|
|
| For the Lawyers, It Was a Working Weekend - Updated |
 |
|
Monday, March 22 2010 @ 10:34 AM EDT
|
Today at the trial in SCO v. Novell, SCO will finish up its case with the testimony of Ryan Tibbitts. And then Novell begins its side, with its first witness, Joseph LaSala.
While you and I were goofing off over the weekend, the lawyers were very busy. Lots of filings, with SCO now objecting to Novell's proposed witnesses or to some of the testimony. It doesn't want Michael DeFazio's deposition to be played in full, for example, especially the part where he says he thinks Novell retained the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. SCO says he shouldn't be allowed to opine based only on his reading of the APA. Novell for its side says he was the lead negotiator of the APA for Novell, so he's obviously qualified, particularly as to intent. That's SCO's favorite topic with its witnesses, after all, and all of their witnesses testified as to their understanding of the APA, so fair's fair. SCO has filed a long document trying to limit what the many lawyers Novell intends to call -- Joseph LaSala, David Bradford, Gregory Jones, Allison Amadia, Tor Braham, and Aaron Alter -- can talk about in front of the jury. That's quite a list, when you consider that SCO presented none. There is no one to rebut their testimony at all. Novell also has a motion that SCO should not be allowed to present its surprise witness, Troy Keller, since there was no opportunity to do discovery, and it's too late to do it now mid-trial, making the prejudice to Novell too great.
And Novell has filed a Motion for Leave to Examine Other Witnesses on Prior Rulings. Judge Ted Stewart allowed Novell to examine SCO's expert Christine Botosan about them, but he said not to mention the rulings to any other witnesses without leave, so Novell is asking for leave, particularly with respect to LaSala and Tibbitts, not for hearsay purposes, like to establish the truth of a matter. No, but they want to introduce it to challenge SCO's damages theory.
Also, SCO's witnesses have been telling the jury that Novell's statements were the reason, the sole reason, companies failed to take SCOsource licenses, and the rulings show there were other important reasons and also to demonstrate a lack of constitutional malice and also to prove Novell was not reckless with regard to truth. Anyway, Novell argues, the jury already heard about them, so any risk of prejudice was already accepted, and any concerns can more properly be handled by redaction and instruction to the jury, not exclusion.
Novell has found additional cases to strengthen its position it would like the judge to consider. SCO, however, opposes, and it has a case that says it's "error" to allow such rulings to be mentioned, and they oppose the motion vigorously. Novell hasn't presented any evidence that customers were influenced by the rulings, and it's too late now, SCO argues. SCO really doesn't want Tibbitts and LaSala asked about the prior rulings, so it brings up Novell not laying a proper foundation in the Botosan cross-examination, because they know that really irritated the judge.
Here are all the filings. The docket lists Novell's motion as being about its "first witness", but the document itself says it's about "other witnesses":
03/21/2010 - 815 - MOTION for Leave to Examine Its First Witness on Prior Rulings filed by Counter Claimant Novell, Inc., Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 03/21/2010)
03/21/2010 - 816 - OBJECTIONS to Novell's Designation of Testimony of Michael Defazio filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 03/21/2010)
03/21/2010 - 817 - MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 815 MOTION for Leave to Examine Its First Witness on Prior Rulings filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Unpublished Cases)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 03/21/2010)
03/21/2010 - 818 - MOTION TO PRECLUDE SCO FROM CALLING TROY KELLER AS A WITNESS filed by Counter Claimant Novell, Inc., Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 03/21/2010)
03/21/2010 - 819 - Memorandum of Points and Authorities on the Limitations on Novell's Trial Testimony Imposed by Novell's Own Privilege Objections filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 03/21/2010)
03/22/2010 - 820 - REPLY BRIEF Novell's Response to SCO's Objection to Novell's Designation of Testimony of Michael DeFazio filed by Counter Claimant Novell, Inc., Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
The exhibits to 819 are:- Exhibit 1 is Gregory Jones' deposition excerpts
-
Exhibit 2 is Aaron Alter's
- Exhibit 3 is Joseph LaSala
- Exhibit 4 is a SCO's lawyer Ed Normand's letter to Novell's lawyer, Ken Brakebill, that in SCO's view, Novell had waived the attorney-client and work-product privilege.
- Exhibit 5 is Novell's response to the issues raised in Exhibit 4 as well as issues regarding the privilege log.
- Exhibit 6 is an email from Greg Jones to Jim Lundberg and Joe LaSala, in which he tells about Darl asking for contracts or any and all documents that might show SCO's rights with respect to UNIX. For example, he asked his assistant to get hold of the contract on the purchase of USL by Novell.
- Exhibit 7 is a November 2002 email from Jones to Lundberg, Lasala, Patrick McBride, and Ryan Richards regarding Darl's desire for USL-Novell documents. "I'm very leery of this request for a variety of reasons." Contrast this with McBride's testimony.
- Exhibit 8 is a December 2002 email, marked "Novell Confidential ** Attorney Client Privileged" from Jones to Carl Ledbetter, Chris Stone, Dave Wright, Lundberg, LaSala, Richards, and Bill Smith III. The subject line is: SCO (formerly Calder) -- Linux "Licensing" Program. The email recounts Darl's request, and that Novell had no interest in joining in. Then it relates that Jones and Dave Wright together called Darl, and that's when Darl told them about the Linux "licensing" program to be announced in a week. "Apparently SCO will spin this campaign as a means for Linux vendors and end users to ward off Microsoft IP infringement assertions against Linux (Darl alluded to a CRN article from today, attached), although it seem evidenct that this characterization is such a stretch that it could not possibly play well in the press or the marketplace (i.e., receiving a license under SCO IP in no way shields a Linux vendor or user from any claims under Microsoft IP)." The email also mentions that Jones didn't tell SCO that it had plans to get more involved in Linux, but that demonstrates that its later purchase of SUSE was not inspired by SCOsource or the litigation against IBM, neither of which had occurred yet.
The attachment to #820 is videotaped excerpts of Michael DeFazio's deposition in 2005 in connection with the IBM litigation. He describes Novell's Unix business as having two parts, the UNIX source part and the UnixWare binary part. Here is a bit of it, with David Marriott for IBM asking the questions:Q: How many UNIX businesses did Novell then have?
A: The way we looked at the UNIX business, we parsed it into two components at that time. A UnixWare business and a source licensing or legacy System V business.
Q? And what was the purpose of each of those businesses, if you could briefly describe it?
A: The UNIX System V source licensing business was the outgrowth of the original way we provided UNIX system technology to the marketplace where we provided it in source form customers were adapted to their marketplace needs, they in turn would ship a binary version of the operating system to their customers, pay us a royalty.
The UnixWare business Novell was actually developing a final binary form version of the UNIX operating system that was targeted to Intel specific X86 computer systems, basically PCs and servers and providing that product, that operating system product in binary form into the ... The excerpt cuts off in mid-sentence, but I think it's clear that Novell did not see the branch as the tree trunk.
Update: More:
03/22/2010 - 821 - APPENDIX to 819 Memorandum (NOT to motion), Memorandum (NOT to motion) filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
This is a SCO list of privilege objections Novell allegedly made during depositions. I say allegedly because when I read them, what I see in many cases is Novell saying they don't know if they will assert the privilege or not, but if so, it's question by question.
Update: And here are the minutes for the day, while we await the details:
03/22/2010 - 822 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ted Stewart: Jury Trial held on 3/22/2010. Week three of trial begins. Testimony heard, exhibits admitted. Trial will continue tomorrow morning at 8:30 a.m. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Edward Normand, Brent Hatch, Attorney for Defendant Sterling Brennan, Eric Acker, Michael Jacobs. Court Reporter: P. Walker, E. Young, B. Janke. (slm) (Entered: 03/22/2010)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Erwan on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
If any.
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
Post em if you've got em
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2010 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maroberts on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
It looks like Mr Keller is a Submarine witness; he pops up for a few seconds in
the years of the case, then submerges only to resurface in the middle of the
litigation lake of the court (or is that cesspool?)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: deck2 on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
| < sarcasm >
Dear Judge Stewart,
Please do not allow Novell to
supply a defense to our charges. To do so might bias the jury against us and we
could lose. And we really, really need win so that we can go out with our
protection racket against law suits scheme. So please tell
Novell essentially to sit down, shut up and keep their feet off the
furniture.
Yours truely,
tSCOg
< sarcasm > [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UncleJosh on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:08 AM EDT |
The witnesses in question are all on Novell's "will call" list filed
on March 5th.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
particularly 8, which is the email Greg Jones sent about Darl's telephone
call...
So SCO were originally going to pitch SCOsource as pay us and MS won't sue you?
Hmmm.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
"It doesn't want Michael DeFazio's deposition to be played in full, for
example, especially the part where he says he thinks Novell retained the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights. SCO says he shouldn't be allowed to opine based only on
his reading of the APA. Novell for its side says he was the lead negotiator of
the APA for Novell, so he's obviously qualified, particularly as to
intent."
It's curious how SCO thinks someone who didn't work on this can testify, but not
someone did. I guess they don't want the jury to be confused with facts.
---
IANALAIDPOOTV
(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hans on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
Goofing off? Like heck. I spent the entire weekend doing middle school solid
geoemetry. I had no idea what an apothem was!
Regards,
Hans [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:48 AM EDT |
SCO has already had over 9 days to present their witnesses, and there are less
than 4 days left for Novell. How can SCO be proposing to call yet another
witness ? Is this a strategy for an appeal when SCO lose ? "Well your
Honor, we would have won the case, but mean old Novell stopped us from calling
our star witness who had all our proof in his briefcase."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Novell is warming up in the bullpen and it looks like SCO is getting worried.
They aren't doing too well proving their case thanks to their former CEO's
admissions and now it's turnabout time. I wouldn't want to have their job.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 12:19 PM EDT |
The Santa Cruz to Caldera transaction has been mentioned many times at Groklaw,
and in particular, why Novell doesn't seem to be using that as a defence.
Here's why, from the deposition of Chris Sontag:
Q: Was one of the
documents that SCO looked at in that period . . .
the assignment from the Santa
Cruz Operation to Caldera
International?
MR. NORMAND: Let me instruct the
witness not to answer on
the grounds of attorney/client privilege and attorney
work product.
Q: Are you going to follow your counsel’s instruction?
A:
Yes.
MR. JACOBS: So any testimony related to SCO’s inquiry into
this
assignment is privileged?
MR. NORMAND: Yes.
Q: (By Mr. Jacobs) And you
will follow that instruction?
A: Yes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
It was pure coincidence that at the time Novell claimed ownership of the Unix
copyrights, Kimball suddenly appeared with rulings on the issue.
And thereafter customers were holding back from SCOSource because of this
ruling, not because of Novell's claim of ownership. Any damages to SCOSource
after 2007 are therefore not Novell's fault.
The last thing Novell cares about these days is credibility, right?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
I am not particularly excited by this story. I would be upset if SCOG got their
way because they are wrong in their assertions or are ignoring the goose and
gander rule.
And yet the trolls have burst on to the scene.
They must be saying that there is something really important in this story.
Perhaps the Novell witness material is more, utterly distructificating than I
ever thought possible (yes, its an allusion to Star Wars. So, take me out back
and shoot me).
I'm going to reread this a few times until I can see what is exciting them so
much.
---
Regards
Ian Al
I sentence you to seven years, or more with good behaviour.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
So what is this about pulling out a surprise witness at the last moment? I read
the motion and I agree -- this guy should have been mentioned years ago, like
2005 or 2006, not at the last minute after close of fact discovery, and
certainly not now. I can see the judge telling SCO to take a long walk off a
short pier over this witness.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 12:45 PM EDT |
I wonder if Judge Stewart has any clue about the character of the people who run
SCO. Judges aren't supposed to do that, of course, but, really, it's
unavoidable. You can get an idea of what's going on from the facts of the case.
Stewart has to know what it really would look like if copyrights were truly
intended to transfer.
The original APA is specific about what is included and what is not. So,
Amendment 2 is supposed to reverse vaguely what the original did specifically?
Is there any lawyer on the planet, even SCO's, who would do that in a contract?
I'm sorry, but the 10th Circuit looks sleazier to me with every passing day. And
that's what still scares me. They will find a way to reverse any verdict
favorable to Novell.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
From #815:
In Johnson, Colt Industries was sued for design defects
in its “famous Colt ‘six-shooter’,
first produced ... in 1873,” which “expose
the user to a hazard known as ‘drop-fire’,” i.e.,
accidental discharge if the
gun is dropped.
Dang! Can't SCO invent anything?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 01:56 PM EDT |
Doesn't seem that a logged-in user has created a News Picks thread yet...
Meanwhile, on the media radar...
Incidental mention of SCO v
Novell trial in an article that's primarily about Novell's rejection of
Elliot Associates bid.
“Novell Declines Elliott Takeover Offer” by Geoff
Duncan, Digital Trends, 22 Mar 2010
[...] Novell has since
become a serious player in the Linux world, defending a long-running copyright
suit from SCO that threatened the foundations of the operating system (SCO has
been thoroughly trounced, although it hasn’t given up) [...]
Parenthetical
comment buried in middle of last graf. Embedded link points to 25 Aug 2009
Digital Trends story by same reporter about Tenth Circuit decision. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
It was very predictable for SCO to try and prevent Novell's witness from
talking. Just the same was Novell tried to prevent some of SCO's witnesses from
talking about the APA.
There was a lot of speculation on a possible bias from the judge in favour of
SCO, because he denied Novell's requests almost all the time.
This is where we'll see if there indeed WAS a bias. If the Judge starts
approving SCO's requests and basically keeping Novell from defending itself, the
bias will become obvious. But if Novell's witness are allowed... it will become
very clear, very quickly for the jury, just what's been going on.
I guess we'll find out later today!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
After The SCO Group rests, is it not the proper time for Novell to move for
dismissal?
After all, Darl asserts that they did not need copyrights other than their SCO
Source program.
Even the most liberal reading of the APA Amendment 2 only transferred the
copyrights needed required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the
acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies - which clearly could not have
included SCO Source, since it did not exist at the time.
On this basis, Novell should request dismissal as soon as SCO rests. SCO has not
proven its claims. There is nothing for the jury to decide.
---
There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily."
-- George Washington
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
We know because of a Q&A between Judge and Counsel that the parties are
keeping a track of their time at the podium, but it seems remarkable to me that
Novell are content to let SCO have 9 days in the driving seat and barely 4 or 5
for their own argument.
I am curious as to why.
But, more than that, I was intrigued at last week's exchange when Judge Stewart
indicated to both parties that he would vigorously enforce the timing limit on
the trial - i.e. force the parties to complete so that the jury can be sent out
"on schedule". As best as I can make it, he made this clear *after*
the half way point in the trial had been passed. So does that mean he waited
until SCO had already taken the lion's share of court time before ruling that he
would not, in effect, grant any appeal to Novell to extend the case further? Did
that ruling gift time to SCO?
What happens if Novell run out of time?
MoFo are either supremely confident and have an absolutely stunning case for the
jury this week, or they are playing the long game and simply intend to appeal
this ruling if the verdict goes against them, knowing that sooner or later
bankruptcy will win out?
After all, with newSCO selling the mobility business to Darl for a paltry
$35,000 [what did they pay for it again?] they are whittling away any remaining
assets that anyone other than a pipe fairy would want to invest in. Not even
Ralph Yarro has bottomless pockets, so maybe their strategy is to bleed them dry
in court and then walk away?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
Or the Mit deep divers.
The Anderer super software that compares Sco stuff in Gnu /Linux.
All LIES ![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM EDT |
SCO's witnesses have been telling the jury that Novell's statements were
the reason, the sole reason, companies failed to take SCOsource
licenses
Maybe I haven't read last week's proceedings thoroughly
enough, but have they really been saying that? Nobody can possibly
believe it, not even Darl himself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eric76 on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
Lots of filings, with SCO now objecting to Novell's proposed
witnesses or to some of the testimony.
It's not like SCO only
found out on Friday about those witnesses.
Granting such a motion could be
extremely unfair.
Isn't it possible that Novell could have skipped some lines
of questioning in cross-examination of SCO's witnesses knowing that they were
calling witnesses of their own who would speak on the same issues and which they
would feel would be a better use of time?
If Novell was not permitted to call
those witnesses at this stage in the trail, could they then recall SCO's
witnesses and question them about those issues?
And if they could do that,
wouldn't they be entitled to go ahead and call their own witnesses on those
issues in rebuttal? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ChrisP on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
Just in case some people hadn't noticed, the Week 2 Day 9 story has been updated
with the report on the testimony of the three SCO salesmen. The testimony sounds
familiar. I think it was all in exhibits to one of Novell's objection filings.
I believe we are still waiting for more reports on day 10.
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Wow. No wonder SCO doesn't want him to testify. He actually knows what was
going on and the difference between licensing source code to make into AIX,
Solaris, UnixWare, etc, and selling the binary, UnixWare, that runs only on
x86.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
Well I don't know if they did a whole lot of work on the first witness they
brought today.....Mr. Lasalle was awful and the Sco attorney chewed him up and
spit him out. I can not find one bid of credibility in his testimony. He
testified under oath that he had no idea about 2 press releases going out the
same day as Sco earnings to be just a coincidence. WOW!!!!!Can I have lasalle
pick me some lottery numbers. What is there approximately 250 business days in
a year and he picked those days without knowing.....seriously....have you heard
anything from the groklaw representatives that were there. Has Chris Brown got
a hold of you with his report please advise asap[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: HappyDude on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
I've been a silent member since (I think) 2003. Forgive me for not having the
self-confidence to risk offering comment in a group of such thoughtful, and I
suspect much brighter folks than me.
I have exchanged personal correspondence with PJ and am to this day, grateful to
her for her replies. Thank you, PJ. I probably didn't deserve it.
All that said, this whole trial has been gnawing at me.
It's like, we've been here before. Something doesn't seem quite right. I've been
so wrapped up in the details, the minutia of the trial, that I've ignored the
bigger picture. I think I put my finger on it, finally.
Doesn't this remind you of the ramrodding that Alex Brown did during the ISO
approval process of the Microsoft OOXML "standard"?
Does Judge Stewart == Alex Brown?
If tSCOg == Microsoft, it certainly could make sense.
Microsoft said (I do not have the reference handy), that the way to shape the
outcome of a body of constituents was not by trying to control all the
individuals in that group, but rather by controlling the person most influential
over the group. That appears to be what they did with ISO through Alex Brown,
and that's what it "feels" like is happening in this trial through
Judge Stewart.
I'd prefer to think he's just so darned much smarter than all of us put together
that he knows exactly what he's doing, and that he's conferred with Judge
Kimball and he knows who he's been dealing with. My gut won't let me ignore this
wrench.
No matter how outraged the World became, Brown ignored it all and fabricated
baloney excuses for making the decisions he made and rammed OOXML down our
throats... not unlike what it looks like Judge Stewart is doing. No matter how
outraged we become, or how biased or corrupt he appears, Stewart won't give a
hoot and will do what he is supposed to do come heck or high water.
I hope I'm wrong.
And, doesn't this kind of look like a sneaky way to rewrite Copyright law? To
heck with the provision that says the only way copyright can transfer is by way
of an articulated document specifying the transfer. Change the law so the
richest corporations can "remember" things differently than
"documented" reality, and they can steal copyrights from anyone who
can not afford to protect them in a court of law. What a huge can of worms the
lawyers are opening up if this case succeeds for tSCOg.
Wow. What a precedent.
Something like ISO standards and corporate influence.
Not too dissimilar to proposed changes to patent law from first-to-invent to
first-to-file?
If our government (now I'm going off the deep end) really is controlled
(practically "owned") by Corporate America, I could see that machine
wanting to eliminate competition by changing the 3-ways we have that enable us
to compete: Copyright Law, Patent Law and Open Standards.
Kill all three of them, make them into something that can be stolen by the
highest bidder and the little guys don't stand a chance.
And who does Hatch sleep with again? And why might he be interested in rewriting
copyright law?
Am I over reacting here, or is this bigger than anything I thought imaginable?
Sorry for the sidebar. Could this be considered off-topic?
Sorry again, for wandering so far into the Wonderland that it could be
misconstrued as a X-Files episode. Can't help it.
p.s. GROKLAW has been the life blood of my informal education for an incredibly
long time now. Thank you all so much for your contributions. Remember to keep up
the good fight and don't get sidetracked by those who would prefer you not
contribute anything of value.
It's getting crowded in here, isn't it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2010 @ 12:04 AM EDT |
Hi,
I'm having a hard time keeping track of what I've read and what I've not, what
with all the updates to old articles. I understand the point is to have
something that's archival, so somebody who comes back at a later time can read
things more or less chronologically. Or that's the only reason why I can see
for going back and updating old articles. But this makes it hard to follow on
an ongoing basis. I keep going back and re-clicking on things I've already read
just to see if new stuff has been added.
I don't have a solution, but there must be a better way.
Perhaps a "meta article" that's updated continuously and has links to
each new article and links to each update in each article. (I envision this as
being ordered not by post/update date but by the date of the event reported on.
This ordering would tell the user what to click on first in order to catch up.)
A reader could look at the "meta article" and clink on the links not
already clicked on. (Sounds like a job for software.) The problem would be
you'd read things in the same article without clicking and so your browser
history wouldn't serve to tell you what'd been read.
Gripe, gripe, gripe.
Thanks for all the hard work. It's hard to believe the quality of the notes.
Regards,
Karl O. Pinc <kop@meme.com>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
