|
|
| More Novell Filings too |
 |
|
Monday, October 02 2006 @ 10:26 PM EDT
|
Novell also has some filings, and while it's mostly sealed, including as exhibits the Sun and Microsoft 2003 agreements -- which is really hard to bear, not getting to read those two documents -- I do notice on docket number 151, the Jacobs Declaration, that item 14 on page 3 mentions amendments to the Microsoft agreement.
That is the first I've heard about that, as far as I recall: 14. Attached as Exhibit 12 are true and correct copies of the amendments to the 2003 Agreement between SCO and Microsoft (referenced in paragraph 13, above), as produced in this litigation by SCO with Bates range SCO1200026-1300031. Novell has added page numbers, from 1 to 6, in the lower right corners for citation purposes. This Exhibit is being filed under seal pursuant to the August 2, 2006 Stipulated Protective Order. The public version of this declaraton does not include this document. Boo hoo! I'd give a lot to see those two amendments. I'd love to know the date even. Was it the same day as the original agreement? Or after it was clear SCO was tanking? Can you imagine what Microsoft wishes *now* it had written in the agreement? So, we don't get to see them. But let's not despair. Maybe SCO will "goof" again and read them by mistake at a hearing and then happen to leak the contents to a friendly reporter. In a perfect world, you know that would be what would have to happen. Most of the exhibits are SEC filings by SCO, quarterlies and annual reports, and what a depressing tale they tell. If you're SCO. Here's what is on Pacer right now:
10/02/2006 150 **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION of Michael A. Jacobs re 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. NOTE: Document Oversized - Not Scanned/Attached. Retained in Clerks Office Sealed Room. (blk, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/02/2006 151 REDACTION to [150] Sealed Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in support of 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Novell, Inc.. NOTE: Oversized - Partially Scanned/Attached. Retained in Clerks Office for Viewing. (blk, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/02/2006 152 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Novell, Inc. re [150] Sealed Document, (Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction) (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/02/2006 153 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [REDACTED pursuant to the August 2, 2006 Stipulated Protective Order] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. re 151 Redacted Document, (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
10/02/2006 154 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Novell, Inc. (Memorandum in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [Filed UNDER SEAL pursuant to the August 2, 2006 Stipulated Protective Order]) (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/02/2006) Happy reading! This is all, of course, in support of Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction. It's a good thing for SCO they added a couple of lawyers to replace the ones that recently left. They have serious motions coming at them from all directions, from Novell and IBM, and the arbitration on top of it all. It's beginning to feel a little like the Alamo.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: nerdbert on Monday, October 02 2006 @ 11:55 PM EDT |
But the Alamo was a victory for the revolutionaries, serving as a sacrifice to
delay the Mexicans and allow the Texans the victory. I'm not sure you want to
cast SCO in the role of the defenders of the Alamo, since that would MS the
Texans...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:08 AM EDT |
| Little typo in last paragraph: It's Novell's filing, not SCO's. Pity, though. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rann on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:00 AM EDT |
| Thanks for helping us stay accurate! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rann on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
Try to make them clickable please..., it isn't difficult!
Thanks kindly![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
| More like Custer's Last Stand... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Alamo? - Authored by: 34CFR20USC on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- The Alamo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:47 AM EDT
- The Alamo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Alamo vs Custer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Alamo vs Custer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Alamo vs Custer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- The Alamo? - Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:27 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
How long does a judgement normally take?
(not that anything about this case has ever been normal)
Anyone care to guess?
(I have dibs on the date 4-13-2007)
In case you are wondering that is a random date I just picked.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 03 2006 @ 10:50 AM EDT |
In a perfect world, you know that would be what would have to
happen.
Actually in a perfect world every people would respect
the system and not play such games. This case would be over by now if that were
true.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jdg on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
[IANAL]
There are a number of factors involved; however, there is one that stands out in
my mind.
newSCO hid the agreements with MS and Sun despite Novell's requests. If the
Judge can look at the contract language and determine for himself what the
rights and duties are (Novell gets $ from SVR4 licenses, and gets to audit the
transactions), then I think he will not be amused by the hiding of the document
and the failure to turn over the monies owed Novell. Since newSCO would not
have been bankrupt at the time that they did the MS deal if they had passed the
monies on as required, they should not profit from their own intransigence in on
reviewing the agreements. The fact that they have spent that money is not a bar
from putting it into trust until the legal decisions are handed down.
Just my opinion
---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
