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 Files "Stipulated" Motion That Wasn't Stipulated
Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 11:21 PM EST

This is a new one. Remember back in the middle of October when SCO and IBM stipulated to a small extension of time in the schedule for briefing on the summary judgment motions, with the agreement that neither would seek further delay, after which in the October 24th hearing SCO asked the judge for an additional week, and IBM said OK?

You'll never guess what SCO wants now. More time, of course, another week to submit its opposition papers. And that would make IBM's next deadline December 29. Yes, smack dab in the middle of the holidays.

IBM said no. Yet SCO submitted a document it called a "stipulation and joint motion" with the "conformed signature" of IBM's Todd Shaughnessy. Oh boy. Inside the document, the wording indicates that IBM does not agree, yet the title indicates it is being submitted by both parties, and there is the apparent signature from IBM. Might a busy judge not notice the fine print? It isn't submitted by both parties, and IBM didn't authorize Shaughnessy's signature, it tells the court in its opposition and cross motion, protesting SCO calling its submission a stipulated joint motion, when it isn't a joint motion and it wasn't stipulated to, and attaching a signature it wasn't authorized to attach. Rather, IBM made clear to SCO, it says, that it was opposed to any extension of time. Here are the documents, all PDFs:

Simply unbelievable. As Groklaw member Rudisaurus sarcastically asks in a comment, why didn't SCO just affix Judge Kimball's conformed signature too?


  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 )