|
|
| More SCO Filings in SCO v. Novell |
 |
|
Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT
|
I can't believe there is more. I haven't read all the filings from yesterday yet, and here are more SCO filings. However, these are just two motions asking to be allowed to file excess pages, natch, and one notice of conventional filing of three sealed documents -- two memos and one declaration -- and some exhibits, three cases I can't share with you because of copyrights. But we'll get them from Pacer and show them to you that way.
Here's the docket information:
05/18/2007 302 - NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of SCO's Memorandum in
Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim
for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance, SCO's
Response in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's
First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special
Damages, Declaration of Mark F. James filed by Plaintiff SCO Group
(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 05/18/2007)
05/18/2007 -303 - EXHIBITS filed by SCO Group. (Normand, Edward) (Entered:
05/18/2007)
05/19/2007 304 - Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re
SCO's Response in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on
SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish
Special Damages filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)
(Entered: 05/19/2007)
05/19/2007 305 - Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages re
SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment
on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific
Performance filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)
(Entered: 05/19/2007)
The cases in the exhibits are: Computerized Thermal Imaging vs. Bloomberg (2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24905) an Order on a motion to dismiss in the same case (Unreported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL 670927 (D. Utah)) and Marseilles Hydro Power LLC v. Marseilles Land and Water Company. Novell cited Computerized Thermal Imaging vs. Bloomberg itself, so it is a bit puzzling SCO is doing the same, but without the memo that SCO is using with the case, I can't parse it out. It was a libel action where the claim against Bloomberg was dismissed. How that helps SCO, who is claiming slander of title against Novell, is hard to figure, but if and when SCO files a redacted version of its memoranda, we can come back here and put it all together. We are getting the three orders from Pacer, and Frank will be uploading them soon, and when they are ready, here is where they will be: So there you are. Our workaround. Those three are the cases that make up Exhibits, SCO's docket #303. If you prefer to see SCO's version, you can also get it yourself from Pacer, but all you are missing is some explanatory information lawyers use when researching cases.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
How many forests gave their lives, to provide all this paperwork?
---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- How many... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 07:52 PM EDT
- How many... - Authored by: Weeble on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- How many... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 10:56 PM EDT
- How many... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:55 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 05:33 PM EDT |
If Any :)
---
Linus
The bulk of all patents are [bad]...
Spending time reading them is stupid...
Moglen
I can change the rules...
The coupons have no expiration date..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
Clickies encouraged
---
Linus
The bulk of all patents are [bad]...
Spending time reading them is stupid...
Moglen
I can change the rules...
The coupons have no expiration date..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 09:01 PM EDT
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: NoCalDrummer on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: dchdrake on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 01:54 AM EDT
- Ho - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 02:43 AM EDT
- "Microsoft Australia has barred members of the media from covering the event." - Authored by: SirHumphrey on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 07:08 AM EDT
- [Dell] (Oh, no, not again) Are these Dell's Ubuntu PCs? SJVN May 19, 2007 - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 09:07 AM EDT
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: Toon Moene on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- pictures of coupons ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 10:51 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 06:00 PM EDT |
Well, there's a surprise.
</sarcasm>
Jaydee not logged in[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: groklawdranem on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 07:39 PM EDT |
I that just lawyer-speak?
Because I have yet to see any exceptional circumstances
;-)
GD[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, May 19 2007 @ 08:27 PM EDT |
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Novell is wrong and we are right.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 12:46 AM EDT |
..
1. Escape clause: It will have to be on the coupon to advise the bearer.
Novell has been obliged to perform by the Monopoly.
2. Krawitz re Moglen's Slides, a presumptious attempt to explain: You mention
copyright; the Monopoly threatens, patents; and Moglen is speaking of a license.
Let's try steps:
i. Novell distributes Linux code with a GPL license much of which says "by
GPLv2 or later [version of GPLv(next]." The Monopoly knows this. That is
one reason they want to try and stay away from the code and the license.
ii. The Monopoly distributes coupons that authorize the distributees to get
"GPL'd Linux Service" from their indentured Novell underlings. These
coupons have no expiration date, nor any disclaimer of any new or revised GPL.
This is a foreseeable event expecially with all the commotion about Novell's
sellout and Tivoization.
iii. Moglen has a mole friend at the Monopoly with some Monopoly coupons
stashed in his old floppy drive. After the inauguration of GPLv3, the coupons
will be redeemed by Paris H.* at the CDoC. Novell will distribute to her the
updated SuSe GPLv3'd code [at least in part because they want to be up-to-date],
at the behest of the Monopoly, as it says on the Coupon.
iiii. Under the newfangled GPL, the Monopoly will have thereby granted Paris
and all who know her and use Linux a license to their unknown patents in Linux.
The Monopoly will have to consider telling the judge that they as a Monopoly
have suffered greivously at the hands of Paris and others; that they did not
intend this; that they intended to terrorize and destroy Linux, not grant their
secret patents.
"Their what?" says the judge.
"We can't tell you," says the Monopoly.
"But it says so right here in the documents. Changing the rules is
permitted." pipes in Moglen.
"So what says the Monopoly. We just meant to inspire fear, uncertainty and
doubt with our patents," pleads the Monopoly. "It's business."
The End.
*used with permission. In exchange Ms. H. has permission to shake down the
author personally for undisclosed patents.
3. Giving is Distributing. If using coupons is not distributing, the drug
industry, controlled and otherwise, would utilize them extensively.
4. *********"So all of this depends on there being, at some time in the
future, GPLv3 code in some version of Suse Linux. I wouldn't count my chickens
before they're hatched."*************
Novell will eagerly distribute under GPLv3 because the product will have all the
code improvements from the whole community. Think of a fork with three normal
and one midget tines, or a split in a road, one of which dead ends.
---
webster
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT |
"Novell cited Computerized Thermal Imaging vs. Bloomberg itself, so
it is a bit puzzling SCO is doing the same, but without the memo that SCO is
using with the case, I can't parse it out."
I have a vague
recollection of this occurring in SCO v IBM a few years back. IBM had
the more compelling argument, to us at least.
What's not clear to me in
either case is whether the legal teams came up with the cites independently of
each other, or if one leached off the other? ---
"I've noticed
wickedness wears pretty thick armor."
--Sancho Panza, "Man of La Macha", 1972 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SirHumphrey on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
extended reply to Memorandum in Opposition to respondent's Motion for Summary
Judgment on plaintiff's First Claim for Underlength Filing Title and Third Claim
for Specific Non-Performance, plaintiff's Response in Opposition to respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's First Claim for Slander of
Underlength Title Based on Failure to Establish Shorter Filing Nomenclature as
extended in previous sur-sur-sur-surprise Experts' reports in Response to Motion
for Reconsideration in Support of Reiterative Self-referencing Tautological
Tort, as taught, Responding for Deferred Consideration of Immediate Request for
Expedited Delay "Carpum De Proto Novum Review" pending Recusum
Judicium[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 10:33 AM EDT |
| ...cited the case to argue their theory of why it doesn't apply. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2007 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
geez... do you have to use the word "natch"? Its like sitting next to
someone on public transportation and they insist on cracking/popping their gum.
might as well put "like" on the front of every sentence or put half
thoughts up ending with "yadda, yadda, yadda".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
