On TechRepublic: 10 cool USB flash drive tricks
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 37:
Next »
« Previous
Ehm Novell didn't want to go to a different court
SCO did and that motion was denied.
The judge pushed that dates back 6 months not five weeks because of the patent counterclaims by IBM.

From the order (sco-IBM):
" Because IBM's counterclaims were added after the entry of the current Scheduling Order and because the court has declined to bifurcate IBM's patent counterclaims from the remainder of the claims and counterclaims, the court will modify the Scheduling Order. However the court will not modify the Scheduling Order again, absent extremely compelling circumstances.[1] The dates set forth in the previous Scheduling Order are stricken, and the following dates now apply:

EVENT ----------- DEADLINE

Fact Discovery - February 11, 2005
Expert Discovery - April 22, 2005
Initial Report - February 25, 2005
Opposing Experts' Reports - March 11, 2005
Counter-reports - March 25, 2005
Dispositive Motions - May 20, 2005
Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures - September 30, 2005
Special Attorney Conference and Settlement Conference - October 3, 2005
Final Pretrial Conference - October 10, 2005 at 2:30pm
Exchange of proposed jury instructions[2] - September 30, 2005
Filing of proposed jury instructions - October 10, 2005
5-week jury trial - November 1, 2005

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) SCO's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED without prejudice to renew after all dispositive motions have been decided; and (2) SCO's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As set forth above, the court has amended the Scheduling Order, although not to the extent requested by SCO. The dates set forth in the previous Scheduling Order are hereby STRICKEN. "

SCO-Novell:
"For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's (that's SCO) Motion to Remand is DENIED, and Defendant's (Novell)Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's pleading of falsity and GRANTED as to Plaintiff's pleading of special damages. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to amend its Complaint to more specifically plead special damages."

It pays to research.
Posted by: NemesisNL   Posted on: 06/11/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

It's safe to say...  Eggs Ackley_z | 06/11/04
Very interesting to say the least.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/11/04
Ehm Novell didn't want to go to a different court  NemesisNL | 06/11/04
Exceedingly fine  Yagotta B. Kidding | 06/11/04
Not really unexpected.....  Still Lynn | 06/12/04
Bitty goes from twisting stories to lying  zd-spam | 06/14/04
ZDNet FIX YOUR LINKS!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/11/04
Which are broken?  S.Howard-Sarin ZDNet Moderator | 06/11/04
This one was.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/11/04
Linux IS Unix, So SCO Must Be Acquit  Mike Cox | 06/11/04
Right on!  Jay Cash | 06/11/04
Linux IS UNIX ???  Update victim | 06/11/04
How does 6.5 sound  Joe Frisco | 06/11/04
Great South Park reference, Mike  Yagotta B. Kidding | 06/11/04
(NT) . . . so so job . . . 6.2  Plain Logic | 06/11/04
Welcome back Mike  Expatriate US Geek | 06/12/04
6.7  shallow_diver | 06/14/04
Saturday Night Live Reasoning!  sjworth@... | 07/26/04
What is this thing?  The King's Servant | 08/04/04
Very misleading headline  IT_User | 06/11/04
A one sided view I think.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/11/04
One sided? How?  NemesisNL | 06/11/04
If you can't see it, I can't help you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/11/04
One reason you can't help  IT_User | 06/11/04
wow  NemesisNL | 06/11/04
Yep, "weak mind, tunnel vision and sheer arrogance" describes NoAx to a T.  Plain Logic | 06/12/04
Perhaps you have a better source than...  B.O.F.H. | 06/12/04
It is one sided because?  B.O.F.H. | 06/11/04
Looks like you are right  NemesisNL | 06/11/04
"Fan" has nothing to do with it  IT_User | 06/11/04
Here's a third party report on the Novell case  IT_User | 06/11/04
Okay, here it is  IT_User | 06/11/04
Or try eWeek  IT_User | 06/11/04
Read the decision again  Yagotta B. Kidding | 06/11/04
I don't think so  IT_User | 06/11/04
It's a legal way of saying...  Chad_z | 06/14/04
Bottom Line: Ignore the battles - SCO is losing the war !!!  Plain Logic | 06/12/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement

Meet Doc