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
The SCO v. Novell Summary Judgment Motions: Chart
Monday, March 30 2009 @ 11:51 AM EDT

Erwan has put together for us a chart of all the motions in SCO v. Novell that were decided prior to trial in the August 10, 2007 Order and the final two motions decided after trial in the July 16, 2008 Order. Since SCO is appealing that order, based in part on the idea that some motions should not have been decided on summary judgment and needed to go to trial before a jury, it seems a good time to organize them all, so you can follow the arguments in the appeal, particularly if you are thinking of attending oral argument. Novell will file its response shortly, and oral argument will be on May 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom I, Byron White U.S. Courthouse, Denver, CO.

If you are thinking of attending, and you can, here's the scoop: cell phones that take pictures will be confiscated at the entrance. Laptops are allowed. Observers may attend any hearing of interest without prior registration. Map. As with all judicial centers under Colorado law and federal law, the Byron White US Courthouse is a federal government building which means no permitted concealed weapons, photo ID is required for entrance, and you may be subject to electronic search at the entrances. The court recommends that you call the day before or check the website for the "Argument Calendar" and that you are at the door, ready to go in at least 15 minutes before the session you are interested in is scheduled to start.

We aimed at keeping this table as simple as possible. For every last detail, you can visit Groklaw's Novell timeline page. The chart is nevertheless quite elaborate, so if you notice any errors, please let us know.

Groklaw's Timelines allow simple click navigation between related entries, with links to PDFs, plain text versions, and articles mentioning the motion. So the best entry point may be the 10-Aug-2007 order [377] and work around from there, since that is the order that ruled on the motions. Alternatively, you can start from any of the motions: [147], [171], [180], [224], [258], [271], [273], [275] or [277]

Movant Subject Motion Memorandum in Support Memorandum in Opposition Reply Memorandum Hearing Date Decision
Novell Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [147]
[Text]
[148] [Text] [Exhibits] [183] sealed
[Article]
[209] redacted
[Article]
[205] sealed [198] redacted
[Text]
23-Jan-2007 [227](1) [377] Granted in Part, Denied in Part [Text]
Novell Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief [171]
[Text]
[175] sealed
[172] redacted
[Article] [Text]
[213] sealed(5)
[265] redacted
[Article] [Text]
[237] sealed
[Article]
23-Jan-2007 [227](1)
04-Jun-2007 [356](3)
[377] Granted [Text]
SCO Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [180]
[Article]
[214] sealed
[Article]
[183] sealed
[Article]
[209] redacted
[Article]
[221] sealed
[Article]
[233] sealed 23-Jan-2007 [227](1) [377] Granted in Part, Denied in Part [Text]
SCO Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Counterclaim [224](5)
[Article]
[213] sealed(5)
[265] redacted
[Article] [Text]
[240] sealed
[242]
[251] sealed
[266] redacted
23-Jan-2007 [227](1)
04-Jun-2007 [356](3)
[377] Denied [Text]
SCO Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's First, Second and Fifth Causes of Action and for Summary Judgment on Novell's First Counterclaim. [258](5)
[Text]
[259](5)
[Text]
[292] [Article] [Text] [346] [Article] 04-Jun-2007 [356](3) [377] Denied [Text]
Novell 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 [271] [Article] [272] [Article] [299] [Article] [332] [Article] 31-May-2007 [355](2) [377] Granted [Text]
Novell 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 [273] [Article] Corrected [282] [287] sealed
[274] redacted [Article]
[301] [Article] [333] [Article] 31-May-2007 [355](2) [377] Granted in Part, Denied in Part [Text]
Novell Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [275] [Article] [276] [Text] [306] sealed [Article]
[325] redacted [Article]
[338] sealed [Article]
[337] redacted [Article]
04-Jun-2007 [356](3) [377] Granted [Text]
Novell Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special Damages [277] [Article] [288] sealed
[291] redacted
[Text]
[307] sealed [Article]
[360] redacted [Article]
[339] sealed [Article]
[358] redacted [Article]
31-May-2007 [355](2) [377] Moot [Text]
Novell Motion for Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief. [478] [Article] [482] sealed
[479] redacted [Text]
[490] sealed
[501] redacted [Article] [Text]
[500] sealed
[495] redacted [Text]
30-Apr-2008 [532](4 ) [542] Granted in part; denied in part. [Text]
SCO Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief. [505] sealed [Article] [506] sealed
[507] redacted
[Article] [Text]
[509] [Article] [Text] [525] [Text] 30-Apr-2008 [532](4) [542] Granted, $2,547,817 awarded to Novell. [Text]

(1) 23-Jan-2007 Hearing: See timeline entry [227] [Groklaw's Report from Hearing] [Transcript: PDF, Text]

(2) 31-May-2007 Hearing: See timeline entry [355] [Groklaw's Report from Hearing] [transcript, PDF and Text]

(3) 04-Jun-2007 Hearing: See timeline entry [356] [Groklaw's Report from Hearing] [transcript, PDF and Text]

(4) 30-Apr-2008 Hearing: See timeline entry [532] [Groklaw Court Report, Transcript PDF, Text]

(5) [298] is Novell's objections to [213], [224], [258] and [259]. See timeline entry [298]. [Article] [Text] Exhibit A, Exhibit B


  


The SCO v. Novell Summary Judgment Motions: Chart | 34 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Anonymous posts go here
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 11:57 AM EDT
This is the thread for people who aren't logged in.

\Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: Erwan on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 12:23 PM EDT
If any

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Principle
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 12:24 PM EDT

    Out of principle, I choose to deliberate post "anonymously" starting my own thread and not conforming to the "anonymous posts here" thread. My appologies P.J. for not posting anything else - whether on-topic or off.

    I find it .... I'm not sure how to describe. But having someone - anonymous or otherwise - post a thread for "anonymous posts to conform to" feels to me to insult the integrity on which the democratic system was built.

    The primary example would be the letters posted anonymously about the injustices being applied to the American peoples by the British prior to the revolution which resulted in the creation of the US Constitution.

    If that "anon-here" thread was posted as a joke, it was in poor taste.

    RAS

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCOs motivation ..
    Authored by: emacsuser on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 12:55 PM EDT
    What possible motivation does SCOs have in this endless litigation.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Newspick discussions here please
    Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:10 PM EDT
    As always, it would be most helpful if you were to put the title of the Groklaw
    newspick item you are referring to in the title of your post.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    News from a patent blog : microsoft V tom tom
    Authored by: garry bloke on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:22 PM EDT
    According to the press statement

    "The cases have been settled through a patent agreement under which TomTom will pay Microsoft for coverage under the eight car navigation and file management systems patents in the Microsoft case.

    Also as part of the agreement, Microsoft receives coverage under the four patents included in the TomTom countersuit. The agreement, which has a five-year term, does not require any payment by Microsoft to TomTom.

    The agreement includes patent coverage for Microsoft’s three file management systems patents provided in a manner that is fully compliant with TomTom’s obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2). TomTom will remove from its products the functionality related to two file management system patents (the “FAT LFN patents”), which enables efficient naming, organizing, storing and accessing of file data. TomTom will remove this functionality within two years, and the agreement provides for coverage directly to TomTom’s end customers under these patents during that time.

    More here

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Off-Topic threads
    Authored by: xtifr on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 01:32 PM EDT
    For threads of general interest to the Groklaw population, but not related to
    the specific topic under discussion here.

    Please make links clickable (help on this found below the text entry window).

    ---
    Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
    light.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The SCO v. Novell Summary Judgment Motions: Chart
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, March 30 2009 @ 02:07 PM EDT

    "... a federal government building which means no permitted CCW, ..."
    PJ, what is "CCW"?

    ---
    "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

    [ 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 )