|
|
| 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]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: chrisbrown on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST |
| n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rao on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST |
| n/t [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, January 01 2005 @ 12:18 AM EST |
[pete@steigen ~]$ date +%s
1104557084
---
inode_buddha[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
