|
|
| Novell Has Until March 26 to Answer Motion to Remand |
 |
|
Friday, March 19 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST
|
The lawyers for SCO and for Novell have filed a stipulation that Novell has until March 26 to respond to SCO's Motion to Remand. The PDF is here. Thanks go to Newsome and to LvilleDebugger for the speedy transcript.
**********************************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
Matthew I. Kreeger, pro hac vice
[address, phone, fax]
Paul Goldstein, pro hac vice
[address, phone]
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
John P. Mullen, #4097
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
_______________________________________
THE SCO Group, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant
_____________________________________
STIPULATION
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
____________________________________
Defendant Novell, Inc., by and through its counsel, and Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc., by and through its counsel, hereby stipulate that Novell may have up to and including March 26, 2004 in which to file an opposition memorandum to Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
DATED: March 18, 2004.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
_______[signature of Heather M. Sneddon]_____
Thomas R. Karrenberg
John P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
_______[signature of Mark R. Clements]_______
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
Attorneys for Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this __18th__ day of March, 2004, I caused a true and
correct
copy of the foregoing STIPULATION to be served via first class mail, postage
prepaid, to the
following:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[ADDRESS]
Kevin P. McBride
[ADDRESS]
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[ADDRESS]
____[Heather M. Sneddon's SIGNATURE]____
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST |
| Post News, URLS and updates here.... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 03:18 PM EST |
IANAL. And I am, in this regard clueless. Would someone fill me in on why all
the parties involved have been engaging in all this cooperative delaying? Why
wouldn't the SCOundrels just say "No, file by today or forever hold your
tongue"?
The Flatlander[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: martimus on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 03:25 PM EST |
For TSCOG, the delay, any delay, is good. Novell obviously needs more
time;
it will be interesting if we can find out why they needed it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:00 PM EST |
| news.com
M
aybe we'll send federal marshalls to Lindon? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST |
Hi all,
in my daily round of looking through my bookmarks seeing
what is new in the SCO farce I came about something that I
haven't seen anyone mention yet. Remember a while ago
Gavin Roy and his letters to/from SCO? Well it seems they
are writing to him again....
http://www.gavinroy.com/~gavinr/SCO/
enjoy...
Mark.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST |
...unless the court ordered or agreed to it. They can not stipulate to change
the rules of the court. The parties must request an extension of time within
which
to .....
......... Then the judge grants the extension of time. Unless their is a rule
allowing the parties to stipulate to an extension. There may be such an
automatic "stipulate to an extension" rule just to avoid all this
usual papershuffling bugaboo that always seems to be necessary.
Procrastination is part of the law. You always have to be ready for tomorrow's
hearing or deadline unless you can put it off. Plus delay maintains the status
quo and prevents anything bad from happening, like losing your motion.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NZheretic on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:32 PM EST |
| Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa Cruz Operation have been
accepting, profiting from and distributing software developed by hundreds of
independent developers under the terms of the GPL and LGPL license. The
SCO Group has failed to put forward any sustainable legal theory why it should
not abide by the terms of the GPL license.
The SCO Group has sent
letters raising the
prospect of legal action for using Linux to two Energy Department
facilities, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the National Energy
Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC).
Any additional license costs
the SCO charges the federal govenment, defence contractor, or medicaid provider
is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayers.
That would be a clear violation
of the USA False claims act.
http://www4.law.cornell.e
du/uscode/31/3729.html
For more information see...
The False Claims Act Resource Center
and
Taxpayers Against Fraud Education
Fund
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:32 PM EST |
At:http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5176308.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
Interesting is a the 'flase claim act'that might be valid, viewable at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/3729.html
gr
Patrick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:35 PM EST |
| globetechnology.com
Zif Davis
News.com
Same as
before, SCOx's tripe and threatening langauge, pick your article, they are all
about the same.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas An. on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 05:39 PM EST |
This
looks suspicious to me in the middle of the Lindows vs Windows
debate.
Glaringly suspicious I might say...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rc on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST |
| Sorry to top-level such an offtopic thing, but I thought I'd throw out a hint
for folks who want one.
If you are over here in the old 'post a comment'
page, and suddenly you notice that it does not say "Username:" up there like its
supposed to (or, you hit 'preview' and notice that your '.sig' doesn't show up)
- how do you get logged back in without having to retype all that stuff?
I
have a few methods/solutions:
1 - cut and paste is your friend
2 - create
a new tab in your browser (you ARE using a modern browser
that does tabbed windows, aren't you???), go to the GrokLaw log in page, log in
there, then close that tab, get back to your (original) Post tab, hit 'preview'
and you'll see that you are logged back in.
Hope that helps someone!
rc
---
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST |
I suspect that the national labs have sovereign immunity. You could only sue if
there was a law saying you could. I'm not sure infringement is one of the things
you can sue about. Not the easiest target given that there's also the problem of
the false claims act.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST |
"Regarding both how the Linux kernel got assembled in the first place, and
how courts will interpret the General Public License (GPL) under which it is
made available, there are a wealth of factual and legal ambiguities out of which
skilled lawyers can make plausible-sounding arguments."
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/44110.htm?DE=1
Did Darl write this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 10:38 PM EST |
Remember Anderer? Remember all Darl's previous lies? How about millions
of lines of infringing code? How about MIT rocket scientists?
Relax! These are more rat sightings. Maybe people are getting paid to
shill press stories. Maybe SCOG needed to prop up their stocks. This is
typical, run of the mill FUD.
SCOG cannot sue anyone for using Linux without 1) the suit being dismissed
and 2) the judge ordering SCOG to stop suing innocent victims.
SCOG has NO trademarks, NO trade secrets, NO patents, and GIVEN AWAY
ALL LEGACY AT&T UNIX VERSIONS. Novell retains all patents on AT&T
UNIXs and all copyrights on AT&T UNIXs.
Because Darl gets caught on the public record lying time after time, all
SCOG's suits are going to be lost. Darl has many other people like Anderer
who will do almost anything for money.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fmouse on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 12:02 AM EST |
| It looks to me, and increasingly so, that SCO's fundamental strategy is not to
win, but to get maximum bang-for-the-buck out of their seed money from Baystar
and RBoC in terms of dragging out the case as long as possible, thus providing
Microsoft and anyone else of like mind with an ongoing rationale for saying
"Linux is a legal minefield. Why not go with a proprietary alternative?" They
are thus willing to agree to any extension of time, and eager to argue for
extensions on their own behalf, and both eager and willing to keep the motions,
claims and counter-claims going. This has to be their objective since I would
guess that even McBride and Sontag can't realistically believe that they have a
snoball's chance in the Hot Place of winning any of the legal battles in
which they're now engaged. If SCO tanks when they come to the end of their
legal or financial rope, McBride and the top SCO brass will certainly have a
place at the table in Redmond, or in some other place where their talents in
this regard will be appreciated. I would guess, however, that Microsoft
probably views the SCO folks in much the same way that a big time syntidicate
boss views the hired gun used to eliminate a rival. These are the people we
hire to do our dirty work, but oh my! We really don't like to get our own
hands dirty, and these hit guys are usefull, even necessary, but they have no
class and don't move in the same circles that we do!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 12:13 AM EST |
If Novell depends entirely on the fuzzy Amendment 2 of the 1995 Purchase
Agreement, it might lose the case in court. Though I have read arguments to the
contrary, the court may rule that Caldera, SCO's predecessor in interest,
actually bought UNIX System V Rev4, not just a license to it.
I remember the discussion about 95% of the revenue from UNIX licenses going to
Novell. But when I read press releases and analysis of SCO financial
statements, including submission to the SEC, I don't see this 95-5 split of
revenue to Novell and SCO.
This makes me wonder if, by not suing for collection, Novell has admitted by
inaction that the title did transfer to SCO.
Novell (and IBM) have difficult decisions to make about how far they will pursue
the cases. If they open the can of worms entirely, it may turn out that there
is very little in System V Rev4 that can be legitimately copyrighted. This
might well anger past and current UNIX users and would be bad for repeat and
future business. (Customers may resist signing contracts and paying as much for
their System V (or AIX) Licenses.)
Novell and IBM must pursue a course in court that wins in court and one that
does not lead to a loss in the marketplace. This is a difficult balance.
Undermining the market value of UNIX still might not produce a complete win for
Novell. If there is significant amounts of the original AT&T code that can
be copyrighted, and Amendment 2 is not sufficient proof of non-transfer of
title, Novell could be in some difficulty in court.
---------------------------------
Also, it's not clear to me why these companies are asking for trial by jury whan
many of the arguments are legal, technical and quite complex in nature. To get
a jury up to speed in all these reas seems to me to be a difficult task.
---------------------------------
I find it interesting that SCO cannot find the papers relatig to the itemized
property and ownership changes from Caldera to The SCO Group. Aren't copies of
such changes filed with the SEC or NASDAQ?, a copy kept by the lawyers?, a copy
registered with the state where the company is incorporated? Can we find a copy
of these documents for SCO?
---------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2004 @ 06:10 AM EST |
If SCO were to win against LANL they'd be entitled to either $500 per
infringement or actual damages. No penalties for willful infringement, no
$50,000, no triple damages. If they lose, they'll probably get charged under the
false claims act. The penalties are a lot more than $500. This may very well be
the stupidest thing SCO have done yet (maybe not - there are so many to choose
from). Also fun would be the DOE sending someone to talk to Darl, and him lying.
He'd get to visit Martha in Club Fed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
