0-0005Qd-St; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:14:21 -0400
Message-ID: <4688EB89.2070202@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:11:53 -0400
From: Gilliam Lewie <nlnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: fam@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: half-mast missionary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ERMX Grabs Edge Of US Trade With China And Moves Into Nitride Devices!
EntreMetrix Inc. (ERMX)
$0.16
Congress's push to increase trade agreements with China gives ERMX huge
advantage as they enter joint venture to manufacture Nitride Devices for
military, energy and technological solutions in China. This is huge. Get
on ERMX Monday!
Is that what it wants to do with FOSS?
It's the weakest part of Novell's argument, in my view, and probably in
theirs, but the way they handle it is by showing that SCO knew who to
contact. They broiled the industry. So it's admitted for the purposes of
this litigation only.
The first thing we learn is why there was all that rescheduling.
If you think it's obvious, say why with specificity.
Lawyers have systems to keep track of all the dates when things are due.
Who wouldn't prefer that? He finished both hearing transcripts last
night but for some reason, Groklaw fell off the Internet for a while,
and then I fell asleep waiting for it to pop back up to the surface
again. It wants to get money from Novell for "lost" licenses, but it
also says it'll be back to dun HP and Linux end users if it prevails.
Trust me when I tell you that the USPTO has no clue when it comes to
FOSS prior art.
And as soon as mine is ready, I'll let you know.
However, please keep in mind that all participants will need to arrange
for their own accommodations in the New York City area for the duration
of the program. The research isn't whatever the universities feel like
doing. It wasn't confusion on anyone's part. Lawyers are human too, and
if you are handling a lot of cases, mistakes can sometimes happen.
If it did so, it would need to attach a copy so it can't later pull a
switch and claim SCO admitted to a document SCO never saw. You have to
try to respond substantively.
This makes sense, if you think about it a minute.
But if you look at the documents themselves, you'll see that in fact
both sides are objecting to some things, which would be normal.
And as soon as mine is ready, I'll let you know. I've explained this a
bit before and you can find examples of what Requests for Admission look
like there.
I guess that means Microsoft picks their brains. What the USPTO is also
looking for is whether or not the application is sufficiently new and
nonobvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to qualify for a
patent under current law. You don't have carte blanche to ask anything
you feel like. So if you miss a deadline, you might get away with it.
The USPTO wants to find out if the public can be helpful in finding
prior art.
Applicants are expected to have some familiarity with open source
software. So, I understand this to mean that Microsoft pays these
researchers to think and study and figure out ways to innovate in search
so Microsoft can beat Google and Yahoo.
He finished both hearing transcripts last night but for some reason,
Groklaw fell off the Internet for a while, and then I fell asleep
waiting for it to pop back up to the surface again. The music is "My
Life Changed" which you can read about here.
And this is, if you will, the master agreement.
The law isn't like math.
Lots of effort goes into drafting requests that leave as little wiggle
room as possible. Thank you, Cora Beth.
Linspire says that Microsoft will now help them deliver a "better
Linux". " So we all benefit when there are more lawyers familiar with
FOSS legal issues.
So when lawyers draft their requests for admissions, they are trying to
nail the other side. I don't know if Microsoft sincerely believes that
FOSS coders aren't interested in selling their solutions, but in any
case, Microsoft is wrong.
So each side gets to reply to the other, so that is why it's not the
usual three-part arrangement. THE COURT: She can go get it.
The court may, in lieu of these orders, determine that final disposition
of the request be made at a pre-trial conference or at a designated time
prior to trial. And you know lot of that history from the IBM motion.
The rights provided under this pledge are personal to You and are not
for the benefit of others.
" As you see, they didn't just say yes or no, and they explained why it
couldn't.
So I think going forward it's going to be important to allow this mix
and match environment. That's undoubtedly cheaper than it would be to
hire all those brainy people and have to pay for salaries and for their
dental and medical care year after year and to set up retirement plans,
etc.
The first thing we learn is why there was all that rescheduling. If I
were Microsoft or even SCO, I'd be disturbed to have a supporter who
conducts himself like that. I've explained this a bit before and you can
find examples of what Requests for Admission look like there.
One clue was when Linspire invited Rob Enderle to be its keynote
speaker. So I expect more of the same. They tip in the direction of
getting things settled on the merits.
SCO wants a double recovery.
|