decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Sanctions? | 310 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Sanctions?
Authored by: lnuss on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT
"Asking for scanctions on SCO's officers and Legal Representatives really
shows that they are playing hardball and going for the jugular."

Somehow I missed seeing this, unless you are referring to PJ's
"dream." I'd like to know where this was referenced.

Thanks,

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"at least"
Authored by: UncleJosh on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 05:03 PM EDT
There may be two ways to read "IBM is at least entitled to seek fees and
costs". I read it to say that IBM is at least entitled to ask for
"SCO" to have to pay (or owe, they have no money or will soon have no
money) IBM's costs for the case. I don't read it as "IBM is entitled to
seek fees and costs at least", i.e. that IBM might also be entitled to seek
sanctions. "SCO" has already been sanctioned in this case for failing
to clearly state exactly which stuff was "copied", but I don't think
that's what is being said in IBMs document.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • You are dreaming - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT
  • "at least" - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 06:36 PM EDT
  • Snapback - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 29 2013 @ 10:38 PM EDT
  • The fun with Prenda Law - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 30 2013 @ 01:42 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )