|
|
| Judge Wells Takes It Under Advisement |
 |
|
Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:10 PM EDT
|
First reports from the court, Judge Wells has taken it under advisement. Details to follow shortly.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:21 PM EDT |
*Sigh* Oh well, I guess we wait some more... :(
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
What does it mean for the judge to have "taken it under advisement",
including the definition of "it" :)
You are usually very good at speaking something relatively like english
Mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
| Post here (with links if possible) and the question will be answered. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:28 PM EDT |
Thanks in advance, to those who could attend and report.
---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." --
Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gec on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
Argh! Are Judges Wells and Kimball now incapable of deciding anything on
the spot? Is this much "under advisement" usual? And what happened to
Judge Kimball? Aren't we still waiting, patiently, for his pronouncement?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
Anyone?
--andy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atul on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
| Fruit Cart!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:07 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: Nick_UK on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
Did he put the black cap on?
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: producer on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Ten minutes in and Judge Wells is already telling SCO this is going to end in 2
hours. She seemed to get the sense that she was about to hear the same thing all
over again.
She was right.
SCO also brought up statements from depositions of IBM's re the complexity of
what SCO requires. SCO's lawyers simply said that wasn't true. I guess with all
that free time
they have in law school they do a little coding on the side. They had no
statements to refute IBM's people. They gave the same song and dance about IBM
being the largest IT
company in the galaxy and they can do anything if they want to. We say so. Mr.
Marriott's response was that he was no programming expert - strongly implying
that SCO's lawyers
weren’t either - and without such, the statements should stand. 5 minutes into
Mr. Frei's ramblings and Judge Wells tells him his time is almost up. That threw
him a bit but she knew he was repeating the same old story.
There were also a couple of those confidential memos and e-mails that I could
not read because I couldn’t see the screen and couldn’t memorize anything. I'd
rather not discuss detail based only on what I could here. However, according to
SCO they were proof positive that they
were on the right track and reason enough for them to get to see everything IBM
did over the last 20 years.
Mr.Marriott insisted that, never mind the fact that SCO revealed confidential
documents and IBM did not, it would still be a nice idea for SCO to show some
sort evidence. He
brought up the fact that SCO has the same deal with HP and SUN and said they
were in compliance a only IBM wasn’t. All without seeing any code from SUN or
HP, but they must have everything from IBM.
She wanted IBM to have paperwork to verify statements made by IBM execs but no
more. I think she was saying let’s have it on record if need be. The rest we are
under
advisement for.
They’re were more industrious folks than I writing things down so far better
accounts will soon be available. The Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune were
there and oh yes,
they moved it to a larger courtroom. It was Rm.477 if anyone is so inclined.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
