|
|
| Kimball Grants IBM the 45-Day Extension and More |
 |
|
Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:14 AM EST
|
Judge Kimball comes through. He has granted IBM their 45-day extension, and he also says they don't have to turn over the materials that are the subject of their Motion for Reconsideration until the court rules on that motion, which is exactly what IBM asked for. They submitted this proposed order.
IBM filed its Motion for 45-Day Extension of Time to Comply with 1/18/05 Order on March 9, and SCO filed an Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for 45-Day Extension of Time to Comply with 1/18/05 Order on March 15, 2005. This order is dated March 16. I take it, then, that Judge Kimball signed the order without waiting for IBM to reply to SCO's opposition memo. I believe that is a first, isn't it? It's certainly rare. But he heard enough already, I gather. So much for SCO's strained and tacky argument about IBM failing to submit an affidavit. It's certainly the first time I can remember where an order was signed before we had the motion briefs transcribed and up on Groklaw.
If I were SCO, I believe, at this point, I'd be quiet as a little mouse.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
|
[Proposed]
ORDER RE IBM'S MOTION FOR 45-
DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLY WIH 1/18/05 ORDER
Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
Based upon IBM's Motion for a 45-day Extension of Time to Comply with the 1/18/05 Order, and good cause appearing,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. IBM shall have until May 3, 2005, within which to produce the materials required by the Court's January 18, 2005, Order.
2. With respect to the materials that are the subject of IBM's Motion for Reconsideration of the January 18, 2005 Order Regarding SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel, IBM shall not be required to produce such materials until the Court has ruled on that motion.
Dated this 16th day of March, 2005.
BY THE COURT
____[signature of Dale A. Kimball]____
United States District Court
District of Utah
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 9th day of March, 2005, a true and correct copy of the foregoing [proposed] ORDER RE IBM'S MOTION FOR 45-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH 1/18/05 ORDER was served by hand delivery on he following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following:
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Robert Silver, Esq.
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
___[signature]___
United States District Court
for the
District of Utah
March 17, 2005
* * 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]
EMAIL
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Frederick S. Frei, Esq.
ANDREWS KURTH
[address]
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
CRAVATH SWAINE & MOORE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Alan L Sullivan, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER LLP
[address]
EMAIL
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Kevin P McBride, Esq.
[address]
EMAIL
Robert Silver, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Stuart H. Singer, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address]
Mr. David W Scofield, Esq.
PETERS SCOFIELD PRICE
[address]
EMAIL
Mr. Michael P. O'Brien, Esq.
JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Mistlefoot on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:17 AM EST |
"and he also says they don't have to turn over the materials that are the
subject of their Motion for Reconsideration until the court rules on that
motion."
What does that mean?
When the court states what does have to turned over how long would IBM typically
have to produce this material? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:57 AM EST |
No, no, no. Not quiet as a mouse. Please not. Not only do I then miss my daily
entertainment, but SCO really should appeal this decision on grounds that the
judge didnt take time to look at IBM's reply.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:59 AM EST |
To make them easy to find.
---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:01 AM EST |
Best to make links clickable.
Post in HTML mode.
Preview and check links.
---
SCO cannot violate the covenants that led to and underlie Linux without
forfeiting the benefits those covenants confer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Great post on Yahoo message board for SCOX - Authored by: troll on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:25 AM EST
- Nasdaq undecided yet? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 04:41 AM EST
- European Commision rejects Microsoft Server Licenses - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:03 AM EST
- Microsoft ignoring European Commission? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:06 AM EST
- MIT recommends Open Source for Brazil - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:46 AM EST
- "XP Starter Edition off to slow start" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 07:00 AM EST
- OT Humour, Microsoft version of the Playschool song - Authored by: globularity on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 07:44 AM EST
- OT: When software testing really matters - Authored by: GelW on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 07:51 AM EST
- Where is Ballmer? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 08:17 AM EST
- Groklaw in the news again. - Authored by: LocoYokel on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 08:31 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jbb on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:21 AM EST |
Maybe this is an indication of a shift in the case from the phase of:
the wheels of justice grinding slowly
right through the phase of:
Do not pass
Go, do not collect $699
directly into
the phase of:
grinding up SCO exceedingly fine.
---
SCO cannot violate the covenants
that led to and underlie Linux without forfeiting the benefits those covenants
confer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AH1 on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:36 AM EST |
OK call me cynical, but somehow Judge Kimball's granting of this extension seems
to have happened in a hurry. After all SCO filed their memo opposition on the
afternoon of 16 March. Judge Kimball granted the extension on 17 March. This
does not seem to be the "normal" timeline for this case. Could Judge
Kimball be sending SCO a message?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 02:40 AM EST |
Sounds a lot like a judge who is fed up. His Honor must be careful in such a
situation not to act in such a way as to enable appeals later. In this case
nothing of substance is decided by this order, so that is not an issue. So he
moved forward in timely fashion, as any good judge should. I hope we see
more of this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 04:56 AM EST |
The Reply Memorandum was actually filed first. It was filed on March 14, and
SCO's Memorandum in Opposition was filed on March 15. Presumably, IBM was
working on an advance copy, or SCO's lawyers didn't get around to filing their
Memorandum until some time after they sent out copies to the parties.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 05:47 AM EST |
| I think we're beginning to see what His Honor means by "active case management:"
he's not going to allow any more several-month periods of "consideration." When
something hits the Clerk's office, it gets routed directly to him and he reads
it right away for immediate handling.
That, or he granted IBM's motion for
extension as automatically as he has all of SCOXE's so far and their memo in
opposition never even got considered.
Any thoughts on which? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 06:02 AM EST |
"If I were SCO, I believe, at this point, I'd be quiet as a little
mouse."
If only SCO had half as much sense as PJ, there would be no Groklaw, this
lawsuit, or this crazy Stock Scam company.
Caldera would still be a much loved and trusted company, and would probably give
RedHat and Novell some serious compitition in the Linux server market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 06:49 AM EST |
| If I were SCO, I believe, at this point, I'd be quiet as a little
mouse.
It could be that the SCO legal team has never heard the tale of
the lawyer who filed the overlength memo to cry wolf. ---
Are you a
bagel or a mous? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: oldgreybeard on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 08:54 AM EST |
Well at this rate SCOXE will be out of money.
They need a dull black knight to rescue them, or they'll need to can all of
their remaining worker bees..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 09:33 AM EST |
Earlier discussions suggested that judge Kimball
was being very careful - "dotting his i's and crossing
his t's" to make sure SCO had no grounds whatsoever
for appeal.
Now judge Kimball is doing something he hasn't done before,
something that is clearly to the benefit of IBM.
Is there any chance that SCO could try to leverage this
for appeal.
Perhaps I should rephrase this - Is there any chance that a relatively sane
company could try to leverage this for appeal?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 10:26 AM EST |
He saw IBM's request, and thought it was a fair request.
He saw TSCOG's reply, and found nothing in it to change
his mind.
So when he got IBM"s reply to TSCOG's reply, He did not
have/need any reason to "NOT" sign the order as proposed
by IBM. So he signed it.
Remember that based on what we have seen of Judge Kimball,
he is an intellegent man and that, he "gets it".
George[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 18 2005 @ 01:48 PM EST |
If IBM would follow SCO's behaviour, they'd say something like: "today, the
court delivered another deafening blow to SCO, the nuisance unix company".
;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 21 2005 @ 01:10 AM EST |
This might be way out there... it seems an unlikely idea even to me (and I
thought of it)... but I can't get this nagging thought out my mind that there
might be this connection that we ain't seeing... so I thought I'd run the idea
past you guys and gals:
I was wondering whether SCO might be hoping
to use the IBM discovery production in the AutoZone case (I do not know if this
would be proper - and anyway, personally, IMHO, I do not think they have any
realistic hope of analyzing it in days [let alone finding anything] - but if
they're desparate, you never know what they might try).
The reason I
make this speculation, is the dates coincide, sort of, and they would explain
why SCO would not want IBM to have more than an 18 day extension at the absolute
maximum (and even 18 days assumes SCO can decide how to use IBM material against
AutoZone in 1 day).
Consider...
First AutoZone 46 -
Dated 18 January:
1. The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO")
shall have 60 days from the date this
Stipulation and Order is entered with the
Clerk to complete all
relevant party and non-pary discovery set forth in
Paragraph 3(b) of
the Court's August 6, 2004 Order.
i.e.
18 January + 60 days = 17 March or thereabouts
2.
Paragraph 3(d) of the Court's August 6, 2004 Order shall be
amended as
follows:
"If SCO chooses to file a motion for
preliminary injunction, such
preliminary injunction motion and supporting
memorandum of
authorities, shall be filed within 20 days of the conclusion
of
discovery set forth in Paragraph 3(b)."
i.e. 17
March + 20 days = 6 April or thereabouts
COMPARE AND
CONTRAST...
- IBM discovery (AIX/Dynix/CMVC) production - original
planned date - 18 March, which leaves SCO 19 days to use IBM produced
material to prepare preliminary injunction motion against AutoZone.
-
IBM discovery (AIX/Dynix/CMVC) production - with 2 week delay (as SCO requested
the maximum) = 1 April, which would leave SCO 5 days to use IBM produced
material to prepare preliminary injunction motion against AutoZone.
-
IBM discovery (AIX/Dynix/CMVC) production - with 45 day delay (as IBM requested
and got) = 2 May, which would mean SCO would have to decide whether to
file their preliminary injunction motion against AutoZone, before
produced.
Thoughts?
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Monday, March 21 2005 @ 04:58 AM EST |
Yes. Even as a layman, I read that as saying:
SCO, your reply was legally vacuuous polemic, so IBM need
not waste time writing a reply, and I need not waste time
reading it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST |
"When asked what settlement figure was acceptable to him and the SCO board,
McBride jokingly said it would have to be 'more than our current market
capitalization but less than $5 billion.'" (eWEEK, SCO Plans for the
Future, March 23, 2005, By Peter Galli and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
