|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- NESSI - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 04:54 AM EDT
- NESSI - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 08:49 AM EDT
- More e mail disasters - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:09 AM EDT
- Live Bookmark Sites RSS icon missing? (FAO MathFox?) - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:58 AM EDT
- newbie question about ibm counterclaims - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 07:17 AM EDT
- NESSI - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- NESSI - Authored by: vadim on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 11:46 AM EDT
- NESSI - Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 01:37 PM EDT
- sort of Off topic here - Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 08:52 AM EDT
- visited-link color - Authored by: haphazard on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 09:53 AM EDT
- Antipagination - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 10:28 AM EDT
- "Open Internet, We Hardly Knew Ye" - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 11:14 AM EDT
- Another expensive patent case - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 11:16 AM EDT
- The Daemon, The Gnu, and the Penguin - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 12:17 PM EDT
- Creative Commons -NC Licenses Considered Harmful - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Blog search. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 01:06 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- TCO impact? - Authored by: GaryD on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- TCO impact? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 15 2005 @ 08:15 AM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: MathFox on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:59 PM EDT
- FYI: Showing all menu's in MS Office - Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Retraining? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- This is going to be amusing... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Gates changes Office rules again - Authored by: belad on Thursday, September 15 2005 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- MS's MASS talking points fleashed out - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:13 PM EDT
- The copyright squad will love this - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Two New TSG Lawyers - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Windows Vista will be free? - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 05:16 PM EDT
- Response to Novell is out - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
Finally - here it is!
SCOX Response to
Novell [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|