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
An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 06:26 PM EDT

Lordy, lordy, will this SCO litigation never end? Judge Kimball's Order [PDF] on SCO's Motion for Expedited Stay or Continuance is just now on Pacer, and he has granted in part and denied in part.

I doubt SCO expected to get the part about postponing the hearing on Novell's motion for preliminary injunction until after the IBM case is decided. I think they ask for the moon when all they want is a handful of stars, and they usually get them that way, too. First the court denies the moon request, and then it partially grants the handful of stars. Over and over, we've seen that.

And indeed SCO's request to stay until after IBM is decided was denied. Kimball in fact says the Novell case probably should go first, and with "little delay," so when he asked the parties at the SCO v IBM hearing today which case they thought should go first, I guess he just wanted to hear what they told him. He already had his own opinion, evidently, and it matches what IBM told him at the hearing, so I think we can presume what his decision will be on that.

But I'm afraid he did grant SCO some more time. His reasoning is, to me, a bit circular. He says SCO lost some time to respond to Novell's motion for preliminary injunction because it filed the motion to stay, and so they should have a little more time. Hmm. I guess SCO, by that logic, can create its own time delays at will by just filing motions as needed. It's not a huge delay, though. They have until December 11. Oral argument will be on January 23, 2007 at 3 PM.

Here come the stars: SCO asked for more time to respond to Novell's recent discovery requests and an extension of the fact discovery deadline, and in this SCO was successful. That means they get to do more discovery. Yes, friends, their favorite pastime. Judge Kimball's reasoning, however, on this is not without a foundation. He notes, and I'm sure he's correct, that while discovery has been going on a long time, both sides probably were a little bit not full-steam-ahead while Novell's motion to stay claims subject to arbitration was being considered and then decided. I see his logic on this point, actually, painful though it is. Here's why.

Remember when SCO pointed out that in arbitration discovery is quite different? SCO would most naturally tend to hold back a bit until they knew where the various claims were headed. And neither side would be doing discovery with their whole hearts on some claims if they thought they'd be fully decided in the arbitration. So until they had Kimball's ruling on that issue, it was hard for the two teams to strategize, and both would be inclined to be conservative. So Kimball is just being absolutely fair, as he seems always to try to be. I think we can give credence to what Chris Brown said about the hearing too, that he got the impression Kimball was inclined to be more lenient with SCO than Judge Wells. And this is the exact outcome that Lamlaw pointed to in the October 19 article, in which he also explains a bit about constructive trusts.

What is the bottom line? SCO gets sixty days to respond to Novell's discovery requests, and the fact discovery cutoff will now be February 1. That affects the rest of the pretrial deadlines, naturally, so Judge Kimball asks the parties to provide him with a new schedule for his consideration, and he tells them two dates he expects to see on the schedule, March 14 for dispositive motions and September 17, 2007 as the new trial date. Even with the extensions, as you can see, this case, now that it's actually moving, is moving faster than the IBM litigation did. But for those of us who feel SCO is bringing nuisance litigation, it feels like it's slow as cold molasses.

There is also a hearing set in the IBM case. Here's the notation on Pacer:

10/24/2006 843 - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 695 MOTION to Strike Allegations in Excess of the Final Disclosures: Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2006 10:30 AM in Room 220 before Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells. (jwd, ) (Entered: 10/24/2006)

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


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION


THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NOVELL, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________

ORDER

Civil Case No. 2:04CV139DAK


This matter is before the court on The SCO Group, Inc.'s Motion for Expedited Stay or Continuance to Respond to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction and to Extend Fact Discovery. Defendant Novell, Inc., filed an opposition to the motion and SCO informed the court that the motion could be submitted on the parties' written submissions.

SCO's motion asks the court to stay any briefing or hearing on Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction until after the end of the trial in the SCO v. IBM litigation or, in the alternative, to grant SCO an extension of ninety days to file its opposition to Novell's motion. SCO's motion also asks the court to grant it ninety days to respond to recent requests promulgated by Novell and to extend the fact discovery deadline currently set for November 1, 2006, for six months.

With respect to Novell's pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction, the court believes that the motion should be considered with little delay. Although

1

Novell's counterclaims were recently added, at least some discovery relevant to the motion has already occurred. SCO does not identify the specific discovery it needs to respond to the motion and has not filed a formal motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). SCO asserts that Novell is not entitled to a preliminary injunction on the claims because they have delayed in asserting them. Whether there has been a delay in asserting the claim, however, goes more to the propriety of granting the motion, not to whether it should be briefed and decided.

Furthermore, SCO's argument that it should not have to respond to Novell's motion while it is responding to the summary judgment motions and preparing for trial in the SCO v. IBM case is without merit. SCO chose to bring both actions and plaintiffs are under an obligation to move their cases forward. There is no basis for staying or continuing this case because of SCO's own litigation strategy. And, in fact, the legal claims asserted in each case actually suggest that this case should be decided before the IBM case. The court concludes, therefore, that there is no basis for significantly delaying the briefing or decision on Novell's pending motion.

The court does, however, recognize that SCO's response to Novell's motion has been delayed as a result of this motion to stay. The court, therefore, grants SCO an extension to oppose Novell's motion until December 11, 2006. Novell will then have until January 8, 2007 to file a reply in support of its motion, and the court will hold oral argument on the motion on January 23, 2007, at 3:00 p.m.

With respect to SCO's request for an extension of time for it to respond to Novell's recently propounded discovery and an extension of the fact discovery deadline, the court concludes that an extension is appropriate. Novell claims that it will be prejudiced by an

2

extension of the fact discovery period. But answering additional discovery does not constitute prejudice. Although the deadline has been in place for a year, both parties undoubtedly delayed their discovery efforts during the pendency of Novell's motion to stay pending the SuSE arbitration. Therefore, the court grants SCO sixty days from the date of this Order to respond to Novell's current discovery requests and extends the fact discovery deadline to February 1, 2007.

Because the extension of the fact discovery deadline will impact the remaining pre-trial and trial deadlines in this case, the existing deadlines and trial date are vacated. The court requests that the parties submit a new scheduling order including pre-trial deadlines that are consistent with a new dispositive motion deadline of March 14, 2007, and a new trial date of September 17, 2007.

DATED this 24th day of October, 2007.

BY THE COURT:

[signature]
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

3


  


An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too. | 235 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections go in this thread
Authored by: om1er on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:17 PM EDT
For a clean article.

---
Are we there yet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Discussions Here
Authored by: om1er on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:18 PM EDT
Clickable links are very handy, so make them if you can.

---
Are we there yet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: MrCharon on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:29 PM EDT
With the extension of the fact discovery deadline, do both SCO and Novell get to
do more discovery or just SCO?

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trial date delayed, great!!
Authored by: arthurpaliden on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:48 PM EDT
Now I can collet the money from all those people who bet against it happening.
Beer and pizza is on me.

---
Have you payed your legal tax today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: 'Groan'
Authored by: Nice Kitty on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:50 PM EDT
On the other hand, if all these pre-trial(s) machinations make SCO's chance of
winning on appeal (which, in my opinion, SCO *will* do, if Novell is not able to
suck them dry, financially, pre trial) virtually impossible, then these years of
agony just *might* (YMMV) have been worth it.

To see Darl & Company (private, also public) being unable to remove their
figurative necks from the legal (post conviction) chopping-block would make my
day (after all these years; GRRRR).

[ Reply to This | # ]

So SCO gets to spend more of Novell's money
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 07:53 PM EDT
It is ridiculous how SCO can continue playing the system to perpetuate a scam.
This all started with an attenpt to get bought out, while manipulating the stock
price. Although failing in the buyout, they have collected cash in salaries,
stock options, PIPE deals etc, all while from a company with no real business.

And now Kimball gives them yet more time. The system appears to be designed to
be gamed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: comms-warrior on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:04 PM EDT
Well - I don't know about this.. Novell should be considering their $20 Million
dollars as an investment in the future of Linux. Rather than try to claw the
money out of SCO, they should leave it there, but with a claim on it, such as
they have.

They won't miss the money they never had. Remember, if SCO loose the Novell
case, it leaves wiggle-room for the SEC/DA to proceed against Darl McBride for
Fraud - If he looses that, he will end up breaking rocks somewhere.

My 2c worth...

[ Reply to This | # ]

When will IBM trial be moved to?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:16 PM EDT
If the SCOvIBM trial date is moved from Feb 26th, 2007
and the SCOvNovell trial date is now September 17, 2007,
when will new SCOvIBM trial date be?

I suppose some time is required between the two trials for the parties in the
second trial to adjust their strategies based on the outcome of the first.

IANAL - what's reasonable space between trials? 4 weeks?

That means if SCOvIBM goes first it must be finished by mid-August, so must
start no later than early July 2007.
At most a 5 month delay.

But, if as seems to be telegraphed, SCOvNovell goes first
the earliest date for SCOvIBM to start is Nov 2007.
At least an 8 month delay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:26 PM EDT
Don't you love this sentence though:

"Furthermore, SCO's argument that it should not have to respond to Novell's
motion while it is responding to the summary judgment motions and preparing for
trial in the SCO v. IBM case is without merit. SCO chose to bring both actions
and plaintiffs are under an obligation to move their cases forward."

That is what was said several times here. :D

---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

[ Reply to This | # ]

this is nuts
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:45 PM EDT
It looks like Kimball is trying to help SCO in any way he can. I can already see
how this will play out. At the hearing on January 23, SCO will claim that they
need more discovery, which they expect to get by February 1. Nice!

[ Reply to This | # ]

My guess....
Authored by: mram on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 08:59 PM EDT
Kimball's life becomes very easy if Novell vs SCO is done with. So he wants to
make sure SCO has no scope for appeal. He can (then) very easily (based on what
we all suspect will be the outcome of this case) rule in favor of IBM.

Once it is established that
1) SCO has no say over IBM (as a licensor / licensee)
2) Novell does indeed interpret the UNIX license restrictions as IBM (and the
rest of the world), and
3) UNIX licensors have been lax about protecting "methods and
concepts" (with the intent of making UNIX more popular)
all of SCO's case against IBM goes down the drain.

The opinion of Novell in this regard should be enough for the Judge to issue a
SJ in favor of IBM for CC10.

I guess that only leaves the issue of Monterey agreements. But seeing that IBM
did not permit old SCO to transfer the joint development agreement to
Caldera, new SCO may not even have a leg to stand on here.

And of course, the IBM counterclaims will go to trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • My guess.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 10:10 PM EDT
  • My guess.... - Authored by: mram on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 10:36 PM EDT
Delay in IBM, Delay in Novell, call the RedHat Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 09:09 PM EDT
Ok, so how long do you think before SCO sends a letter to the RedHat case judge
advising her _both_ of the other cases have been delayed a bit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite part...
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 09:35 PM EDT

"SCO chose to bring both actions and plaintiffs are under an obligation to move their cases forward. There is no basis for staying or continuing this case because of SCO's own litigation strategy. "

Judge Kimball again demonstrates that he seems to have a pretty good grasp of The SCO Group.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 09:50 PM EDT
> But I'm afraid he did grant SCO some more time.

I think that judge K. has two contradictory goals.

1) He wants this all big mess to be done with. And he is
irritated with SCO telling the press claims that they
will not repeat in his court room. He is close to the point
of saying: "If you have a case then state here and now.
Stop wasting my time on stupid lawyers games".

2) As a judge, it is his duty to deliver justice. Even if
somebody irritates the hell of him, that somebody still
desreves his day in court.

As long as it seems that SCO may have a case, Judge K. will
not be too nasty toward SCO. But if it will turn out that
SCO has no case, the Judge will use all legal means to
ensure that SCO will be very sorry for wasting his time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My Brain--"Cap'n! She Canna Take Much More!"
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 10:06 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

Oh, my Polish ancestors, my temples are actually starting to throb! Not with
anger, mind you. I don't know if this is more gaming the system or if Kimball
got stuff wrong or what. It's taking all my effort just to type this without my
eyes crossing.

I think I need a little Basil Exposition help here, so if no one minds, can
anyone answer the few questions that occur to me are important to get a handle
on, and then I'll sort through the rest. As it is, wondering this stuff is so
distracting, I'm paying more attention to hints about it than what everything is
saying.

1) Okay, apparently, Kimball had made up his mind and asked the IBM part if
they would be fine with this. Was this just to keep SCO from filing for a
delay, continuance, whatever based on this descision? "Hey, you said this
would be fine, remember?"

2) I might be missing stuff. What does this mean for the motion to make SCO
cough up the money into an escrow account?

3) Does this schedule put it Novell line to be hammered out before or after the
IBM PSJ's?

4) Is this order and schedule for the entire case in Novell, or just certain
motions?

5) Any idea how the arbitration will fit into all of this?

6) Why is there a hearing on the Wells stuff? Isn't the appeal to Kimball
supposed to handle this? Or is it normal to have a request for a judge to
reconsider at the same time as appealing to her boss? I seem to recall
something similar to this happening and one of the two judges simply pointing to
the other and saying, "It's already decided."

7) Do I detect some agony on the part of Kimball with this decision? That he
would love to move this forward, but unlike the start, when BSF could sing and
dance and convince him to let them have their way, they are now sticking with
stuff base interpretations of the rules say they should have and he has no
choice but to grant as opposed to it being his discretion? Denying some aspects
seems like asking to be appealed. I mean, he has to know what SCO is angling
for, so he has to be careful. Like juggling Fabrege eggs in variable gravity,
I'm guessing.

Thanks in advance to any shining stars.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"After watching enough news, I've concluded that we're all doomed...thus,
the only sane response is to sit in a box and drink beer from a hat."
--Rat
"Pearls Before Swine"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: The SCO v IBM hearing today...
Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 10:37 PM EDT

This ruling puts a slightly different light on the question asked about scheduling in today's SCO v IBM hearing.  The response from SCO was just a formality.  He had already gotten their opinion on the subject earlier.  What he really wanted was IBM's take on the subject.  He seems to have gotten exactly what he expected. 

The only thing that would have held up this decision would have been an objection from IBM.

The only real disappointment was that he postponed the the preliminary injunction that would have set up the trust.  However, the fact that he did not deny it is a strong indication that he views it with at least some favor.

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

+5 Farcy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:33 PM EDT
That's pretty much all I can say about all of the SCO lawsuits.

Yes, this isn't Slashdot, and "Farcy" isn't even a category there. But
[REDACTED].

My only hope is the arbitration in Switzerland. It will end *years* before
anything substantial in the IBM or Novell cases in the US will be
decided/appealed/...

A court system which has been designed to be gamed will always be gamed.

:-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

TCP and negative knowledge
Authored by: gdt on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:45 PM EDT

For some time now I have been concerned about claim 43:

Breach of contract relating to the Dynix operating system [IBM 832-2 p.10]. Negative know how, learning from TCP failures to help networking and storage for Linux .

An essential part of the operation of modern implmentations of the TCP protocol is that an absence of an Acknowledgement packet within the time expected causes the sender to reduce their transmission rate. See Van Jacobson's paper Congestion avoidance and control. This was coded into BSD UNIX 4.3 Reno.

Are SCO trying to fast one here? Presenting TCP's use of packet delay or loss as some mysterious "negative know how"? Unfortunately their claims are not specific enough to tell.

Worrying in this context is Kimball's blessing of "negative know how" as somehow special [Order 718 section V].

As argued by SCO in its opposition, some of SCO’s misappropriated items relate to “negative know how.” These items include number 23 (discussing EES an “error event subsystem” in Dynix/PTX), number 43 (learning from TCP failures to help networking and storage for Linux), and number 90 (avoiding a logging event that caused problems in PTX). Although claiming that negative know how is somehow prohibited seems like quite a tenuous position, the court nevertheless agrees with SCO that these items are not easily substantiated by source code. And, the court agrees that they were disclosed with sufficient specificity to survive the current motion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh great! Don't expect an IBM trial before 2008!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 24 2006 @ 11:53 PM EDT
Now we have a Novell trial date in September 2007. And from the most recent IBM
hearing, it seems as if the IBM trial will be scheduled *after* the Novell
stuff, which means something like 2008.

Expect further SCO shenanigans which will put the Novell trial at least into
2009, and then IBM maybe 2010 or 2011. You won't have to tell your grandchildren
about these lawsuits, they will experience the cases themselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Calm Friends Calm.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 12:28 AM EDT
The hearing went well today. Marriott was his always great self. IBM follows
the same play book for just about every hearing I have attended.

It was SCO that was trying to confuse claims with items requested by the court
but not supplied.

I felt calm today from the IBM side of the table. You see these things have a
set form that always takes place at every hearing.

1st to arrive SCO and Daryl. They then wait around the court like caged cats.
Today they all showed up around 25 min before the start of the hearing. It was
the big show for SCO today they have to win this. You know what they say show up
early if the test is important.

Less than 5 min before the hearing IBM enters the room and shakes hands of the
opposing team sits down at the table and then the Judge enters and we are off
and underway. Remember SCO has already lost this one with Wells. Marriott
pointed out that it was not a quick decision but a 39 page testament describing
the loss.

SCO is on the ropes, we know that and in court today it showed.

Last time I went I said wait for the transcript. You will see. Take deep
breaths while we wait, it may help.

Notes are hard to keep up with while this is going on. I wish I could do better
in keeping up. I say again wait for the transcript.

Think calm thoughts.

cxd

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ et al, I think this is a pretty good decision!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 12:39 AM EDT
Frankly, I think this may be a great decision! Why is this a great decision you
ask, he didn't decide anything. Oh, contrary. He very much did!

It is fair and balanced, but from some of the questions, I believe Judge Kimball
has tipped his hand that he understands the issues at play.

More importantly, I think we saw for the first time that Judge Kimball is able
to manage cases placed before him. It is clear at least to me that he is
actively managing both cases and is moving to resolve both as quickly as is
prudent.

Frankly, I don't think he even ponders SCOX appeal chances, I firmly believe
that Judge Kimball is exhibiting his best judgment possible in two big and
difficult cases.

Big cases, which means lots of issues doesn't just go away with the bang of his
gavle.

From the reports here on Groklaw, I think Judge Kimball is on top of his game,
and he is actively managing both cases. I think to SCOX's chagrin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kimball already decided for Novel
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 03:43 AM EDT
but now wants to make the argument foolproof when he decides to grant the PSJ:

"Whether there has been a delay in asserting the claim, however, goes more
to the propriety of granting the motion, not to whether it should be briefed and
decided."

He doesnt want this argument to come up during the PSJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a huge delay?
Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 04:41 AM EDT

It's not a huge delay, though. They have until December 11. Oral argument will be on January 23, 2007 at 3 PM.

Not a huge delay? It's just about half what they asked for isn't it? I was asking Santa for a SCO bankrucpy for Christmas...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • In which case... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 07:41 AM EDT
how SCO can learn from Microsoft about settlement terms
Authored by: groklawdranem on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 06:14 AM EDT
since the speculation is Microsoft is helping to direct funding towards SCO's
coffers

I suspect SCO could use coupons against future purchases
to pay for any past owed funds or settlement offered to IBM, RedHat, Chysler,
Novell, AutoZone. etc., and save the cash to pay the bonuses for executives for
increased sales

;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I cannot understand this...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 06:17 AM EDT
Others might be impressed with Judge Kimball, I am for one, not. Less talk,
more deed is required here and it is not happening. I cannot fathom how a
decision has not been made to hear the SCO vs Novell case first, since SCO's
case is entirely dependant on them owning the copyrights to UNIX. Contract or
not, SCO's supposed contract against IBM (and Dynix et al) are irrelevant if SCO
does not own copyright on UNIX. That's before you even look at whether AT&T
etc encouraged and allowed Unix derivation for source code created by 3rd party
entities.

If I understand correctly, Novell does not get to make a claim against SCOs
licensing payments from Microsoft & Sun Microsystems, or at least it is
delayed. This, again is something that is crux to the issue. The APA should
have been interpreted to see whether SCO does indeed owe monies to Novell, and
if so they should have been ordered, with prejudice to pay said monies ASAP.

I find it hard to believe that the court system is allowing SCO to borrow and
use money that is not rightfully theirs and use that for false and misleading
litigation, whilst milking the shares for false profits.

This case makes an absolute mockery of the US legal system.

Dave

[ Reply to This | # ]

Way to go SCOX!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 10:03 AM EDT
Four years and no evidence! Sweet!

It amazes me that some people here still think that msft/scox are somehow
losing. Nothing could be further from the truth. In many respects msft/scox have
already won, and will continue to win.

Nearly four years so far, and five years is a slam dunk! Possibly msft's most
successful FUD campaign ever. And for a meager $100MM, or less - scarcely more
than the cost of one 30 second TV commercial.

Evidence? We don't need no stinkin' evidence.

BTW: scox's market cap is still about 4X what is was before the scam. Sweet. How
much has darl pocketed? Two Million? Not half bad for a small time scam artist
with absolutely no other talents. How many here have made $2MM in the last four
years?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So to delay just file a motion. what a wast of time.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 10:15 AM EDT
I mean, how long of delay has it been to just rule on SCO's appeal? IBM can't
very well strategize while the courts sit on their papers. So couldn't IBM go
back and say hey its not fair because we waited so long. I think the judge was
very nice to SCO. There have been so many delays that throws things off. Poor
little SCO needs more time so of course the judge although not considering
anything about when decisions were delayed for IBM and NOvell. Remember some of
the decisions in Novell took months as well. Oh well I don't think that was a
very good argument at all that the judge used.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Third Party Judge???
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Can Novell go to a third party Judge to get the constructive trust/ temproary
restraining order for for SCO spending those funds???


[ Reply to This | # ]

What's up with the Wells hearing?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 11:32 AM EDT
Isn't that exactly what they already did, and she ruled in IBM's favor, and SCO
appealed to Kimball, and we just had the hearing on that appeal?

What's going on?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seems the judge just ignores the request for a constructive trust
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 11:35 AM EDT
He hardly brought it up at all. Why did the judge treat it so lightly? By the
time this is briefed fully, another million dollars will be gone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ok I think I figured out the delay.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Ok with the court, sceduling comes into play. Its probably not even possible to
have this heard before the December. So to cover up the courts business, the
court uses a weak argument about SCO's delay of the stay. It a crock of an
argument, but I can see the reason why. Court is overloaded!

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 12:44 PM EDT
I LOVE this judge! Just slow and careful enough to eliminate appeal kinds of
things, and short, clear, and sweet in decisions (with obvious foreshadowing of
what's to come). Were I in court for any reason, this is who I'd want to be in
front of. Of course, I wouldn't mind having either the pit bulls or the nazgul
at my side at the time. (have had some good ones, and it's a great experience to
go in and just hammer the bad guys)

Love to buy all those guys lunch someday just to get a feeling for how they
think and act at this level, beyond what we see on paper from them...

DC

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 01:34 PM EDT
Why? Seriously, why? What good can come out of delaying this case any further?
Does the judge not remember when the situation was reversed? Does he not see
the absolute hypocrisy of SCO?

"Oh no, we can't have any delays" then "WAIT! We need a
delay!"

Seriously, this is horrid. This entire mess needs to end already, not get
further delayed.

Who wants to bet that SCO manages to spend all of the remaining money it owes
Novell during the delay period?

"Sorry your honor, SCO would be very amenable to putting the money Novell
says they are owed into an escrow account, but, well, it all got spent. Sorry,
sucks to be Novell, eh?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why SCO wants the IBM case to go first
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 02:24 PM EDT
Two reasons that I can see:

- It doesn't give Judge Kimball time to really work through the IBM PSJs. This
may prevent Kimball from gutting the case before trial.

- It prevents Novell from gutting the IBM case before trial.

It looks to me like this is all about getting to trial with some smoke and
mirrors left.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: An Extension
Authored by: rp$eeley on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 03:24 PM EDT
Oh, Jeez! I can't believe that Judge Kimball is showing distinct signs of spinal
breakdown. How very sad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's it got in it's headsss preciousss..???
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 11:28 PM EDT
Yes. What's the Dynix programmer got in it's headssess. All needlessss and
haystacksss precioussss. They've got our precioussss and we wantsss it. Gollum,
gollum.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slower than cold molasses
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 25 2006 @ 11:34 PM EDT
Check this university link for something slower than cold molasses, QLD Uni Pitch Drop experiment running since 1927

[ Reply to This | # ]

When ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 26 2006 @ 02:36 PM EDT
is old man Hatch up for re-election? If he gets ground up in the current
anti-incumbent sentiment, things might change in the Utah Federal courts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • When ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 26 2006 @ 07:03 PM EDT
An Extension in Novell Case Ordered. Groan. More Discovery Too.
Authored by: Harry Nicholls on Thursday, October 26 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT
I couldn't find another post about this, so apologies if there was one.
The
order is dates October 24 2007. Guess the clerk was thinking of the trial
moving to September 2007 and still had it in mind when typing the date of the
order.
Does that typo invalidate the order?

Harry Nicholls

[ 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 )