|
|
| SCO Gets a New Attorney for Red Hat Case |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 02:25 PM EDT
|
Now that SCO has a cool $50 million to play with, it has decided to get a new lawyer to handle the Red Hat litigation. Well, can you blame them? They have retained Jack B. Blumenfeld of Morris, Nichols, a Delaware firm that seems to have a solid IP record, particularly in patent and trade secret cases. The attorney substitution document was signed by the old attorney and Mr. Blumenfeld on October 15. I'm guessing we may not see a motion to move this case to Utah after all. Mr. Blumenfeld "serves on the Third Circuit Lawyers Advisory Committee. He has also been a member of the District Court Advisory Committee for the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Group for that Court, and the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee of that Court." You can read about him here (just click on his name on the list on the right of the page, and there is a picture of him there too) and about the firm on this page: "At the core of our patent litigation practice is, and always will be, the venue of our home state of Delaware, where for years we have appeared in nearly 40% of the IP cases. In some of those cases, we have served as local counsel, where lead counsel or a corporate client has selected us because of the considerable assistance our experience can provide. In others, we have served as lead counsel, most recently in cases involving our clients, Pharmacia, Dowa, Sony, Merck, Igen International, Advanced Energy and Corn Products International.
"Over the years, the Delaware District Court has acquired a well-deserved reputation as the premier venue for patent litigation. Morris Nichols in that time has likewise acquired the reputation as the premier patent litigation firm in Delaware. Indeed, the breadth and depth of the Morris Nichols IP experience is such that in recent national surveys of patent litigation firms, Morris Nichols can be found in the top five in cases filed, defended, or both." The firm's client list is here and the home page is here. Any time you are going to go to court, you want a lawyer the judge knows well, assuming that the impression formed was favorable, and if there is no son of the state's US Senator available to retain. It's a definite advantage to have an attorney who is well known in his field and who knows the judges there well, too and knows what they like and don't like. So, here SCO is spending its money wisely, it would appear, to try for that advantage. Of course, when you get a new lawyer, you usually are granted some delay time, for the new lawyer to get up to speed, which probably doesn't bother SCO much. Obviously, I have no inside information on why this is happening, because I am not a SCO confidante and all I know is what I see in the attorney substitution document, but looking at the web site of the firm that is being replaced, it does appear that it is more a general practice litigation and corporate law firm, as opposed to concentrating on IP the way the new firm says it does. And that is the other thing you want in an attorney, a specialist in your problem. Of course, you can only get what you can afford. Quote Database has a search function now. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
I wonder how much this is a result of the influence of SCO's new investors.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gadget on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
As a delaying tactic/strategy, how long could SCO string the court along in this
manner?
"We have new attorneys, your honor...we need another few weeks...(to find
our next lawyer)"
I wouldn't put it past SCO to try it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tgnb on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Could it be possible that the old lawyers left because they found out they've
been lied to?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
I guess SCO don't think their motion to dismiss is going to succeed?
I mean, why get a new attorney, if the case was about to be dismissed anyway.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Gets a New Attorney for Red Hat Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 03:49 PM EDT
- SCO Gets a New Attorney for Red Hat Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- SCO Gets a New Attorney for Red Hat Case - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- IMHO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:05 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: Ed L. on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:08 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:18 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:18 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: mdchaney on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- IMHO defn. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 05:09 AM EDT
- IMHO - Authored by: SST on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
The new firm's blurbs on its IP history says all about patent and trade
secret litigation and nothing about copyrights. Red Hat's request for a
declaratory motion and other complaints are not about trade secrets or patents.
The new firm may need some time to get up to speed on their new client's
mendacity and loquacity.
It would not surprise me at this juncture if SCO attempts to settle out of
court with Red hat on this one to keep any hopes for an IBM settlement alive,
although they are really deluded on that as well as many other points. "We
own Unix" for example.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: raiford on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
I did a quick search on Google and found only one case where Mr. Blumenfeld went
up against Judge Robinson. I'm no lawyer, but it looks like he lost. Check it
out for yourself:
http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/sept2000/99-1098R.wp.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mitphd on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
I wonder whether SCO, knowing that every day's delay of the Red Hat suit is
another day of valuable FUD, sat down and sketched out every legitimate or
semi-legitimate or quasi-legitimate delaying tactic, and planned to use as many
as posssible.
If, as you say, a change of attorneys is usually a strong reason for further
delay, why would they not start out with a 'disposable' law firm in the
initial stages of the suit, and reap the additional delays available when they
change lawyers. Indeed, if (as seems more and more obvious) SCO wants to string
this out as long as possible, it would be uncharacteristic of them to pass up
this opportunity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
When is SCO's response to IBM's counterclaims due?
Do you think they will try the same type of defense (that they are trying in Red
Hat) to IBM's GPL and copyright claims? (i.e. that IBM has no proprietary
interest in Linux or these copyrighted materials)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
The Local Court Rule 7.1.2 governing Motions in general
specify a Motion, an Answer and Reply. Further activity is foreclosed by:
Local Rule 7.1.2
(c) Citation of Subsequent Authorities. No additional briefs, affidavits, or
other papers in support of or in opposition to the motion shall be filed without
prior approval of the Court, except that a party may call to the Court's
attention and briefly discuss pertinent cases decided after a party's final
brief is filed or after oral argument.
In the present Rule 12 Motion, SCO correctly submitted new evidence concerning
subject matter jurisdiction with their Reply. Fundamental fairness will almost
dictate the Court allow a reply to the newly submitted evidence should Red Hat
request it.
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:17 PM EDT |
Is the beautiful and gracious Pamela Jones really a terrorist?
Perhaps her criticism of senior analysts is leading the open
source movement down the path of ultimate destruction.
Rob Enderle http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31899.html
---
Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:25 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:12 PM EDT
- DON'T FOLLOW THAT LINK! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:28 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: gumout on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 07:36 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: mdchaney on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:35 PM EDT
- SCO should hire Enderle - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:59 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: Trepalium on Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 02:10 PM EDT
- PJ a closet terrorist? - Authored by: SlOrbA on Wednesday, March 10 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
It seems they're starting to run out of things to say. The current
"latest" news appears to be news clippings from a couple months ago.
I guess SCO is having trouble keeping the news sites filled with new info.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT - SCO News - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 08:43 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 08:00 PM EDT |
For those who need some light hearted relief here is a story of someone actually
purchasing an SCO license.
Original
site
European mirror - one of many
needed when the original site got slashdotted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
Probably on advice from one of their mutual friends: McDonald's - who is a SCO
Group customer. Not good for SCO Group though, because they still don't have a
case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
From UserFriendly...
enjoy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 11:18 PM EDT |
'Tis quite interesting that Morris, Nichols brags about IP litigation for Data
General...
http://www.mnat.com/practice/int_property.html
DG was bought by EMC Storage in 1999.
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
SCO license for only fortune 1000 companies
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=102908367&fp=2&fpid=1
New Stowell quotes inside[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/coughlin102103.html
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,86291,00.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 22 2003 @ 02:14 AM EDT |
Interesting article by attorney
http://www.vssp.com/CM/Articles/Articles1016.asp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
