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
The Go v. MS Complaints
Monday, July 04 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT

Go Corp. did file two complaints, one in federal court and one in state court in California, just as John Markoff of the New York Times reported. The laws are slightly different, but the overview is the same. I have them now, and here they are:

Go's Federal complaint [PDF]

Go's State complaint [PDF]

Earlier Groklaw discussion here. Enjoy.


  


The Go v. MS Complaints | 56 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Go v. MS Complaints
Authored by: AG on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 08:19 PM EDT
If parts of your case touch federal law, can't you file the whole thing in
federal
court and the federal court will consider relevant state law as well?
This is a total
waste of resources.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fascinating...
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 10:02 PM EDT


This should be another interesting one.

1) Will Go make it past Go in regards to the 20 years between the alleged acts
and the filing.

2) If Go does make it past Go, how much evidence have they managed to amass, and
will it make Microsoft consider settlement?

If Go has a case (and we don't know yet, and won't for 3-4 years), I'd hope that
they'd see it through. I can understand while companies take the money and run
(like IBM and SUN). But all it gives them is a short term "Caffiene
Hit".



---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

paragraph 24-26 of federal complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 10:08 PM EDT
I have a copy of Kaplan's book but I can't find it right now

I seem to remember (paragraph 24 especially) a somewhat different story in the
book about the Hobbit processor.

My memory may be wrong. Does anybody have the book handy? How does the
complaint compare to what it says about the conversion to Hobbit in the book?

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, July 04 2005 @ 10:15 PM EDT


X Box chipping article - legal loss.

The articles says that the chipping is what the man was convicted of, but it appears that he was actually convicted of copyright infringement (if someone with some legal skills could look at it I'd love to hear the comments.

---
Wayne

telnet hatter.twgs.org

[ 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 )