decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO's DaimlerChrysler Appeal Has Been Dismissed
Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST

SCO's appeal of the DaimlerChrysler order has been dismissed. The document is not yet available but you can see the docket information here. Update: Here it is [pdf]. If you have any difficulty with the link, go to this page first and plug in the number of the case, 260036. The details of the dismissal will be better understood once we have the document itself, but the two words listed on the docket sheet tell the tale: Administrative/Jurisdiction. They stipulated to a voluntary dismissal, and then tried to appeal it, assuming I guess that they could appeal the earlier order that way. I am beginning to wonder if they missed a deadline on appealing the August order, if stipulating was a mistake. But that seems farfetched.

I recall that SCO very much wanted a stay, so they wouldn't have to appeal, with all the expense that it entails. They asked the judge to stay at least until February. She denied that motion, so maybe they filed an appeal, knowing it would be dismissed, and in the interim maybe there would be a ruling in the IBM case that would inform them whether or not it was worth taking an appeal. That is what jurisdictional can mean, though, that you missed a deadline. The time limit for an appeal of right is jurisdictional. You have to file within the mandated time window. An appeal of right, as opposed to an appeal of leave, means you don't need permission to appeal. Here [PDF] is the checklist they follow in Michigan. And here are the rules.

I spoke with the clerk who handles the administrative end a week or so ago, and she told me this appeal was going nowhere. And it has. That doesn't mean SCO can't try again, but they can't do it this way. They'll have to ask the appeals court if they will grant them permission to appeal, a separate process with no guarantee that the court will say yes. Or, they can file a motion for reconsideration within 21 days of the dismissal and ask a panel of three judges to review the dismissal. If I were just trying to buy some time, I believe I'd file a motion for reconsideration. Even if it got denied again, it would stretch out the time I had to file an appeal of leave. I'll know more on Monday, but I didn't want to wait to let you know some good news.



Here's the docket information:

**************************************

Case Number: 260036-C

SCO GROUP INC V DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP

1 SCO GROUP INC -- PL-AT -- RET -- (26487) ROSENBAUM BARRY M [address, phone]

2 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP -- DF-AE -- RET -- (13335) FEENEY JAMES P [address, phone]

Status: Case Concluded; File Open

12/29/2004 -- 1 -- Claim of Appeal - Civil
Proof Of Service Date: 12/29/2004
Check #: 56347 Fee: $375.00
Receipt#: 2600361
Jurisdictional Checklist: Y Register of Actions: Y
Attorney:26487 - ROSENBAUM BARRY M

12/21/2004 -- 2 -- Order Appealed From
From: OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Case Number: 2004-056587-CK
Trial Court Judge: 28006 CHABOT RAE LEE
Nature of Case: Dismissal Voluntary

1/10/2005 -- 4 -- Appearance - Appellee
Date: 1/10/2005
For Party: 2 DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP DF-AE
Attorney: 13335 - FEENEY JAMES P

1/18/2005 -- 5 -- Submitted On Special Motion Docket
District: C Item #: 11

1/21/2005 -- 6 --Order: Dismissal - Administrative - Jurisdiction

Panel: WCW
Attorney: 26487 - ROSENBAUM BARRY M

Panel: WCW Attorney: 26487 - ROSENBAUM BARRY M


  


SCO's DaimlerChrysler Appeal Has Been Dismissed | 33 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Section
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 04:57 PM EST
<A HREF="http://www.example.com">Clickable link</A>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 04:58 PM EST
Where and what...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The First Card Falls
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 05:25 PM EST
So I wonder if this could be the first in TSGs House of Cards [or House of Smoke and Mirrors, come to that] which might now have fallen.

Can anyone with understanding of the "dependencies" interlinking the various cases help us to understand if this ruling can now be used by either IBM or Novell in their respective disputes?

I'm guessing not, since this was covering an extremely narrow field of interest.

I'm also interested to know how the industry is going to react to this news - particularly potential "licencees" - and especially any who have actually handed over money to SCO...

Something [call it a hunch, maybe] tells me that the revenue posted for licencing for 2005Q1 might be something of a disappointment for TSG...

[ Reply to This | # ]

How will SCO spin this to RH Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 05:43 PM EST
I'm ever so curious to see how SCO spins this in their quarterly update memo to
the judge overseeing the RedHat case. Will they say, "we misstepped
procedurally" (following PJ's conjecture); or "it was a non-issue
anyway; they weren't using our software"; or "we feel hard done by and
we're appealing the hard way", or ...?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Voluntary dismissal
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 07:11 PM EST
Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly... SCO voluntarily agreed to a
dismissal, then decided to appeal their own decision? Why didn't they just
reject the dismissal (i.e., not volunteer to it)?

I don't know what the law states about attempting such a thing, but it sounds
non-sensical to appeal something to which you stipulated.



---
Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Abuse of the US legal system !!!
Authored by: Night Flyer on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 07:48 PM EST
Since the courts have a backlog and the taxpayers foot the bill of the court
system, I am quite annoyed by this abuse of the legal system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MIchigan Lawyers, please comment.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, January 22 2005 @ 09:50 PM EST
We don't know the basis of the denial.

I think SCOG has followed the appropriate procedure, but I'm not a lawyer nor in
Michigan.

If they are dismissed because of the voluntary dismissal, they can refile the
timeliness issue and agree to a bench trial. That will result in a loss and an
appeal of the whole process.

In my opinion the result will be the same, denial of any redress.

Michigan lawyers are encouraged to comment.

---
Rsteinmetz

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's DaimlerChrysler Appeal Has Been Dismissed
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 23 2005 @ 12:38 AM EST
"They [SCOG]'ll have to ask the appeals court if they will grant them
permission to appeal, a separate process with no guarantee that the court will
say yes" PJ

I wouldn't be surprised if the court of appeals loses its lunch while reading
SCOG's unique rationale for its appeal: "judge Chabot's reading of the
terms of our UNIX license contract was too narrow in that it did not take into
account the terms that weren't there. And we should be able to interpret the
terms of our UNIX license contract in any way we wish, without being bound by
the letter of these terms"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )