|
| Authored by: overshoot on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:20 PM EDT |
| Round 'em up! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Feel free to troll as well but put a "Troll:" at the beginning of the
title.
Loïc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pogson on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
D-C nails SCOG's wishful thinking to the wall with the observation that the
affiant had no personal knowledge about what Broderick wanted to testify. They
also make the point that SCOG was not a party to agreements made by D-C. SCOG's
trial ballon should fly like a lead sinker.
---
http://www.skyweb.ca/~alicia/ , my homepage, an eclectic survey of topics:
berries, mushrooms, teaching in N. Canada, Linux, firearms and hunting...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
What would remain of the affidavit if those paragraphs were to be striken ?
- 1 I'm Broderick
- 2 I have personal knowledge of the matter below.
- 12543204 For the abovementioned reasons, DCC should give all their cars to
TheSCOGroupInc ?
Loïc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:34 PM EDT |
Now that's what I call a legal filing! :)
After all the SCO documents we've been wading through, it's very nice to read
such a clear and simple statement and argument. To add to the enjoyment, it
picked up on every important feature from SCO's reply & affidavit that I can
remember seeing mentioned here on Groklaw.
Bravo! I almost feel sorry that we won't be seeing much more of DCC's lawyers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
1. Are there are any penalties (except for having your testimony
ignored or stricken), for filing a sworn affidavit claiming personal
knowledge of something, when in fact you have no personal
knowledge?
While Broderick saying he has personal knowledge of the
license agreements and their intent, is one thing (of course he doesn't have
personal knowledge, but he perhaps he would argue that he thought he had
personal knowledge, based on the wrong standard, i.e. based on reading the
agreements and what SCO had told him his job entailed and how to interpret the
licenses)
But it seems quite another for him to say he has personal
knowledge of Daimler Chrysler's activities with Linux or Unix? What did he do?
Watch DC work on their computers?
2. There is one thing in
Broderick's affidavit which looks to my non-lawyer's eye like a lie to
me
In his affidavit
31. On December 18, 2003, I
wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of Daimler requesting
assurances and certifications from Daimler regarding the
computers subject to the
License Agreement and
Daimler's full compliance with the provisions of the License
Agreement (the "SCO Letter"). Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and
correct copy
of the SCO Letter.
Yet in DC's filing we learn his letter was in fact sent
to the "CEO of Chrysler Motors Corp."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pogson on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
They use SCOG's own submission against SCOG to wonderful effect. I smell a
summary disposition coming. They say SCOG agrees the contract is unambiguous and
ask the judge to make a decision.
---
http://www.skyweb.ca/~alicia/ , my homepage, an eclectic survey of topics:
berries, mushrooms, teaching in N. Canada, Linux, firearms and hunting...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: John M. Horn on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT |
While this is a technical error, I don't think the error would stand up to any
kind of penalty - even if it had been deliberate, which is unlikely. The only
thing that seems to be incorrect is the name of the corporation...
John Horn
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
That.... was AWESOME.
Just awesome. Applause to DCC. I want to go out a buy a car now. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ujay on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
It's nice to see someone say "This irritating bonzo is about as relevant as
passing gas in downtown Miami in a hurricane" in such a concise and clear
manner.
Way ta Go DC!
---
IE is not a browser, it is a scream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
William Broderick - reincarnation of Lionel Hutz (from The Simpsons)? You be
the judge:
Judge: Mr. Hutz we've been in here for four hours. Do
you have any evidence at all?
Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of
hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence. ---
Do not meddle
in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
The Grand Funk of the Null Set!
I have a feeling that this case will
be the first to go down, and when it does it will rip a big hole in the SCOG
Hot-Air Baloon. ---
All the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: snakebitehurts on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 08:56 PM EDT |
I truely loved this note at the bottom of the Reply brief:
2 It is noteworthy that SCO never explicitly requested the list of designated
CPUs in its letter to DCC (See Broderick Aff.¶32), but instead sought to use
Section 2.05 to demand unauthorized and unrelated certifications to which it is
not entitled. SCO's effort to misuse Section 2.05 to further its campaign
against the Linux operating system is transparent and should not be permitted to
proceed.
Ouch! Feel the pain SCO?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
Could SCO's legal team be facing any if the judge finds that the Broderick
affidavit is full of material that cannot be used? Are the courts ever
allowed to kick someone's behind for wasting its limited time any more? Or are
they scared to death of being compared to Judge Jackson and being overturned by
an appeal's court? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sanctions? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 20 2004 @ 03:15 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 19 2004 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
The end of their first paragraph: "At bottom, SCO's argument, though full
of sound and fury, serves only to demonstrate that summary disposition should be
granted."
Macbeth, scene 5: "... It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing."
You gotta love these guys.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
