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's Blah Blah Letter to the Red Hat Judge
Tuesday, April 04 2006 @ 12:39 AM EDT

SCO has now filed its periodic report to the judge [PDF] in the Red Hat case, and like Red Hat's, it's a mild effort, just enough to let the judge know progress is being made, if she even reads this stuff. I can just copy and paste the old one and a lot of it is word for word. Unlike the earlier flamboyance, SCO seems to be doing the least required.

Can you imagine in SCO's salad days, when they put their whole soul into their letters, a sentence like the final sentence, where SCO merely tells the judge that they filed a second amended complaint against Novell, without telling a single thing about what was in the complaint? No, their heart just isn't in it any more, I'm afraid. Both sides have figured out that the judge here isn't paying attention currently and doesn't seem to have any plans to do so until it's time to ramp up the case in Delaware, should that happy day ever arrive.

You'll notice that copies of the letter go to the new attorney we first saw in the teleconference representing SCO, Mauricio A. Gonzalez, of Boies Schiller. And I couldn't help noticing that they didn't put Esq. after Josy W. Ingersoll, the Red Hat lawyer, which is a bit of an insult. They usually do, so if they use a template -- and why wouldn't they? -- it is a tiny little snub.

SCO never wanted this case to happen. They tried to get it dismissed, but merely accomplished a delay. Red Hat was eager at the beginning, but after the judge believed SCO's story that this case and the IBM case were about the same issues (time has shown how not true that was) and without being asked for the remedy by either party, she delayed the case, at this point I am guessing Red Hat's fondest hope is probably that she'll be appointed the ambassador to Ghana or Undersecretary of Commerce or something far, far away.

*******************

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
[letterhead]

April 3, 2006

BY ELECTRONIC FILING

The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
United States District Court
[address]

RE: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772-SLR

Dear Chief Judge Robinson:

Pursuant to this Court's April 6, 2004 Order, SCO respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events that have transpired since our last update (on January 3, 2005) in SCO v. IBM, Case No. 03-0294 (DAK), which is currently pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

SCO's Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM

On February 13, 2006, in response to SCO's December 22 Disclosure of Material Misused by IBM, which identified 293 separate technology disclosures made by IBM in violation of SCO's rights, IBM filed a motion to limmit SCO's claims related to misused material to the ninety-three disclosures that IBM believes were identified with sufficient specificity. SCO filed its opposition brief on March 7, and IBM's reply is due on April 4. The Court haas scheduled the hearing on this motion on April 14.

Discovery

On February 24, 2006, the Court denied SCO's December 29 motion to compel certain discovery without prejudice to renew the motion after review of documents produced by IBM's while the motion was pending.

The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
April 3, 2006
Page 2

On March 17, 2006, the parties submitted their Stipulation Regarding Discovery. Among other things, they agreed that, with the exception of certain specified depositions, all fact discovery closed on that date; subject to certain mutual representations, there were no more discovery disputes between them; and with certain possible exceptions, they would not bring motions to compel.

SCO's Second Amended Complaint Against Novell

On January 31, 2006, based on a stipulation by the parties, the Court granted SCO's motion for leave to file its Second Amended Complaint against Novell. SCO filed that complaint on February 2, 2006.

Respectfully,

/s/ Leslie A. Polizoti

Leslie A. Polizoti

cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll (By Hand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (By Fax)
Mauricio A. Gonzalez, Esquire (By Fax)



  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 )