|
New filings on Pacer, Stowell leaves SCO |
|
Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 01:27 PM EST
|
For those that want to track the SCO-IBM cases and SCO-Novell cases in detail, there are a few new filings up on pacer. IBM asks for an extension to reply on SCO's MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION (groklaw story here.)
Novell asked to add a new lawyer, Grant L. Kim and filed an overlength sealed reply brief to support its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief
Last but not least, there is the news that Blake Stowell leaves SCO to start work for Omniture.
The IBM pacer entry reads:
957 - MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 913 MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION, 899 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Shaughnessy, Todd) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
A full listing of the latest Novell pacer entries:
234 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Grant L. Kim, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 4681016160, filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Application# 2 Exhibit B -- Text of Proposed Order)(Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
235 - Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Novell's Reply to SCO's Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief) filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
236 - NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Novell's Reply to SCO's Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief [Filed Under Seal] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. re 171 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
Thanks to all the people sending me links and updates. -- MathFox
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 01:54 PM EST |
Post off topic messages here. Be sure to make links clickable.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Way OT: For the Environmentally Friendly - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 02:02 PM EST
- Ubuntu Reverts Video Driver Stance.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 03:57 PM EST
- OT giving some other scum what they deserve - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 04:05 PM EST
- [OT] News Flash: Blind lead blind. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 04:59 PM EST
- GROKLAW OFFLINE?? - Authored by: DMF on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: jbeale on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:16 PM EST
- Warning. you will have to have a stomach to read that - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:20 PM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:29 PM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: jbeale on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:30 PM EST
- what are the rules about subpoenas, is everyone fair game? - Authored by: jbeale on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:41 PM EST
- "I'm not clear on how getting a deposition from PJ could advance SCO's case" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:11 PM EST
- what are the rules about subpoenas, is everyone fair game? - Authored by: rgmoore on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:47 PM EST
- Not really... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 09:06 PM EST
- Remembering other depositions... - Authored by: meshuggeneh on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 08:07 PM EST
- Obvious reason. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 08:52 PM EST
- Motive behind it - Authored by: MDT on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 08:58 PM EST
- what are the rules about subpoenas, is everyone fair game? - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 10:26 PM EST
- what are the rules about subpoenas, is everyone fair game? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 10:35 PM EST
- what are the rules about subpoenas, is everyone fair game? - Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 02:16 PM EST
- "'My guess is if you go after a blogger, it'll provoke the blogosphere. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:57 PM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:57 PM EST
- Will her depo be sealed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:08 PM EST
- I don't care what they say - Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:10 PM EST
- SCO: "Hold all trials, we can't find PJ" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:17 PM EST
- Bring it on...... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:20 PM EST
- "...allowed to designate one more deposition by February 9, to be taken by March 2, 2007." - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:29 PM EST
- They could be using PJ as a wookie. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 08:12 PM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: duratkin on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 08:22 PM EST
- Hmm...I Think I'll Put My Chips On This Spot.... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:10 PM EST
- Deposing PJ - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:21 PM EST
- Is this related to PJs Health - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:21 PM EST
- My cynical take on this - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:31 PM EST
- I Don't Care what Forbes or anyone else says - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:56 PM EST
- Agreed - Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 05:09 AM EST
- Slashdot: "SCO v Groklaw" - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 12:53 AM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: GrueMaster on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 02:46 AM EST
- Remember the money trail - Authored by: kh on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 03:55 AM EST
- What is tor? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 04:47 AM EST
- I think there IS a link between PJ taking a break and the subpoena - Authored by: Peter Baker on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 04:07 AM EST
- Someone who has met PJ - Authored by: Jaybee on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 07:12 AM EST
- Would anybody be interested - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 08:11 AM EST
- Goes to show how stupid the author is... PJ is real, she worked for ORSM at one time, remember! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 08:31 AM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 08:51 AM EST
- You know you're doing something right... - Authored by: Lord Bitman on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 09:02 AM EST
- If they succeed in deposing PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 10:06 AM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: analyzer on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 01:15 PM EST
- If PJ "was a team of IBM lawyers" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 03:05 PM EST
- health break - Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 03:09 PM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 01:10 AM EST
- Forbes says SCO attempting to subpoena PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 15 2007 @ 03:50 PM EST
- SCO Vs. Blogger - Authored by: kozmcrae on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:35 PM EST
- SCO Vs. Blogger - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 08:21 AM EST
- Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD broken - processing keys extracted - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 06:57 PM EST
- RIAA Adopts New Policy, offers "Pre-Doe settlement option" - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:06 PM EST
- Industry standard? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:13 PM EST
- punishing nvidia - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 02:37 AM EST
- Exactly (n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 02:40 AM EST
- Vista totally insecure by design - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:35 PM EST
- Predictable - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 01:30 PM EST
- New DRM from Microsoft for mobile devices - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:51 PM EST
- "Analyst reverses stance on Red Hat threat" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 09:14 PM EST
- Copiepresse vs Google - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 09:19 PM EST
- "Activist Shareholders Focus on Director Election and Executive Compensation Issues" - Authored by: Brian S. on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:13 PM EST
- OOXML and ISO: Fact and Fancy - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:48 PM EST
- Daniel Lyons covers SCO vs PJ on Forbes - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 04:03 AM EST
- Does this mean that all os PJ's & others analysis can be put into the case? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 04:37 AM EST
- Whatever next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 04:55 AM EST
- VISTA feature Booting the Operating System, without running applications or games - WOW!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 05:11 AM EST
- Some other news. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 07:20 AM EST
- So This Is Vista, Huh? - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 07:34 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 02:01 PM EST |
Well that confirms that SCO is about to go under -- the RATS are starting to
desert the sinking ship. I guess Stowell was able to read the writing on the
wall and jumps ship the second he had the chance to.
Bobcat[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 02:11 PM EST |
Stowell:
"Frequently, when I have to make a statement to the
media about developments with regard to the progress of our litigation or a
certain direction the company was going, I couldn't for legal
reasons."
Commentare is left as an exercise for the
student.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PacerAddict on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 02:28 PM EST |
02/12/2007 958 ORDER Granting SCOs Motion for a Protective Order
Regarding Dr. Jeffrey Leitzingers Personal Financial Information re [842] SEALED
MOTION filed by SCO Group, 845 Redacted MOTION for Protective Order Regarding
Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger's Personal Financial Information and Certificate of
Compliance with Rule 37(c) FILED IN REDACTED FORM (Originally Filed Under Seal)
MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger's Personal
Financial Information and Certificate of Compliance with Rule 37(c) FILED IN
REDACTED FORM (Originally Filed Under Seal) filed by SCO Group. Signed by Judge
Brooke C. Wells on 2/12/07. (blk) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: coolmos on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 02:37 PM EST |
Well, Omniture just made my blacklist. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 02:50 PM EST |
Remember SCO's recent "everything great, no massive layoffs"
teleconference?
Prior to that teleconference, there was lots of talk of massive layoffs at SCO.
Wasn't that teleconference to report SCO results thru the end of Oct 31, 2006?
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.)
So couldn't SCO have had massive layoffs on Nov 1, 2006, and then in the
teleconference truthfully said there were no massive layoffs (thru Oct 31,
2006).
Just wondering.
When would the next teleconference or other reporting event be where SCO would
be required to reveal any actual layoffs after Oct 31?
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gfolkert on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 03:09 PM EST |
That is funny. Search Engine Optimization Organizations (SEOs) are Web-Analytic
Organizations at their core. (or is it the other way around)
Nothing like PR to put a new paint job on the information for people that don't
look under the hood and just kick the tires.
Customer:
OHHHH Pretty, OHHHH Shiny, I will believe your word its GOOD. Now where is that
small glass pipe I brought?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 04:13 PM EST |
Being in charge of PR for SCO has to be one of the worst
jobs in the world. You can only move up from there...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:04 PM EST |
Trouble is ... it feels more like giving the one lemming who *didn't* jump of
the cliff with the rest of the [herd?] a hard time for not going with the flow!
The real mystery is how they have any employees left!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 07:29 PM EST |
"It was a very difficult decision, but the role of PR for me at SCO has run
its
course. With the company's ongoing litigation, I was much more limited in
what I
could do from a PR standpoint," Stowell said.
In other words,
the lawyers are sick and tired of looking like fools in court
because he was
railing on in public about yet another patently untrue claim, so
they've shut
him up. I notice the same seems to be true of Darl these days ...
J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Phooey! - Authored by: DMF on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 08:14 PM EST |
(Start of tongue-in-cheek humor mode:)
Anyone else notice the synchronicity between PJ's "health break"
and Stowell's "career break"? Is there something here we
don't know about?
Is it just coincidence, or is there some isomorphism?
(End of tongue-in-cheek humor mode.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 09:10 PM EST |
Wouldn't it be real strange if PJ was Blake Stowell! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 10:55 PM EST |
My guess is that SCO's new strategy is to blame their failure in this folly on
PJ. Not the facts, not the evidence, or lack of same, and not the law.
Yes, its all PJ's fault.
PJ: Please relax until discovery is FINALLY closed. Although a couple posts on
the weather in some warm clime would be nice.
Keep the faith.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, February 13 2007 @ 11:11 PM EST |
I'm certain that the judge will be impressed.
What a pack of craven imbeciles.
Get well PJ.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 06:34 AM EST |
It seems to me that normally PJ acts as the central pin in distributing work.
Can I suggest that you establish a page called Work Queue or something similar.
It would need a list of things that need to be transcribed. People could notify
others via comments that they are tackling particular PDFs.
I guess the ideal is a wiki page, so that things can be added and removed, but I
don't think that's possible.
Perhaps you (everyone) can think of a way that we can use the existing set up to
jury-rig a workflow system without making it hugely complicated to use.
Jeff[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 08:05 AM EST |
Does the Witness Protection Program extend to civil cases? After all, PJ really
is dealing with the Mafia here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST |
This sure makes me want to attend the next hearing, wearing a button that says,
"I am PJ". And to make sure that I talk to SCO's lawyers on their way
in or out.
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I am Spartacus - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 14 2007 @ 05:26 PM EST
|
|
|
|