Mood:
a-okNow Playing: 'Breaking the Ice' Story of Washington double crossing the Delaware. (Political Intrigue)
Topic: Microsoft and VCSY
Hey, check it out. Folks are using a service and nobody's the wiser... well, those using the service are much wiser, but then they actually read what they get.
By: arthurarnsley
28 May 2007, 12:22 AM EDT
Msg. 186088 of 186093
(This msg. is a reply to 186077 by techlaw.)
I can look at a lot of stuff and not pay anything. Some stuff I can copy to my word processor and save to a file or print from there. Yesterday all my looking was free and the documents I printed by PACER amounted to 72 cents. Some stuff does not allow me to copy and I have to use PACER print at 8 cents a page. Its almost nothing. Actually it is nothing for me; PACER bills once a month and if the amount is less than $10 they do not bill.
PACER site is set up so that attorneys or other interested parties can organize their work in PACER private file systems and create separate PACER files for each of their clients and cases. PACER will charge them for all that service but PACER states that they do not bill any charge unless a user's bill exceeds $10 for the month.
Actually, so far, there are only a few pages in PACER relating to the VCSY vs. MSFT lawsuit. There are 4 pages for the complaint and 9 pages for "EXHIBIT A" which shows detailed drawing sheets and the 53 patent claims, at least 25 of which VCSY alleges that Microsoft has infringed.
Microsoft was served 4-23-2007, answer due 3 weeks later on 5-14-2007. Microsoft has been granted an extension until 7-13-2007 to answer. VCSY concurred in the extension.
The rocket-docket or fast-track Marshall court really did get this lawsuit off to a flying start.
I may possibly have an error or two in the above post.
Arthur
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Hold; LT Rating- Hold)
---------------
By: arthurarnsley
28 May 2007, 12:48 AM EDT
Msg. 186089 of 186098
(This msg. is a reply to 186078 by techlaw.)
techlaw
In Document 8-1 filed 5-7-2007, near the bottom of page 1, it says, "...the parties have met and conferred, and plaintiff does not oppose this request."
Apparently VCSY did agree to the extension. The extension was not granted by the Judge without consulting VCSY legal staff.
Otherwise your statement: “Primarily, I think the main area where the Marshall court effectively shortens the overall time of litigation is in the Discovery phase. This and the court's own quick turn-around time when deciding motions submitted by the parties probably accounts for the bulk of the time saved in any given case.” is very similar to what I have seen written by media sources regarding the Marshall fast-track court.
Best wishes
Arthur
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Hold; LT Rating- Hold)
