|
|
| Novell's Replies on Motion to Stay and For More Definite Statement |
 |
|
Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:12 PM EDT
|
Lots of Novell goodies just got filed with the court. Today was the deadline to reply to SCO's opposition to Novell's two motions. Here's Reply in Support of Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration and Reply in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action. There is a declaration by a Novell attorney also and plenty of exhibits too. Novell doesn't mince words. I've glanced through it all quickly and the nicest thing Novell says about SCO is that it is confused about the applicable law. The worst thing they say is that one thing SCO said is frivolous. In between, you find some mockery and disdain.
Novell is the beneficiary, of course, of IBM's careful, gentlemanly foundational work to expose SCO's less appealing profile, and so Novell doesn't have to go through all the "After you, Alphonse" pleasantries while getting the judge up to speed on what the court is dealing with here. This court knows. Even so, it's breathtakingly plain-spoken. I'd say Boies Schiller has met its match for aggression, although Novell is never nasty or underhanded, and I anticipate fireworks to come in the Novell litigation. Here are all of today's filings, so you can see where the exhibits go. As we put up the text, I'll go into more detail, but I know you want to read it all right away: - Order - giving Novell until the 19th to file replies to both motions
-
Novell's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Reply Memorandum
Proposed Order Granting Novell Inc.'s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an Overlength Reply Memorandum -
Reply in Support of Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration
Exhibit A: Thiess v. Lifeminders - It's not available on Pacer, and the exhibit is from Lexis, which I don't feel comfortable putting on Groklaw, but you can read about the case here.
Exhibit B: IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration
-
Declaration of David E. Melaugh in Support of Novelll's Motion to Stay
Exhibit 1:SCO Source Logs - this doesn't mean code, by the way. It means everything SCO has turned over to Novell in discovery so far.
Exhibit 2: Notice of Filing Plaintiff's Exhibits for Use at Hearing on February 6, 2004 in SCO v. IBM -- SCO's source log, materials turned over by SCO to IBM in that litigation. Same bates numbers, Novell points out, showing that SCO hasn't yet gone to any special trouble in discovery for Novell. Some of the documents aren't even in response to any request from Novell, not that SCO has even tried to do a match-up.
Exhibit 3: Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories
Exhibit 4: Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report -
Reply in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action
Exhibit A: Coexist v. Cafepress - This is the ruling directly from Pacer. I don't want to put Lexis copies on Groklaw due to copyright concerns, so this is just a note to let you know that the actual exhibit has Lexis explanatory materials as well.
Any help doing text versions would be greatly appreciated. I got an email this week from a blind Groklaw member, thanking me and all of you for our kindness in doing this work, which he appreciates deeply. PDFs can be a serious problem for the blind. And this way, the documents are easily searchable too. Just leave a comment if you can OCR or HTML one of the documents, so we don't duplicate work, and then send it to me in a plain text email, in the body of the message, with a note as to what credit you'd like. Thank you. This case is getting more and more intriguing. I'll explain next.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
| So they can be found quickly [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
| Please make clinks lickable!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Something relevant to the Massachusetts Microsoft donation - Authored by: nerd6 on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Historic Bell Labs Site To Be Closed, Redeveloped - Authored by: ElvishArtisan on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 11:18 PM EDT
- Historic Bell Labs Site To Be Closed, Redeveloped - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 04:39 AM EDT
- Historic Bell Labs Site To Be Closed, Redeveloped - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 05:50 AM EDT
- Historic Bell Labs Site To Be Closed, Redeveloped - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 08:23 AM EDT
- Historic Bell Labs Site To Be Closed, Redeveloped - Authored by: rkhalloran on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- Historic Bell Labs Site To Be Closed, Redeveloped - Authored by: joef on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 09:41 AM EDT
- Coexist v. Cafepress - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 05:14 AM EDT
- When a judge gets irritated? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 05:31 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:45 PM EDT |
More yummy reading for when I get home from work! :o)
I do so love reading Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Excellent! - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 01:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Hop on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
It's always refreshing to read Novell's legal documents. They generally use
language a layman can understand. They also make their points very clear.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Carlo Graziani on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
"Reply in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement of
SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action"
Converted using pdftotext, sent.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 11:31 PM EDT |
Novell does not mince words.
Novell plays this game in hard-core, straight-up, very aggressive, and take-no-
prisoners fashion.
I think SCO's rats have met their match in Novell's 800-pound legal gorillas.
IBM has been Mr. Goody Two-Shoes in comparison.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: softbear on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 11:53 PM EDT |
I'm stunned. BSF is supposed to be good, and these make them look like rank
amateurs. They use so many of SCOX's citations against them that it makes me
wonder whether the idea was to hide them in plain sight.
The work they are replying to was nearly impenetrable in places to this layman,
and these are so clear and concise ... and shred all those confusing arguments
so nicely!
(I would also hope that SCOX will note the information regarding the document
production, and not accept a bill for more than the few dollars it cost to copy
the CDs. ;-)
---
IANAL, etc.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, June 19 2006 @ 11:59 PM EDT |
| From above.
156
pages of listing of documents.
Lot's of names!
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
Now this is an interesting read - I can't wait to read the Judge's ruling.
---
Wayne
http://urbanterrorist.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
.
1. Truly light reading for a legal document. It is great stuff but they have a
lot to work with. It gets easy bashing SCO for 1) arguing the wrong issues, 2)
citing inappropriate or opposite authority, 3) their "misleading
chronology" etc.
2. SCO is putting up token opposition because tokens are all they have. They
are not thinking deeply. If they were inspired they would just go with the
arbitration rather than subject themselves to SCOrn.
3. SCO forgets why it filed a Slander of Title claim rather than something more
direct and substantive...The issues facing them were all losers, most notably
proof of copyrights and the ownership and transfer thereof. They feared the
United linux complications such as the GPL and waiver. At this point they are
wishing Kimball had thrown it out when it was just Slander of Title.
4. The arbitration could bring on the collapse of SCO. If SCO is held to its
UnitedLinux arrangements, the GPL prevails, waiver prevails, and everyone,
including IBM is off the hook due to SCO's United Linux.
5. SCO's Opposition seems to have been misdirected in part and half-hearted.
This is a sure sign they know they are on to a losing issue. There doesn't seem
to be much senior review going on.
6. It is one thing to argue about case interpretation and issues. It is quite
another to get into a spitting contest about the facts. For Novel to accuse SCO
of a "misleading chronology" is tough stuff. Given the history of
this case, mud like this has a good chance of sticking. The voluminous SCO
discovery production also hurts its credibility. They just dropped their IBM
discovery on Novell. They are not paying this case particular attention. They
know it's a loser. The longer this goes on the more blatantly frivolous it
appears to be. The great suspense will be whether Kimball demands that they
answer for it.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 03:28 AM EDT |
In the comments on an earlier article about this case the question of who is
the acting magistrate judge was raised. None of these documents provide an
answer to that question as far as I can tell. Does anybody see anything that
would help answer that question and if so, who? ---
MTEW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 04:17 AM EDT |
What I like best was SCO's assertion that having put its foot in its mouth with
the second amended claim, it is now trying to tell the court that it is Novell's
responsibility to extract SCO's foot from SCO's mouth, and not to take advantage
of SCO's misfortune.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 06:13 AM EDT |
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOVELL’S MOTION TO STAY:
1. "Four of SCO’s five claims raise issues that are currently being
arbitrated in Switzerland." Note the tense: the arbitration is already
happening. That was news to me.
2. "...the primary focus of SCO’s anti-Linux litigation campaign..."
Yeah, let's call it for what it is. That's not mincing words, for sure!
3. "SCO spills much ink on Novell’s decision not to oppose its filing of
the Second Amended Complaint, but this is merely more evidence of confusion over
the applicable law." I like that. I like that a lot. In effect, this
says: SCO's lawyers are no good at lawyering.
4. Novell's reply has the focus, intention and clarity that SCO's confused,
rambling verbiosity will never attain. It's not the number of words you say
that matters; it's *what* you say. And Novell as much as says that about SCO.
Great stuff.
- Bang!
---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gormanly on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 06:55 AM EDT |
The "Reply in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement
of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action", Novell-133 is done as HTML and
mailed to PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 131 done as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 08:02 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 07:02 AM EDT |
It's worth mentioning that there are two types of PDF: text-based and
image-based. The image-based court PDF's stem from scanned paper originals,
whereas the text-based ones are presumably from PDF originals. Both of Novell's
replies, for example, are text-based PDF's.
I guess a blind person can deal with text-based PDF's rather easily. Is that
the case?
Simlarly, it's very easy to extract the text from a text-based PDF ([Save as
Text...] in Adobe Reader, for example).
---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Blind PDF's - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 07:56 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 07:47 AM EDT |
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NOVELL, INC.’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT:
1. 'The “appropriate time” to seek such guidance is not, as SCO advocates, at a
later time, but rather right now...' Yup, let's see a whole lot more of
"right now" in this case.
2. 'The court concluded: “I don’t see how defendants can plead to the accusation
that they disobeyed ‘the provisions of the *applicable* Statutes of the State of
Tennessee. Defendants are entitled to know what statute they supposedly
violated.' That *applicable* word. SCO receives an applicable spanking.
3. 'Failure to replead can cause substantial prejudice to the defendant, who
“cannot be expected to guess” the particular statutory basis for a plaintiff’s
claim.' Oh, SCO, they're not playing that one. There you are, IBM.
4. A hint for SCO: it's probably not a good idea to cite other cases, unless
the outcome of those cases actually supports your own argument. Those dastardly
lawyer people might go and look them up.
Novell's replies leave no stone unturned. From under each, a nasty, slimy,
wriggly thing squirms.
- Bang 2!
---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 20 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
> IBM is logical, and it knows that this case is expensive.
Drop in the ocean to a company that size.
> Its main goals are clearing its name & teaching the next
> SCO the lesson of "don't you dare messing with us."
What better way than having SCO's case thrown out by a judge, and seeing SCO go
out of business?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
