|
SCO Responds to IBM Motion for Expedited Briefing/Hearing |
|
Monday, June 12 2006 @ 09:55 PM EDT
|
SCO has moved a knight in this experts reports chess game they are playing with IBM, a complicated knight move, and they stay completely in character. They have filed a Memorandum in Response to IBM's Request for Expedited Briefing and Hearing [PDF]. Our thanks to Steve Martin for the text and HTML. Both IBM's Request for Expedited Briefing and Hearing and their Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures are here. SCO discusses both. IBM, in its Request for Expedited Briefing and Hearing, asked to speed things up, so SCO cunningly says, fine with us. Give us ten days and then give IBM only three. Sounds fair to them. I'll explain what I think is going on, and why I smiled when I saw that suggestion. It's a little bit complex, involving the local rules of the court, but I'll try to make it clear.
SCO's proposed schedule would, as the memorandum says, "leave the motion fully briefed a week before IBM's outside request of an expedited hearing date of June 30, 2006." Normally the local rules require that motions be fully briefed only two days before a motion is heard, not a week: (b) Filing Time Requirements. Unless otherwise directed by the court, all documents pertaining to a court proceeding must be filed with the clerk a minimum of two (2) business days before the scheduled proceeding. So, to SCO it seems a wonderful idea to cut IBM down to only three days, followed by a week of dead air, instead of granting IBM more days to respond. They are also counting time, by my reckoning, not by when IBM served the motion, June 8, but rather they seem to be beginning their count on June 9, the day they tell the court they received it, because if I count ten days from June 8, I don't reach the date SCO is setting for their response, June 19. But motions are counted from when they are served, not when they are received. So, as far as I can make out, they are trying for an extra day, saying they will get 10 but really getting 11. Like I say, I find it all hilarious. They really must be trying to win the Meanest Law Firm in the World award. They would like as much time as possible and they want IBM to have the least possible. SCO also claims that IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures, is a dispositive motion, in that they claim it will "dismiss one of SCO's claims regarding copyright infringement." Very clever, except -- as they fervently told Judge Kimball once -- they don't have a copyright infringement claim in the litigation yet, except for the one about AIX distribution after the "termination" of IBM's license, unless the judge allows a new one in. (The normal procedure for adding a claim is to petition the court for leave to amend your complaint.) That is precisely what IBM is disputing, SCO's right to add new claims through the back door via their experts, after discovery is over. If this was all planned out by SCO long ago to give IBM the least possible amount of time to respond, they probably have their response written already. Meanwhile, SCO pretends to be cooperating, while giving IBM only three days to respond to what SCO claims is a dispositive motion. By labeling it a dispositive motion, SCO gets to be clever with the math. SCO says that with dispositive motions, they normally get thirty days, according to local rules. It's true that on a motion for summary judgment, you do get 30 days: b) Length and Fact Statement of Summary Judgment Memoranda; Filing Times. A motion for summary judgment and the supporting memorandum must clearly identify itself in the case caption and introduction. The memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment must begin with a section that contains a concise statement of material facts as to which movant contends no genuine issue exists. The facts must be numbered and refer with particularity to those portions of the record on which movant relies. Memoranda supporting or opposing a motion for summary judgment must not exceed twenty-five (25) pages in length, exclusive of face sheet, table of contents, statements of issues and facts, and exhibits. A memorandum opposing a motion for summary judgment must be filed within thirty (30) days after service of the motion or within such extended time as allowed by the court. A reply memorandum to such opposing memorandum may be filed at the discretion of the movant within ten (10) days after service of the opposing memorandum. A reply memorandum must be limited to rebuttal of matters raised in the opposing memorandum and must not exceed ten (10) pages. No additional memoranda will be considered without leave of court. The problem with this argument is that IBM didn't file a summary judgment motion. If you look at IBM's motion, you will see that it was not a summary judgment motion, wasn't identified or composed as one, and so far as I know, it's too soon to file one. I expect SCO will be arguing exactly that when they do file their memorandum in opposition. They will likely also claim it is deficient as a summary judgment motion and thus should be denied, and because IBM didn't compose it as a summary judgment motion or intend it to be one, that wouldn't be surprising. It could only be a motion for summary judgment, so far as I know, if IBM was talking about a claim already in play, not one merely impliedly proposed to enter through the back door for the first time by means of expert reports. That motion is about whether or not SCO should be allowed to enter these claims or whether it's a violation of the scheduling order. A motion about that wouldn't, to my mind, be a summary judgment issue. Just so convoluted. Of course, we haven't seen the experts reports so it's hard to be completely sure of what all is happening, but I see enough to be smiling at the parts I can see. On a normal motion, you don't get 30 days. Here's what you normally get: A memorandum opposing a motion must be filed within fifteen (15) days after service of the motion or within such extended time as allowed by the court. A reply memorandum may be filed at the discretion of the movant within seven (7) days after service of the memorandum opposing the motion. So, let's do the math. Normally SCO would have 15 days to respond to IBM's motion, and then IBM would have seven to respond. If it were a dispositive motion, SCO'd get 30 days and IBM would have ten. SCO is now offering to cut their time down to 10 days (or 11), which is plenty of time, and give IBM 3. Three days is not sufficient, in my view, most particularly if it were a dispositive motion. And then both sides, according to SCO's lopsided scheduling, would sit around doing nothing but twiddling thumbs for a week, with the hearing on the 30th: Accordingly, SCO respectfully submits that, rather than affording SCO thirty days to respond to IBM's motion (the number of days allowed by the Court's rules for opposing a dispositive motion), the Court enter an Order affording SCO ten days (until June 19) to oppose the motion and IBM three days (until June 22) to file a reply, which would leave the motion fully briefed a week before IBM's outside request of an expedited hearing date of June 30, 2006. So as I see it, SCO is pretending to cut itself back from 30 all the way back to only 10, ha ha. But really it's only 15 to ten. Or 11. Meanwhile, they are cutting IBM from 10 all the way back to 3 (or 7 to 3). No matter how you slice and dice it, it's hardly fair. I enjoy, I must say, watching this chess game. Ultimately nothing the lawyers do can save SCO, in my view. But they are giving it their all. The underlying theme is a little sad. I gather they know they can't win without tricks. I think they should know by now they can't win, period. And I expect we'll be hearing from IBM plenty on all this.
By calling it a dispositive motion, SCO is indicating to the court that only Judge Kimball can decide this motion. Magistrate Judges, by the rules, can't normally rule on dispositive motions. Evidently SCO believes it will have better luck with him getting new claims into the litigation this way. They must think Judge Wells is not likely to be as easily bypassed. I think they underestimate Judge Kimball but I agree he is less likely to be absolutely furious at them for this latest gambit.
**************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address]
[phone]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
Stuart H. Singer (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
[phone]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
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.
|
SCO'S MEMORANDUM IN
RESPONSE TO IBM'S REQUEST FOR
EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND
HEARING
Case No. 2:03CV0294DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), respectfully submits this memorandum in
response to the Request for Expedited Briefing and Hearing filed by Defendant, International
Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), on June 8, 2006.
IBM seeks expedited briefing on its motion (filed on June 8 and received by SCO on June
1
9) asking at least that the Court strike certain portions of three of SCO's expert reports and in
effect dismiss one of SCO's claims relating to IBM's alleged copyright infringement. However
styled, the motion is a dispositive one. In addition, SCO agrees that expedited resolution of the
issues raised in IBM's motion is appropriate at this stage of the litigation, and therefore does not
oppose IBM's request for expedited briefing. With respect to IBM's request for expedition, to
clarify the current schedule, the Court is advised that one day before IBM filed its motion, SCO
agreed to IBM's request for a 30-day extension to file responsive expert reports.
Accordingly, SCO respectfully submits that, rather than affording SCO thirty days to
respond to IBM's motion (the number of days allowed by the Court's rules for opposing a
dispositive motion), the Court enter an Order affording SCO ten days (until June 19) to oppose
the motion and IBM three days (until June 22) to file a reply, which would leave the motion fully
briefed a week before IBM's outside request of an expedited hearing date of June 30, 2006.
DATED this 12th day of June, 2006
By: /s/ Brent O. Hatch
HATCH JAMES & DODGE
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stuart H. Singer
Edward Normand
Attorneys for Plaintiff
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Memorandum in Response to IBM's Request for Expedited Briefing and Hearing was
served on Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on the 12th day of June,
2005, by CM/ECF to the following:
David Marriott, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Todd Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer LLP
[address]
/s/ Brent O. Hatch
3
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
If needed of course.
---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 10:04 PM EDT |
Those of you with clickies, make 'em if you got 'em.
---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "The fix was in" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 03:51 AM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 05:02 AM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 07:55 AM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: TerryC on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 07:57 AM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 09:08 AM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- Electronic Cv - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Have sent .doc resumes from Linux since 2000 - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 02:47 PM EDT
- One big reason... - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, June 14 2006 @ 12:54 PM EDT
- Switching - Authored by: jleguen on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Linux Australia - Authored by: CypherOz on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 04:51 AM EDT
- Linux Australia - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- New GrokDoc Item - Authored by: eskild on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 05:23 AM EDT
- P2P virus in Japan - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 06:15 AM EDT
- Washington Post opposes net neutrality - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 09:19 AM EDT
- NATO concerned about SCO? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 09:27 AM EDT
- Good bye WWW - Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- e mail worm - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- 1 in 300? Let's check those numbers... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- MS commitment to interoperability (NOT) - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- RIAA declares victory and goes home - Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- Clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- Story on Slashdot about a new IP right. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- More on ODF - "Microsoft offers schools in Mass. free software" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 06:18 PM EDT
|
Authored by: WhiteFang on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
I' guess Judge Kimball's longer experience on the bench gives him more fortitude
in dealing with stupid lawyer tricks.
Magistrate Judge Wells is definitely learning though.
I'm curious to know what our legal professionals see as possible options for
Wells and Kimball to deal with this.
As a lay person, it would be logical to me if Judge Wells simply disallowed the
motion as not being a valid response. i.e. IBM didn't file a dispotive motion.
Therefore the response is meaningless.
But, as we seen ample times, lay person logic is not the same as legal logic.
:-D
---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited
'Nuff Said[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
"Meanwhile, SCO pretends to be cooperating, while giving IBM only three
days to respond to what SCO claims is a dispositive motion."
Isn't it IBM's motion that SCO says is dispositive? The sentence seems to imply
that IBM is responding to its own motion. AARGH!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Brian S. on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
I was watching world cup football on TV the other day when they had a
section on referee's "bloomers" as exposed by instant TV replays.He red
carded the wrong guy!! The other guy didn't touch him, you could see it was a
total dive.
Now, everyone forgives the poor ref. these "mistakes" if he
cannot call for a replay. He had seconds to make his decision whilst the
audience can pore over shots from various camera angles later at their leasure
and see his stupid mistake.
BSF seem to be using every technical wangle they
can find short of presenting real evidence. Thanks to PJ and analysis on Groklaw
we get to study at our leasure all the details to gain forsight on a judges
decision. So far these have been uncontroversial, although I think the
ref Judge has been a bit lenient in enforcing the rules on the
SCOG team.
I assume the Judge cannot make use of Groklaw's analysis and
leasurely forsight.
What happens if the Judge makes a bloomer on a "technical
foul" we can see before he/she makes their decision? Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
"[Judge Kimball] is less likely to be absolutely furious at them for this
latest gambit."
Unless, possibly, he sees that SCO is trying to do an end run around Wells on
extraordinarily dubious grounds, and decides to make clear that this behavior is
not worth his time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
Evidently SCO believes it will have better luck with him, since it
is not his order SCO is violating, according to IBM, by trying to get new claims
into the litigation this way.
Isn't it? It seems to me that the
main order IBM accuses SCO of violating is the scheduling order, the one that
established the deadlines to disclose allegedly misused materials. (e.g.
"SCO's attempt to change its case not only violates the Court's scheduling
order, but it is unduly prejudicial to IBM and the public interest and should
not be allowed.") That was Kimball's order.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Whose order - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:35 AM EDT
|
Authored by: brt on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
Ok, IANAL. Please bear with me, as I try to figure out the next couple of
moves.
To me, this issue seems absolutely critical to both parties. After all the
forthcoming motion practice and the actual hearing, HH Kimbal will have to come
up with some kind of a ruling or another, and right quick.
If he allows even a little bit of SCO's sandbagging to stand, it would seem to
me IBM will have no choice but to file for an interlocutary appeal. Otherwise,
they're facing an extremely prejudicial situation.
OTOH, if he strikes even a little bit of SCO huff-n-puff, I can easily see them
filing for an interlocutary appeal as well. Otherwise their case just went
poof!
Given this court's penchant for splitting decisions, we could have a situation
where both parties try for an appeal.
Questions for the real pros here:
1. How likely is it that an IA will be attempted in this situation?
2. How likely is it that it would be allowed to proceed?
3. More importantly :-) am I completely off my rocker, and am misunderstanding
IA?
This whole thing would be really entertaining, if it weren't so sad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Monday, June 12 2006 @ 11:50 PM EDT |
1. Wells will decide on the briefing schedule. She will absorb the respective
positions and decide on something reasonable. No matter what she decides, both
sides will have an opportunity to say all they want to.
2. Since recent and ancient history show that SCO has twisted her orders and
avoided her issues, she won't take anything they say at face value.
3. PJ blames SCO for suggesting a schedule that is best for them. All parties
do that. It is their job. Both sides asks for the best, the judge decides.
4. Notice how long Wells is taking to decide on the Motion to Strike. She
knows there will be an appeal. She is making her decision air tight and worthy
of Kimball's respect.
5. This Motion to limit experts accusations is really the same as the Motion to
Strike unpecified claims. SCO felt her drift at the hearing, which was on
issue. As with all things in the law, no news is better than bad news, so SCO
needs more time!
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:13 AM EDT |
Could SCO might claim that this evidence needs to be included as a response to
IBM's counterclaim (non-infringement of IBM in its Linux activities), and thus,
it meets the schedule for responsive expert reports?
This does not quite tie with the "dispositive", claim, although the
motion (if granted) might gut SCO's defense to the counterclaim -- and in this
way be dispositive?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
I would expect tSCOg to open the next hearing with a question like, "Are
you still beating your wife/husband?"
tSCOg's "experts" raised issues that were beyond the scope of what
they were supposed to be providing expert testimony on. IBM said, "Hold
on!" and pointed out the scope change. Now tSCOg is saying that this makes
IBM's motion pointing out the error on tSCOg's part a dispositive motion since
it seeks to limit tSCOg's claims to only what is within their complaint. I
won't even go into their childish game of playing with due dates for responses,
etc.
Is Lewis Carroll on the tSCOg legal team? Or maybe just the Red Queen? This is
disgusting. Junk law practice like this is what gives lawyers a bad name.
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:22 AM EDT |
Depositive to a claim?
Isn't the entire point of IBM's motion to toss
out things that aren't claims? Like, I thought IBM's argument was, "you
never claimed these allegations when it was properly time to do so, that means
you can't slip them in after the fact as expert testimony, you have to properly
claim them and it's past time to do that"?
By SCO claiming this is a
"depositive motion", aren't they thus indirectly admitting that they consider
the "extra" stuff to be full claims and not just expert-motion-evidence? By
indirectly admitting that the stuff in the expert reports are claims, isn't SCO
basically admitting they should be thrown out?
This whole thing just seems like
one of those "if A: B is false; B: A is true" things...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:53 AM EDT |
I just don't get it. IBM is not asking to decide a single one of SCO's claims
in their complaint in IBM's favor. Isn't that what a dispositive motion is?
For instance, in 2004 they had filed motions for partial summary judgement on
several of SCO's claims and IBM's counterclaims. That would have decided those
claims, that were in the complaints. Here they are merely asking that SCO play
by the rules. Is there a different definition of dispositive motion that I
should know about? I guess we'll have to wait to see their response to the
actual motion to see what's up their sleeve, but IBM's motion sure doesn't look
like a disposti[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
.
What is a dispositive motion?
1. SCO has a point.
2. IBM has a point.
3. What did Kimball mean? 1 or 2?
*****
1. SCO has a point because these IBM motions might knock out some of their
claims -they would "dispose" of certain unspecified claims. The
Judge said no "dispositive" motions until such and such a date. These
Motions are premature. If they are to be entertained now, then SCO should have
more time to deal with them as "Dispositive" motions.
2. IBM has a point because these are procedural motions that do not deal with
the claims on their merits. They do not evaluate the claims and weigh the
evidence such as in a PSJ, M for Judgment in a trial. They are evidentiary
motions that attack the claims for reasons unrelated to their validity.
...por ejemplo IBM moves to Strike a copyright claim made by an expert. This
claim was not produced despite 2 motions to compel and 2 deadlines for claimed
material. SCO says the copyright documents were lost and just found. They
appear to be in accordance with Federal law. In ruling on this motion, the
Court would not consider the validity of the claim, but the rules and the
timing. The Judge could strike it due to tardiness and non-compliance with the
rules, and gaming the system. This has nothing to do with the merits of the
claim.
What is a dispositive motion? One that disposes of a case or claim I would
think. Another example is a Motion to suppress in a criminal case. If all the
evidence was suppressed, then it would dispose of the charges too. You can't
prove anything without evidence even if the guy is guil.. happened to do what he
was accused of.
So you can dispose of a claim on its merits.
You can dispose of a claim on collateral or procedural grounds.
Did Kimball mean one or both? What has he done in the past. It's late.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 01:45 AM EDT |
If PJ's description of the way things work is correct, IBM should win this
one, but tSCOg has phrased its objections in a way that they can at least take a
ruling for IBM to Kimball. If by some freak chance, Wells rules in favor of
tSCOg, IBM will take the issue up with Kimball. So in either case, there is an
appeal and tSCOg gets a delay.
IANAL...
--- MTEW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
When SCOX is willing to cut back its response time from 30 or 15 days to 10 days
( or 11 if you wish ), let's give them that.
On the other hand, why not let IBM have the 7 days it is entitled to when this
motion isn't dispositive.
That would bring us to June 26 with a motion fully briefed at least 2 days, as
required, before the hearing on June 30.
Even when IBM contends its motion is indeed dispositive, nothing requires IBM to
reply to SCOX's pro-forma objection only after a time taking it beyond the
requested June 30 date.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 07:39 AM EDT |
... isn't SCO's claim that IBM's motion is dispositive pretty much an admission
that new claims were introduced in the expert reports that IBM is objecting to?
IANAL, but it seems to me that striking expert testimony about existing claims
would not be dispositive, even though it might reduce SCO's chances of
prevailing on those claims. I think IBM's motion could only be dispositive if
the entirety of the claim(s) were in the stricken testimony.
If you think I'm all wet, please explain to me where I went wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 08:24 AM EDT |
So as I see it, SCO is pretending to cut itself back from 30 all
the way back to only 10, ha ha. But really it's only 15 to ten. Or 11.
Meanwhile, they are cutting IBM from 10 all the way back to 3 (or 7 to
3). The math is even worse than this if you assume SCO knew that
this was coming. They must have known IBM would object to adding all the new
charges in the expert testimony, so they've had months to work out all the
possible objections and their respsonses. Of course, they'd have to wait to
tailor their actual response until after IBM submitted their objections, but ten
days should be plenty of time for that. In contrast, IBM couldn't prepare
anything until after they saw the expert testimony. So the amount of time SCO
has is irrelevant while the amount of time IBM has to review these new documents
is critical.As with so much else in this case, it all comes down to the
gullibility of the judge. --- ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. ===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 08:48 AM EDT |
At least with respect to the Cargill report, will SCO argue that the report is
part of their defense against IBM's CC10, and that since SCO never made the
allegation that IBM violated SCO's copyrights by its use of Linux, any such
materials were not covered by the Dec. 22 deadline?
With respect to the omitted SysV and AIX files, were these omissions deliberate
or were they due to carelessness?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
I don't think BS&F are just pulling out the stops on this case. From the
press they are getting in NY and FL, it seems that this is their overall MO.
Nothing different here than what they do elsewhere.
-- Alma[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
First, SCO tells Judge Wells what *her* order means.
Then, they tell IBM what *their* motion means.
The result is going to be the same: They will incite anger. It was a bad idea
to make Judge Wells mad. She told them flat out: "don't tell me what
"my" order means".
They must be hoping to push people into making mistakes with this tatic. But
it's a crazy move that is more likely than not to blow up in their face.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CPD on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
The judge (whichever) agreeing to SCO's proposal. Grant them 10 days, as
requested - to the 18th, correcting the "obvious error" in their
submission - with three days for IBM. Also letting both parties know that no new
motions on this issue would be entertained until SCO had submitted its objection
(applied equally to each party, so it *MUST* be fair, right?). So SCO have to
file their objection on or before a Sunday. Then IBM immediately files for more
time and is promptly allowed until 2 days before the hearing.
It would be sweet to see. But then I do have a sadistic bent to my sense of
humour.
---
Just when I thought it couldn't get any wierder, SCO proved me wrong again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 01:28 PM EDT |
When screening applicants for technical writing positions, we require
submission in PDF.
It's amazing how many applicants still ship us
MSWord.doc instead. Needless to say, they don't make the cut. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
SCOG has put forward a clever gambit here. They have asserted that dispositive
motions allow 30 days to respond. However, based on PJ's quote of the rules,
that applies only to motion's for Summary Judgment, which are not all
dispositive motions. Dismissal is, for example, a dispositive motion, which the
IBM motion resembles much more than it does a summary judgment, since dismissal
can be on procedural or technical grounds, like failing to file timely, failing
to state a claim or lack of standing.
SCOG then proposes a schedule which is at best advantageous to themselves,
however this implies that if the IBM Motion for Expedited Briefing and Hearing
is not ruled on very quickly SCOG could come back and request additional time to
respond. Alleging much of their abbreviated time has already elapsed, In the end
they could net more that the 15 days they would have had for a normal motion.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
11 working days and two weekends. 11 plus 4 weekend days equal 15 days and IBM
has 3 working days.
duh! It is rather transparent ploy to play hardball. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
More like the ancient book "Go Rin No Sho" or better known as "A
Book of Five Rings", Written by Miyamoto Musashi way back in the late
1500's. If you ever read the book just think of Musashi as IBM. Daryl are you
listening? There is a lot of wisdom behind the moves of the big blue, and SCO
will have the confrontation that they are seeking. Patients is a true virtue for
both the Master and the common bystander, and of which SCO in this case is
neither of those, so they need to act but all for naught. Such a pitty, but I
will enjoy this confrontation none the less...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, June 13 2006 @ 06:11 PM EDT |
which would leave the motion fully briefed a week before
IBM's outside request of an expedited hearing date of June 30,
2006.
Um, IBM didn't request a hearing date of June
30. They requested that the Court schedule a hearing date no later than
June 30th. The difference is slight but significant.
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|