Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT |
Looks like hearing regarding Motion to Remand and regarding Motion to
Dismiss??
Am I missing something there? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
Cool! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JSGasse on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
A few post ago I posted a link to Lawrence Lessig Free Culture speech that he
gave at OSCon 2002 and said I would look for the full page in my backups. I
found it this weekend so I posted it today. You can find it at:
http://www.apockflash.net/free/
I strongly recommend for all to listen to it, if you haven't already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arrg on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
??
---
Arrg stands for:
Groklaw = aarrrgggg SCO is driving me crazy...
Battlezone II = Just Run over by tank.. or what will happen to SCO in court[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: edal on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
As May 11th is my birthday I'd like to see Novell guys grind SCO Group into the
dust.
Would anyone care to grant me my wish ?
Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
Will anything get decided on May 11 or this yet another hearing to decide why
SCO should granted more time to not actually have to show any proof?
Will Gregory Blepp's magical mystery briefcase impact this hearing?
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Natedog on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
Also interesting is that the amended notice of hearing mentions that the motion
to dismiss will be heard at the same time and on the same day. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CyberCFO on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
I'll bet he is leaning towards granting Novell's motion to dismiss.
The reason I think this is that we have all learned that judges like to give the
benefit of the doubt to the party that is going to lose in order to reduce the
opportunity for appeal. If there was any doubt about him denying the motion and
letting the case continue, he would just do so, no hearing would be necessary as
no one would be prejudiced in the case. If he were leaning towards granting
Novell's motion, he would want to give SCOX every opportunity to convince him to
do otherwise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
Well lets just think about this: Maybe Blepp was already informed about the date
of the hearing. And well i think, if i had my money invested in sco, i may
withdraw it (after the anouncement of what could very easily be a last hearing)
even faster than the board of directors could get their shares converted to:
lets say gold ? So they maybee thought, they needed some FUD to keep the stock
from falling.
Well have a nice Day:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yobgod on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Tom's
Hardware Guide
While giving a quick overview of web browsers, the screen
shot happens to be pointed... here! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Any one want to start a virtual pool on the results?
Seems to me like dening both motions is the most likely outcome. That won't hurt
anyone in the long term, put off a final resolution and will keep the IBM and
Novell cases under the same judge in the name of judicial economy. It's also the
safest thing for the judge to do, to avoid a reversal on appeal which seems
likely on any other result.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: capitalist_pig on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
It occurred to me the other day that what MS is doing with SCO (still using it
to push the indemnification FUD) is part of a major attack ad campaign against
Linux.
What's unique about this ad campaign is that they appear to be funding a company
under the table to launch litigation to make the FUD appear more convincing.
So, is this in fact the first recorded case of a frivolous lawsuit being
launched as part of an advertising offensive? Could this be the tip of a rather
nasty iceberg? Are we going to see more of this sort of thing in the future as
intellectual property law continues to skip merrily down the path to the insane
asylum?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/04/13/0413microsoftpinnacor_ii.html?partner=
yahoo&referrer=[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
I was just reading about windows to Linux migration @ tomshardware.com - in one
of their images they show a web browser, and guess which site the browser is
displaying: groklaw :-)
http://www20.tomshardware.com/howto/20040412/wintolinux-04.html
/Peter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
http://news.com.com/2100-7343_3-5190698.html?tag=nefd.lede [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Hopefully the outcome is good. I don't want this spoiling my birthday if the
outcome is bad (though we probably won't hear about it till the 12th or at least
late on the 11th).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
Oh, what I wouldn't give for an anonymous web form for feedback to the editor,
for those special occasions when one would like to offer suggestions without
them having them appear on the site.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT |
What does it have in its pocketses, mmm, precious? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
USA TODAY HAS An Article on Microsoft becoming the defender of proprietary
software by settling its outstanding lawsuits and buying up rights to other
software. Mentions SCO and incorrectly characterizes the lawsuits it has engaged
in ...... very interesting
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
Is there any chance that we might have a spectator in the gallery that day,
that can let us know what happened after the hearing?
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
PJ, at the end of the article, where you show
SCO's Motion in
Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040309001646257
Should't "SCO's Motion" be "SCO's
Memorandum"?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next
to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: elcorton on Wednesday, April 14 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Once the arguments have been heard, the judge has five choices that I can
think of:
(A) Grant remand, moot dismissal. Many, including me, have remarked that
if Kimball thought he was going to do this, he wouldn't have scheduled
arguments on both motions for the same hearing. True?
(B) Deny remand, deny dismissal, let the case proceed as pled. Makes no
sense to me. The judge would then in effect have decided that the APA is a
valid instrument of conveyance for copyrights. But the other issues don't
involve any federal question, so why not remand?
(C) Deny remand, stay the case pending the outcome of SCO v IBM. Also
makes no sense. In counterclaim 10, IBM challenges SCO's title to the
copyrights, but it hasn't (yet) moved for summary judgement on that claim.
There are many issues in the IBM case that are unrelated to Novell, and it
could take years to reach a conclusion. The Novell case is by contrast much
more narrowly drawn. If either of the cases were to be stayed, it should be
IBM, or else the cases should be merged. Those scenarios don't make much
sense either.
(D) Deny remand, grant dismissal (with or without prejudice.) Plausible.
(E) Deny remand, deny dismissal, order SCO to redraw its complaint. Also
seems plausible. Seems safest from the standpoint of appeal, because it
avoids dealing an immediate death blow to one side, which an appeals
court might frown on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|