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
2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case
Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:15 AM EDT

Pacer is showing two new pro hac vice filings in SCO v Novell, adding Stuart Singer and William Dzurilla to the SCO team. Funny thing is, they both appeared already at the last hearing in July. Oh, well. Who's counting dotted i's? Here's the Pacer listing:
10/23/2006 160 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Stuart H. Singer Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 407276. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

10/23/2006 161 - MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of William Dzurilla Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 407281. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 10/23/2006)

One thing's for sure. If and when SCO finally loses, it won't be because they didn't have enough lawyers. Singer is, in my view, one of the best Boies Schiller has, so I'm not surprised they'd want him assigned to this case that has been rapidly nosediving straight down to earth, then through the center of the earth, and coming out in China, from SCO's perspective.

IBM's David Marriott told the court two years ago in SCO v. IBM that SCO's massive discovery demands were like asking for a road map to China when you're trying to get to LA. You won't make it to LA with that road map, he said. You can't get a Linux-Unix comparison by looking at AIX and Dynix code. Was the man right or was the man right? SCO got absolutely nowhere, most particularly not to LA, as it pondered at length over every version of every map of China, including all the drafts, and all the maps of all the roads in China, including all the roads ever contemplated but never actually built. And they are now, IBM says, standing empty-handed before the court. They never made it to LA. But here's SCO, in SCO v. Novell, a case it initiated itself, careening in its runaway spaceship straight to China. Well. Switzerland, actually.

Findlaw says Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law. Why ever would SCO need that? Things that make you go hmm.

What a funny upside down world SCO resides in, where up is down and black is white, and SCO takes money arranged for it by a company twice convicted of antitrust violations, Microsoft -- to hear Larry Goldfarb and Mike Anderer tell it -- and then uses the money to hire an antitrust lawyer for its litigation ... against Novell. That's one wild alternative universe. In SCO's upside down Wonderland, the GPL is unconstitutional, and there's nothing wrong with trying to damage Linux, Microsoft's principal competition, and so SCO dances on and on, like the dance of the seven veils, for Microsoft's pleasure. Allegedly. Microsoft says it's not true. It just *feels* true. Joke. Joke. I couldn't help myself. Remember that from "Sleepless in Seattle?"

Speaking of hearings, tomorrow is the hearing in SCO v IBM on SCO's motion to try to salvage the claims it tried to slip in the back door at the 11th hour. That's pretty much what Judge Wells said she thought it looked like to her:

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that SCO has had ample opportunity to articulate, identify and substantiate its claims against [IBM]. The court further finds that such failure was intentional and therefore willful based on SCO’s disregard of the court’s orders and failure to seek clarification. In the view of the court it is almost like SCO sought to hide its case until the ninth inning in hopes of gaining an unfair advantage despite being repeatedly told to put “all evidence . . . on the table.”

She tossed most of the material SCO tried to slide into the case via its experts after discovery was over in her Order. Now SCO would like that "unfair advantage" back, and so it filed objections to her order with Judge Kimball, and tomorrow is SCO's opportunity to present its arguments.


  


2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:30 AM EDT
So SCOG can burn even more money that isn't even theirs. Will it ever end?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT goes here.
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:32 AM EDT
If you've got links, make sure to make them clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections go here.
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:33 AM EDT
So PJ can find them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case
Authored by: baomike on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:40 AM EDT
<<Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law>>
Does anyone else detect a whiff of Wallace?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will Kimball Rule from the Bench
Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:01 AM EDT
In this case it seems that Judge Kimball will have a standard that SCOg must
meet for him to overturn some or all of Well's ruling. If that standard has not
been reached, he might say so from the bench.

On the other hand, if he is going to rule in detail (include one or two items,
exclude some additional items) then he will rule later.

The other factor for ruling later is to make his ruling less vulnerable to an
appeal. If SCO lose I would not be surprised if the ask for an interlocutory
appeal, and that Kimball will deny that request.
[IANAL]

---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trust and anti-trust. Matter and anti-matter. Uncle Rhemus and Auntie Jemima
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 02:22 AM EDT
PJ says.." Findlaw says Dzurilla's speciality is antitrust law. Why ever
would SCO need that? Things that make you go hmm."

Some companies go out of their way to build trust. SCO has gone out of their way
to build anti-trust. THAT'S why they need an anti-trust lawyer.... to make sure
all the legal stuff is solid on developing anti-trust BY everyone else OF SCO.

Clearly they know that there is no QUALITY to their position, so they are trying
to compensate by QUANTITY. That's why they need extra lawyers.

I believe they could probably hire Lionel Hutz on a moment's notice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who's covering tomorrow's hearing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 02:28 AM EDT
I hope we get the usual excellent play-by-play commentary that we've all come to
expect here on Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happened to IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:59 AM EDT
Does anyone know what happened to [695] (IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims
to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures)?

It was briefed expeditedly in June. Will it be argued today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

2 More Lawyers Officially Added to SCO's team in Novell case
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:37 AM EDT

She tossed most of the material SCO tried to slide into the case via its experts after discovery was over in her Order.

Um, forgive me, I've been in our nation's capital since Thursday so I'm a bit out of the loop, but I thought this Motion had not yet been ruled on? Yes, I know Wells tossed a large chunk of TSG's Allegedly Misused Items, I'm referring specifically to IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures, wherein IBM asked Judge Wells to prevent TSG from sliding entirely new claims in disguised as expert reports. Did I miss something while I was away, or am I just confused (which is entirely possible after a 5AM-to-11PM travel day)?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

2 More Lawyers ... To drain SCOG faster?
Authored by: grouch on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:11 AM EDT
When your loot is laying on the tracks and two locomotives are speeding toward it, you have to get more hands involved in snatching it from its container. That's my theory and I'm still sticking to it.

SCOG wouldn't let anything like a "cap" interfere with their plans. After all, no amount of citation of law nor multiple court orders have deterred them so far.

This speculation and opinion comes free of charge. It might even be worth as much as it costs.

---
-- grouch

http://edge-op.org/links1.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

The SCOX 1 year target of $5.00 is not the per share value, but...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 09:24 AM EDT
....the TOTAL value of the company. Clearly, trading in a product that no-one
was interested in was not going to vaporize the company quickly enough, so they
hatched this brilliant scheme to litigate it into the same void that Enron has
entered, whilst transferring vast quantities of the company's available cash to
members of the management's family (for safe keeping of course). This way all
40+ million shares would be diluted to have a TOTAL value of only $5.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A suggestion for an improved simile re SCO's case
Authored by: PTrenholme on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:05 AM EDT
PJ,

You say, re SCO's case, ". . . where up is down and black is white . .
." Perhaps "where up is red and down is wet" might be better.

Or one based on a line in Ms. Bujold's book "Shards of Honor", 1996:
"SCO's case is like someone peeling an onion, looking for the seeds."


---
IANAL, just a retired statistician

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm confused
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:10 AM EDT
When is the hearing?

PJ's article is dated the 24th and says tomorrow, which would be the Wednesday
the 25th.

Other people are talking about it being today Tuesday the 24th.

Can someone please clarify that for me?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Antitrust or anti-antitrust? (n/t)
Authored by: mram on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 12:20 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Antitrust
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:18 PM EDT
I think IBM raises some fairly specific antitrust issues in it's motion for
sumary judgement, which may well be why SCO wants someone with an antitrust
background to review.

Specifically, one line of argument IBM presents to bolster it's reading of the
IBM and Sequent SVR4 agreements is that AT&T could only have intended the
reading IBM makes of these contracts, because antitrust regulations would have
made it illegal for AT&T to intend otherwise.

I suspect SCO wants someone to knock that argument down, and argue that AT&T
could have legally intended the contracts to support SCO's reading.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yawn....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 01:53 PM EDT
Two more deckhands on the Titanic....

Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does PJ really live in New York?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 02:20 PM EDT
She stays up so late that it seems to me like she must live in Hawaii. I wonder
what time she wakes up...

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Was the man right or was the man right?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:36 PM EDT
Is that a trick question? :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The truthiness of PJ
Authored by: Kalak on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:56 PM EDT
Allegedly. Microsoft says it's not true. It just *feels* true. Joke. Joke. I couldn't help myself. Remember that from "Sleepless in Seattle?"

Am I the only one who read this and thought that PJ had learned the value of truthiness over all her fact checking?

---
Kalak: I am, and always will be, an idiot.

[ 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 )