|
|
| SCO's Latest Letter to the Red Hat Judge, as text - Updated: RH's too |
 |
|
Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:09 PM EDT
|
Here you go, SCO's latest creative writing exercise, its regular 90-day progress letter to the Red Hat judge [PDF]. It leaves out all pertinent details about Judge Brooke Wells' recent withering Order, merely stating that IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims was granted in part. The judge certainly won't have a clue that SCO just suffered a significant setback, unless she reads it in the funny papers. SCO doesn't let the judge know which part was granted and which was not. Nor does it connect the dots for her regarding the implications of that Order to the filed experts' reports. (By the way, there is a corrected Order [PDF] on Pacer, correcting a typo in the original.) But what this letter does do is give us a new piece of information. SCO has filed its Answer to SUSE's Request for Arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration in Paris as of June 27. Ah! to be in Paris, and a fly on *that* wall! Update: Red Hat's is available too, and it follows the text of SCO's letter. The Red Hat letter just prior to this one is here, if you like to follow the narrative closely.
*******************************
[Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell letterhead]
LESLIE A. POLIZOTI
[phone, Fax, email]
July 5, 2006
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson, Chief Judge
United States District Court
[address]
Re: Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., C.A. No. 03-772-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
Pursuant to this Court's April 6, 2004 Order, SCO respectfully submits this ninety-day status report to apprise the Court of events occurring since our last update (on April 3,
2006) in SCO v. IBM, Case No. 2:03CV294 (DAK), which is
pending before the Honorable Dale A. Kimball in the United States District Court for the District
of Utah.
IBM's Discovery Motion
On June 28, 2006, after full briefing and oral argument on IBM's motion to limit SCO's claims related to allegedly misused material, the Court granted the motion in part.
On May 19, 2006, the parties served their respective expert reports. On June 8, IBM filed a Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures, arguing that SCO's reports identified allegedly misused material not identified in SCO's Final Disclosures. In its opposition brief filed on June 19, SCO countered that its Final Disclosures fully complied with the Court's orders and its expert reports properly set forth evidence and analysis without expanding the scope of the case. IBM filed its reply brief on June 26, but the Court has not set a hearing date for this motion.
SCO v. Novell Case
On April 10, 2006, Novell filed its Answer and Counterclaims to SCO's Second Amended Complaint, restating its counterclaim with changes. SCO filed its reply to the restated counterclaims on May 1, 2006.
1
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
July 5, 2006
Page 2
On April 10, Novell also filed its Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair
Competition Cause of Action, arguing that SCO must identify the specific unfair-competition
laws that Novell has allegedly violated. In its opposition filed on May 26, SCO argued that its
unfair-competition claim meets the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules, which also do
not require that SCO specify statutory provisions or advance a legal theory for its claim.
On April 10, Novell also filed a Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to
Arbitration. Novell argued that SCO's claims are arbitrable pursuant to certain 2002
UnitedLinux contracts among SCO, SuSE (a wholly owned subsidiary of Novell since 2004),
and other Linux distributors. In its opposition filed on May 26, SCO argued that Novell had
waived any right to a stay because (among other things) it had twice moved to dismiss SCO's
original claim, obtained almost all discovery from SCO on the claims and defenses at issue,
expanded the scope of the case by introducing seven counterclaims, and answered SCO's Second
Amended Complaint. SCO also argued that its claims are not arbitrable and that, in any event,
the Court should deny the motion because even the allegedly arbitrable issues could preclude
only a small portion of some of SCO's claims. Novell filed its reply memorandum on June 19,
and the Court has scheduled a hearing for July 17.
On April 10, 2006, SuSE filed a Request for Arbitration with the International Chamber
of Commerce International Court of Arbitration in Paris. On June 27, 2006, SCO submitted its
Answer to that Request.
Respectfully,
/s/ Leslie A. Polizoti
Leslie A. Polizoti (#4299)
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Josy W. Ingersoll, Esquire (By Hand)
William F. Lee, Esquire (By Fax)
Edward Normand, Esquire (By Fax)
Mauricio A. Gonzalez, Esquire (By Fax)
************************************************
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
[address and phone numbers]
June 26, 2006
BY E-FILE
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
[address]
Re: Red Hat, Inc. v. SCO Group, Inc.
Civil Action No. 03-772-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
Pursuant to the Court's April 6, 2004 Order requesting a quarterly report on the status of various related litigation matters, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") submits this letter as an update to its previous letter, dated March 27, 2006. Although Red Hat is not a party to these other related cases, Red Hat offers the following summary based upon publicly available information.
1. SCO Group, Inc v. International Business Machines Corp.
On April 4, 2006, IBM submitted its reply brief in support of its motion to limit SCO's claims relating to allegedly misused material. The court heard arguments on this motion on April 14, 2006 and took the motion under advisement.
In connection with the same disclosures of allegedly misused material, IBM filed a motion to confine SCO's claims to, and strike allegations in excess of, the final disclosures made by SCO on June 8, 2006, arguing that SCO has attempted to increase the scope of its claims by identifying additional allegedly misused material through its expert reports. SCO, in its opposition brief filed on June 19, 2006, argued that its disclosures fully complied with the court's scheduling order and that its expert reports are consistent with what the court has required.
By an order dated June 2, 2006, the court also extended the time to complete discovery to August 4, 2006.
2. SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone. Inc.
Since the filing of our last letter to the Court, no significant activity has occurred in this case.
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
June 26, 2006
Page 2
3. SCO v. Novell, Inc.
On April 10, 2006, Novell submitted its answer to SCO's second amended complaint, which included a restatement of its counterclaims that were previously pled on July 29, 2005. SCO answered these counterclaims on May 1, 2006.
On the same date, Novell submitted two motions: (1) a motion to stay claims raising issues subject to arbritration; and (2) a motion for a more definite statement of SCO's unfair competition cause of action. Novell's motion to stay seeks to stay five of the claims asserted in SCO's second amended complaint. Novell asserts that four of these claims are subject to arbitration pursuant to the "UnitedLinux" contracts signed by SCO in May 2002 and that the fifth claim should be stayed becausae it is contingent on the prior four. SCO opposes this motion on the grounds that Novell has waived any right to the requested stay, the claims at issue are not within the purview of the arbitration clause, and non-arbitrable claims should not be stayed pending litigation.
Novell's motion for a more definite statement of SCO's unfair competition cause of action essentially asks SCO to identify the unfair competition laws that it accuses Novell of violating. SCO's opposition argues that a more definite statement is not warranted on the basis that it is not required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to specify statutory provisions or advance a particular legal theory and that it has met the pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Respectfully submitted,
[signature of Josy Ingersoll]
Josy W. Ingersoll (No. 1088)
JWI:cg
cc: Clerk of the Court (by CM/ECF and hand delivery)
Mark G. Matuschak, Esquire (by e-mail)
Michelle D. Miller, Esquire (by e-mail)
Stephen N. Zack, Esquire (by e-mail)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (by e-mail and e-filing)
2
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:12 PM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
You know the drill, links, clickies, etc.
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "The Month of The Browser Bugs Begins - new vulnerability will be published every day." - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:56 PM EDT
- New SEC filling from SCO - Authored by: feldegast on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 11:52 PM EDT
- More WGA articles - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 05:25 AM EDT
- Questions about the firestar lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- Some speculation on the Microsoft ODF translator - Authored by: PolR on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 06:39 AM EDT
- Eu v Microsoft ... The Comission confirms that Microsoft will be fined - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 06:46 AM EDT
- Mene mene (cont) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 06:47 AM EDT
- Is it NOT anti-competitive - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 07:20 AM EDT
- OT- Roblimo's future of computer training? Is it better'n screenshot views as well? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 08:26 AM EDT
- On the topic of EULAs - Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- Clicky - Authored by: jplatt39 on Saturday, July 08 2006 @ 09:09 AM EDT
- Video Game legend critizes Sony - Authored by: jplatt39 on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 08:48 AM EDT
- "Vista was "flaky" and Office's new features may actually be more of a hindrance than a help." - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- Oh well - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- "Toronto high school expels Linux lab" - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 09:44 AM EDT
- Question about SCO v. IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- SCOX - Technical markers 100% sell - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- For a good laugh - Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 07:55 PM EDT
- Concepts and Ideas - The next attack on - some friends of SCOG show themselves in the wings. - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 11:28 PM EDT
- Rupert Goodwins offers PJ a martini - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 02:12 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
One hopes that Red Hat attaches Judge Wells' actual ruling on the IBM
discovery motion to their letter. I think that'd make this judge suddenly become
much more curious about the discrepancies between SCO's letters and reality. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:15 PM EDT |
Hey, everybody!
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
"Choose the one drink you wouldn't give your worst enemy, and make me a
double."
--Autolycus (Bruce Campbell)
"Xena--Warrior Princess"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:35 PM EDT |
Red Hat v SCO was the 2nd case initiated, after SCO v IBM
And it was stayed soon after being filed.
The Judge's order which mentions the stay, asks for periodic reports on SCO v
IBM. It couldn't mention SCO v Novell, SCO v AZ, or SCO v DCX, since IIRC it
was stayed before these cases even started.
Red Hat have been quite diligent about mentioning all the other cases, not just
SCO v IBM in their periodic letters to the RH Judge.
Until now, I can't recall SCO ever mentioning any other cases, except SCO v IBM,
case to the RH Judge. I think this is the first time... maybe they're tired of
Red Hat making points on these other cases with no response from SCO.
(BTW don't get confused with SCO vs AZ, which is also stayed, and where the
Judge asked for periodic reports on SCO v IBM and SCO v Novell and SCO v RH)
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveF on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 10:38 PM EDT |
Methinks it's only a matter of time before Judge Robinson becomes fully aware of
SCO's penchant for shenanigans. Patience, friends, all will unfold in good
time...
---
Imbibio, ergo sum[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, July 06 2006 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
So, how do you like all this? Amazingly interesting, isn't it? What
happens next? According to the ICC rules, as I read them, SCO must answer
in 30 days, with any counterclaims, and giving any choice regarding
arbitrators, language, and place of arbitration. It can ask for an
extension. After an answer is filed, then SuSe gets 30 days to reply. It
too can ask for an extension of time. SCO can protest the arbitration request.
Then either the Tribunal decides to go ahead as a matter of law, relying on its
decision that the arbitration clause is binding, or the parties end up in a
local court, asking that court to decide if the arbitration clause is binding.
It can decide just on the papers submitted, or there can be a hearing requested,
but no matter what, after all the papers are in, it is supposed to be over in
six months. No discovery. Whew. We're all sick of SCO discovery.....
Groklaw
On April 10, 2006, SuSE filed a Request for Arbitration
with the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration in
Paris. On June 27, 2006, SCO submitted its Answer to that
Request.
SCOG had an extension of 48 days.
I don't suppose Novell
will want one so SCOG should be protesting around the end of this month. Then
it's down to the tribunal starting around September???? Brian S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 12:08 AM EDT |
In its opposition filed on May 26, SCO argued that its
unfair-
competition claim meets the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules,
which
also do not require that SCO specify statutory provisions or advance
a
legal theory for its claim.
Emphasis added
Note
that this re: Novell, not IBM and is filed in the Red Hat case, but it's
still
refreshing to see it in their
quarterly briefing to the Delaware
judge.
IANAL, just a long-time lurker. Have to say I had a damp keyboard
after
my first reading of that sentence. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the most recent ruling for IBM is the most
substantial addressing/acknowledgement of SCOG's press claims by the Utah court,
yes?
Since the Red Hat case is all about SCOG's representations to the press, I
expect Red Hat to include large excerpts from Judge Wells' ruling.
Could Judge Robinson consider this sufficient grounds to lift the stay and
proceed?
bkd[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toys on Friday, July 07 2006 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
Let us all hope that it is the normal BSF crowd that filed the reply in the
arbitration proceedings. Given their record for historonics, uncivility and
outright misstatement of the facts, that will go down with SO much more negative
affect on them, then it seems to be having in the US, before the very proper and
very civil Europeans.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 08 2006 @ 08:36 PM EDT |
This case seems stalled, Redhat does not seem interested n a quick start.
(imho)
If IBM bankrupts "The SCO Group" and then the Redhat case starts, can
Redhat go after the individuals responsible for the public "We own
Linux" comments for, and get this, "Slander of Title"?
I think it may be a mistake by The SCO Group exec's to delay the Redhat case
until tSCOg is gone, and it may cost those execs all the money made from the all
the "planned stock sales" and more. :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 01:19 AM EDT |
I am happy to see the share price trading as low as 2.80. Can't wait for the day
when it hits a few cents[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO ship sinking - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 09 2006 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- SCO ship sinking - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 10 2006 @ 01:11 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
