|
|
| Novell's Motion to Dismiss -- Hearing Postponed to March 8 |
 |
|
Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 06:36 PM EST
|
Those of you planning to attend the SCO v. Novell hearing on Novell's Motion to Dismiss will need to make a note that the hearing has been rescheduled to March 8 at 3 PM. Here's the Notice of Amended Hearing Date [PDF]. I don't know why it is being postponed again, but it's by agreement. What I notice, though, is that SCO is bringing in the heavy hitters. If you compare earlier documents filed in this litigation, such as the Certificate of Service on a filing back in November or SCO's October Memorandum in Support of SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion to Dismiss SCO's Amended Complaint, you will notice that Edward Normand and Sean Eskovitz have been added to the team and Mark Heise and Mark Clements are no longer listed. That might mean Eskovitz will be arguing for SCO at the hearing. You will remember him from the October hearing in SCO v. IBM.
**************************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice)
Sean Eskovitz (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
_______________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
________________________________
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
A Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
vs.
NOVELL, INC.,
A Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
____________________________________
NOTICE OF AMENDED HEARING DATE
Civil No. 2:04CV00139
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
___________________________________
Pursuant to consultations with the Court, and all parties being in agreement, Novell, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, formerly scheduled to be heard February 1, 2005, will now be heard by Judge Kimball on March 8, 2005 at 3 p.m.
DATED this 25th day of January, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver
Stephen N. Zack
Edward Normand
Sean Eskovitz
By___[signature]____
Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc., hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Amended Hearing Date was served by mail on Defendant Novell on the __th day of January, 2005, by placing the same in U.S. mail, postage prepaid to:
Thomas R. Karrenberg, Esq.
John
P. Mullen, Esq.
Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
[address]
Michael A. Jacobs, Esq.
Matthew I. Kreeger, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER
[address]
Counsel for Novell, Inc.
______signature_________
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 07:04 PM EST |
| If needed of course, so PJ can find them easily. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 07:05 PM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ooooops again, parent was me (n/t)..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 07:08 PM EST
- Microsoft to hold back patches unless you can prove a valid licence... - Authored by: Anthony on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 07:27 PM EST
- Newsforge: virus compatibility of WINE - Authored by: m_si_M on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 08:04 PM EST
- OT Not a funny story:: Blue screen of Death - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 08:20 PM EST
- HP, IBM, Intel and Sun get together to promote Open standards. - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 10:56 PM EST
- IBM may not be going to Linux Desktops. - Authored by: Brian S. on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 11:34 PM EST
- OT here please..... - Authored by: martinjh99 on Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 04:29 AM EST
- Microsft patches: The REAL reason - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 12:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 07:18 PM EST |
Please use them. To refresh your memory, a link to go to, say, Google, would
look like this:
<a href="http://www.google.com">Click Here</a>
and needs to be posted in HTML mode. Please preview in HTML mode and test it by
clicking to confirm it is correct before posting.
Just thought I ought to mention it since it looked like a few people had
forgotten how to do it recently, much as I forgot to log in a few minutes
ago.....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, January 26 2005 @ 08:23 PM EST |
I think it would be futile to try to guess why it's being postponed... and who
knows? It may be nothing more sinister than a simple scheduling conflict on the
part of either party or the Court.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jim Reiter on Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 02:09 AM EST |
Two observations:
1.The "Technology License Agreement" does not include APA amendment
2.
2. The APA amendment 2 modifications to 4.16 (b) are:
"B. Except as provided in Section C below, and notwithstanding the
provisions of Article 4.16, Sections (b) and (c) of the Agreement, any potential
transaction with an SVRX licensee which concerns a buy-out of any such
licensee's royalty obligations shall be managed as follows:"
This seems to be a qualification?
TSG has opened a can of worms.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 04:16 AM EST |
Does this perhaps mean we'll have to wait even longer for Judge K to pronounce
on IBM's CC10 PSJ?
It was beginning to look like he was planning on waiting for Novell to say SCO
don't own the copyrights and therefore IBM aren't infringing SCO's copyrights
because they don't have any to infringe.
Maybe the heavy hitters on the SCO side are not to avoid losing so much as to
lose only on the narrow "malice" question in which case IBM's CC10 PSJ
will have been held up for nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 09:55 AM EST |
"If you compare earlier documents filed in this litigation, such as the
Certificate of Service on a filing back in November or SCO's October Memorandum
in Support of SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion to Dismiss SCO's Amended Complaint,
you will notice that Edward Normand and Sean Eskovitz have been added to the
team and Mark Heise and Mark Clements are no longer listed. That might mean
Eskovitz will be arguing for SCO at the hearing."
That's probably the reason for the delay: to give the heavy hitters time to get
up to speed on the litigation. I note that the Novell hearing has already been
pushed back several times - perhaps because the stakes are winner-take-all and
someone may feel that his chances of winning are less than 100% and is feeling
somewhat queasy as a result.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 27 2005 @ 11:07 AM EST |
It's great to see SCO keeps crying "Overly Burdensome" and such.
Yawn...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
