PJ:
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 scofacts.org. (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:
http://scofacts.org/scor
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 | # ]
| 
