|
|
| SCO v. Novell - Scheduling Set but Parties Sent to Kimball/Hearing Cancelled |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST
|
The Magistrate Judge, David Nuffer, in SCO v. Novell has issued a scheduling order and has cancelled the December 20th hearing. He also directed the parties to bring the SCO v Novell scheduling to Kimball to discuss how it relates to SCO v. IBM schedule. Meanwhile, here's the Scheduling Order and Order Vacating Hearing [PDF], which has a June 25, 2007 date for the trial to begin, the month SCO requested (although they asked only for June 1), subject presumably to Judge Kimball's decision. I think there must have been further discussions with the parties, because if you compare the list of dates in the parties' Attorneys' Planning Report, you'll find additional items in the scheduling order. I note an April date, for example, for pretrial disclosures by plaintiff and a May date for Novell, plus the special attorney conference is set for May 25, 2007 and the final pretrial conference is set for June 6, 2007. So, it may be that there is no way to do it sooner than June, but again, that's up to Kimball. The Magistrate puts it this way: Counsel are directed to contact the district judge to discuss trial scheduling relative to The SCO Group Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Case No. 2:03CV294 DAK, D. Utah ("SCO v. IBM case"). The magistrate judge is supposed to leave matters of substance to the presiding judge, because the latter is the one who is supposed to make decisions that might affect the outcome of the litigation. This is obviously one of those decisions. Even if he wasn't supposed to, it makes sense here for the judge presiding over the IBM case to decide the matter. He knows more about it than the new Magistrate Judge in the Novell case. What does it mean? That the two cases are now intertwined somewhat, or, if you will, for the first time officially in that Novell raised the connection between the two and now Judge Kimball has his first direct opportunity to see about the matter. Just how intertwined will they end up? We'll see. Judge Kimball, who is in charge of them both, gets to decide for starters, if it's still in dispute, if Novell was right in asking for an earlier date because the outcome of the trial might affect the IBM litigation, or if SCO was right that June is the earliest it can possibly begin, or if there is another creative option, or how the the two cases will interface, if they will. I say the last for completeness. I don't see any way the two can't interface.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:24 PM EST |
For PJ and everyone
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:26 PM EST |
Please make those links clickable.
Read the red text, and post in HTML mode.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Florian Müller wins European of the Year award - Authored by: pajamian on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:48 PM EST
- Not just him! - Authored by: a_t on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 07:24 PM EST
- Greeeat - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 09:12 PM EST
- One problem at a time - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 10:59 PM EST
- Agreed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 12:37 PM EST
- But declined the prize. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 04:57 AM EST
- "Siemens Joins Open Source Development Labs" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 07:41 PM EST
- "OSDL-sponsored conference targets Linux desktop development" - Newsforge - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 07:46 PM EST
- "An Interview with Lawrence Rosen, Open Source Lawyer" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 07:59 PM EST
- "OPEN DOCUMENT FORMAT: A MATTER OF SOVEREIGNTY" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 09:39 PM EST
- Greece Demands Reparations For Ancient Intellectual Property Violations - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 10:26 PM EST
- Thanks, beautifull! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 05:12 AM EST
- Brilliant - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 07:18 AM EST
- "Korea fines Microsoft over antitrust breaches" + + - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 10:28 PM EST
- Experimental Nerve Repair - Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 10:34 PM EST
- RIAA strikes again!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 12:07 AM EST
- the french govtmust like riots - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 12:19 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: LaurenceTux on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:48 PM EST |
Just as a thought the IBM and Novell may function as a binary star. If Novell
goes Bang the IBM case might
A Go bang from "splash damage"
B Go screaming across the landscape rending wholes in other possible cases.
So what are the odds?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 06:51 PM EST |
I just had a horrid thought... what if Kimball agrees with both
positions, namely that (a) the trial can't possibly start any sooner than June,
and (b) the Novell trial might heavily impact the IBM trial, and decides sua
sponte to stay IBM until Novell is over? Gad!
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 07:33 PM EST |
| Good Googly moogly this is draging on forever... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 08:09 PM EST |
This development will help speed things along. I don't think it matters. This
issue is not destined for a jury because Kimball will decide it himself. In the
IBM case it will be part of a (new) (re-)(newed) Motion for Partial Sumary
Judgment which Kimball alone decides.
The same will happen in the Novell case. It has already been at issue in two
motions to dismiss. When IBM discovery is over, and the dispositive motions are
amassed and filed, the Novell copyrights issue will be exhaustively discovered
and researched again. Kimball will then entertain what process is due. SCO
will do stand-up in the well, Marriott will tease them and Kimball will give
them their last rites.
SCO will argue for "constructive" conveyance of copyright "nunc
pro tunc," ['now for then']. They will admit they do not have the
copyrights or the federally requisite transfer documents. But that since they
need them now, the Court should construct a conveyance based on the Asset
Purchase Agreement whose parties might have acted and intended differently if
they had known what SCO was going to do. No peanuts allowed.
---
webster
>>>>>>> LN 3.0 >>>>>>>>>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 09:04 PM EST |
this plays right into SCOG's hands.
Anything IBM tries to get as a summary judgement will need discovery from
Novell.
IBM wants to invoke Novell's right to waive SCOG's rights?
NOTHING DOING, SAYS SCOG - we need months and months of discovery from Novell to
fight that.
IBM wants the court to rule SCOG has no copyrights as required for the Linux
lawsuit?
NOTHING DOING, SAYS SCOG - we need months and months of discovery from Novell to
fight that.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Prototrm on Tuesday, December 06 2005 @ 09:20 PM EST |
SCO will now delay the IBM case until it can finish dragging-out the Novell
case.
Now, to delay the Novell case, SCO will sue itself, which, with BOTH sides of
the case wanting to delay the outcome, will result in infinite delays.
Financed, of course, by selling rubber stock (y'know, like rubber checks).
The last time I saw something this absurd stretched out for this long a time was
back when I used to watch Dark Shadows on TV (that was a daytime soap opera
about vampires, witches and werewolves, for those of you that never heard of
it).
Sheesh![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 07:51 AM EST |
How many insanely pro-scox court rulings have there been?
- Kimball refuses to rule on IBMs PSJ, in spite of the fact that IBM had a slam
dunk case - by kimball's own words.
- After several months of delay, Wells punishes IBM with scox's absurd discovery
request.
- The courts refuse Novell's perfectly logical request to dismiss scox's
laughable case.
- And now, a simple contract dispute between scox and novell is being dragged
out five years.
As a poster on the yahoo said: the system is either corrupt, or so broken that
it would better if it were corrupt.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST |
A number of posters have expressed alienation from our system of justice.
On one hand, we have a government of laws not of people. And to a large extent,
this is good because the US Constitution as a basis for our laws is basically a
good, strong document and many of our laws are good.
On the other hand, the fact that we have a government of laws does not mean that
government of the people, by the people and for the people should be degraded
into government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers. It is
telling of the character of our society that such a large percentage of our
elected leaders (better than 90% in my estimate) are lawyers and that so many
CEOs of large US corporations are lawyers.
To be frank and honest: for all its virtues, the kind of legal process at work
in the SCOG vs. IBM trial is the kind of legal process that very few of us can
afford as individuals. A poor quality, slow and expensive legal process is at
best a promise unkept and at worst a menace to our democracy.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 90% lawyers? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, December 07 2005 @ 10:22 AM EST |
My negative feelings aside, a government of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers
is still infinitely preferable to a dictatorship which, no matter how well
intentioned originally, ineluctably degrades into government of the corrupt, by
the corrupt and for the corrupt.
---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
