|
Authored by sk43999 on Sept 24, 2017 22:39:46 GMT
OK, it has now been SIX MONTHS since the hearing. How long does it take to get a decision? Is this normal? (No, it's not. It's SCO. But is it normal, even in a messy case, for it to take six months from a hearing to a decision?) Yes, it is normal. The last appeal took over 7 months to be decided, so it is still to early to start fretting. I'm giving it to the end of the year.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Sept 25, 2017 19:11:38 GMT
Just checked, nothing new on Pacer (last was on 3/22).
Sigh...
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Sept 27, 2017 20:41:18 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by tiger99 on Oct 7, 2017 16:39:11 GMT
<grumble>
Unfortunately the link no longer points to anywhere near the relevant article. I do wish that others, i.e. deathrattlesports.com and more like them, would configure their web sites properly. A link remains pointing to the right place in perpetuity on Groklaw, or the BBC, or many other sites who process large number of articles. No need to run out of URLs, as an arbitrarily long, and never re-used, numeric ID can easily be allocated to every item. It isn't rocket science.
Apart from that, progress is disappointing. The rotting corpse should have been incinerated quite some time ago.
<\grumble>
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 12, 2017 19:28:17 GMT
Not really breaking news any more (from April of this year), but still interesting. www.technologybreakingnews.com/2017/04/sco-group-claims-ibm-destroyed-evidence/Notable quote (near the end): “This case has had so many false leads to it, what is one more?” asked Thomas Carey, a partner with Bromberg & Sunstein in Boston. “It has all been a bunch of hooey,” he told LinuxInsider. “SCO’s actions throughout this lawsuit have had the earmarks of someone with no case but a lot of energy.”
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Oct 12, 2017 19:44:01 GMT
Two and a half years ago I started this thread, and yes, it is still alive!
As an aside, I’ve been hired to edit a Zombie anthology. Odd that.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Oct 13, 2017 13:42:31 GMT
Not certain if the content to this following article is same as the one mentioned previously by swmech and grumbled about by tiger99 ... www.zdnet.com/article/suse-linux-at-25/For all I know it might have been the source for the deathrattlesports.com article
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 13, 2017 19:26:52 GMT
Not the same article, no. Still interesting, though.
I've tried to find another link to the deathrattlesports one, but itseems lost to the ether at this point.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 17, 2017 5:51:41 GMT
New order in the case, dated October 16. Somebody named Sarah Gallant has requested the MP3 recording of the March 22 hearing. The one-page PDF is available here. The order's text is as follows:
Before KELLY, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This matter is before the court on Movant Sarah Gallant’s request to release the oral argument recording for the hearing held in this appeal on March 22, 2017. Upon consideration, the motion is granted. The Clerk is directed to forward, via email, the MP3 recording of the oral argument hearing. That recording shall be forwarded to the all parties to the appeal. Entered for the Court <signature> ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
Sarah, if you're among the audience here we're dying to hear that recording.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Oct 19, 2017 1:20:39 GMT
swmech (and anybody else): So why don't we ask for the recording? Pick whoever has the best legal credentials and/or knows best how to phrase such things, craft a request that's as similar to Sarah's as we can figure out from the order, and submit the request? Given this precedent, they might be hard-pressed to say no. By the way, I still don't see that order, two days later. I've been trying to keep up via www.unitedstatescourts.org/federal/ca10/16-4040/ which doesn't show any activity since March
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 19, 2017 20:12:51 GMT
> so why don't we ask for the recording? I thought of that too, but I've no idea how. That's why I hoped (probably futilely) that Sarah Gallant was watching these boards. > I still don't see that order, two days later. I set up a Pacer account and subscribed to notifications for the case. This was the first notification that's come across since then. Pacer isn't free; it's 10 cents per "page" returned, where "page" is the number of physical (paper) pages in the PDF or .DOCX or whatever is returned by your queries and activities. If you don't reach a certain amount in a quarter (and I'm drawing a blank on how much that is...) then the cost is waived.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Oct 21, 2017 22:19:30 GMT
swmech,
I have a PACER account as well. The limit per quarter is $15, and somehow I have managed to always stay below that. Simply listing the docket generates charges. If there are a zillion plaintiffs, like another case I was interested in, the charges for just the docket listing can balloon. I stopped following that case.
Do you use the RECAP plugin? I do. That is how unitedstatescourts.org gets the docket listing and documents so others (like MSS2) can follow along. I think at least one of the filings there (either IBM's brief or SCO's reply brief) originated with me.
There are two pdf copies of requests for audio recordings from the last SCO appeal over at Groklaw. Both were granted. There is also a pdf copy of a request for a recording from Wayne Gray in the 1st SCO appeal that was denied. The first two might serve as useful templates for anyone who wished to try. I believe everything is handled via email.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Oct 30, 2017 19:34:18 GMT
And we finally have a ruling. A PDF is available at www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/16/16-4040.pdf. The ruling is 40 pages long, with an additional three-page dissenting opinion from Judge Bacharach. I haven't read the entire thing (I find wading through court legalese to be even more difficult than reading Perl code...), but the court's conclusion is: The district court’s order awarding IBM summary judgment on the
misappropriation claim is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The district court’s order awarding IBM summary judgment on the tortious
interference claims is AFFIRMED. The district court’s order denying SCO leave to
amend its complaint is also AFFIRMED.
It looks like this thing still lives, and is heading BACK for trial on the summary judgement. Sigh...
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Oct 30, 2017 19:40:36 GMT
Well, at least the trial on summary judgment is where we have more people who can attend hearings...
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Oct 30, 2017 20:59:22 GMT
So, if I read this correctly, Linux is completely off the hook, and the only remaining issue is code written by SCO that was included in AIX.
|
|