Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:28 PM EST |
If any.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:29 PM EST |
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:30 PM EST |
Please note which article you are referencing
in the title.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:32 PM EST |
Please make any links clickable.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:38 PM EST |
Counting motions granted as +1, and motions denied as -1, ignoring all others,
the current score appears to be:
SCO 0
Novell -2
(Disclaimer: Your results may vary; past performance is not an indicator of
future returns.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 09:59 PM EST |
This is great. My wishlist would include another chart of the complaint issues
and the major rulings associated with each.
Looking at SCO's 2nd Ammeded Complaint,
http://groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060109231849961
there is
Slander of Title
Breach of the APA and TLA
Alternative Breach-of-Contract Claim Seeking Specific Performance
Copyright Infringement
Unfair Competition
But I'm not sure which of these are complete.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 23 2010 @ 10:28 PM EST |
Where is the court record of Novel v SCO appeal - the transcript of 05/06/09 -
or thereabouts?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 10:10 AM EST |
Add these to the table?
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: red floyd on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Given that 631 is granted, and 631 is titledMOTION in Limine No. 4
to Preclude SCO from Contesting that Novell had an Objectively Reasonable, Good
Faith Basis for its Statements Regarding Copyright Ownership If
SCOXQ can't contest that Novell had an objectively reasonable, good faith basis,
then how can they possibly win on Slander of Title?--- I am not merely
a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of
America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 631 Granted. - Authored by: RFD on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 12:58 PM EST
- 631 Granted. - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 25 2010 @ 02:00 PM EST
|
Authored by: Silurian on Wednesday, February 24 2010 @ 07:08 PM EST |
The effect of 728 is that all of SCO motion in limine are ordered, seventeen of
Novell motion in limine are ordered, two of Novell motion in limine are pending,
and the three Novell daubert motions are pending. Set aside two pending motion
in limine and three pending daubert motions.
I will score granter as +1, denied as -1, granted in part and deined in part as
0, and "under advisement" as zero.
If my arithmetic is correct (no warranty!) the score for SCO is +2 from 4, so
say +50%. The score for Novell is -3 from 17, so say -18%.
Quite a difference.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|