This was the longest hearing in the history of the SCO Litigation Follies, 527 pages long. It continued until 10 o'clock at night, with Darl McBride testifying. In fact, it's his swan song as CEO. And it's the one where SCO was fighting to avoid Chapter 7, which it did, but also against the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, where it failed.

Remember how they were fighting about whether or not he'd have to submit to a second deposition to fill out the time that Novell had a right to? Well, he had to, despite Microsoft's claim that he's too important leading his foundation and fixing global health and such to have to submit to another deposition. It's Microsoft's Exhibit 10, and it oozes his usual level of charm [PDF] at depositions.

11/02/2009 - 598 - NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference set for 11/23/2009 10:00 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

I do hope there are some of you out there who will be able to attend. Even though it's a status hearing, there likely will be discussion of Novell's plans going forward, and I'd hate to miss that. Wouldn't you? It will also be our first opportunity to see The Honorable Ted Stewart in action.

Update: The date has been changed to December 1 at 1:30 PM:

11/03/2009 - 599 - AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference RESET for 12/1/2009 01:30 PM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/03/2009)

We learned that Boies Schiller had offered to drop approximately $515,000 of pre-petition "fees" at the July 27th hearing about whether to convert to Chapter 7, during Darl McBride's testimony. According to McBride, it meant a greater *upside* for Boies Schiller if they won. According to Cahn, it's the opposite. Which is true?

Is it true, as Microsoft wrote in its brief, that computers are at heart just a "collection of tiny on-off switches--usually in the form of transistors"? Or that "The role of software is simply to automate the reconfiguration of the electronic pathways that was once done manually by the human operators of ENIAC"? Are computers just a modern equivalent to the telegraph or the Jacquard loom, a series of on-off switches, as the brief asserts?

Or is that hyberbole, and technically inaccurate hyperbole? How do modern computers really work? What impact did the discovery of the universal Turing machine have on how computers work, compared to prior special-purpose computers like ENIAC? What are the differences between how analogue and digital computers work? We have heard from the lawyers, but what about from those whose area of expertise is the tech? I think you'll see how this technical information ties in with the questions the US Supreme Court would like answered -- presumably accurately -- as to whether or not software should be patentable and whether computers become special purpose machines when software is run on them. Po1R's collected some very useful references from experts. Feel free to add more references in your comments.

AutoZone's filing was so powerful, it inspired a settlement. Future victims of SCO's SCOsource Silliness -- and that is obviously the hope, to ramp it up again someday if all the stars align just right -- might wish to take notes on how they did it. Although we can't read the confidential settlement, we can see what inspired it, and that alone is helpful.

10/29/2009 - Open Document - [9706085] Mandate issued.

Or it could be this court is uniquely rapid in handling all its cases.

: )

Bottom line: Novell is running this race now with a ball and chain on its leg, and when they asked to be allowed to run without it, they were denied within 24 hours of their petition being filed. Prontissimo.

Update: Speaking of speed, check this out:

11/02/2009 - 598 - NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Chambers/slm) Status Conference set for 11/23/2009 10:00 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart. (slm) (Entered: 11/02/2009)

Some are saying that MySQL should be placed in a nonprofit organization rather than allow Oracle to purchase it. However, note, please, how Microsoft took over a nonprofit organization with mere numbers. So it's too easy for most nonprofits to be stuffed with an entity's operatives, who then do the will of whoever placed them there. Numbers almost always win in a nonprofit. Taking over Oracle would not be so easy. So as you read what is happening currently with OOXML, extrapolate please to other situations, because Microsoft left us a template on how some can take over an nonprofit organization so that it advances proprietary interests. Could that happen with MySQL? I don't see why not.

10/27/2009 - Open Document - [9705604] Motion filed by Appellee Novell, Inc. for stay of the Mandate Pending the Filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. Served on: 10/27/2009. Manner of service: clerk.

A document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower court. It includes a list of the parties, a statement of the facts of the case, the legal questions presented for review, and arguments as to why the Court should grant the writ.

The Supreme Court receives many more cert petitions than it grants, but this one seems very possible, since the ruling is so different from and even conflicts with other copyright rulings. Here's how Novell puts it:

This Court’s decision constitutes a departure from decisions of other federal courts of appeals that have confronted the important question of copyright law at issue in this case.