|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
That brief will be only about SCO's claims which SCO agrees
are foreclosed; I doubt IBM will have much objection to
foreclosing them. The ones which SCO says are still in play
are in the next round, and that's the ones which will raise
dust.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ailuromancy on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
I think IBM have already prepared their objection.
Four days should be plenty
to trim it down in the unlikely event
that SCO admits any of its claims are
dead. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
The listing will be for claims SCO agrees are dead and can't be pursued. The
order can't be complex, since it's merely ordering dismissal. And since it's
claims that are dead because of a court ruling, there isn't even the question of
with vs. without prejudice. SCO doesn't have a lot of wiggle room. The worst
they can do is leave claims off the list, in which case IBM gets to include them
in their own SJ motion and file the corresponding briefings and arguments. I
doubt it'll take IBM's lawyers more than an afternoon to go over SCO's proposed
order and write up any objections, and I think even SCO's lawyers have realized
the dangers of blowing your credibility early on. They'll probably omit some
claims that really should be on the list, but they won't try playing any
"dismissed but not really" games with the order itself. They'll save that for
briefings on claims they don't agree are foreclosed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
First, a core point of the order:
SCO shall file a brief statement
identifying [SCOS] claims which [SCO] agrees are foreclosed
So SCO
says:
Our - SCOs - claim of copyright infringement is foreclosed
Is IBM
going to object to that? Probably not.
Then the Judge has an open and
shut decision and can dismiss SCOs copyright infringement claim against IBM
while IBM's copyright infringement claim against SCO is available for
trial.
IBM having four days to disagree with any particular of SCOs
claims being dismissed (not IBMs) is a really, really long
time.
:)
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
Remember that Judge Kimball
also asked for
similar information from both parties after his decision
that Novell owned the copyrights. Granted that the Kimball
decision was
overturned on appeal, the later jury trial
before Judge Stewart basically came
to the same conclusion
(i.e. that Novell owned the copyrights, and that IBM had
power to waive TSG's claims), so it will be very interesting
to see how TSG's
answer this time differs from that before.
And I'd be very interested to see
how IBM points out any
such discrepancies to the Court.
---
"When I
say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 09:30 AM EDT |
IBM's response/objection are to be to the FORM of the order,
not the substance of the claims.
SCO will provide a list of claims and a propsed order. If
they try to slip in something like "these claims are
disimissed without prejudice" or something rediculous like
that, IBM can object to that.
--Jpvlsmv (not logged in)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
IBM gets to object if SCO says someting stupid like "These claims are
dropped after IBM pays us Beeeelions"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, June 18 2013 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
IBM probably is just waiting for the green light from the judge to take a head
shot with the Nazgoul's legal equivalent of the Hornady Zombie Max ammo, to stop
the animated corpse of The SCO Group for good.
---
/FL[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
