|
Corrected Schedule for the Novell SJ Motion Hearings & a Few Filings in IBM and Novell |
|
Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT
|
Here's the new schedule for oral argument on the various summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell. Someone woke up realizing that there is no way to cover so many motions in one day, so now there is a two-day schedule. If you are thinking of attending, be aware that this is a corrected schedule, as the time on May 31st is now 2 PM, not 9 AM.
Actually, it's a second corrected notice on one day's schedule. All day, they've been correcting, but I'm just getting to it now, and I think this is the final. It's now set for two days, Thursday the 31st at 2 PM. And the second day will be on June 4th at 9 AM, both before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Also, if you are thinking of attending, if you reread all the motion filings before you go, it will be more meaningful for you and you'll be able to follow along better, so you can share everything with us when it's done. If you can only go one day, which day should it be? It's up to you as to which motions are most interesting to you. But for me, the razzle dazzle will be on June 4, because that is slander of title day. Here is what Pacer is currently showing, and I'll let you know if there are any more changes:
05/29/2007 - 344 - CORRECTED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 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, 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 :
(Notice generated by Kim Jones) Motion Hearing set for 5/31/2007 02:00
PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
05/29/2007 - 345 - SECOND CORRECTED 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, 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, 224 Cross MOTION
for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim, 171 MOTION
for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief :
(Notice generated by Kim Jones) Motion Hearing set for 6/4/2007 09:00 AM
in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. (kmj) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
There is a bit also in
SCO v. IBM showing on Pacer:
05/25/2007 - 1062 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** SEALED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER
SUPPORT OF 986 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE
ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
filed by Plaintiff SCO Group Note: No document attached. This document
will be retained in the Clerk's Office sealed room for viewing by
authorized persons only (alt) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
05/29/2007 - 1063 - ORDER granting 1060 Motion for Leave to File Excess
Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/29/07 (alt) (Entered:
05/29/2007)
05/29/2007 - 1064 - ORDER granting 1061 Motion for Leave to File Excess
Pages. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/29/07 (alt) (Entered:
05/29/2007)
In SCO v. Novell, most of the filings are sealed, but just so you have the full picture:
05/25/2007 - 338 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** SEALED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 275 MOTION
for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third
Claim for Specific Performance filed by Defendant Novell, Inc (document
is not scanned - will be kept in permanent storage) (alt) (Entered:
05/29/2007)
05/25/2007 - 339 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** SEALED REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 277 MOTION
for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on
Failure to Establish Special Damages filed by Defendant Novell, Inc
(document is not scanned - will be kept in permanent storage) (alt)
(Entered: 05/29/2007)
05/25/2007 - 340 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** SEALED 2ND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION
OF KENNETH W. BRAKEBILL re: 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or
Preliminary Injunction, 171 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on
Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief, 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, 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, 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 filed by Defendant Novell, Inc (alt) (document
is not scanned - will be kept in permanent storage) Modified on
5/29/2007: added text re: permanent storage (alt) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
05/29/2007 - 341 - AMENDED 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 : (Notice generated by Kim Jones) Motion Hearing
reset for 5/31/2007 02:00 PM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball.
(kmj) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
05/29/2007 - 342 - SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 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, 171 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's
Fourth Claim for Relief : (Notice generated by Kim Jones) Motion Hearing
reset for 6/4/2007 09:00 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball.
(kmj) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
05/29/2007 - 343 - ORDER granting 331 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.
Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 5/29/07 (alt) (Entered: 05/29/2007) Keep in mind that 341 and 342 are now replaced by the new schedule, so I've marked them in such a way that I hope you are not confused. On Pacer, there is no line through them.
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
Please provide clickies. See the instructions below the comment window.
---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What goes on with SCO shareprices? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 29 2007 @ 11:17 PM EDT
- Offtopic ... Another OO.o convert - Authored by: webster on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 01:41 AM EDT
- Refund of M$ tax from Dell - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 04:09 AM EDT
- Attack of the Shills - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 04:20 AM EDT
- MS's worst nightmare, from the mouth of a 12 year old girl - Authored by: warner on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 04:44 AM EDT
- SCOX Q2 conference call: June 5 - Authored by: fudisbad on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- [MS] Microsoft enters computer business. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- CRN: Vista No More Secure Than XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 11:12 AM EDT
- Linux Distro TimeLine - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 11:50 AM EDT
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
SEALED REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 986 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY
THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE ORDER DENYING SCOS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM IBMS
SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 11:17 AM EDT |
This is all my opinion, gathered from reading the court documents. SCO
makes a good argument for letting the new material in an opening discovery since
the trial date has been vacated pending resolution in their case against Novell.
The only problem is that they had all the evidence they needed to make the new
claims back in 2003. They were a Linux company for seven years prior to
acquiring assets from Santa Cruz. They surely knew that Linux's "overall
structure" was similar to Unix. Caldera itself was the main proponent of
putting STREAMS in Linux. Santa Cruz was part of the committee that developed
the ELF specification and they knew Linux implemented it.
Every one
of the new claims they tried to slide in with the expert reports should
have been listed in the very first response to IBM's interrogatories. Back then
they were stonewalling IBM, waiting to get complete access to source control for
AIX and Dynix. None of these new items even required that access, it didn't
even help them at all. I think IBM said that the only valid reason for
bringing in evidence at this late a date is if it was newly discovered. The
problem is that all the evidence was there from the start of the case, SCO
should have had an expert analysis done to find the infringement back in 2003,
or at the very latest by the discovery cutoff. The fact that they tried to
slide this in after discovery in an expert report reeks of gamesmanship. It was
their duty to respond fully to the interrogatories, which entails doing a
proper analysis and giving a full response.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2007 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
At first I was wondering why it seemed that the hearing was scheduled with just
one week notice, but after thinking about it, it may have been caused by
Novell's motion to strike the parol testimony.
Is it possible that when Judge Kimball read the motion he came to the
realization that he now had all the puzzle pieces to get it done in summary
judgement? Even if he does not rule on the motion directly, it is his next step
in solving it.
-Jeff Bell
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|