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
SCO's Updated Report on Unsealing Docs in SCO v. IBM
Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 06:36 PM EDT

SCO has just filed an Updated Report in Compliance with the Court's April 28, 2005 Order Regarding the Unsealing of Documents. The only difference is that the order of the letters attached as exhibits has changed, to match the text in footnote 1. Also the updated version has pages that say Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, whereas the original had blank, black pages before the exhibits.

If you would like to compare, here's the original.


  


SCO's Updated Report on Unsealing Docs in SCO v. IBM | 73 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 06:49 PM EDT
And can I post the first one?

PJ, please change the post mode of the article to "HTML formatted".

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT thread
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 06:53 PM EDT
Please put any OT posts under this thread and make them clickable, if
appropriate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Updated Report on Unsealing Docs in SCO v. IBM
Authored by: AG on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:33 PM EDT
No money to pay someone to proof read the document before filing it? Boies and
friends really seem to have lost interest in this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Very quiet lately?
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, June 07 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT


SCO's Very quiet lately?

Dance monkey dance!

Oh and a repost of “SCO's Lawyers as I will now always picture them!”

I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm, or that he's a lawyer. If your case isn't won, the pizza's free! Look, the monkey's taking another puff!

He Heh :)

---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

Department of Redundancy Department.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 08 2005 @ 08:55 AM EDT
When I first saw the title of this article I thought we were in for another
series of redundant, repetitive filings covering the same things over and over
again.

I'm glad to see its simply correcting typos. I really wonder if anyone at BSF
reads these things before they file them.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ 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 )