|
Motions for Today's Hearing |
|
Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT
|
There are two motions to be heard by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells today, as I understand it, IBM's Motion to Strike the 7/12/04 Declaration of Christopher Sontag and SCO's Motion to Compel Discovery. It's a bit complex, so I thought another nice chart might help. Credit for this one goes to Loguar, who did the heavy lifting for us, using the chart format I used for the last hearing. SCO filed a Motion Regarding Discovery, IBM responded and then SCO filed a Reply Memorandum and in support of it, they filed the Sontag declaration. IBM then filed a motion to strike. The chart includes all the filings, for context. This is for overview, and I don't guarantee it's 100% comprehensive. If you see any errors, do post them, so I can make any adjustments, but this is what I believe is the material being argued today. We did our best to be accurate within the confines of time available for the task. The chart is taken from the Pacer history of the case, so you can cross-check for accuracy yourself, and if there are any elements that don't match, Pacer would be authoritative. Even that isn't the dernier cri, because there could be last-minute activity we just don't know about.
****************************
IBM Motion to Strike
- SCO: #287
Supplemental Memorandum
Regarding Discovery [Sealed];
#288 Declaration of Jeremy O. Evans [Sealed]; #289 Declaration of Barbara L.
Howe [Sealed];
- IBM:
#304 Memorandum in Opposition to
SCO's Supplemental Memorandum re Discovery [Sealed]
#305 Declaration of Ron Saint Pierre [Sealed] #306 Declaration of David Bullis [Sealed]
- SCO:
#316 Reply Brief
Supplemental Memo re Discovery Documents [Sealed];
#317 Declaration of
Jeremy O. Evans re brief reply [Sealed];
SCO Renewed Motion to Compel
|
|
Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:02 PM EDT |
Please post your corrections here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bsm2003 on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
Trolling here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Boat Motors Running - Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- Brigdes & Boats - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT
- nice color scheme ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Absolutely - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- nice color scheme ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Political colours - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- Political colours - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 20 2004 @ 04:56 AM EDT
- nice color scheme ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- SCOX' Goodwill is lost! - Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:36 PM EDT
- VRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!! - Authored by: Weeble on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT
|
Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Is it yet noon at the OK Corral? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
I just hope that Hatchling doesn't want to talk about anything but the matter at
hand and that Silver will actually be awake for it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
I feel simultaneously like a kid at Christmas and utterly rediculous waiting on
the outcome of a federal civil judicial proceeding.
No one has any news yet?
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:14 PM EDT |
Just to clarify, are these to be heard by Judge Kimball or by Magistrate Judge
Wells? These seem to have to do with the discovery process, so I'm thinking
Wells... (?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:38 PM EDT |
We await anxiously your reports. Thank you very much you all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
Along with initial eyewitness accounts of the hearing.
Thanks,
-jb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: paul_cooke on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
let's start the ball rolling... :)
British School shows the way forward
for others to follow
with
Linux A case
study of how Orwell High School got it's act together
and saved stacks of money by jumping off the upgrade
treadmill.
--- Use Linux - Computer power for the people: Down with cybercrud... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mwexler on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
It would be really cool if either in the timeline, or perhaps some new section
it would list what hearigns were coming up, in which court, at what time and
what motions were involved.
Also, I must have missed it some months ago but what are the differences in
responsibilities between the two judges? Is there a pointer to an article that
describes this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
Thanks very much for all the hard work that went into this story. It
is
great to see things laid out this way, and fun to go back and reread the
stories that went with each step.
I added this suggestion a month or so ago
to another story, and PJ asked me
to remind her if she forgot. So I'm doing so.
:-)
The "IBM Timeline" page, and stories like this, provide a link to the
PDF file,
and a
link to the Groklaw article that has the text version. What
they are missing is
the link
to the Groklaw article that initially provided
the link to the PDF version. That
is an
important link, because more often
than not, the great analysis that goes
along with the document is found in the
PDF story (which comes first), rather
than the text story (which often just has
a short blurb "here's the text, thanks
to XX").
The only thing you can do
is take the date of the text story, and start
searching backward until you find
the PDF story. Searching by date is slow,
even when it isn't a day like today
when everyone is madly refreshing for
news. :-)
So, just a suggestion that
would make a great resource even better.
And more thanks for all the work that
goes into this site. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:42 PM EDT |
This type of request for every version of AIX has been tried in courts before
and has failed. See IBM's Response
to SCO's Memorandum Regarding Discovery.
In a similar
circumstance, when plaintiff in a copyright infringement action opposed
defendant's motion for summary judgment on the theory that it required
additional discovery regarding the computer program at issue, the court denied
plaintiff's request. See Gemisys Corp. v. Phoenix Am., Inc., 186 F.R.D. 551, 566
(N.D. Cal. 1999). In Gemisys, the plaintiff, Gemisys, had licensed a software
program, PMIS, to the defendant, Phoenix American. Id. at 554. Phoenix American
subsequently developed and introduced its own, competing software product,
S.T.A.R. Id. at 555. Gemisys sued Phoenis American, alleging trade secret,
copyright infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract claims. Id. at
553. Phoenix American moved for summary judgment on all claims. Id. Gemisys
requested that the Court deny the defendant's summary judgment motion under Rule
56(f) on the grounds that Gemisys needed additional discovery "to ask questions
about the design, structure, and development of the S.T.A.R. program", whose
code Gemisys already possessed. Id. at 565-66. In denying Gemisys' request for
additional discovery and granting summary judgment of noninfringement to the
defendant, the court noted that "with respect specifically to Gemisys' claim for
copyright infringement", plaintiff did not explain "how the disclosure of the
S.T.A.R. [program's] design and development documents . . . would provide
evidence essential to the motion for summary judgment, namely, proof of
substantial similarity". Id. at 566.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
The hearing was scheduled for 10:00 am (mountain time I believe). That was
three hours ago, I hope we get some eye-witness accounts soon. I just had a
horrible thought that maybe no one from Groklaw was going and we'd have to wait
a week for the transcript and miss interesting tidbits like people falling
asleep :) The hearing is probably just a marathon hearing like the one on 9/15,
with a lunch break thrown in the middle. SCO's probably trying to have three
lawyers talk about the same points while having them all avoid the other points
all together...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|