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
Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 07:55 PM EDT

Be there or be square, as my dear granny used to say -- May 31st, in Judge Dale Kimball's courtroom, at 9 AM sharp. The oral arguments will be heard on a large collection of summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell.

Oh, I hope some of you can go, so you can tell us all about it. This is going to be thrilling, I'm sure. You are going to see some fine lawyering, guaranteed, from the Novell team. You can work your entire career as a paralegal and never see this level of skill in person. And I can't help but wonder if David Boies himself may show up, although what he can say that won't sound silly is a mystery to me after reading the filings. That's what they pay him the big bucks for, I guess, to try to find a way to survive these motions and get to trial.

Here's the notice on Pacer (I've done a legible version with urls to the documents below):

05/24/2007 326 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 275 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance, 277 MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special Damages, 273 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claim in its Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition, 180 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NOVELL'S THIRD, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH AND NINTH COUNTERCLAIMS, 258 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim, 271 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on the Copyright Ownership Portions of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition, 224 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim, 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction, 171 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief : Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2007 09:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

The Novell case is moving so fast compared to IBM, it's like they're on roller skates. We still haven't got all the summary judgment motions in redacted form or all the reply memos on Pacer yet. And my doctor tells me to rest! Ha! There's the latest redacted memo available but we don't have it uploaded yet, but it'll be here as soon as it's ready:

05/24/2007 325 - REDACTION to [306] Sealed Document, 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 by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 # 2 Appendix)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

Erwan and I have been working on a table of all the motions for you, but unless I speed up, the game will be over before I can finish my part. Let me get serious. I'll put it here as soon as it's done, so we can keep all the motions straight.

Here, thanks to a suggestion, is a readable version:

05/24/2007 - 326 - NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re:

Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2007 09:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 05/24/2007)

Whew. If anyone wants to make this pretty, in a table, please do, but my eyeballs are ready to bleed, trying to keep it all straight. Also, I worked from our SCO v. Novell Timeline page, so if there are errors in there, I've duplicated them, so if anyone has the Novell Docket sheet to double check, that would be great. Thanks if you can help make this perfect.

I think you can see, though, from the list, how important this hearing will be. The theme is: who owns the copyrights? Just who slandered whom? Now, if you are IBM, you don't massively care who owns the copyrights in a way, because your position is that you haven't infringed them in any case. But if you are SCO, this really is your foundation for everything else, and Novell has asked the court to toss overboard most of SCO's evidence from its witnesses. So, I'm guessing they are practicing in front of a mirror already. Kidding. But lawyers do practice, and they do get nervous. I had a friend tell me once, just before a trial where he was representing another friend, that he was incredibly nervous. I was surprised, because he was a really skillful attorney, a true litigator too, and their hearts usually race with joy at any chance to argue. So I asked why, and he said, "Because he's counting on me, and he thinks I can do anything, and the truth is, I can't guarantee the outcome."


  


Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31! | 299 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:19 PM EDT
8:20 EST and no comments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Offtopic
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:20 PM EDT
Don't foget the clickies.

---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections if needed
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:22 PM EDT
Make them clear please :-)

---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

[ Reply to This | # ]

Plane Fare and Lodging
Authored by: entre on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT
PJ,

Could you tell the community, when applicable, the court date that is worth the
one plane fare, hotel fees and auto expense that will be the best courtroom
finale. I just want to go once and hope you can tell us THE one to spend it
on!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:30 PM EDT
I would dearly love to go to one of these hearings. However getting from here
to there is not cheap.

Does anyone know when TCOG's next earnings are due? I am looking forward to the
conference call where they will once again be tap dancing madly to spin their
once again reduced earnings.

---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:32 PM EDT
It would read a lot better with a html br tag before each three digit number.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31, 2003!
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:36 PM EDT
Never mind. This is your time warp pilot speaking.

---
"I have never had the courage to believe in nothing." 
  --Miguel de Cervantes, "Man of La Macha", 1972

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Authored by: aha on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 08:42 PM EDT
I just happen to be going to SLC next week. Maybe I can attend.

---
You get what you focus on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are the chances?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
What are the chances that Judge K. will rule from the bench?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Article == 666 Words?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:23 PM EDT
Oh no! That means SCO might survive summary judgment!

(Kidding! :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for my birthday present
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT
Sweet.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Idle speculation
Authored by: iksrazal on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 09:41 PM EDT
I'm guessing that resolving the Novell PSJ rulings will come before the IBM PSJ
rulings - even though the IBM's hearing happended 3 months earlier - since
Kimball has ruled Novell goes first.

Anyone care to guess whether the IBM PSJ's will get resolved before the Novell
trial or a decision saying there won't be one?

I'm being impatient, I know, but even the evidence in the IBM case getting
tossed last year is still being challenged by SCO for de novo de novo review or
something. Waiting for the final reprisal ;-) . At least we know the Novell
PSJ's will get resolved before the September trial, assuming the date sticks or
the trial gets called off entirely.


[ Reply to This | # ]

147 = Show me the money
Authored by: cruss on Thursday, May 24 2007 @ 11:25 PM EDT
I can't wait to read the reports on how they(SCO) try to get out of owing Novell
a Boat Load of money. Once this gets decided it's bankruptcy for sure. I bet
they come up with a whopper of a story on this one. "It only for a binary
license" "Those weren't contracts for UNIX code." "We
don't really have to give them 95%, do we?"

Non stop, laugh riot.

---
security is directly proportional to inconvenience
cruss hcity net

[ Reply to This | # ]

Get Some Rest!!
Authored by: Mad Geek on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:41 AM EDT
And my doctor tells me to rest! Ha!

I'd definitely say that your doctor is not the only one. I say you really need some rest!.

SCO may say the same thing, but for completely different reasons that are for their own interests.

---
--
Hi, I'm a geek. Most people call me mad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:04 AM EDT
Well, if SCO doesn't own the copyrights, it becomes irrelevant (for the SCO vs.
IBM case) whether or not IBM infringed. Or am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the likelyhood of Boies showing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT
My Web Bucks say Boies will be as far away from that hearing as he can possibly
be. (I'm sure he'll have a very important meeting with a client in Grand Cayman
or something that he just *cannot* miss). After all, wouldn't want to be
personally involved in a losing case. Might taint his image and marketability.
Might make him look silly, the things he'd have to tell the judge. Let the
plebes do that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whatever happened to the SJ motions in SCO/IBM?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT
Seems to me they were taken under advisement a very long time ago.
Wouldn't we normally expect some decisions by now?

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

my head hurts ..
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:22 AM EDT
.. Summary fo' decisions on SCO fust acshun fo' libel secshun uh failure
t'provide duh Special losses MOTION 273 fo' partial summary decision on SCO be
ya know, likes, not claimed - Compete in his second claim fo' duh non-contract
and Fifd Claim Unfair Competishun, likes, wow ..Dird, oh, baby, sixd, likes,
wow, sevend, oh, baby ...

My head hurts !! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Does This Mean?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT
As PJ implies this may mean that Kimball is itching to whack away some dead wood
(or some moles).

Speculating,

The short time between the Notice and the Hearing might indicate Kimball has
already mostly made up his mind and is ready to rule, unless someone comes up
with something to change his mind.

He may also want to rule on these so he can use those rulings in decideing the
IBM motions. For example if he rules Novell did have the right to overrule SCO
and/or the copyrights never transferred, that might make a lot of the IBM
rulings easier.


---
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 | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Authored by: rodmcjr on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 10:49 AM EDT
Which courthouse is this at? Do you have the address? I might be able to go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing Scheduled for SJ Motions in SCO v. Novell May 31!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 11:07 AM EDT
how about telling us where the courtroom is? city? county? state? country?
zip code?

please , just a little hint?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's stock jumped today!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 12:58 PM EDT
It's up 21 cents today on only 98,000 some odd volume

this stock is crazy!

gotta love the pump and dump! it keeps going!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't argue with the judge
Authored by: Christian on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT
or, Why is SCO trying to lose?

Kimball has already said that the timing issue bothers him. In other words, the document that transfers the copyrights has to do so itself. He doesn't accept that a later amendment to a document can magically turn the original into a transfer. Yet that is what SCO is arguing. They are saying that amended APA transfers the copyright, even though neither the original nor the amendment transfered the copyrights. The only way they can win with this argument is to convince Judge K that his previous opinion is wrong. That seems ridiculously unlikely. In other words, they aren't really trying to win. Why?

I have to point out an "elephant in the room" that blows SCO out of the water. They argue that Santa Cruz and Novel both acted as if the copyrights were transferred. But this is clearly not true, mainly because Santa Cruz never registered the copyrights. Why are there not many court precedents to interpreting these weird inconclusive transfers? Because everyone else registers the copyrights!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boises show or no-show
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 06:29 PM EDT
If your familiar with Presidential politics, whether he shows or doesn't show
says a lot about how he feels about the case.

In Presidential politics, there are three classes of states, states you are
guaranteed to win, states you are guaranteed to lose, and then the undecided
states. Presidential campaigns do not spend any effort in states they will win
anyway or in states where no matter how much they try, they will lose. They
spend all of their time trying to win states on the fence.

I think this scenario is somewhat similar. If Boises doesn't show, it either
means its a guaranteed winner or a guaranteed loser, and you all know which
bucket this case will go into. If Boises shows, it means he thinks it has a
chance, and he has a plan to reversing its course.

I believe he won't show.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nice try by SCO on 325
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2007 @ 08:20 PM EDT
I don't think it will fly, but it's a nice attempt to rewrite history and case
law. IANAL but trying to use people who didn't write/sign a contract to change
the meaning doesn't seem like it will work. As a matter of fact, I can't see
the judge even considering it. I predict there will be no extrinct evidence
allowed, and if that happens, SCO is left with no objections to the APA.

It also seems unlikely that claiming the ammendments changed the basic agreement
instead of just clarifying that the old SCO could get something *if* they really
needed it isn't going to work. Since old SCO proved they didn't need the
copyright assignments by not asking/getting them, I don't see that's going to
fly either.

Overall, I'd say 325 is going to fly like a lead balloon.

[ 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 )