|
|
| SCO v. Novell Hearing Reports |
 |
|
Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 06:30 PM EDT
|
The hearing on Novell's motion in SCO v. Novell was today, and it's just finished. It lasted about 35 minutes, and Judge Kimball has taken it under advisement. A question that was argued today was whether Judge Kimball would allow Novell to convert to a motion for
summary judgment instead of its motion for dismissal. Kimball at the start indicated he was not leaning toward permitting that change, but he allowed Novell to argue it anyway. Here is Frank Sorenson's report, part 1, with more details to follow shortly from Frank and Chris Brown.
Michael Jacobs spoke for Novell (Karrenberg and John Mullin were
also there).
Ted Normand spoke for SCO (Brent Hatch and Shawn Eskovitz and others
were there).
Kimball began by saying that he wasn't inclined to convert to Summary
Judgment, but he'd listen to the argument briefly.
Mike Jacobs: Regarding conversion to summary judgment: SCO submitted
documents outside the record, and based on case law, runs the risk of
conversion to summary judgment. Based on Kimball's comments, Jacobs
will focus on arguments related to the dismissal motion.
Jacobs: There is substantial overlap with the SCO v. IBM case. The
copyright ownership issue has come up in both cases, etc.
Kimball: I'm aware of that case.
Jacobs: Kimball noted several things in his February 9th order. He
noted that SCO has cavalierly ignored certain arguments of IBM's.
Jacobs: SCO has shifted theories, and now claims that the APA effected
the copyright transfer. SCO can't claim malice because their
allegations are controverted by the very documents attached to the
complaint.
Jacobs: In Novell's Opening Memorandum, Novell mentioned their letter to
SCO that SCO had repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights. If
Novell has a meritorious argument related to ownership, SCO can't claim
malice.
Jacobs: Spoke of "conditional privilege", "knowing falsehood", points on
"special damages" and other legal terms (more legal discussion than most
other hearings).
Jacobs: This is not a slander of title case. SCO should have asked for
a declaration of ownership. They want the community to believe they
have a slam-dunk copyright case. Here's part 2: Ted Normand: This is Novell's Second Motion to Dismiss. SCO filed the
Amended Complaint to clarify Special Damages, but Novell hasn't
addressed everything they've brought up.
Normand: Novell's Motion fails in 3 ways...
Normand: 1) Novell waived arguments in their Second Motion to Dismiss
(Novell had responded in different ways between the First and Second
Complaints)
Normand: 2) SCO has alleged malice generally and specifically.
Normand: 3) SCO's allegations of malice are asserted, and Novell can't
dismiss them by claiming falsity. Novell's assertion of ownership
cannot trump malice.
Normand: In its previous ruling, The Court did not address Novell's
state of mind. Novell seeks conversion rather than dismissal, and has
abandoned dismissal.
Normand: Novell continues to assert that the Court's comments on falsity
preclude the malice argument. [Quotes from Novell's press release about
Amendment 2 to the APA. Refers to Novell's press release about SCO
asking for the copyrights.] Novell does not submit evidence to back up
the claim that SCO requested the copyright.
Jacobs: SCO is making a couple of oversimplifications. Our argument isn't
as simple as "we claim ownership, therefore there is no malice." Our
argument is that if you do a detailed review of the communication
between the two companies and the background, if ever there was a case
where the litigants had legitimite issues to argue, this was the case.
Jacobs: In this case, there is a real issue on ownership. There is a
real horse race on the ownership issue.
Normand: Would like to say more.
Kimball: Okay, but I'll let them speak again. It's their motion.
Normand: We didn't say that malice and falsity are not related at all.
We just don't believe they're related in the way that Novell claims. We
do not believe there is a real horse race on ownership.
Jacobs: Nothing further.
Kimball: I'll take the matter under advisement and have a ruling not too
far off.
And now, here is Chris Brown's report: Mike Jacobs argued for Novell, he was joined by Thomas Karrenberg.
Ted Normand argued for SCO and was joined by Brent Hatch, Sean Eskovitz.
Mike Jacobs argued for converting from a motion to dismiss to a motion
for summary judgment because SCO submitted documents outside the record
and therefore accepted the risk conversion. Judge Kimball,
preliminarily, said he was not inclined to do that and said to argue for
dismissal, then at the end he could argue for converting to summary
judgment. Jacobs indicated that there is significant overlap with the
SCO v. IBM case that he is sure Judge Kimball is aware of. Judge
Kimball indicated that he very aware of it.
Novell argued that SCO's assertions that the APA as amended transferred
copyright ownership were contraverted by the underlying record. He
cited the letter from SCO to Novell requesting that Novell transfer the
copyrights to SCO. SCO didn't even attempt to address this. He argued
that there can be no malice if Novell answers SCO's request to transfer
the copyrights by saying: "No". Nor can Novell be charged with malice by
thereafter asserting they own the copyrights.
Novell cited Judge Kimball's dismissal order in this case last year
where he said the APA by itself does not transfer the copyrights.
Novell, in arguing for conversion to summary judgment, said that he
believed this is not a slander of title case, but is a declaratory
judgment case. I regret saying at this point but I didn't manage to
write down all Mike Jacobs argued in favor of this, but it was all
*very* good, and hopefully we will have the transcript soon. The main point is
that Novell did not want this case to go away without having put the
copyright ownership issue to bed.
Ted Normand replied for SCO. He handed out a book with many tabs.
SCO claimed Novell had no basis to convert the motion to dismiss to a
summary judgment. SCO spoke at length about the malice issue saying
that Novell never countered it, that Novell only spoke to the falsity
issue (claiming that Novell owned the copyrights) rather than what
Novell's state of mind was when making the assertions that SCO did not
hold the copyrights. SCO claimed Novell was deliberatly trying to hurt
SCO's business and other lawsuits. He argued that the falsity claim
does not override Novell's malice.
SCO brought up the press release Novell made following SCO's mailing
the APA's amendment. SCO pointed out that in that press release Novell
indicated that the amendment gave SCO the copyrights.
Mike Jacobs replied by countering SCO's claims that there is no overlap
in the malice and falsity arguements. He said to look at the record of
correspondence back and forth between Novell and SCO, to look at the
thoughtfulness exhibited in those letters, that there is no malice
evident in them.
Ted Normand replied again and repeated, I believe, earlier arguments.
Judge Kimball said he will take it under advisement and get back with
them "not too far off."
----
Personal notes: I got the impression that Judge Kimball, while
understanding the impact this case *could* have in the other SCO cases,
was not inclined to go out on any judicial limb and make any judgments on
copyright ownership. He seemed to be ready to dismiss the case based on
absence of malice on Novell's part and the record that shows Novell had
cause to believe they were telling the truth in asserting their ownership
of the copyrights. There was a point where Judge Kimball said something
to the effect of, "So I can just dismiss based on [the issue of] malice."
And his earlier, initial comment, that he was "not inclined" to convert to
a motion for summary judgment. I was pleased to hear Novell argue
strongly, and well, for a conversion. Both our eyewitnesses said that the hearing was much harder for a layperson to follow than earlier hearings, because there were more nuanced legal arguments.
To review, Novell filed a motion to dismiss SCO's Amended Complaint, (their Memorandum in Support of their motion is here), which SCO opposed. Novell's reply to SCO's memorandum in opposition is here. Novell's motion to dismiss read like this, short but sweet: Defendant Novell, Inc. ("Novell"), by and through its attorneys of record, hereby moves this Court to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The basis for SCO's single cause of action against Novell for slander of title is that Novell made ten "false oaths," "misleading public representations" and "wrongful assertions" concerning Novell's ownership of UNIX copyrights. (Am. Compl. ¶19.) However, given the context in which Novell's statements were made and the public controversy surrounding the ownership of UNIX copyrights, SCO cannot prevail on its slander of title claim against Novell because (1) Novell has a privilege to publicly assert a rival claim to the UNIX copyrights; (2) Novell has a privilege to publish its rival claim to parties with a common interest in the UNIX copyrights; and (3) SCO cannot allege malice sufficient to ground a claim for slander of title given the Court's June 9, 2004 Order. "Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" is legalese for, "they have no case." SCO's opposition memorandum was certainly not short, and I'm not aware of anyone ever connecting SCO with the word sweet, but here are some highlights to help you understand the arguments at the hearing: Almost eight years after Novell sold its entire UNIX-related business, including the UNIX copyrights, to SCO, Novell asserted for the first time that it, and not SCO, was the true owner of those copyrights. After SCO asserted its legal rights against IBM for its improper contribution of SCO's intellectual property to Linux (a business in which Novell is heavily invested), Novell repeated its newly contrived ownership claims in press releases, in public statements by its CEO, in sworn statements to the United States Copyright Office, and in postings published to the world through Novell's website. As SCO set out in the slander-of-title Complaint that it filed against Novell on January 23, 2004 (and has now realleged in its Amended Complaint), Novell made all of these statements (1) with full knowledge of their falsity, having admitted in a June 6, 2003 press release that "ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996"; and (2) with the malicious intent to injure SCO, its business, and its enforcement of its UNIX-related rights. . . .
Novell argues in a second motion to dismiss that SCO's allegations are insufficient to establish Novell's malice and that Novell enjoys certain privileges that, it argues, entitle it to dismissal of SCO's claim.
The principal basis for Novell's second motion is that this Court's June 9 Order somehow negates Novell's malice as a matter of law. Novell mistakenly maintains that in denying SCO's motion for a remand, the Court "made a sufficient determination to reject any claim that Novell lacked a good-faith basis to make its rival claim to the UNIX copyrights." Novell Mem. at 23 - 24. This Court in no way decided the issue of Novell's malice as a matter of law. To the contrary, in denying Novell's first motion to dismiss on falsity grounds, the Court concluded "that all of these arguments as to the parties' understandings and interpretations of the agreements would more properly be before the court on motions for summary judgment or trial." June 9 Order at 15. Moreover, the Court stated that it "could not conclude that SCO can present no set of facts that would prove its claim." Id. at 15. Thus, far from supporting Novell's new-found arguments in its second motion to dismiss, the Court's prior Order actually acknowledged the legal sufficiency of the very same slander-of-title allegations that now constitute SCO's Amended Complaint. . . .
To the extent Novell contends that it has not previously raised its arguments that SCO fails to "adequately plead the element of malice" or that its statements fall under a supposed "privilege," Novell Mem. at 1, 14-20, Novell has waived its right to raise those arguments. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g), a defendant may not raise in a second motion to dismiss arguments that it could have, raised in its first motion. . . .
In addition, the allegations Novell challenges are more than sufficient. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), and the cases in this Circuit applying that Rule, SCO need only "aver generally" malice. SCO has plainly (indeed, indisputably) done so. See. e.g., Am. Compl. ¶25 (alleging that Novell made its false public statements "intentionally," "maliciously," and "with utter disregard for the truthfulness thereof"). . . . Under controlling legal authority, having properly pleaded malice (both generally and specifically), SCO has presented a fact question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss.
Indeed, Novell's main argument - that the Court's prior comments on the issue of copyright ownership must resolve the question of Novell's state of mind - relies entirely on inferences favorable to Novell, even though the Rule 12(b)(6) standard requires that the Court draw all such inferences in SCO's favor here. Although the legal plausibility of a party's argument for ownership may be relevant (if only indirectly) to whether that party in fact possessed a "good-faith belief' in its public statements of ownership, such plausibility does not even constitute direct evidence of the party's "good faith," let alone resolve the question.
Novell then replied, with the corporate minutes, showing that there was no intent to transfer copyrights, and adding that by introducing evidence outside the complaint, such as the Ed Chatlos declaration, SCO was inviting the Court to convert the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment, which they said meant the Court had the option to decide the matter once and for all and with finality, which a motion to dismiss does not provide: In rearguing the intent and effect of the APA, SCO has submitted evidence outside the pleadings, including a six-page declaration from a former Novell employee. 1 Under well-settled law, SCO has thereby invited the Court to consider Novell's motion as a motion for summary judgment. In view of the parties' respective burdens of proof, Novell's motion therefore should be evaluated as follows:
Has Novell established that there is no triable issue of fact that its statements were protected by conditional privileges?
Has SCO demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of fact whether Novell made its statements with actual malice or excessively published its statements, which would overcome Novell's privileges?
SCO must have thought that its additional evidence would not only overcome the weight of the Court's earlier findings on the merits of Novell's ownership position, but also would create a jury issue on the factual predicate for Novell's defense. Even with its additional evidence, however, SCO has not created a jury issue. The Court therefore should enter summary judgment in favor of Novell.
Alternatively, if the Court declines to convert Novell's motion (and thus declines to consider SCO's additional evidence and the argument based on it), SCO's complaint should nonetheless be dismissed. Novell's statements demonstrate the absence of malice, and Novell's ownership position is meritorious. Any further inquiry into Novell's subjective state of mind -- especially on the very legal issue the Court has already evaluated -- is unnecessary and irrelevant. Novell's motion invited SCO to file a claim for declaratory judgment of copyright ownership, but SCO has declined to do so. SCO should not be given yet another chance to file a complaint stating the proper cause of action, and its case should be dismissed with prejudice. As you can discern from all this, the issue that matters the most to SCO is, is there one fact -- just one will do -- that can't be decided on a motion to dismiss but must go to a jury? That is what all the arguments about malice are really all about, I think, trying to create a fact that is in dispute, that will make it impossible to dismiss, a fact that will force this litigation to go to trial. We saw in the DaimlerChrysler case that it doesn't matter how nonsensical SCO's position is, their attorneys argue it as if it made sense, which is what creates that Alice in Wonderland feel to it all. If you are curious about summary judgments, here's Law.com's definition: motion for a summary judgment
n. a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on testimony recorded outside court, affidavits (declarations under penalty of perjury), depositions, admissions of fact and/or answers to written interrogatories, claiming that all factual and legal issues can be decided in the moving party's favor. These alleged facts are accompanied by a written legal brief (points and authorities) in support of the motion. The opposing party needs to show by affidavits, written declarations or points and authorities (written legal argument in support of the motion) that there are "triable issues of fact" and/or of law by points and authorities. If there are any triable issues the motion must be denied and the case can go to trial. Sometimes, if there are several claims (causes of action) such a motion may cause the judge to find (decide) that some causes of action can be decided under the motion, leaving fewer matters actually to be tried. The paperwork on both sides is complex, burdensome and in many states, based on strict procedures.
Here's my understanding of why it matters (you can read these rules of civil procedure for a clear explanation. It's for the state of Mississippi, but the same concepts apply). A motion to dismiss doesn't necessarily speak to the issues. For example, you can move to dismiss on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction. In that case, if your motion succeeds, the other side can refile somewhere else. Or if you didn't say something the way you should have, the judge may give you the opportunity to fix your complaint. In fact, that happened in this case. Novell's first motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. And here they are again, with an improved version of their complaint to include the special damages wording. A motion for summary judgment, in contrast, is, as implied by the name, a decision, a ruling on the issues raised in the complaint, in this case saying at least that there are no issues of triable fact, that there is nothing on the table that needs a trial, because there is no case. The issue of copyright ownership could conceivably come into play, but it wouldn't have to, because the complaint is on slander of title only. The other side can't fix or amend its complaint or change where it is filed or refile on the issues decided. Obviously, Novell would prefer to bring this show to a close, with a final curtain. UPDATE: Here's Bloomberg's coverage. And KSL-TV used AP's.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
Remember to check with "preview." Instructions for adding links
attached.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Summary Judgement - Authored by: Inevitable on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Recordings and pictures of the JURI meeting at the European Parliament on monday 23 May. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:25 PM EDT
- Nokia - Only when it suits our purpose, I'm not sure we really like F/OSS? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Indian President discusses 'Vision 2020' at Geneva - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- Downloading Firefox - unusual problem - Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 09:12 PM EDT
- OT: 6 months of Opening Statements? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- OT: Get The FUD - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 10:54 PM EDT
- Dog Food - Authored by: AdultSupervision on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: drichards1953 on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- counter fud - Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:02 AM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:11 AM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: urzumph on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: tbogart on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 06:45 AM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- Of course the TCO is lower... - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Theater Chain Selects Windows XP Embedded over Linux, Significantly Reduces TCO - Authored by: ralevin on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- TCO Calculation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- Oh Danny boy! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 04:41 AM EDT
- The law and spyware - Authored by: AlanGriffiths on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 07:08 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
| "covert" should be "convert" (presumably) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:14 PM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
I have to admit this seems a bit odd.
1) Is this the reason for the wait in the rulings for SCO vs. IBM from a while
ago? I thought the judge would make the decision quicker. Since this case is
so closely intertwined (and a ruling in it could potentially upend SCO
completely), was Kimball just trying to see if this would affect how the one
against IBM plays out?
2) Considering how much SCO seems to be screwing up as far as procedure goes,
why would Kimball be unwilling to convert the motion? Admittedly, SCO's side
isn't in the early report, but I think the word "spin" will sum it up.
I can't imagine them not saying anything.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
Really? If I say that I own something, and I really do, but I act with malice
in destroying your claim on what I actually own, that's slander of title?
Can that really be what SCO is asserting here? Or is there a more valid point
hiding in there? If so, can anyone explain what it is?
MSS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- keyword: "assertion" - Authored by: Larry West on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:30 PM EDT
- Hmmm ... slandering your own title???? n/t - Authored by: so23 on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- "Novell's assertion of ownership cannot trump malice"????? - Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:35 PM EDT
- "Novell's assertion of ownership cannot trump malice"????? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- "Novell's assertion of ownership cannot trump malice"????? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 08:20 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 09:27 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: so23 on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: gnuadam on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 10:29 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 11:15 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: gnuadam on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 11:39 PM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: gnuadam on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 09:56 AM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: codswallop on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 03:25 AM EDT
- Who owns what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Kimball will dismiss - Authored by: webster on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:14 AM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- Almost - Authored by: rocky on Friday, May 27 2005 @ 11:37 AM EDT
- Re: Almost - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- An assignment 2 step - Authored by: codswallop on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:24 PM EDT |
| "Not too far off." Are we finally going to get a substantive ruling in
one of these SCO cases? We can hope...
MSS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:32 PM EDT |
Hrm, so can someone a little more knowledgable comment on the whole
conversion-to-summary-judgement matter? Does this mean (if Kimball does not
permit the change) that Novell won't be able to raise any of the same issues if
they do file a motion for summary judgement? Or does it simply mean that Novell
will have to file a whole new motion, rather than using the existing one?
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OtisAardvark on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
It sounds like SCO is looking to convert this to a copyright ownership dispute
rather than a slander of title dispute.
Playing devil's advocate, that is what BSF obviously 'should' have done from the
start, and this could be a move to try to minimize the damage.
Unfortunately that would surely tie the case up even more?
Is it even possible to do this? Surely the burden must be on the person who
brings the suit to select the right lawsuit? Or can SCO change their allegations
based on discovery in the IBM case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
If I am understanding this correctly, Novell originally moved to have the case
dismissed, and now is asking the judge to make a summary judgement instead
(presumably in Novell's favor). The implication is that, no matter what, NewSCO
has lost the merits of the case. The operative question being how big a loss?
So, for our legal eagals (egeals? -- igals? -> big birds), what are the
differences, and the ramifications of those differences between a dismissal and
a summary judgement?
JG
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 08:31 PM EDT |
| Spoof interview with Darl - where he claims that PJ is buying SCOsource
licenses:
Here -
SCOX yahoo board [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 25 2005 @ 09:06 PM EDT |
1. My personal belief is that Kimball will probably dismiss this case without
resolving the copyright ownership case, and leave the copyright ownership issue
to be decided in the IBM case (in other words, SCO have the burden in the IBM
case of both proving that they own the copyrights and that IBM has infringed
them). That's just an opinion of course.
2. Regarding the declaratory judgement vs summary judgement issue, while I was
not there, I think it is *possible* that Chris Brown may have slightly
misinterpreted Novell's argument (unless Novell is arguing somewhat further than
I recall them doing in their briefs).
If you check Novell's briefs on the 2nd dismissal motion, they state that among
the reasons why the case should be dismissed is that SCO have filed the wrong
cause of action: i..e SCO should have filed for declaratory judgement, SCO
could have filed for a declaratory judgement in their initial complaint and
amended complaint --- but SCO didn't.
(a) The fact that SCO didn't file with declaratory judgement as a cause of
action may or may not be a reason for summary judgement on the case (that's a
side issue) -- but the main point is::: the wrong cause of action, is definitely
a reason for dismissal (and Novell made this point in their brief).
(b) Novell pointing out that SCO filed the wrong cause of action, doesn't
necessary have any implications for whether Novell thinks copyright ownership
should be decided in this case -- rather it points out a dismissal would leave
the issue open (because Slander Of Title could be resolved in Novell's favor
whether or not Novell own the copyrights)
3. Regarding the issue about where SCO asserts the copyright was transfered.
(a) In SCO's initial complaint, SCO asserts that the APA transfers copyrights
(b) In the 1st motion to dismiss, whether the copyright transfered was an issue
discussed. SCO here switched to the argument the APA + Amendment 2 (but not the
APA alone, and not Amendment 2 alone) transfers copyrights. Indeed if you read
Kimball's ruling on the 1st motion to dismiss, he says it is undisputed that the
APA standing alone doesn't transfer copyrights.
(c) In SCO's amended complaint, SCO went back to the assertion that that the
APA transfers copyrights
(d) In the 2nd motion to dismiss, SCO stuck with the arguments in (a) and (c),
and simply ignored their own position in (b) as well as Kimball's ruling in (b)
on this issue.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
Chris Brown writes in his report:
""Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted" is
legalese for, 'they have no case.'"
With apologies to Mr. Brown, who gives us an excellant report, but a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted really is
legalese for saying "Take what they say in their complaint as true, their
complaint doesn't state a legal case."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:47 AM EDT |
| When SCO argued that Novell abandoned the dismissal path,
They seem to have
very nearly shot themselves in the foot.
Novell's lawyers, however, seems
quite unwilling to
provide the bullet in these situations.
My reading
is that allowing the conversion of the
dismissal motion into a PSJ is
discretionary one on
Kimball's part, and -- at this point -- justifying both
the conversion and the decision seems like more work than
it's worth.
If, on the other hand, you accept SCO's assertion that
Novell has
abandoned all hope of a simple dismissal, then
Kimball would then have two
choices: allow Novell's
motion for PSJ, or let the case go forward -- in
which
case, I would expect novell to file an amended answer
which includes a
motion for declaratory judgement of
ownership -- in other words more work for
him and the same
final result.
In any case, back in the fall, novell
asking for a
counter-declaration seemed like a big gaping, open goal.
Now
they need to aim at it thru the eye of the conversion
needle, but they still
don't seem to be taking every
angle that they can get. Methinks that they're
not
quite hungry. ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching
the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:22 AM EDT |
I see some brilliant analysis. Would anyone care to coment on this angle? No
judge in their right mind would ever hope to make a declaratory judgement on
Unix copyright ownership. It is entirely too problematic. They couldn't do it
in Regeants v. AT&T or who ever. I don't think the issue is any clearer
today. I don't think Novell is prepared to prosecute it. It can be side-stepped
in IBM v. SCO. At which time there may not be a successor of interest that is
inclined to start the case anew. Of course SCO could keep filing new cases
against Novell after each dismissal. Although they might find less and less
basis available for a case and quicker and quicker dimissals until they lose
interest. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sparticus on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
The essential argument that sco has put forth is slander of title. They seem to
hope no one will notice copyright ownership is in dispute. Judge Kimballs
previous ruling that the APA did not transfer copyrights, at least to an
unambiguous state, demonstrates that novell has a legitimate claim to copyright
ownership. Unless sco can show copyright transfer by some other means there
slander of title claim is doomed. The judge did not grant dismissal just in case
sco had some additional evidence of copyright ownership and can still provide a
ruling on slander of title without determining copyright ownership. In the sco
vs. ibm case the question of copyright ownership underpins the contract dispute.
This is a guess at how it will play out.
a) Motion to convert dismissal to summary judgement by Novell will be denied.
From the judges point of view "we'll cross that bridge when we come to
it."
b) Sco demonstrate limited copyright (somewhere, rabbits hat). That is, sco
either has all, some or none of the copyright.
c) Novell wins PSJ on slander of title only.
d) Copyright ownership get sorted out in the sco vs ibm case.
---
I. M. Sparticus[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 02:39 AM EDT |
yet another motion taken under advisement .. is there some sort of special
cpmpetition amongst Judges for "who has the most motions under
advisement" ?? ...
This is all beginning to drag on and on ... and rather than clearing away the
mess, Judge Kimball seems to be storing more and more of it up, under
advisement. what do you think the chnaces of any actual, real, decisions being
made are ??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 06:29 AM EDT |
This is how the hearing should of gone:
Novell's lawyer: "Your honour, here we have a letter from SCO requesting
transfer of the copyrights"
Judge: "Case dismissed!"
Really, this is a complete joke. How much more evidence do you need?
Don't give me stupid excuses like "oh we have to give the defendant every
chance". Lets see... SCO's own actions are cause for dismissal!
American businesses are being weighed down by the inefficient and ridiculously
stupid legal system. Lets not forget the tax payer, who is paying for this
farce.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Legal system is a COMPLETE JOKE - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- Legal system is a COMPLETE JOKE - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- Legal system is a COMPLETE JOKE - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 08:01 AM EDT
- An American Agrees - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Not so much - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 09:29 AM EDT
- a + b != c - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- a + b != c - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 12:31 PM EDT
- a + b != c - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:44 PM EDT
- while i agree... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 02:07 PM EDT
- Not so much - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 03:25 PM EDT
- US Legal system is very efficient! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- How it should (couldn't) have gone... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- OK my mistake - slight rephrasing required - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 27 2005 @ 06:39 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DannyB on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
Suppose Kimball dismisses SCO's suit over slander of title.
Now Novell could bring a new suit asking for summary judgement on the issue of
copyright ownership.
Novell gets what they want: the copyright ownership issue put to bed.
IBM gets what they want: the copyright ownership issue put to bed.
We get what we want: SCO losing all their cases, and worse.
SCO gets what they want: more lawsuits.
BSF gets what they want: more money, another lawsuit NOT covered under the
current legal fee cap.
Everybody wins!
---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
"Normand: 3) SCO's allegations of malice are asserted, and Novell can't
dismiss them by claiming falsity. Novell's assertion of ownership cannot trump
malice."
Sez who? This is an argument that is based on wishful thinking - and at any rate
not on logic or any case law that SCOG cited that I know of. May be SCOG is
experimenting with this devastating legal weapon known as the power of
auto-suggestion and wishful thinking. Outstanding legal work as usual, SCOG!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
Even if judge Kimball turns down Novell's request for the conversion, SCOG will
still have to deal (ultimately unsuccessfully) with Novell's request for a
dismissal: Novell wins either way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 26 2005 @ 11:35 AM EDT |
On occasion it is worthwhile to reflect on the effort put forward by people such
as Frank Sorenson and Chris Brown who take the time and effort to attend these
hearings, take notes and then put forth the effort to transcribe these notes and
make them available for publication. While it is understandable that it is a
labor of love, never the less, it is a selfless contribution. Thank You Frank
and Chris, and thank you PJ. for provding the forum.
An appreciative, anonymous, and sometimes trollish Groklaw reader.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 27 2005 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
| Q: "Did you see that The Sco Group suffered
extensive encraterment
yesterday?"
A: "Sweet!" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
