|
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]"
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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: roman_mir on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:35 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: kbq on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:06 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:13 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: PJ on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:36 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: mossc on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
- Thoughts on proofreading - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: idahoan on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: odysseus on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST
- Wiki or other? (Was: Flowers for PJ) - Authored by: grouch on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:56 PM EST
- PJ: Seen this? - Authored by: grouch on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 09:08 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: Cambo on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 10:16 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: suppafly on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: fjaffe on Saturday, February 14 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST
- Flowers for PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 14 2004 @ 08:53 PM EST
- Lawyer? - Authored by: lightsail on Saturday, February 14 2004 @ 06:54 AM EST
- Red Hat Files Motion With Proposed Order to Supplement the Record - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST
- Valentine for PJ - Authored by: denver.co on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:40 PM EST
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|