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
SCO Responds to Gray's Proposed Amicus Brief
Monday, May 04 2009 @ 10:58 PM EDT

SCO has filed its response to the proposed amicus brief by Wayne Gray, and it agrees with Novell on it -- they don't want Wayne Gray butting in to this appeal either. Novell said it was irrelevant, and SCO agrees:
Because the parties did not litigate before the district court below the issue of the transfer of trademarks under the APA and the court did not resolve that issue in its appealed-from decisions or otherwise, Appellant, The SCO Group, Inc. opposes Wayne R. Gray's Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant/Appellee Novell, Inc. insofar as the Motion seeks to (1) expand the scope of the appealed-from decisions by addressing matters that are not "relevant to the disposition of the case,"... or (2) re-litigate issues resolved by the United States District Court for the District Florida that are now before the Eleventh Circuit on Mr. Gray's appeal.
SCO also agrees with Novell that it's untimely filed "for the reasons set forth by Novell in its opposition to the Motion." We probably should frame this. It's not every day SCO and Novell agree on anything. I doubt the appeals court will disagree. We'll see. The hearing is this week, on May 6. We'll likely find out at the hearing the court's decision.

If you are planning to attend, keep in mind that the courtroom was changed to Courtroom II [PDF], Byron White U.S. Courthouse, Denver, CO., and it begins at 9:00 AM. "Counsel shall report 45 minutes prior to the session to check in with the clerk," the docket says, so you might want to get there a bit early too to get the lay of the land.

Here are the filings, including some corrections on numbers in the Index of exhibits:

05/04/2009 - Open Document - [9655989] Response to Motion for leave to become amicus filed by SCO Group. Served on 05/04/2009. Manner of Service: email.

05/04/2009 - Open Document - [9656043] Errata sheet filed by SCO Group. Original and 7 copies. Served on 05/04/2009. Manner of Service: email.


  


SCO Responds to Gray's Proposed Amicus Brief | 110 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"... not every day ..."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 04 2009 @ 11:06 PM EDT
PJ, have they EVER agreed before? If so, I don't remember it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, May 04 2009 @ 11:42 PM EDT
Put your correction in the title of your reply. The rest can go in the body if
it all doesn't fit in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, May 04 2009 @ 11:45 PM EDT
Put the title of the news pick article in the title of your post. Post as HTML
and make the clickies clickiable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, May 04 2009 @ 11:46 PM EDT
If your topic is off, post it here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Amicus Brief Threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, May 04 2009 @ 11:49 PM EDT
If you have your own amicus brief to submit for this case post it here, as long
as it is more relevant than Wayne Gray's.

Remember, keep it brief and keep it friendly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Something Odd About SCO's Reply:
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, May 05 2009 @ 04:04 AM EDT
It's short, to the point and it makes sense.

This does not make sense.

---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Responds to Gray's Proposed Amicus Brief
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 05 2009 @ 12:16 PM EDT
Said firm in the legal news about how profitable they are...

Spin spin spin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO Responds to Gray's Proposed Amicus Brief
    Authored by: AceBtibucket on Tuesday, May 05 2009 @ 06:51 PM EDT
    Ding, Dong! The SCO is dead!

    http://chapter11.epiqsystems.com/viewdocument.aspx?DocumentPk=44fafab0-9e81-4e31
    -9b3c-8a3e3d977068

    [ 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 )