decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Hearing on SCO's Motion to Compel Set for October 7
Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:40 AM EDT

Judge Brooke Wells has set a hearing on SCO's Motion to Compel for October 7 at 10 AM. So, let's synchronize our watches. Here's the docket info:
505 - Filed & Entered: 09/12/2005
Notice of Hearing on Motion
Docket Text: NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: [503] MOTION to Compel discovery: Motion Hearing set for 10/7/2005 at 10:00 AM in Room 436 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. (jwd, )

502 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2005
Transcript
Docket Text: **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on SEPTEMBER 15, 2004(ARGUMENT ON MOTION) before Judge DALE A. KIMBALL. Court Reporter: REBECCA JANKE. (asp)

Oh, I also checked for anything filed by SCO in the Novell suit, but still nothing on Pacer.


  


Hearing on SCO's Motion to Compel Set for October 7 | 160 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:48 AM EDT
For current events, legal filings and Caldera® collapses.

Please make links clickable.
Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing before briefings?
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 04:07 AM EDT
I wonder if IBM has submitted a response to SCOg's Motion to Compel. I know
it's not on Pacer, but maybe they've filed it and it's not entered yet, or
they've told Judge Wells it's on the way.

Or maybe they just decided to wing it in court :-).

---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here Please
Authored by: wHo on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 05:31 AM EDT
As the title says ... if any are necessary

---
IAAL but not in the USA - My comments here are not legal advice and maybe only
worth what you paid me for them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We're doomed (-1: troll?)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 05:58 AM EDT
Honorable Judge Wells will be in charge of the hearing... SCO's motion is
going to be granted...

Sounds like a troll huh? Me think I'm just being realistic. I would love to be
proven wrong though...

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens if ...
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:03 AM EDT
... TSG didn't file a response to Novell's motion (or files late)?


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

**RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** ??
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:46 AM EDT

What's this??

502 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2005
Transcript
Docket Text: **RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on SEPTEMBER 15, 2004(ARGUMENT ON MOTION) before Judge DALE A. KIMBALL. Court Reporter: REBECCA JANKE. (asp)

I'm a bit confused. Groklaw has had the transcript of this hearing for almost a year. Why does the docket show this as a new posting, one that is restricted?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reply seems to have been filed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:59 AM EDT
at least according to another anonymous poster; this
is from the 10-Q

By stipulation of the parties and approval of the Court,
the Company's
response to Novell's Answer and Counterclaims was due and
filed on September 12,
2005." -- 10-Q, page 15.

As posted on Yahoo SCOX by nobbutl.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells question to SCO: "How High?"
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 07:39 AM EDT
/Sarcasm on

Judge Wells question to Sco: "How High do you want IBM to jump?"

SCO: "Same as last time"
Judge Wells: "The moon it is then"

Judge Wells: "Do you want to site on my knee?"
SCO: "Thanks for offering but we're happy down here"

/Sarcasm off


---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing on SCO's Motion to Compel Set for October 7
Authored by: rm6990 on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 10:41 AM EDT
According to SCO, their answer to Novell's counterclaims has been filed. What is
going on with Pacer? It's two days later and it still isn't on there (or so I've
heard).

Anyone anywhere near the courthouse? I would pick up the docs myself, but living
in Canada makes it a bit difficult ;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing on SCO's Motion to Compel Set for October 7
Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
Welcome to J. Matthew Donohue and Daniel P. Filor, new BS&F lawyers seeking

admission Pro Hac Vice to the IBM Case

sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-506.pdf
sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/IBM-507.pdf

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOx Response to Novell - fresh from Pacer
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT
Finally - here it is! SCOX Response to Novell

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO'S REPLY TO NOVELL'S COUNTERCLAIMS
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
is here!

and here is the original counterclaims as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Trying to define SVRx License
Authored by: jimbudler on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT
SCO's definition is that the SVRx licenses that Novel can prevent SCO
terminating are "part of the SVRx binary license revenue stream."

Since IBM's license is not "part of the SVRx binary license revenue
stream" SCO is allowed to terminate it.

Ignoring the fact that the only way SCO has administrative control over the IBM
and Sequent contracts is if they passed through Novel to SCO using the same APA
that SCO wants to say defines only "the SVRx binary license revenue
stream."



---
Jim Budler

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )