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
Hearing Set for Novell's Motion to Dismiss - Jan. 20 - in SCO v. Novell
Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST

Now that Novell's Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed, the court has scheduled a hearing, for January 20th at 3 PM before Judge Dale Kimball. Here's the Pacer notation:

11/16/04 60 Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 3:00 1/20/05 for [35-1] motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: KJ) (blk) [Entry date 11/16/04]

I hope some of you can attend. This is an important hearing.


  


Hearing Set for Novell's Motion to Dismiss - Jan. 20 - in SCO v. Novell | 77 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: DeepBlue on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:51 AM EST
If any!

---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they
can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they
cant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Thirty-three days without a post
Authored by: DeepBlue on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST

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.

If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "O/T"

---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they cant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Thread
Authored by: DeepBlue on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST
All Off Topic (O/T) posts here please.

---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they
can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they
cant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not soon enough...
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST
I'm going nuts over here. This whole thing is dragging on waaaay too long.
When's the next hearing in the IBM case? Autozone? Any word on disposition of
motions heard in the September hearing in IBM? Two months to rule on the IBM
counterclaim motions??

Signed,
Frustrated

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hope he doesn't take it under advisement
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:19 AM EST

I hope he renders his decision the same day and we dont have to wait like we are
having to with the decision on IBM's CC10.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft Motive Project
Authored by: marbux on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:41 AM EST
Posts go here.

---
Retired lawyer -- Free at last! I've got my freedom of speech back! marbux paw
AT whiskers comcast teeth net (remove the animal parts).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Set for Novell's Motion to Dismiss - Jan. 20 - in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:51 AM EST
Since SCOG introduced the Ed Chatlos declaration, I hope Novel returns the favor
by introducing the Michael de Fazio declaration.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Set for Novell's Motion to Dismiss - Jan. 20 - in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 04:10 AM EST

I hope some of you can attend.

What - those few of us who haven't died of old age first??

Once again SCO's weapon of delay aided and abetted by the overloaded US justice system keeps the FUD factory in full production. No evidence needed, just timewasting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell wins, Sun releases OpenSolaris Kernel under GPL license. killing all SCO lawsuits
Authored by: NZheretic on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 04:59 AM EST
as per title

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation on timing
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:39 PM EST
I occurred to me that the judge was waiting to get all of his cases to a point
where he could make a series of decisions without unduly affecting the other
cases.

We seem to be about there. Most of the motions are fully briefed, except for the
one about SCOG re-amending their amended complaint.

I kind of expect nothing to happen until that motion is fully briefed, and ready
for a decision, which will be before this hearing, even if he decides to hold a
hearing on it. He could have SCOG submit their amended complaint and even have
IBM's reply prior to the hearing, if he grants the motion.

I actually expect him to grant SCOG's motion, unless he rules that it's based on
privileged material, but not before ruling on the other motions.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

[ 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 )