|
Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31! |
|
Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 07:55 PM EDT
|
Be there or be square, as my dear granny used to say -- May 31st, in Judge Dale Kimball's courtroom, at 9 AM sharp. The oral arguments will be heard on a large collection of summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell.
Oh, I hope some of you can go, so you can tell us all about it. This is going to be thrilling, I'm sure. You are going to see some fine lawyering, guaranteed, from the Novell team. You can work your entire career as a paralegal and never see this level of skill in person. And I can't help but wonder if David Boies himself may show up, although what he can say that won't sound silly is a mystery to me after reading the filings. That's what they pay him the big bucks for, I guess, to try to find a way to survive these motions and get to trial.
Here's the notice on Pacer (I've done a legible version with urls to the documents below):
05/24/2007 326 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 275 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance, 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special Damages, 273 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claim in its Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition, 180 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NOVELL'S THIRD, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH COUNTERCLAIMS, 258 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim, 271 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on the Copyright Ownership Portions of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition, 224 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim, 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction, 171 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief : Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2007 09:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
The Novell case is moving so fast compared to IBM, it's like they're on roller skates. We still haven't got all the summary judgment motions in redacted form or all the reply memos on Pacer yet. And my doctor tells me to rest! Ha! There's the latest redacted memo available but we don't have it uploaded yet, but it'll be here as soon as it's ready: 05/24/2007 325 - REDACTION to [306] Sealed Document, SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 # 2 Appendix)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 05/24/2007) Erwan and I have been working on a table of all the motions for you, but unless I speed up, the game will be over before I can finish my part. Let me get serious. I'll put it here as soon as it's done, so we can keep all the motions straight. Here, thanks to a suggestion, is a readable version: 05/24/2007 - 326 - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re:
- 275 - MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [memo in support as text; declarations by Tor Braham, Allison Amadia, David Bradford etc.; article]
[article re SCO's sealed filing of memo in opposition - redacted Memo in Opposition and Part 2; Appendix; Declaration by G. Gervaise Davis - PDF -
277 - MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special Damages [article; redacted Memo in Support and as text]
[article re SCO filing sealed Memo in Opposition with exhibits (3 cases)] -
273 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claim in its Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [corrected as 282; memo in support as PDF; article; redacted Kenneth Brakebill declaration with exhibits galore - article listing the exhibits by name]
[SCO's Memo in Opposition; article] -
180 - Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NOVELL'S THIRD, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH COUNTERCLAIMS [redacted memo in support and Part 2 and Appendix, all PDFs [article]; article; article re Novell filing sealed memo in opposition and SCO filing sealed reply in support]
-
258 [text] MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim [exhibits (O'Gara, etc.); article; Novell's Evidentiary Objections - text
Novell's redacted Memo in Opposition with exhibits; article; Novell's Response to SCO's Statement of Facts; redacted declaration of Kenneth Brakebill;
-
271 - MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on the Copyright Ownership Portions of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [memo in support; article]
SCO's Memo in Opposition; article
-
224 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim [article; Novell Evidentiary Objections - text]
[SCO's Memo in Opposition; text] -
147 [text] - MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [memo in support and as text; Declaration of Joseph LaSala with exhibits, article; redacted declaration of Michael Jacobs; errata]
SCO's
Memo in Opposition [article
Novell's redacted Reply - as text; Declaration of Heather Sneddon with exhibits
-
171 [text; memo in support as text] - MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief [article; redacted declaration of Kenneth Brakebill with exhibits (all the contracts, Messman, Chatlos) - as text; article ; article re SCO's sealed memo in opposition and in support of SCO's cross claim; redacted SCO memo in support
Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2007 09:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 05/24/2007) Whew. If anyone wants to make this pretty, in a table, please do, but my eyeballs are ready to bleed, trying to keep it all straight. Also, I worked from our SCO v. Novell Timeline page, so if there are errors in there, I've duplicated them, so if anyone has the Novell Docket sheet to double check, that would be great. Thanks if you can help make this perfect.
I think you can see, though, from the list, how important this hearing will be. The theme is: who owns the copyrights? Just who slandered whom? Now, if you are IBM, you don't massively care who owns the copyrights in a way, because your position is that you haven't infringed them in any case. But if you are SCO, this really is your foundation for everything else, and Novell has asked the court to toss overboard most of SCO's evidence from its witnesses. So, I'm guessing they are practicing in front of a mirror already. Kidding. But lawyers do practice, and they do get nervous. I had a friend tell me once, just before a trial where he was representing another friend, that he was incredibly nervous. I was surprised, because he was a really skillful attorney, a true litigator too, and their hearts usually race with joy at any chance to argue. So I asked why, and he said, "Because he's counting on me, and he thinks I can do anything, and the truth is, I can't guarantee the outcome."
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:19 PM EDT |
8:20 EST and no comments. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
Don't foget the clickies.
---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sarbanes-Oxley guidelines altered - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- Haha. "Be there or be square...". - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- The Days of Linux System Administration Books has ended. - Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:04 PM EDT
- M$ is too busy (newspick) - Authored by: hardmath on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 10:39 PM EDT
- A Plug for Google collaboration tools - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- dude, where's my injunction - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 11:59 PM EDT
- Dell's Ubuntu more expensive than Vista Home Premium - Authored by: nyarlathotep on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 12:52 AM EDT
- OT: News Pick Standards Council of Canada OOXML comments - Authored by: webster on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:07 AM EDT
- PCLinuxOS - how sweet it is! - Authored by: bbaston on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- Quick few questions - Authored by: AndyC on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:23 AM EDT
- SunOS BSD -> Solaris SySV - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- May The Force Be With Us! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:05 AM EDT
- Install windows Vista in 2 minutes - Authored by: Fredric on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT
- it's towel day! - Authored by: sumzero on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 11:03 AM EDT
- Amnesty For Illegal... - Authored by: sunnyfla on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 11:15 AM EDT
- SCOX *way* up - trying to avoid NASDAQ delisting? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- Teacher Tube - Authored by: capt.Hij on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- SCO stock batck above $1 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 01:13 PM EDT
- The Pipe fairy strikes? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:18 PM EDT
|
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
Make them clear please :-)
---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: entre on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
PJ,
Could you tell the community, when applicable, the court date that is worth the
one plane fare, hotel fees and auto expense that will be the best courtroom
finale. I just want to go once and hope you can tell us THE one to spend it
on!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:30 PM EDT |
I would dearly love to go to one of these hearings. However getting from here
to there is not cheap.
Does anyone know when TCOG's next earnings are due? I am looking forward to the
conference call where they will once again be tap dancing madly to spin their
once again reduced earnings.
---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:32 PM EDT |
It would read a lot better with a html br tag before each three digit number. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
Never mind. This is your time warp pilot speaking. --- "I have never had
the courage to believe in nothing."
--Miguel de Cervantes, "Man of La Macha", 1972 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: aha on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
I just happen to be going to SLC next week. Maybe I can attend.
---
You get what you focus on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT |
What are the chances that Judge K. will rule from the bench? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:23 PM EDT |
Oh no! That means SCO might survive summary judgment!
(Kidding! :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT |
Sweet..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: iksrazal on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
I'm guessing that resolving the Novell PSJ rulings will come before the IBM PSJ
rulings - even though the IBM's hearing happended 3 months earlier - since
Kimball has ruled Novell goes first.
Anyone care to guess whether the IBM PSJ's will get resolved before the Novell
trial or a decision saying there won't be one?
I'm being impatient, I know, but even the evidence in the IBM case getting
tossed last year is still being challenged by SCO for de novo de novo review or
something. Waiting for the final reprisal ;-) . At least we know the Novell
PSJ's will get resolved before the September trial, assuming the date sticks or
the trial gets called off entirely.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cruss on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
I can't wait to read the reports on how they(SCO) try to get out of owing Novell
a Boat Load of money. Once this gets decided it's bankruptcy for sure. I bet
they come up with a whopper of a story on this one. "It only for a binary
license" "Those weren't contracts for UNIX code." "We
don't really have to give them 95%, do we?"
Non stop, laugh riot.
---
security is directly proportional to inconvenience
cruss hcity net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mad Geek on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:41 AM EDT |
And my doctor tells me to rest! Ha!
I'd
definitely say that your doctor is not the only one.
I say you really need
some rest!.
SCO may say the same thing, but for completely different
reasons that are for their own interests.
--- --
Hi, I'm a geek. Most people call me mad. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Get Some Rest!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 07:13 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
Well, if SCO doesn't own the copyrights, it becomes irrelevant (for the SCO vs.
IBM case) whether or not IBM infringed. Or am I missing something?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- IBM - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT |
My Web Bucks say Boies will be as far away from that hearing as he can possibly
be. (I'm sure he'll have a very important meeting with a client in Grand Cayman
or something that he just *cannot* miss). After all, wouldn't want to be
personally involved in a losing case. Might taint his image and marketability.
Might make him look silly, the things he'd have to tell the judge. Let the
plebes do that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
Seems to me they were taken under advisement a very long time ago.
Wouldn't
we normally expect some decisions by now?
J [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
.. Summary fo' decisions on SCO fust acshun fo' libel secshun uh failure
t'provide duh Special losses MOTION 273 fo' partial summary decision on SCO be
ya know, likes, not claimed - Compete in his second claim fo' duh non-contract
and Fifd Claim Unfair Competishun, likes, wow ..Dird, oh, baby, sixd, likes,
wow, sevend, oh, baby ...
My head hurts !! :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
As PJ implies this may mean that Kimball is itching to whack away some dead wood
(or some moles).
Speculating,
The short time between the Notice and the Hearing might indicate Kimball has
already mostly made up his mind and is ready to rule, unless someone comes up
with something to change his mind.
He may also want to rule on these so he can use those rulings in decideing the
IBM motions. For example if he rules Novell did have the right to overrule SCO
and/or the copyrights never transferred, that might make a lot of the IBM
rulings easier.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rodmcjr on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
Which courthouse is this at? Do you have the address? I might be able to go. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
how about telling us where the courtroom is? city? county? state? country?
zip code?
please , just a little hint?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
It's up 21 cents today on only 98,000 some odd volume
this stock is crazy!
gotta love the pump and dump! it keeps going![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Christian on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
or, Why is SCO trying to lose?
Kimball has already said that the timing issue
bothers him. In other words, the document that transfers the copyrights has to
do so itself. He doesn't accept that a later amendment to a document can
magically turn the original into a transfer. Yet that is what SCO is arguing.
They are saying that amended APA transfers the copyright, even though neither
the original nor the amendment transfered the copyrights. The only way they can
win with this argument is to convince Judge K that his previous opinion is
wrong. That seems ridiculously unlikely. In other words, they aren't really
trying to win. Why?
I have to point out an "elephant in the room" that blows
SCO out of the water. They argue that Santa Cruz and Novel both acted as if the
copyrights were transferred. But this is clearly not true, mainly because Santa
Cruz never registered the copyrights. Why are there not many court precedents
to interpreting these weird inconclusive transfers? Because everyone else
registers the copyrights! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:29 PM EDT |
If your familiar with Presidential politics, whether he shows or doesn't show
says a lot about how he feels about the case.
In Presidential politics, there are three classes of states, states you are
guaranteed to win, states you are guaranteed to lose, and then the undecided
states. Presidential campaigns do not spend any effort in states they will win
anyway or in states where no matter how much they try, they will lose. They
spend all of their time trying to win states on the fence.
I think this scenario is somewhat similar. If Boises doesn't show, it either
means its a guaranteed winner or a guaranteed loser, and you all know which
bucket this case will go into. If Boises shows, it means he thinks it has a
chance, and he has a plan to reversing its course.
I believe he won't show.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
I don't think it will fly, but it's a nice attempt to rewrite history and case
law. IANAL but trying to use people who didn't write/sign a contract to change
the meaning doesn't seem like it will work. As a matter of fact, I can't see
the judge even considering it. I predict there will be no extrinct evidence
allowed, and if that happens, SCO is left with no objections to the APA.
It also seems unlikely that claiming the ammendments changed the basic agreement
instead of just clarifying that the old SCO could get something *if* they really
needed it isn't going to work. Since old SCO proved they didn't need the
copyright assignments by not asking/getting them, I don't see that's going to
fly either.
Overall, I'd say 325 is going to fly like a lead balloon. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|