|
|
| Novell Gives SCO More Time To File a Memorandum |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:45 PM EST
|
UPDATED: The order has been signed by Judge Kimball. SCO has until March 5. The Order is at the end of the original story, following the Stipulation. Notice that Judge Kimball is apparently accepting the assignment to be the judge assigned to the Novell matter. His order is based on the stipulation of the parties. If the parties agree, the judge normally does go along with their stipulation.
_____________________________________________________
ORIGINAL STORY:
It looks like Novell's attorneys are no dopes. SCO asked for more time to file a memo in opposition to Novell's Motion to Dismiss, and Novell said OK, on one condition: SCO can't file any other papers until it files this memorandum.
They maybe have observed a pattern in Delaware, eh? Here's what the court docket says:
2/27/04 9 Stipulation by SCO Grp, Novell Inc stipulated to extend time for SCO to file a memo in opposition to Novell's motion to dismiss up to and including 3/5/04. SCO will not file any further pleadings in the matter until it files its opposition memo. (blk) [Entry date 03/01/04]
******************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark R. Clements (7172)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
_________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________
STIPULATION
Civil No.: 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
__________________________
Plaintiff The SCO Group ("SCO"), by and through counsel, and Defendant Novell, Inc., by and through counsel, hereby stipulate that SCO may have up to and including March 5, 2004 in which to file a memorandum in opposition to Novell's Motion to Dismiss. The parties further stipulate that SCO will not file any further pleadings in the matter until it files its opposition memorandum as set forth herein.
DATED this 27th day of February, 2004.
BY: ____[signature]__________
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
Attorneys for Plaintiff
BY: ___[signature]__________
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
John P. Mullen
Attorneys for Defendant
***************************************
UPDATE: Here is the Court Order, based on the stipulation.
_________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
___________________________
STIPULATION
Civil No.: 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
__________________________
Based upon the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant The SCO Group, Inc. may have up to and including March 5, 2004 in which to file a memorandum in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
DATED this 1st day of March, 2004.
BY: _________[signature]_______
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge
Approved as to form:
By:_______[signature]_______
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg
John P. Mullen
Attorneys for Defendant
_____________________________
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
March 2, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:04-cv-00139
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
Mr. Kevin P. McBride, Esq.
[address]
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Mr. John P. Mullen, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Heather N. Sneddon, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Paul Goldstein, Esq.
[address]
Michael A. Jacobs, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
[address]
Matthew I. Kreeger, Esq.
MORRISOn & FOERSTER LLP
[address]
Jim F. Lundberg, Esq.
NOVELL INC.
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST |
Novell seems to think that they have SCOG by the throat, and that they will not
tolerate the shenanigans that seem to surround the RH <-> SCO tiff in
Delaware.
Smart lawyering: you can have more time, not much, and no deflection of the
issues at hand.
IOW: put your money where your mouth is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST |
I love it... quit stalling... here's your date... let's get on with it.
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST |
This could be described as a troll, so sorry if it is just curious.
1.) Any Opinions on the result of SCO winning in the US then losing in
Europe/Eurasia. Do we get into a reverse PGP issue?
2.) Even if SCO wins they are goign to be bogged down in copyright violation
suits from everybody who wrote GPL code. So this won't finish in less than 10
years - Who Benefits?
3.) Idle threats at FreeBSD what about Beos? EVS had some interesting comments
about why aren't FreeBSD servers cheaper.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Completly OT - Authored by: darkonc on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:42 PM EST
- Completly OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:53 PM EST
- Completly OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:09 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST |
To those who would defend the principle of "it takes time to make a just
judgement" I would offer this positive criticism:
you are toying (i.e. using time-worn legal methodologies) with an industry that
thrives on 'turning-on-a-dime'. If wealth creation, employment, innovation,
education mean little to you, then get out of the way!
The German case was an example of how quickly decisions should be rendered
without prejudice.
I would add that a 'flying squad' of judges and related types should exist to
deal with these types of cases. Such legal workers would be empowered to study
case laws on an ongoing basis and not only when the occasion merits.
The legal industry in any country must adapt or perish. The accruing economic
advantages will otherwise migrate to other places (and the industries that set
up shop there as a result).
here's an excellent critique of trivial lawsuits:
<http://www.carefreeenterprise.com/reflect3/>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST |
It seems that Novell isn't going to wait until 2005 or later for this issue to
be decided.
What will a quick decision in Novell's favor mean for the IBM case?
thanx![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:14 PM EST |
An ongoing pattern. SCO always needs more time. Their opposition doesn't. Is
this:
- SCO has bad lawyers?
- Not enough lawayers?
- SCO delays to syncronise their PR & legal compaigns?
- Their cases are so bad it takes time to play them up?
- Delays are very common, SCO is withing the norm?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST |
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=48344
Just in folks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:44 PM EST |
SCO Postpones Announcing Customer Lawsuit Until Wednesday
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=48344
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: postponed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:01 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST |
This is offtopic, but didn't my good buddy Darl say he was going name the lucky
winner of an end-user law suit before business let out today? It is so unlike
him not to follow thru with his threats, I wonder what's holding things up?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST |
Filing their reply, then, 5 minutes later, filing some other motion?
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grubber on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:22 PM EST |
I'm not sure what this means. SCO can't file anything else until they reply?
What types of things is Novell trying to keep SCO from filing? And why is this a
bad thing for SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST |
<http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2001/12/03/prl21203.htm>
There are severe economic penalties for what SCO is doing.
The above example relates to health care in the USA.
We have already seen the economic benefits of OSS in previous threads.
Idontdowindows
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:18 PM EST |
| So I guess SCO will file on the 10th then. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 09:27 PM EST |
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant The SCO
Group, Inc. may
have up to and including March 5, 2004 in
which to file a memorandum in
opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.
Shouldn't that read
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Plaintiff The SCO
Group, Inc. may have up to and including
March 5, 2004 in
which to file a memorandum in opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss."
???
(emphasis mine)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kb8rln on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:05 PM EST |
To quote the Transcript of Friday's
Hearing - The Transcript as Text of the Motion Hearing on February 6,
2004
THE COURT: How much time do you need to provide
these additional things that have yet to be supplied? And if I order an absolute
strict compliance to the previous order, and/or some of the items that IBM is
indicating, I want you to state for me a reasonable and rapid date on which
those could be provided.
[Here is a strong hint what she plans to do:
give them an Do It By This Date Or Else order. She has a number of Or Else
options to choose from.]
MR. HEISE: With respect to the
supplemental documents that have been collected and that we are trying to gather
and provide to them, I would anticipate it being done in two weeks. But to give
myself, so I don't have to come back before you and file a motion for
enlargement, I would rather say four weeks and go with that.
THE
COURT: All right. Do you have anything else?
MR. HEISE: With
respect to our compliance, no, Your Honor.
As I said, you know, I am
sure we'll be here talking about this document is missing and that document is
missing. That is just the nature of the beast.
So if you add
February 6 plus 4 week will be Monday March 8 at the lastest. So will the judge
rule.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Tuesday, March 02 2004 @ 10:10 PM EST |
more time = more rope
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:09 AM EST |
I expect SCO to file 5 minutes before court closes on 3/5/2004.
Anybody care to bet against that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
