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
The Red Hat Order
Friday, April 09 2004 @ 04:25 PM EDT

Here's the Red Hat Order, at last, as PDF. Judge Robinson had it in chambers, and for two days we couldn't get it from the court. Nothing goes fast in Delaware, it seems.

As you will see, Darl's mouth is why she dismissed SCO's Motion to Dismiss. I get a lot of satisfaction from that. However, she doesn't seem to understand that there are issues outside of the IBM lawsuit that are particular to Red Hat. Rather, she concludes that the IBM contract issues are the core of the dispute and that the copyright claims are dependent on how that plays out. I disagree. I know SCO has said that the two are separate, and I believe to some extent they are. Maybe she isn't a tech person and didn't catch all the finer points yet. When it goes to trial, she'll get up to speed, but what I get from the order is that she isn't yet there and she granted the stay based on her misunderstanding of that key point. I don't know if Red Hat plans to appeal the stay, but I believe they probably could if they decide they want to.

On the other hand, she understands the law very well, if not the tech. You'll get a very clear understanding of when judges grant requests for declaratory judgments and when they don't by reading the first section. Because so much of IBM's counterclaims are asking for declaratory judgments, it will help you to measure their chances for being granted the relief they are asking for. Enjoy.

By the way, if you look on the IBM Pacer list, you will find that apparently IBM is seeking a deposition that SCO is objecting to. Here's what it says: "Certificate of service re: SCO's Objections to EBM's Amended Notice of Deposition by SCO Grp", I think they meant to say IBM, not EBM. As usual, reserve judgment until there is more information, as clerk notations are not, as you see, always accurate.


  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 )