|
|
| IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims |
 |
|
Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:50 AM EST
|
Now we're having fun. On the heels of SCO asking the court to please, please bifurcate the IBM patent counterclaims, Judge Kimball has signed an unopposed order granting IBM leave to amend their counterclaims. That means all of them, not just the patent counterclaims. And IBM gets to amend after having read SCO's motion to bifurcate. PDF is here.
********************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
___________________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
___________________________________
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
__________________________________
Based on the Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to amend, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation be and hereby is granted leave to amend its counterclaims.
Dated this 26th day of March, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
________signature_________
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 26th day of March, 2004, a true and correct copy of the foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND was hand delivered to the following:
Brent O. Hatch
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
and sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Kevin P. McBride
[address]
________signature_________
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
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]
Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
David K. Markarian, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
Thomas G. Rafferty, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
David R. Marriott, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:17 AM EST |
| Corrections here, please. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:18 AM EST |
"of" is probably "or" in the line, "true and correct
copies..."
Erik
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bsm2003 on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:28 AM EST |
So does this mean that the 9 of the 16in guns are getting ready to fire
broadside?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:43 AM EST |
|
Based on the Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave
to amend, and for good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation be
and hereby is granted leave to amend its counterclaims.
This legal talk
hurts my head. I have to read this stuff 6 times over and still have a hard time
making sense of it, and *this* is an easy one! :) I have yet to run into a
problem that I couldn't resolve on 8 different operating systems. I can program
in 12 different programming languages. Why when I read this stuff do I feel so
stupid? Don't answer that!
Void [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:48 AM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:10 AM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: YorikNMe on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 08:28 AM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 10:25 AM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST
- IBM Granted Leave to Amend CounterClaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 05:52 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:43 AM EST |
| Post URL's here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:49 AM EST |
From SCOG's Motion in Support (to bifurcate), their reason for
asking:
"[..] to assist in juror comprehension and
reduce more prejudice and delay [..]"
First of
all, since when was delay a concern for SCOG? Judging by their X-mas 2003
fiasco where they responded on the last possible day, inadequately at that,
running a timely court case is not a top priority for SCOG.
It's quite
possible they don't want the jury that they expect to decide against
them, to be emotionally tainted in any way. In other words, once the jury
finally understands how unethical SCO has been behaving in regards to the
contract/code claims, they might be more apt to rule in IBM's favor on the
counter-suit claims. SCO desperately want's to prevent such a "double-whammy"
scenario.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 01:50 AM EST |
The judge hands IBM a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and PJ is entertained!
Woman where were you when I was dating? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JeR on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:24 AM EST |
Does this mean we'll now get to see more of the TSG v Novell case in the TSG v
IBM case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 02:48 AM EST |
Gotta love SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM! Finally we get to see someone fry in court over a
GPL violation. Finally we get to see all those GPL sceptics crawl back under the
rock they came from.
GO IBM!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phands on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:30 AM EST |
Judging (bad pun, sorry) by the speed with which IBM lodged their amendments
after SCO's motion to bifurcate, I'd guess that the IBM team was anticipating
this. They seem to be ahead of SCO's legal team at all times. The downside of
all this is the extra delay before any real progress gets made.
P.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 03:59 AM EST |
Does this mean that the IBM steamroller of 30,000 patents has been OK'ed to roll
on over to SCO HQ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sculdoon on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 05:07 AM EST |
| Good or Bad? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 06:49 AM EST |
While I have no doubt that IBM could come up with many more patents that SCO
might be violating, that course doesn't seem productive to me (IANAL).
My
SWAG is that IBM will add clarification/new ccounter-claims based on the results
of discovery to date.
It might be clarification along the 'smoking gun'
line, which would have no real impact on the case before trial, but would have
impact with the IT world when reported in the press.
Or it might include
new claims based on SCO actions suspected to date, but prior to discovery,
without evidenciary support. The most delicious of these (pardon my descent
into daydream delight) would be new claims in which Microsoft was explicitly
named. ---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
From what I read here, IBM was to have until March 26th to file a response
to SCO's Second Amended Complaint. Does anyone know if they met this deadline (I
assume that the Nazgul does not miss deadlines), and if so, when we
might see their response?
---
"When I say something, I put my name
next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:03 AM EST |
It seems unlikely that any Bankruptcy Trustee or Creditors Committee would take
that action, unless it were controlled by someone hostile to Linux.
Too much cost, risk and uncertainty. It could easily end up damaging the few
real assetts SCOG actually has.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mnuttall on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST |
We have some more info on what to expect in the amended pleadings. See document
123-1 at http://www.utd.uscour
ts.gov/documents/ibm_hist.html. IBM seeks to,
(1) add
claims for declaration of noninfringement of copyright; (2) add additional
allegations to its present claim for copyright infringement; (3) based on its
continuing investigations, drop one of its claims of patent infringment; and (4)
otherwise update its factual allegations.
IBM has been
granted leave to file these amended pleadings, though I don't think we yet know
when to expect them by.
(Mistakenly first posted in "motion to
bifuracte as text", sorry) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2004 @ 12:50 PM EST |
Why to all those attorneys have Esq after their names?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
