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
SCO & IBM Stipulate SCO Has Until June 14 to File Reply Memorandum
Friday, May 28 2004 @ 12:33 AM EDT

SCO and IBM have stipulated that SCO has until June 14 to file its Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss. There is also an order signed Judge Dale Kimball so ordering.

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

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 RE BRIEFING FOR PENDING MOTIONS

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

____________________________

Based upon the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss shall be due on June 14, 2004.

DATED this 27th day of May, 2004.

BY THE COURT:

_____[Dale A. Kimball]_________

United States District Court

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: ______[Alan L. Sullivan]_______
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

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

BY: ______[Brent O. Hatch]_____
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch

Counsel for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

________________________________

United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
May 27, 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]

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

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

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

Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]

Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]

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

Brent O. Hatch (5715)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
[address, phone, fax]

Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
David K. Markarian (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff The Sco Group, Inc.

__________________________

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.

_____________________________

STIPULATION RE BRIEFING FOR PENDING MOTIONS

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells

____________________________

The parties, through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court for an Order amending the deadlines for briefing SCO's Motion to Dismiss as follows:

SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss shall be due on June 14, 2004.

The parties submit herewith a proposed Order confirming these deadlines.

DATED this 26th of May, 2004.

BY: ______[Brent O. Hatch]_______
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch

Counsel for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.

BY: ____[Alan L. Sullivan]_______
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan
Todd M. Shaughnessy
Amy F. Sorenson

Counsel for Defendant International Business
Machines Corporation


  


SCO & IBM Stipulate SCO Has Until June 14 to File Reply Memorandum | 54 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Boy, you guys are right on top of this stuff, amazing!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 01:19 AM EDT
Although some of the links don't work yet, it's early.

PJ, I know you're not working on this alone, but who is your "team"?
We should know? (Maybe not, with M$/SCO watching and targeting?) WOW. I am
impressed on such a timely entry!

So, on June 14th, we get some real "info", I hope!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & IBM Stipulate SCO Has Until June 14 to File Reply Memorandum
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT
I have one thing to say.

Can somebody tell me how to take out a futures contract in SCO stock?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & IBM Stipulate SCO Has Until June 14 to File Reply Memorandum
Authored by: bsm2003 on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT
dragging the feet cause the dont know how to answer it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Non-US Development in Defense Software
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 01:28 AM EDT
OK - so SCO vs IBM goes to sleep for a couple of weeks. Boring!

And now for something completely different:

From comp.risks - Risks Digest 23.38 (2004-05-27):

Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 14:27:02 -0400
From: "James Paul"
Subject: GAO looked at DoD and off-shored software

The U.S. General Accounting Office has released the following report:

Defense Acquisitions: Knowledge of Software Suppliers Needed to Manage Risks. GAO-04-678, 25 May 2004:

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-678

Highlights:

http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d04678high.pdf

[Interesting report. PGN]

This is the sort of things that was being discussed at Greenhills, wasn't it?

http://www.ghs.com/news/20040 408_AFEI.html

In Groklaw at: http://www.gr oklaw.net/article.php?story=20040411073918151

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & IBM Stipulate SCO Has Until June 14 to File Reply Memorandum
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 01:42 AM EDT
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39148965,00.htm

O'Shaughnessy also said SCO would "never say never" about examining
its legal options over comments made by individuals and groups it believed were
incorrect and prejudicial to its interests. However, he stressed his remarks
were a statement of commercial reality and not intended as a specific warning to
OSIA.

He added that SCO was "quite within its rights to seek redress" from
those who made inaccurate or malicious comments that endangered the company's
business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And is the reverse also true?
Authored by: Franki on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 09:56 AM EDT
So, my question is that, if its quite within their rights to sue anyone that
says anything bad and effects their business (litigation) model, is the reverse
true??

What I am asking, is: If SCO lose, is everyone who's business was effected
within their rights to sue for compensation?

Because I'm thinking that pretty much every Linux company on the planet has a
case for redress.

And is it possible to sue the directors for steering the company in a direction
with no validity? if so, can they be criminal charges or just civil?

I want to see the guys that came up with this harebrained scheme do some time
and be striped of their assets..

So whats the word?

rgds

Franki

[ Reply to This | # ]

One on question ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 12:38 PM EDT
I don't for the live of me understand why IBM would agree to this?

I think it is a blunder on there part!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO & IBM Stipulate SCO Has Until June 14 to File Reply Memorandum
Authored by: phirephly on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 07:18 PM EDT
Howdy folks -

Somewhere I got lost... IBM submitted AIX to SCO from what I read, right? What
about SCO submitting their required discovery? Wasn't that supposed to be a
month (or so) ago? Did it get moved? Did it get suspended? Aren't there like two
(or more) court orders to get this done? As far as I could tell, it's not on the
IBM timeline. Was just curious what happened to the "Put Up or Shut
Up" date. I am excited to see the transcript where SCO has to tell the
judge... "sorry, i guess it wasn't in there after all". I'm trying to
keep up with the case, but as I said, I think i got lost (prolly in all these
Motions and stuff). Sorry to be a burden, and thanks.

Just a suggestion, can deadlines like this be on the Timeline? Like under the
"Future Deadlines"? The original day that SCO was supposed to show
their stuff in court, people at work kept asking me why I looked so excited...
;) Can't wait for that again. Great site everyone (PJ, contributors, posters,
... everyone!).

[ 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 )