|
SCO and IBM Stipulate to Small Delay on Filings Until Nov. 30 and It Is So Ordered |
|
Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:00 AM EST
|
The parties stipulated to a small delay until November 30th, and Judge Dale A. Kimball has so ordered. So IBM has until then to file its Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to Amend the complaint. Originally, IBM's deadline was November 23. SCO has until December 21 to answer, and that does not appear to have changed, so overall, there is no ultimate delay. And SCO has until November 30, instead of November 23, to file its Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims and its Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim), the one I personally can't wait to read. Again, there seems to be no change in the date IBM has to respond, January 14, so it isn't ultimately a delay in the schedule, looking at the big picture.
*******************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_____________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
______________________________
ORDER RE BRIEFING FOR PENDING
MOTIONS
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
_____________________________
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to Amend shall be due on November 30, 2004; SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims shall be due on November 30, 2004; and
SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim) shall be due on November 30, 2004.
DATED this 24th day of November, 2004.
BY THE COURT:
_____[signature]______
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SNELL & WILMER LLP
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott
_____[signature]_____
Counsel for Defendant International
Business Machines Corporation
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
By: ____[signature]______
Counsel for Plaintiff
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
November 24, 2004
* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *
Re: 2:03-cv-00294
True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:
Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]
EMAIL
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL
Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:33 AM EST |
You know the drill. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:35 AM EST |
Post items that are no pertinent to this article here.
Don't forget to create clickable links like this...
<a href='someurl.com'>LINK TEXT</a>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Appreciate the Linux desktop - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:47 AM EST
- PJ has more time now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:54 AM EST
- BBC: IE rapidly losing market share - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 02:54 AM EST
- Legal Literacy...the next wave? - Authored by: caliboss on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 03:00 AM EST
- But please include the 'http://' part in the URL! - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 03:22 AM EST
- A little patent problem...... - Authored by: cpw on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 03:29 AM EST
- Monopoly = Patents not allowed - Authored by: ricketts30 on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 03:59 AM EST
- Redhat on winning... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 06:36 AM EST
- OT here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST
- Raimondi leaving SCO's board - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST
- A most offensive article about "piracy" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST
- Two things. - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 01:49 PM EST
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 05:07 AM EST |
They'd better get moving: we have 2 weeks, about 5 orders (hopefully, probably
3) and about 6 other legal filings to deal with (3 overlength?) before then. If
they don't file an amended notice of hearing, would the old one still stand?
---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 06:02 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.
PJ says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "OT"
---
FUD is not the answer.
FUD is the question.
The truth is the answer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spuluka on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 07:09 AM EST |
Well, I guess that means all the worker bees on both sides won't have much of a
Thanksgiving break. I feel sorry for them.
These must be some heavily researched replies.
---
Steve Puluka
Pittsburgh, PA[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST |
"... the one I personally can't wait to read. " PJ
Hmmm. My bet is that all (or most) filings will be sealed. Ugh.
-jb
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Filings - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 26 2004 @ 05:33 AM EST
|
Authored by: grubber on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST |
Man, it's been two months, and still not an inkling on IBM's PSJ? Hopefully
we'll hear something soon![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 12:54 PM EST |
I am getting the feeling that the lawyers on both sides as well as the judge
know this trial is over.
Where before we had a flurry of activity from all
sides, now we see unanimous stipulations of delay over delay with little sign
that IBM is still pushing. SCO's counsel no longer needs to work hard: They're
on fixed income now and they know the case is lost based on the truckload of
depositions in IBM's favor. IBM's counsel know the case is won so they're hapy
to go to a more sane pace and let the case die quietly.
Judge Kimball seems
to be taking time off to prepare a water tight opinion with which to deal the
coup de grace to SCO.
Good riddance! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N. on Thursday, November 25 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST |
Just wondering this: both SCO and IBM have thrown a lot of case law at the Judge
in their filings, so presumably the Judge has to read up on all those cases to
check that they really are applicable.
That's a LOT of reading.
Question: is it only the Judge who does the reading, thinking, and eventually
writing the judgement? Or is there a team in the background that double-checks
his work for accuracy?
---
N.
(Recent [well, since mid-2003] convert to Linux)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|