|
|
| Hearing Feb. 24 on SCO's Motion to Take Certain Prospective Depositions -Updated |
 |
|
Monday, February 13 2006 @ 11:27 AM EST
|
The hearing on SCO's Motion for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions [PDF; text] is now scheduled for February 24 at 9:30 AM in Room 220. Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells will hear arguments. If any of you can attend, please do, calling the day before or even that morning to make sure there are no changes of scheduling. This should be rather an exciting hearing, given that Intel has entered the fray with a bang. Here's the Pacer entry:
616 -
Filed & Entered: - 02/10/2006
Notice of Hearing on Motion
Docket Text: NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: [607] MOTION for Leave to Take Certain Prospective Depositions, [592] MOTION to Compel Discovery: Motion Hearing set for 2/24/2006 at 09:30 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. (jwd, ) Also, if you are planning to attend, please email me so I know we'll have coverage. Thanks. To prepare, so you understand what is happening, you'd probably want to review the motion and Intel's response and the following:
article on Intel's Motion
article on what SCO asked from Oracle
Oracle Motion to Quash in California
Declaration of John Wadsworth The Oracle motion won't be argued directly in Utah on the 24th (unless it is transferred there in the meantime), but reading it will help you understand the issues, and they are involved, being one of the entities SCO wants to depose. There will be more filings prior to the hearing, from IBM for one, so stay tuned. Remember there is no taping allowed, no cell phones, PDAs etc., so bring paper so you can take notes. Even if you don't understand everything, write down what they say, and others will know what it means. It should really be fun. Update: The time has change, according to this Pacer entry:
"AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 607 MOTION for Leave to Take
Certain Prospective Depositions, 592 MOTION to Compel Discovery: Motion Hearing
previously set for 2/24/2006 at 09:30 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge
Brooke C. Wells has been reset for 2/24/2006 at 2:30 PM in Room 220 before
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. Please note the change in time from 9:30 AM to
2:30 PM. (jwd, ) (Entered: 02/13/2006)" So, 2:30 PM. Let's synchronize our watches. : )
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ted Powell on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 11:58 AM EST |
<a>article on Intel's Motion</a> needs href=...
---
"If you don't have the source code, you are probably going to
be screwed in the long run." --Philip Greenspun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 12:01 PM EST |
Forgive my rather Newbie-like question however I am still as yet unclear on the
difference between a magistrate judge and a normal judge?
Is the magistrate judge more junior? Do they usually have less experience? How
does what happen in thier courtroom affect the overall trial?
Also, I always understood it to kinda be like baseball. You have two teams
slugging it out in the minor leagues, they slug it out, a couple players play
dirty, the minor league umpires learn who they are. Suddenly those players go
to the majors, the dirty play is still on thier record but the umpires dont have
nearly the experience with these guys and have to rely on what they seein the
major league game in front of them.
Is this accurate? Will they be able to do all this silly stuff at the
magistrate level and then try and dance through a jury litigation with a song
and dance routine and no ill effect from all of the discovery hollaballoo?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 12:11 PM EST |
Off topic thread.
Make links clickable[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off topic here - Authored by: dracoverdi on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 12:22 PM EST
- Why no taping allowed? - Authored by: JeffOllie on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 01:22 PM EST
- Alchin considered cross-platform thinking within Microsoft a disease - Authored by: clark_kent on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 01:24 PM EST
- BSA offering $50,000 reward to turn in pirates - Authored by: DannyB on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 04:12 PM EST
- Doesn't Intel have a couple of Offices in Happy Valley? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 04:25 PM EST
- AMD vs. Intel - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 04:30 PM EST
- "EU fields Windows Vista antitrust concerns" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 04:48 PM EST
- DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 04:49 PM EST
- DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 05:25 PM EST
- Bang the DRM Slowly - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 05:55 PM EST
- DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 07:36 PM EST
- to lose money... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 09:24 PM EST
- The truth would be a PR nightmare (nt) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 01:06 AM EST
- Distro Test - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 09:37 PM EST
- One word - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 10:55 PM EST
- One word - Authored by: John Hasler on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 11:24 PM EST
- Knoppix - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 07:05 AM EST
- MEPIS 3.4-3 is out ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 09:12 AM EST
- Distro Test - Authored by: idahoan on Tuesday, February 14 2006 @ 10:41 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: sirwired on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 01:22 PM EST |
As PJ said, now that Intel has entered the fray, this should be interesting. I
can't wait to hear the report on this one. Here's to hoping Wells rips SCO
and/or BSF a new one...
SirWired[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Every corporate legal team is more likely than not a product of the culture of
its employer. Intel is super-aggressive, and its corporate legal team is a
reflection of that: SCOG will find in short order that they have messed with the
wrong set of people.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JR on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 01:50 PM EST |
I keep hearing that the SCO lawyers are doing a very clumsy job, but these are
experienced lawyers.
Could it be that they (the lawyers) are doing an inept job on purpose, or that
SCO itself is pushing them to do this inept job by misinterpreting things or
only giving little pieces of the truth little by little to these lawyers?
Would this ineptitude give SCO executives a "get out of jail for free"
pass, or SCO and its invisible friends another chance at re-disputing this case
in the future and thus extending the FUD for longer?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rfrazier on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 01:51 PM EST |
If I were, and had been, playing with a straight bat, with regard to these
proceedings, I think I would do a mea culpa about the mistakes in drawing
up and serving the subpoenas, but say that I was acting in good faith, and would
like to go ahead with the dispositions. However, given the past history, would
the benefit of the doubt still be given to SCO by the magistrate?
Best wishes,
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stephen on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 02:30 PM EST |
Is this hearing strictly between SCO and IBM, or will Intel's attorneys be
able to speak as well?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 08:50 PM EST |
Docket 622 on PACER: The time of the hearing has changed.
"AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 607 MOTION for Leave to Take
Certain Prospective Depositions, 592 MOTION to Compel Discovery: Motion Hearing
previously set for 2/24/2006 at 09:30 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge
Brooke C. Wells has been reset for 2/24/2006 at 2:30 PM in Room 220 before
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. Please note the change in time from 9:30 AM to
2:30 PM. (jwd, ) (Entered: 02/13/2006)"
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 13 2006 @ 08:53 PM EST |
I will deny SCO request on intel document. They seek for document about
relationship between intel and sco itself. They can do it themself.
Grant the other 2 request but penalty SCO with reasonable amount of money (for
intentionally filing defective subpeona).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
