|
|
| OK. *Now* Judge Kimball is Sorry He Didn't Rule Quicker (joke) & AZ Status Report |
 |
|
Monday, July 14 2008 @ 08:46 PM EDT
|
I guess the wait was too much for some. There is a pro se motion to intervene [PDF] filed in SCO v. Novell by a person who is known for targeting prominent folks in lawsuits. I refer you to Wikipedia for the details. I can't top them, nor am I in a position to verify them, other than to point you to the references. Justia has a list of cases. But read the motion for yourself, and then remind yourselves of how many times I have told you how important it is to never go into a courtroom without a lawyer to at least explain things to you. There's a SCO status report [PDF] in SCO v. Autozone also, as per the judge's recently order. No fireworks there, but maybe it's in comparison it seems so staid and dull. The one detail that stands out is a foreshadowing of what SCO's appeal in SCO v. Novell is likely to be about. They stress the decision by Utah to hold a bench trial instead of letting SCO have its day in court before a jury of their peers. Should there be any such.
Here's the motion to intervene, as text. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 cited is here.
Here's the AutoZone status report as text, followed by the motion to intervene:
*********************
[BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP letterhead]
July 14, 2008
VIA HAND-DELIVERY
The Honorable Robert C. Jones
United States District Judge
District of Nevada
[address]
Re: The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc. CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL
Dear Judge Jones:
Pursuant to this Court's July 3, 2008 Order, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") respectfully submits this status report to apprise the Court of events occurring since our last update (on July 16, 2007) in certain other actions.
1. The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case No. 2:03CV0294 DAK (D. Utah)
This case was automatically stayed upon SCO's filing of voluntary petitions for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 14, 2007, as described below. Prior to the stay, the Court did not rule on the motions that were pending at the time of SCO's last update report, including the parties' motions for summary judgment.
2. The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 2:04CV00139 (D. Utah)
On August 10, 2007, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order that dismissed most of the un-stayed portions of SCO's case against Novell, granted most portions of Novell's motions for summary judgment, and permitted only issues related to Novells counterclaims to proceed to trial. The Order also had the effect of defeating SCO's claims in the IBM case to an extent the Court has not yet determined. The Court specifically ruled that:
- Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights existing at the time of the APA, because the APA failed to transfer them under contract and copyright law. This ruling dismissed SCO's slander claim and portions of its copyright and unfair competition claims based on ownership of the pre-APA copyrights.
1
-
Novell had the right to waive SCO's claims against IBM, concluding that "SVRX Licenses" refers to "all contracts relating to "SVRX, including the UNIX licenses underlying those claims. This ruling granted Novell's Fourth Counterclaim and dismissed portions of SCO's contract and unfair competition claims based on the alleged impropriety of Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM.
-
SCO's 2003 Agreements with Sun and Microsoft contained SVRX Licenses and the proceeds from those Licenses were therefore SVRX Royalties owned Novell. Accordingly, the Court largely granted Novell's motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment/restitution, which are all based on Novell's claim to SVRX Royalties from the Sun and Microsoft Agreements.
The Court declined to adjudicate as moot Novell's motion for summary judgment on SCO's alleged failure to establish special damages in support of its slander claim.
Upon a motion by Novell opposed by SCO, the Court conducted a four-day bench trial of remaining issues starting on April 29, 2008. These issues were whether SCOsource Agreements with Linux users also contained SVRX Licenses and the amounts, if any, that SCO owed Novell for the SVRX Licenses in SCOsource Agreements, including the Sun and Microsoft Agreements. The Court has not yet issued its findings or entered final judgment.
After the deadline for dispositive motions and before trial, Novell filed an additional motion for summary judgment asking the Court to declare that SCO had entered into the Sun and Microsoft Agreements without Novell's authority and consent. In response, SCO filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, asking the Court to dismiss either Novell's claim that SCO lacked that authority or Novell's claim for proceeds from those Agreements, as the claims are legally incompatible.
On September 14, 2007, SCO and its wholly owned subsidiary, SCO Operations, Inc. (collectively the "Debtors"), filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Debtors' Chapter 11 cases are being jointly administered under Case No. 07-11337 (KG).
On October 4, 2007, Novell filed a Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay in the Bankruptcy Court. On November 27, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay to permit Novell to pursue the trial scheduled in the Utah District Court on the allocation of proceeds from the SCOsource agreements and the question of SCO's alleged lack of authority to enter into them, but the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to determine whether to impose a constructive trust on any amounts found to be payable to Novell. Upon the partial lifting of the automatic stay, the District Court in Utah scheduled and held the April 29, 2008 trial on the issues for which the Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay.
2
3. Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., Case No. 03-772-SLR (D. Del.)
As Your Honor knows, the Court in the Red Hat case has stayed that action sua sponte. In addition, the case was automatically stayed upon SCO's filing for bankruptcy protection on September 14, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
[signature]
Richard J. Pocker
cc: James Pisanelli, Esq. (via hand-delivery)
Davis S. Stone, Esq. (via facsimile)
**********************
**********************
United States District Court
District of Utah
The SCO Group, Inc; Jonathan Lee Riches,
Plaintiffs
V.
Novell, Inc,
Defendants
Civil No: 2:04 CV 139 DAK
Motion For Reconsideration
Motion To Intervene As Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Motion For Reconsideration or Clarification enbanc
Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff pursuant to Fed R. Civ P 24
------------------------------------------------------------
Comes now the intervenor, Jonathan Lee Riches, w pro-se, moves this
honorable Court to Intervene as Plaintiff in this case pursuant to Fed R.
Civ P rule 24(A)2 - as a matter of right. I have a interest in this case
regarding the Unixware Software and defendants refusing Royalty payment. I
move for clarification on this courts previous ruling with SCO's SVRX
Licenses.
Defendants are not following the agreement with this court. I have further
information to back plaintiffs claims. I can be reached and contacted at
the below address.
I pray this Court will Grant me rule 24 intervention.
Respectfully ___[signature]___
7-7-08
Jonathan Lee Riches
[address]
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sawdust Bytes on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM EDT |
| Please, make them easy to find. ---
Slowly I turned...
Randy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:00 PM EDT |
| 1 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sawdust Bytes on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
| N/T ---
Slowly I turned...
Randy [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:04 PM EDT |
Oh. My. Gosh!
Put down the crayon and step away from the law clerk.
This goes beyond simply not having a lawyer to represent oneself or to advise
you in your representation. The magnitude of the folly of this filing is
difficult to countenance in any serious proceeding.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:08 PM EDT |
We are back to where we were a couple of weeks ago.
The article is showing Zero postings.
I make a posting. This time number 1.
After posting is made I discover that there was a previous posting.
I go away visit another web site, come back reread, and observe that
there are still zero positing but I know as I type that there are at least
two.
Something is wrong with the posting counter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:14 PM EDT |
Instead of letting SCO have its day in court before a jury of their
peers.
Let's see what a jury of their Peers would look
like:
- Conrad Black
- Buford Yates
- Troy Normand
- Bernie Ebber
-
Scott Sullivan
- Jack Abramoff
- Tim Donaghy
-
You are free to add til
we get our dirty dozen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
Oh wow, pass the popcorn.
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:22 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 09:37 PM EDT |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 10:09 PM EDT |
| But it must be April's fools day. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
Does a motion like this have to be served on the parties? It seems like most
motions we see here have a page at the end about how they served it on
everybody, but this one doesn't.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Service? - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 03:37 AM EDT
- Service? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 09:24 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
| Who on earth would lower themselves that much? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
This one did fall off the turnip truck. Head first!
Waterman, not logged in.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
Could it be that he isn't interested in suing anyone, but just wants to fly
FedAir to Utah for a vacation from his stay in the Grey Bar hotel?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Road trip - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 07:02 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 11:30 PM EDT |
I believe that one of the comments on that guy's talk page tells the story the
best. Here's the relevant bit about JL Riches:
I would like to see
a section on the cultural impact of Mr. Riches' activities. That might help to
'balance' it out. He has certainly made an impact on internet culture, where he
is widely regarded to be a very clever comic essayist who's chosen lawsuits as
his medium. Or else he's nuts, no one's really sure.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kenryan on Monday, July 14 2008 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
This caught my attention:
"On August 10, 2007, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order that dismissed
most of the un-stayed portions of SCO's case against Novell, [...]"
Is this innocent but unfortunate wording, or is SCO trying to scramble the
timeline a bit? The first impression of someone reading this may be that the
Utah M&O was issued after the bankruptcy filing, against the automatic
stay.
I surely could be reading too much into it (the letter does provide all the
correct dates after all), but again this is BSF talking ...
---
ken
(speaking only for myself, IANAL)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Cheers on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
*cracks knuckles and leans chair back*
This is EXACTLY the entertainment I needed to tide me over until the ruling
comes.
Just think of it like the rodeo clowns running around while they're waiting for
the next event :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 12:31 AM EDT |
What would be the effect on the schedule? Does Kimball has to pretend this is
serious and hear the guy and/or require the motion to be fully briefed before he
moves ahead with the ruling? The US legal system has bent backward so often to
silliness, I can't help but wonder if it will do it again.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 12:35 AM EDT |
| We don't need another ring in this circus. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 01:02 AM EDT |
| This guy has got to be some sort of protege of his or something... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 01:09 AM EDT |
Apparently frivolous lawsuit sanctions DO exist in the
US (anyone got
evidence of this?), but the sanctions can
be avoided by spreading the lawsuits
across different
federal jurisdictions. As a result, Riches can get fame
and a
laugh from his complaints without fear of reprisals.
It is not about
winning. It is about wasting other
people's time for fun. If he hired a lawyer,
it would
cost money, possibly waste more time, but would probably
be less
fun. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 02:01 AM EDT |
Do not question the mental health of Mr Riches! If you do, he may well sue
Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 03:34 AM EDT |
| By intervening, SCO now has a moral duty to pay him $$$$$. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- On the contrary - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 11:37 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
Obviously SCO have run out of money to spend on lawyers and he's going to step
into the breach.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wowbagger on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 09:32 AM EDT |
Why has this nutjob not been ruled a vexatious litigant?
Look, everybody deserves the *opportunity* for their day in court, but only if
they have an actual case. Somebody like this should be required to get a lawyer
to review their filings and reject any that have no merit.
(personally, I think this guy needs to be gifted a nice canvas sweater with long
sleeves and shiny buckles, and given a nice Haldol lollipop to suck on....)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
Could SCO indirectly whispered in this guy's ear to get involved in the SCO
case? It would be an unforseen tactic to cause additional delay.
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Seems like a simple motion from Novell could have this clown declared vexious
and get his motion quashed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
Could we be seeing a job application in disguise???
Next SCO CEO: Jonathan Lee Riches??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
I heard that Mr. Riches is in the process of cleaning out an adjoining cell for
all the SCO people...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dromasco on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
Just when I was starting to tap my fingers....... SCO certainly delivers on the
entertainment value. Having Riches as part of their team can only be good for
everyone concerned (especially since SCO has managed to shred all possibility of
recompensing Novell).
I note Riches' history of famous opponents from the Atlanta Journal:"Among
those sued by Riches: George Bush, Malcolm X, Vanna White, Jimmy Hoffa,
Google.com, Pope Benedict XVI, Adolph Hitler's National Socialist Party, the
Ming Dynasty, the Statue of Liberty, Michaelangelo, the Hubble Telescope, the
Magna Carta, Plato, the Tenth Edition of the Merriam Webster Dictionary, Tsunami
victims, the Appalachian Trial, Meals on Wheels, Tony Danza and Lambeau Field,
home of the NFL's Green Bay Packers." Please note that ANYBODY can sue the
Appalachian Trail; this genius sued "the Appalachian Trial". Wow. If
this doesn't retrieve the sinking prestige of American jurisprudence shown so
far, nothing will.
To coin a phrase: ROTFLMAO![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aim Here on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
Heh,
Mr Riches "normal" court filings are generally jam packed with
preposterous details of bizarre crimes committed against him by famous people -
'Martha Stewart's Turkeys attacked me so I contracted poison Ivy and fell in a
groundhog hole' or 'OJ Simpson is Steve Jobs' hitman' type of thing.
But not even Mr Riches' fevered imagination can concoct anything to top the
crazy notion that there is some information to back SCO's claims. That says it
all, really...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
| This guy is an obvious troll, so shouldn't we be ignoring him? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
And next he's going to claim he's the fake David Boies, and that he's been
directing SCO's legal strategy from his cell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dromasco on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
Could THIS be the "Riches" Darl has been dreaming about?
<apologies to all, but this real-life twist is perhaps the most farcical
thing I've seen yet in this hullabaloo....>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 06:32 PM EDT |
| Did he steal Blepp's suitcase? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 15 2008 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
And yet the case against
Michael
Vick has him "committing his criminal acts"
against Riches in
2007.
I got the sentencing date from the combination of his
expected release date
minus the
10 years he's expected to be serving.
It really makes one wonder
just how long he can keep
this up without being shutdown by the Courts.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
