|
Authored by sk43999 on Jul 21, 2015 23:59:55 GMT
cpeterson, I think the key word in item (3) of Nuffer's request is not "remaining" but rather "additional", which does not appear in item (2). It would appear that SCO decided that this was an invitation to file some new material. Note that the heading on p. 6 of SCO's Statement reads, "Originating from SCO’s Statement of Additional Material Facts". ? - there is no such Statement or document. In actuality, SCO has taken some of its facts from its original Opposition and edited them, sometimes to recast them to read quite different from the original. No wonder IBM refused to respond to them. Not all in this section were edited - too much to digest at one go.
|
|
charlieturner
Veteran Member
Above ground, and still breathing.
Posts: 37
|
Authored by charlieturner on Jul 22, 2015 0:34:55 GMT
Woohoo! Finally some activity on this case, and this site!! Thanks all, and keep it coming.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 22, 2015 18:31:39 GMT
Woohoo! Finally some activity on this case, and this site!! Thanks all, and keep it coming. Charlie, Maybe you missed this post. Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 22, 2015 18:46:22 GMT
As an aside, I do not believe that the words 'Good Faith' and 'SCO' belong in the same sentence...
This paragraph is disturbing, and I suspect may draw fire from the judge. Effectively what SCO is saying is that there are two different corporations named SCO (true) and that they are NOT going to differentiate between them!
It wouldn't be hard to refer to them as SCO1 and SCO2. But by confusing them they might, just might gain an advantage, or one royally pissed off judge.
I'll be back later, I'm waiting for my morning pain pills to take effect so that I can sit at my computer. There are some things in the filing that I want to discuss by section, and an iPad just doesn't cut it for that type of work.
Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 23, 2015 0:24:58 GMT
sk43999, I was thinking the same thing - the "additional" sure sounded like something SCO would like to pour sauce on. However, as I got to chasing it out, it turns out that the wording comes from the "United States District Court, District of Utah, Rules of Practice, Civil Rules" (abbreviated DUCivR) in rule DUCivR 56-1(c)(2)(C): The items that SCO listed in this filing are not new (at least, I don't think they are new) - they appear to be from SCO's docket # 909, which was entitled and has a TOC section labeled ... all in accordance with the local rules. However, you might want to go to PJ's Groklaw entry containing the text of that filing. It was originally filed as docket #907, which was pulled back because it was improperly redacted. (PDF with removable boxes pasted over the text.) If you go down into the article's comments section, you'll find some argument over whether it was really necessary for PJ to take down the improperly redacted version. Our own user Wol summed it up nicely there: So here's another attempt by SCO to get the IBM emails out in public. They previously failed to properly redact; prior to that they "mistakenly" read some of them out loud in court. More info in PJ's associated article (it's separate from the one linked above.) So, this is multiple times they've improperly released sealed material. I wonder if that's why IBM refused to cooperate?
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Jul 23, 2015 1:56:42 GMT
cpeterson,
Yes, that also explains why Judge Nuffer wrote the docket order the way he did, which gives SCO zero reason to think it was allowed to edit the original statements from its Opposition.
Regarding 907 (and 908 and 1097 and several other filings that needed preserving), I made sure to cache a copy way back when. By comparing 907 against 1158, it is clear that SCO has edited most of its statements of additional fact in 1158, either removing emotive or conclusory statements that didn't belong there in the first place or adding new material. I think IBM was willing to go along originally but somehow they couldn't agree on the way to present the new material, so IBM backed out.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 23, 2015 3:29:21 GMT
sk43999 -
I never saw 907 - that was before I got involved in Groklaw. Can you tell for sure whether or not there were items in 1158 that were under the phony-redact in 907?
|
|
|
Authored by sk43999 on Jul 23, 2015 10:34:04 GMT
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 24, 2015 21:27:53 GMT
It's the 24th of July holiday here now. ("Pioneer Day" in Utah.)
I'm thinking Judge Nuffer probably took the week off, else we would have seen some fireworks before now.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 25, 2015 6:48:26 GMT
It's the 24th of July holiday here now. ("Pioneer Day" in Utah.) I'm thinking Judge Nuffer probably took the week off, else we would have seen some fireworks before now. Well, I'm sure we'll be entertained when he gets back. SCO has a huge problem. Utah is a rather small state population wise, so there aren't that many Federal judges. By now everyone has heard of them Everyone has heard of Darl and Ralph too. It sucks to be them when they have to show up in court! Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 26, 2015 16:55:13 GMT
Just re-read Daniel Lyons' infamous Forbes article, What SCO Wants, SCO Gets. Obviously SCO wanted to enter bankruptcy... Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Aug 4, 2015 18:24:56 GMT
Still waiting...
I've been checking Groklaw to see if anything shows up (indirect, I know, but I can't afford PACER). I've been checking about every 4 hours. Finally I looked at Judge Nuffer's calendar - doesn't look like he has anything scheduled until Thursday. Maybe I'll take it easy a little bit... I'll only check every 8 hours.
Bad news for when he gets back: his first case up is the Utah Republican Party v. Gov. Gary Herbert (R Ut). Having a case of politicians suing politicians over politics seems likely to put anyone in a bad mood.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Aug 5, 2015 14:07:42 GMT
Still waiting... I've been checking Groklaw to see if anything shows up (indirect, I know, but I can't afford PACER). I've been checking about every 4 hours. Finally I looked at Judge Nuffer's calendar - doesn't look like he has anything scheduled until Thursday. Maybe I'll take it easy a little bit... I'll only check every 8 hours. Bad news for when he gets back: his first case up is the Utah Republican Party v. Gov. Gary Herbert (R Ut). Having a case of politicians suing politicians over politics seems likely to put anyone in a bad mood. Tried to sign up for Pacer (I understood your got to read the titles for free) and got stuck when it asked for my Zip Code. Wayne
|
|
Jim
Guest
|
Authored by Jim on Aug 5, 2015 15:21:19 GMT
Just checked PACER, nothing new since 1158
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Aug 5, 2015 22:33:37 GMT
Just checked PACER, nothing new since 1158 Thanks for the cross check - I've been worried about the possibility that someone over at Groklaw had gone on vacation as well, and we might not see an update in a timely fashion. After Wayne's note, I signed up for my own PACER account to see what I could get for free. It didn't look like I could scan the docket and be safe from charges, but then I'm an extreme newbie. Any way to do that without getting dinged?
|
|