|
|
| The SCO v. Novell Summary Judgment Motions: Chart |
 |
|
Monday, March 30 2009 @ 11:51 AM EDT
|
Erwan has put together for us a chart of all the motions in SCO v. Novell that were decided prior to trial in the August 10, 2007 Order and the final two motions decided after trial in the July 16, 2008 Order. Since SCO is appealing that order, based in part on the idea that some motions should not have been decided on summary judgment and needed to go to trial before a jury, it seems a good time to organize them all, so you can follow the arguments in the appeal, particularly if you are thinking of attending oral argument. Novell will file its response shortly, and oral argument will be on May 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom I, Byron White U.S. Courthouse, Denver, CO. If you are thinking of attending, and you can, here's the scoop: cell phones that take pictures will be confiscated at the entrance. Laptops
are allowed. Observers may attend any hearing of interest without prior
registration. Map. As with all judicial centers under Colorado law and federal law, the Byron
White US Courthouse is a federal government building which means no
permitted concealed weapons, photo ID is required for entrance, and you may be subject to
electronic search at the entrances.
The court recommends that you call the day before or check the website for the
"Argument Calendar" and that you are at the door, ready to go in at least 15
minutes before the session you are interested in is scheduled to start.
We aimed at keeping this table as simple as possible. For every last detail, you can visit Groklaw's Novell timeline page. The chart is nevertheless quite elaborate, so if you notice any errors, please let us know.
Groklaw's Timelines allow simple click navigation between related entries, with links to PDFs, plain text versions, and articles mentioning the motion. So the best entry point may be the
10-Aug-2007 order [377] and work around from there, since that is the order that ruled on the motions.
Alternatively, you can start from any of the motions:
[147],
[171],
[180],
[224],
[258],
[271],
[273],
[275] or
[277]
| Movant |
Subject |
Motion |
Memorandum in Support |
Memorandum in Opposition |
Reply Memorandum |
Hearing Date |
Decision |
| Novell |
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction |
[147]
[Text]
|
[148]
[Text]
[Exhibits]
|
[183] sealed
[Article]
[209] redacted
[Article]
|
[205] sealed
[198] redacted
[Text]
|
23-Jan-2007 [227](1) |
[377]
Granted in Part, Denied in Part
[Text]
|
| Novell |
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief |
[171]
[Text]
|
[175] sealed
[172] redacted
[Article]
[Text]
|
[213] sealed(5)
[265] redacted
[Article]
[Text]
|
[237] sealed
[Article]
|
23-Jan-2007 [227](1)
04-Jun-2007 [356](3)
|
[377]
Granted
[Text]
|
| SCO |
Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims
|
[180]
[Article]
|
[214] sealed
[Article]
[183] sealed
[Article]
[209] redacted
[Article]
|
[221] sealed
[Article]
|
[233] sealed |
23-Jan-2007 [227](1) |
[377]
Granted in Part, Denied in Part
[Text]
|
| SCO |
Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim |
[224](5)
[Article]
|
[213] sealed(5)
[265] redacted
[Article]
[Text] |
[240] sealed
[242]
|
[251] sealed
[266] redacted
|
23-Jan-2007 [227](1)
04-Jun-2007 [356](3)
|
[377] Denied
[Text]
|
| SCO |
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim.
|
[258](5)
[Text] |
[259](5)
[Text]
|
[292]
[Article]
[Text]
|
[346]
[Article]
|
04-Jun-2007 [356](3) |
[377] Denied
[Text]
|
| Novell |
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
|
[271]
[Article]
|
[272]
[Article]
|
[299]
[Article]
|
[332]
[Article]
|
31-May-2007 [355](2) |
[377] Granted
[Text]
|
| Novell |
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
|
[273]
[Article]
Corrected [282]
|
[287] sealed
[274] redacted
[Article]
|
[301]
[Article]
|
[333]
[Article]
|
31-May-2007 [355](2) |
[377]
Granted in Part, Denied in Part
[Text]
|
| Novell |
Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance |
[275]
[Article]
|
[276]
[Text]
|
[306] sealed
[Article]
[325] redacted
[Article]
|
[338] sealed
[Article]
[337] redacted
[Article]
|
04-Jun-2007 [356](3) |
[377] Granted
[Text]
|
| Novell |
Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special Damages
|
[277]
[Article]
|
[288] sealed
[291] redacted
[Text]
|
[307] sealed
[Article]
[360] redacted
[Article]
|
[339] sealed
[Article]
[358] redacted
[Article]
|
31-May-2007 [355](2) |
[377] Moot
[Text]
|
| Novell |
Motion for Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief. |
[478]
[Article]
|
[482] sealed
[479] redacted
[Text]
|
[490] sealed
[501] redacted
[Article]
[Text]
|
[500] sealed
[495] redacted
[Text]
|
30-Apr-2008 [532](4 ) |
[542] Granted in part; denied in part.
[Text] |
| SCO |
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief. |
[505] sealed
[Article]
|
[506] sealed
[507] redacted
[Article]
[Text]
|
[509]
[Article]
[Text]
|
[525]
[Text]
|
30-Apr-2008 [532](4) |
[542] Granted, $2,547,817 awarded to Novell.
[Text]
|
(1)
23-Jan-2007 Hearing: See timeline entry [227]
[Groklaw's Report from Hearing]
[Transcript: PDF,
Text]
(2)
31-May-2007 Hearing: See timeline entry [355]
[Groklaw's Report from Hearing]
[transcript,
PDF and
Text]
(3)
04-Jun-2007 Hearing: See timeline entry [356]
[Groklaw's Report from Hearing]
[transcript,
PDF and
Text]
(4)
30-Apr-2008 Hearing: See timeline entry [532]
[Groklaw Court Report,
Transcript PDF,
Text]
(5)
[298] is Novell's objections to [213], [224], [258] and [259].
See timeline entry [298].
[Article]
[Text]
Exhibit A,
Exhibit B
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
This is the thread for people who aren't logged in.
\Cyp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Erwan on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
If any
---
Erwan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
Out of principle, I choose to deliberate post "anonymously" starting my own
thread and not conforming to the "anonymous posts here" thread. My appologies
P.J. for not posting anything else - whether on-topic or off.
I find it
.... I'm not sure how to describe. But having someone - anonymous or otherwise
- post a thread for "anonymous posts to conform to" feels to me to insult the
integrity on which the democratic system was built.
The primary example
would be the letters posted anonymously about the injustices being applied to
the American peoples by the British prior to the revolution which resulted in
the creation of the US Constitution.
If that "anon-here" thread was
posted as a joke, it was in poor taste.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: emacsuser on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT |
| What possible motivation does SCOs have in this endless litigation. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:10 PM EDT |
As always, it would be most helpful if you were to put the title of the Groklaw
newspick item you are referring to in the title of your post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: garry bloke on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
| According to the press statement "The cases have been
settled through a
patent agreement under which TomTom will
pay Microsoft for coverage under the
eight car navigation
and file management systems patents in the Microsoft
case.
Also as part of the agreement, Microsoft receives coverage
under
the four patents included in the TomTom countersuit.
The agreement, which has
a five-year term, does not require
any payment by Microsoft to TomTom.
The agreement includes patent coverage for Microsoft’s
three
file
management systems patents provided in a manner that is
fully compliant with
TomTom’s obligations under the
General
Public License Version 2 (GPLv2).
TomTom will remove from
its products the functionality related to two
file
management system patents (the “FAT LFN
patents”),
which
enables efficient naming, organizing, storing and accessing
of file data.
TomTom will remove this functionality within
two years, and the agreement
provides for coverage directly
to TomTom’s end customers under these
patents during
that time.
More here
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
For threads of general interest to the Groklaw population, but not related to
the specific topic under discussion here.
Please make links clickable (help on this found below the text entry window).
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
"... a federal government building which means no permitted CCW,
..."
PJ, what is "CCW"?
---
"When I say something, I
put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
