|
Novell Responds to SCO's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal/Final Judgment Language - as text |
|
Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 04:18 PM EDT
|
Novell has filed its Response to SCO's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. It's ascerbic and funny as can be. It shows the court each and every tricky bit it thinks SCO might just be angling for.
I saw in the email exchange between the SCO and Novell attorneys that were attached to the David Melaugh Declaration that SCO has stepped on Novell's last nerve with its trickiness. And here we see the result. Novell points out each and every conceivable thing SCO might be trying for, leaving nothing for SCO to try later.
Novell begins by pointing out that in their meet and confer, Novell told SCO that SCO had no valid claims based on post-APA UNIX or UnixWare (despite all Darl's flying flags for the media), but SCO wouldn't agree. Now they have finally conceded that point: After equivocating for months before both this Court and the Bankruptcy Court, SCO now concedes it has no claims against Novell based on post-APA UNIX or UnixWare. SCO therefore proposes to dismiss that portion of its breach of contract, copyright infringement, and unfair competition claims with prejudice, relinquishing any supposed right it might have had to re-assert such claims following appeal. As that is the very result Novell proposed to SCO during the meet and confer process that lead up to these motions. Novell has no objection to such a dismissal. Novell does have some objections to SCO's proposed final order language, though. Novell met with SCO and tried to reach an agreement, but of course *that* didn't work. So Novell now submits its own language for the order, language that would close some tricky back doors it thinks SCO just might have tried to include. It would like, for example, this phrase added to clarify the nature of the dismissal of SCO's claims: "without the possibility of renewal following appeal." Whatever might Novell think SCO could be secretly thinking of trying after the appeal? They have SCO's number, I'm thinking. You can't blame Novell for being disgusted, really. SCO just never quits trying for some advantage, by hook or by crook. I've done the emails as text, to show you what I mean, and I'll post them next, probably tomorrow. I want to work on the complete text of this Response first.
Here are today's filings:
10/31/2008 - 563 - RESPONSE re 561 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Novell Proposed Final Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Judgment Redline)(Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/31/2008) And here, thanks to Steve Martin, is the Response as text, followed by the redline version of the proposed order, showing the changes Novell suggests for wording:
***************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
David E. Melaugh, pro hac vice
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Attorneys for Defendandt and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell,
Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim- Defendant,
v.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaim- Plaintiff.
|
NOVELL'S RESPONSE TO SCO'S
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball |
(1)
After equivocating for months before both this Court and the
Bankruptcy Court, SCO now concedes it has no claims against Novell
based on post-APA UNIX or UnixWare. SCO therefore proposes to
dismiss that portion of its breach of contract, copyright
infringement, and unfair competition claims with prejudice,
relinquishing any supposed right it might have had to re-assert
such claims following appeal. As that result is the very
result Novell proposed to SCO during the meet and confer
process that led up to these motions, Novell has no objection to
such a dismissal.
Novell does have several objections to the SCO's Proposed Final
Judgment. Novell and SCO met and conferred regarding these changes,
but SCO was not able to respond to Novell in a timely fashion.
Novell therefore submits its own Proposed Final Judgment, the
differences in which are detailed below and reflected on the
attached redline.
A. Paragraph 3: Clarifying Nature of Dismissal
Novell proposes to add the text "without the possibility of
renewal following appeal" to the description of SCO's dismissal of
the post-APA portions of its claims. As SCO does not contest that
is the effect of the dismissal, this change should not be
controversial.
B. Paragraph 4: Reporting the Court's True Holding as to 2003
Sun Agreement
Having reviewed the Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Order (Docket No. 542, "Order"), the parties propose
different text for Paragraph 4 of the final judgment. The division
concerns the Court's holding as to the 2003 Sun Agreement.
(2)
The relevant test proposed is as follows:
Novell Text |
SCO Text |
... In addition, pursuant to the Court's Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, SCO was
not authorized under the APA to amend, in the 2003 Sun Agreement,
Sun's 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell, and SCO needed to
obtain Novell's approval before entering into the amendment; but
SCO was fully authorized under the APA to enter into the 2003
Microsoft Agreement and the SCOsource Agreements with Linux
end-users without any approval by Novell. |
... In addition, pursuant to the Court's Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16, 2008, SCO was
not authorized under the APA to amend, in the 2003 Sun Agreement,
the confidentiality provisions of Sun's 1994 SVRX buyout agreement
with Novell, and SCO needed to obtain Novell's approval before
entering into the amendment; but SCO was fully authorized under the
APA to enter into other parts of the 2003 Sun Agreement without any
approval by Novell, and was also fully authorized under the APA to
enter into the 2003 Microsoft Agreement and the SCOsource
Agreements with Linux end-users without any approval by
Novell. |
This text arises from the Court's holding on Novell's Fourth
Claim, seeking declaratory relief. That count presents a binary
choice: did SCO have authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement
or not? (Docket No. 142, ¶ 123.) The Court's answer is
straightforward:
- Section B of Amendment 2 prohibits unilateral agreements
"concerning" buyouts.
- "There are no exceptions to this provision." (Order at
35.)
- The 2003 Sun Agreement "concerns" a buy-out.
- SCO was therefore without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun
Agreement.
On that basis, the Court found:
There is no dispute that Sun's 1994 Agreement with
Novell was a "buy-out" of Sun's SVRX royalty obligations as that
term is used in Amendment No. 2. Sun's 2003 Agreement explicitly
acknowledges that it is intended to "amend and restate" the 1994
buy-out agreement, including expansion of Sun's existing license
rights to permit opensource licensing of SVRX code. The Court
concludes that Sun's 2003 Agreement License, therefore, "concerns"
a buy-out, and SCO was required to follow the additional
restrictions imposed by Amendment No. 2 on transactions that
concern buy-outs. SCO did not comply with these terms. The Court
thus concludes and declares that SCO was without authority to enter
into the 2003 Sun Agreement under Amendment 2, Section B, of the
APA.
(3)
(Order at 36 (emphasis added).)
In meet and confer, SCO cited a variety of text from elsewhere
in the Order that SCO claims supports the language of its proposed
final judgment. SCO's arguments confuse a basis of the
Court's holding with the holding itself. SCO would have the Court
declare that, in some respects SCO was authorized to enter into the
2003 Sun Agreement while in other respects it was not. That would,
in effect, have the Court to split the 2003 Sun Agreement into two
agreements — the Sun agreement SCO was authorized to enter
into, and the Sun agreement SCO wasn't. The Court has repeatedly
rejected such "agreement splitting" in the past. (See, e.g.,
Order, Docket No. 452, at 16 (rejecting argument that license could
be simultaneously both an SVRX License and not-an-SVRX-License).)
Put another way, what SCO hopes for is essentially an advisory
opinion: if the 2003 Sun Agreement had not excised the 1994 Sun
buy-out's confidentiality requirements, would SCO have been
authorized to enter into it? That is not the question posed by
Novell's Fourth Claim, is not a question posed by any actual
agreement before the Court, and is therefore not a question
appropriate to address on final judgment.
C. Paragraph 10: Punitive Damages are not "Dismissed"
SCO proposes to "dismiss" Novell's claim for punitive damages.
Those damages are a remedy, the entitlement to which derives from
Novell's actual claims, which are addressed in Paragraphs 4-9 of
the Proposed Final Judgment. This is simply a technical change,
however. Novell does not dispute that, under the terms of the
parties' stipulation, it could not (and did not) seek punitive
damages at the bench trial. As that event has passed, the
stipulation is no longer relevant and need not be repeated in the
Court's Final Judgment.
D. Paragraph 11: Case not "Closed"
Novell's Proposed Final Judgment excises "this case is closed."
It is Novell's understanding that the clerk closes a case and that
it is not necessary to do so by way of final
(4)
judgment. Novell intends to seek its costs, and does not want
any claim that the "closure" of this case prevents Novell from
pursuing its rights as the prevailing party.
E. Paragraph 11: Execution not "Stayed"
In meet and confer, SCO was unable to explain what it means by
the last sentence of its proposed Paragraph 11, "Execution shall be
stayed until relief from the automatic stay is obtained from the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the
case entitled In re: The SCO Group, Inc, Case No.
07-11337(KG)."
The text might be surplusage, simply restating the fact that,
under bankruptcy law, Novell cannot collect its judgment except by
way of those methods permitted by the bankruptcy code. If the
language is surplusage, it can be excised without incident.
What Novell suspects is that SCO included this text in the hope
it might influence a dispute due to be resolved in the Bankruptcy
Court. Novell and SCO dispute whether Novell is entitled to the
return of its money held in trust by SCO now or after appeal. As
that is a matter the parties agree is reserved to the Bankruptcy
Court, it is inappropriate to address it here, especially in Final
Judgment.
What is clear from meet and confer with SCO is that SCO
believes the "stay" of the "execution" of Final Judgment does not
stand in the way of its appeal. Given the vague nature of this
text, its effect on appeal is not obvious — SCO may find
itself having advocated language that prevents the very result it
has told the world it is pursuing with all possible vigor.
F. Typographical Changes
As the redline reflects, Novell also makes certain typographical
changes to Paragraphs 2, 3, 7, and 9. These are not intended to
affect the meaning of the judgment and should not be
controversial.
(5)
DATED: October 31, 2008
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
By: /s/ Heather M. Sneddon
Thomas R. Karrenberg
Heather M. Sneddon
- and -
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
David E. Melaugh, pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.
(6)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 31st day of October, 2008, I
caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOVELL'S
RESPONSE TO SCO'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL to be served to
the following:
Via CM/ECF:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
Stuart H. Singer
William T. Dzurilla
Sashi Bach Boruchow
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
David Boies
Edward J. Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Devan V. Padmanabhan
John J. Brogan
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
[address]
Via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:
Stephen Neal Zack
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
/s/ Heather M. Sneddon
(7)
**************************************
**************************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, pro hac vice
David E. Melaugh, pro hac vice
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Attorneys for Defendandt and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell,
Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff and Counterclaim- Defendant,
v.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant and Counterclaim- Plaintiff.
|
[NOVELL PROPOSED] FINAL
JUDGMENT
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball |
(1)
Whereas by Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007,
the Court having ruled on the parties' summary judgment motions,
and the matter having come before the Court for trial on April 29
and 30 and May 1 and 2, 2008, and the Court having issued its
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16,
2008, and the parties having stipulated or moved to dismiss the
claims remaining after the foregoing Orders, and the Court having
considered the submissions of the parties concerning the entry of
Final Judgment, and good cause appearing, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that:
1. SCO's claims for Slander of Title (Count I) and Specific
Performance (Count III) are dismissed pursuant to the Court's
Memorandum Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007.
2. SCO's claims for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright
Infringement (Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V)
are dismissed pursuant to the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order
dated August 10, 2007, insofar as these claims are based on
ownership of pre-APA UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
3. SCO's The remaining portions of
SCO's claims, for Breach of Contract (Count II), Copyright
Infringement (Count IV), and Unfair Competition (Count V),
are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, without the
possibility of renewal following appeal.
4. With respect to Novell's claims for Declaratory Relief (Count
IV), pursuant to the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order dated
August 10, 2007, Novell is entitled to direct SCO to waive claims
against IBM, Sequent, and other SVRX licensees; Novell is entitled
to waive such claims on SCO's behalf; and SCO is obligated to
recognize such a waiver. In addition, pursuant to the Court's
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July 16,
2008, SCO was not authorized under the APA to amend, in the 2003
Sun Agreement, the confidentiality provisions of
Sun's 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with Novell, and SCO needed to
obtain Novell's approval before entering into the amendment; but
SCO was fully authorized under the APA to enter into other
parts of the 2003 Sun Agreement without any approval by Novell, and
was also fully authorized under the APA to enter into the
2003 Microsoft Agreement and the SCOsource Agreements with Linux
end-users without any approval by Novell.
(2)
5. With respect to Novell's claims for Constructive
Trust/Restitution/Unjust Enrichment (Count VI), Breach of Fiduciary
Duty (Count VII), and Conversion (Count VIII), pursuant to the
Court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order dated July
16, 2008, Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Novell for
$2,547,817, for the revenues from the 2003 Sun Agreement
attributable to the unauthorized amendment of the SVRX
confidentiality provisions in Sun's 1994 SVRX buyout agreement with
Novell. Pursuant to the parties' agreement reflected in Novell's
Unopposed Submission Regarding Prejudgment Interest dated August
29, 2008, that award is increased by $918,122 in prejudgment
interest through August 29, 2008, plus $489 per diem thereafter
until the date of this Judgment.
6. Further with respect to Novell's claim for a Constructive
Trust (Count VI), as reported in Novell's Submission Regarding the
Entry of Final Judgment dated August 29, 2008, the parties have
reached an agreement as to the amount of the constructive trust
($625,486.90), and the parties will be reporting that amount to the
Bankruptcy Court in the related bankruptcy proceeding, if they have
not already done so.
7. Novell's claims for Accounting (Count IX)
are is mooted by the Court's Memorandum
Decision and Order dated August 10, 2007.
8. Pursuant to the parties' Joint Statement dated August 17,
2007, and Supplemental Joint Statement dated August 24, 2007,
Novell's claims for Slander of Title (Count I), Breach of Contract
(Count II), and Declaratory Relief (Count V) are voluntarily
dismissed, with the right to pursue these claims only in this
action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in this
action.
9. Pursuant to the Court's Order dated September 7, 2007,
granting Novell's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Its Third Claim for
Relief dated August 24, 2007, Novell's claims
claim for Breach of Contract (Count III)
are is voluntarily dismissed, with the
right to pursue these claims this claim
only in this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or
trial in this action.
(3)
10. Pursuant to the parties' Joint Statement dated
August 17, 2007, Novell's claims for punitive damages under any
claim are dismissed, with the right to seek such relief only in
this action, should there be a subsequent adjudication or trial in
this action.
11. For the reasons set forth above and in the Court's
Orders referenced above, this case is closed. Execution shall be
stayed until relief from the automatic stay is obtained from the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the
case entitled In re: The SCO Group, Inc, Case No.
07-11337(KG).
DATED: ________________, 2008
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
Judge Dale A. Kimball
United States District Court Judge
(4)
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread. Standard: Use the English Language,
please.
--- A copy of the universe is not what is required of art; one
of the [darned] things is ample.
-- Rebecca West [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
Please discuss Groklaw News Picks here. While English is appreciated, it is not
necessarily standard or ubiquitous here.
--- A copy of the universe is
not what is required of art; one of the [darned] things is ample.
-- Rebecca West [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Research on BBC content for GNU/Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 02:31 AM EST
- [NP] Microsoft bribes again? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 12:03 PM EST
- The HP Netbook -- Slow Down, Cowboy.... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 06:37 PM EST
- XP outsells Linux, guess why - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 08:12 PM EST
- Windows 7 leaks to Web, pirates downloading - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 10:16 PM EST
- Windows 7 leaks to Web, pirates downloading - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 10:28 PM EST
|
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Please post off topic here. Post in any natural language you like. Just
understand that many of us can only read English.
--- A copy of the
universe is not what is required of art; one of the [darned] things is ample.
-- Rebecca West [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- [OT] Royal Bank of Canada - Authored by: crs17 on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- [OT] overdrive media console - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 10:06 PM EDT
- [OT] What does a PIPE fairy look like? - Authored by: CustomDesigned on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 10:41 PM EDT
- Hello Groklaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 02:35 AM EST
- Gah! They say this every time. When will they learn? - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 03:43 AM EST
- Bi-yearly personal rant. - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 03:50 AM EST
- Linux being phased out for netbooks - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 09:53 AM EST
- Quebec duo shocked by reaction to Palin prank - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 02:47 PM EST
- Eh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 08:16 PM EST
- DE Foreign ministry: 'Cost of Open Source desktop maintenance is by far the lowest' - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 03:27 PM EST
- Yet another laptop fire hazard..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 05:33 PM EST
- Twenty Things You Should Know About Corporate Crime - Authored by: kh on Monday, November 03 2008 @ 04:18 PM EST
|
Authored by: webster on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 07:30 PM EDT |
It would like, for example, this phrase added to clarify the
nature of the dismissal of SCO's claims: "without the possibility of renewal
following appeal." Whatever might Novell think SCO could be secretly thinking of
trying after the appeal? They have SCO's number, I'm
thinking.
SCO has expressed great faith in the prospects of
their precious appeal, at least as much as in their proof and in their trial
[such as they turned out to be notwithstanding.] They have teased the
bankruptcy court with talk of their plans, Norris and arab investors and
appeals. They are trying to win in drafting some of what they could not win
with evidence. They are squirming to the end and just won't go reasonably.
Novell's locking down the final order is no help. They are trying to pull a
fast one with little hope of succeeding, but try they must. A whole round of
motions for nothing - They are making the winners pay for not settling. They
are determined to remain the only party that got money for this escapade.
Novell is giving it right back to them - moving for an immediate trust payment -
pressure and pain. Maybe Novell will get at least a trust. That should hasten
the day of reckoning or at least flush out the PIPE Fairy.
~webster~
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ehud on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 10:53 PM EDT |
At this time the link
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-563PropOrder.pdf
Buys a free 404
Ehud
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Saturday, November 01 2008 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
So what does this mean for the SuSE arbitration? Will Novell let the matter
lapse without getting a ruling that any post-APA code that may (won't) be found
in Linux has already been licensed from SCO via the UnitedLinux agreements?
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
So... as it turns out, the primary reason this took so long was because SCOG
is still trying to play games.
Novell, on being blamed for the delay in
the Bankruptcy court has responded by outlining a final order and effectively
leaving it up to the Judge to decide if it's proper.
At least, the above
is my conclusion on what occurred.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 12:44 AM EDT |
.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 07:13 AM EST |
I don't know to what extent Novell will be successful in seeking costs, or in
what amount, but that sounds to me like the real thing SCO have to worry about.
If SCO still think they'll be around after this, Novell's costs could bury them.
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, November 02 2008 @ 09:08 AM EST |
Novell's proposed order includes this;
claims for Accounting
(Count IX) are is
This looks to me like Novell
is inserting an error in the language, either "claims" should "claim", or "are"
should be left alone.
--- 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: Anonymous on Monday, November 03 2008 @ 09:08 AM EST |
I think what this may really be about is Novell's intention to pursue third
parties for restitution of its converted funds -- just as the state of
Tennessee
apparently intends to recover its unpaid taxes.
Having stipulated
that the amount still in SCO's possession is only about
$625 K, Novell will
never be able to collect more than that from SCO, and
maybe not even that much.
Once its efforts to collect from SCO have failed,
Novell can go back to
District Court in Utah and get an order for a
constructive trust. It can then
burn through the corporate veil and pursue
SCO's officers, as well as others
who knowingly received the converted
property, such as lawyers, accountants,
and financial advisors. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Tuesday, November 04 2008 @ 07:52 AM EST |
In reading Novell's alternate order I was struck by the preponderance of
strike-throughs versus underlined text. In other words, in general, Novell has
removed words rather than added them. Judges often pay lip-service to judicial
economy and saving a few words while actually improving clarity is likely to
appeal to a judge IMHO (IANAL).
Some of the underlined text is to correct grammatical error but in clause 3 we
have one instance, or perhaps two, where Novell have specifically asked for
additional wording. The possible second case is to clarify that is only a
portion of SCO's claims which are to be dismissed with prejudice, which is a
factual rather than grammatical error.
The only clear addition, as PJ points out, is that Novell have asked that the
text include "without the possibility of renewal following appeal".
Consequently that is the change the judge would be most reluctant to make
(IMHO), unless of course he is as tired of hearing SCO's incessant refrains as
I, but Novell have now forced SCO to argue why that language should *not* be
included. So SCO probably need to argue that the claims should not really be
dismissed forever but could they have their final judgement anyway, please.
Can't wait for that one.
----------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Laomedon on Friday, November 07 2008 @ 12:52 PM EST |
11/06/2008 564 REPLY to Response to Motion re 554 MOTION for Entry of Judgment
and Re 561 SCO's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Its Unresolved Stayed Claims With
Prejudice filed by Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2
Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Final Judgment)(Normand, Edward) (Entered:
11/06/2008)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|