|
|
| Our Dance Card Is Full - Lots of Filings, in Novell and IBM |
 |
|
Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 12:00 PM EDT
|
You can't say you have nothing to do over the weekend now. Just buckets of filings, so many I don't even know what they all are. I'll just list them for you and we'll sort out what it all means piece by piece.
Thanks to feldegast, we have them all in the Pacer docket entries, so you can just click on what interests you. First, in IBM:
1055
Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [913] MOTION to Amend/Correct DECEMBER 2005 SUBMISSION (SCO's Sur-Surreply Memorandum) filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-B)(Normand, Edward)
1056 Filed & Entered: 05/11/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [917] Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File OVER LENGTH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER ON IBM'S MOTION TO CONFINE No correct entry to link to:SCO's Sur-surreply re: Docket Entry 921 - MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 899 Objection to Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)
1057 Filed & Entered: 05/15/2007
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
Docket Text: ORDER granting [1050] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: Objections to Magistrate Decision; [986] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE; [1016] MOTION TO DEEM A PROSPECTIVE THIRD-PARTY DEPOSITION IN RELATED LITIGATION TO BE A DEPOSITION TAKEN IN THIS CASE AS WELL. Replies due by 5/25/2007. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/14/07. (blk)
1058 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Motion for Extension of Timev
Docket Text: Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time of Deadlines filed by Defendant International Business Machines Corporation, Counter Claimant International Business Machines Corporation. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Sorenson, Amy)
1059 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group (James, Mark)
1060 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) 1060 Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(James, Mark)
1061 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) 1061 Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(James, Mark)
Here's the Novell docket information:
329 Filed & Entered: 05/24/2007
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to Exhibit 89 re [308] Sealed Declaration Exhibit 89 to the Declaration of Mark F. James by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Normand, Edward) Modified on 5/25/2007 by adding descriptive text (blk).
331 Proposed Order Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (Overlength Reply Memoranda) filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Sneddon, Heather)
332 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [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 filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - Klein-Becker v. Home Shopping Network# (2) Exhibit B - Bloom v. Goodyear Tire)(Sneddon, Heather)
333 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [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 filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Addendum: Response to SCO's Statement of Facts# (2) Exhibit A-D: Unpublished Decisions# (3) Exhibit E-G: Unpublished Decisions# (4) Exhibit H: Unpublished Decision)(Sneddon, Heather)
334 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of James McKenna re [275] MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance filed by Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)
335 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of Kenneth W. Brakebill re [275] MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance, [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, [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 filed by Novell, Inc.. (Attachments:
# (1) Exhibit 335-1
# (2) Exhibit 335-2
# (3) Exhibit 335-3
# (4) Exhibit 335-4
# (5) Exhibit 335-5
# (6) Exhibit 335-6
# (7) Exhibit 335-7
# (8) Exhibit 335-8
# (9) Exhibit 335-9
# (10) Exhibit 335-10
# (11) Exhibit 335-11
# (12) Exhibit 335-12
# (13) Exhibit 335-13
# (14) Exhibit 335-14
# (14) Exhibit 335-15)(Sneddon, Heather)
336 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Reply Memoranda and Declaration filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Sneddon, Heather)
337 Filed & Entered: 05/25/2007
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [275] MOTION for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [REDACTED] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - Response to SCO's Statement of Facts# (2) Exhibit B - Relational Design v. Brock# (3) Exhibit C - Dick Corp. v. SNC-Lavalin# (4) Exhibit D - Bank of the West v. Resolution Trust# (5) Exhibit E - Wester Online Dictionary Entry for "Require")(Sneddon, Heather)ntry for "Require")(Sneddon,
Heather) (Entered: 05/25/2007)
There are some cases filed as exhibits that I'm not including because of copyrights, but I'll try to arrange a workaround. If you can make any of these PDFs text, or HTML, please leave a comment as to which one you are doing, so we don't duplicate effort. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
So it can be fixed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 12:48 PM EDT |
Off-topic comments here, please.
* See the example on how to create "Clickable links"
* Choose "HTML Formatted" for the "Post Mode" if using
links or HTML.
* Please provide a summery if including links.
* Use the preview option before submitting to make sure the HTML works.
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 12:51 PM EDT |
Transcribing related posts here
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Transcribing - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- pdftohtml - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 27 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
Is that all there is??? ;-)
---
Be sincere, even if you have to fake it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
I give 335 parts 1-14 a "two thumbs up" for entertainment value.
Like many thought provoking artworks, you can savor it in stages, peeling back
layers of meaning.
I'd love to see the song and dance by the Caldera-SCOG folks as they explain the
disparity between their actions and thoughts, then and now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
| The writing seems sharper in this one. I find myself almost wanting to
believe
them. Of course they blatantly ignore multiple of the court's orders
including
the specificity and the no-new-claims-in-expert-reports
requirements.
If
their cases really say what they say they say, they might be able to get this
stuff in. And if they manage that, then we'll just have to look at the POSIX
standards and UNIX standards and see that they're pretty much entirely
complete definitions for an open operating system that the previous owners
of
the IP participated in creating. Including the 96 system calls.
I'm
anticipating that soon the court will find that SCO doesn't even own the
stuff
they're accusing IBM of having stolen and, failing that, that they'll run
out
of money before it gets to trial. The whole thing is just sad. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jmc on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:05 PM EDT |
Novell quote the dictionary definition of "require".
Maybe someone ought to tell them that SCO/BS&F use the Humpty-Dumpty
dictionary referred to by IBM where words mean whatever BS&F/SCO feel like
at the time not some wimpish written affair where they mean something everyone
can understand and don't change much.
SCO might be in a bit of trouble if Judge Kimball doesn't get his copy of their
dictionary in by Thursday.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
Reading SCO's drivel gets worse and worse.
As their arguments are moving from the fringe of sanity squarely into la-la
land, I find myself wondering what kind of drugs are these people on?
I know that they will ultimately loose, but what an incredible waste of
resources!
---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No drugs - Authored by: ak on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Ugh! - Authored by: grundy on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 04:14 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
335 - 4, Copyright of the APA...
Is that common practice?![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
In 1055, SCO state over and over that Cargill's argument relies only on the use
of system calls, eight file system features, streams and ELF.
I find this hard to believe but we haven't seen Cargill's report. If it *is*
true, I would say that IBM's defense is pretty well a slam dunk.
System calls and file systems:
Linux + SysV - BSD - 32V - literature = nothing from SysV
ELF:
Licensed, dictated by standard, etc.
Streams:
These have been discussed here, but I've forgotten
the details. A well defined part inessential component
of Linux; a much less used alternative to BSD sockets.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Streams. - Authored by: Ed L. on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 04:38 PM EDT
- Streams. - Authored by: jmc on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
Friday was an unusually busy day, by the look of things. The way PJ wrote the
header to this article, I get the impression that this activity was as much a
surprise to her as anyone else.
So here's an incidental question relating to filing strategy and timing.
I notice that we have 2 sets of filing here. First SCO file in the IBM case,
then Novell file in their suit. So I am curious to know how a company like BSF
would divide up their resources for this case load. Would they split into two
teams and divide their energies that way? Or is it more sensible to have one
larger pool and consider the strategy of the two cases side-by-side.
The reason this interests me was purely from the perspective of resource
management. With motions coming thick and fast, it occured to me that IBM and
Novell could work this to their strategic advantage - and I'm not suggesting for
a motion that they have or indeed would - to file motions in both cases at the
same time, in order to keep the BSF strategists and Darl McBride and his
directors occupied with multiple actions?
Looking back over the schedule it seems not. I suspect that IBM and Novell's
respective legal teams are 100% concentrated on winning their cases and would
rather rely on solid facts than sleight of hand (unlike certain other law firms
we could mention). But it did intrigue me all the same.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: comms-warrior on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
Speaking of dance cards,
When is SCO's next filing cycle with the SEC??
I'd love to see how much money they have left... I'd say about $2.25 before
tax.... Not even enough for a big Mac![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 26 2007 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
"There are some cases filed as exhibits that I'm not including because of
copyrights, but I'll try to arrange a workaround."
I do not understand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 27 2007 @ 04:27 AM EDT |
| I'm only a few pages in, but I've got to share this. First, the
preamble,
SCO makes sundry other arguments, ranging from
implausible to absurd. For example,
SCO contends that Novell’s pleadings
in this litigation constitute a “software license violation”
under
the Utah Unfair Competition Act. Novell’s pleadings do not violate any
software license
and are absolutely privileged in any event. SCO’s resort
to such farfetched arguments
underscores the utter lack of merit to SCO’s
opposition.
But, next, the new SCOG law IP - negative caselaw.
Strangely, SCO relies on a case that rejected unfair competition
claims because no
patents and copyrights were involved, arguing that this
implicitly supports SCO’s copyrightbased
claims.2 (Id. at
10-11.) So, clearly, if an unfair competition claim is rejected
because no patents and copyrights were involved, then such a claim must, of
course, be accepted in this case where copyrights are
involved.
---
Regards
Ian Al [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2007 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
from 332:
SCO makes sundry other arguments, ranging from implausible to absurd....SCO's
resort to such farfecthed arguments underscores the utter lack of merit to SCO's
opposition.
WOW! That hurts![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 28 2007 @ 09:07 AM EDT |
Novell is being too kind. I think tSCOg has shown a *need* to sue. It may be
pathological and psychotic, but it seems a real need. Luckily for the world,
there doesn't seem to be any basis in the contracts to allow such behavior.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
