|
Hearing Set for Novell's Motion to Dismiss - Jan. 20 - in SCO v. Novell |
|
Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:31 AM EST
|
Now that Novell's Motion to Dismiss is fully briefed, the court has scheduled a hearing, for January 20th at 3 PM before Judge Dale Kimball. Here's the Pacer notation:
11/16/04 60 Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 3:00
1/20/05 for [35-1] motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated
by: KJ) (blk) [Entry date 11/16/04] I hope some of you can attend. This is an important hearing.
|
|
Authored by: DeepBlue on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:51 AM EST |
If any!
---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they
can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they
cant.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DeepBlue on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys
for "The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the poster at
"The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official capacity at "The SCO
Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group"
employees or attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO
Group" must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as appropriate, use correct surnames, not
call names or suggest or imply unethical or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group"
or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high
standard of conduct and even slightly marginal posts will be
deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
If
you want to comment on this thread, please post under "O/T" --- All
that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they can't, or
whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they cant. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DeepBlue on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST |
All Off Topic (O/T) posts here please.
---
All that matters is whether they can show ownership, they haven't and they
can't, or whether they can show substantial similarity, they haven't and they
cant.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST |
I'm going nuts over here. This whole thing is dragging on waaaay too long.
When's the next hearing in the IBM case? Autozone? Any word on disposition of
motions heard in the September hearing in IBM? Two months to rule on the IBM
counterclaim motions??
Signed,
Frustrated[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:19 AM EST |
I hope he renders his decision the same day and we dont have to wait like we are
having to with the decision on IBM's CC10.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: marbux on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:41 AM EST |
Posts go here.
---
Retired lawyer -- Free at last! I've got my freedom of speech back! marbux paw
AT whiskers comcast teeth net (remove the animal parts).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:51 AM EST |
Since SCOG introduced the Ed Chatlos declaration, I hope Novel returns the favor
by introducing the Michael de Fazio declaration.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 04:10 AM EST |
I hope some of you can attend.
What - those few of us who
haven't died of old age first??
Once again SCO's weapon of delay aided
and abetted by the overloaded US justice system keeps the FUD factory in full
production. No evidence needed, just timewasting.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NZheretic on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 04:59 AM EST |
as per title [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, November 17 2004 @ 02:39 PM EST |
I occurred to me that the judge was waiting to get all of his cases to a point
where he could make a series of decisions without unduly affecting the other
cases.
We seem to be about there. Most of the motions are fully briefed, except for the
one about SCOG re-amending their amended complaint.
I kind of expect nothing to happen until that motion is fully briefed, and ready
for a decision, which will be before this hearing, even if he decides to hold a
hearing on it. He could have SCOG submit their amended complaint and even have
IBM's reply prior to the hearing, if he grants the motion.
I actually expect him to grant SCOG's motion, unless he rules that it's based on
privileged material, but not before ruling on the other motions.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|