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
Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule
Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST

Just to let you know that the scheduled hearing in SCO v. IBM set for December 9 is officially no longer on the calendar for that day and has not yet been rescheduled. I gather the 56(f) Motion that SCO filed at the very last minute has had what I presume was its desired effect, further delay, so that the motion can be fully briefed first.

This is the big hearing, on IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 8th Counterclaim (Copyright Infringement), the one about the GPL, and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. SCO claims it needs to pursue its fantasy about IBM "hacking" its website before it can possibly argue these motions before the judge, don't you know, and do a bunch of other depositions it didn't do right the first time, and things like that.

Here's hoping Judge Kimball and Judge Wells read the fascinating document DaimlerChrysler recently filed in Michigan, in which it alleged SCO was attempting to game the system by seeking, unsuccessfully, a delay in *that* case.

As I recall, SCO filed a last minute motion just before the last SCO v. IBM hearing too. This could get old fast.

Here's the Pacer entry on what was originally scheduled, just so you can keep it all straight:

262-2 Filed: 08/27/04; Entered: 08/27/04

Docket Text: Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [233-1] motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement (eighth counterclaim), set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [225-1] motion for partial summary judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. (Oral Argument Requested) To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: KJ)


  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 )