|
|
| SCO "opposes" IBM's 30-day extension motion, but after Novell is fine |
 |
|
Monday, July 16 2007 @ 02:12 PM EDT
|
SCO is opposing IBM's motion for a 30-day extension of time on the pretrial schedule, but it's open to postponing until after the Novell trial, IBM's alternative suggestion. Here's SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Extension of Deadlines in May 29, 2007 Order [PDF].
Essentially, they say they don't want the deadlines changed to hit simultaneously with the Novell trial, which is understandable, but they don't object to IBM's idea of setting the deadlines for after the Novell trial, and they tell the court that they will try to get with IBM and work out a schedule that is mutually agreeable. That of course is exactly what IBM says in its motion it tried to do already. So stay tuned to see if they can agree on dates.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: filker0 on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
Not that there are likely to be any with such a short entry.
---
--
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my current
or previous employers. IaNaL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: filker0 on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 02:37 PM EDT |
Please use clickies, formatted using the HTML Post Mode, as
in:
<a href="http://url">clicky text</a>
and
check your posting with the "Preview" button before submitting to make sure it
looks right.
---
--
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my current
or previous employers. IaNaL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: filker0 on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
SCO's objection reminds me somewhat of my 21 month old son's refusal to eat
anything at dinner, followed by his insistance that we feed him exactly what we
had just disposed of.
This is not quite as sophisticated as the SCO strategy, as he's not able to
communicate verbally in ways we can clearly understand yet. I figure by the
time he's 4, however, this will be a strategy he will employ - refuse to respond
to requests for his preference, then object to the imposition of one of the
options and insistance on the other option as if it had never been a choice
offered to him in the first place.
Just an observation. Make of it what you will.
---
--
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my current
or previous employers. IaNaL.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wardo on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
So they were apparently talking about getting the schedule changed for their
case, but couldn't agree to dates beyond the SCO v Novell case. IBM files a
motion to reschedule which puts the dates firmly into SCO v Novell trial dates,
(and stipulates that later is fine). Then SCO objects to those dates, but will
work with IBM to find ones that are OK.
Makes me wonder how much cooperation they were having between themselves if they
couldn't work out a new schedule before taking this to the judge.
Oh to be a fly on the wall during those meetings/teleconferences. Just to see
who was being unreasonable and who wanted the extension in the first place and
why...
Or am I reading too much into it? Both may have wanted a reschedule, but
couldn't ask for more than 30 days perhaps? Does the pair of motions put it in
the lap of the judge to take it beyond 30 days.
Wardo
---
caveat lector...
Wardo = new user(lawyer = FALSE,badTypist = TRUE,badSpeller = TRUE);[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
| It sounds to me as if SCO intends to try to delay the Novell
trial.
Delaying the IBM trial by a month should be fine, but if SCO
succeeds in their apparent scheme to delay the Novell trial, then the
IBM and Novell trials might be running at the same
time.
That's the only explanation of SCO's actions that makes sense. Of
course, "sense" and "SCO" should never be used in the same sentence.
Thad
Beier
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
C'mon, guys. Gotta include this one too. It's not like there isn't a lot of
news to talk about! ---
You Never Know What You're Going to Learn--or
Learn About--on Groklaw!
(NOTE: Click the "Weeble" link for Copying Permissions and Contact Info.) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
SCO v Red Hat
At a teleconference January 24 2006, the good judge
Sue Robinson did say:
COURT:
All right, all right.
Well, I'm willing to stay the course, but if the trail date gets moved even a
week, someone needs to let me know, and I am going to ramp this up because this
is an old case that I get to report to Washington because I
've got an old case
on my docket.
Mr Gonzalez: Sure
Well it
just got 17 months older, lets see Delaware ramp it up.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2007 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
Is everything that SCO is doing - all a charade to avoid one or more criminal
fraud charges? The recent Conrad Black trial and convictions demonstrates that
CEOs cannot just make up any lame-brain screwball scheme in order to screw
investors.
The media’s continuous spin on the Black trial was that: all of the evidence was
far too complex for the (ordinary “Joe Blows”) jurists to understand! (Repeated
over and over and....).
However, the jurists turned out to be ten times smarter than the media (or
Black’s lawyers) thought. Not only did they convict Black (and others) on a
variety of charges; they didn’t convict on other charges. Why? Because the
jurists said that the prosecutors simply didn’t do a good job and didn’t provide
sufficient evidence to convict on some of the charges! Perfect![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
