decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Friday, February 13 2004 @ 05:24 PM EST

Red Hat has filed a motion with a Proposed Order to Supplement. I don't know yet what it means. I incorrectly reported a minute ago, by mistake, (actually I hit the wrong button and a draft of an article was visible for about a minute or so) that SCO filed it. Sorry for the glitch.

Here's what is up on the Pacer list of activity in the case:

"2/11/04 30 - MOTION by Red Hat Inc. with Proposed Order To Supplement the Record; Answer Brief due 2/25/04 re: [30-1] motion (ft) [Entry date 02/12/04]"


  


Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record | 190 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
Why were my comments removed from the thread, I thought this site was
"open" and about the truth?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 05:52 PM EST
How come every time I refresh this page, all the
comments about RedHat seem to go away?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST
Without having seen the documents...


I wonder if RedHat is trying to advise the court of additional statements etc.
by SCO in the months since they filed their suit?

After all, with every public stunt SCO pulled the evidence against them has
been piling up

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Judge Well's ruling due?
Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST
Last Friday Judge Wells said she would take "about a week" to issue a
ruling in the SCO v IBM discovery hearing. Has she issued the ruling?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: aardvarq on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:08 PM EST
We LOOOOVE you PJ! Thank you for everything.

Happy Valentine's day!! (you will take a break tomorrow, right??)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:17 PM EST
News news and more news. :)

Thank you so much for all you do, PJ!

Please take some time soon to recoup.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something New - Red Hat Case
Authored by: kberrien on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:21 PM EST
Its about time something moved in this area. Hopefully its what we think,
RedHat updating the judge. This of course will mean I supose that SCO will file
a rebuttal, etc to this document.

Hopefully it will bring the case back to the judges attention! I understand the
process is slow... but, wow, its really slow. Espcially for us techie's!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:25 PM EST
Ya know, I think we all oughtta chip in and do something nice for PJ, for
sacrificing so much of her life to give us so much. Thoughts anyone?

---
Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST
Maybe this is just a way of jogging the judge's memory? She's been
"thinking about" SCO's motion to dismiss for an awfully long time now,
and I've been wondering if she's forgotten about the case entirely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No Conspiracy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST
They were removed along with the misposted article. If they are still relevant
in light of the correction there is no reason you shouldn't repost them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the delay.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:24 PM EST
I think the redhat judge took a look at the IBM trial and figured if she waited
a few more months, SCO would be toast and RedHat would just drop the suit,
thereby helping clear up her overcrowded docket.

Or for that matter, what if Novell orders SCO to not sue any linux users? That
would end everything right there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where was this filed?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
Given that it's on Pacer, would this mean that it's filled in the SCO.v.IBM
case? Or was it some other case?

Wouldn't a filing by a non-party be listed as an amicus curie?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can only see one fact worth adding...
Authored by: Xenographic on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST
Granted, I certainly don't have any inside information--I can suppose that Red
Hat found something which might help them elsewhere. However, I can only think
of one fact for them to add to the record:

That SCO's copyrights are in dispute.

That may not stop SCO from continuing with the litigation (as we had someone
else say, the Copyright Office merely rubber stamps things) but it certainly
cannot help SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record
Authored by: PM on Saturday, February 14 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST
I would guess that SCO want it dismissed as soon as possible as it is an awkward
little impediment to suing end users (especially those who use RH), perhaps they
have been hassling the Judge.

SCO might have had a small loophole in that they may not have actually
threatened end users. RH no doubt want to close this off by tabling SCO's
subsequent threats.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )