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."

Comments

IANA Paralegal Either Apparently

[shawnmchorse]

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.

10Q -- HA!

[dthirteen]

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.

In English Please?

[eno2001]

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!

Re:EXPLANATION HERE

[XorNand]

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.

Huh? SCO wanted to a break so they could circle their wagons and probably change their strategy. Just because they didn't want to ask permission from IBM to do that, doesn't mean that "they're playing dirty" or doing anything underhanded. Their case, of course, is suspect, but this particular action is pretty much a non-story. Turn the flames down--move along, there's nothing to see here.

Re:Unnecessary usages of caps...

[ctr2sprt]

This sort of thing is common in RFCs too. "Clients MUST implement this feature; clients MUST NOT implement this feature; clients SHOULD implement this feature."

Now all we need to do is get scientists, Internet RFC authors, and lawyers together... "This comment MUST be MODERATED favorably: moderators SHOULD choose PLUS FIVE (+5) insightful." In the future, all professional publications will look like 1337-speak, I guess.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is probably how non-technical people feel when we try to explain computer issues to them.
How come everyone here is so quick to say, "legal speak, me no understand," when we are constantly deriding computer users who don't take the time to figure out exactly how a computer works?

Re:how long can they survive?

[Moofie]

If they were really concerned about the welfare of their families, they wouldn't be working for SCO.

Seriously. You state your allegiance to a company (by accepting their paycheck, or buying their stock), and I've got no problems whatsoever holding you responsible for that company's actions.