From al  Mon Jul 12 07:56:08 2004
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:55:02 -0700
Message-Id: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org>
From: Alva Las Vegas Petrofsky <alva-las-vegas@petrofsky.org>
To: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.net>
Subject: My presence at the hearing today; Audio and video recordings

FYI, I'm in Las Vegas, so you can expect at least one eyewitness
report this afternoon.

Also, I should have an audio recording of the hearing by the end of
the week, for the low, low price of $26, from which we can make our
own transcript.  (We still might want to fork over the dough for an
official transcript at some point, but it will be nice to be able to
make an initial unofficial transcript without having to wait for a
court reporter).

See yahoo post below for some other bits of information.

-al

Subject: Live from Vegas

I started driving to Las Vegas much later than planned
yesterday.  I haven't slept, but the good news is that I
made it here, and my hotel room's internet connection works.
I hope once I shower and re-apply caffeine I'll be mentally
acute enough to get down the gist of the hearing, and I'll
try to report this afternoon.

The better news is that I've learned that audio recordings
are made of all Judge Jones's hearings, and these recordings
are made available to anyone without much hassle (in
contrast to the Utah district, but that's another story
...).  I've confirmed this by actually ordering and
receiving a recording of a recent motion hearing before
Judge Jones in a randomly selected civil case.  (I meant to
make that available so that people could listen to his voice
this morning and hear his style, but I ran out of time.)  I
should have this morning's recording by the end of the week.

By the way, I should be able to get audio, and maybe even
video, from the Michigan (SCO v Daimler) hearing next week.
(Getting any recordings from Utah is an ongoing uphill
battle.)

From pj@groklaw.net  Mon Jul 12 09:06:04 2004
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
In-Reply-To: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org>
References: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <34CA4EB8-D41D-11D8-B113-003065E871D4@groklaw.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.net>
Subject: Re: My presence at the hearing today; Audio and video recordings
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:04:51 -0400
To: Alva Las Vegas Petrofsky <alva-las-vegas@petrofsky.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613)

Cool!!

If  you can send it as mp3, I can let folks download it. But send me 
some proof, please, that the court allows this, something you got in 
writing, or a name I can call to verify.




On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Alva Las Vegas Petrofsky wrote:

> FYI, I'm in Las Vegas, so you can expect at least one eyewitness
> report this afternoon.
>
> Also, I should have an audio recording of the hearing by the end of
> the week, for the low, low price of $26, from which we can make our
> own transcript.  (We still might want to fork over the dough for an
> official transcript at some point, but it will be nice to be able to
> make an initial unofficial transcript without having to wait for a
> court reporter).
>
> See yahoo post below for some other bits of information.
>
> -al
>
> Subject: Live from Vegas
>
> I started driving to Las Vegas much later than planned
> yesterday.  I haven't slept, but the good news is that I
> made it here, and my hotel room's internet connection works.
> I hope once I shower and re-apply caffeine I'll be mentally
> acute enough to get down the gist of the hearing, and I'll
> try to report this afternoon.
>
> The better news is that I've learned that audio recordings
> are made of all Judge Jones's hearings, and these recordings
> are made available to anyone without much hassle (in
> contrast to the Utah district, but that's another story
> ...).  I've confirmed this by actually ordering and
> receiving a recording of a recent motion hearing before
> Judge Jones in a randomly selected civil case.  (I meant to
> make that available so that people could listen to his voice
> this morning and hear his style, but I ran out of time.)  I
> should have this morning's recording by the end of the week.
>
> By the way, I should be able to get audio, and maybe even
> video, from the Michigan (SCO v Daimler) hearing next week.
> (Getting any recordings from Utah is an ongoing uphill
> battle.)
>

From al  Mon Jul 12 15:26:05 2004
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:25:23 -0700
Message-Id: <200407122225.PAA18806@radish.petrofsky.org>
From: Allayed Petrofsky <allayed@petrofsky.org>
To: pj@groklaw.net
In-reply-to: <34CA4EB8-D41D-11D8-B113-003065E871D4@groklaw.net> (message from
	Pamela Jones on Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:04:51 -0400)
Subject: Report from AutoZone hearing
References: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org> 
<34CA4EB8-D41D-11D8-B113-003065E871D4@groklaw.net>

> If  you can send it as mp3, I can let folks download it. But send me 
> some proof, please, that the court allows this, something you got in 
> writing, or a name I can call to verify.

I've ordered the recording already, and hope to have it by the end of
the week.  The only proof I have that it's okay to redistribute it is
the same proof that it's okay to redistribute the paper records: the
court freely gives copies to anyone who asks, without imposing any
restrictions on reproduction.  You can see the district's recording
FAQ at:

  http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/nvd/courtinfo.nsf/4058319f31b87647882565cd0067716d

(I'm not sure what kind of funny business is going on with that huge
random number in the URL.  If it doesn't work, go to
www.nvd.uscourts.gov, click on "General Court Information", and then
on "FAQ".)  The phone number of the recordings department is 702 464
5434.

Below is my initial report from the hearing.

-al


Subject: Venue change denied, stay mostly granted

AutoZone's motion for a change of venue (to Tennessee) was
denied.  The case will stay in Nevada.

Judge Jones said he will follow Judge Robinson's lead and
stay the case indefinitely, like the Red Hat case was, with
the parties to send him updates on all the other actions
every 90 days.

However, he will give SCO a chance to file a motion for a
preliminary injunction to be in effect during the stay, and
he will allow one round of discovery to facilitate such a
motion.

That is, if SCO believes that it will be irreparably harmed
during the stay, it may ask for an order that, during the
stay, AutoZone is not to engage in whatever the harmful
activity is.  SCO will have thirty days to propound any
discovery requests (interrogatories, document requests, or
depositions) that are necessary for its preliminary
injunction motion, and AutoZone will have thirty days to
respond to them.

The case will be stayed indefinitely, pending other cases,
regardless of the outcome of SCO's request (should it decide
to make one) for a preliminary injunction, which would just
describe what things (if any) AutoZone needs to refrain from
doing until the stay is ended.

AutoZone asked the judge to reconsider the part about the
preliminary injunction, pointing out that SCO has never
sought a preliminary injunction (which has quite stringent
requirements) against anyone, and that it's very difficult
to imagine that SCO could show sufficient grounds for a
preliminary injunction, because the only thing SCO wants
with respect to the infringing conduct is to be paid for it,
and monetary damages are never considered irreparable (they
can always be paid later, with interest).

AutoZone also tried to persuade the judge that this single
round of discovery would inevitably become a protracted,
highly contested, and frustrating process that goes nowhere
and wastes everyone's time (i.e., just like the SCO v. IBM
discovery process), but Judge Jones seemed confident that he
could keep this to a simple 60-day process, and that the
potentional for a mere 60-day waste of time is not that big
a deal.

Overall, I like Judge Jones.  He seemed to be on top of
things and to have a nice ability to cut to the chase.  The
hearing only took thirty minutes.  On the issue of the venue
change, he said AutoZone's statistics about Tennessee being
faster than Nevada were out of date.  Nevada has recently
increased its number of judges by two (he's one of them,
just added in December) and he's got plenty of time: he
could even schedule this case for trial as soon as next
month, if the parties are ready.

Coryright 2004