|
|
| SCO Files Claim of Appeal in DC -- Claim Being Evaluated |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 12:33 PM EST
|
SCO filed a claim of appeal notice on December 29 in the DaimlerChrysler case. However, if you look at the docket sheet, it says they are appealing the voluntary dismissal. I have never heard of being able to do that, so I did some research to try to figure things out.
Here's what I learned. Anybody can file the claim. That doesn't mean it's going anywhere. The court will take your claim notice and your $375 but then they evaluate your claim to see if you can appeal that way or if you must file an application and get permission to appeal.
So, they filed just before the deadline before a new Michigan fast track arrangement [PDF] goes into effect on January 1st, 2005. The Michigan Court Rules are here and you can read all about the fast track here. The fast track law would mean a much quicker resolution. They avoided the fast track by filing prior to the end of the 2004. But whether that trick works is yet to be seen. From all I learned, I am guessing their claim will be denied and they will have to file an application. I suppose that means that by the fast filing, they will avoid the fast track. I should have the claim notice later today, so check back for it here. The only time I can recall SCO being in a hurry in this whole litigation fiasco was when they supported G2's motion to try to force IBM to work over the Christmas holiday. Say, that holiday has come and gone, I believe, n'est-ce pas? In other words, there is more than one way to game the system. And the media.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST |
OK, I must just not understand this. Does this mean that they agreed to drop
the case and are now appealing their own act of agreement?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Files Claim of Appeal in DC -- Claim Being Evaluated - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST
- SCO Files Claim of Appeal in DC -- Claim Being Evaluated - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:07 PM EST
- SCO Files Claim of Appeal in DC -- Claim Being Evaluated - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:11 PM EST
- To Avoid DC's Costs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST
- So what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 08:53 PM EST
- So what? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 12:13 AM EST
- The Truth About Groklaw - Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 10:19 PM EST
- The Truth About Groklaw - Authored by: Maserati on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 11:01 PM EST
- The Truth About Groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 11:53 PM EST
- The Truth About Groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 12:02 AM EST
- The Truth About Groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 12:12 AM EST
- SCO Stock price question - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 03:35 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: savage on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:00 PM EST |
| Please use Html and provide liks to ..... Whatever ---
Savage
In the 60's everyone took acid to make the world appear wierd
today everyone takes prozak to make the world appear normal [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST |
Could it simply be a peculiarity of the docket format? I.e., voluntary
dismissal is the order that disposed of the case and made it appealable, not the
ruling that is being appealed?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST |
Being SCO it has to somehow come out to:
1) Discovery, lot of discovery.
2) Delay, lots of delay.
The spinmeisters must be working OT on this one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AG on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST |
Is SCO's attempt to appeal the dismissal already sufficient for DC to get
reimbursed for their expenses as stipulated?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- DC's expenses? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Paul Shirley on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST |
One possibility is they're trying to establish Websters theory that the
voluntary dismissal did not finalise the case. Appealing the exact wording of
the dismissal might achieve that.
Avoiding the fast track is just normal SCOG behaviour, its still important for
them to keep the pretence of an appeal visible, however thin the grounds are.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fast track? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 02:17 PM EST
- Fast track? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 02:47 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:36 PM EST |
SCOG made an emergency motion back a couple of months ago when IBM finessed them
so that, IIRC, the Kimball hearing was before the motion on discovery.
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:48 PM EST |
I said SCO would not appeal because 1) they can only appeal from a final order
and so it would be absurd to appeal from a stipulated dismissal order; and 2) DC
would not agree or stipulate to that order if it meant an appeal. [So will it
be considered a refiling and must SCO pay DC legal fees?]
This is too cute. SCO is trying to appeal without having to go through the
embarassment of the timing question.
The dismissal appealed from is not really a final order disposing of all claims
in the case. They are trying to sneak by an interlocutory appeal. DC will let
the court of appeals know this. It could all be sent back to Judge Chabot.
The procedure contemplated by the dismissal order itself was for SCO to refile
the suit, that was dismissed without prejudice, and then pay DC legal fees.
They may be trying to dodge this also. I'm sure DC will point this out.
Law used to make good FUD. SCO is learning the hard way that this is no longer
so. This is slapstick law, clowns in court. They are appealing their own
stipulated order!!!!
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:51 PM EST |
Or is this a paper trail that they can point to in the future to say, 'Look we
did appeal, even in light of the ruling that we would have to pay DC's expenses,
except that we won't because of the way we did it.'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 01:57 PM EST |
I think I figured it out.
By MCR 7.203, only "final" orders and judgments can be appealed, and a
voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice may not qualify, since the plaintiff is
(supposedly) free to re-open the case.
However, this case may be covered by MCR 2.604(B), since it involved multiple
claims, some of which were absolutely final. That not-so-final stipulated order
is then considered final, and SCO has the right to appeal.
It's not clear to me if they can appeal the timeliness claim along with the
others.
---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL
and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 02:14 PM EST |
For a megar $375 scox will be able to keep it's DCX case alive for PR purposes.
Scox can claim they are still fighting the case.
It will take until March, at least, until anything is decided.
It was a smart move for scox.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 02:53 PM EST |
You see, even though they voluntarily entered into the dismissal of the
timeliness issue, they still have some of their precious Litigation Property
(LP) that DC is infringing on, but TSG cannot show it yet, nor could they show
it before the dismissal agreement, because DC would have just removed the finger
prints from the case, etc... ad nauseam.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST |
- scox is dying.
- they signed an agreement to spend a certain very large amount to their legal
firm.
- said legal firm will keep the litigation ball rolling until they have
extracted every last dime from scox.
and the lesson? when you want to give blood, don't hire a vampire to do it...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- it's obvious - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 13 2005 @ 08:32 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 03:57 PM EST |
Perhaps already grilled over, but just getting into the docs/research and
postings, I admit to being a bit overwhelmed.
In regards to the shared libraries claim on one of the cases, I ran across this
on Sco's website.
http://wdb1.sco.com/kb/showta?taid=119903&qid=386453930&sid=2082965920&a
mp;pgnum=1
Quote:
I have heard that there is a new product for SCO Linux 4.0 called the SCO System
V for Linux (SSVL) that provides SCO OpenServer COFF Shared Libraries that
enable the execution of SCO Unix, SCO ODT and SCO OpenServer applications on
Linux Operating Systems.
It goes on to tell you to call a reseller. Not sure this info is pertinent, but
I'll give it a shot anyway.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: coffee17 on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 04:20 PM EST |
| Four thoughts on what might be the meat of SCO's appeal here.
My first
guess is that TSG (The SCO Group) will argue that they were coerced into the
"voluntary" dismissal by Judge Chabot's refusal to stay the case.
My
second guess is that while TSG wrote that they're appealing the voluntary
dismissal, it's only part of the appeal and when they have to submit their full
90 pages (so won't be satisfied with a mere 50), it will be about all of the
issues. This way, if DCX only starts preparing for what TSG might appeal about
the voluntary dismissal they get a minor surprise.
My third guess is
that they want to toll their time to appeal the meat of the case which Judge
Chabot had dismissed earlier.
I feel the third guess to be the most
likely. Can anyone who knows offer info on whether this lame appeal will toll
their appeal of the meat of the case, or do they only get one bite at the
apple?
My fourth and final guess is that BS&F's agreement with TSG
includes that there will be at least one appeal (maybe at least one appeal in
the DCX case), and this is BS&F following the letter of the agreement
instead of the spirit.
Hmmmm, maybe the fourth guess is the most likely?
Regardless, I'd really like to know if this appeal would toll any later appeals
TSG might like to make.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 05:33 PM EST |
| ... may well be reflected in the fact that very shortly after this became known,
SCOX spiked. IANAL and I don't understand the behaviour of the seemingly
stupid investors either, but I do smell something fraudulent in these
activities....... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, January 12 2005 @ 10:11 PM EST |
Will the technically expert check out this site to the Michigan Ct of Appeals.
I can't get it to bring up the rules. I am using Mozilla on Linux.
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/court/courtrules.htm
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
