|
|
| SCO's Blah Blah Letter to the Red Hat Judge |
 |
|
Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 12:39 AM EDT
|
SCO has now filed its periodic report to the judge [PDF] in the Red Hat case, and like Red Hat's, it's a mild effort, just enough to let the judge know progress is being made, if she even reads this stuff. I can just copy and paste the old one and a lot of it is word for word. Unlike the earlier flamboyance, SCO seems to be doing the least required. Can you imagine in SCO's salad days, when they put their whole soul into their letters, a sentence like the final sentence, where SCO merely tells the judge that they filed a second amended complaint against Novell, without telling a single thing about what was in the complaint? No, their heart just isn't in it any more, I'm afraid. Both sides have figured out that the judge here isn't paying attention currently and doesn't seem to have any plans to do so until it's time to ramp up the case in Delaware, should that happy day ever arrive. You'll notice that copies of the letter go to the new attorney we first saw in the teleconference representing SCO, Mauricio A. Gonzalez, of Boies Schiller. And I couldn't help noticing that they didn't put Esq. after Josy W. Ingersoll, the Red Hat lawyer, which is a bit of an insult. They usually do, so if they use a template -- and why wouldn't they? -- it is a tiny little snub. SCO never wanted this case to happen. They tried to get it dismissed, but merely accomplished a delay. Red Hat was eager at the beginning, but after the judge believed SCO's story that this case and the IBM case were about the same issues (time has shown how not true that was) and without being asked for the remedy by either party, she delayed the case, at this point I am guessing Red Hat's fondest hope is probably that she'll be appointed the ambassador to Ghana or Undersecretary of Commerce or something far, far away.
*******************
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
[letterhead]
April 3, 2006
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
United States District Court
[address]
RE: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
Pursuant to this Court's April 6, 2004 Order, SCO respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events that have transpired since our last update (on January 3, 2005) in SCO v. IBM, Case No. 03-0294 (DAK), which is currently pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
SCO's Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM
On February 13, 2006, in response to SCO's December 22 Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM, which identified 293 separate technology disclosures made by IBM in violation of SCO's rights, IBM filed a motion to limmit SCO's claims related to misused material to the ninety-three disclosures that IBM believes were identified with sufficient specificity. SCO filed its opposition brief on March 7, and IBM's reply is due on April 4. The Court haas scheduled the hearing on this motion on April 14.
Discovery
On February 24, 2006, the Court denied SCO's December 29 motion to compel certain discovery without prejudice to renew the motion after review of documents produced by IBM's while the motion was pending.
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
April 3, 2006
Page 2
On March 17, 2006, the parties submitted their Stipulation Regarding Discovery. Among other things, they agreed that, with the exception of certain specified depositions, all fact discovery closed on that date; subject to certain mutual representations, there were no more discovery disputes between them; and with certain possible exceptions, they would not bring motions to compel.
SCO's Second Amended Complaint Against Novell
On January 31, 2006, based on a stipulation by the parties, the Court granted SCO's motion for leave to file its Second Amended Complaint against Novell. SCO filed that complaint on February 2, 2006.
Respectfully,
/s/ Leslie A. Polizoti
Leslie A. Polizoti
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll (By Hand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (By Fax)
Mauricio A. Gonzalez, Esquire (By Fax)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
..or corections her
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- January -> April - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 01:52 AM EDT
- Dangling heading - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- limmit - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 02:18 AM EDT
- Corrections here - Authored by: noli on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 03:02 AM EDT
- s/haas/has N/T - Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 03:46 AM EDT
- N/T - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- Sticky keyboard - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 05:31 AM EDT
- XBox 36? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Red Hat judge - Authored by: Tijaska on Thursday, April 06 2006 @ 12:57 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 01:47 AM EDT |
Please remember to make links clickable, following the instructions on the 'Post
a Comment' page and remembering to use HTML format.
---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Low stakes legal gambling? - Authored by: grahamt on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 03:59 AM EDT
- Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 04:13 AM EDT
- Another keyboard n/t - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 06:16 AM EDT
- name of the butcher? - Authored by: morven24 on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 07:52 AM EDT
- When I read that it was Chinese - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding - Authored by: chaz_paw on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 11:57 AM EDT
- Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Finite and Infinite grammars - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT
- Lehman: TRIPS was a mistake - Authored by: Erwan on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 04:22 AM EDT
- No Vista in Europe? - Authored by: stephen_A on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 08:17 AM EDT
- "Lucent sue Microsoft over Xbox 360 patent" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 09:20 AM EDT
- Another insane patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- Microsoft Says Recovery from Malware Becoming Impossible - Authored by: Bill R on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Microsoft security techie recommends wiping drives and reinstalling - Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 01:05 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 05:58 AM EDT |
There has been recent criticism of Judge Robinson for ordering a stay, sue
sponte, in SCO vs Red Hat. The "salad days" link above suggests she
might have been SCOed into doing so. Not that that would absolve her
completely: she could have made the gross error of taking SCO at their word:
Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth,
Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth,
Attempted to Believe Matilda:
The effort very nearly killed her,...
---
SCO: hunting for snarks in an ocean of sharks
---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: turing_test on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 09:57 AM EDT |
Even in this tiny runt of a filing, SCO manages to twist the facts. They say
that IBM moved to allow only the
"disclosures that IBM believes
were identified with sufficient specificity",
but actually IBM, in
its motion,
does not admit that any of the disclosures were identified with sufficient
specificity:
"all 294 Items identified in the Final Disclosures
fail to provide the level of specificity sought by IBM and required by the
Court."
IBM merely identified the most egregious examples among
the disclosures, and moved to exclude them now. (The others, while still
inadequate, will presumably remain until IBM files its summary judgement
motions.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mwexler on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 10:03 AM EDT |
What are the chances that IBM will win on a PSJ and that will revive this suit?
Or will we have to wait until this one gets move to bankruptcy court?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 11:15 AM EDT |
it's hard to remember that your original purpose was to drain the swamp.
IIRC, the original purpose of this case was to get an injunction to force SCO to
quit threatening Red Hat's customers. The case started when SCO had sent
letters to 1500(?) companies saying that using Linux exposed them to legal
action. Darl was also spouting off on a regular basis.
This case is no longer very important because SCO is no longer threatening Red
Hat's customers. No more letters have gone out and Darl is pretty quiet. In
that respect, Red Hat has what it asked for. On the other hand, if Red Hat were
to drop the case, SCO would claim that as a victory. So here we are, just going
through the motions.
[grump mode ON] The Germans were willing to tell SCO to put up or shut up.
The fact that this case is still before an American court is pathetic. [grump
mode OFF]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eskild on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
Arthur C Clarke at some point suggests that some colonel should have been put in
charge of (AFARC) Wyoming Costal Defenses
---
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 12:03 PM EDT |
Yes, I know... justice delayed, etc. etc. etc.
As it turns out, Redhat still has a marker (this suit) where they can go after
TSCOG, if there were any damages. Personally, I haven't seen anyone put up an
estimate or argument about that, though IBM appear to be doing their homework on
it.
In the meantime, Judge Robinson has avoided all the fun that IBM, Novell, and
D-C provide(d), thus letting her attend to other court business.
It's reasonable, and frustrating for those of us who'd like to see TSCOG and
it's cowboys brought to justice.
---
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed...
Oh wait! He does!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 05 2006 @ 12:47 AM EDT |
In the teleconference RedHat didn't seem too anxious to start this thing up now.
They may have been in the beginning but they now seem content to wait for SCOG
to lose the IBM case first, after IBM lays out the whole scam with world class
experts.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 05 2006 @ 01:09 AM EDT |
In the teleconference RedHat didn't seem too anxious to start this thing up now.
They may have been in the beginning but they now seem content to wait for SCOG
to lose the IBM case first, after IBM lays out the whole scam with world class
experts.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 05 2006 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
I couldn't help but notice that the Order for the 90 day updates was two years
ago tomorrow. It seems like only yesterday that Redhat filed suit. My, how
time flies when you are having fun.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
