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
Now SCO Objects to Judge Wells' November 30th Order too
Friday, December 15 2006 @ 01:48 AM EST

SCO has also now filed an objection to Judge Wells' November 30th order, SCO's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Decision on IBM's Motion to Confine [PDF] or at least they've filed a kind of notice, saying that they will file the actual papers within ten days of her written order, which isn't filed yet. When she ruled from the bench, she told SCO if they didn't like her order, they could take it up with Judge Kimball, and they are.

We also have SCO's redacted memorandum in support [PDF] of its request for reconsideration of the November 29th order. I think I could sum it up like this: SCO doesn't think Judge Kimball de novo'd enough. They want an evidentiary hearing and they'd like to redepose four IBM programmers.

They don't think he looked at each piece of evidence. And besides there is some new evidence. The Magistrate Judge didn't have all of SCO's expert reports when she made her ruling back in June. So here they are again, trying to sneak in that new evidence in yet another creative way.

Their justification is that with Novell going first, there's no reason not to take the time to do everything they are requesting. I can think of one: lawyer times costs money. SCO may be happy as a clam to slowly bleed its money away, but IBM might not enjoy such a process. SCO has thought of that and it more or less offers to pay.

Here's what it wants to ask the 4 Dynix programmers: Do they know the file, version and line for the technology items they disclosed to Linux, according to SCO? If not, how can SCO know? If they do, then where is the prejudice to IBM if SCO doesn't give them the file, line and version?

Finally, we have a hearing date set for arguments to be heard on the Motion for Protective Order Regarding Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger's Personal Financial Information and Certificate of Compliance with Rule 37(c). The motion hearing is set for 1/18/2007 09:30 AM in Room 102 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells.


  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 )