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

10Q

[uberdave]

SCO has finally filed its 10Q.

You're Welcome.

May I be the first to say:

[mcc]

...what?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Shalda]

First, one should RTFA. Having RTFA, I'm really only left with one question: WTF? No, really, WTF? I take a very keen interest in the law and the Supreme court in general, but WTF? I propose the Thunderdome method of judicial reform. Two men enter, one man leaves.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[sTalking_Goat]

to break it down...

SCO: Hold up your Honor, my bad, thats not the way it happened. What really happened was...

JUDGE: Shut your Pie-Hole SCO. It's too damn late to be changing your story, yet again.

IBM: Oh, SCO you been served.

SCO: Now it's on!

...etc

GAH!

[Derekloffin]

Legal Speak! Can... no... understand... Brain Melting!

IANAL

[pb]

Therefore, I have no idea what you just said.

And, sadly, I read Groklaw too. D'oh!

Here comes the stampede....

[Lew Payne]

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!

When will the SEC step in?

[NZheretic]

Complaint to the SEC

Unnecessary usages of caps...

[Kethinov]

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...

Would you like some ketchup with your motion?

[lildogie]

Judge Kimball may well ask SCO to eat their motion during oral arguments.

Re:Would you like some ketchup with your motion?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

I shudder to think what the British members of our audience will think when they see your post.

Best I can come up with

[Auckerman]

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.

Re:Sweet, sweet SCO

[pb]

Here's a timeline -- looks up to date too!

As for 'ex parte'... um... the parte is over? Let's get this parte started? No... wait... aha.

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.

But, y'know, they couldn't just say that.

The McBride Meltdown.

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

Instead of unsupported innuendo against Pamela Jones, why didn't you talk about the fact that both the judge in the IBM case and YOUR OWN COUNSEL have publicly called you a liar for your fraudulent claims of copyright infringement in Linux? You trotted out that miserable little slug Stowell to announce that you wouldn't talk about specifics of pending litigation, which you then proceeded to do when it served your purpose. But you didn't mention that Judge Kimball, who has seen all the sealed filings that you always said proved your case, was "astonished" to find NO COMPETENT EVIDENCE supporting your public pronouncements of all this misappropriated material in Linux. NONE. So tell us again what was in all those sealed filings that the judge overlooked.

Neither did you mention that your own lawyer Robert Silver said in open court that the AutoZone case has NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX, after you told your shareholders exactly the opposite in a previous conference call. Is that what you mean be "transparency," Darl?

And who do you think gives a fuck who Pamela Jones "really" is? Was it Groklaw that found a "vast disparity" between your public pronouncements and actual evidence? No, Darl, that was a United States District Judge. Too bad none of the callers today brought that up.

Why doesn't your "transparent" web site, the one that has only facts and no spin, mention the fact that your case against Daimler-Chrysler was DISMISSED as to all but one trivial claim, and that your appeal of the dismissal was DENIED months ago? Is all that set in a transparent font?

You're a better liar but a worse human being than any of the contemptible shills who haunt this board. If you really had anything on Jones you would have used it by now. 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. You disgust me, you cowardly little crooked prick.

As the cbronline author notes:

"So who is Pamela Jones? McBride would not say. "We're still digging to the bottom of this. I think once we have all of the facts complete we'll be glad to do [share] that," he said. Perhaps the bigger question might be why SCO, a company McBride claimed is "steadfastly focused on winning in both the court room and in the market place" is so concerned with what a small community web site thinks about its claims."

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.

Re:Erp...

[Zocalo]

SCO asked for yet another delay in the case, the judge said they couldn't have one and the case would proceed as previously scheduled. They've also filed their quarterly financial report for Q1 2005 (the 10Q) bringing themselves back into NASDAQ regulation compliance, so they probably won't now get delisted and their SCOX ticker symbol will lose the red "E" soon.

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.

Re:Legalese... I hate this stuff.

[eddy]

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.

Re:Background to the case

[Karma Farmer]

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.

Re:Explain

[JohnnyGTO]

http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 &q=IANAL

EXPLANATION HERE

[Spy der Mann]

Ex-parte motion:

"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-defini tions.php/US/US-EX_PARTE.htm
)

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 ;-) )

Re:EXPLANATION HERE

[myowntrueself]

Thank *you*!

I tried putting it through babelfish, but apparently that doesn't work with legalese.

Re:EXPLANATION HERE

[oGMo]

Hmm, babelfish is a good idea. Perhaps some other language, like German, can clear up matters. Since I don't speak German, though, I'll have to translate it back to English again and see:

The court sinks to shift the audition. Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ex Parte movement SCO's IS REFUSED for shifting April 21, 2005 argument on SCO's Zusatzantrag its objection. Additional to the auxiliary request of the audition SCO's its objection and SCO's signs it, around the joggle of Samuel Palmisano at April 21, 2005 to force audition, the involved ones COMMUNICATED hereby that the court is also concerning the argument the involved one hears, the orders specifying be suggested.

So, the court is sinking to shift an audition. This must mean Battleship, because in Battleship you sink things. That ought to Zusatzantrag SCO's joggle. I'm not sure this is clear enough. Let's get a few more languages' opinions:

As for courthouse? ' Capacity of ? ' Move? ' It goes. As for that following to the , the EX moving SCO' of this Parte of the C$par; It is ordered; April 21st, 2005 years? ' The S SCO' which it moves; Argument; The s-Zusatzantrag is refused objection. SCO' ' In addition to the demand for addition ones of the capacity which you hear; As for S in sign objection and SCO' It does; Is fixing of the contract where the judgment place is proposed or, in the question which everyone's authorized personnel hears discussion theory and thing S April 21 when is, as for you to the power which it should run to 2005 from the Samuel Palmisano densely due to the ? ' Capacity of the , the authorized personnel to transmit.

Aha! With German, French, and Japanese combines, this appears to be a message... from the FUTURE! Unfortunately some information appears to have been lost, but from this it looks like the courthouse is gone ("As for the courthouse? [...] It goes."), perhaps from battleship? 2005 years in the future, on April 21st, SCO has given an order of some kind. An unknown entity, S (or "Thing S"), is involved. It seems a contract is involved, with a theory of some sort, and they're running from Samuel Palmisano (who has perhaps travelled into the future to take care of this). Unfortunately the last line is garbled, or we'd know exactly how many more people SCO intends to transmit from the future.

Stay tuned!

Ok, lets see if I'm reading this right...

[grassy_knoll]

From Groklaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200504130 91534173

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:

• SCO asks for a delay so they can review all the code they got from IBM.
  
• The judge just told them to get stuffed.
  
• The trial now enters the "put up or shut up" phase.
  

Did I get that right?

Translation

[Phocas]

Translation from legalese into English:

Judge Kimball issued an order // Judge Kimball made a decision

regarding SCO's Ex Parte Motion to Adjourn the April 21, 2005 Argument on SCO's Motion to Amend its Complaint // 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.

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."

Re:10Q -- HA!

[GrabtharsHammer]

My favourite part of the 10Q filing is in 10Qa, under "Other Assets".

It reads:

Goodwill: --

As in, none left.

Randomly generated by those crazy MIT kids?

[Mustang Matt]

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 trial hasn't started yet

[Xtifr]

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. :)