decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Dear BS&F... I think you misfiled...
Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:36 AM EDT

Just a quick shout out to BS&F: I think you filed a document in the SCO v. IBM category that actually belongs in the SCO v. Novell category:
998 - Filed: 03/16/2007 Entered: 03/20/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** REPLY MEMORANDUM in Support of Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk)

Well, who can keep track of all this paperwork? It could be a clerk's error, but if not, you probably need to fix this. You're welcome.

Update: It turns out they didn't need my help. From Pacer:

1008 - Filed & Entered: 03/21/2007
Modification of Docket
Docket Text: Modification of Docket: Docket entry #998, SCO's Sealed Reply Memorandum was entered by the clerk in the wrong case. Correction: Clerk has modified the docket text and entered this filing in SCO v. Novell, 2:04cv139, as docket #251, re [998] Sealed Document. (blk)


Dear BS&F... I think you misfiled... | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Still Tired P.J.?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:46 AM EDT

BF&S = BS&F (Boise, Shiller, & Flexner)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: MathFox on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:50 AM EDT
We all make mistakes

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within
itself, then it is inconsistent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic thread
Authored by: MathFox on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT
For your collection of Open Source and/or law related issues

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within
itself, then it is inconsistent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not an error
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 10:03 AM EDT
You see, SCO finally figured it out. Novell are working for IBM !

Well it is obvious of course: Novell is in the computer business and so is IBM.
Novell's headquarters are in the same country as IBM's. IBM has paid money to
Novell under the auspices of "buying SuSE" - and we all know that
Linux is free. Novell is countersuing SCO, and so they *must* be working under
IBM's direction. So therefore, according to SCOlogic, there is really only one
case instead of two !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court error, rather than BS&F?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 10:04 AM EDT
Could this have been an error by the clerk of the court (or whoever does the
data entry in these dockets)? There does seem to have been something expected
in the Novell docket on the date this was filed (see Novell 246). If it was
BS&F who misfiled, does this mean that the material did not meet the

[ Reply to This | # ]

A-HA! PROOF that PJ is an IBM front!
Authored by: sschlimgen on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 11:13 AM EDT

<SCO Logic>

By politely informing BS&F of the filing mistake, PJ has revealed herself to
be a front for IBM.

After all, everyone knows the Nazgul are sneaky. Helping SCO out and appearing
to be fair is exactly the opposite of what they'd want, so they did it to
confuse everyone.

</SCO Logic>

Y'know, this "thinking like SCO" is kinda fun, though it makes my
brain feel like Moebius, Dali, Escher & Picasso are having a PaJama party
inside my head.


Steve Schlimgen

Meandering through life like a drunk on a unicycle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The best part...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 11:44 AM EDT
We can't tell whether it's BSF's error or the courts, because the filing is

OK, maybe it's not the "best" part. I, at least, found it amusing...


[ Reply to This | # ]

This filing mistake was already corrected
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 12:22 PM EDT
The current docket number is something like 1,010 according to Tuxrocks, and the
filing mistake was already corrected long ago (measured in Internet time:-),
more than twelve hours ago.

You're far behind. BSF figured out their mistake already, just for once. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Or the clerk did? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 03:16 PM EDT
OH, the IRONY!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 03:39 PM EDT
Hmmm. BS&F Bill - $50 million and counting
Groklaw Bill - $0

BS&F Lunacy and Demonstrated Incompetence - Priceless

[ Reply to This | # ]

?BS&F sues Groklaw?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 22 2007 @ 06:51 PM EDT
Consider the following...

Groklaw is providing SCO with amazingly cogent legal advice, even though SCO
fails to take it.

BS&F is providing SCO with amazingly.. er.. expensive legal advice.

What if a complete review of the Groklaw archives compared to BS&F's filings
in the SCO cases using the Rochkind-Blepp-Balmer filtering system reveals over a
90% match between the content of Groklaw and the BS&F filings in the cases.

Based on this non-literate system of evaluation what if BS&F concludes that
Groklaw has been dumping BS&F IP onto the internet and files suit accusing
Groklaw of unfair trade practices and claiming that the Free Open legal advice
is not only unconstitutional but just plain unnatural.

BS&F might end up asking the RIIA to help them track down all the Groklaw
posters based on their IP addresses,
and file john-doe-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-doe lawsuits seeking to properly identify
all of the potential infringing Groklaw posters, thus ensnaring little old
ladies who have never used a pocket calculator let alone a computer, and dead
people in expensive and highly entertaining legal disputes.

[ 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 )