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
Utah Bench Trial Set for April 29 in SCO v. Novell
Friday, January 11 2008 @ 01:42 PM EST

Here you go, the docket entry:
484 - NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by Kim Jones)
4-day Bench Trial set for 4/29/2008 08:30 AM in Room 220 before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Any motions for summary judgment filed will be heard at the time of trial.(kmj) (Entered: 01/11/2008)

So four days. Make your plans. Get your plane tickets. This is center ring in the Big Tent.

There are some sealed filings as well. Here are the filings:

482 - Filed: 12/21/2007
Entered: 12/26/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Memorandum in Support of Novell's [478] MOTION for Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief filed by Counter Claimant Novell, Inc., Defendant Novell, Inc. (original not scanned). (jwt)

483 - Filed: 12/21/2007
Entered: 12/26/2007
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Declaration of David E. Melaugh in Support of [478] MOTION for Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief filed by Counter Claimant Novell, Inc., Defendant Novell, Inc. (original not scanned). (jwt)

So the notice is telling us also that this Novell motion will be argued at trial, no doubt the first major part. If you've forgotten what it's about, Novell asks for a declaration that SCO was without authority to enter into the SCOsource licenses. Any of them. So far, it is the only summary judgment motion that has been filed since Judge Dale Kimball asked the parties if they wished to file any in response to his ruling of August 10, the ruling that shook SCO's world.


  


Utah Bench Trial Set for April 29 in SCO v. Novell | 265 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Utah Bench Trial Set for April 29 in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST
Number 1 for what it is worth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will they last that long?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 01:54 PM EST
Will the SCO Group still exist when their fate is decided?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Utah Bench Trial Set for April 29 in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 01:56 PM EST
Why does the header like the ones on the previous articles


read more (58 words) 99 comments
Most Recent Post: 01/11 01:51PM by tiger99

appear?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 02:04 PM EST
If any are needed for such a short article.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corrections here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 09:07 AM EST
    • $-day trial - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 13 2008 @ 05:12 PM EST
Off topic here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 02:06 PM EST
Stuff that is within the scope of Groklaw, but not related to the main article,
ought to go here. Please try to make clickable links where appropriate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks discussion here please
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 02:07 PM EST
Please indicate which Newspick item you are referring to in the title of your
post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

its ages away, that cant be good can it?
Authored by: joh3 on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 02:20 PM EST
So what happens if SCO goes into chapter 7 prior to this?

would that mean that both Novell/IBM loose out even more from this pointless
litigation... when does the calculation come into affect that its better to keep
the zombie walking until the court cases to play out, rather than to remove
their heads and so to long let live the shadow of dodgy IP claims to slime all
that come their way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmmm... will SCO have spent every penny by then?
Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 02:23 PM EST
I bet they plan to!

B-(

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can SCO voluntarily take any action to delay this
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 02:36 PM EST
Can they pull another "move to chapter 11" job ?
Could they go to chapter 7 ?

What "out" do they have ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Utah Bench Trial Set for April 29 in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 03:15 PM EST
Let's hope that Novell files an alternative re-organization plan and both they
and Judge Kimball are spared going through the motions with a corpse.

Since the motion for the extension of the exclusivity period isn't going to be
heard until Feb 5 can Novell file an alternative plan after Jan 12 but before
Feb 5?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Score SCO: 7 1/2 months
Authored by: vb on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 03:40 PM EST

The final score for the SCO Ch. 11 trick is going to be 7 1/2 months of delay.
I would call that impressive.

If they can pull off another spectacular trick is to be seen. As others have
pointed out, Ch 7 comes with a serious downside - a trustee going through SCO's
super-secret private files. They don't want that, unless they figure out a way
to make those files disappear.

I have serious doubts that we'll see a trial on April 29. SCO has clearly shown
that they don't want a trial and are willing the twist the legal system to
prevent it.

I think that the next SCO trick will be to exit Ch 11 and get out from under
Judge Gross. There is no longer an advantage to being in Ch 11. Until the end
of the Novell trial, they do not have excessive liabilities.

Or maybe SCO will ask for new legal representation - and time for the new
representation to become familiar with the case.

After that, my guess is some sort of merger or acquisition activity that
provides some concealment for SCO. I believe that the York deal was a warm up
move. They will try something again (and again).

delay, delay, delay ... (lather, rinse, repeat)



[ Reply to This | # ]

Utah Bench Trial Set for April 29 in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 04:04 PM EST
Nothing but novell tying things off for a Microsoft buy out and eventual
litigation of all things Non-Novell Linux (for the same thing that SCO thought
they owned)

[ Reply to This | # ]

PSJ motion
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 04:34 PM EST
what's the point of PSJ motion if it will only be heard at trial? I thought the
whole point of PSJ is to narrow down the scope of the case before the trial
begins.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slow the burn
Authored by: chriseyre2000 on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 05:11 PM EST
Is there anything that Novell can do so slow the rate of money burn given that
there is a trial on the horizon? Cap SCO's legal expenses on topic not related
to trial that are not cost benefited?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can hear Darl now...
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 05:47 PM EST
How many days?
How much money is left?
Can we spend it all before April 29th?
Do it!

Novell, what did you say you wanted? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

---
Bill The Cat

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I can hear Darl now... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 06:00 PM EST
    • The Mesirow bil - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 12:41 PM EST
      • The Mesirow bil - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 04:09 PM EST
Go for the Suits?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 06:21 PM EST
Don't forget that some of the stuff that has come to light here would seem to
indicate that certain individuals may be personally at risk, not just the
business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What are SCO's options?
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 07:19 PM EST

Can this be appealed? Can they file an over-length motion to object, and then an over-length motion to reconsider, and then another over-length motion, etc? Or do they (finally) have to just shut up and/or put up

---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO wants to die before they are buried
Authored by: webster on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 08:26 PM EST
..

1. Trial on April 29. They can't pull bankruptcy again. Something has to
happen. The SCO lawyers are paid or obliged to the court so they will show up.

2. SCO seems to be trying to spend themselves out before anything drastic
happens. They can't spend themselves out without the permission of the court.
If they can spend themselves out, or ask the court to declare them in chapter 7,
the trustee can take over and resolve the cases some way without trial. He
might well turn around and sue SCO lawyers and officials. SCO, that outcast
corporate waif, has been sorely abused by its own. He ought to change the name
back to Caldera and do it. That would be a great gesture, real SCOmanship: Old
Caldera v Officers of NeW SCO. SCO doesn't have anything to gain with a trial.
There is also great risk.

3. There will be no significant money recovered from SCO. SCO can't bargain
for money or words having already had a comprehensive judgment against them.
Novell will get their code back in lieu of license damages. Given the judgment
and the state of the evidence, there will be no appeal. The trustee won't be
able to put up the bond, s/he won't want to and the courts aren't going to waive
the bond in this situation [i.e. no strong likelihood of prevailing].

4. SCO more than ever is the trifling tool set up by Monopoly millions. They
have failed spectacularly. The leverage has shifted and they stand poised to be
turned back on the munificent PIPE Fairy and others. This counter threat is a
formidable weapon in IBM's corporate arsenal. It may be used in ways that are
never published. That IBM ain't saying nuthin'.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Date in Feburary
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 11 2008 @ 11:17 PM EST
Do you think the trustee will be replaced the management?
Any bets? By the 15th ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder.
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 05:40 AM EST
What I have been able to glean from comments so far (and don't forget that they
are spread over five years!) is that Novell will be told that SCOG have held or
squandered $20-30M of Novell's money, but that it is all, more or less, gone.
That sum will have to be added to the list of creditors' owings.

Supposing Judge Gross and the US Trustee decide that BS&F knew about the
SCOG scams before they took the Novell and IBM cases and that they should pay
all the cap fees back to the estate. Supposing Judge Gross decided that the
leases for buildings and other payments had been made with Novell's money and
that Novell should really own what they paid for especially as they objected and
he told them it was going to happen, anyway. Supposing the US Trustee decided
that, under Sarbanes-Oxley rules, Darl (and others?) had to return their
bonusses. Supposing that Judge Gross decided that any assets that SCOG had left,
including new software, existing licences, development facilities etc. had been
paid for with Novell money.

Supposing that after all this there was still not enough money in the estate to
make Novell whole (not forgetting any damages that could be owed them for the
SCOG and BS&F actions quite apart from the Microsoft and Sun licences).

Supposing Novell agree to be paid in kind by having whatever assets SCOG had
left assigned to Novell. Could Judge Gross decide to pay Novell by handing back
the Unix business together with any associated assets acquired or created
separately by SCOG?

It seems to me that, since Novell have just been told they are paying for a
three-year lease in NJ, they at least ought to be given title to it. Under
Chapter 11 the liabilities of the creditors and IBM would stay with the existing
bankrupt SCOG company. Novell could rationalise the last of the Unix business
and let it sail into the sunset to the benefit of the, now, Novell customers.
Novell could also use the resources to migrate the customers to Suse Linux.

The unfair part of this arrangement would be all the small businesses that would
lose out as creditors. When I look at the larger creditors, they all seem to be
accomplices in the SCOG scam and deserve all they get, or don't get.

I would have thought that the first duty of the bankruptcy court was to pay any
debts owed to the government, second is to make sure that all the property of
other companies is returned to them, third is to reorganise the company into a
viable business and fourth is to get the best deal for all the creditors after
everything else is settled. My suggested arrangement seems to be the most
equitable deal that meets these duties.

Would Judge Gross have the authority to do this sort of deal and could it be
scuppered by creditor or other objections (e.g. in an appeal)?

---
Regards
Ian Al

When nothing else makes sense, use Linux.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I wonder. - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 08:07 AM EST
    • I wonder. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 12:52 PM EST
  • I wonder. - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 08:36 AM EST
  • I wonder.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 01:56 PM EST
$34K a month for Darl: Kah-Ching! Kah-Ching!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 09:50 AM EST
The SCO Groups wins again!

It is so funny - the way the groklaw crowd thinks the scam is not working for
TSG. TSG would have been out of business four years ago if not for the scam, and
all that beautiful msft money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will PJ Have To Wear A Red Suit?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 10:32 AM EST
Will PJ's mask come off after SCO goes bye bye :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ: Delete this thread, it is tasteless
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 12:51 PM EST

...especially in light of the personal tragedies which happened a couple years ago.

The original post is tasteless and at least one of the subposts is inappropriate and creepy.

Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Guess
Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 02:10 PM EST
After the trial Novell will tell Gross that if he will void the APA, returning
all of the Unix "assets" to Novell, the creditors can have everything
else.

---
IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • A Guess - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 02:54 PM EST
    • A Guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 05:25 PM EST
    • A Guess - Authored by: John Hasler on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 06:56 PM EST
      • A Guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 14 2008 @ 09:33 PM EST
"We have no fear about going to court as we have nothing to hide" - Darl McBride
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Saturday, January 12 2008 @ 07:10 PM EST
"We will take legal action against any company that violates our intellectual property. We have no fear about going to court as we have nothing to hide.
The sooner the court hears and rules on the issues in this matter, the better for us,"
he said.-- Darl McBride, 2003-08-18

"Accordingly, the Debtors estimate that it will not have a ruling on Novell's damages, nor an ability to appeal the August 10 summary judgment ruling, until mid-March 2008. The Debtors, therefore, request a period of 60 days after that anticipated event, corresponding with a date 120 days after the current exclusivity bar date, to maintain its exclusivity under section 1121."

Clearly the word SOON and the phrase no fear about going to court has a different meaning in SCO-land.

[ 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 )