| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Novell's reply motion on Groklaw
Novell's reply motion on Groklaw
Posted Nov 10, 2004 17:54 UTC (Wed) by maney (subscriber, #12630)Parent article: Novell's reply motion on Groklaw
The dismissal-for-ill-formedness had, itself, pointed out the uphill struggle the SCO gang would face in attempting to get their case going again. Now it seems they have not only failed to make any progress, but have committed what Federal Practice and Procedure describes as a tactical error. Do you think their legal team is really that inept, or did they have no hope of doing more with this case than dragging their heels a little on their way to the gallows?
(Log in to post comments)
Novell's reply motion on Groklaw
Posted Nov 10, 2004 20:01 UTC (Wed) by The_Flatlander (guest, #19245) [Link]
>> Do you think their legal team is really that inept, or did they have no hope of doing more with this case than dragging their heels a little on their way to the gallows? <<
Well, first, both could be true.
Those of us who are not foolish enough to slip off our tin foil head gear believe that this Novell thing went all South for the SCOundrels when Novell moved the case to Federal Court and away from the, (this is just plain crazy talk, you understand), more easily manipulated State court. Once Kimball claimed jurisdiction, then yes, it certainly became an exercise in stalling, foot dragging, and every conceivable form of delay available.
The Flatlander
Hanging may be too good for SCOundrels such as these; a complete waste of rope. Feed 'em to the penguins, I say!
Novell's reply motion on Groklaw
Posted Nov 11, 2004 23:32 UTC (Thu) by bajw (subscriber, #11712) [Link]
They are certainly "fishy" enough to smell like food to a penguin. :)