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
More Filings in SCO v. Novell - SCO Fights to Avoid Paying Novell
Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 05:32 PM EST

More filings in SCO v. Novell:
207 - Filed & Entered: 01/10/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Docket Text: ORDER granting [196] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re [171] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief Replies due by 1/17/2007.. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1/9/07. (blk)

Filed & Entered: 01/11/2007 Terminate Deadlines/Hearings Docket Text: Parties notified court they have resolved Novell's motion/compel. Hearing stricken for 1/11/07. Parties will file stipulation. (mlp)

208 - Filed & Entered: 01/12/2007
Order on Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: ORDER granting [181] Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 1-12-07. (sih)

209 - Filed & Entered: 01/12/2007
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [183] Sealed Document, SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction and In Support of SCO's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Part 2 # (2) Appendix A)(Normand, Edward)

As you can see, the hearing on the 11th on Novell's motion to compel was resolved between the parties, meaning Novell got what it wanted, presumably. And Judge Kimball granted SCO its Motion for Extension of Time, so it has until the 17th to file its response to Novell's motion for summary judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim. He signed it on the 9th, which is the day Novell filed its opposition, which could even mean he didn't read it. Or he could have. It's only five days, after all.

208 might seem odd. It's an order granting SCO, upon stipulation of the parties, until December 12th, 2006 to file a response, but it's signed in January, which indicates to me that Judge Kimball is catching up on backlog after the holidays.

The interesting filing, though, is the last one, SCO's Redacted Reply Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction and In Support of SCO's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment by Counter Defendant SCO Group. This is the one where Novell is asking for its money. SCO characterizes it as asking the Court "to employ what the United States Supreme Court has described as 'the nuclear weapon of the law' in seeking to tie up SCO's assets and thereby effectively put SCO out of business."

That is the trouble with starting wars. The other side is likely to shoot back. I haven't finished reading it, so we'll do that together. If anyone can OCR for me, I'd appreciate it.


  


More Filings in SCO v. Novell - SCO Fights to Avoid Paying Novell | 129 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Nuclear war
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 05:41 PM EST
United States Supreme Court has described as 'the nuclear weapon of the law' in seeking to tie up SCO's assets and thereby effectively put SCO out of business Guess they missed the part that the assets are not SCO's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re-read 198
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 05:57 PM EST
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-198.pdf

198 is Novell's reply to this.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: TimMann on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 06:13 PM EST
If any

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic here
Authored by: TimMann on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 06:14 PM EST
Have at it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible Mistake
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 06:21 PM EST
81. Novell says (at 13) that it "demanded copies" of the Sun and Microsoft Agreements from SCO on November 21, 2003. At that time, Novell Director of Contract Management Mike Bready wrote SCO CFO Robert Bench stating that "Novell has noted recent public statements by SCO indicating that SCO has unilaterally amended and modified SVRX licenses with Sun Microsystems and Microsoft. These public statements also indicate that SCO may have agreed to a buy-out of Sun and Microsoft's royalty obligations under their SVRX licenses." (Jacobs. Ex. 15.) Other than a few like communications in the subsequent several months, Novell took [no] further action to pursue this issue until it filed document requests last year.
Unless a "no" is added, as shown, it would appear that SCO is contradicting its own case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Preliminary Statement, Para. 3
Authored by: peterhenry on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 06:56 PM EST
You can't have the money, we spent it already !

This is a defense ?

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Arbitration?
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 07:31 PM EST
Maybe I am not understanding something here, as IANAL, but surely the Swiss arbitration is going to decide a significant part of the SCO vs Novell issue once and for all?

After that, there may not be much left for Judge Kimball, so it could all be over, and bankrupcy declared, very soon. Always assuming that the arbitration is completed in reasonable time of course, and I think there are ways for SCO to drag that out a bit longer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Extrinsic evidence and California law
Authored by: iksrazal on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 07:33 PM EST
Can someone please explain why California law would apply to this case? Was it
because Santa Cruz was based out of California and the contract was performed
under that's states laws? I think Novell is a delaware corporation, and perhaps
santa cruz was as well. Why would the 10th circuit respect or attempt to
interpret california law ?

Anyways, what's really important here is my very layman interpretation is that
"Extrinsic evidence" seems to be all the depositions from - former I
presume - Novell employees that SCO parades to contradict that these new SCO
contracts are SVRX licesnses or that Novell was forseen to have right to claim
money from them. Does that mean that their quotations will be stricken if
Kimball deems the APA to be under California law?

Lastly, if SCO believes what it says in this reply, why was the money received
declared as SRVX revenue, and could that really be important?

I'm so confused ;-) .

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO wants Novell to file $400 million bond
Authored by: snakebitehurts on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 10:09 PM EST
"... SCO requests that the court require Novell to post a bond of at least
$400 million ... "

This was the best laugh of the day.

How about this to be fair to both sides. "Each party shall post a bond for
$25 million. Failure to do so shall result in the amount of $25 million be
placed in constrictive trust by the party not posting the bond."

Now, that would cost each side 10% of the $25 million. Of course, SCO would
have to find some one that believes they cover the $25 million if they lose.

SCO wants Novell to post a bond for $400 million to recover the $25 million SCO
owes them?

Gotta' stop while I go laugh some more. Have to hand it to SCO. They have
guts.

MikeD

[ Reply to This | # ]

209 appendix A, item 40
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 11:18 PM EST
Even with all the redaction, the clear implication is that SCO sold Microsoft
SysV technology (source code) without asking Novell first.

Item 14 states that APA section 4.16 forbids them from amending any
licences without Novell's permission, and if they do, the money still goes to
Novell.

Item 18 says that either party must inform the other before making new SysV
deals.

Not only is SCO's goose cooked, but we have explained why Microsoft is
paying Novell to use MS patents. (Watch the money, ignore the noise.) Vista
has SysV code for running legacy applications, code which they bought from
SCO, and then discovered that SCO had no right to sell. So, either finish the
buyout from Novell, or risk an injunction on selling Vista.

So who is running the pool on the date SCO files for bankruptcy? Or will they
hang on until placed into involuntary receivorship?

Mike S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Financial Difficulties
Authored by: bstone on Saturday, January 13 2007 @ 11:54 PM EST
I just don't have the comprehension skills to understand the logic of some of
SCOX's filings. Page 10 of Appendix A to 209 fried the last bits of my poor
brain.

First, they dispute the term "unsuccessful" in describing their
ability to create a profitable Linux business. All I can guess on that quibble
is that they think they were "successful" at creating an unprofitable
Linux business. What motivates them to dispute things to this ridiculous
level?

Immediately after that, they dispute that they were unprofitable because
"Caldera's revenues were affected by the unauthorized use of SCO's
proprietary UNIX code". How does that dispute the fact that they failed to
make a profit? Beyond that though, now they're saying that Linux revenues were
reduced by the alleged appropriation of UNIX code? Where does that logic come
from?

Of course, in the next paragraph, they're back to blaming Linux
"unauthorized use of SCO's proprietary UNIX" for loss of their UNIX
revenues.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I doubt that Novell will get their injunction
Authored by: devil's advocate on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 12:39 AM EST

SCO's "Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction" is well written and argued. The extrinsic evidence raises what appears to be genuine disputes of fact. SCO seem to be claiming (if you read between the REDACTED parts) that the Microsoft and SUN agreements were not buyouts but sales of Unixware. In which case they don't owe Novell anything. Their cases against Novell and IBM are annoyance lawsuits but this motion attacks SCO's core business, which was probably run like the business of any other company. For Novell to win the injunction SCO would have to be crooks as well. To get summary judgement there has to be no dispute as to any material fact, but there are plenty of disputes here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO doesn't want to be nuked... ha ha
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 01:45 AM EST
If SCO did not want to be nuked by Novell, then they should have followed the
stipulations of the APA contract that they got into by purchasing some of the
Santa Cruz Operation's business.

Starting a war where the opposition has nukes it is willing to use is utter
stupidity on SCO's part.

Crying about it is even more stupid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Filings in SCO v. Novell - SCO Fights to Avoid Paying Novell
Authored by: comms-warrior on Sunday, January 14 2007 @ 04:03 AM EST
Tick....Tick....Tick....Tick....

Sooner or later, the clock *WILL* stop.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Too smart by half
Authored by: skidrash on Monday, January 15 2007 @ 04:13 PM EST
SCOG needed SCOSource sales to tout for their "Linux Licenses", their
"Linux Lottery" their "IP Protection" scheme (aka their
extortion scheme - I always picture Darl (I think it was in the Farber
interview) saying about EV1 "their customers are now safe" - an
implicit threat against all other hosting companies using Linux).

[ 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 )