|
|
| Novell and SCO Stipulate to July 29 for Answer to Complaint |
 |
|
Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 04:35 PM EDT
|
For those of you who like to track dates, Novell and SCO have stipulated [PDF] that Novell may have until July 29 to answer SCO's complaint, now that Novell's Motion to Dismiss was denied. They haven't said why they need extra time, but my best guess is they are deciding their strategy going forward. There are options to consider, particularly counterclaims and other motions that could be filed, and since they have a new, outside attorney on board, they likely need time to get him fully familiar with the case, so they can benefit from his input. Any time a new attorney comes on board, he may have ideas you hadn't thought of. It's important to figure out your basic strategy from day one, because as you saw with SCO's attempt to amend its complaint a third time, you can't always get what you want later. Also, if you watched the dispute about IBM's 9th Counterclaim, you saw that there can be repercussions to everything you file with a court in your complaint or your counterclaims. So I am thinking that could be the explanation. It's also possible that there are scheduling conflicts, attorneys on vacation or whatever. So this is just explaining the kinds of things that could be happening.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
| :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Who are "they"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 04:50 AM EDT
- Who are "they"? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 08:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
Make links clicky and such.
You know the drill.
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 05:06 PM EDT |
Hmmm ...
The last Friday of the month.
This has possibilities of starting August off with a Bang! I'd love to Novell
file many simultaneous motions. But we'll see what we'll see.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
Compulsory counterclaims.
Novell has to be very careful to make these now. We all know that SCOX is CTD,
but we've also seen how the George Romero could have titled a movie,
"Successor in Interest."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
Based on where we are now, the issues that are being tried in SCO v Novell and
SCO v IBM, does it still make sense that Novell remains stayed?
From this layperson it seems entirely different issues are in play and there
should be no reason to hold Novell until IBM is resolved (if anything, perhaps
the opposite).
Can someone explain to this non-lawyer why the judge has done this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 20 2005 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
tSCOg has brilliantly fought a series of delaying actions in the IBM case. It
makes sense for Novell to do that to them. This is all going to end up with
tSCOg bankrupt. Why not arrange to just sit on the sidelines until that
happens?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 21 2005 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
Its interesting... when SCO request a delay its because "they don't have
any evidence, they have no idea, blah blah blah".
When Novell request a delay PJ goes out of her way to make excuses for them.
Persronally I think PJ should be critical of Novell; they are giving SCO delays
by the bucketload and SCO is enjoying that immensely.
I want some action not more and more delays.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
