|
Authored by wayneborean on May 21, 2016 14:25:35 GMT
|
|
charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Jun 23, 2016 23:00:09 GMT
Has an date been set for the appeal hearing yet?
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jun 24, 2016 19:14:54 GMT
Not that I've heard/found.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Jun 24, 2016 21:02:40 GMT
The next two sessions are September and November. September's schedule is online at the Tenth and SCO is not on it. Conceivably it could be added if SCO asked the Court nicely, but my guess is that it will roll into November.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Sept 30, 2016 19:09:41 GMT
Nor does it appear to be on the calendar for November. unless I'm missing something. (Current November calendar here) The case seems to have dropped off the face of the earth.
|
|
charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Oct 1, 2016 0:11:28 GMT
Bummer! I've been looking for a good reason for a road trip. Guess I'll just remain patient.
|
|
mss2
Guest
|
Authored by mss2 on Oct 7, 2016 21:18:57 GMT
So what does that mean? The court is putting the case on the slow track, because it has more important things to deal with? Don't they *have* to hear it sooner or later? Is there any limit to how "later" later can be?
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Oct 8, 2016 14:37:00 GMT
The slow pace is not due to the court. For some reason SCO re-ordered a bunch of transcripts, and it took 3 months for them to be delivered. SCO and IBM have each been given an extra month to file their briefs. At this pace the earliest session for oral argument will be January next year. I actually predicted SCO would try to aim for that session, because it coincides with the National Western Stock Show, which would appeal to Darl.
|
|
TheManStan
Guest
|
Authored by TheManStan on Oct 10, 2016 14:33:36 GMT
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Oct 10, 2016 18:12:22 GMT
One interesting thing I saw on that page: SCO filed for permission to seal their opening brief. IBM didn't bother to oppose, but the court denied it. Thanks for that link. Now I can follow the appeals side of this mess.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Nov 14, 2016 22:21:25 GMT
IBM's response was filed on November 2nd.
|
|
Ian Al
Guest
|
Authored by Ian Al on Nov 22, 2016 15:54:41 GMT
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Nov 22, 2016 19:52:00 GMT
If there were a competition for lawsuits with the greatest product of stupidity times elapsed time, I do believe this one might be exceptional. In fact, even if this case isn't totally dead yet, it might already be well in the lead.
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Nov 23, 2016 21:11:23 GMT
If there were a competition for lawsuits with the greatest product of stupidity times elapsed time, I do believe this one might be exceptional. In fact, even if this case isn't totally dead yet, it might already be well in the lead. I think it's got a Loooonnnngggg way to go, actually, to catch up with Jarndyce vs Jarndyce - or rather the real case that this was based on. Iirc, in both the fictional, and the real, case the lawsuit outlived the original protagonists. Cjeers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Nov 29, 2016 1:46:44 GMT
For anyone planning a road trip to Denver, we still don't have a schedule. The next Session of Court is January 17-19, and the latest update to the agenda was posted today on the Tenth's website. SCO/IBM is still conspicuously absent. [Curiously, unlike previous appeals, this time SCO has not filed a "motion to expedite."] If SCO does not make the January session, the next one is in March.
|
|