|
|
| Notice of Filing Plaintiff's Exhibits for Use at Hearing on February 6, 2004 |
 |
|
Thursday, February 05 2004 @ 11:54 PM EST
|
Here's the third document SCO filed on February 4, Notice of Filing Plaintiff's Exhibits for Use at Hearing on February 6, 2004. Again, we'll have to wait until we can get the attachments from the courthouse directly. The February 6th hearing is tomorrow. See you then.
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
|
THE SCO GROUP,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant.
|
NOTICE OF FILING
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS
FOR USE AT HEARING
ON FEBRUARY 6, 2004
Case No. 03-CV-0294
Hon: Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells
|
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group ("SCO"), hereby files the following exhibits for the court's use and consideration at the hearing on the matters set for hearing on February 6th, 2004:
1. SCO's Source Log of documents that have been produced.
2. IBM's Response to SCO's Request for Admissions.
3. Spreadsheet listing documents sought in SCO's First Request for Production to IBM.
4. SCO's Notice of Compliance and attached Declaration dated January 12, 2004
DATED this 4th day of February, 2004.
Respectfully submitted,
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, L.L.P.
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
David K. Markarian
By: [signature]
Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterclaim defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 4th day of February 2004, by U.S. Mail to:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
and HAND-DELIVERED to:
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
[address]
[signature]
Exhibits/ Attachments to this document have not been scanned.
Please see the case file.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:02 AM EST |
"SCO's Notice of Compliance and attached Declaration dated January 12,
2004"
Does this mean anything regarding thier so called 'compliance' won't be
admissable since they didn't actually get it all in on the 12th?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST |
News.com headline says sco is adding copyright enfringment.
When you get in the details what it really says is they're amending their
complaint, and since they said they were going to sue for copyright
enfringement, that's what it's going to be.
Also that sco is keeping quiet until after the hearing, when there'll be a press
conference.
GEE, do you think they're planning on saything stuff that will cushion the fall
of their stock price when the judge sends them to the electric chair so to
speak?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nealywilly on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:03 AM EST |
Hot off Google News:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5154413.html
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5154413.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:12 AM EST |
From Night Flyer
SCO has a consistent opinion: They paid money for the rights to UNIX, and,
therefore, they own it all. Darl apparently believes that this gives SCO all
rights to all derivative works, including Linux. Don't confuse them with facts
or opinions (especially those that don't support their position.)
To SCO, Linus T. is a person with an opinion, but without ownership of anything,
so he can be ignored. The GPL is inconvenient, so it is ignored too, except to
say that it is Un-American, anti-business, unconstitutional and since they
cannot profit by it, detestable.
Darl said that they didn't accept Linus's position that the header files were
written from public domain information (which makes them non-infringing) and I
presume this means that these files are listed as infringing in their lawsuit
with IBM. They also stated that there are 800,000 (or is it 1,000,000) lines of
infringing code in the Linux Kernal.
My question is: If they only claimed the header files and a couple of other
files as infringing (and lost in court), could they then claim some other files
or lines, and re-open the case based on "new evidence" and take on an
easier target than IBM?
I look forward to later today. Keep us informed PJ.
---------------------
Also, I am a regular reader of slashdot (/.). I think that, when postings were
made about SCO, that all the regular readers of /. went to the SCO web site and
browsed.
There is a well documented slashdot effect, which resembles a DDOS. I did, and
maybe I was innocently a part of one or more of the earlier so-called DDOS at
SCO. There was nothing malicious about it, just curiosity.
---------------------
My clan Motto: VERITAS VINCIT ! (Truth Conquers)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Arg on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 01:39 AM EST |
ZDnet,a notoriously biased toward Microsoft site, is reporting the SCO copyright
infringement ammenment. Does the timing on this have anything to do with recent
drops in the price of SCO's stock?
Just wondering.
Arg[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 09:21 AM EST |
What is the practical limit of filings and complaints that SCOX can file
considering SCOX lack of specificity before the court begins to assume that
SCOX really has no case and is using the court system for other purposes
than settling a dispute? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST |
...hey PJ...
Do you think that you could add SCO's stock ticker to one of your web page
columns. Everyone keeps bringing up SC0's daily churn on the stock market and I
(for one) would like to be able to see their current price with just a click.
Case for stock ticker for your honorable PJ...
Fact #1: Everyone keeps bringing it up but they do not mention the actual
price. [ie. very bad for an information site like yours...:) ]
Fact #2: HELLO...you are SCO Central! I come here several times a day and
can't get enough!
I hope these two indisputable facts lead you to put the ticker on your web
page...:)
P.S. Thanks!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
