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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Updating Pacer on SCO v. IBM and Novell v. MS
Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST

Just a quick update to let you know the latest from Pacer on SCO v. IBM and Novell v. Microsoft (the antitrust lawsuit). In the former, the subpoena was served on PointServe and proof of service filed with the court and entered on December 29.

SCO has asked to file an overlength Reply Memo -- is there any other kind from SCO? -- to IBM's opposition to their request to file a 3rd Amended Complaint. And they filed a sealed Reply Memo, presumably the one they are asking to be able to file. We can assume they will be granted their wish. It's only 18 pages.

In Novell v. Microsoft, there was a stipulated delay ordered on the 30th, whereby Microsoft gets up to January 7 to file a motion to dismiss Novell's complaint, Novell then gets to February 21 to respond with its Memorandum in Opposition, and then Microsoft has until March 10 to file its Reply Memorandum. The Order is signed by Judge Ted Stewart. As you can see from our Novell-MS Timeline page, this isn't the first alteration in their schedule, mainly, it appears, because Microsoft intends to file a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. It's also not a bit unusual for things to be postponed over holidays. Lawyers are humans too.

And don't be thrown when you open the PDF. It looks at first like a Stipulation, and it is, but it's stamped So Ordered and signed by the judge at the top of the first page, and that makes it the Order.

Here are the Pacer notations:

SCO v. IBM --
12/28/04 - 367 - Return of service executed on 12/9/04 of subpoena upon PointeServe (blk) [Entry date 12/29/04]

12/29/04 - 368 - Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file overlength reply memo re: motion for leave to file third amd complaint (blk) [Entry date 12/30/04]

12/29/04 - 369 - ***SEALED***Reply by SCO Grp to response to [322-1] motion to amend complaint (for leave to file 3rd amended complaint) (blk) [Entry date 12/30/04]

Novell v. Microsoft --

12/30/04 10 Order granting [9-1] Amended Stip to extend time up to 1/7/05 for Microsoft to file motion to dismiss; Novell to file memopp by 2/21/05 and Microsoft to file reply memo by 3/10/05 signed by Judge Ted Stewart, 12/30/04 cc:atty (jmr) [Entry date 12/30/04]


  


Updating Pacer on SCO v. IBM and Novell v. MS | 86 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off-Topic Threads Here
Authored by: chrisbrown on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:33 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corrections Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 02:32 AM EST
Sealed motions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:39 PM EST
We all know about the G2 request to unseal documents and we all have strong
suspicions about their backing and motives, but I'm beginning to wonder if the
Groklaw community might not want to consider something similar. If I'm reading
correctly SCO has just filed two motions to the court ... sealed. Their
"Memorandum in Support of their Renewed Motion to Compel" (did I get
that right?) was filed sealed and now this one was filed sealed.

Perhaps I'm just overly paranoid (it's easy to get that way around SCO) but it
seems that SCO might be tired of the Groklaw community tearing up their motions
in public. It's probably not time for any action yet, but we might want to
start thinking about what we'd do if SCO started sealing everything they submit
to the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another overlength SCO press release
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:55 PM EST

SCO doesn't file court documents. It only files press releases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who is PointServe? (n/t)
Authored by: rao on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO asked leave to file an overlength memo?
Authored by: billyskank on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST
No way! :)

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm confused ...
Authored by: bstone on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST
12/29/04 - 369 - ***SEALED***Reply by SCO Grp to response to [322-1] motion to amend complaint (for leave to file 3rd amended complaint) (blk) [Entry date 12/30/04]

Maybe it's just me, but did SCO really file a response to their own filing (322-1) here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dumb Question
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST
It's really quiet right now (happy new year), and I've been confused by
something for a while and thought now would be a good time to ask. About this
SCO-IBM lawsuit: Why do we have multiple judges involved? I thought there was
only one lawsuit between SCO and IBM. I see some things are on Judge Kimball's
plate, while others are on Judge Wells'. Are they both working on SCO-IBM, or
is SCO's multiple lawsuits confusing me, and one judge is solely for IBM and
another for Novell, or ??? Thanks!
--
Chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Happy New Year !
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 08:56 PM EST
May this new year (2005) see the final resolution of Sco(x) vs. World.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX New Year
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 12:18 AM EST
[pete@steigen ~]$ date +%s
1104557084


---
inode_buddha

[ Reply to This | # ]

Overlength Memos
Authored by: Rob M on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 12:20 AM EST
Is the repeated requests for overlength memos normal in a case or is SCO pushing
the envelope?

When will the judge say "enough is enough, file normal length"?

[ 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 )