Autozone order was made Friday

Message ID: 165404
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-10 16:15:00
Subject: Autozone order was made Friday

The order resulting from the hearing four weeks ago in the
Autozone case was finally filed on Friday. The image isn't
on PACER yet, but the caption is:

> ORD mtn for stay (#10) is GRANTED. ptys shal submit a ltr
> every 90 dys. mtn for transfer (#9) is DENIED w/o
> prejudice, (see doc). cpys dist.

You can find a complete docket listing at scofacts.org.
There was also a letter from SCO filed August 3 (the caption
is just "ltr obo P"). No image is available for that
either.

P.S. Don't tell PJ that the motion to transfer venue was
denied (just as originally reported in this space) -- you
might do damage to Linux. See messages 154850 and 155174.
(She still refuses to acknowledge that the motion was never
moot.)

Message ID: 165410
Posted By: lumber_cartel
Posted On: 2004-08-10 16:24:00
Subject: Re: Autozone order was made Friday

>> You can find a complete docket listing at scofacts.org.

OK, I give up. Where?

Message ID: 165412
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-10 16:28:00
Subject: Re: Autozone order was made Friday

Sorry the late-breaking stuff on the home page isn't
well-organized. The link is "Complete docket listing as of
2004-08-09" under the "SCO vs. AutoZone" heading midway down
the page. The URL is scofacts.org/autozone-docket.html

Message ID: 165431
Posted By: darlmclied
Posted On: 2004-08-10 16:54:00
Subject: Re: Autozone order was made Friday

I was very impressed at first with the solidarity of the Linux "community"
>>>

heh ...
heh ...

Ever hear of Andre H?

Ever read one of Linus' more cutting flames?

You don't leave the Winblows monoculture to go to another monoculture.

You're supposed to STFU in a cathedral,

NOT IN A BAZAAR.

Message ID: 165462
Posted By: span1sh1nqu1s1t1on
Posted On: 2004-08-10 18:05:00
Subject: Re: Autozone order was made Friday

There's a difference between solidarity and groupthink. Both Al and PJ have solidarity in the goal of defeating SCO, but it doesn't have to mean there's groupthink with everyone humming the same tune all the time. If there's a lack of individual responsibility or creative, Linux will turn into Windows with everyone in Redmond humming the same tune and a total lack of creativity. I think things are more troubling when everyone is humming the same thing all the time as you just get paralysis, but I think disagreements over peripheral issues expressing alternative ideas rather show the health a community/organization/etc.

Message ID: 167006
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-13 19:27:00
Subject: AZ order: SCO must state basis first

Judge Jones's August 6 order is now available at
scofacts.org. It took 25 days from the hearing for this to
be finalized, and you can see several last-minute changes
written in by hand by Judge Jones. I wrote at the time of
the hearing that it seemed AutoZone may have in effect lost
the motion for a stay or more definite statement, insofar as
Judge Jones was possibly going to allow the case to proceed
to discovery without waiting for any other cases and without
getting any further information from SCO as to what the hell
it was talking about. As I later wrote in the parent
message a couple weeks ago:

> It seems here that the actual motion for preliminary
> injunction would not have to be written until after
> discovery. Unclear, however, is whether SCO would somehow
> be required, at the same time it propounds discovery, to
> explain what theory SCO's going on, and how each discovery
> request is predicate to preliminary injunction.

It seems AutoZone mostly won this battle, by getting a
requirement that the first thing that has to happen, within
15 days of the order, is that SCO present "a statement of
the basis for its claim for preliminary injunctive relief
and the nature of the relief it seeks on those claims".
There will then be a 90-day discovery period, and SCO's
motion for an injunction will be due twenty days thereafter.

Unfortunately, the statement of the basis for the claim (due
August 6+15=21, which I guess will be interpreted as really
being due Monday August 23) is only required to be served on
AutoZone, not filed with the court, so we may not get to see
it.

Message ID: 167013
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-13 19:41:00
Subject: Re: AZ order: SCO must state basis first

> the first thing that has to happen, within 15 days of the
> order, is that SCO present "a statement of the basis for
> its claim for preliminary injunctive relief and the nature
> of the relief it seeks on those claims". There will then
> be a 90-day discovery period, and SCO's motion for an
> injunction will be due twenty days thereafter.

Oops, the discovery period ends 90 days from the order, not
from the statement. Here's a schedule (with non-business
days slid forward to the next business day):

2004-08-23 Mon: Statement due from SCO
2004-09-20 Mon: Deadline for both sides to propound discovery
2004-11-04 Thu: Completion of discovery
2004-11-22 Mon: Motion for preliminary injunction due from SCO
2004-12-27 Mon: Autozone's opposition brief due

The order doesn't mention a deadline for SCO's reply brief,
so I assume that it will be one week later, which would be
Monday 2005-01-03. All of this is subject to further
extensions, of course.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "al_petrofsky", "lumber_cartel", "darlmclied", "span1sh1nqu1s1t1on" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.