|
|
| Novell Hearing Reset to February 1st in SCO v. Novell |
 |
|
Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:11 AM EST
|
The hearing set for January on Novell's Motion to Dismiss in SCO v. Novell has been rescheduled for February 1st at 3:00. I know some of you were planning on attending on January 20, so be aware that there is no hearing on that date. Here are the clerk's notations:
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]
12/28/04 - 61 Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing reset for 3:00
2/1/05 for [35-1] motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated
by: KJ) (blk) [Entry date 12/28/04] No. I don't know why. There are some filings in SCO v. IBM also. Update: Here is the order.
In SCO v. IBM, SCO filed a Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery on December 23rd. What a coincidence. Just when some puffery shows up in the media embedded in an otherwise balanced article, hinting at secret things filed and SCO's discovery motion and their last chance in the courts, we find a filing about discovery. Another SCO filing about discovery. SCO filed their memorandum in support as a sealed document, despite allying with G2 in their alleged quest for openness. There is also this docket entry:
Docket Text: Substitution Exhibit 19 filed by plaintiff SCO Grp RE: [348-1] declaration of Jeremy O. Evans That exhibit to the Evans declaration would be David Frasure's Deposition, the 1992 deposition in the BSDi case, the 200+ page PDF. His declaration in the current case is here. The documents are not yet on file electronically on Pacer, but as soon as they are, we'll have a clearer picture of what it all means. It's not wise to reach conclusions based only on a docket entry, as we've seen before. Sometimes there are notations in error. So we'll wait and see.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:38 AM EST |
| random ramblings, wibblings and wobblings ... you know the drill [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT Threads here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:10 PM EST
- OT What about Laura and the Yankee Group? - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST
- What is G2? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:28 PM EST
- G2 - Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST
- What is G2? - Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST
- Not so "funny" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 03:14 PM EST
- Not so "funny" - Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST
- Not so "funny" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 08:37 PM EST
- What is G2? - Authored by: moonbroth on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST
- What is G2? - Authored by: Benanov on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST
- What is G2? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:51 PM EST
- OT: Headlines Page - Authored by: grundy on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Microsoft is at it again. - Authored by: Jadeclaw on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Sandeep Gupta is a popular name - Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST
- Analysis: Patent wars and the end of the software business - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 06:45 PM EST
- OT Threads here - Authored by: LarryVance on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:23 PM EST
- Witness Tampering - Authored by: nevinpratt on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 10:00 PM EST
- Witness Tampering - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 06:19 AM EST
- OT: Before I delete this from my account, obvious SCOX stock manipulation pattern. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 01:43 AM EST
- OT Threads here - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 01:52 AM EST
- OT Peter Williams, VNUnet and ECT News Network. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 30 2004 @ 09:07 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 11:52 AM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:01 PM 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"
---
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: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST |
I don't get it. Isn't there already a "Renewed Motion to Compel
Discovery" awaiting a ruling by Judge Wells? Did I miss something?
Mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:32 PM EST |
In that TheStreet.com article, there's
something that sounds rather too familiar: "But the buy-side source wondered why
SCO would spend more than $100 million and not end up with a legal right to
defend its technology." Interesting that "the buy-side source" wanted to remain
anonymous.
---
FOSS IS political. It's just that the political
establishment is out of touch and hasn't caught up. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST |
I've sent a message to Ronna Abramson pointing out a few of the more egregious
bits of mis-information she's been fed (including SCOG's claim to have bought
*anything* from Novell, rather than from Santa Cruz). I've also pointed out the
confusion engendered by Caldera's name change to 'The SCO Group', and pointed
her here as a source of information.
Anybody is welcome to send a message correcting errors, or giving her more
information, but *PLEASE* keep it polite. It doesn't look like she covers this
with any regularity, and based on part of her article (the annonymous 'buy'
source) it looks like she's being fed some misinformation by SCO (directly or
indirectly). Cut her some slack, and help her become better informed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST |
IANAL, so I don't know how these things work, but I've been following it here
pretty much from the start, and I'm confused by the courts. Please correct me
if I'm wrong, but hasn't SCO so far *refused* to show proof of infringement
twice now, despite being ordered to do so by the court? If they have refused to
honor two court orders, why hasn't the judge thrown the case out? Also, is
there a reason (other than perhaps being frowned upon by the judge) why IBM
shouldn't play the "renewed motion to compel" game by filing a renewed
motion to compel discovery against SCO to show this alleged proof of
infringement?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rasyr on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST |
Is it just me, or does that "buy side source" that the article quotes
(the article linked to above), sound very much like Darl McBride? I mean the
part where the "buy side source" asks why SCO would spend over $100
million without getting the copyrights seems to be taken directly from that one
interview that Darl did (I think that there is a link to the video of the
interview in the archives here someplace).
Could it be that the "buy side source" is nothing more than the
publicly available interviews and statements made by SCO since this all
began???
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 02:59 PM EST |
Deja- Vu all over again
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hyrion on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST |
I think there's potentially mixed signals going through, if there are any
signals. We have the impression that MS and Sun are now playing a little game
where they are trying to make the average individual think: Linux = Red
Hat.
However, in the article the author has
...put into IBM
products such as Linux...
Linux is an IBM
product???
Well... I'm sure most of us that visit Groklaw know that Linux
is neither a Red Hat or IBM product, but it's interesting to see that confusion
starting to rise.
If MS and SUN are on a trip to try and get people to
associate Linux with Red Hat, these reporters phrasing their choice of words so
that Linux appears to be a product of IBM can't be helping
them.
---
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a
person chooses. - RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST |
"BUSINESS SUMMARY
The SCO Group, Inc., formerly known as Caldera International, Inc., owns the
UNIX operating system and is a provider of UNIX-based products and services.
"
The above quote is taken from the SCOX message board at Yahoo. I'm not sure if
it is part of an ad or a permanent part of the message board. As far as I can
tell, it is a total lie to state that SCOG "owns the unix operating
system." Am I right to be totally galled by this or is it not worth
worrying about?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 07:41 PM EST |
Robot: Running? - Running Robot!
Freaky!
clicky
---
Linux used ideas from MINIX
MINIX|UNIX
UNIX|MULTICS
MULTICS|CTSS
CTSS|FMS
In science, all work is based on what came before it.
Andy Tanenbaum, 6June04 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST |
<tinfoil-hat>
It just struck me as a rather noticeable
coincidence that the original Novell hearing was going to be on January 20th,
the same day on which the responses from TSG and IBM to G2's motion are due.
Perhaps Judge Kimball is just keeping his calendar from being too clogged that
day...
</tinfoil-hat>
---
"When I say something, I put
my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 29 2004 @ 09:20 PM EST |
"SCO filed their memorandum in support as a sealed document, despite
allying with G2 in their alleged quest for openness." ---- well of course
they have.
If nothing else is certain in SCO dealings its that they'll say one thing and do
another. In fact do the exact opposite in different courts as well. Obviously
one can't know for certain but it would seem evident that SCO doesn't really
want anything unsealed, well at least not their secret stuff anyway, and really
its all about the press and the sacred share price. "O the things you
people don't know about IBM and XYZ"
So February: It would be nice to see some resolution in the Novell case although
I suppose that still doesn't actually settle the ownership issue to Unix
exactly; Correct me if I'm wrong. However the FUD machine will start shooting
more blanks -- o who am I kidding its been shooting blanks all along. SCO will
just spin another loss into a victory! --- tho I hope because I need a good
laugh right now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
