|
Authored by wayneborean on Oct 21, 2015 12:24:24 GMT
Yesterday I happened to be up in midtown so I went to the Federal Court building to check again. Normally, the security folks ask what you're there for as you go through security; they didn't yesterday, maybe they've seen me enough to start making assumptions. Anyway - the Court is still there; Judge Nuffer is still there; he still has an active case load. (And, I suppose, an inactive case load as well.) But, sure enough, there's nothing new on SCO Group v. International Business Machines, 2:03cv00294. So, that means that nobody wants to make the next move, because ___________. ( You fill in the blank - I've tried, and all of my ideas are known to be wrong already.) Because the Utah court has decided that the whole case is stupid, and a complete waste of time? And therefore the Utah court has decided to simply stall, until the bankruptcy court does what it should have done *years* ago and close down SCO? I can wish, anyway... That would be wonderful, from a certain point of view, but the court isn't allowed to decide things that way. The court has to have evidence. The court has a lot of evidence that the case is the results of bad decisions by The SCO Group, but there's still a tiny chance that The SCO Group could be partly right, and collect something from IBM. Like say, five dollars.... Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Nov 8, 2015 18:03:01 GMT
The suspense is killing me.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Nov 9, 2015 0:19:22 GMT
Wayne, stay calm. One should not forget that it took Judge Nuffer 15 months to get around to reaching a decision regarding IBM's last motion for PSJ [IBM-1226], and all he did was add a few edits to IBM's original proposed order. Who knows how long it will take this time before he comes back to life?
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Nov 10, 2015 13:10:38 GMT
Wayne, stay calm. One should not forget that it took Judge Nuffer 15 months to get around to reaching a decision regarding IBM's last motion for PSJ [IBM-1226], and all he did was add a few edits to IBM's original proposed order. Who knows how long it will take this time before he comes back to life? I hope not that long. What bothers me is that there hasn't been any filing by IBM to refute SCO.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Nov 10, 2015 23:04:33 GMT
Wayne, stay calm. One should not forget that it took Judge Nuffer 15 months to get around to reaching a decision regarding IBM's last motion for PSJ [IBM-1226], and all he did was add a few edits to IBM's original proposed order. Who knows how long it will take this time before he comes back to life? I hope not that long. What bothers me is that there hasn't been any filing by IBM to refute SCO. Yeah, that's bothering me, too. It feels like the IBM suddenly forgot that the case existed. Given the quality of representation that IBM has, though, that can't be the situation. I suspect/hope that it's more along the lines of "never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake", but I don't actually know that. It would sure be nice to see something happen...
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Nov 11, 2015 19:49:02 GMT
I think if IBM responds now they risk a wrathful reminder of the filing deadline (from either or both Judge Nuffer and SCO). I think that they're probably relying on the fact that Nuffer is familiar with SCO's hijinks in the past, and that SCO's most recent response could be pretty easily shot down in the next courtroom confrontation (whenever THAT is going to be...).
But I'm running out of breath to hold while waiting...
(update: "and that their response" changed to "and that SCO's response" - just to make things somewhat clearer...)
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Nov 13, 2015 4:10:07 GMT
And I've never been good at patience.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Dec 30, 2015 20:02:36 GMT
OK, dumb question: Is there anything that we (as non-legal types - wait, I should probably rephrase that, shouldn't I...) can do to push this forward? Perhaps reminding Hizzoner somehow that this case is still on his docket? I admit it - I'm impatient. I know. But still, this zombie of a case SHOULD have been over a very long time ago...
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Dec 31, 2015 3:20:09 GMT
OK, dumb question: Is there anything that we (as non-legal types - wait, I should probably rephrase that, shouldn't I...) can do to push this forward? Perhaps reminding Hizzoner somehow that this case is still on his docket? I admit it - I'm impatient. I know. But still, this zombie of a case SHOULD have been over a very long time ago... I'm totally unsure of this. Anyone with some legal background here? Wayne
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jan 8, 2016 20:49:22 GMT
OK, dumb question: Is there anything that we (as non-legal types - wait, I should probably rephrase that, shouldn't I...) can do to push this forward? Perhaps reminding Hizzoner somehow that this case is still on his docket? I admit it - I'm impatient. I know. But still, this zombie of a case SHOULD have been over a very long time ago... I'm totally unsure of this. Anyone with some legal background here? Wayne Since that question seems to be being answered with a resounding silence, I'll try to clarify. Is it considered "bad form" to send email to a judge's office reminding them of a case on their docket (particularly when said case seems to be gathering a hefty coat of dust)? How about to call that office and query for scheduling? Make social media posts (which I can't do since I avoid almost all social media like the plague, but I still have to ask)? I'm just anxious to see this moving again; mostly since it's been dragging on for ENTIRELY too long in the first place, but also because of the impact that a final judgement could have on a rather large number of tech issues.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Jan 9, 2016 16:15:20 GMT
No legal background here - but I'm sure Judge Nuffer is well aware that the case is on his docket. As a reminder, he has 5 motions and 1 objection to rule on, each with a memorandum, opposition, and reply, some over 60 pages in length. Some of SCO's filings refer to other filings for motions that have since been dismissed or resolved, but the Judge may wish to look at those too. Further, he has to read the transcripts of the hearing in 2007 - three days, each day being 100 pages. Remember also that IBM submitted over 500 exhibits, and SCO presumably did the same. Not to mention all the case law that each cites and may need to be searched. All this for a Judge who is coming into the case stone cold. Yes, this case has dragged on for far too long but I don't think there is anyway we can speed it up.
As an aside, which tech issues do you think a final judgment will impact? I rather think the Novell decision took care of the big ones.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Jan 10, 2016 0:09:15 GMT
All this for a Judge who is coming into the case stone cold. Yes, this case has dragged on for far too long but I don't think there is anyway we can speed it up. Not stone cold. Iirc, he worked on the case many moons ago, as a magistrate Judge. So, he will certainly know *something* about it ...
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jan 29, 2016 16:43:11 GMT
Kind of off-topic, but Ubersoft has a really funny series about a judge... Link goes to the first strip in the series.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jan 29, 2016 20:53:53 GMT
that'd be funnier if it wasn't so plausible...
|
|
Gerard
Guest
|
Authored by Gerard on Feb 6, 2016 20:15:24 GMT
docket 1159 is online on Groklaw: Order granting docket 782 filed by IBM partial judgement on unfair competition claims.
|
|