|
|
| Dec. 9 Hearing in SCO v. IBM Off the Schedule |
|
|
Monday, December 06 2004 @ 05:58 PM EST
|
Just to let you know that the scheduled hearing in SCO v. IBM set for December 9 is no longer on the calendar for that day and has not yet been rescheduled. I gather the 56(f) Motion that SCO filed at the very last minute has had what I presume was its desired effect, a delay, so that the motion can be fully briefed first. This is the big hearing, on IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 8th Counterclaim (Copyright Infringement), the one about the GPL, and IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. SCO claims it needs to pursue its fantasy about IBM "hacking" its website before it can possibly argue these motions before the judge, don't you know, and do a bunch of other depositions it didn't do right the first time, and things like that. Here's hoping Judge Kimball and Judge Wells read the fascinating document DaimlerChrysler recently filed in Michigan, in which it alleged SCO was attempting to game the system by seeking, unsuccessfully, a delay in *that* case. As I recall, SCO filed a last minute motion just before the last SCO v. IBM hearing too. This could get old fast.
Here's the Pacer entry on what was originally scheduled, just so you can keep it all straight:
262-2 Filed: 08/27/04; Entered: 08/27/04
Docket Text: Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [233-1] motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for copyright infringement (eighth counterclaim), set for 2:30 12/9/04 for [225-1] motion for partial summary judgment on Breach of Contract Claims. (Oral Argument Requested) To be held before Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: KJ)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:27 PM EST |
You know the drill.
---
On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
Suggestion (from me, not the management); please prefix your subject line with
"OT:" so we can keep up with what's supposed to be on topic and what's
not.
Suggestion (from the management-see "Important Stuff"); "Use a
clear subject that describes what your message is about." In other words,
PLEASE change the subject line so we know what YOU are wanting to say. Thanks.
---
On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST |
Please post your link in an HTML Formatted message, using this format for the
link:
<a href="http://www.wherever.com">Here Be Da Link</a>.
---
On The Trailing Edge of Technology Since 1987.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Links Go HERE - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:38 PM EST |
Well I guess this is rather boring, to put it mildly. Although I was really
looking forward to having something to celebrate over the holidays, I guess that
it is hardly surprising - especially since we haven't gotten a ruling on CC10
yet.
---
IANAL - But IAAAMotFSF - Free to Fight FUD
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sef on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 06:55 PM EST |
Patience is one thing. This is embarassing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Baseball anyone? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST |
| This has been obvious for quite some time. The new briefing schedule for these
motions had SCO answering on Nov 23 (delayed only until Nov 30) and IBM replying
on Jan 14 2005
See this
PDF on tuxrocks.com
So, since that stipulation and order on October 13,
the Dec 9 hearing has been clearly impossible. The fact that it has been
removed from the schedule only now has absolutely nothing to do with SCO's
recently 56(f) filing.
Thad Beier [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST |
The Judge seems to be bending over backwards not to rule against SCO on the
procedural stuff. Can we infer from that that that he expects SCO to be the ones
who feel the need to appeal his judgement on the substantive issues?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST |
The unmitigated gall of these thieves is amazing.
Here's hoping Judge Kimball looks at the DCC filing, sees how his court was
misrepresented at that hearing, and slams the window on SCO and their fishing
expeditions, lying trips, and contemptuous behaviour in general.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tgf on Monday, December 06 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST |
| Well, I think all these shenanigans by The SCO Group in Utah and
Michigan
inter alia, are just nothing but delay, delay and
more delay. It is now
becoming rather obvious that the SCOundrels
just appear to be spinning things
out for no other reason than to
prolong the Fear,
Uncertainty and
Doubt over using Linux. Moreover, it is also
rather transparent that they
are merely spreading this FUD on behalf
of their FUDmeisters in
chief.
Jim Reiter wrote this
interesting comment over the weekend, in which he says:
IMHO this whole matter was a set up from the
start. The intent
was for Caldera to pirate Unix/Linux. This is what
I do not think anyone has
ever seen before. Caldera's acquisition
of the Santa Cruz operations, Inc. had
no other purpose then to
steal Unix/Linux.
He was
referring to the Agreement and
Plan of Reorganization between Caldera and Santa Cruz
Operation 2000 which
we discussed here on GrokLaw in February
and which I know I only read some of
the comments at the time and
probably only skimmed the main article. From what
I can see, the
points in favour of this supposition would be:
- We
know that Microsoft were already very nervous about Linux
from the Halloween
Documents.
- They needed an "independent" company to do the dirty work for
them, due to
the anti-trust investigations.
- Their past connections with The Santa
Cruz Operation (think
Xenix) would have ruled them out as a candidate.
- Caldera's unusual tendency towards "per-seat" licensing à
la
Microsoft.
- The aforementioned Agreement may have been deliberately
constructed to obfuscate a weird transaction.
Taking off my
tin-foil hat, however, I am rather sceptical of this
theory, because:
- The contemporary press releases indicate that Caldera genuinely
wished to
integrate Unix and Linux, rather than subvert them.
- The IT world was
rather different four years ago; it may be easy
to misread things in hindsight
that were normal at the time.
- It took some two years [delay] before we
begin to see any change
in direction, with the appointment of Darl in August
2002.
- There is little evidence of any connection between Microsoft and
Caldera [The SCO Group] during those two years.
At this point,
I have to admit that most of my knowledge in this
area is as a result of
investigations over the last year and a half.
I had been working for many
years on ICL VME mainframes, and we had
Novell Netware, Perfect Office and my
colleagues were writing Delphi
fat clients or otherwise avoiding Microsoft
solutions. I was
already sceptical about the quality of Microsoft products due
to
frequency of BSODs on my NT4 workstation, as well as reports from
others at
work (perhaps I should have paid more attention to the DoJ
vs Microsoft case at
the time). With the ICL mainframe due to go
out of the door (eventually
replaced by a SUN E10k), I decided to
reorient my career into a Linux / Unix
environment.
Then suddenly, after about a year, I found that Linux was
threatened
by this phoney litigation, so I set about investigating. I do
believe that The SCO Group is now Microsoft's poster child,
and has
been for a couple of years or so, but I find it a little
hard to believe that
they were so back in August 2000. Perhaps
others, who were more familiar with
Linux and Unix at the time may,
be in a better position to comment. Tim
---
Oxymoron of the day:
Microsoft innovation [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
