|
|
| Looks Like More Delay in SCO v. Novell |
 |
|
Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 06:27 PM EST
|
The Pacer docket lists the following, which looks like the parties have stipulated to another delay, so those of you planning to attend the March 8 hearing are free to attend the Canopy hearing in Provo instead, if you wish. Here's the Pacer listing: 2/28/05 - 63 - Motion by Novell Inc to continue hearing on motion to
dismiss set for 3/8/05 (blk) [Entry date 02/28/05]
2/28/05 - 64 - Declaration of Heather M. Sneddon Re: [63-1] motion to
continue hearing on motion to dismiss set for 3/8/05 (blk)
[Entry date 02/28/05]
2/28/05 - 65 - Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs Re: [63-1] motion to
continue hearing on motion to dismiss set for 3/8/05 (blk)
[Entry date 02/28/05]
3/1/05 - 66 - Stipulation by Novell Inc, SCO Grp to continue hearing re:
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (blk)
[Entry date 03/02/05] [Edit date 03/02/05] The Fourth District Court, which is where the hearings (four days of them I think) will be held in the Canopy litigation, is located at 125 North 100 West, Provo UT 84601. I don't know what time it begins, so it is wise to call the courthouse that morning and make sure:
801-429-1000.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: sandelaphon on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 06:58 PM EST |
| Hurry up and wait! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sandelaphon on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 07:01 PM EST |
| To make a tastier dish of monkey stew. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 07:02 PM EST |
It is time we all re-read Simon's take on the whole deal...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/09/bofh_protecting_bodily_waste/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/16/bofh_enforcing_the_excremental_ip/
Amazing how accurate the BOFH 'predications' are.
:-)
Regards, Kym[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: warner on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 07:20 PM EST |
<a href="http://groklaw.net">Groklaw</a>
---
free software, for free minds and a free world.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- sample "Open Standards" letter to government... - Authored by: warner on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 07:48 PM EST
- Java? - Authored by: iceworm on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 09:17 PM EST
- Gates on Unix - Authored by: JScarry on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 11:03 PM EST
- Pacer Sco-Novell Hearing Delayed til May 25 n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 11:26 PM EST
- ALERT -- and at least a dollar short - Authored by: Superbiskit on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 11:41 PM EST
- NL Patent Stuff: translations - Authored by: Darkelve on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 04:24 AM EST
- Jeff Merkey + Canopy in Linux Patent claim - Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 07:52 AM EST
- Sweet! : Kildall, Paterson, or Gates? - MS-DOS paternity dispute goes to court - Authored by: clark_kent on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 09:12 AM EST
- Patents: Denmark says no - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 09:24 AM EST
- The SCO Group May Face Legal Action from Itself - Authored by: johnzap on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 09:54 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 07:51 PM EST |
| ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: garbage on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 08:18 PM EST |
"...SCO has not offered any competent evidence to create a
disputed
fact..."
judge Kimball, 2005
No other country's legal system would
tolerate
this utter nonsense IMHO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:09 PM EST |
Anybody here who can explain something to me? About IM?
I had been on iChat (which uses AIM or .Mac), and then I stopped
and went back to work, but left the Available sign on, and suddenly
up pops and a message from
AOL (AIM) telling me that I have two sessions in two different
locations and do I want to shut the other one down? Yes, I did,
I answered.
But what in the world is that about? Can anyone explain?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:18 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Minsk on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:20 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:38 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:56 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:59 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: warner on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:43 PM EST
- you cannot login twice... - Authored by: garbage on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 10:51 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Samari711 on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 11:18 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 11:24 PM EST
- IM and multiple logins - Authored by: Superbiskit on Thursday, March 03 2005 @ 11:54 PM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: cjames on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 12:42 AM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 11:55 AM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: mhoyes on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 04:55 AM EST
- Q from PJ - Authored by: Rob M on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 11:59 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 05:52 AM EST |
Back on topic again ;-)
I just wondered why SCO are resisting a delay in this case?
From what I can see Novell's lawyers' are involved in another case which has
overrun. The previous delay was at SCO's request which Novell agreed to.
Surely it's in SCO's interest (as always) to delay the inevitable as long as
possible? Especially as the outcome could seriously undermine their case with
IBM?
Mind you I don't see why Judge K can't pronounce on the paperwork alone.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST |
Anyone have any idea who these people are and why they are giving declarations?
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yoda1 on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 09:51 AM EST |
"A Linux Mesis on the Rocks" from Business week
http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2005030401726NWBZCD
Gee SCO is not getting good press from here.
yoda1[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Heh - Authored by: Jude on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: N. on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 10:58 AM EST |
http://www.linuxbusinessweek.com/story/48473.htm
Apparently MOG got 30,000-40,000 pieces of hate mail after her last article on
SCO, and she isn't happy...
She's also publicising the SCO line that, as IBM hasn't got revision information
to hand about AIX before 1991, "how can they claim it is homegrown?"
Whew... you can smell the stench of the mud being thrown from here... in
BRITAIN...
---
N.
(Now almost completely Windows-free)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 04 2005 @ 01:19 PM EST |
Not only by the stipulants and the court in SCO vs. Novell, but also by you, PJ,
to pass the information and list the number. Thanks on behalf of all who can
take this opportunity. Alas, i can't, being some thousend miles away ;-)
Linux_Inside [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
