When you want to know more
but don't know where to look.

IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background,
so if you have a legal problem and want advice,
please hire an attorney.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

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

Amazon Honor  System Click  Here to Pay Learn More Dictionary

Best News Site

2004 Linux Journal Editors' Choice Award
Best Nontechnical or Community Website

2003 Editor's Choice Winner
Best News Site

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
What's New

3 stories in last 48 hours

COMMENTS last 48 hrs

SCO's Memo in Opposition to... [+300]
SCO's Statement of Basis fo... [+13]
Exhibit H to IBM's Memorand... [+35]
SCO's 3rd Quarter Teleconfe...
SCO's Opposition to IBM's M...
DaimlerChrysler Hearing Tra... [+72]
Autozone Files Emergency Mo... [+5]
Sontag Declaration in Suppo...
AutoZone Hearing Set for Se... [+2]
SCO's Shareholder Rights Pl... [+7]
Novell Hearing Will Not Be ... [+4]



hosted by ibiblio

Webmaster: MathFox

Official transcript of the Daimler hearing | 284 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Official transcript of the Daimler hearing
Authored by: al_petrofsky on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 01:50 PM EDT


This comment was removed for the following reason: it included a link to a video of the DC hearing. I checked with the court, and no one except a party to the action is entitled to that video without express permission of the judge. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to put it on the internet. That is what I was told.

As I wrot e last week when I first announced the video here:

In case you're wondering: no, it's not a bootleg video. It was provided by the court in response to my request that it be made available for distribution over the internet. I would claim that it is, in some vague way, incurably afflicted with my Precious Intellectual Property, and then sell it to you pay-per-view, but SCO's lawyers are too busy to take my case.

Here is the deleted comment:

The official transcript of the July 21 Daimler hearing is now available at (In case you missed it: the video and the August 9 written order are there too.) See:

http://scofacts.or g/courtroom.html#DC-2004-07-21

(You might have to scroll down to the hearing if your browser doesn't handle that link correctly.)

The main improvement over my unofficial transcript is that it contains amusing misspellings of the words the reporter didn't know: Mr. Hice talks about Lennox.

Also, the scofacts scorecard now has a summary (about 700 words) of the half-dozen most significant court orders, which gives an overview of everything that's been decided so far: ecard.html#summary

The Daimler transcript has an importance that none of the other transcripts do. At the end of the hearing, Judge Chabot gave a detailed ruling, which she was obviously reading from something she had written before the hearing. At some later date, Daimler submitted a proposed order for her to sign to become the official written order. I haven't seen that proposed order, and I don't think we ever will see it, but based on SCO's objections to it (available at the same link), it appears that Daimler did not obtain a copy of whatever the Judge was reading, nor did Daimler attempt to recreate it. Instead, Daimler's proposed order just attached a copy of the entire hearing transcript and said something to the effect "Summary disposition is granted as to all claims except for the alleged breach of contract for failing to respond to the request for certification in a timely manner. See the transcript for details." I can't understand why Daimler did this, rather than getting a clear statement of the court's reasoning in the order. Thus, the transcript is the only written record of her reasoning, and it contains all the imperfections you expect in a transcript: lack of clear punctuation, and a verbatim record of the errors she made while reading it. I suppose it's not a big deal, but it's disappointing.

(SCO objected that it was improper to include the entire transcript, including the parties' arguments, as part of the court's order, and therefore the transcript should just be referenced rather than attached. SCO also objected that the order was mistitled "Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Disposition" when in fact the motion was being partially granted and partially denied. Daimler agreed to SCO's alternative proposed order and Judge Chabot signed it on August 9.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Official transcript of the Daimler hearing
Authored by: AdamBaker on Friday, August 27 2004 @ 06:27 PM EDT
The videotape was supplied by the court in response to the request at h ttp:// which specifically says that the intention is to make it available via the internet. I would have thought that if the court supply a tape to someone who says the primary reason they want it is to make it available on the internet then that would constitute the court approving it being made available on the internet. Of course I could be wrong. IANAL etc.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]