![]() |
Hello and Welcome from United States to the UNIX and Linux Forums! Thank You for Visiting and Joining Our Global Community.
|
|
google unix.com
|
|||||||
| Forums | Register | Forum Rules | Links | Albums | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| UNIX and Linux RSS News The latest news covering Solaris, RedHat, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, HP-UX, AIX, BSD, Apple OS X and more! |
More UNIX and Linux Forum Topics You Might Find Helpful
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Apple Accuses Psystar of Destroying Evidence; and in AutoZone, the 24th Hearing is Ca | iBot | UNIX and Linux RSS News | 0 | 08-14-2009 02:45 AM |
| Hearing on SCO's Motion to Amend Complaint in AutoZone: Aug. 24 | iBot | UNIX and Linux RSS News | 0 | 07-14-2009 12:00 AM |
| September 22, 2008 AutoZone Status Hearing transcript | iBot | UNIX and Linux RSS News | 0 | 03-12-2009 06:30 PM |
| New Filings: BK and AutoZone | iBot | UNIX and Linux RSS News | 0 | 03-12-2009 06:30 PM |
| 2-Disk X window embedded Linux November 1st 2008 (Soundproofing branch) | iBot | Software Releases - RSS News | 0 | 11-03-2008 10:50 AM |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|||||
|
Hearing in AutoZone set for November 2 at 9 AM
There is a hearing set for November 2 at 9 AM in the AutoZone case, specifically on AutoZone's Motion to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Claims for Actual Damages, Statutory Damages and Attorneys' Fees. I surely hope somebody can attend.
And the second filing of the day is a stipulation to extend time for SCO to respond to the motion. Indeed, they have an uphill climb since AutoZone requires them to prove they actually own the copyrights, an uphill climb made more so by Novell filing for review en banc of that very issue. If you recall, at the hearing on September 22, 2008 they discussed how to go forward, and the judge basically said that they'd go forward with the ruling in Utah, and while SCO could argue that the court was wrong, and ask for a judgment nevertheless alternatively and then after all the appeals, if Utah was wrong, they'd have to redo. But for now, it's Utah's decision that is the one SCO has to deal with, because Novell filed for a rehearing en banc, and as I understand the rules, that puts us back to Go, with the picture being that the case is on appeal, with no final appellate decision. And SCO has to prove a complete chain of title, and I don't think they can. I don't think anybody can, actually. USL distributed the early code without copyright notices. More... |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|