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
Another SCO 90-Day Status Report to the AutoZone Judge
Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:02 PM EDT

Here's the latest SCO letter [PDF] to the AutoZone judge. A very terse account of Judge Brooke Wells' Order. No quotable quotes about shoplifting from Neiman Marcus or about SCO seeming to be trying for an unfair advantage.

I am guessing that the settlement between SCO and Novell as to what unfair competition law SCO was thinking of, announced at the hearing on July 17 as being Utah's, must have been worked out at the very last minute. Either that or Curran and Parry didn't get the news, because their letter to the judge is also dated July 17, and it doesn't mention the matter as being settled.

I was thinking. I wonder what the District Court judge in Nevada thinks when he reads that SCO has somehow been dragged before an arbitration panel in Europe. I'll bet he's glad he stayed this case now. And what a shock it must be for the two judges getting these progress reports, AutoZone and Red Hat, to learn that IBM is winning motions, when to hear SCO tell it, their case is just swimming right along.

I note, for example, that SCO says that SuSE filed a reply to SCO's filing in the arbitration, "at the request of the Arbitration Court," which makes it sound like SCO hit some home runs calling for a reply. Maybe they did. But then, considering SCO's style of speechifying, maybe they just filed something that caused the tribunal to ask for more information on a point to clarify which side was telling the truth, or just for more evidence, something that is expressly anticipated in the ICC rules, in Article 20:

5 At any time during the proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal may summon any party to provide additional evidence.

So that is likely all it means. But I discern that SCO at least thinks it made some points, because they bring it up. I've read enough of their letters by now to know that if they bring up a point they don't have to, it means they think they did something effective. Of course, we are required to guess, because SCO hints but does not provide specificity. So here's my guess: I guess that SCO told the panel that SUSE failed to negotiate with them prior to filing for arbitration. I get that idea from what SCO is reported to have said at the hearing. If I have guessed right, then I would imagine the tribunal would ask SUSE to reply.

Do you remember from the eyewitness reports from the hearing that there was some discussion about the wording of the arbitration clauses in the Master Transaction Agreement, which used "arising from" and the Caldera-SUSE Joint Development Contract, which I think they said says the same? SCO seemed to be arguing that "arising from" language meant it was a narrow arbitration:

Mr. Singer discussed the 10th Circuit case of Cummings vs. FedEx and how it distinguished between narrow and broad arbitration clauses. He read the arbitration clauses from Master Transaction Agreement 9.2 and the Joint Development Contracts between Caldera and SuSe. The MTA language reads: matters "arising from" these agreements, and the JDC reads differences or ... "arising from" and he noted that neither read "related to." Therefore this was a narrow arbitration clause. Judge Kimball asked Mr. Singer to define the boundaries between "arising from" and "relating to" to which he replied that he believes "relating to" indicates a broader scope.

I frankly didn't know what they were talking about, but I think I do now. Take a look at this. Here's the standard language the ICC recommends be used if you want to end up before their tribunals, and I don't think it helps SCO's argument one bit:

STANDARD ICC ARBITRATION CLAUSE

The ICC recommends that all parties wishing to make reference to ICC arbitration in their contracts use the following standard clause. Parties are reminded that it may be desirable for them to stipulate in the arbitration clause itself the law governing the contract, the number of arbitrators and the place and language of the arbitration. The parties' free choice of the law governing the contract and of the place and language of the arbitration is not limited by the ICC Rules of Arbitration. Attention is called to the fact that the laws of certain countries require that parties to contracts expressly accept arbitration clauses, sometimes in a precise and particular manner.

"All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules."

Sounds broad to me. That must be why Novell's attorney mentioned that the arbitration is under Swiss law.

I'm thinking the AutoZone judge may be a bit mystified by this report. Here's SCO's last letter to this judge, where it first mentioned the arbitration, and it told the judge Novell filed in Paris on April 10. Here, without a word of explanation, SCO reports that it answered *SuSE* on June 26, and on July 10, SuSE responded. But SCO never tells the judge why SuSE and not Novell or really what it's all about.

Instead of telling the judge that almost all its claims could be tossed overboard or mooted by the arbitration, it tells this poor puzzled judge that "even the allegedly arbitrable issues could preclude, at most, only a small portion of some of SCO's claims." A small portion of some of SCO's claims? Is it small if SCO can't sue SuSE or Novell for copyright infringement? I don't know how SCO measures, but to me it's not small. In any case, the report from the hearing said that both sides acknowledged that the results of the arbitration would impact SCO v. Novell. Not that the Nevada judge will ever get to know that, unless he reads Groklaw, I suppose.

I wondered if SCO might have been referring to counterclaims, but I don't think so, because the rules specify in Article 5 that if the respondent -- that would be SCO -- files counterclaims, the claimant -- that would be SuSE -- has 30 days to file a response, and the tribunal doesn't summon anybody to do that. It's automatic:

4 A copy of the Answer and the documents annexed thereto shall be communicated by the Secretariat to the Claimant.

5 Any counterclaim(s) made by the Respondent shall be filed with its Answer and shall provide:

a) a description of the nature and circumstances of the dispute giving rise to the counterclaim(s); and
b) a statement of the relief sought, including, to the extent possible, an indication of any amount(s) counterclaimed.

6 The Claimant shall file a reply to any counterclaim within 30 days from the date of receipt of the counterclaim(s) communicated by the Secretariat. The Secretariat may grant the Claimant an extension of time for filing the reply.

So while we can only guess what SCO means here, which is, I suppose, the intent, it looks like no counterclaims were filed. Certainly AutoZone, when it files its next progress report, won't be able to fill us in. They know pretty much what we know and in any case they can't reasonably report on proceedings they aren't a party to, unless they read about it in the funny papers.

So that's the latest from Lake AutoZone, ladies and gentlemen, where all SCO's claims are above average.

****************************

(Curran & Parry letterhead)

July 17, 2006

VIA E-FILING

The Honorable Robert C. Jones
United States District Judge
District of Nevada
[address]

Re: The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc., CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL

Dear Judge Jones:

Pursuant to this Court's August 6, 2004 Order, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") respectfully submits this 90-day status report to apprise the Court of events that have transpired since our last update (on April 17, 2006) in certain other actions.

1. The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Case No. 2:03CV0294 DAK (D. Utah)

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 Magistrate Judge issued an Order granting the motion in part. On July 13, SCO filed objections to that Order with the District Judge.

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.

2. The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Case No. 2:04CV00139 (D. Utah)

As last reported, on April 10, 2006, Novell filed its Answer and Counterclaims to SCO's Second Amended Complaint restating its counterclaims in part. On May 1, SCO filed its Answer to the restated counterclaims.

1

On May 26, 2006, SCO filed its opposition to Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action. 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 any legal theory for its claims.

Also on May 26, SCO filed its opposition to Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration. SCO argued that Novell had waived any right to a stay because (among other reasons) 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 is claims are not arbitrable and that, in any event, the Court should deny the motion because even the allegedly arbitrable issues could preclude, at most, 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 June 27, 2006, SCO submitted its Reply to SuSE Linux GmbH Request for Arbitration to the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration in Paris. On July 6, at the request of the Arbitration Court, SuSE filed a response to SCO's Reply.

3. Red Hat, Inc. v. The SCO Group, Inc., Case No. 03-772-SLR (D. Del)

As Your Honor knows, the Court in the Red Hat case has stayed that action sua sponte. Since our last letter to this Court, the parties in that case have submitted additional 90-day updates to that Court.

Respectfully submitted,
CURRAN & PARRY
(signature)
Stanley W. Parry, Esq.

SWP:lcd

cc: James Pisanelli, Esq. (via hand-delivery)
David S. Stone, Esq. (via facsimile)

2


  


Another SCO 90-Day Status Report to the AutoZone Judge | 110 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: tuxi on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:12 PM EDT
Let PJ know if you find any needed.

---
tuxi

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another SCO 90-Day Status Report to the AutoZone Judge
Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:13 PM EDT

Blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah.

...I don't know's on third...

---
Peter H. Salus

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: tuxi on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:14 PM EDT

Please use this thread for off-topic discussions. Use HTML format and clicky clinks.

---
tuxi

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmm...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:14 PM EDT
The lady in the red dress is not very impressed, methinks.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

One assumes Autozone will correct the information.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:25 PM EDT
Their letter will probably start like: "Although Autozone is not party to
the other cases, it has gathered the following information from publicly
available sources ...". Isn't their letter due sometime in the next couple
of weeks?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quick, Mail the Letter Before the Hearing Starts...
Authored by: chrisbrown on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:34 PM EDT
July 17th, eh? I'd wager SCO wanted to get that letter out the door before the
July 17th hearing lest they have bad news to report.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What do these letters mean?
Authored by: cventers on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:55 PM EDT
What do these status reports to the judge effectively mean
in the grand scheme of the case, other than letting the
judge know that the other case still has a pulse?

What I'm asking most specifically is how much harm would
there be if SCO included more facts that don't necessarily
make it look like their case is going well? Is there
really a strategic advantage on SCO's part in pretending
they're winning the case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

request of the Arbitration Court,
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 07:56 PM EDT
Dear Novell/Suse;

How deep a hole do we need to bury SCO so that we will never hear from them
again?

regards,

[ Reply to This | # ]

A theory about why SCO decided to say what law they were using after all
Authored by: farhill on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 08:07 PM EDT
When Wells threw out a big chunk of their case for not making a specific claim,
they realized that trying to do essentially the same thing a few days later with
Novell was not likely to succeed.

No idea if this is correct, but the timing fits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Only a small portion
Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 08:29 PM EDT
To be precise, TSCOG's big/original/shiny claim is Slander of Title. So, in
their minds, the copyright thingy is/was just an afterthought, really, honestly,
not worth mentioning... ignore the man behind the curtain... these aren't the
allegations/droids you're looking for...

---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.


[ Reply to This | # ]

"...could preclude, at most, only a small portion of some of SCO's claims"
Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 09:14 PM EDT
I read this quote in context, and it appears to me that any sensible reading of
this strongly hints that SCO know they don't have a case.

When they suggest that a resolution of arbitrable claims will preclude their
claims, it seems to me that they are acknowledging that arbitration will not go
their way.

That reading may be wrong since words do tend to have specific legal meaning
that defies normal usage -- if so, it may be a non-issue.

If I were so certain of my case, I'd push for a quick resolution of some claims
by arbitration just so I could hold something up and say "see here -- these
went my way" (possibly in a more legally dressed up way :-)).

Why didn't they say "...could affirm, at most, only a small portion of
SCO's claims"? Was this taken out before the spin cycle?


---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another SCO 90-Day Status Report to the AutoZone Judge
Authored by: bigbert on Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 09:29 PM EDT
"SCO hints but does not provide specificity"

And that, ladies and gentlemen, neatly summarizes 3 years + of litigation.

---
LnxRlz!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another SCO 90-Day Status Report to the AutoZone Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 20 2006 @ 09:31 AM EDT
Is Autozone allowed to refer to Groklaw in their letter, pointing out more
information about the arbitration?

PJ, did you just see the Prarie Home movie? I have been a fan of GK and PHC for
a little longer than I have been a fan and user of Linux.

The whole SCOx debacle is very much like one of GK's monologues about Lake
Woebegon. It has taken quite a meandering path, with side trips where the
pianful humor makes your stomach churn while you laugh, before crossing paths
with the original story line again. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOx comes back
and announces at the next SCO Forum that they are ready to submit Blepps
breifcase with all of the evidence at trial.

[ 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 )