|
Authored by wol on Nov 26, 2017 20:56:54 GMT
Unfortunately, this seems typical of the American system :-(
Judges are elected (a fair few of them, at least), and others the appointment is a political hot potato.
Okay, our British system isn't that much better, but we don't seem to get blatant abuse like this, not least because the threat of "awarding attorney fees" is a real danger in our system, and almost unheard of in the American system.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Dec 3, 2017 23:33:11 GMT
SCO's reply to IBM's request for an en banc hearing is in. The full PDF can be found up on my dropbox again (and hopefully it actually WORKS this time...). SCO (or probably more correctly BSF...) isn't going to go quietly into that good night. The highlights of their response (from the headings): - THE COPYRIGHT ACT DOES NOT PREEMPT UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS BASED ON THE "EXTRA ELEMENT" OF BREACH OF A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP
- "Bad Faith" Under New York Unfair Competition Law Is Not Equivalent to "Scienter" for Porposes of Copyright Preemption
- Courts Look to Substance Over Labels in Assessing Whether the Copyright Act Preempts Misappropriation Claims
- The Copyright Act Does Not Preempt an Unfair Competition Claim Based on Breach of a Confidential Relationship
- THE PANEL CORRECTLY HELD THAT SCO'S UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIM CONTAINS THE "EXTRA ELEMENT" OF BAD FAITH BREACH OF A CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP
- THE CASES IBM CITES DO NOT IN ANY RESPECT UNDERMINE THE PANEL'S HOLDING
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Dec 4, 2017 21:15:28 GMT
It appears that I was wrong. SCO did *not* try to appeal something they lost in this response. That means that this piece is all that's left. And, if I understand correctly, this piece is about AIX, not Linux, and therefore Linux is *finally* out of the case.
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Dec 5, 2017 14:47:23 GMT
I am torn between two desires. One is the desire for this whole charade to finally be done, and the other is for SCOG to be thwarted in whatever they attempt. The only way to deny SCOG in this request to NOT have a rehearing, is for IBM's request to be granted.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Dec 5, 2017 17:09:57 GMT
Well, IBM winning this appeal is the fastest route to the whole charade finally being done, so you need not be torn at all.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jan 11, 2018 19:58:11 GMT
There's a new opinion from Jan 2, document on my dropbox HERE or from the 10th Circuit HERE (no idea how long that link will last). Now, the first part of the document is fairly easy to understand:
but I'm embarrassed to admit that I don't see the changes in the "amended decision attached to this order". Maybe one of you with better eagle-eyes than I...?
|
|
nsomos
Veteran Member
Posts: 140
|
Authored by nsomos on Jan 11, 2018 20:28:08 GMT
If you could provide links to the prior version of the document as well, then there is a better chance someone might do the comparison you desire.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jan 12, 2018 20:40:14 GMT
If you could provide links to the prior version of the document as well, then there is a better chance someone might do the comparison you desire. Grrrr - just peachy. I posted the original order back on 10/30, but it's the same link as the 10th Circuit link in my previous post (the one labeled "no idea how long that link will last"). I'm pretty sure I saved a local copy, I'll check tonight when I get home.
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Jan 16, 2018 23:25:05 GMT
swmech,
Hopefully you still have a local copy. In any case, the Tenth decided to help SCO by rewriting its claims. Apparently, SCO has now accused IBM of fraud, even thought that word is not used in either its 2nd Amended Complaint, its Opening Brief, or in the Tenth's original Opinion. If you search for "fraud" in the new version (10 times), you will find what has changed.
It appears that SCO is now being represented by the law firm of Boies, Schiller, Flexner, and Ebel.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jan 18, 2018 20:12:10 GMT
Apologies, all - for the last few nights I've been getting in late and basically falling into bed. I'm still pretty sure I've got a local copy of the October order and will get it up on dropbox asap.
And SCO has been represented by BSF (now "&E) since the beginning, hasn't it...? (much to their disappointment, as the $billions haven't been rolling in after all)
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jan 18, 2018 20:23:03 GMT
Or I could smack my head against the wall and say that the 10/30 ruling is out on Justia. I just saved a copy of the PDF from there out on my DropBox as well, here. The recent order on the appeal is on Justia as well, here.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jan 26, 2018 20:07:07 GMT
Ebel? LOL. Read that as Evil, had to reread the sentence.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Apr 6, 2018 23:36:02 GMT
Well, if "it's alive", it's sure not moving very fast. Here we are, two and a half months after the strange reply to the request for an *en banc* hearing, and... what?
Is there an *en banc* hearing, or isn't there? If so, are we just waiting for it to be scheduled? Or did the court's reply say "IBM, do you really want that? You're not going to get anything by doing it", and IBM just let it drop? If so, are we headed back to Utah? If so, when?
What's actually the current state of play?
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Apr 7, 2018 16:53:18 GMT
MSS2 -
The case is back in Utah. There was no en banc review; all that Ebel did was to revise the original opinion to address the issues raised by IBM.
SCO and IBM want Nuffer to rule on the remaining SJ motions regarding IBM's counterclaims (2 by SCO, 1 by IBM). SCO also wants to revive its motion on Spoliation (unclear what that would accomplish). I think these rulings are what we are waiting for now, although Nuffer may want additional briefing first.
|
|
MSS2
Guest
|
Authored by MSS2 on Apr 9, 2018 16:12:22 GMT
Thanks, sk43999.
Is there an online place we can watch for motions without a Pacer account, or is Pacer the only game in town?
|
|