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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM Gets Until Tomorrow to Respond to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 11:24 PM EST

SCO and IBM filed a joint motion, extending IBM's time to respond to SCO's Second Amended Complaint, the one with the copyright infringement claims. Tomorrow, March 19, is the deadline, which means tomorrow will be really busy, with filings by both Novell and IBM. I hope everyone is ready. I am. Of course, it may not be available digitally until Monday or even Tuesday. Here's the order, signed by Judge Kimball.

*******************************************

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

____________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

__________________________

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO
RESPOND TO SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

________________________

Based upon the Stipulation and Joint Motion entered into by the respective counsel for the above parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant may have until March 19, 2004, to respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

Dated this 15th day of March, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

_____signature_______
United States District Court

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE
Evan R. Chesler
David R. Marriott

By _____signature_____
Counsel for Defendant International
Business Machines Corporation

HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James

By ____signature_____
Counsel for Plaintiff

-----------------------------------------------------

United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
March 15, 2004

* * CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CLERK * *

Re: 2:03-cv-00294

True and correct copies of the attached were either mailed, faxed or e-mailed by the clerk to the following:

Brent O. Hatch, Esq.
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
[address]

Stephen Neal Zack, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

David K. Markarian, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]

Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]

Thomas G. Rafferty, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]

David R. Marriott, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]

Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]

Todd M. Shaghnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]

Amy F. Sorenson, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]

Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]


  


IBM Gets Until Tomorrow to Respond to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint | 48 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
URL's and links here
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 12:31 AM EST
URL's and links here

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Gets Until Tomorrow to Respond to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
Authored by: Glenn on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST
This whole case is going to boil down to the clauses in the original
AT&T/IBM contracts which require IBM to keep the code in confidentiality and
the other which says that IBM must treat derivative works the same as the
original product, even though IBM owns the derivative works.
Is this something that Judge Kimball can rule on as a matter of law, i.e.
whether the confidentiality clause only applies to Sys V code that appears in
AIX or whether it applies to the whole shooting match? That is the only straw
that the SCOG has left in this case. It is the only one it ever really has had.

Glenn

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aieeeeee!
Authored by: Yobgod on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 12:37 AM EST
I cannot bear the suspense much longer...

(Law was never this exciting before, merely vaguely interesting)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another of many more delays
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 12:49 AM EST
SCO knows they'll lose if they take this case to court. They will stall and
resubmit complaints till they run out of cash. Then Darl will find out that
Microsoft stabbed him in the back just like every other bottom feeder that's
come along.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patience my friends
Authored by: Night Flyer on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST
I have learned that the more anxious you are, the slower time goes.

If tomorrow is the deadline, doesn't that mean the close of business tomorrow?
Maybe we have the entire weekend to speculate.

Tomorrow is only a small step in the process (but a revealing one I expect).
-----------------------------------------
A comment on the relationship between SCO and Microsoft:

If I was Microsoft, I would not be particularly happy with Darl McBride.

Consider:
1.) DM didn't do his homework particularly well, and there are numerous holes in
his claims about IP and the history of UNIX and Linux.

2.) He has made numerous public statements that hurt his case in court.

3.) There was the leaked memo, Halloween X,and a probable SEC investigation,
that could implicate Microsoft at a time when a major anti-trust decision is
being made in Europe.

And last but certainly NOT the least:
4.) DM has unified the Open Source community more effectively than any other
process I could imagine. DM has caused us to be educated about the facts, the
law and caused us to be involved at a personal level. (He showed us that we can
make a difference.)

-------------------------------------------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers

[ Reply to This | # ]

Any news?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2004 @ 12:16 PM EST
I'm curious. IBM should have filed by the end of Friday,
and we've had all of Monday for documents to percolate
through the system. Anyone have news on what the response
was? I didn't see any updates on utd.uscourts.gov. :-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )