decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO & Novell Stipulate to Oct. 1 Deadline for SCO to File Reply -- as text
Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 03:16 AM EDT

Another Stipulation by Novell and SCO, giving SCO more time, until October 1, to file their memorandum in opposition to Novell's 2nd Motion to Dismiss.

News about IBM also on Pacer, but no document yet:

IBM 303 - Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in opposition to [299-1] ex parte emergency motion for a scheduling conference, [281-1] expedited motion to enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated June 10, 2004 (ce) [Entry date 09/24/04]



**********************************************

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
Mark R. Clements (7172)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, fax]

Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

____________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

_______________________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff

vs.

NOVELL, INC.,

a Delaware corporation,

Defendant

_____________________________________

STIPULATION

Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge: Dale A. Kimball

____________________________________

Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), by and through its counsel, and Defendant Novell, Inc. ("Novell"), by and through its counsel, hereby stipulate that SCO may have up to and including October 1, 2004 in which to file an opposition memorandum in opposition to Novell's Second Motion to Dismiss. A proposed Order is filed herewith.

Dated this 23rd day of September, 2004.

By: ____[signature]______
Heather M. Sneddon
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG

Attorneys for Defendant Dates this 24th day of September, 2004

By: ____[signature]______
Mark F. James
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE

Attorneys for Plaintiff


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 24th day of September, 2004, I caused to be mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing via first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Thomas R. Karrenberg
John P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]

Michael A. Jacobs
Matthew I. Kreeger
MORRISON & FOERSTER
[address]

____[signature]____


  


SCO & Novell Stipulate to Oct. 1 Deadline for SCO to File Reply -- as text | 79 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
CORRECTIONS HERE
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 03:57 AM EDT
"...hereby stipulate that Novell may have up to and including..."
-- should be --
"...hereby stipulate that SCO may have up to and including..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: penfold on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 04:35 AM EDT
Interesting news, links, jokes, and rumors are welcome here.

---
The worth of man is determined by the battle between good and evil in the mans
subconcious.The Evil within is so strong that the way to win is to deny it
battle

[ Reply to This | # ]

Moved from 24th?
Authored by: Dark on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 04:47 AM EDT
If I grok the timeline right, the deadline used to be the 24th, i.e. last
Friday, and this stipulation was entered the day before the deadline. The new
date is a one week extension.

I'm impressed. SCO delaying by increments of single weeks -- Novell is making
progress! :)

I bet SCO will ask for another delay though. This week was probably because
they were busy with the IBM hearings. Next week's deadline will be on the same
day that they have to reply to IBM about the expedited motion to enforce the
scheduling order, right? They're going to be busy again.

Novell could oppose, but I suspect they'll look bad if they oppose a single-week
extension. And they're not in a hurry at the moment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & Novell Stipulate to Oct. 1 Deadline for SCO to File Reply -- as text
Authored by: John M. Horn on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 05:17 AM EDT
Well, a one week delay and with Novell's concurrance at that. Novell probably
feels that granting SCO more time only enhances the likely-hood Novell will
prevail at the next hearing.

Novell: "Judge, we even gave them an extra week and they still can't
produce a valid argument against our motion."

Judge: "Motion granted."

*Sigh* It is coming close to the end of the performance for SCO, the stage is
set for the final act. Soon the curtains will rise and the dialogue begin - and
SCO have forgotten their lines, lost their script and are locked out of
wardrobe. The tragedy has polymorphed into comedy, leaving SCO mocked before
all.

And then the SEC steps in and brightens everyones day with a series of arrests
for insider trading and/or various other crimes... :)

John M. Horn

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Lawyer Reputations...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 05:22 AM EDT
I've got a minor question that's been nagging me for a while. And it can
pretty much only be answered by a lawyer or ex-lawyer who frequents
this site.

At the end of all these lawsuits, how are the lawyers for SCO going to
look to the rest of the legal field? There are the badly written--in
layman's opinions--briefs, the twisted logic and the SCO lawyers who
take naps during hearings. I mean, at the end, are the IBM lawyers
basically going to say to the SCO lawyers "Nice job on delaying for 9
years." and go out for drinks? Or will the SCO lawyers end up with a bad
name?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & Novell Stipulate to Oct. 1 Deadline for SCO to File Reply -- as text - Stockprice
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 07:14 AM EDT
It's now becoming clear why SCO's stockprice has been dropping like a brick over
the last couple of days.

First we have the reply to the judgements on the 15th (what was the outcome of
that, given the drop from about $3.65 at the start of the week to $3.40 at close
of trading yesterday and even hitting $3.30 on Wed IIRC, it can't have been good
- well, not for SCO anyway!)

Now we have the Novell reply by next Friday (I hope it's good news for Novell,
I'm having a wisdom tooth out then and will need cheering up)

Now oddly, we see the Mean Recommendation moved from 5.0 to 3.0.

Does anyone else think that there will be a step in by some other mindless hedge
fund or that SCO is now praying for someone to come in and buy them out. You
know. Anyone. I have a crisp new £10 note in my pocket, I wonder if I offered it
to SCO would they take it, give me a controlling interest....

... and then try and sue me for using Fedora Core ;-p

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG Delays Again - As Could Be Expected
Authored by: Dave23 on Saturday, September 25 2004 @ 09:28 AM EDT
Are the SCOG lawyers really running out of manpower?

Or have the Novell lawyers got them dead-to-rights on their motion to dismiss? Are the SCOG lawyers are running around in a panic, vainly searching for precedents and contrary facts, because they have no good arguments that will keep this misbegotten lawsuit from being dismissed?

A simple contract lawsuit would have been so much easier to pursue; but that would forfeit the presumption of SCOG's copyright ownership that a slander of title suit implies. Normally, this suit would have very quickly turned into a suit about contract nonperformance.

But SCOG desperately needs this slander lawsuit to continue.

Drop this ball, and the whole juggling act (the other lawsuits) may tumble to the ground, particularly SCO v IBM. And the SCOGgie lawyers know it.

IANAL

---
Gawker

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is part of a three pronged strategy
Authored by: skidrash on Sunday, September 26 2004 @ 12:21 AM EDT

prong 1 search for precedents

prong 2 brainstorm what other off-the-wall stunt can be pulled

prong 3 DO ANYTHING to put off the day of reckoning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )