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."
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!
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.
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 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!
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
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.
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.
Old news. That was IBM's motions for summary judgment, which were denied (though the judge had some amazingly harsh words for SCO in the process). That's not what this article is about at all.
That's it. Why this got a front page story I don't know, although it is a sign that this judge at least feels that SCO now has sufficient rope to hang themselves with, so there is that.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
SCOXE wanted time to "amend their complaint" (this is lawyereese for "change our story again"). Before IBM could object (I think...), the judge said "Yeah, right." and denied their plea for delay.
It's a minor thing.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
That's a nice summary, but it's not related to the article in any way, shape, or form.
Here's another groklaw article explaining what this one is about.
http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=IANAL
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
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
Sorry, the link points to the "original" version of the story, bad paste job on my part. Here is a google link.
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.
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.
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
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
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 doesn't relate directly to the end of the trial. It just means that SCO's motion to further delay things was denied. It doesn't mean that SCO won't try other delay tactics, just that this particular tactic is dead.
It's kind of like putting a 6 year old to bed. They will kick and scream and fight to stay up as long as they can. They will find excuses to drag things on as long as they can in hopes that you will forget how late it is getting. Eventually though, they always end up going to sleep.
In the beginning of this court case, SCO were being required by the judge to provide evidence to the court relating to the copyright/IP violations by IBM.
Now, just about everyone thinks they don't have anything to show (perhaps even SCO know this themselves), and SCO even appeared to confirm this by requiring IBM to provide them with every possible item of documentation relating to the joint projects (in legal speak "discovery". This had two advantages; it delayed the court, and SCO might just actually find something useful.
IBM isn't falling into this trap, and like everyone else around the world, are still waiting with baited breath for SCO to provide the evidence of the original accusation of IP/copyright theft.
Everyone knows the information from IBM is not fundamental to this case ; after all, you don't go to court accusing someone of theft unless you already know what is missing, do you?
When SCO realized they wouldn't get this information, they attempted another delay tactic, by asking the judge to pause the court hearing until IBM provide all documents relating to their projects with SCO. The judge refused this request, not least of all because the judge is an ex-lawyer himself, and know the tricks that lawyers will get up to when they have a weak case.
This puts this game of legal ping-pong firmly in SCO's side of the net now. They will *have* to provide the evidence of violation otherwise their case will probably collapse.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
I'm not a lawyer either, but I've worked with enough legal nonsense to explain this. (Though probably not as well as Groklaw.) You slightly missed what happened.
SCO already had a motion (the "motion to amend") on the table to add one additional claim to their suit. This amendment motion then got scheduled to be heard on April 21, meaning that both parties show up in court and make their arguments. They were also scheduled to discuss scheduling proposals, which I think means that they would hammer out dates on which no new discovery can take place and that kind of thing. This is the motion you were referring to. No decision was made by the judge on it.
The motion in the article was to adjourn the April 21 hearing, that is to say they wanted to cancel the scheduled courtroom discussion of the motion mentioned above. They said they needed this cancellation because they wanted to add even more claims besides the single new one that would be discussed April 21. I think they also said they wanted to change around the scheduling proposal. The judge ruled against this motion to adjourn -- essentially saying no, we're not going to delay any longer, you are going to show up on April 21 and argue your amendment motion.
The shorter version -- SCO tried to cancel a court date and stall some more. The judge said no, they need to show up and proceed.
Note that this only means they have to appear on April 21 and argue on whether or not they can add another claim to their lawsuit. I am pretty sure they will NOT be arguing any aspect of the actual lawsuit on April 21.
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."
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
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.
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.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"All your case are belong to us!"
Weeeeeeeell... that's all true, but like an earlier poster, not relevant to THIS decision. This particular one was about an upcoming hearing about a couple of matters: IBM wants reconsideration on the "produce everything" document, SCO wants to ammend its claims AGAIN, and IBM wants the judge to force SCO to pin down its claims now, instead of at the end of discovery. Oh, and the Palmisano deposition. Anyway, SCO wanted to postpone the whole mishmosh until June, and the judge said no. So next week, they go to court. Don't expect anything decided that day. On the spot rulings have been very rare in this case, in most instances it's been 2 days to 2 weeks before the rulings come down, although the "No Credible Evidence" ruling of a few weeks ago makes one think SCO's bankroll of goodwill with the judges is wearing thin.