|
DaimlerChrysler's Summary Disposition Hearing Postponed Until July 21, 2004 |
|
Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 12:57 AM EDT
|
Today was originally scheduled for a hearing in the SCO v. DaimlerChrysler case, to hear DC's Motion for Summary Disposition. It was postponed on June 1, it turns out, and it is now set for July 21, 2004 [PDF], on stipulation of the parties. This court is so not in the Information Age yet. No Pacer. No public digital access that I've yet found for free reading of legal documents filed with the court. Maybe this new court decision will inspire them: A federal appeals court in New York City, which is in the 2d Circuit, ruled on June 8 that the public has a qualified First Amendment right to inspect docket sheets. The court pointed out that the public's right to attend civil and criminal cases would be "merely theoretical" if docket sheet info is not available. Today was Exhibit A. Our representative, eggplant37, set aside the time to go by the court for the hearing, but happily, I'd told him to always call the court first to make sure, so he didn't waste a trip. That's how we found out the hearing had been postponed. Actually, he did go to the court house anyway, because it was the only way to get a copy of the order. Exhibit B. The 2d Circuit decision has immediate application in the state of Connecticut, where much docket sheet information has been kept in a dungeon for decades. Some information about cases wasn't even recorded on docket sheets, evidently to protect the famous. There are footnotes about the case that still have to work their way through the legal process, but it's a big win for the public's right, including the media, to know what is going on. You can read the opinion of the US Court of Appeals, if it interests you. And here is the new schedule from Michigan:
********************************
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
DAIMLERCHRYSLER
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation
Defendant.
|
Civil Action No. 04-056587-CK
Honorable Rae Lee Chabot
|
Joel H. Serlin (P20224)
Barry M. Rosenbaum (P26487)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
[address]
[phone]
|
James P. Feeney (P13335)
Thomas S. Bishoff (P53753)
Stephen L. Tupper (P53918)
Attorney for Defendants
[address]
[phone]
|
AMENDED SUMMARY DISPOSITION SCHEDULING ORDER
At a session of said Court, held in the City of Pontiac, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, on June 1, 2004
PRESENT: HON. RAE LEE CHABOT
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
The parties, through their respective counsel, having stipulated to the entry of this Order, and the Court being more fully advised in the premises:
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court's Summary Disposition Scheduling Order dated May 4, 2004 regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition be amended as follows:
-
The Motion for Summary Disposition shall be heard by the Court on July 21, 2004.
-
Plaintiff's response brief must be filed and received by the Court and opposing counsel by June 16, 2004.
-
Defendant's reply brief (optional) must be filed and received by the Court and opposing counsel by June 30, 2004. The reply brief may not exceed five (5) pages.
-
The moving party must re-praecipe the above-stated motion to be heard on July 21, 2004.
-
PLEASE BE ADVISED THE COURT WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE MCR 2.119(A)(2).
If briefs are not filed, the Court will assume that counsel is without authority for their respective positions, and will hear the motion on the re-praeciped date. This scheduling order pertains to the above-stated motion only. All other motions remain scheduled as praeciped. It is the responsibility of the moving party to notify the Court, in advance of the date scheduled, of any cancellations of the hearing. Counsel shall provide a copy of a response or reply (including brief as well as attachments) to the Judge's Chambers in accordance with MCR 2.116(G)(1)(c). The scheduling of this matter for oral argument does not preclude the Court from waiving oral argument at a later date pursuant to applicable Michigan Court Rule.
(signature)
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE
So Stipulated:
(signature)
Barry M. Rosenbaum (P26487)
Attorney for Plaintiff
(signature)
Thomas S. Bishoff (P53753)
Attorney for Defendant
|
|
Authored by: radix2 on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
nt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: radix2 on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
nt [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 01:16 AM EDT |
Sorry to repost this (also made in last story but fairly late)
But it is SCO's conference call June 10th, and they have indicated to the press
that they will be talking about the cases.
I would like to encourage any journalists (or Groklaw readers who know any
journalists) to ask some pertinent questions about the case, so we can hear what
SCO is currently claiming. The idea is not trip Darl up or make him look a
fool, but to clarify if SCO's position on any of the issues has changed during
the course of the litigation. (a side effect might be IBM quoting them in future
memoranda)
I think journalists covering this story have an obligation to the community to
ask these types of questions, as they have previously published SCO's claims,
and SCO's clams seem to have changed somewhat in recent months.
Here are my key questions:
(1) Does SCO have evidence of copyright violations in Linux?
(2) How many lines of code are involved?
(3) Is IBM infringing SCO's copyrights with respect to Linux?
(4) Has SCO shown IBM the copyright violations as part of the litigation?
(5) How much damages are SCO entitled too? As the trial process seems to be
taking a long time, will it increase as the trial goes on?
Here is my justification for each question
For Q(1) - SCO have previously claimed to have such evidence (e.g. at SCOforum
2003). IBM in their summary judgement motion says SCO has not or has not been
able to present any such evidence. SCO has said in various memos that they need
further discovery from IBM (all iterations of AIX and Dynix) in order to specify
the copyright and contractual violations.
For Q(2) - SCO has previously claimed millions of lines of infringing code (e.g.
at SCOforum 2003) identified by 3 teams of experts (check the quote database).
However this on the faces appears to be substantially at a discrepency with what
SCO produced in January in response to the court's first discovery order, and
more recently in April in response to the 2nd discovery order.
For Q(3) - Again SCO has suggested on various occassions that this is the case.
e.g. around June 2003 they made a number of statements along these lines. I
would like to know if SCO still claims this or not
For Q(4) - Darl has said that they have shown IBM the infringing code. Have
they? And when? I raise this question because IBM essentially says in their
partial summary judgement that SCO has produced ("adduced") no
evidence of copyright violations.
For Q(5) - The law suit is currently claiming $5bn of damages. Darl has
indicated on more than one occassion to the press damages might be as much as
$50bn, and going up by $1bn per week (Stowell has said similar things about
$50bn). Do SCO still believe they are entitled to $1bn damages per week? I have
noticed that SCO have sought to the delay the trial by several months and having
a pending motion on this. Will they claim $1bn damages per week for this extra
period if the court does decide to delay the trial?
Thanks to all journalists
Quatermass
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
"Some information about cases wasn't even recorded on docket sheets,
evidently to protect the famous."
Gee, I wish I lived in a country like the US where everyone is supposed to be
treated equally in the eyes of the law... oh wait...
---
The only reason we retain the rights we have is because people *JUST LIKE US*
died to preserve those rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 04:40 AM EDT |
Story at
the Register
Draconis [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ccs on Thursday, June 10 2004 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
Why do we see on these cases lots of
Delaware corporations (SCO, DaimlerChrysler, RedHat, etc, etc) even if their
main offices are somewhere else?
Is there any reason for that?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|