|
|
| Hearing in AutoZone set for November 2 at 9 AM |
 |
|
Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:19 AM EDT
|
There is a hearing set for November 2 at 9 AM in the AutoZone case, specifically on AutoZone's Motion to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Claims for Actual Damages, Statutory Damages and Attorneys' Fees. I surely hope somebody can attend.
And the second filing of the day is a stipulation to extend time for SCO to respond to the motion. Indeed, they have an uphill climb since AutoZone requires them to prove they actually own the copyrights, an uphill climb made more so by Novell filing for review en banc of that very issue. If you recall, at the hearing on September 22, 2008 they discussed how to go forward, and the judge basically said that they'd go forward with the ruling in Utah, and while SCO could argue that the court was wrong, and ask for a judgment nevertheless alternatively and then after all the appeals, if Utah was wrong, they'd have to redo. But for now, it's Utah's decision that is the one SCO has to deal with, because Novell filed for a rehearing en banc, and as I understand the rules, that puts us back to Go, with the picture being that the case is on appeal, with no final appellate decision. And SCO has to prove a complete chain of title, and I don't think they can. I don't think anybody can, actually. USL distributed the early code without copyright notices.
09/15/2009 - 110 - NOTICE of Hearing on 108 MOTION to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Claims for Actual Damages, Statutory Damages and Attorneys' Fees : Oral argument is scheduled for Monday, 11/2/2009, at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Robert C. Jones. (no image attached)(KXG) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
09/16/2009 - 111 - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME by Plaintiff SCO Group, Inc.. (Pocker, Richard) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Make links clickable and follow the instructions under Important Stuff on the
post a comment page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
| Please put the correction in the title [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
"... and while SCO could argue that the court was wrong, and ask for a
judgment nevertheless alternatively and then after all the appeals, if Utah was
wrong, they'd have to redo."
PJ, for the first time in seven years, you've written a sentence that I can't
parse as English. There's been plenty of legalese that I haven't been able to
parse, but this was just an English sentence.
Could you rewrite that so that I can understand it?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- PJ? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:04 PM EDT
- PJ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- PJ? - Authored by: proceng on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- PJ? - Authored by: grundy on Saturday, September 19 2009 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- If I were Trustee - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:15 PM EDT
- SCOG don't have to show 2 - that the code came from svrx - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- The state prosecutes, not you. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:53 PM EDT
- Yes and No - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 02:00 PM EDT
- Don't do it ... it's funny! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:51 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jplatt39 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
| Please cite the title of the newspick and link to the story you are discussing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:16 PM EDT |
I understand the subtly of the cases but I'm not sure everyone else would get it
from PJ's article. The appeals court ruling did not find that the copyrights
belong to SCO; it just said the issue should have been decided by a jury. No
court has ruled that SCO owns the copyrights. One court has ruled that they
don't and that decision is under appeal.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:44 PM EDT |
Does anyone know if Autozone has referred to the USL issue yet?
I think that I recall them saying somewhere that SCO hadn't proved ownership of
some copyrights. However, I don't remember the context.
I hope that they pound on it during the hearing, and that the judge (and the
Chapter 11 trustee by-the-way) is awake enough to notice. That is the best way
to start putting an end to this six year farce. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
> This matter is before the court on appellee’s
>“Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.”
>The appellant shall file a response within 14 days of the date of this
>order.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
If the original code did not preserve its copyright, then is the APA between
Novell/Caldera even valid? If not, what has SCOg been collecting in terms of
licensing fees all these years? Maybe AutoZone should just ask for their
licensing fee money back as well. Fat chance at collecting any of it though. ;)
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only
'logically' infeasible.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
| In court, the behaviour of SCO's lawyers must surely be significantly influenced
by what the trustee is doing to try to bring the fiaSCO to a conclusion. There
may be strong indications that he is going to attempt to settle all the cases
quickly. I will be surprised if the trustee, who is effectively SCO for the
time being, fights on. I imagine that there are already attempts to bring this
to a swift conclusion happening in private. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea
what will need to happen in court, but just maybe we will see at least one case
settled very soon. AZ being in many ways the most trivial and stupid of the
cases (besides DaimlerChrysler, of course), to a logical mind it ought to be the
first to be settled. Of course, if AZ don't want to settle quietly, and want
to seek damages to at least cover their legal costs, SCO will be history. As
always, time will tell, but I think Groklaw is in for some entertainment..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
| There would clearly have to be a chain of title from Novell to SCO, and, as far
as I am aware, that has not been shown, e.g. what happened between Santa Cruz
and Caldera/SCO, never mind the appeal relating to the APA between Novell and
Santa Cruz? But, not being a lawyer, I am not sure why a complete chain of
title is important. Just supposing that some of the stuff that reached Novell
via USL was public domain, or the next best thing, BSD licensed. Novell could
then do what they wanted with it, preserving the BSD copyright notices, if any,
adding and altering bits, and the new work could be effectively owned and
copyrighted by Novell. So I don't see why the chain has to extend back to the
very early stuff which, as any of us can see, probably does
have inadequate copyright notices applied to it. (Browse the source to
see.) Maybe I am missing something? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
As far as this motion is concerned, AutoZone is not challenging the ownership of
the relevant copyrights (which include UNIX System V, UnixWare, and SCO
OpenServer). Instead, in the first part of the motion, AutoZone is claiming
that SCO has not included enough information in its Amended Complaint to qualify
for statutory damages. In particular, SCO has not included a) the dates of
copyright registration; b) the dates of the alleged infringement; c) an
assertion that they meet the requirements of Section 412.
Section 412 basically requires that the copyrights be registered before the
alleged acts of infringement in order that the plaintiff be eligible for
statutory damages and attorney's fees.
The OpenServer 5.0.5 registration was filed Aug. 31, 2004, so there was likely a
period of a few months after when AutoZone still had allegedly infringing code
on its servers, so if SCO wanted to fight on this one, there would be a chance
to recover something.
The UNIX and UnixWare registrations were all in 2003. As was noted in a
previous GL article, these dates were included in SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint
against IBM, but they were excluded here (and in Novell, I believe). However,
even without including the dates in the complaint, SCO alleges that AutoZones
infringement of these copyrights via its use of Linux is continuing, so it is
possible SCO could defeat the motion anyway.
The amount of time requested for the extension, one month, has to be one of the
longest, if not the longest, extension of time requested by any party simply to
file a response to a motion. It seems AutoZone and SCO both continue to want to
do the minimum amount possible in this lawsuit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
Which sounds kind of funny, but is quite serious. If you are running ANY sort of
business, or are in the creative industries, make sure you document what you are
doing. If you don't, well you could end up with an SCO claiming it owns your
product.
---
Wayne
http://crankyoldnutcase.blogspot.com/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
