|
SCO files motion for judgment on pleadings on Novell's money claims or for amendment of scope of trial |
|
Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:20 AM EST
|
SCO has filed a sealed motion in the Utah case, asking, believe it or not, for "judgment on the pleadings on Novell's claims for money or for declaratory relief" or, in the alternative, "for amendment of the scope of the trial". I can't wait to see the redacted version. Judgment on the pleadings. In Utah. Like that will happen. They never run out of panache or crazy ideas to try, do they?
In the bankruptcy, SCO has filed an amended Schedule F [PDF]. Schedule F is the schedule of creditors holding unsecured nonpriority claims. Here's the original version of Schedule F [PDF], if you want to compare them, and I hope you do. Schedule F starts on page 7, and the last page of Schedule F is the first page of this continuation [PDF]. All the schedules are found here.
SCO's first Schedule F listed 10 creditors, Alia Shahbaz (litigation matter), India Income Tax Department (litigation matter), Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, IBM (litigation matter), Novell (litigation matter), Red Hat (litigation), SCO Operations (intercompany payable), and Sunray Computers Pvt. Ltd. (litigation matter). The amended Schedule F lists four pages of creditors, but none of the above. So, where did they go? I think it means SCO filled out Schedule F inappropriately originally and have now fixed it. You'll notice Darl McBride is listed, but there is a line through it, which I take to mean that he got his. The total of unsecured nonpriority claims is listed as $3,605,696.76. The total for unsecured priority claims (Schedule E) is $484,514.94. Personal property (Schedule B) is listed at $9,549,519.07, but I think that is only if you include the value of the copyrights that the Utah court has ruled SCO doesn't own, all of which are listed on the original Schedule B. Since only Schedule F is amended, I'd say they have valued their personal property optimistically, to put it kindly, or questionably, not to put too fine a point on it, since the list in no way indicates the Utah ruling's impact on the list.
Amending the scope of trial means what? I don't know for sure since it's sealed, but I think usually it means you want to be able to talk about things that are not currently permitted. If you followed the SCO v. IBM case, you are familiar with the concept, since SCO tried, albeit unsuccessfully, in another way to do that very thing. Even in the Novell case, it tried something similar in its proposed jury instructions.
Here are the filings in SCO v. Novell: 502 -
Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON NOVELLS CLAIMS FOR MONEY OR CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Hatch, Brent)
503 -
Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SCOS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS ON NOVELLS CLAIMS FOR MONEY OR CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR FOR AMENDMENT OF THE SCOPE OF THE TRIAL filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Hatch, Brent)
504 -
Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of SCO's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief, and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group (Corrected Filing) (Hatch, Brent)
505 -
Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Sealed Motion
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** SEALED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Document has not been scanned but will be retained in the sealed room of the clerk's office.) Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(jwt) Modified on 3/7/2008 (jwt).
506 -
Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Memorandum in Support of [505]SEALED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group, Plaintiff SCO Group. (Document has not been scanned but will be retained in the sealed room of the clerk's office.) (jwt)
Here are all the filings in the bankruptcy: 386 - Filed & Entered: 03/06/2008
Application for Compensation
Docket Text: Monthly Application for Compensation (Fifth) for Services and Reimbursement of Expenses as Accountants to the Debtors for the Period from February 2, 2008 through March 3, 2008 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 3/26/2008. (Attachments: # (1) Notice # (2) Exhibit A # (3) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)
387 - Filed & Entered: 03/06/2008
Transfer/Assignment of Claim
Docket Text: Transfer/Assignment of Claim. Transfer Agreement 3001 (e) 1 Transferor: CCI NETWORK SERVICES To REVENUE MANAGEMENT. Filed by Revenue Management. (Kane, Dana)
388 Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Certificate of No Objection
Docket Text: Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Third Interim Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period December 1, 2007 Through December 31, 2007 and Notice of Intent to Setoff Certain Pre-Petition Fees and Expenses Against Pre-Petition Retainer Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric)
389 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Certificate of Service
Docket Text: Certificate of Service of Certificate of No Objection (No Order Required) Regarding Third Interim Application of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Special Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession, for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period December 1, 2007 Through December 31, 2007 and Notice of Intent to Setoff Certain Pre-Petition Fees and Expenses Against Pre-Petition Retainer Filed by Dorsey & Whitney LLP. (Schnabel, Eric)
390 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Schedules/Statements
Docket Text: Schedules/Statements filed: Sch F,. (AMENDED Schedule F) of SCO Operations, Inc. [Related Docket No. 130] Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James)
391 - Filed & Entered: 03/07/2008
Affidavit/Declaration of Service
Docket Text: Affidavit/Declaration of Service (related document(s)[360] ) Filed by Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC. (Selzer, Sandra)
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:36 AM EST |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:37 AM EST |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Internet "Pipes" & "Tubes" are understood? ...So, National pipe thread standards as example? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:29 AM EST
- To Protect And Serve? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:40 AM EST
- Interoperability woes with MS-OOXML - Authored by: Winter on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:42 AM EST
- Stop ISP's from breaching customers privacy via advertising technologies. (Petition) - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 09:17 AM EST
- OT Here, Please - Authored by: sonicfrog on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 11:13 AM EST
- Wow much money did Daryl McBride get ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 11:19 AM EST
- Alex Brown stands by his decisions - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 11:31 AM EST
- Smile of the day: I think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 11:40 AM EST
- Cry me a river Miguel.... not! - Authored by: Stumbles on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 01:12 PM EST
- New Zealand press release on OOXML - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 03:21 PM EST
- Left hand meet right hand - US Air Force issues DMCA - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 04:47 PM EST
- Microsoft allowed to slander IBM and FSF on Wikipedia - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:14 PM EST
- ISO official press release on BRM - Authored by: PolR on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 09:28 PM EST
- Just ordered Everex gOS laptop - Authored by: mdarmistead on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 12:21 AM EST
- Wikileaks hasseled - Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 03:34 AM EDT
- Interesting take on the impact of ultra cheap laptops - Authored by: TerryC on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- OT Here, Please - Authored by: David Gerard on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- More from Durusau - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Dobre utka?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 10:35 PM EDT
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:38 AM EST |
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 07:51 AM EST |
Hmm. Was SCO hoping to get a different magistrate? Still
judge shopping, are they?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 04:58 PM EST
|
Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:07 AM EST |
IANAL etc but if they file this motion and it is rejected would this not be a
vital plank in any appeal that might be lodged post trial?
They could possibly make the case that their motion to the Bench to reconsider
the verdict (of last Aug possibly) was dismissed out of hand had somehow
prejudiced their legal case.
I do permit myself a wry smile from time to time over this sort of legal
machinations emanating from the SCO side. Remember, it was SCO who sued in the
first place. Now they are clearly fighting for breath and I like to think going
under for the third time...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:07 AM EST |
If SCO listed as an asset the copyrights that have been ruled to be Novells does
that give Novell a jump up the debtor queue.
"Look they have our property"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 08:31 AM EST |
Which is why IBM, Novell, etc. do not appear...
They're trying to separate everything so that SCO Operations retains all of
their products, IP, hardware, support obligations, etc., but does not have
anything to do with the various lawsuits. They've been doing that for a while.
If you want to compare schedule F to amended schedule F, you need to find the
original SCO Operations schedule F, otherwise the comparison is (bad) apples to
oranges.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 09:05 AM EST |
Is "judgment on pleadings" a legal term, or just what SCO put in their
title? If it's a legal term, what does it mean? What are the implications?
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 10:17 AM EST |
The Amici LLC claim in the amount $500,650.75 (legal document archives) is
checkmarked "Disputed" in the new Schedule F, this is different than the first
filing.
Other 'disputed' claims refer to legal matters such as the IPO
litigation and are additionally "contingent" and "unliquidated".
It is
important to note that Kevin McBride, Darl's brother recieved payments of:
2007 -- $415,000
2006 -- $562,000
2005 --
$323,000
"for document management, outsourced technical
and litigation assistance, and travel expenses." Source: SCO 10-K filing page
81. The most recent SCO operations monthly report details an October
$30,750 billing for Kevin McBride. and a $20,000 billing for November,
both paid as professional fees.
Amici, LLC was controversial because at one
time it was a Boies family holding, since sold to Xerox. The undisclosed family
relationship with the caused Boies' firm some problems. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 08 2008 @ 03:52 PM EST |
As far as I can gather "judgment on the pleadings" is a form of
summary
judgment. They must be asserting that no issue of material fact exists and that
they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. I guess this means that they
think Novell has no claim to ANY of the Sun/Microsoft licenses, since any other
amount would be a stab in the dark, or an admision that it is ALL Novell's.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tce on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 12:26 AM EST |
Hi PJ, MathFox, all,
I wonder if it would be possible to "tag" articles by topic and have a
front page that showed the headlines of articles for that topic.
For example, groklaw has done a large number of OOXML articles that, as far as I
know, are not presented in a way that new readers will find them.
If I do an article search on OOXML, I get a very important list of articles
covering the whole time line of ugly behavior.
Two proposals:
Add to the bottom of the ODF/MSOOXML the resulting list of groklaw articles from
a search for the keyword ooxml (easy?) or the tag ooxml (more work)
Add to the groklaw front page, right where it says "Headlines" a link
that says "OOXML Headlines" for a "front page" that includes
just the last bunch of OOXML headlines.
Oh, Oh, Oh...and Lots of good OOXML specific News Picks... what about having the
ODF/OOXML headlines list be a two column list, left side for article search
results, right side for News Picks search results...
Thanks,
tce
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 10:54 PM EDT |
Even the motion itself is sealed, which is highly unusual, even for SCO. The
"pleadings" are presumably SCO's 2nd amended complaint and Novell's
answers and counterclaims (plus exhibits, if any), both of which are public. I
don't know of any sealed exhibits. The only other documents allowed in are
supposed to be ones that are public as well. 'Tis all a mystery.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why sealed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 10 2008 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Why sealed? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 10 2008 @ 01:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Laomedon on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
redacted version now available, Docket 507.
Arguments:
1)
If the SCOsource agreements were executed without authority and Novell has not
approved them, as Novell asserts, then Novell is not entitled to any "SVRX
Royalties".
2) In the alternative, if Novell has approved the SCOsource
Agreements, then its claim for declaratory relief is moot under that version of
facts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|