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
Updating Pacer on SCO v. IBM and Novell v. MS
Friday, December 31 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST

Just a quick update to let you know the latest from Pacer on SCO v. IBM and Novell v. Microsoft (the antitrust lawsuit). In the former, the subpoena was served on PointServe and proof of service filed with the court and entered on December 29.

SCO has asked to file an overlength Reply Memo -- is there any other kind from SCO? -- to IBM's opposition to their request to file a 3rd Amended Complaint. And they filed a sealed Reply Memo, presumably the one they are asking to be able to file. We can assume they will be granted their wish. It's only 18 pages.

In Novell v. Microsoft, there was a stipulated delay ordered on the 30th, whereby Microsoft gets up to January 7 to file a motion to dismiss Novell's complaint, Novell then gets to February 21 to respond with its Memorandum in Opposition, and then Microsoft has until March 10 to file its Reply Memorandum. The Order is signed by Judge Ted Stewart. As you can see from our Novell-MS Timeline page, this isn't the first alteration in their schedule, mainly, it appears, because Microsoft intends to file a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. It's also not a bit unusual for things to be postponed over holidays. Lawyers are humans too.

And don't be thrown when you open the PDF. It looks at first like a Stipulation, and it is, but it's stamped So Ordered and signed by the judge at the top of the first page, and that makes it the Order.

Here are the Pacer notations:

SCO v. IBM --
12/28/04 - 367 - Return of service executed on 12/9/04 of subpoena upon PointeServe (blk) [Entry date 12/29/04]

12/29/04 - 368 - Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file overlength reply memo re: motion for leave to file third amd complaint (blk) [Entry date 12/30/04]

12/29/04 - 369 - ***SEALED***Reply by SCO Grp to response to [322-1] motion to amend complaint (for leave to file 3rd amended complaint) (blk) [Entry date 12/30/04]

Novell v. Microsoft --

12/30/04 10 Order granting [9-1] Amended Stip to extend time up to 1/7/05 for Microsoft to file motion to dismiss; Novell to file memopp by 2/21/05 and Microsoft to file reply memo by 3/10/05 signed by Judge Ted Stewart, 12/30/04 cc:atty (jmr) [Entry date 12/30/04]


  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 )