|
|
| Hearing on Motions in Limine in SCO v. Novell Set for Sept. 13 |
 |
|
Monday, August 27 2007 @ 04:50 PM EDT
|
OMG. There is a hearing on all the motions in limine in SCO v. Novell, including SCO's motion in limine to exclude the very mention of IBM or Groklaw in the trial. All the motions in limine will be heard on September 13. Here is the PACER notation:400 -
Filed & Entered: 08/27/2007
Notice of Hearing on Motion
Docket Text: NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: [389] Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Related to Other Litigation and Commentary Thereon, [393] MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Preclude SCO from Contesting Licenses Conveying SVRX Rights are "SVRX Licenses", [390] Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Exhibits on Novell's Revised Exhibit List Not Previously Disclosed, [395] MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Preclude SCO from Introducing New Evidence or Argument of SCOsource Revenue, [391] MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Preclude SCO from Challenging Questions Already Decided as a Matter of Law : (Notice generated by Kim Jones) Motion Hearing set for 9/13/2007 10:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) This is really getting exciting, don't you think? I hope somebody is planning to attend, so I can faithfully report all the smears against Groklaw. I know. That may even be SCO's hope. But what can I do? It's my job. I'm a journalist. I have to report faithfully everything that happens. But it certainly feels odd. Joking around. I doubt much will be said, since SCO claims Novell isn't opposed to not mentioning Groklaw. Like they planned to. Puh lease.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: roboteye on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
| Please attempt to have all news pick discussions here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: roboteye on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Off topic threads here please.
Red text outside the comment box gives examples of embedding HTML (limited) and
links.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Still claiming to own UNIX - Authored by: James Wells on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- no meaningful indication that skype is spying after all - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Sony apparently involved in another hidden rootkit event - Authored by: ByteJuggler on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- Skype collects Linux user data too, not just Windows - Authored by: kjs on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 08:33 PM EDT
- Finally found a disktribution that works - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 09:37 PM EDT
- Microsoft buys and sells its version of facts... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 10:21 PM EDT
- the confidence that you are getting the experience you expect - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 11:46 PM EDT
- My song, "High Barratry", finally on CD - Authored by: ssavitzky on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 12:28 AM EDT
- Priced for a student’s budget-Free-open source desktop software presents a viable alternative - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 12:35 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: roboteye on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
Please place all corrections and discovered typos in this thread. Merci.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 05:32 PM EDT |
I wonder if we will gain any sense of Judge Kimball's attitude from the hearing,
it may be a preview of what the trial will be like for SCO.
It will be interesting to see if he hints at exasperation at some of SCO's
continuing behavior.
I would think if he is very businesslike and rules from the bench that it
doesn't bid well at all for SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
Can SCO file a motion so that the words "IBM" and "Groklaw"
are forbidden to be said out loud at the hearing?
SCO: "SCO feels it would be prejudiced if Novell were to mention either
_____ or _____ at trial, your honor."
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vortex on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
The SCO group wants IBM and GrokLaw kept out of the discussion. What are
the odds they'll abstain from quoting Mo'G and other stooges ?
It's
very noticeable that the SCO group repeatedly engages in what the shrinks refer
to as projection – accusing the other side of, or asking the court to
preclude the other side from doing, something they do extensively.
Maybe, when
the corporate veil has been pierced and the company's officers brought to
justice, their prison psychologist can help them to learn to look in a mirror
before they start calling everyone else rude names.
---
Finally - the
end game.
Break out the pop-corn, sit back and watch the fire-works.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT |
Springing off of a number of "grab the popcorn" comments (most
recently triggered by vortex's sig), I wonder: If I show up at the hearing with
a bowl of popcorn, will I be denied admission?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes! - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 06:57 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: webster on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
..
1. We are at the threshold of trial as we say in Latin. The Judge will rule on
the Motions and the trial will begin more or less on time. If he wants to hear
more about motions, he may do so on the trial date.
2. It's crunch time for the evidence. You have to get the right witnesses to
the right city and the right courthouse. Then you have to ask them the right
stuff and get the same answer you got from them months or years ago, the right
answer. Same with the exhibits. Simple tasks but susceptible to fumbling
amusement.
3. If there is no jury trial (as decided by the judge in limine), don't expect
any kind of trial except a stipulated trial. Both sides can stipulate to each
other's documents and depositions and then just argue to the Judge --unless one
side or the other feels it has some withering cross-examination for an opposing
witness. But since the only issue left in this trial is how much SCO owes
Novell from the M$-SUN license fees, the party that insists on testimony will
vex the judge. If SCO insists on a jury, that will vex the judge, too.
Especially if he learns that they have "nothing left to lose," or
freedom as the song goes.
4. The Tempest: SCO moves to strike Novell's added exhibits in anticipation of
SCO's SVRX fees theory; Novell moves to deter any new SCO apportionment theory.
The grossly simple answer to this is to grant both. This will result in a trial
without the relevant evidence. Novell will demand it all; SCO will deny it all
and most. SCO doesn't even have it to keep anymore. They can then argue what
proof there is from the documents in evidence. Since he's already held that SCO
owes something, he can't reward their stonewalling. He could really shortcut
the trial if he just awards something as a sanction.
5. So why is SCO playing out their bleak hand for no possible gain? One, this
is what SCO was paid to do. This is what that license money is really for.
There is continuing FUD value. Novell is getting it in litigation spades. [SCO
won't argue this!] Novell should have settled and saved time and expense. They
didn't, so trial and appeals for them. There may be nastier things for SCO to
come. Each day without that is total victory.
---
webster
© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 07:11 PM EDT |
This case has become quite protracted
With false statments not yet retracted
and license fees, bogus, extracted
perhaps SarBox has been infracted
The "lines of code" has been compacted
Their CEO over-reacted
Li-nux users they were contacted
Some paid up, their profits subtracted
The market through FUD was distracted
the PIPE Fairy's cash was transacted
but Kimball's ru-ling has impacted
the trial that's yet to be enacted
So to this farce we are attracted
With justice yet to be exacted
A jury, they ask, be contracted
But please do not mention REDACTED[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris hill on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 08:15 PM EDT |
You know, speaking with a friend of mine who is a very devious person, he
suggested a reason why SCO wants Groklaw eliminated from being mentioned.
This website has become famous for providing a balanced view, insightful
comments, and information from which the case can be disseminated.
Further, it has proven the ability of multiple people viewing and watching, as
well as commenting on a case. Not only are a lot of theories presented,
strategies are shown and discussed, and detailed discussions lead to ways on how
the case can proceed as well as structured analysis of options and case
histories and probabilities.
Combine this with a database where there is all of the quotes from the
principles, such as Darl McBride, a timeline of the history of Unix and Linux,
and other information packets, it struck me as I should have figured it out
before I was told.
If SCO is successful in getting Groklaw eliminated from being commented on, then
all the analysis previous to the date of the trial can be called as
'referencing' Groklaw if even any possible guesses that are made here turn up in
the case.
Even if it does not win them anything here, it can well be used to ask for a
case review and try to have the case overturned on using evidence, theories, and
other things from a website that was agreed to not be mentioned in any way.
A sneaky way of continuing litigation.
Chris Hill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TJ on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
...SCO is a DOMINANT Unix supplier and they make NO MONEY AT ALL.
ZERO PROFIt, a very tiny cash reserve, and I will add, probably a lot lower
development costs than we have. AND they have an apps business to boot!... Yes,
we have to beat Unix, but we have to beat it ONLY BECAUSE it's a long term
strategic threat. It isn't a market that is profitable or threatening in the
next few years.")
Internal Microsoft Email dated Jan. 20,
1990
... and here we are again, financially, 17 years
later! I found that whilst browsing Groklaw's
Comes vs Microsoft page, as Exhibit 212.
Okay it was a
different SCO (Santa Cruz Organisation, not The SCO Group), and back then
Microsoft saw SCO as a threat, not a useful tool, when UNIX was the long-term
competition not GNU/Linux.
It seems amusingly relevant in several ways,
but mostly I think what stands out to me is that whilst the FOSS
community deals with day-to-day issues Microsoft is working to long-term
strategic plans - Let's hope this SCO escapade and the recent patent-claims
innuendo by Microsoft
acts as a wake-up call that focuses attention on similar
planning by FOSS supporters, such as the OSDL patent commons project and all
the good work the desktop distributions in particular are doing in raising
awareness amongst a wider demographic.
Quote of the month, from the
mother of a childhood friend:
Google? What's that? Never heard of
it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grog6 on Monday, August 27 2007 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
of certain code, and all the (relatively) ancient info we were able to drag out
of dusty closets?
Thru the whole case, we were able to easily debunk pretty much everything that
they came up with; could the use of materials that first came to light here be
off the table if they exclude Groklaw?
Some person, out of all of us in our group here, knows Unix. Combine all the
readers and posters of Groklaw and between all of us, different parts of what we
call Groklaw know different parts of the whole Unix saga. Another (overlapping)
group knows Linux to the same amount; Over the whole... organism, so to speak,
pretty much everything there is to know about the subject is available.
Could a ruling prevent something from being introduced as evidence because it
came to light first on Groklaw?
I'm thinking, "There's no way..." But nothing these guys do makes much
sense anyway...
If there's a ruling that Novell CAN mention Groklaw, can they point to the
charts, commentary, and other cool stuff that's been done over the years? That
would be SO cool...
Of course, imagine if they ruled that Slashdot posts were okay to use:
"Darl, Slashdot user 'DIEDARLDie1435' said that you were a polyoptic
carbuncle who needed a squeezin'; do you care to address that?" (lol)
---
ITYJW? ITM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Liquor A. on Tuesday, August 28 2007 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
SCO claims Novell isn't opposed to not mentioning
Groklaw
I suspect that Novell is willing to ignore Groklaw,
provided that tSCOg is not allowed to mention Groklaw either: Otherwise, tSCOg
would be able to make claims that Novell would then be unable to rebut. (I can't
see Judge Kimball allowing that to fly anyway.)
I am coming to suspect,
however, that one of the reasons that tSCOg doesn't want GL mentioned is that it
would indirectly ban any documents produced in evidence which haven't been
captured from any other source - possibly something like the
AT&T -
BSD settlement , although I'm not sure how that would be relevant. Perhaps
somebody has some other suggestions for documents they'd rather not see at
trial?
---
Liquor A. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
