charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Feb 11, 2016 3:09:24 GMT
Because you've been here and at Groklaw for a long time?
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Feb 18, 2016 19:06:01 GMT
Thinking back on what happened to 782 and 783 - I had it sitting right there in front of my face and didn't see it. I'd even chased it out and referenced it and I STILL didn't see it. OK, it makes me feel good that I'm not thinking like a lawyer yet. (Yeah. And you would not BELIEVE how sour those grapes would have been.) Aaaand - thanks, says Judge Nuffer, but - no. That won't cut it. Docket # 1157 is entered as a non-document text only entry. Then I went on and talked about the applicable rule: OK, I just went in and added the boldface to DUCivR 7-1(d). " Failure to respond timely to a motion..." - yes, I think that is applicable; there was a response given, but it wasn't adequate to the standard demanded, and SCO didn't make additional efforts to bring their response up to the judge's expectations. One might imagine SCO replying, "Well, IBM's not cooperating with us! Their fault! We've done all we can!" Unfortunately for them... "... may result in the court's granting the motion ..." - The consequence of non-compliance isn't set up so that the ruling on the motion goes against the non-responding party. It's built so that the failure to respond results in GRANTING the motion; hence, the onus is entirely on the non-moving party ("no pun intended" would be less than honest here) to get their remaining evidentiary ducks in a row and make sure that the judge gets a response which complies with the court's order. ... without further notice." - Judge Nuffer gave us SIX (6) FREAKING MONTHS of "without further notice" and we didn't recognize it. We all missed the significance - I excuse myself (notwithstanding the foregoing, I kick myself anyway) for not being possesed of legal training. For SCO - I don't know. Maybe it was the best possible outcome - if they had produced an adequate response, Judge Nuffer could have ruled on it immediately, and there is no proof - nay, there is hardly a possibility - that the result would have been any different. Anyway... now I'm going to go back out into looking at future possibilities, where I'm fairly consistently wrong, and look into the parts of IBM's counterclaims which have to do with the GPL. Might we still see something required there? It might not even be monetary - which would mean SCO's lack of assets is no bar... Oh, and by the way - does anyone know how to contact anyone at Groklaw? They need to make a correction on the timeline - docket #1160 is listed as #1158. Just a typo. Looking forward to a week from tomorrow! If the parties agree to certify, this could be IT! END! FINIS! KAPUT! I'll believe it when I see it.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 19, 2016 14:58:21 GMT
I will be eagerly awaiting midnight Monday Feb 20 for SCOs goose to be cooked.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Feb 19, 2016 18:20:02 GMT
> Oh, and by the way - does anyone know how to contact anyone at Groklaw?
Email PJ? I suspect she still reads and uses her pj@grtoklaw.net address. She's dropped off the public radar - doesn't mean she's dropped off the radar completely.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Feb 19, 2016 18:38:52 GMT
cpeterson, if I understand what you're saying correctly, then IBM didn't bother to reply to 1158 because they were pretty sure that it wouldn't fly with Judge Nuffer?
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Feb 19, 2016 20:13:56 GMT
> Oh, and by the way - does anyone know how to contact anyone at Groklaw? Email PJ? I suspect she still reads and uses her pj@grtoklaw.net address. She's dropped off the public radar - doesn't mean she's dropped off the radar completely. Cheers, Wol She responded to me at that address a (rather long) while ago, but well after she stopped actively updating Groklaw. <sniff>
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Feb 26, 2016 21:14:55 GMT
From document 1161 ---- If the parties agree that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, they shall file a motion, including a proposed certification order, on or before Friday, February 26, 2016. If the parties do not agree that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, any party may file a motion limited to ten (10) pages of argument, including a proposed certification order, on or before Friday, February 26, 2016 ----
oooh, oooh, I can hardly wait.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Feb 26, 2016 23:40:14 GMT
From document 1161 ---- If the parties agree that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, they shall file a motion, including a proposed certification order, on or before Friday, February 26, 2016. If the parties do not agree that Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate, any party may file a motion limited to ten (10) pages of argument, including a proposed certification order, on or before Friday, February 26, 2016 ---- oooh, oooh, I can hardly wait. I keep hitting refresh, but it doesn't make midnight get here any faster...
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Feb 27, 2016 3:30:09 GMT
It's over! except it isn't, naturally. From the joint motion to certify, docket # 1162: Let's get on with the appeal! And if SCO wins anything there, then IBM gets a shot at sucking it back out of them, which is, of course, maximization of judicial efficiency. I guess. What, you thought we were going to quit doing this? Are you nuts?
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Feb 27, 2016 13:48:23 GMT
Here is the link to the Proposed Order. Groklaw has it saved correctly, but their link doesn't go to the right place.
|
|
charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Feb 27, 2016 23:18:05 GMT
If I read that correctly, SCO lawyers are throwing in the towel?
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Feb 28, 2016 0:55:47 GMT
If I read that correctly, SCO lawyers are throwing in the towel? Don't think so. Judge Nuffer is saying "I have nothing more to say. If you want to appeal, get on with it". What everybody (apart from SCOG maybe) is thinking is "the quicker this is over the better". SCOG's lawyers can now (a) do nothing, and it will be all over, or (b) appeal, kick it upstairs, and hope the appeal judges take it. Judge Nuffer is banking on either (a) SCOG's lawyers doing nothing, or (b) the appeal judges ignoring it. Cheers, Wol
|
|
charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Feb 28, 2016 2:24:31 GMT
Okay! Thank you. After all of these years, I am still learning how to make sense of this mess.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Feb 28, 2016 2:53:44 GMT
Assuming that the appeal is accepted (and appellate courts seem to want more detail in the final order for Rule 54(b) decisions than what SCO put in the proposed order), presumably SCO will want oral argument. It generally takes 6 months or so to get on the Appeals Court calendar. The next opportunity will be Sept 19-23. Anything happening in Denver around that time?
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Feb 28, 2016 13:07:48 GMT
Okay! Thank you. After all of these years, I am still learning how to make sense of this mess. We all are. I miss PJ. Wayne
|
|