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?
|
