|
|
| Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule |
 |
|
Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST
|
Just to let you know that the scheduled hearing in SCO v. IBM set for December 9 is officially no longer on the calendar for that day and has not yet been rescheduled. I gather the 56(f) Motion that SCO filed at the very last minute has had what I presume was its desired effect, further delay, so that the motion can be fully briefed first. This is the big hearing, on IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 8th Counterclaim (Copyright Infringement), the one about the GPL, and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. SCO claims it needs to pursue its fantasy about IBM "hacking" its website before it can possibly argue these motions before the judge, don't you know, and do a bunch of other depositions it didn't do right the first time, and things like that. Here's hoping Judge Kimball and Judge Wells read the fascinating document DaimlerChrysler recently filed in Michigan, in which it alleged SCO was attempting to game the system by seeking, unsuccessfully, a delay in *that* case. As I recall, SCO filed a last minute motion just before the last SCO v. IBM hearing too. This could get old fast.
Here's the Pacer entry on what was originally scheduled, just so you can keep it all straight:
262-2 Filed: 08/27/04; Entered: 08/27/04
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [233-1] motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement (eighth counterclaim), set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [225-1] motion for partial summary judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. (Oral Argument Requested) To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: KJ)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST |
You know the drill.
---
On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
Suggestion (from me, not the management); please prefix your subject line with
"OT:" so we can keep up with what's supposed to be on topic and what's
not.
Suggestion (from the management-see "Important Stuff"); "Use a
clear subject that describes what your message is about." In other words,
PLEASE change the subject line so we know what YOU are wanting to say. Thanks.
---
On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST |
Please post your link in an HTML Formatted message, using this format for the
link:
<a href="http://www.wherever.com">Here Be Da Link</a>.
---
On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Links Go HERE - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST |
Well I guess this is rather boring, to put it mildly. Although I was really
looking forward to having something to celebrate over the holidays, I guess that
it is hardly surprising - especially since we haven't gotten a ruling on CC10
yet.
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST |
Patience is one thing. This is embarassing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Baseball anyone? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST |
| This has been obvious for quite some time. The new briefing schedule for these
motions had SCO answering on Nov 23 (delayed only until Nov 30) and IBM replying
on Jan 14 2005
See this
PDF on tuxrocks.com
So, since that stipulation and order on October 13,
the Dec 9 hearing has been clearly impossible. The fact that it has been
removed from the schedule only now has absolutely nothing to do with SCO's
recently 56(f) filing.
Thad Beier [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST |
The Judge seems to be bending over backwards not to rule against SCO on the
procedural stuff. Can we infer from that that that he expects SCO to be the ones
who feel the need to appeal his judgement on the substantive issues?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST |
The unmitigated gall of these thieves is amazing.
Here's hoping Judge Kimball looks at the DCC filing, sees how his court was
misrepresented at that hearing, and slams the window on SCO and their fishing
expeditions, lying trips, and contemptuous behaviour in general.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tgf on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST |
| Well, I think all these shenanigans by The SCO Group in Utah and
Michigan
inter alia, are just nothing but delay, delay and
more delay. It is now
becoming rather obvious that the SCOundrels
just appear to be spinning things
out for no other reason than to
prolong the Fear,
Uncertainty and
Doubt over using Linux. Moreover, it is also
rather transparent that they
are merely spreading this FUD on behalf
of their FUDmeisters in
chief.
Jim Reiter wrote this
interesting comment over the weekend, in which he says:
IMHO this whole matter was a set up from the
start. The intent
was for Caldera to pirate Unix/Linux. This is what
I do not think anyone has
ever seen before. Caldera's acquisition
of the Santa Cruz operations, Inc. had
no other purpose then to
steal Unix/Linux.
He was
referring to the Agreement and
Plan of Reorganization between Caldera and Santa Cruz
Operation 2000 which
we discussed here on GrokLaw in February
and which I know I only read some of
the comments at the time and
probably only skimmed the main article. From what
I can see, the
points in favour of this supposition would be:
- We
know that Microsoft were already very nervous about Linux
from the Halloween
Documents.
- They needed an "independent" company to do the dirty work for
them, due to
the anti-trust investigations.
- Their past connections with The Santa
Cruz Operation (think
Xenix) would have ruled them out as a candidate.
- Caldera's unusual tendency towards "per-seat" licensing à
la
Microsoft.
- The aforementioned Agreement may have been deliberately
constructed to obfuscate a weird transaction.
Taking off my
tin-foil hat, however, I am rather sceptical of this
theory, because:
- The contemporary press releases indicate that Caldera genuinely
wished to
integrate Unix and Linux, rather than subvert them.
- The IT world was
rather different four years ago; it may be easy
to misread things in hindsight
that were normal at the time.
- It took some two years [delay] before we
begin to see any change
in direction, with the appointment of Darl in August
2002.
- There is little evidence of any connection between Microsoft and
Caldera [The SCO Group] during those two years.
At this point,
I have to admit that most of my knowledge in this
area is as a result of
investigations over the last year and a half.
I had been working for many
years on ICL VME mainframes, and we had
Novell Netware, Perfect Office and my
colleagues were writing Delphi
fat clients or otherwise avoiding Microsoft
solutions. I was
already sceptical about the quality of Microsoft products due
to
frequency of BSODs on my NT4 workstation, as well as reports from
others at
work (perhaps I should have paid more attention to the DoJ
vs Microsoft case at
the time). With the ICL mainframe due to go
out of the door (eventually
replaced by a SUN E10k), I decided to
reorient my career into a Linux / Unix
environment.
Then suddenly, after about a year, I found that Linux was
threatened
by this phoney litigation, so I set about investigating. I do
believe that The SCO Group is now Microsoft's poster child,
and has
been for a couple of years or so, but I find it a little
hard to believe that
they were so back in August 2000. Perhaps
others, who were more familiar with
Linux and Unix at the time may,
be in a better position to comment. Tim
---
Oxymoron of the day:
Microsoft innovation [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rob M on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 08:46 PM EST |
I nominate this for understatement of the year. SCO pulling junk like this is
already pretty old in my book.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: psherma1 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 08:52 PM EST |
"...SCO filed a last minute motion just before the last SCO v. IBM hearing
too. This could get old fast."
It was old quite some time ago. I can read only so long about the care a judge
must take not to leave room for appeal. The US legal system is the joke. It has
either become completely inept due to its procedural overhead or it is in
someone's pocket. Or both. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter
which.
Month after month without any substantiated accusations. Blatant
inconsistencies starring up at you from the court papers. What's up with that,
Judge? Are you safeguarding your reputation, your bank balance -- or your
irrelevence?
At a certain point, no decision becomes the wrong decision.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- These things take forever... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 09:42 PM EST
- Wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 11:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 11:07 PM EST |
On sco.tuxrocks.com there used to be a list of the current court schedules and
pending motions. This was much more useful then the complete timelines that we
have here since it was possible to get a complete synopsis of the current state
of the various trials without going through the long timelines looking for
pending actions and I was wondering why such a list isn't maintained here.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 12:06 AM EST |
I have a quick question for you guys... I've been following the case for a long
some time, and while I think that it shouldn't warrent a trial by jury, it
might(?). I thought a jury was only required for criminal cases. But I'm rather
uneducated when it comes to law. All I know is, if you're gonna break a law,
don't get caught ;)
So here's my question -- Since as a juror it is a prerequisite to be ignorant of
the case you are deliberating, how is it going to be possible for the court to
produce knowledgable, qualified jurors? By all accounts most programmers MUST
know about this case by now. I wouldn't trust a lay-man to know the subtle
differences in OSS licenses, or derivative works; patent methods vs copyright
code etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:42 AM EST |
I suspect the Judge will probably let SCO drag this out as long as is required
to ensure that SCO has no grounds whatsoever for appeal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- They will appeal anyway. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 02:13 AM EST
- please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 05:34 AM EST
- please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
- please - Authored by: NemesisNL on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 04:12 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 04:45 AM EST |
| the 56(f) Motion that SCO filed at the very last minute has had what I
presume was its desired effect
When SCO lost a delaying motion in the
DaimlerChrysler case, the Groklaw comment was "Another loss for SCO". So, why
wasn't the comment on this one, "A win for SCO"? Showing our bias, are we? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- You mean, "SCO wins a motion" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 05:15 AM EST
- You mean, "SCO wins a motion" - Authored by: cc0028 on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 08:05 AM EST
- Filed != Won (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 08:10 AM EST
- As long as the case is delayed, SCO wins - Authored by: Darth23 on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST
- You're Right, What can I Say? - Authored by: Adam B on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST
- You mean, "SCO wins a motion" - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 09:40 PM EST
- You mean, "SCO wins a motion" - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 08 2004 @ 01:08 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: NemesisNL on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 11:10 AM EST |
But how long do we have to stay nice when it's pretty obvious to everyone but
these judges that SCO are "gaming" the court system.
Other judges got that...whats so difficult for these judges to see what's
happening right in front of them. This is IBM's reward for being professional?
The playmobile lawyers get whatever they want while the professionals are still
waiting for a ruling.
How much longer will we have to watch this farce. How much room for delay will
SCO get before these judges loose any respect they might have at this moment in
time. The judge is directly responsible for the way the parties in front of him
behave. This one could take a few lessons from some of his collegues because his
courtroom is turning into a circus and a bad one at that. This circus has lost
about all of it's entertainement value....maybe it's time to get back to the law
and get the courtroom in order again. We've seen the monkeys, the clowns and
acrobats and frankly I'm not impressed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 11:39 AM EST |
There will be no more delay... (Rev 10:6, NIV) ....etc. when the seventh angel
is about to pour out his final judgement on SCO... :-)
Doesn't Discovery end in February 2005?
Didn't Judge Kimball say that discovery would not be extended again absent some
very extraordinary circumstances?
Even if we don't get a hearing on PSJ until after discovery cutoff, so what? Be
patient.
After discovery cutoff, SCO is supposed to have done everything they needed to
do regarding discovery. Depositions. Collecting evidence. Comparing source
code. Witness lists, etc.
After February, there will not be any more excuses for any delay in the PSJ.
Even SCO's arguments that PSJ is inappropriate at this point because discovery
is not yet finished, won't fly anymore. Discovery will be finished. There will
be no more whining "we need more time to do discovery on XYZ".
Just be patient. As someone else here said in this thread: patience is a
virtue.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Delay?
Caused by SCOX?
The very image of honest and timely specificity, ethical memorandum writing,
impeccable witnesses and cler, concise legal arguments?
Obviously IBM has dragged them down to the gutter with all those "fact
intensive" repies. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST |
Really convincing argument you got there man! And *fine* control of the english
language. I'm in awe. There really isn't any better way you could've put your
argument!
(NOT!!)
IANAL, and especially not a judge. This, to me is like a game of chess. A kind
of honeypot trap, if you will. The judges are probably making sure that there's
absolutely no escape, once the trap is sprung. In order to ensure this, they
need to have patience and carefully block all escape routes, even if the wily
opposing King has now seen what's ahead and is frantically trying to escape the
impending doom. Each move hoewever, just *delays* the inevitable. Patience is
a virtue.
The other case can be likened to a rather more straightforward "cut and
dried" sitation ("your rook is going down, and there's nothing you can
do about it" type situation.) No waiting was necessary or indeed prudent.
bytejuggler[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
