decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Hearing Time Change
Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:18 AM EST

For those planning to attend today's summary judgment hearing in The SCO Group v IBM, the hearing time has been changed to 2:30 PM Utah time (previously it was 3:00). Here's the PACER notification of the amended hearing time. (Note that some of the dates are listed as 2009, these are typos in the docket listing.)

On another notice, we suffered another downtime (RAID controller on the database machine) Many thanks to the Ibiblio techs who worked the night to get the site up and running again!

Docket no. 970:

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 782 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Unfair Competition Claim, 776 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Counterclaims, 780 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Contract Claims, 777 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Counterclaims, 775 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Third Cause of Action, For Breach of Contract, 781 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim, 784 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Eighth Counterclaim, 953 Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File SCO's Over Length Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 29, 2009Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File SCO's Over Length Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order of November 29, 2009, [894] SEALED MOTION, 783 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims, 785 MOTION for Summary Judgment on IBM's Tenth Counterclaim, 913 MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION : Motion Hearing reset for 3/1/2007 02:30 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Please note time change from 3:00 PM to 2:30 PM.(kmj) (Entered: 02/28/2007)

  


Hearing Time Change | 117 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT here
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:48 AM EST
Off topic here - please make links "clicky"!

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections ???
Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 04:49 AM EST
Any corrections needed - post here.

---
All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corrections ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:02 AM EST
RAID
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:47 AM EST
It seems strange to me that people should built RAID systems with a controller
as a single point of failure.

I know it is possible to build a RAID with two separate computers and the data
mirrored on both of them.

What I was wondering is, is there a way, using Linux and available FOSS, to
build a RAID 5 system using three separate computers? The idea is to connect
each machine to both the others with a suitably fast Ethernet connection so that
there is no common point of failure.

Such a system has some additional security advantages: separate backups could be
made of each machine and stored in separate locations, the data could be
restored from any two backup files; likewise, it is impossible for anyone
acquiring a single backup file to extract any confidential data.

Has this ever been done? Or considered and rejected? Am I as crazy as my
children think that I am?

---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:55 AM EST
    • link - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 05:58 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 06:26 AM EST
    • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 07:19 AM EST
    • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 09:59 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:00 AM EST
    • RAID - Authored by: kenryan on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:58 AM EST
      • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST
        • RAID - Authored by: kenryan on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 02:23 PM EST
          • RAID - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 02:45 PM EST
          • I hear you ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 03:15 PM EST
    • sw RAID -> also see Sun ZFS - Authored by: qu1j0t3 on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 11:40 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:30 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: philc on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:34 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 08:51 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 10:02 AM EST
  • RAID - GFS, OCFS2, GPFS, Lustre - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 11:58 AM EST
  • RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 12:29 PM EST
  • Looks like a bugspray commercial. - Authored by: RLP on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 02:26 PM EST
sco unixware
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 07:36 AM EST
There's a post over on the Yahoo SCOX boards about SCO Unixware, guy there says
it looks pretty awful and uses out of date software from a bankrupt company.
I've never used it myself so can't comment. The interesting thing is that it
has a copyright IBM notice in the OS.

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?m=tm&a
mp;bn=2942&tid=412691&mid=412691&tof=8&frt=2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Time Change
Authored by: MplsBrian on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 11:01 AM EST
I hate to break form and actually comment on the article, but is there anyone
that's going to attend the hearing? What's the likelihood that we'll get some
near-realtime feedback on the hearing as in the past?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is this hearing for?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 01 2007 @ 12:09 PM EST
My understanding is that, as this is a hearing, the Judge won't be issuing any
judgements today, but rather questioning the lawyers for clarification on the
motions they filed for/against SJ?

But, these hearings can also often give you an idea which way a judge is
leaning, based on the questions he poses to one side or the other, correct?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )