|
2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case |
|
Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:15 AM EDT
|
Pacer is showing two new pro hac vice filings in SCO v Novell, adding Stuart Singer and William Dzurilla to the SCO team. Funny thing is, they both appeared already at the last hearing in July. Oh, well. Who's counting dotted i's? Here's the Pacer listing:10/23/2006 160 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Stuart H. Singer Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 407276. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
10/23/2006 161 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of William Dzurilla Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 407281. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
One thing's for sure. If and when SCO finally loses, it won't be because they didn't have enough lawyers. Singer is, in my view, one of the best Boies Schiller has, so I'm not surprised they'd want him assigned to this case that has been rapidly nosediving straight down to earth, then through the center of the earth, and coming out in China, from SCO's perspective. IBM's David Marriott told the court two years ago in SCO v. IBM that SCO's massive discovery demands were like asking for a road map to China when you're trying to get to LA. You won't make it to LA with that road map, he said. You can't get a Linux-Unix comparison by looking at AIX and Dynix code. Was the man right or was the man right? SCO got absolutely nowhere, most particularly not to LA, as it pondered at length over every version of every map of China, including all the drafts, and all the maps of all the roads in China, including all the roads ever contemplated but never actually built. And they are now, IBM says, standing empty-handed before the court. They never made it to LA. But here's SCO, in SCO v. Novell, a case it initiated itself, careening in its runaway spaceship straight to China. Well. Switzerland, actually. Findlaw says Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law. Why ever would SCO need that? Things that make you go hmm.
What a funny upside down world SCO resides in, where up is down and black is white, and SCO takes money arranged for it by a company twice convicted of antitrust violations, Microsoft -- to hear Larry Goldfarb and Mike Anderer tell it -- and then uses the money to hire an antitrust lawyer for its litigation ... against Novell. That's one wild alternative universe. In SCO's upside down Wonderland, the GPL is unconstitutional, and there's nothing wrong with trying to damage Linux, Microsoft's principal competition, and so SCO dances on and on, like the dance of the seven veils, for Microsoft's pleasure. Allegedly. Microsoft says it's not true. It just *feels* true. Joke. Joke. I couldn't help myself. Remember that from "Sleepless in Seattle?" Speaking of hearings, tomorrow is the hearing in SCO v IBM on SCO's motion to try to salvage the claims it tried to slip in the back door at the 11th hour. That's pretty much what Judge Wells said she thought it looked like to her: Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against [IBM]. The court further finds that such failure was intentional and therefore willful based on SCO’s disregard of the court’s orders and failure to seek clarification. In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put “all evidence . . . on the table.” She tossed most of the material SCO tried to slide into the case via its experts after discovery was over in her Order. Now SCO would like that "unfair advantage" back, and so it filed objections to her order with Judge Kimball, and tomorrow is SCO's opportunity to present its arguments.
|
|
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:30 AM EDT |
So SCOG can burn even more money that isn't even theirs. Will it ever end? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:32 AM EDT |
If you've got links, make sure to make them clickable. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hearing tomorrow in SLC - Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:14 AM EDT
- Is forcing the removal of FM recording Anti-Trust - Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:23 AM EDT
- Persistent 502 errors - very slow - database errors - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 04:46 AM EDT
- New law podcast - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 05:04 AM EDT
- MIcrosoft Open up SenderID - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:12 AM EDT
- OT goes here. - Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:18 AM EDT
- 24 years for Enron's KILLING - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:25 AM EDT
- Are Sony trying to go out of business?. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:59 PM EDT
- Very OT, but worth mention - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- More voting machine trouble - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 03:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
So PJ can find them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: baomike on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:40 AM EDT |
<<Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law>>
Does anyone else detect a whiff of Wallace?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
In this case it seems that Judge Kimball will have a standard that SCOg must
meet for him to overturn some or all of Well's ruling. If that standard has not
been reached, he might say so from the bench.
On the other hand, if he is going to rule in detail (include one or two items,
exclude some additional items) then he will rule later.
The other factor for ruling later is to make his ruling less vulnerable to an
appeal. If SCO lose I would not be surprised if the ask for an interlocutory
appeal, and that Kimball will deny that request.
[IANAL]
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 02:22 AM EDT |
PJ says.." Findlaw says Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law. Why ever
would SCO need that? Things that make you go hmm."
Some companies go out of their way to build trust. SCO has gone out of their way
to build anti-trust. THAT'S why they need an anti-trust lawyer.... to make sure
all the legal stuff is solid on developing anti-trust BY everyone else OF SCO.
Clearly they know that there is no QUALITY to their position, so they are trying
to compensate by QUANTITY. That's why they need extra lawyers.
I believe they could probably hire Lionel Hutz on a moment's notice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
I hope we get the usual excellent play-by-play commentary that we've all come to
expect here on Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:59 AM EDT |
Does anyone know what happened to [695] (IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims
to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures)?
It was briefed expeditedly in June. Will it be argued today?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:37 AM EDT |
She tossed most of the material SCO tried to slide into the
case via its experts after discovery was over in her
Order.
Um, forgive me, I've been in our nation's
capital since Thursday so I'm a bit out of the loop, but I thought this Motion
had not yet been ruled on? Yes, I know Wells tossed a large chunk of TSG's
Allegedly Misused Items, I'm referring specifically to IBM's Motion
to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final
Disclosures, wherein IBM asked Judge Wells to prevent TSG from sliding
entirely new claims in disguised as expert reports. Did I miss something while I
was away, or am I just confused (which is entirely possible after a 5AM-to-11PM
travel day)?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it."
-- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:11 AM EDT |
When your loot is laying on the tracks and two locomotives are speeding toward
it, you have to get more hands involved in snatching it from its container.
That's my theory and I'm still sticking to it.
SCOG wouldn't let anything
like a "cap" interfere with their plans. After all, no amount of citation of law
nor multiple court orders have deterred them so far.
This speculation and
opinion comes free of charge. It might even be worth as much as it
costs.
--- -- grouch
http://edge-op.org/links1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 09:24 AM EDT |
....the TOTAL value of the company. Clearly, trading in a product that no-one
was interested in was not going to vaporize the company quickly enough, so they
hatched this brilliant scheme to litigate it into the same void that Enron has
entered, whilst transferring vast quantities of the company's available cash to
members of the management's family (for safe keeping of course). This way all
40+ million shares would be diluted to have a TOTAL value of only $5.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PTrenholme on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
PJ,
You say, re SCO's case, ". . . where up is down and black is white . .
." Perhaps "where up is red and down is wet" might be better.
Or one based on a line in Ms. Bujold's book "Shards of Honor", 1996:
"SCO's case is like someone peeling an onion, looking for the seeds."
---
IANAL, just a retired statistician[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:10 AM EDT |
When is the hearing?
PJ's article is dated the 24th and says tomorrow, which would be the Wednesday
the 25th.
Other people are talking about it being today Tuesday the 24th.
Can someone please clarify that for me?
---
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: mram on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
I think IBM raises some fairly specific antitrust issues in it's motion for
sumary judgement, which may well be why SCO wants someone with an antitrust
background to review.
Specifically, one line of argument IBM presents to bolster it's reading of the
IBM and Sequent SVR4 agreements is that AT&T could only have intended the
reading IBM makes of these contracts, because antitrust regulations would have
made it illegal for AT&T to intend otherwise.
I suspect SCO wants someone to knock that argument down, and argue that AT&T
could have legally intended the contracts to support SCO's reading. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
Two more deckhands on the Titanic....
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
She stays up so late that it seems to me like she must live in Hawaii. I wonder
what time she wakes up...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
Is that a trick question? :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kalak on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
Allegedly. Microsoft says it's not true. It just *feels* true. Joke. Joke. I
couldn't help myself. Remember that from "Sleepless in Seattle?"
Am
I the only one who read this and thought that PJ had learned the value of truthiness over all her fact
checking?--- Kalak: I am, and always will be, an idiot. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|