|
|
| Hearing on Novell Motions Set for July 17, at 10 AM |
 |
|
Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 07:46 PM EDT
|
This just up on Pacer:
06/20/2006 135 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 109 MOTION for More Definite Statement, 104 MOTION to Stay: Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2006 10:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj, ) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
I hope some of you can attend. If you can, let me know what you see and observe, please, so I can put it on Groklaw. As always, call the court before you go, in case there are last-minute changes to the schedule. And remember you can't record or use a cell phone in any way inside the court.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: rc on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
| And don't forget to read the important stuff!
Please enter links in HTML
mode, also!
rc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rc on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
| Although I cannot imagine the need for any, I've read it 3 times and it passed
my parsing all 3 times.
However, should the article get updated (which I've
seen happen more than once), it might be needed, so here it is.
rc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
If recording is not allowed inside a court, how did we get a recording in one of
the recent articles? Was that recording provided by the court? If so, is that
a common thing, or uncommon? I would think that all court proceedings should be
recorded by the court (though I can see why the court does not want them
recorded by others). And unless there is privileged material in those
recordings (such as SCO revealing IBM's privileged emails in one of the earlier
hearings), the recordings should be available to the public (after all, this is
a publicly-funded court). Am I overlooking something?
cmc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, June 21 2006 @ 12:04 AM EDT |
The SCO v. Novell litigation just got a lot more interesting. Here are
some more documents filed yesterday and now available on Pacer, and they provide
some more explosive news, namely that SuSE on April 10th filed a Request
for Arbitration with The Secretariat of the ICC International Court of
Arbitration in Paris. Here are the ICC
rules.....According to the ICC rules, as I read them, SCO must answer
in 30 days, with any counterclaims, and giving any choice regarding
arbitrators, language, and place of arbitration. It can ask for an extension.
After an answer is filed, then SuSe gets 30 days to reply. It too can ask for an
extension of time. SCO can protest the arbitration request. Then either the
Tribunal decides to go ahead as a matter of law, relying on its decision that
the arbitration clause is binding, or the parties end up in a local court,
asking that court to decide if the arbitration clause is binding. It can decide
just on the papers submitted, or there can be a hearing requested, but no
matter what, after all the papers are in, it is supposed to be over in six
months....
Groklaw
I wonder how long an "extension" is?
Surely it couldn't be
longer than 30 days? Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: markpmc on Thursday, June 22 2006 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
July 17 is my birthday. Here's hoping that I get a decent gift from SCO.
Mark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
