|
|
| SCO Files Answer to Red Hat's Request to Supplement the Record |
 |
|
Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 04:04 AM EST
|
UPDATE: We've got the document now, and it is an Answer from SCO to Red Hat's Request to Supplement, not SCO filing to supplement. The notation in Pacer was misleading, which is why I always am reluctant to rely on just a Pacer listing. We should have the document as PDF ready later today, and then we'll transcribe. It's being scanned now.
Original story: According to Pacer, SCO may have followed Red Hat's example and also filed a Motion and Memorandum, requesting to supplement the record. Here is what is on Pacer, although I caution that clerks sometimes make mistakes in recording information, as we learned once before when a clerk recorded incorrectly that Mr. Markarian had been added as an attorney for IBM instead of for SCO, so this is subject to confirmation. The filing mentions a Memorandum of Law filed by the SCO Group, but it's possible it will turn out to be a response to Red Hat's Motion instead. The Pacer entry isn't altogether clear, but a volunteer will go by the courthouse tomorrow and find out:
2/19/04 31 Memorandum of Law Filed by SCO Group Inc. [30-1] motion To
Supplement the Record - Reply Brief due 2/26/04 (ft)
[Entry date 02/20/04] Hopefully, we'll have it for you soon.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 04:23 AM EST |
although I caution that clerks sometimes make mistakes in recording information
???
What a complete inappropriate and arrogant remark that is coming from you, PJ.
There is no need to remind us about last time when you messed up.
At least, clerks stick to the facts and don't feel compelled to start adding
their opinion or guidance, making it all so much more embarassing when mistakes
have been made before.
But then again, you're not a clerk.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 04:25 AM EST |
- What the Constitution MEANT to say was...
- Don't listen to Red Hat,
they are liars liars pants on fire.
- We've checked our records, and it turns
out that Red Hat owe us a hundred beelyon dollars, which we'd like to
add a claim for.
You know, I wrote the above as parody, but bearing in
mind who we're talking about here... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Guesses? - Authored by: alan.hughes on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST
- Guesses? - Authored by: WhiteFang on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:45 AM EST
- Nitpick: - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:34 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 04:53 AM EST |
SEC Guy #1: "Gentlemen, I propose we send a message to IT companies
everywhere by fining The SCO Group infinity billion dollars!"
SEC Guy #2: "That's the spirit, Frank! But I think a real number might be
more effective."
[Based on dialogue from "Family Guy"]
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:05 AM EST |
| What is the hold up with the judge's decision with IBM's case? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: poncewattle on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:09 AM EST |
I'll head up to the Wilmington courthouse today and have a look. Sometimes these
puppies are held up in chambers for the first day or so though.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: poncewattle on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 05:16 AM EST |
My knowledge of these things is about the level of a three year old with
language, but since the docket entry refers back to docket 30 [30-1] -- which
was the Redhat motion -- is this perhaps a reply to that motion and not their
own? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST |
(...sigh...) Boy, it would be nice to finally see something
happening in the Red Hat case, wouldn't it?
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: poncewattle on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 08:09 AM EST |
| Judge Robinson is in the local paper today. Perhaps the Redhat case is next on her list. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Women and Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:02 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: poncewattle on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST |
Just got back from courthouse. First, the title of this docket is probably
wrong. In the index of dockets, it's listed as "31. Answer Brief
Filed"
Anyway, I got a copy and will be getting it to PJ asap. Basically, SCO is saying
that Redhat shouldn't be permitted to supplement the record because the lawsuit
threats came after the suit was filed.
Basically (my interpretation), Redhat can't change the facts of the case as they
go along, like SCO is doing in the IBM case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 10:44 AM EST |
I think (and you would have realised too, if you hadn't flown off the handle)
that PJ just meant that even clerks preparing legal documents make the same
mistakes as anyone else. From watch all the law dramas on TV it's easy to get
the idea that these kind of silly mistakes happen.
or maybe you're just a troll?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rakaz on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:26 AM EST |
It's been a slow day and I had nothing better to do. So, below you will find my
summary of the Red Hat case so far.
----
SCO: LINUX infringes on our UNIX code!
SCO: There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat.
SCO: No, we won’t tell you what code is infringing.
Red Hat: Prove it!
SCO: Uh-uh, not going to show you.
Red Hat: Judge, SCO is being mean to us. They are trying to ruin our business
and telling people lies. We feel threatened SCO is going to sue us or our
customers. Please stop them.
SCO: What’s up with the lawsuit?
SCO: Judge, please give us more time to respond.
Red Hat: We want to know what proof you have over infringing code in Linux.
Please give us all your documents.
SCO: Judge, please stop all this non-sense, dismiss this case. We are very busy
people, because we are already in court with IBM, which by the way, should also
solve this case. No need for another lawsuit. Also, we never said those nasty
things… Well okay, we did, but Red Hat took those quotes all out of context. We
do not have a problem with Red Hat Linux at all.
Red Hat: Okay, prove it. Sign this document that you won’t sue us.
Red Hat: See, Judge, SCO does want to sue us, they won’t sign this document.
Don’t believe their lies. Also, the IBM lawsuit has nothing to do with this. SCO
wants to sue us in the future and won’t tell us exactly why.
SCO: Time… we need more time.
SCO: Judge, Red Hat is bothering us. Please don’t make us give any documents to
Red Hat until you decide to throw all of this nonsense out of court. We are
simply way to busy to give them documents.
SCO: Not fair! That document you wanted us to sign was a trick. Please judge,
don’t let them get away with this. Everything Red Hat told you was a lie. Please
stop this lawsuit.
Red Hat: We should not have to wait before we receive that proof we are talking
about. We want those documents.
SCO: We have new lawyers… Give us more time…
SCO: Red Hat is bothering us again with those document requests… Please make
them wait. We shouldn’t have to give them documents, you are probably going to
throw all of this nonsense out of court anyway, right?
SCO: Lehman Brothers, you are very rich and using Linux. Linux infringes on our
mighty rights. Please buy a license from us. It doesn’t cost that much and
you’ll be glad you did.
Lehman Brothers: ….
SCO: Buy our license or we will give turn this over to our very competent
lawyers. We might even sue you.
Lehman Brothers: We use Red Hat Linux. If you have a problem with this, talk to
Red Hat. Don’t bother us again.
Lehman Brothers: Red Hat, please take a look at what SCO is trying to pull
here.
Red Hat: Judge, we were right. They want to sue us or our customers. Everything
we told you is true. This proves it.
SCO: Not fair![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:27 AM EST |
Anyone else wondering if maybe why SCO didn't sue an end-user is to see if they
can get the RedHat suit tossed before doing so, rather than justify RedHat's
suit?
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST |
I think the term you're looking for is "unlawful combatants", however
I doubt that the treatment of those could be considered "fair" by any
stretch ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, February 24 2004 @ 11:48 PM EST |
There's increasing desperation in the Troll's posts, in fact they are getting
quite hilarious to read.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
