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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
SCO Considering an Appeal?
Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 05:35 AM EDT

Believe this if you wish. SCO is telling the media that they are considering whether or not to appeal Judge Dale Kimball's Order denying their Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. Bob Mims reports it this way:

Kimball's decision, filed late Friday as the holiday weekend began, caught SCO unprepared. Spokesman Blake Stowell indicated Tuesday that company lawyers were studying the ruling; whether SCO will appeal was undetermined. . . . "We look forward to having our claims heard before a jury," Stowell said.

Ah, yes, the jury. As opposed to the judge, who has their number. They are so looking forward to having their claims heard by a jury they have dragged out discovery with all their might, like a kid who has been refused candy having a temper tantrum on the floor of a supermarket whose poor mom ends up carrying it out, kicking and screaming, because it refuses to budge from the candy aisle.

What SCO apparently didn't tell Mr. Mims is that they don't get to decide if they can appeal. All they can do is ask for permission. Then there is the expense, including the bond. SCO's so rich these days, you know, and lawyers are world-renowned for loving to work for nothing. Hasn't that been your experience, that lawyers work best for you when your money runs out? Let's take a look at their appeal options.

Here is Title 28, Section 1292 of the US Code, the one that applies to them, appeals from interlocutory orders, meaning it's not the final order, the one that determines the outcome:

(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.

So, what I see is they have to get permission to appeal. It's discretionary. And no stay of proceedings while you wait for the appeal, unless the Court of Appeals of a judge so orders. Here's an explanation of Section 1292:

Interlocutory Appeals Under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b)

28 U.S.C. 1292(b) grants discretion to the courts of appeals to review any interlocutory order in a civil case if the trial judge, in making the order, has stated in writing that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

1292(b) review is inappropriate for challenges to a judge's discretion in granting or denying transfers.  The Congressional policy against piecemeal appeals, as expressed in the final judgment rule, to which 1292(b) is a narrow exception is eroded by permitting review of exercise of the judge's discretion under the transfer statute as a "controlling question of law."  The issue is not one of convenience to the litigants, or to the court, but of appellate jurisdiction.  1292(b) allows discretionary appeals from interlocutory orders when both the trial & appellate courts agree that an appeal is appropriate.

For 1292(b) to apply there must be (1) a "controlling question of law."  Many cases have held a 1292(b) appeal not proper on matters that lie within the discretion of the district court.  (2) There must be a "difference of opinion" about the controlling question of law.  i.e., it must not be a question which is controlled by clear precedent. (3)  It must be thought that immediate appeal "may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation."  Hence, the appeal must carry the potential of avoiding litigation altogether.  (Wright § 102)

So, they need permission. "1292(b) allows discretionary appeals from interlocutory orders when both the trial & appellate courts agree that an appeal is appropriate." And they will only agree if it "may materially advance" the litigation. Here is a Practioner's Guide [PDF] for the Tenth Circuit. And here are the Rules. Here's the process they'd have to follow, beginning with bringing a motion to get Kimball to agree to an appeal, and note IBM would get to oppose:

Fed. R. App. P. Rule 5.  Appeal by Permission

(a) Petition for Permission to Appeal.

(1) To request permission to appeal when an appeal is within the court of appeals’ discretion, a party must file a petition for permission to appeal. The petition must be filed with the circuit clerk with proof of service on all other parties to the district-court action.

(2) The petition must be filed within the time specified by the statute or rule authorizing the appeal or, if no such time is specified, within the time provided by Rule 4(a) for filing a notice of appeal.

(3) If a party cannot petition for appeal unless the district court first enters an order granting permission to do so or stating that the necessary conditions are met, the district court may amend its order, either on its own or in response to a party’s motion, to include the required permission or statement. In that event, the time to petition runs from entry of the amended order.

(b) Contents of the Petition; Answer or Cross-Petition; Oral Argument.

(1) The petition must include the following:

(A) the facts necessary to understand the question presented;

(B) the question itself;

(C) the relief sought;

(D) the reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is authorized by a statute or rule; and

(E) an attached copy of:

(i) the order, decree, or judgment complained of and any related opinion or memorandum, and

(ii) any order stating the district court’s permission to appeal or finding that the necessary conditions are met.

(2) A party may file an answer in opposition or a cross-petition within 7 days after the petition is served.

(3) The petition and answer will be submitted without oral argument unless the court of appeals orders otherwise.

(c) Form of Papers; Number of Copies.  All papers must conform to Rule 32(c)(2). Except by the court’s permission, a paper must not exceed 20 pages, exclusive of the disclosure statement, the proof of service, and the accompanying documents required by Rule 5(b)(1)(E). An original and 3 copies must be filed unless the court requires a different number by local rule or by order in a particular case.

(d) Grant of Permission; Fees; Cost Bond; Filing the Record.

(1) Within 10 days after the entry of the order granting permission to appeal, the appellant must:

(A) pay the district clerk all required fees; and

(B) file a cost bond if required under Rule 7.

(2) A notice of appeal need not be filed. The date when the order granting permission to appeal is entered serves as the date of the notice of appeal for calculating time under these rules.

(3) The district clerk must notify the circuit clerk once the petitioner has paid the fees. Upon receiving this notice, the circuit clerk must enter the appeal on the docket. The record must be forwarded and filed in accordance with Rules 11 and 12(c).

(As amended Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002)

To see how it looks in real life, you can look at Microsoft's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) For Certification of the Court's June 10 Ruling to the Extent it Denied Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss [PDF] and its Memorandum in Support [PDF]. If you recall, in Novell v. Microsoft, Novell was recently given the right to proceed with two of its claims in its antitrust suit and Microsoft then filed those documents to appeal on those two claims. Notice on the Motion that they filed it with the same judge that denied Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss with respects to the two claims. SCO would have to do something similar, ask Judge Kimball to see things SCO's way within the confines of the elements required under 1292(b).

There is one exception to an interlocutory decision not being appealable as of right, called the collateral orders doctrine, which grants a right of appeal--without the district court's certification--from orders "which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated." Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949):

This decision appears to fall in that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated. The Court has long given this provision of the statute this practical rather than a technical construction. . . .

We hold this order appealable because it is a final disposition of a claimed right which is not an ingredient . . . of the cause of action and does not require consideration with it.

Richardson-Merrell v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (1985), explains further:

"The collateral order doctrine is a 'narrow exception,' . . . whose reach is limited to trial court orders affecting rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal. . . . To fall within the exception, an order must at a minimum satisfy three conditions: It must 'conclusively determine the disputed question,' 'resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action,' and 'be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.'"

But unless they can squeeze into that language somehow, what's to appeal? What's the controlling question of law? The evidence was overwhelming that they or their predecessor apparently knew years ago, or should have known, coulda shoulda, about the activities they wanted to add to the complaint. I can't imagine how they will get past that part of the order. But their attorneys will be studying the Code, comparing it with each detail of their denied motion and Judge Kimball's Order, and looking up cases, trying to find a way. That's assuming they told the media the truth and they really are studying the order and considering an appeal.

If they or oldSCO knew all about AIX on Power years ago and did nothing, it makes it hard, if not impossible, to bring it up now. That's what Judge Kimball meant, that they were too late. There is something called waiver and laches.

I explained laches and waiver back when covering IBM's affirmative defenses all those many moons ago, in Groklaw article #125. This one is #1956, if you can imagine. Here's the info again, because it's related to why Judge Kimball mentioned that they, or their predecessor in interest, apparently knew or should have known:

Sixth Affirmative Defense: the claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and delay. Laches just means you waited too long to sue. It's kind of like the statutes of limitations defense, but laches is equitable. . . . Here's a legal explanation of laches, from Steven H. Gifis' Law Dictionary:

"LACHES a doctrine providing a party with an equitable defense where long-neglected rights are sought to be enforced against the party. Laches signifies an undue lapse of time in enforcing a right of action and negligence in failing to act more promptly. It recognizes that because of the delay, the defendant's ability to defend may be unfairly impaired because witnesses or evidence needed to defend against the stated claim may have become unavailable or lost. The doctrine also recognizes that if the delay has led the adverse party to change his or her position as to the property or right in question, it is inequitable to allow the negligent delaying party to be preferred in their legal right.... The consequent preclusion of the negligent party's action constitutes a species of equitable estoppel known as ESTOPPEL BY LACHES."

Seventh Affirmative Defense: that the claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands. Waiver is "an intentional and voluntary giving up, relinquishment, or surrender of some known right. In general, a waiver may either result from an express agreement or be inferred by circumstances," as Gifis' dictionary explains. If you wait too long to assert your right, you may have waived it.

And of course in this case there was a statute of limitations to boot in the contract, which said they must bring any claims in a New York, not a Utah, court. The time limit to do so long ago came and went. SCO knew the contract had a statute of limitations that had already run. That, in my view, is why they tried to resurrect the claim by flashing those privileged emails around every chance they got, trying to leap over the turnstile that blocked their way by claiming it was newly discovered evidence. It failed. I'm not saying that they may not try to appeal, in a PR kind of way, if the lawyers can find some offbeat theory, which isn't impossible, given the lawyers in question, and if they can afford it. But I really can't see any serious hope for an appeal succeeding in the media, or from a PR point of view. Don't forget that they were reading those privileged emails while IBM's evidence was under seal and not available to us. Who'd take their claims seriously now, having read IBM's unsealed collection of evidence? Kimball didn't.

And since the lawyers won't be paid after a point, and appeals are about as expensive and time-consuming as any part of a lawsuit, I would suggest we not hold our breath for any serious appeal. Maybe one like the DaimlerChrysler one, whereby they keep their thumb on the page, without actually doing anything meaningful.

Here's my favorite part from the Practioner's Guide regarding appeals, page 10:

"Sanctions for Meritless Appeals. If the court finds that an appeal is frivolous, it may award damages and single or double costs. Fed. R. App. P. 38. These costs may be awarded against counsel personally if the court finds the fault is with the lawyer.

You can always tell when SCO has been contacting the media, because the same quotation shows up in more than one article, but this time I saw only two leading with SCO's spin that they had won a great victory in getting to depose Palmisano for four hours. Oooh. I'm sure he can't sleep for worry. Not. The best coverage I saw was Matthew Aslett's on Computer Business Review Online. eWeek tells the SCO story their way at first, but then there is a devastating quotation from Steven Fronk, an attorney who says this about the Order:

Stephen Fronk, an attorney with Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, a San Francisco-based law firm, said the order "suggests that the court has become frustrated with SCO's efforts to drag out the discovery process." . . .

To Fronk, it appears that "given the court's apparent frustration with SCO and the ongoing discovery and pleading battles in the case, it appears that the court will not tolerate a departure from the Feb. 26, 2007, trial date."

So, according to this attorney, it really has been SCO dragging out the discovery process. You heard it here first, but now you get it confirmed by an attorney.

Of course, he may not know SCO as well as we do when he says the court date is carved in stone. They are a creative lot, that seem not to care about the ultimate outcome at all, just so long as it takes forever to get there, so logic isn't a reliable predictive tool. We'll see. Kimball is a patient man, and you never know once the dispositive motions are allowed again just how much inventive SCO paperwork will descend on his desk like a Chinese torture dripping faucet until the poor man gives out and lets them delay some more. The difficulty in predicting SCO's next move is that so little that they've done already makes any sense to me. Nothing about this litigation has been quite normal, and so we'll just have to wait and see what SCO tries next. Heaven knows, it's never boring.


  


SCO Considering an Appeal? | 200 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here ...
Authored by: sappha58 on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 06:02 AM EDT
... so PJ can find them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic Stuff Here
Authored by: sappha58 on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 06:03 AM EDT
You know the drill - make the links clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PR
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 06:31 AM EDT
The best PR SCO can get out of this is to say they are
"considering an appeal", which of course they don't have to follow
through with. This is more convincing PR than "Another big win
for SCO!"

Or let them appeal. Their "statement of the reason why the appeal
may materially advance the termination of the litigation" would
need to be rather imaginative. And sweet is the sound of the judge
saying "No".

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Longhorn approaches
Authored by: warner on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 06:41 AM EDT

"Microsoft's forthcoming Longhorn operating system places great emphasis on locking down PCs to prevent unauthorised access to hardware and software, the software giant revealed today.

According to Detlef Echert, Microsoft's chief security advisor in Europe, there are several key elements designed to boost security in its next OS.

Hardware locking via a dedicated chip is combined with "hardening" of the OS to restrict how memory can be accessed.

Security will also be boosted using a technique dubbed User Account Protection, which aims to ensure that computers can be locked so that local users are not given full administrator access by default.

The first stage of enhancing security in Longhorn centres on the use of the Trusted Platform Module 1.2, a chip governed by the non-profit Trusted Computing Group and that is already being manufactured by Inifeon, National Semiconductor and Broadcom.

sou rce

"Laptop owners will benefit from a feature that prevents thieves from installing a new operating system or from bypassing the operating system to access the laptop's hard drive."

source


---
free software, for free minds and a free world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

lawyers for free
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 06:55 AM EDT
>Oh, and there is the matter of a the size of the bond. SCO's so rich these
days, you know, and lawyers are world-renowned for loving to work for nothing.

Wouldn't the legal fee cap cover this too?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Attorney signing off on filing appeal?
Authored by: WhiteFang on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 07:14 AM EDT
"Not only that but the attorney filing any document in the appeal must sign off that it isn't frivolous or filed for the purpose of delay, on pain of sanctions or discipline."

It occurs to me that Darl's brother is ... {how to express this nicely?} ... inexperienced / thoughtless enough to actually sign off on such an appeal. I mean, his public record speaks for itself.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if Darl used his brother to file an appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Enderle again
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 08:16 AM EDT

From the Mims article, Enderle talking about TSG:

"They believe, as I do, that [Palmisano] made a number of very critical decisions early on that were questionable in nature [concerning Unix-Linux development]," Enderle said.

Two questions come immediately to mind: (1) Does he in fact have any basis for this statement, or is he just spewing opinion dressed up as analysis? (2) Since this question would seem to defame Palmisano, is it actionable?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appeal Deadline?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 08:26 AM EDT

The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order:

Given this, exactly when is the deadline for TSG to file an appeal? The PDF of Judge Kimball's Order says it was signed on July 1, but that doesn't indicate when it was filed. Also, does "ten days" mean ten calendar days, or ten business days?

Anyone?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Considering an Appeal?
Authored by: urzumph on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 09:15 AM EDT
IANAL

Assuming SCO actually files for permission to appeal, I think it is very
unlikely that the judge would permit it.

My main reasoning for this is that, denying the motion and permission to appeal
doesn't prejudice them, as they can simply take up their excuse-for-a-case in a
New York court (or trying their hand again in Utah for that matter), whereas the
prejudice to IBM if this goes ahead is obvious.

Any thoughts?

[ Reply to This | # ]

To summarize the requirements
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 09:34 AM EDT

SCO faces two hurdles, both of which they are unlikely to pass.

1. They have to get the Judge's certificate to appeal; AND
2. They have to obtain leave from the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Bond?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 10:23 AM EDT
In an appeal like this I think the bond would only be to cover court costs. It
would not be very large. If they were appealing a verdict against them then I
believe the bond might be to insure payment of the judgment, if the appeal is
unsuccessful.

Can someone please clarify this for me?

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Spin?
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 10:55 AM EDT
I saw only two leading with SCO's spin that they had won a great victory in getting to depose Palmisano for four hours.

And the Karnak the Magnificent Prize for Prognostication goes to overshoot for this wonderful prediction over on the "IBM Wins Big" story!

---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Considering an Appeal?
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 11:02 AM EDT
"Kimball is a patient man, and you never know once the dispositive motions
are allowed again just how much inventive SCO paperwork will descend on his desk
like a Chinese torture dripping faucet until the poor man gives out and lets
them delay some more." PJ

Someone should let judge Kimball that the price of giving in to torture and
requets for delay is more torture and more requests for delay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Considering an Appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 11:40 AM EDT
I said it before, and I'll say it again: SCO doesn't want
this case to come to a conclusion because they know they
can't win.

They know there's only one possible outcome, SCO's
bankruptcy. The guys driving this don't care, because
they've already made their money off the stock
manipulation.

What they're trying to do is drag this out until the
bankruptcy. Then they can forever claim that "we would
have prevailed if IBM hadn't dragged this out until we ran
out of money". That way they never have to admit that they
lost, and they can continue indefinitely to cast
aspersions on Linux and IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Laches and waiver
Authored by: tfry on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 11:48 AM EDT
IANAL and not even a paralegal or anything law-related.
However, I think laches and waiver do not have much to do
with this issue.

Esp. laches: "It recognizes that because of the delay, the
defendant's ability to defend may be unfairly impaired
because witnesses or evidence needed to defend against the
stated claim may have become unavailable or lost."
This does not seem to be an important consideration, here.
It's not like this is decades ago or something.

IBM has made a point about waiver in pointing out their
contract, and that SCO would have had to sue long ago
according to that contract.

But none of this seems to have been of much concern to
Kimball. IIRC he did not cite the contract at all in his
order. He didn't have to. I think he rather thought to
himself along the lines of "Even if their new complaint
had a merit, and even if SCO could somehow argue the
contract was not enforcable - is there a strong reason to
deny their motion to amend?" He found there is, because
SCO could and should have brought the complaint before the
deadline to amend.

So basically, I think Kimball did not consider laches or
waiver at all. Rather he basically said "Look, if you like
you can go ahead and try to sue IBM for this somewhere
else. I may have an opinion on whether you would succeed
with that, but that does not matter, here. What does
matter is that it's far too late to add this complaint in
*this* case. If you had brought the complaint ealier, I
might have been willing to consider it. Thank goodness, I
don't have to, now." So SCO already failed at the level of
procedures and schedules. Laches and waiver would only be
the next hurdle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Laches and copyright infringement?
Authored by: N. on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 12:17 PM EDT
I'd be interested in both the US and UK perspective here, if anyone can shed any
light on this - and this isn't a request for legal advice, and any responses
won't be treated as such:

I'm interested in computer emulation of machines which have long-since stopped
being produced. Now the emulation of the machine is completely legitimate, the
relevant rights have been officially granted and that's all OK.

However the programs that are run in the emulators (applications and games) are
being distributed freely by various websites, some of which have been running
for ten years now. A few of the required permissions have been given, but in the
majority the rights holders either cannot be found, or haven't responded to
requests for permissions.

I'm wondering where laches fits into these what are otherwise copyright
violations.

1) If a rights holder cannot be found, yet their work has been distributed for
free unchallenged for several years, are they prevented from taking legal action
because they haven't enforced their rights?

2) What about rights holders who received a request for distribution permission
but who chose not to respond, thus knowing for several years that their works
have been distributed for free, yet did nothing about it?

I guess the issues surrounding "Abandonware" would intersect with
these questions too.

I'd be interested in any thoughts - I know they're copyright violations, I'm
just wondering if laches would prevent any legal action after such a long time
has passed.

---
N.
(Now almost completely Windows-free)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I'll Raise You, Judge Kimball"
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 12:46 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

It's going to be very interesting to see if SCO can pull anything off.
Considering how cautious Kimball has been to dot every i and cross every t.

Right now, I'm taking back anything I ever said in frustration about how long
the ruling took. If this is as airtight as I'm hoping, I'll wait until the
Trump Of Doom for the rulings!

Well, maybe not...but you know what I mean.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"Yay! My heart fills with hideous despair! Ooo! And behavior controlling
drugs!"
--Fillerbunny

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Considering an Appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 01:15 PM EDT
I can't really see why deposing Palmisano is such a great victory? Or how SCO
could make people think it is.

This isn't an antitrust suit.

I mean, it's not like Palmisano's gonna sit there and say "yeah, we
strategized copying great chunks of SCO-owned code into Linux without checking
it for licensing and other legal issues."

We'll be able to describe their Linux strategy, but how does that advance SCO's
case? It's not exactly a secret that IBM have been pushing Linux.

Was he even involved in Project Monterey?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Considering an Appeal?
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 03:12 PM EDT
"Is SCOG Considering an Appeal?"

The logical response would be: "On what grounds?" The Appeals Court
usually does not question the District judges' findings of facts. In addition,
the judge only mentioned a couple of the reasons why he is denying SCOG's
motion: he can easily come up with a lot more, if pushed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Considering an Appeal?
Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 10:17 PM EDT
"They [SCOG] are a creative lot, that seem not to care about the ultimate
outcome at all, just so long as it takes forever to get there, so logic isn't a
reliable predictive tool." PJ

They don't care about the outcome, because they have a pretty good idea what the
outcome will be. It is in SCOG's interest to delay the outcome for as long as
possible, so we would predict on the basis of logic that SCOG will say and do
anything and everything logic to generate delay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

backstage (Considering an Appeal?)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 07 2005 @ 10:56 PM EDT
"...Kimball's decision, filed late Friday as the holiday weekend began,
caught SCO unprepared. Spokesman Blake Stowell indicated Tuesday that company
lawyers were studying the ruling..."

Blake: What are we going to do?

Darl: I dunno... tell em we're looking at it... stall... at least until Brent
talks to his daddy...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do they have a choice?
Authored by: john hrdo on Friday, July 08 2005 @ 03:57 AM EDT
Do they have a choice besides frivolity? The new
scheduling order says that they have to produce
evidence of code abuse by Xmas this year, that's
six months left. They will produce nothing.
As things stand, they are rushing towards final
PR disaster late this year. Since their entire
case is based on public harassment and innuendo
against IBM and FUD against Linux, they can as
well pack up and leave.

Besides, there is subliminal warfare going on
between SCO and Judge Kimball. Remember that SCO
was trying to stop dispositive motions last
September arguing that they went against previous
Court decisions to await close of discovery. In
October 2004, the Judge inflicted defeat on them
noting that the reference to his decisions was
puzzling. Then in February 2005, Kimball had to
give in to pressure: he suspended dispositive
motions for the length of discovery. SCO won.

Also remember the (old) trial date of November
2005 that the Judge wanted to be unmovable short
of a large asteroid hitting Salt Lake City. SCO
cracked the old scheduling order in January when
almost all its discovery requests were granted. The
trial date has now moved from November 2005 to
February 2007. SCO has won again.

However, when Kimball gave in to SCO's wishes to
stop dispositive motions, he also dwelled about
missing evidence and his itch for partial summary
judgements. His remarks were echoed widely in the
media, not to SCO's satisfaction. And the new
trial date is so shrewdly far away (even SCO was
only proposing to roll it up to Summer 2006) that
it will be a bit difficult to crack it again - the
more so as the chest of procedural tricks is
depleted. Telepathic message from the Judge: You
have bust my schedule, you have delayed partial
summary judgements - congratulations, but let's
get even now. By Xmas, you will have to let down
your pants, officially and solemnly.

So does SCO have a choice besides trying to extend
discovery to the end of time? For instance,
through an amended complaint? I think not. In the
very unlikely event that they get appeal
permission && win such an appeal, expect a highly
creative riposte from Judge Kimball.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO cannot appeal... what am I missing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 08 2005 @ 08:43 PM EDT
As PJ quoted Title 28, Section 1292 of the US Code:
(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon [ snip rest ]

Since Judge Kimball did not "so state in writing in such order", how can SCO appeal? If and only if the judge has so stated in the order, the Court of Appeals may thereupon consider an appeal.
 
Am I completely off track in believing an appeal is precluded by the fact that Judge Kimball included no such verbiage in his order?

[ 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 )