
Re: (Score:2)
If so, in his defense, there's been an awful lot of bullshit to be baffled by.
Re:Here's a haiku to liven up your day (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what's funny...and I'm going to be modded down for this...but if you look at the millions of man-years spent wasting everyone's time on the litigation versus how much time it would take to write a *decent* OS entirely from scratch, you're looking at a 1000000:1 effort.
This is like spending 50 years in the court system over someone jaywalking when he never jaywalked in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
if you look at the millions of man-years spent wasting everyone's time on the litigation versus how much time it would take to write a *decent* OS entirely from scratch, you're looking at a 1000000:1 effort.
Yes but that's 1000000 lawyer hours compared to system programmers. They have a negative effect on the actual production of anything useful
Re: (Score:2)
SCO v IBM is Oak Island for lawyers. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
This is not about justice. That's not how the American legal system works anymore. This is about going after people who have deep pockets, like Autozone, over a line or two of code, and continuing over and over and over again until they're disbarred.
It is a true disgrace to humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
The site's not loading, but I'll take your word for it.
Probably for the best, it was a goat.cx clone.
Re: (Score:1)
... the legal counsel has pledged to continue until they are disbarred or they make a "success" of the case, whatever that means.
Legal fees == "success".
That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, according to the plaintiff's sorry excuse for a blog [bloggerballsports.com], the legal counsel has pledged to continue until they are disbarred or they make a "success" of the case, whatever that means.
Although IANAL, perhaps we should talk about exactly what that means.
At this point, is legal counsel even representing those of the long-defunct SCO corp? Other than these idiots taking some kind of blood oath to ride this case all the way to Hell and back, I'm failing to see how there's a point to continuing this. And by that, I mean even a legal point that any judge would give a shit about.
If anything, this case serves as a prime example of laws that likely need to be changed. You know, like a law that
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't the law, it is lawyers and judges. The law is fine. (Some) Lawyers and Judges are known to bend over backwards to present and form opinions that aren't actually based on anything reasonable. To the point of ridiculousness.
As long as One Lawyer, can find One Judge that will hear the case, the case continues. In criminal lay there are appeals processes in place, and and eventual end to the process (sort of). In Civil Tort, there is no end to the process, as long as there is a court to hear w
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't the law, it is lawyers and judges. The law is fine. (Some) Lawyers and Judges are known to bend over backwards to present and form opinions that aren't actually based on anything reasonable. To the point of ridiculousness.
If (some) Lawyers and Judges are able to abuse the law in this way (to the point of ridiculousness), then the problem does in fact lie with the law. Change it, so bullshit like this cannot perpetuate, no matter what lawyer stands in front of what judge. In this case, perhaps something as simple as a statute of limitations applicable to specific situations to establish a time limit on how long it can be drug out could be established.
Re: (Score:2)
Avoiding bugs when programming in your favorite programming language is difficult to impossible. Avoiding bugs when making laws in English in a rapidly changing world is similarly difficult to impossible, and there's assorted political considerations when making laws.
What you have proposed is something like bringing in a junior Javascript programmer to fix bugs in your C++ programs.
SCO is a corner case. In most lawsuits, the defense tries to drag things out. Since this was not a lawsuit for SCO to w
Re: (Score:2)
> versus how much time it would take to write a *decent* OS entirely from
> scratch, you're looking at a 1000000:1 effort.
That is also the ratio of the amount of money one makes in the legal system to the amount one makes selling a Unix-like OS.
Companies exist to make a profit. Any legal way of doing that is acceptable, even if it has nothing to do with your original business plan. Normally we applaud companies that do a "pivot", but here we have one that we hate because they are attacking the sacred c
Re: (Score:1)
Third option - legal counsel dies of old age before the case is finished.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like spending 50 years in the court system over someone jaywalking when he never jaywalked in the first place.
But that would never happen. Jaywalking is a "civil crime" so there is no right to a trial or jury or any of that nonsense. You get convicted before you show up and that is that.
Re:ShemaYisrael (IBM tabulate Holocaust to SCO the (Score:5, Informative)
If you are serious when you say that "Finland was a WW2 ally of Hitler" and "they fought against the USSR" as if there would have been anything wrong about those actions, then you know nothing true about WW2 and all that you know comes only from deceitful propaganda written by those who have won the war.
USSR was as guilty for starting WW2 as those who are usually incriminated by UK & USA, i.e. Hitler, Mussolini & Japan.
During the first 2 years of WW2, while Germany was occupying many of its neighbors, USSR was doing exactly the same, occupying the Baltic countries and parts of Poland, Finland and Romania.
Moreover the Russian occupation was far more oppressive than the German occupation, because a large part of the civilian population from the occupied zones was sent to work camps in Siberia, where some were murdered and many others have died from diseases caused by cold and hard work. Very few have succeeded to return.
These are facts that I know directly, having 2 grand-grandfathers murdered by the Russians in 1940, one because he was a school teacher in a village school and the other because he had an insignificant function in the local public administration of the village, but nonetheless, both were distinguishable from the majority who were peasants and any such people were the first to be sent in Siberia to die there.
The people of USA, UK & Western Europe have bought their freedom after WW2 not with their own money, but with the money of the people of Eastern Europe, who were offered to the Russians to be robbed, for the alliance between USA, UK & USSR to be able to defeat Germany & Japan.
Finland and Romania who were previously victims of the Russian aggression, have tried to use the war between Germany and USSR as an opportunity to recover their own territories from the Russian occupation.
Of course they failed because they did not foresee that USA will enter WW2 and change the balance of power.
So the Russians kept after WW2 the occupied territories and their propaganda continues until now to claim that whoever tried to protect their properties and the life of their relatives against the Russian invaders were fascists, "Hitler allies" and so on.
If your profession is to spread Russian propaganda, e.g. about Finland being guilty of having been a "Hitler ally", then good for you.
But if you sincerely believe such junk, I can only pity you.
A short history of Russia and Finland (Score:2, Offtopic)
Finland was conquered by Sweden until the Russians took it in the early 1800s. Finland became a Grand Duchy and my understanding is that legally this made it something like the personal property of the tsar of Russia. Finland wasn't really enthused about this arrangement despite the fact that the tsar did institute special rules for Finland to give them a bit more autonomy than places in Russia got. Finland became somewhat re
Re: (Score:2)
That the Russians were as brutal and a you claim, and they were expansionist appears true. That's not the same at claiming they had equal part in starting WW2, and I find that second claim at best dubious. You might more fairly blame Britain, as they set up Poland to be conquered by the Nazis. Many in the British government considered the Nazis to be better than the Communists, and wanted to use them as a weapon against the Communists. Or consider the affairs around Czechoslovakia, and it's amalgamation
Re: (Score:2)
The US didn't really decide against the Nazis until Pearl Harbor.
I don't think that's accurate. The Lend-Lease act was signed 9 months before Pear Harbor. Once that happened, any remaining doubts about whose side the US was on would have been dispelled.
Re: (Score:2)
*Parts* of the government were anti-Nazi, or at least pro-Britain before Pearl Harbor. But only parts. There was significant official disagreement, and also lots of public disagreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of any US violations of international law concerning neutrality until 1941. The transfer of old US destroyers to Britain was illegal under international law. The US started to repair and refit British warships (illegal) and by September 1941 was in an undeclared war with Germany, with the US Navy fighting the U-boats (not too successfully, as US anti-submarine equipment and doctrine lagged).
It's pretty clear that Roosevelt chose sides early on, but had to ease the US out of strict neutrali
Re: (Score:2)
Allying with Germany wasn't Stalin's first choice. Stalin preferred an alliance with Britain and France, but found them frustratingly reluctant to negotiate with. My best guess is that the British and French didn't think there was anywhere else the Soviets could go, and decided to drag things out to get better terms, to the point that the alliance would not be that useful to the Soviet Union. Since that negotiation wasn't working, Molotov negotiated a treaty with Germany.
Stalin knew that Germany wasn'
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the only revisionist history is in the phrases written by you, e.g in "Romania was not occupied by the USSR until the Soviets made their final push through Europe to Berlin", which contains two lies in a single phrase.
1. A large part of Romania was occupied by USSR in the summer of 1940. The Russians waited until the Germans completed the defeat of France, which was the last remaining ally of Romania. Immediately, a week later, the Russians invaded Romania. The official reason was that they want to r
Re: (Score:1)
Beware your own ignorance before complaining of "revisionist history".
If you read the original post, it states that "parts of Poland, Finland and Romania" were occupied by the USSR.
If you read history, you might have noticed an item called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which Romania was forced to sign under threat of invasion by Russia in 1940, ceding Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the USSR. Over 50,000 people were deported from those formerly Romanian areas in 1940-1941.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo