|
|
| Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell: SCO Loses Again |
 |
|
Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 08:36 PM EST
|
The final judgment [PDF] from Utah is here at last. It recites what the
August 10, 2007 and July 16, 2008 orders said, but it also resolves the recent dispute over SCO's desire to voluntarily waive some claims and then bring them back to the table after an appeal, should it prove successful. Here's SCO's motion to voluntarily dismiss, and Novell's response, so you can verify that this judgment indeed represents another loss for SCO. You'll see that it was Novell that suggested the wording regarding SCO's voluntarily dismissed claims that we see in the judgment, that they be dismissed "without the possibility of renewal following appeal." SCO caved on its voluntarily dismissed claims, then, and Novell did not. So, another loss for SCO. No matter what happens on appeal, then, SCO can't resurrect those claims. It can appeal the rest of the matters it lost in August 2007 and July of 2008. Novell, however, in an identical circumstance, can pull its voluntarily dismissed claims out of its back pocket and go after SCO. And I'm sure it would. In the wording of the judgment, Novell has "the right to pursue these claims only in this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this action." So if there were an appeal and SCO got the case sent back to Utah for a jury trial, for example, SCO's favorite daydream, then Novell could bring back to the courtroom all its voluntarily dismissed claims.
Here, in contrast, is the wording on the SCO claims from the judgment: 3. The remaining portions of SCO's claims for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright Infringement(Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V) are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, without the possibility of renewal following appeal. So, all the tricky language
SCO suggested to the judge was for naught. Whew.
Here's the docket entry:
11/20/2008 565 - FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Novell, Inc., SCO Group and also against Novell, Inc., SCO Group. Case Closed. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells no longer assigned to case. See Judgment for details. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 11/20/08. (ce) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
Now it's on to an appeal, if SCO can afford it, I suppose. As SCO's lawyer, Arthur Spector, told the court at the September hearing in the bankruptcy, that could take a year and a half or it could take five. Of course, Novell could appeal also, independent of SCO, and it might decide to, in some alternate universe where companies throw away a hard-won victory. I guess they could appeal the amount they won, trying to get it higher, or Novell might want to appeal the judgment from July that SCO had the right to enter into the Microsoft and SCOsource end user licenses. I know I would like them to. If SCO appeals, then I think Novell might just go ahead. If not, who'd blame them for wanting to forget they ever met anybody called SCO? If it were me, I'd decide based on whether I thought SCO was going to get new funding. If they did, I'd go ahead and appeal, because otherwise whoever buys up the litigation or backs it could restart SCOsource. I think that's what all the delay in bankruptcy has been about, actually. SCO isn't so keen on showing its hand, I'd imagine. Anyway, after the lull in SCO news, for sure it's going to get really interesting again pronto.
**********************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
_______________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim-
Defendant,
v.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
____________________
FINAL JUDGMENT
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
____________________
Whereas by Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007, the Court having
ruled on the parties' summary judgment motions, and the matter having come before the Court
for trial on April 29 and 30 and May 1 and 2, 2008, and the Court having issued its Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, and the parties having stipulated or
moved to dismiss the claims remaining after the foregoing Orders, and the Court having
considered the submissions of the parties concerning the entry of Final Judgment, and good
cause appearing, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
1. SCO's claims for Slander of Title (Count I) and Specific Performance (Count III) are
dismissed pursuant to the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007.
2. SCO's claims for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright Infringement (Count IV),
and Unfair Competition (Count V) are dismissed pursuant to the Court's Memorandum Decision
and Order dated August 10, 2007, insofar as these claims are based on ownership of pre-APA
UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
3. The remaining portions of SCO's claims for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright
Infringement (Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V) are voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice, without the possibility of renewal following appeal.
4. With respect to Novell's claims for Declaratory Relief (Count IV), pursuant to the
Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007, Novell is entitled to direct
SCO to waive claims against IBM, Sequent, and other SVRX licensees; Novell is entitled to
waive such claims on SCO's behalf; and SCO is obligated to recognize such a waiver. In
addition, pursuant to the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16,
2008, SCO was not authorized under the APA to amend, in the 2003 Sun Agreement, Sun's 1994
SVRX buyout agreement with Novell, and SCO needed to obtain Novell's approval before
entering into the amendment; but SCO was fully authorized under the APA to enter into the 2003
Microsoft Agreement and the SCOsource Agreements with Linux end-users without any
approval by Novell.
5. With respect to Novell's claims for Constructive Trust/Restitution/Unjust Enrichment
(Count VI), Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count VII), and Conversion (Count VIII), pursuant to the
Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, Judgment is
hereby entered in favor of Novell for $2,547,817, for the revenues from the 2003 Sun Agreement
attributable to the unauthorized amendment of the SVRX confidentiality provisions in Sun's
1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell. Pursuant to the parties' agreement reflected in
Novell's Unopposed Submission Regarding Prejudgment Interest dated August 29, 2008, that
award is increased by $918,122 in prejudgment interest through August 29, 2008, plus $489 per
diem thereafter until the date of this Judgment.
6. Further with respect to Novell's claim for a Constructive Trust (Count VI), as reported
in Novell's Submission Regarding the Entry of Final Judgment dated August 29, 2008, the
parties have reached an agreement as to the amount of the constructive trust ($625,486.90), and
the parties will be reporting that amount to the Bankruptcy Court in the related bankruptcy
proceeding, if they have not already done so.
7. Novell's claim for Accounting (Count IX) is mooted by the Court's Memorandum
Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007.
8. Pursuant to the parties' Joint Statement dated August 17, 2007, and Supplemental Joint
Statement dated August 24, 2007, Novell's claims for Slander of Title (Count I), Breach of
Contract (Count II), and Declaratory Relief (Count V) are voluntarily dismissed, with the right to
pursue these claims only in this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this
action.
9. Pursuant to the Court's Order dated September 7, 2007, granting Novell's Motion to
Voluntarily Dismiss Its Third Claim for Relief dated August 24, 2007, Novell's claim for Breach
of Contract (Count III) is voluntarily dismissed, with the right to pursue this claim only in this
action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this action.
DATED this 20th Day of November, 2008
BY THE COURT:
___[signature]___
Judge Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: perpetualLurker on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 08:49 PM EST |
Please post any corrections to this thread....
Thank you! .........pL...........
---
"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance
like nobody's watching." -- Leroy "Satchel" Paige
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: perpetualLurker on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 08:51 PM EST |
Please make sure you include a link or the title so we know which News Pick you
are referring to...
Thank you!
.........pL............
---
"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance
like nobody's watching." -- Leroy "Satchel" Paige
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 08:51 PM EST |
| ... SCO was fully authorized under the APA to enter into the 2003 Microsoft
Agreement and the SCOsource Agreements with Linux end-users without any approval
by Novell.
Can someone shed some light on this statement? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: perpetualLurker on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 08:52 PM EST |
And for the final entry in the hat trick... whatcha wanna talk about today?
Thank you!
...........pL..........
---
"Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance
like nobody's watching." -- Leroy "Satchel" Paige
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 08:57 PM EST |
Fascinating. Totally fascinating.
And I'll say this one more time - I now wish I'd gone to law school.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:07 PM EST |
| According to the
Groklaw timeline:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:09 PM EST |
I'm confused (and, admittedly have been for some time) over the amounts quoted
for the judgment vs. the constructive trust:
In part 5 of the judgment, it says, "... Judgment is hereby entered in
favor of Novell for $2,547,817 ..." whereas in part 6, it says, "...
the parties have reached an agreement as to the amount of the constructive trust
($625,486.90) ...".
Why has Novell agreed to such an amount, when the judgment clearly awarded them
over 4 times that amount, not including (ongoing) interest? We all know that
the likelihood of their seeing any more that the amount in the constructive
trust (if even that) is vanishingly small.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Totosplatz on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:13 PM EST |
Remember way back when the case was all about Big Bad Blue?
Are we now back to where it can again be all about Big Bad Blue?
Nah! That would be too easy!
---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:16 PM EST |
PJ,
Do you think that SCO got punished for playing tricks and employing those
delaying tactics etc?
I know judges are not suppose to say I am imposing this and that because you
were naughty. If they did, they probably have to answer to the appeal court. But
as we all know they have discretion, for example, lean a bit heavy when it comes
to determining damages ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:38 PM EST |
..
1. SCO now has its final judgment so now they can appeal these judgments and
every order on every losing motion along the way. True they lost the claims
that they voluntarily dismissed, but they don't have to face judgments against
them from those claims either.
2. They caved in on these claims, which related to the arbitration, to get what
they wanted --a final judgment. It leaves them a very hollow appeal because if
they win anything in the appeal, they would then still have to face Novell's
countervailing defenses to the claims that were voluntarily dismissed with
prejudice. SCO is not going to be able to raise these claims in any retrial,
yet Novell can raise them in any defense. This makes the appeal almost a waste
of time as far as SCO v Novell. SCO is in it only for aspects relating to other
parties like IBM.
3. SCO must have bamboozled someone into financing their appeal if it could
begin before they went into fiscal dormancy. Either that or the PIPE Fairy
needs to jump in while they still have offices.
4. SCO tried for a few bits in the final judgment but it didn't work out.
Novell stood smart and tough and won a few more claims. Now SCO gets to appeal.
Novell gets to appeal also. Unless there is a blatant blunder, cases are hard
do overturn. The August 10 Order is an immense obstacle. Novell will
cross-appeal if they have to bother. This is not risk free for SCO.
5. The appeal is not all that complicated. They can be selective with their
issues or appeal everything. The trial record may obviate some of the issues.
Everything is briefed. They just have to lay out the record and update the
research. This is the most voluminous and tedious work extant. That's why
parties have to pay so much an hour for it.
6. They will have to put up an appeal bond or escrow of the judgment. The
bankruptcy court will have a say on this aspect, but it can not tell the court
of appeals what to do in waiving any bond.
7. Of course, if they do not want the weight of IBM on them, they have to
appeal and maintain the stay in bankruptcy.
8. SCO can't afford the bankruptcy expenses much longer. The real plan, the
one that existed since before the bankruptcy is about to unfold further.
9. If an appeal gets going, GL should take bets on its length. The first guess
is 31 months from filing to decision.
~webster~
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Your 3? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:47 PM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 09:44 AM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 10:43 AM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 10:54 AM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 01:50 PM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 09:03 PM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 22 2008 @ 09:22 AM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, November 22 2008 @ 10:35 AM EST
- cross-appeal? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 23 2008 @ 11:43 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:46 PM EST |
Well, that's it. SCO lost but they won't just go away.
It's been nice getting to know Judge Dale A. Kimball. No doubt he's had to wade
through more piles of this poop than even PJ! I hope we're able to invite him to
the party when this actually concludes in 5 or 15 years.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atheist on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 09:52 PM EST |
| [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 10:01 PM EST |
Quoting from paragraph 4:
"[. . .] but SCO was fully authorized under the APA to enter into the 2003
Microsoft Agreement and the SCOsource Agreements with Linux end-users without
any approval by Novell."
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 10:15 PM EST |
the status of Novell's counterclaims in arbitration is not mentioned. SCOG's
claims are dropped, but Novell's counterclaims are not mentioned.
So is this final with respect to everything before the Utah court,
BUT NOT FINAL with respect to the arbitration?
That's how it reads to me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: digger53 on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 10:43 PM EST |
| And SCO puts one foot into to the grave. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 10:49 PM EST |
The phrase has such beautiful finality to it. The war has swept across this
field and moved on. There may be appeals and flanking maneuvers and assaults
anew far or near in place and time but here on this field, this day, this battle
is done. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, November 20 2008 @ 11:45 PM EST |
Doesn't that make Novell the largest creditor in the Bankruptcy by far? I think
its more than the total of all of the other creditors.
---
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: SirHumphrey on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 01:24 AM EST |
I can't wait to see the flurry of trades now.
$5 here, some lunch money there. Brokers happy to take a few coins out of the
bag before passing it along. At a mere baker's dozen pennies, the stock is sure
to attract savvy investors happy to hand over some serious bread.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 02:51 AM EST |
I mean if you can't protect your IP, then surely the whole economy will
collapse.
"As a new bout of fear gripped the financial markets, stocks fell sharply
again on Thursday, continuing a months-long plunge that has wiped out the gains
of the last decade." - NYT November 19, 2008
I'm sure it won't be long before SCO argues that the current lack of faith by
investors has as much to do with their case as with economic fundamentals.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hollinch on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 04:11 AM EST |
What interests me is to know how much this 'setting the record straight' has
cost Novell, what is the financial penalty for them, in paying their legal teams
and fees, in order to obtain this result? Will there ever be a compensation for
it?
I am still puzzled by this two-facedness of Novell, where they have defended
their interest against SCO very well, but on the other hand they're in the sack
with Microsoft, one of the drivers behind this case against Novell in the first
place. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Jaap
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 05:44 AM EST |
"In addition, pursuant to the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Order dated July 16, 2008, SCO was not authorized under the APA to amend, in
the 2003 Sun Agreement, Sun's 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell, and SCO
needed to obtain Novell's approval before entering into the amendment",
writes Kimball
But there wasn't a buyout agreement on the confidentiality restrictions in the
1994 Sun agreement. Which is and was the only basis for Kimball to find SCO
guilty for breach of its fiduciary duty to Novell. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 08:55 AM EST
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 10:48 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 06:21 AM EST |
"3. The remaining portions of SCO's claims for Breach of Contract (Count
II), Copyright Infringement(Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V) are
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, without the possibility of renewal
following appeal."
That way Novell (together with Suse) is safe from what it otherwise would have
to demand divestiture for through Arbitration.
It sounded pathetic anyway.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 07:30 AM EST |
"If it were me, I'd decide based on whether I thought SCO was going to get
new funding. If they did, I'd go ahead and appeal, because otherwise whoever
buys up the litigation or backs it could restart SCOsource."
Speaking strictly from current financial market considerations one would not be
much intellectually or have much knowledge of markets if one recommended
investing in SCO based on financial considerations unless one was using SCO to
advance some other financial goal that assumed any and all funds invested in SCO
were spent in pursuit of a more solid based return for the simple reason that
today with the likes of City Group on the block there are simply to many better
vehicles where one can make much more money with less effort and a higher
degreed of certainty. So if one see an investment in SCO one should
automatically start looking at alternate agendas.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 07:31 AM EST |
| This will probably be substantial. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 10:30 AM EST |
So, as I understand it, SCO moved to dismiss several claims with prejudice, but
subject to renewal on a successful appeal. Novell objected to SCO being able to
do that.
In the ruling, Judge Kimball orders the claims dismissed with prejudice and NOT
able to be renewed. There's no further discussion or justification for that
ruling.
So, is this completely within his discretion? Had SCO not voluntarily moved to
dismiss those claims, would we have final judgement? And is the judge within
his discretion to change the terms of SCO's motion without (as far as I'm aware)
a hearing?
I'm glad SCO isn't being handed yet another loophole--I just don't want it to
open up again if they've got a case on appeal that "Judge Kimball shouldn't
have dismissed those claims." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 04:07 PM EST |
A pome by ScriptWriter inspired by a German SCO rep claiming Linux doesn't
exist.
There's no such thing as Linux
That fills me with dismay
It must be an illusion
What I sit and do all day
I can't be running Firefox
When I do my web exploring,
I can't be playing Pysol --
Gee, my life is rather boring.
There's no such thing as Linux
And therefore, I would fear,
I've wasted gobs of time
Upon a thing that isn't here.
Those web streams that I listen to
From varied types of stations
Apparently are only
Auditory hallucinations.
There's no such thing as Linux?
It makes me wonder how
This program I'm compiling
Runs through gcc right now.
I'm not sure whether
My OS exists or not,
But either way it's better
Than what Microsoft has got.
There's no such thing as Linux?
Please say it isn't true!
If I can't play with my penguin
I don't know what I'll do.
But as I sit and ponder
There is one thing that I know:
It won't be very long until
There's no such thing as SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Love it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 05:56 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 06:00 PM EST |
Now on to bigger and better things!
The unclosed <font color="red"> tag...
-Wang-Lo.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LaurenceTux on Friday, November 21 2008 @ 08:40 PM EST |
okay so given the order (which we have all by now read printed framed and had a
few rounds over) how does this effect the other cases??
TSCOG V IBM: also before Judge Kimball i see a bloodbath coming
Bankruptcy: Convert to Chapter 7 within a week or so (Error TSCOG is writing NSF
checks now)
Redhat: DEAD CASE point 4 of the order
Suse : DEAD CASE point 4 of the order
AutoZone: NO CASE LEFT (and point 4 also)
Appeal: NSF for the bond, Vegas won't touch the odds (and the new POTUS will
most likely have them hammered for trying)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thatseattleguy on Saturday, November 22 2008 @ 02:47 AM EST |
| I'm sure I'm not the only one who's a little hazy on the money issues at this
point....
What I think I understand:
1) Novell's been awarded
$3.5M in judgement plus interest, give or take,
from SCO.
2) However,
due to tracing rules, they've agreed to allow SCO to put just
$650K in a
constructive trust.
What I don't get yet:
1) When does Novell
actually get the money put into the constructive trust -
immediately, or after
the bankruptcy action is complete and a reorg plan
approved,
or some other
time?
2) What happens to the remaining $2.85M ($3.5M-$650K)?
Does Novell
become an ordinary creditor (in the bankruptcy court) along with
all the
others, for that amount? Or do they become a super-creditor, to be paid
first,
before any other creditors? Or do they have no legal standing at all as
a
creditor, and need to pursue the missing (spent) funds at their current
locations (eg, suing SCO's lawyers to get some of what they were paid)? Or
something else entirely?
3) What does the appeal bond have to do with the
constructive trust? Are they
one and the same, or two different things? If the
latter, how much would the
bond be, and when and how would it ever be paid to
Novell?
4) Anything else I'm missing?
Thanks for enlightement on the
above from those who truly know (rather
than people just randomly speculating,
which it seems there's quite enough
of already).
/TSG/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 22 2008 @ 11:47 AM EST |
Is it clear at all what happens now to the SCO-SUSE arbitration? Again, there
seems to be lots of speculation about this but no facts. Does the arbitration
now go away because it was part of the case and part of a general settlement, or
does it not go away because it was "severed from the case" and
obtained a life of its own? Or (third possibility) could it be that the
arbitration is finished, but the decisions are held confidential and not
released to the public?
Please. In spite of my last sentence above, facts, not speculations, if
possible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 22 2008 @ 05:00 PM EST |
What ever happened to Laura Didio's assurances that SCO had a case after she
examined the secret code examples upon signing SCO's ridiculous non-disclosure
agreement? Has Laura updated her opinions as the latest news comes out, or is
this case no longer newsworthy because it hasn't gone the way she hoped?
What ever happened to Bobby Enderle? Or his predictions that SCO was going to
wipe the floor with Linux? Or on the greatness of Unix? Is he still giving
speeches on the "shotgun story" with Bill Gates in the early years?
Still pimping Microsoft and Unix over Linux?
And Daryl? Is he still milking SCO for as much as he can, or did he ride into
the sunset on his pony and with his six-guns strapped to his sides?
Looking at the growth rates of GNU/Linux in server rooms (buh bye, Sun), in
embedded, in mobile, in robotics, in University teaching facilities, on the
Internet, in autos, in digital televisions, in Sony products, in industry, in
military, in overseas schools, on overseas desktops, in animation, in
supercomputing, in NASA, in scientific computing, on Wall Street, on Main
Street, in sub-notes, on nearly all upcoming laptops due to fast-boot...is it
any wonder we haven't heard from Laura, Bobby & Daryl?
The GNU/Linux juggernaut continues...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 23 2008 @ 03:30 AM EST |
Is this a red dress moment? I distinctively remember Pam
in a red dress was in the offering when SCO bit the dust.
Even If I don't remember correctly, I'd still like to see
new Pam in Red fotos!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Red Dress? - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 23 2008 @ 03:41 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: elderlycynic on Sunday, November 23 2008 @ 07:12 AM EST |
My understanding is that Gross is 'almost' obliged to let
Novell get the constructive trust turned into a real payment
of some sort (i.e. to a trustee of some sort). But can
Novell ask for that to be done to the whole award?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2008 @ 06:26 PM EST |
| In regard to Novell's Motion for Entry of Order Confirming Constrctive Trust
and Directing the
Debtors to Pay Funds to Novell we
had.
This matter has been settled in principal; the Debtors
will submit a consensual order or stipulation under certification of
counsel.
So, when do you think the Debtor's will file the
consensual order or stipulation? This year? Next year? Never never
...?
Answers on the back of a postcard please ;-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25 2008 @ 11:36 AM EST |
I read the ruling from Kimball and I can't see anything new in which SCO lost so
I'm confused by the heading of this thread that "SCO loses again."
The ruling simply re-stated all the things that the judge had ruled on in the
past and made the judgement final, which is what SCO has been asking for.
It's been painfully obvious that Novell's game plan over the past couple of
years has been to avoid this day when SCO could take this case to the appeals
courts. But here we are, the action now moves to Denver and who knows what
could happen. We could, in a year, be completely back to square one if SCO
wins. So did SCO lose something in this latest ruling? I don't think so. They
got exactly what they've wanted since August 10th, 2007 - a chance to run the
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this case, I think it was Novell who lost
this battle.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
