decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Novell-SCO Hearing on Motions to Remand/Dismiss Set for May 11
Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:05 PM EDT

There will be a hearing before Judge Kimball on SCO's Motion to Remand and
it looks like also on Novell's Motion to Dismiss, at least according to the court
records on Pacer. It's set for May 11 at 3 PM. First there was a Notice of Hearing
and then three days later an Amended Notice of Hearing, which mentions both the
Motion to Remand and the Motion to Dismiss. Here's what the record says:

4/9/04 23 Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for 3:00 p.m.
on 5/11/04 for [11-1] motion to remand To be held before
Judge Dale A. Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: DAK, KJ.)
(jmr) [Entry date 04/09/04]


4/12/04 24 Amended Notice of Hearing filed : Motion hearing set for
3:00 5/11/04 for [11-1] motion to remand, set for 3:00
5/11/04 for [2-1] motion to dismiss To be held before
Judge Kimball cc:atty ( Ntc generated by: clerk) (blk)
[Entry date 04/12/04]

If you want to review, the Motion to Remand is here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040309030940408

Novell's Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040213045553447

SCO's Motion in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040309001646257


  


Novell-SCO Hearing on Motions to Remand/Dismiss Set for May 11 | 124 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Novell-SCO Hearing on Motion to Remand Set for May 11
Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT

Looks like hearing regarding Motion to Remand and regarding Motion to Dismiss??

Am I missing something there?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Hearing on Motion to Remand Set for May 11
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT
Cool!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Lawrence Lessig Free Culture speach
Authored by: JSGasse on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT
A few post ago I posted a link to Lawrence Lessig Free Culture speech that he
gave at OSCon 2002 and said I would look for the full page in my backups. I
found it this weekend so I posted it today. You can find it at:
http://www.apockflash.net/free/

I strongly recommend for all to listen to it, if you haven't already.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ok what is a Motion to Remand
Authored by: arrg on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:23 PM EDT
??

---
Arrg stands for:
Groklaw = aarrrgggg SCO is driving me crazy...
Battlezone II = Just Run over by tank.. or what will happen to SCO in court

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Hearing on Motion to Remand Set for May 11
Authored by: edal on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT
As May 11th is my birthday I'd like to see Novell guys grind SCO Group into the
dust.

Would anyone care to grant me my wish ?

Ed Almos
Budapest, Hungary

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Quick Questions
Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT
Will anything get decided on May 11 or this yet another hearing to decide why
SCO should granted more time to not actually have to show any proof?

Will Gregory Blepp's magical mystery briefcase impact this hearing?

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

The motion to dismiss will also be heard that day.
Authored by: Natedog on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT
Also interesting is that the amended notice of hearing mentions that the motion
to dismiss will be heard at the same time and on the same day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Leaning Towards Granting Novell's Motion
Authored by: CyberCFO on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT
I'll bet he is leaning towards granting Novell's motion to dismiss.

The reason I think this is that we have all learned that judges like to give the
benefit of the doubt to the party that is going to lose in order to reduce the
opportunity for appeal. If there was any doubt about him denying the motion and
letting the case continue, he would just do so, no hearing would be necessary as
no one would be prejudiced in the case. If he were leaning towards granting
Novell's motion, he would want to give SCOX every opportunity to convince him to
do otherwise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Timing of the Suitcase compared to the hearing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT
Well lets just think about this: Maybe Blepp was already informed about the date of the hearing. And well i think, if i had my money invested in sco, i may withdraw it (after the anouncement of what could very easily be a last hearing) even faster than the board of directors could get their shares converted to: lets say gold ? So they maybee thought, they needed some FUD to keep the stock from falling.
Well have a nice Day:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another Groklaw Sighting!
Authored by: Yobgod on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT

Tom's Hardware Guide

While giving a quick overview of web browsers, the screen shot happens to be pointed... here!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Betting Pool
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Any one want to start a virtual pool on the results?

Seems to me like dening both motions is the most likely outcome. That won't hurt
anyone in the long term, put off a final resolution and will keep the IBM and
Novell cases under the same judge in the name of judicial economy. It's also the
safest thing for the judge to do, to avoid a reversal on appeal which seems
likely on any other result.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slightly OT: is this the first time barratry has been part of an ad campaign?
Authored by: capitalist_pig on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
It occurred to me the other day that what MS is doing with SCO (still using it
to push the indemnification FUD) is part of a major attack ad campaign against
Linux.

What's unique about this ad campaign is that they appear to be funding a company
under the table to launch litigation to make the FUD appear more convincing.

So, is this in fact the first recorded case of a frivolous lawsuit being
launched as part of an advertising offensive? Could this be the tip of a rather
nasty iceberg? Are we going to see more of this sort of thing in the future as
intellectual property law continues to skip merrily down the path to the insane
asylum?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: More BS FUD from Didiot
Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT
http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/04/13/0413microsoftpinnacor_ii.html?partner=
yahoo&referrer=

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Groklaw sighting
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT
I was just reading about windows to Linux migration @ tomshardware.com - in one
of their images they show a web browser, and guess which site the browser is
displaying: groklaw :-)

http://www20.tomshardware.com/howto/20040412/wintolinux-04.html

/Peter

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Lawsuits! M$'s Cost of Doing Business
Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT
http://news.com.com/2100-7343_3-5190698.html?tag=nefd.lede

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Hearing on Motions to Remand/Dismiss Set for May 11
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 05:30 PM EDT
Hopefully the outcome is good. I don't want this spoiling my birthday if the
outcome is bad (though we probably won't hear about it till the 12th or at least
late on the 11th).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh what I wouldn't give....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT
Oh, what I wouldn't give for an anonymous web form for feedback to the editor,
for those special occasions when one would like to offer suggestions without
them having them appear on the site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Hearing on Motions to Remand/Dismiss Set for May 11
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT
What does it have in its pocketses, mmm, precious?

[ Reply to This | # ]

FUD ALERT ...USA TODAY BIZ SECTION
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT
USA TODAY HAS An Article on Microsoft becoming the defender of proprietary
software by settling its outstanding lawsuits and buying up rights to other
software. Mentions SCO and incorrectly characterizes the lawsuits it has engaged
in ...... very interesting

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Hearing on Motions to Remand/Dismiss Set for May 11
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 09:38 PM EDT

Is there any chance that we might have a spectator in the gallery that day, that can let us know what happened after the hearing?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Article Correction...
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 13 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT

PJ, at the end of the article, where you show

SCO's Motion in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040309001646257

Should't "SCO's Motion" be "SCO's Memorandum"?

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell-SCO Hearing on Motions to Remand/Dismiss Set for May 11
Authored by: elcorton on Wednesday, April 14 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT
Once the arguments have been heard, the judge has five choices that I can
think of:

(A) Grant remand, moot dismissal. Many, including me, have remarked that
if Kimball thought he was going to do this, he wouldn't have scheduled
arguments on both motions for the same hearing. True?

(B) Deny remand, deny dismissal, let the case proceed as pled. Makes no
sense to me. The judge would then in effect have decided that the APA is a
valid instrument of conveyance for copyrights. But the other issues don't
involve any federal question, so why not remand?

(C) Deny remand, stay the case pending the outcome of SCO v IBM. Also
makes no sense. In counterclaim 10, IBM challenges SCO's title to the
copyrights, but it hasn't (yet) moved for summary judgement on that claim.
There are many issues in the IBM case that are unrelated to Novell, and it
could take years to reach a conclusion. The Novell case is by contrast much
more narrowly drawn. If either of the cases were to be stayed, it should be
IBM, or else the cases should be merged. Those scenarios don't make much
sense either.

(D) Deny remand, grant dismissal (with or without prejudice.) Plausible.

(E) Deny remand, deny dismissal, order SCO to redraw its complaint. Also
seems plausible. Seems safest from the standpoint of appeal, because it
avoids dealing an immediate death blow to one side, which an appeals
court might frown on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )