Slashdot Mirror
Judge Denies SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn
karvind writes "Groklaw has up an article stating that judge Kimball has issued an order regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint: The Motion is denied. SCO has finally filed its 10Q." From the article: "The court declines to adjourn the hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint is DENIED. In addition to hearing SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint and SCO's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Samuel Palmisano at the April 21, 2005 hearing, the parties are hereby NOTIFIED that the court will also hear argument regarding the parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders."
For those who do not wish to RTFA, the gist is:
Briefly, IBM asked the judge to rule that they weren't infringing any of Calsera/SCO's copyrights by distributing Linux. And they further asked for that ruling immediately, before the trial is complete. In such a pre-trial summary judgement motion, the rules are heavily biased in favor of Caldera/SCO; they only have to show a tiny bit of evidence to defeat the motion.
Iran captures three CIA agents
SCO has finally filed its 10Q.
You're Welcome.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
...what?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Legal Speak! Can... no... understand... Brain Melting!
I don't understand what that all means. Can anyone explain it to me?
These aren't the sigs you're looking for.
Yes, kids I am extremely GLAD to see that the courts are finally taking an INTELLIGENT approach to the SCO case.
Therefore, I have no idea what you just said.
And, sadly, I read Groklaw too. D'oh!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
English translation, anyone?
Uh, would someone mind telling me what all this '1337 legal-5p33k means? Does it mean SCO lost all of its cases against Linux users? Does it mean that the judge is forcing SCO to shutdown and give all its assets directly to OSDN? Does it mean that Darl is going to prison for life without parole? What the heck does it mean?!
Here comes the stampede of SlashDot "laywers"... each with their own [unfounded]
opinion of what the defendants, judge and attorneys handling the case should do.
It's better than subscribing to True Detective!
Complaint to the SEC
When does the SCO firesale start? Heck I bet an executive chair with Darl's buttprint on it might be a collectible item someday.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
The parent explains the case very clearly in simple English. It is not a troll at all. The Mod is a SCO fan.
I am not a lawyer. Could somebody please tell me why this is interesting?
The lawyerspeak jargon seems to like to USE caps for verbs. Explanations DENIED. This Slashdot comment has so been POSTED. Thank you, thank you, I'll BE here all day...
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Your comment was about as useful as the legal jargon itself.
Way to be useless.
The words Deny and SCO are used in the same sentence, however none of us appear to know if this a good or bad thing.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
"Groklaw has up an article stating that judge Kimball has issued an order regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint: The Motion is denied. SCO has finally filed its 10Q." From the article: "The court declines to adjourn the hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint is DENIED. In addition to hearing SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint and SCO's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Samuel Palmisano at the April 21, 2005 hearing, the parties are hereby NOTIFIED that the court will also hear argument regarding the parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders."
Judge Kimball may well ask SCO to eat their motion during oral arguments.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
SCO wanted to adjorn the court so they could file more complaints. The judge says no to both.
10Q is a quartly report.
Samuel Palmisano, the guy wanted to force into deposition, is the CEO of IBM.
I really do wonder how much longer SCO can survive.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Well none of us understand this article but I think the one thing we do get is that SCO lost something else, nothing new there, and hey its better then if they won!
As for 'ex parte'... um... the parte is over? Let's get this parte started? No... wait... aha.
But, y'know, they couldn't just say that.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You might have missed the CC, but Darl McBride had a little meltdown where he blamed Groklaw and PJ for the sorry state of his company.
See for instance cbronline
I'll let Elcorton speak, because he can speak for many:
As the cbronline author notes:
Indeed.
Some think this Groklaw attack was just redirection to get eyes off the bad numbers. I think it's much more than that. This is another sign of utter DESPERATION from the SCOXE crew. They're fucked, they know it... and now it's time to blame someone else.
IANAL, can someone explain what this means?
-d
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
Should read "Ex Pirate Motion."
Because I just spent ten minutes or so with Groklaw trying to figure out what this Slashdot article meant, and I still have no idea.
The balance sheet of the 10Q shows that without the SCOsource licensing (a.k.a. law suit) they'd be breakeven instead of 3.5 million in the whole.
Why do these cases seem to take for ever? Two years sofar, for evidence that SCO claims it had? In our fast tech world, a case could be solved when the technologies involved are no longer relevant for the world at the time. The worst is that the winner could have lost all potential revenue at that time.
Judge Kimball just goatse'd SCO!!
You're mcc, and we love you.
:)
Also that post sounds like it's about an ex parte motion brought forth by IBM, but this clearly says it's SCO's ex parte motion, so maybe that text is just wrong. However it does appear to link to some long and boring diatribe about the right lawsuit, so I imagine people will mod it up anyhow, leaving both of us no more informed than we were before.
Oh yeah, and no doubt some $3 crack is involved as well.
Cheers
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
How does this relate to end of this trial?
I want to see sco fail and then go bankrupt like everyone else, but I just want this sore/wort to finally go away and McBride get his prison sentance.
So far all I can get (I am not a laywer) out of this is motion is that SCO wanted to file more compliants agaisnt IBM and the judge denied it.
http://saveie6.com/
Val Noorda has committed suicide. I'm susrpised that this never made it to the slashdot front page at the time, though, of course, we'll never know the true cause of it.
Ex-parte motion:
i tions.php/US/US-EX_PARTE.htm
;-) )
"Ex parte refers to a motion or petition by or for one party. An ex parte judicial proceeding is on where the opposing party has not received notice nor is present. This is an exception to the usual rule of court procedure and due process rights that both parties must be present at any argument before a judge."
(Source: http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-defin
)
About the 10-Q:
"What does it Mean? A quarterly report submitted by all public companies to the SEC in which firms are required to disclose relevant information regarding their financial position. This must be done on time, and the information should be available to all interested parties." (Source: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/10q.asp)
---
In other words...
This means that SCO wanted to play dirty on Linux er, IBM, by doing legal things on their back, this is, without IBM being present for the legal actions to take place - but judge Kimball didn't allow them to do so. Also, SCO also published their quarterly report.
(RTFW <-- words of wisdom to slashdotters regarding legalese
now it's crystal clear: The court declines ta adjourn da hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED dat SCO'sEx Parte Motion ta Adjourn da April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO'sMotion ta Amend Its Complaint iz DENIED. In addition ta hearing SCO'sMotion ta Amend its Complaint an' SCO'sMotion ta Compel da Deposition o' Samuel Palmisano at da April 21, 2005 hearing, da parties iz hereby NOTIFIED dat da court will also hear argument regarding da parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders and git Sheniquah's ass back ova' heeah.
Where is the MIT article summary generator when you need it!?
The article he links to is a background of the case and a discussion of IBM's motion for summary judgement. It has bugger all to do with SCO's Ex Parte motion to adjourn, which isn't even mentioned in that summary.
I thought that "ex parte" was Lorena Bobbitt's handiwork. :-)
I just hope we get to see Darl find out that PJ is really Old Man Jones who used to run the old fairgrounds. And to think... SCO would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that meddling PJ.
That is why I submitted the story on slashdot !!
I thought ex parte was when you broke up with someone, then got back with them briefly, just for physical pleasure.
Explain this in fucking ENGLISH. Hell, I'll even accept the Queen's English here in this case. But this story makes abso-fucking-loutely no sense the way its currently written.
/.
I mean, does this mean that SCO is being forced to go into court without the advantage of their other motions...er stalling tactics being allowed to go forward?
MOST.
CONFUSING.
EVAR.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050413
SCO Asks for Delay on the April 21st Hearing and IBM Gets Really, Really Clear
Wednesday, April 13 2005 @ 09:15 AM EDT
There are three new filings in SCO v. IBM, and they are enjoyable to me. First, SCO asks for a delay regarding the April 21st hearing [PDF] on their request to amend their complaint again. This would be the AIX on POWER claim, from what they've leaked to the media. They say their reason for wanting a delay is because they are about to get a ton of code from IBM and maybe they'll find some other things to use to amend the complaint.
Yeah. Right. Or maybe they read Groklaw and figured out, now that I did all the research for them, that they haven't a ghost of a chance of prevailing on that misguided claim, and so now they would like some time to figure out what to try next.
So lets see... this means:
Did I get that right?
A Human Right
I don't know what all that legal stuff means, but if SCO wanted it, and it was denied, then it can only mean that the end of SCO imminent! Slashdotters rejoyce!
What the hell does this mean? Did SCO try to pull a fast one and get stopped? Or is SCO attempting to give up because they know they don't have a case but the judge is putting their feet to the fire? Seriously, what's with the legal mumbo-jumbo on /.? We aren't legal professionals. Just give it to us in plain english for god's sake!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Whould you like a Scooby Snack for that comment?
Judge: "SCO, for your continued slander and persistence in this matter, I feel I have no choice but to sentence you to no less than four years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass
prison."
Who's going to be the next victim of a "heart attack" that later turns out to be a bullet in the head with "no possibility of murder?" Anybody who stands up to that has courage. ...What?
I haven't seen such gobbledy-gook since the gal I was stalking filed a court injunction against me.
Hey, I'm a simple, dumb MSEE here. How about reposting this thing using English, not Klingon.
It appears that SCO would to delay the case without IBMs consent so that they can ammend their original complaint to include more claims against IBM in light of some new evidence discovery. According to them, this would save both SCO and the court time because all claims may be heard at once.
The court has denied this motion to delay.
The 10Q doesn't have anything to do with the case. It is just a financial statement that must be filed with the SEC to be listed.
"Give me taste, give me funk, give me fury, gimme some more."
That'll do it, yeah
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Just some tool cutting and pasting a Groklaw summary. It wouldn't make any sense unless you've been paying attention to what's going on to begin with.
From here:
I think the whole PJ/Groklaw stuff is fascinating _because_ I don't think Darl is spouting it to misdirect; I think he's mentally ill.
If you want to hide your dirty secrets, you don't put them on a pedestal in the desert... and then build a BIG FUCKING WOOKIE-ZOO around it.
The wookies are dancing in a big ring around the pedestal, pointing at it.
The existance of the dancing wookies are way more interesting than what's on the pedestal.
does this have anything to do with the fact that INTEL STOLE THE 64 BIT INSTRUCTIONS FROM AMD??? The article just looked familiar, I don't know why...
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Heck I bet an executive chair with Darl's buttprint on it might be a collectible item someday.
Hmmm, I wonder if Lysol will hurt the leather?
Didn't they generate millions of dollars in sales?
I'm starting to feel bad for these guys - remember, there are real people, with real families working there. I doubt most of them have anything to do with the lawsuits...
Translation from legalese into English:
// Judge Kimball made a decision
// A complaint is the document you use to start a lawsuit in federal court - it states what your claim is about. SCO wanted to revise its complaint in some way. April 21, 2005 was the date set for the parties to argue over whether it should be allowed to amend. SCO asked the court (lawyers say "brought a motion") to adjourn (i.e. postpone) that date. "Ex parte" means they didn't notify the other side that they were asking for a postponement - normally not a good idea. Despite the other side not being present, SCO still lost.
Judge Kimball issued an order
regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint
This is a purely procedural ruling. All it means is the arguments over whether SCO can amend will go ahead on April 21, 2005 as scheduled.
"Groklaw has up an article stating that judge Kimball has issued an order regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint: The Motion is denied. SCO has finally filed its 10Q." From the article: "The court declines to adjourn the hearing. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend Its Complaint is DENIED. In addition to hearing SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint and SCO's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Samuel Palmisano at the April 21, 2005 hearing, the parties are hereby NOTIFIED that the court will also hear argument regarding the parties' Proposed Scheduling Orders."
Any Slashdotters having their way with a girl named Joyce one time is very unlikely - twice is highly improbable....
You can't trick me, I saw the research paper generator. I even learned a bit by reading some sample papers, however, this story reaks of randomly generated legal speak.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
It's right here, baby. Watch out!
2 /0 00110465905016503/a05-6736_110q.htm
http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/110254
The actual trial doesn't start until the jury is selected. Even though both sides have asked for a jury trial, it's still possible for the case to be resolved before it ever gets to trial.
:)
:)
We're currently in the "discovery" phase, where both sides are supposed to show each other their evidence and take depositions and whatnot. This is where SCOG is balking, since they apparently have no evidence.
Once discovery is over, there will be a period where both sides continue examining the evidence they've received and prepare for trial. This is also where both sides bring up motions for summary judgement on points where they think the evidence is indisputably in their favor. Look for IBM to gut SCOG's case during this period. Look for SCOG to continue everything they can think of to delay the start of this phase.
Finally, if there's anything left of the case, the trial proper will start. Look for IBM's patent claims against SCOG, and possibly their GPL claims as well, to be resolved here. Look for the people in charge of SCOG's bankruptcy proceedings to be managing the defense.
Finally, as a former customer of the Santa Cruz Operation, I would like to remind people that the company currently called The SCO Group bears no relation. The company suing IBM is a Linux company that was named "Caldera" until a couple of years ago. There's a charming irony there, since "Caldera" basically means, "a smoking hole in the ground," which is what we expect Caldera/SCOG to be fairly soon.
I concur. Google news, both current and year-old, is great and all, but nothing beats a good SCO beating!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
You can find summarization of the whole fiaSCO right here.
An ex parte motion to adjourn refers to a motion by one party in the case, without consultation nor agreement with the other party, requests the court to delay the hearing for a period of time for whatever extenuating circumstantial reason (in this case, simply to delay having to show the code in question and to avoid having it ripped to shreds by the Linux community).
IOW, SCO is trying to delay this case yet again for no good reason other than to keep the FUD flying.
Could you dumb it down a notch?
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Seriously. Check this guy's posting history. He's constantly plugging his own site. It's not really informative. He's using /.ers.
No No No... that's called Bad Idea.
Denied! Beleted! All your base!
Wait, what-- only one motion? -- case not even taken under advisement yet? -- appeals process could take years?
SlashDot's watercooler-style definition of news must be evolving to resemble discussions around the EFF watercooler.
Interesting, Insightful... it should be read at any rate.
Here's some background on Val from her brother. Sheds her in the light she apparently deserved, rather than from the weaseling vulture we know as Maureen O'Gara.
The 10Q states $20'000 in revenue for 'SCOsource Licensing'. Compare that number with the cost getting ehm, $3'440'000.
That looks like 'sound' business eh?
"All your case are belong to us!"
Why it made the front page is that it says, "Judge Denies SCO's..." something. Doesn't matter what. The "editors" thought we might all want to crow about the fact that the judge said "no" to SCO about something. Of course, the fact that everyone promptly shouted "HUH?" instead of "YAY!" gives me hope for the slashdot crowd. :)
(And actually, SCO is still trying to ask for more delay. What this particular ruling means is that they cannot delay the discussion about whether they get more delay. This forestalls any attempt they might make to delay the decision on whether they can delay the decision on whether they can get more delay. HTH.:)
There are other jobs out there. If they choose to stick with a company that has behaved like SCO has, they share in the blame.
as in tenk you sheesh...
does this have anything to do with the fact that INTEL STOLE THE 64 BIT INSTRUCTIONS FROM AMD??? The article just looked familiar, I don't know why..
AMD cloned Intel's instruction set, and Intel cloned AMD's. Thank goodness companies can still do that. Instruction sets aren't rocket science.
If anything, this is a good thing for AMD: the fact that AMD got to decide what the 64bit instructions look like and that Intel had to copy them is really humbling for Intel. On the other hand, it gives more credibility to AMD, plus a head-start of a couple of years.
Anyone here recall that Bill Gates is supporting SCO with millions when they would have gone under, so they can illegally harass every Linux user? Andy Out!
Can anyone explain why this post is now "-1 Troll"?
wtf?
What the hell does this mean?
Dick here please SCO. Yus your honor.
Tnx your honor. (in high pitched voice)