decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
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.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Asks Court to Add a Copyright Claim Against IBM
Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:22 AM EST

According to Stephen Shankland, SCO's motion tells the court they want to add a copyright infringement claim against IBM, in addition to adding affirmative defenses mentioned in the motion. Actually, he reports that they have already added it, but the motion has to be ruled on by the judge before they can add this new claim, if you wish to be accurate, which is hard to do when you've just been talking to SCO, I imagine.

Still, the title of the motion is a big hint. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Pleadings. "Leave to file" means "pretty please, Your Honor", not "like it or not, here's what we're doing next".

Those of us with a memory recall that SCO told the judge on December 5, at the last hearing, that they would be adding a copyright infringement claim within a week. Instead they waited until the eve of the February 6th hearing, on February 4th -- the last possible day to do so -- to file their motion requesting leave to file the additional claim.

What does that tell you? It tells me that they can't count. Or that maybe they were afraid the judge would sentence them to the electric chair if they didn't come up with something new by the hearing.

Joke, joke.

It tells me they would like to delay.

It is conceivable that they worried that their case might get thrown out today, or at least enough of it to look bad. This way they can say that their case is still alive, no matter what happens at the hearing. By strategically throwing in a motion at the last minute, they at least get a delay, in all likelihood, since it's obvious IBM will have had insufficient time to respond to this motion, let alone the judge. We'll see what happens later today, but it looks like a delay. Another SCO-caused delay. It would surprise me if they are not allowed to add this claim.

Oh, no, wait. I forgot. Didn't they say in the new motion they've been hampered by IBM not having to turn over discovery until SCO finished first? "Moreover, the recent stay of IBM's discovery obligations have [sic] limited SCO's ability to assess the case and fashion and plead defenses to IBM's Counterclaim." If you look at it that way, I guess you could say the delay is the judge's fault. No doubt the judge will enjoy that argument.

Shankland also reports that SCO will be holding a press conference after the hearing tomorrow, which I'm sure surprises you greatly. A press conference? Those shy violets?

Actually, if the judge ever imposed a gag order on SCO, I believe Darl might just explode.

Hmm. . . .

Psst. IBM. Are you sure you've thought of absolutely, positively *everything*?


  View Printable Version


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 )