Daimler's very entertaining brief lives up to Daimler's track record of being the most consistently aggressive (and most successful, so far) of SCO's opponents.
Here are some samples from Daimler's brief (I'm hoping someone else will type up the full text):
In conclusion, Daimler states that this motion is so ridiculous that Judge Chabot should not only deny it, but also order SCO to pay the cost of preparing the opposition memo:
I can't wait to find out whether Judge Chabot did that. Alas, I know it will probably be a couple weeks yet before I have the video of the hearing, or the written version of any order that was made at it.
At one point (page 3 footnote 2), I think Daimler lost its head in the excitement when it claimed that, in Michigan, a case cannot be stayed pending another case if there is even one respect in which the two cases are not identical. I haven't looked at the cases each side cites, but SCO seems to do a good job of jumping on that mistake. Of course, Daimler's argument can stand without that point, and it seems that SCO still couldn't find a single case to cite in which the plaintiff successfully sought a stay.
SCO admits by silence that it has indeed missed all the scheduled deadlines in the case, but it blames the whole existence of the case in the first place on Daimler's tardiness.
That would be the same tardiness that SCO wants to be excused from proving at trial.
Menu~~ Submit Article
~~ create account
~~ Front Page
~~ General Articles
~~ IP Articles
~~ SCO v World Articles
~~ Microsoft Articles
~~ grok*/OSRM Articles
~~ IP-wars.net Site Articles
~~ View All Articles
~~ Standard Operating Procedures
~~ Operating Instructions (aka FAQ's)