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
SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch. - Updated
Friday, January 15 2010 @ 08:26 PM EST

Hot off the presses, the bankruptcy court has denied SUSE's motion to lift the stay so as to complete the arbitration. What? This surprises you? This court favors SCO, as it is a bankruptcy court, and it says SCO doesn't have the money to do both; if SCO fails in Utah, the arbitration won't be necessary; and the bankruptcy court has no way to know who is likely to prevail, so SUSE can't meet one necessary prong to get a stay lifted.

: D

He found a way, as some of you speculated he would, to deny the motion. It's hilarious. I can't defend it. One thing is for sure, if SUSE doesn't appeal, as soon as the Utah trial is ended, should SCO prevail in any way, it will immediately be back. So in that sense, it doesn't matter much, but this court is a riot.

Here are the filings, and as you will see, one of Novell's attorneys, David Melaugh, has moved on:

01/15/2010 - 1035 - Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney David E. Melaugh Filed by Novell, Inc.. (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

01/15/2010 - 1036 - Affidavit/Declaration of Service Regarding Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney David E. Melaugh (related document(s) 1035 ) Filed by Novell, Inc.. (Greecher, Sean) (Entered: 01/15/2010) 01/15/2010

1037 - Order Denying Suse's Motion For Relief From The Automatic Stay To Complete International Arbitration. (related document(s) 951 ) Order Signed on 1/15/2010. (GM) (Entered: 01/15/2010)

It's frustrating to see that the judge has absolutely no concept of the GPL and how it matters in terms of calculating the probability of success on the merits, and also to see how he doesn't understand the difference between the UNIX copyrights and the UnitedLinux distribution, but then you can't blame the judge really. Our witnesses at the hearing didn't hear SUSE or Novell mention the GPL even once. They were fighting with a couple of guns in their arsenal, but only one of them was blazing while the other stayed in its holster the entire hearing.

[ Update: Even beyond the GPL arguments and the UnitedLinux contractual arguments, I thought it would be useful to remind you of IBM's copyright misuse arguments in its Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment on SCO's Copyright Claim:

As stated, SCO has not offered any evidence that it owns the allegedly infringed copyrights, despite the Court's orders. ( 67-69.) Even if SCO could show that it owns the copyrights, however, it has misused them in at least five independent ways, each of which is sufficient to foreclose SCO from further prosecuting its infringement claim against IBM:
(1) SCO claimed ownership over code for which SCO has no copyright;

(2) SCO effectively asserted that its alleged copyrights extend to all of Linux;

(3) SCO claimed its alleged copyrights give it control of IBM's own copyrighted code (i.e., AIX and Dynix);

(4) SCO claimed its alleged copyrights include material not protectable by copyright; and

(5) SCO is seeking to enforce its alleged copyrights in ways that are unenforceable.

SCO's misuse of its alleged copyrights is described in detail in the memorandum in support of IBM's motion for summary judgment on its Tenth Counterclaim. (DJ Br. at 94-99.) Rather than repeat that discussion here in full, we incorporate it by reference.
See what I mean? Even if SCO could persuade a jury that it owns some header files, are they copyrightable? If so, does owning some header files mean you can claim control of all of Linux and instead of letting folks remove it, insist on licenses to time indefinite, even forever? It's frankly silly. And I do believe Judge Gross is competent to understand such things, if he had wished to figure out SCO's likelihood of prevailing. - End update.]

The judge lists four Rexene factors, from a 1992 case. There are actually 12 factors called the Sonnax factors, and you can review what that is all about from this article from when Novell/SUSE tried to get the stay lifted the first time. But I think the judge erred massively in saying there is "no compelling need for the SUSE Arbitration to go forward at this point", in that the Arbitral Tribunal sent a letter in October saying they needed to see some action or else. Or else what? They didn't say, but if they shut it down, it would mean starting from scratch if and when it is time to get to that part of the litigation. It's not a separate litigation; it is and always was part of the original case, part of the case that is going to trial in March. They were supposed to be pursued simultaneously on parallel tracks. So if SUSE wishes to appeal, it probably has a basis. But let's face it. In Delaware, they take care of debtors. So why would the appeals court do any better than this court has, particularly when Rexene factors are discretionary? The problem is there is no definition of "cause" in the Bankruptcy Code, so judges just look at the facts of the case and decide whatever they want to. So he did. This judge is trying hard to save SCO. And how do you appeal discretion? I guess you could rationally argue that the judge stated as fact something that isn't correct. But I think it's more likely they'll just come back later if they need to. The judge could have sent a message to the Tribunal, I would think, that as soon as the trial is over, it can begin, if the issue is not mooted. At least that might have prevented a complete return to the starting gate and all the expenses associated with it.

Here's the heart of the Order Denying SUSE's Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Complete International Arbitration, starting on page 4:

********************************

The Arbitration

On September 28, 2007, SCO moved this Court to find that the automatic stay applied to the Arbitration. (Dkt. No. 69.) The Court granted that motion on November 14, 2007. (Dkt. No. 204.) At the time of this ruling, the Arbitration had already been pending for 19 months, and both the parties and the Arbitration tribunal had devoted substantial efforts preparing for a merits hearing on liability that was originally scheduled for December 2007. The Arbitration has thus been suspended for the past two years.

The parties received a letter from the Arbitration tribunal, dated October 5, 2009, which stated, in part:

Following each party's update of 4 August 2009, a further two months have now elapsed, and as far as the Arbitration Tribunal is aware, there is still no indication as to whether this arbitration might be permitted to proceed.

As the parties will appreciate, if this situation is to continue indefinitely, it will begin to cause difficulties for the members of the Arbitration Tribunal.

To this end, I attach herewith Procedural Order No 10, which sets a further reporting date of 4 December 2009, by which time the arbitration will have been in abeyance for approximately two years. If there have been no developments by that date, the members of the Arbitral Tribunal may then need to consider their position, as well as the future conduct of these proceedings.

The Lift Stay Motion

The Court directed the appointment of a chapter 11 trustee on July 27, 2009. The Trustee was appointed shortly thereafter. (Dkt. Nos. 898-900.)

SUSE seeks relief from the automatic stay to proceed with the Arbitration to a judgment by the Tribunal. Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

(D) On request of a party in interest after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection (a) of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning such stay --
(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest....
SUSE argues that "cause" exists, for the following reasons:
1. The Arbitration is nearly complete.

3. Continuing the stay will lead to incomplete litigation, i.e., the Utah Litigation.

4. SCO is using the stay of the Arbitration as a litigation tactic.

5. SUSE satisfies each of the Rexene1 factors.


RULING

The Court agrees with the Chapter 11 Trustee that the Motion at this time is ill-founded. Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion. The Court previously addressed this very issue and ruled that the automatic stay applicable to the Arbitration should remain in place. The reason to coninue the stay is now stronger than at the time of SUSE's prior attempt. In November 2007, this Court enforced the automatic stay and ruled that the "Swiss arbitration is subject to the automatic stay and SUSE is enjoined from proceeding in that arbitration during the pendency of the bankruptcy case." 11/6/07 Hrg. Tr., at 71. The decision resulted in the suspension of the Arbitration for over two years.

The District Court in the Utah Litigation has scheduled a three-week jury trial to begin on March 8, 2010 -- less than two months from now -- at which the dispute between SCO and Novell over, among other things, the ownership of the UNIX Copyrights, will be decided. It is the ownership of the Unix Copyrights which is the very issue that the District Court in 2006 determined would be an underlying finding to both the SUSE Arbitration and the Utah Litigation. SUSE can only speculate that if the Court grants stay relief, it expects the merits hearing will take place in three to six months. It is therefore more than likely that the Utah Litigation will be completed before the Tribunal begins its proceedings.

The Court will deny the Motion based upon its findings that SCO would suffer considerable harm were it to permit the Arbitration to proceed.


The Trustee has very limited resources with which to maintain SCO's business and perform other duties. The Trustee will also have to devote substantial time and resources over the coming weeks to prepare for the trial phase of the Utah Litigation. The Arbitration would require fees, costly travel expenses and payment to the Tribunal. In contrast, there is no compelling need for the SUSE Arbitration to go forward at this point. SUSE does not satisfy the first Rexene factor.

In balancing the hardships, the Court is also aware that in addition to the Utah litigation moving forward on a tight timetable, the Trustee is continuing his efforts to restructure SCO's business, or sell its assets, or a combination of both.

The preliminary issue is who owns the UNIX copyrights. SUSE seeks a ruling in the Arbitration that SCO is barred from asserting copyright infringement claims against SUSE. The ownership issue is soon to be tried before the District Court. The issue in the Arbitration is what, if anything, SCO did with the UNIX Copyrights it allegedly had acquired. It is a matter of judicial and estate economy that a factfinder first determine whether SCO acquired the UNIX Copyrights. If the jury in the Utah Litigation determines that SCO did not acquire the UNIX Copyrights, the Arbitration would be unnecessary as moot. SUSE does not satisfy the second Rexene factor.


Applying the third Rexene factor, the probability of success on the merits, the Court is not in a position to determine who would prevail and the probability. The Court therefore can not find that SUSE would likely prevail in the Arbitration.

Accordingly, SUSE's motion to lift the automatic stay to proceed with the Arbitration is denied.

Dated: January 15, 2010

[signature]
KEVIN GROSS, U.S.B.J. _____

1 In re Rexene Prods. Co., 141 BR. 574, 575 (Bankr. D. Del. 1992).


  


SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch. - Updated | 216 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections here in the title
Authored by: webster on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 08:41 PM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I find myself agreeing with the Judge
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 08:50 PM EST

The trial is closer.
The trial has more leverage (its outcome means more to more people).
The arbitration can still happen if needed.

I guess the arbitration could show that SCO didn't have the copyrights from the
git-go. But would that be binding for Joe Linux when SCO sends the lawyers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 08:54 PM EST
very appreciated madame P. J. (I do trully believe you are a person, not a
collective under IBM)
i sense some dissapointment, as you accept reality of that "justice"
system. yes, optimistically exposed there remains a large way to improve.
while Novell stay fighting (against the pupeteer) i shall not drop my SuSE
partition.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not My Word Choice...
Authored by: lnuss on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:15 PM EST
Hilarious? Appalling, maybe, although it was sort of expected. It's pretty sad,
to me. Justice? Fair Courts? Not, at least, in some of this SCO stuff. Not when
judges can get away with not following the rules they are supposed to work
under. Not when judges play favorites.

It's harder to take each time it happens...

---

Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Same difference
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM EST
Let's say for the sake of argument that SCO tries to sue
someone before the arbitration is resolved.

Wouldn't whoever they sue ask the court to stay the case until
the arbitration is resolved?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Same difference - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:28 AM EST
What are you going to do - take him out back and shoot him?
Authored by: vb on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM EST
Priceless quote of a Judge showing lack of respect for the court of law.

Once again ruling monarch-like instead of Judge-like.

[ Reply to This | # ]

off topic here please
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:25 PM EST
please include clickies if you have anything relevant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

newspicks here please
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:26 PM EST
again, having a clicky to help which link you are referencing is good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Doesn't Help My As-Yet-Unabated Hatred Of The World
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 09:53 PM EST
Hey there!

Boy, SCO just can't lose, can they? I feel like Freddy in the Freddy Vs. Jason
movie -- "WHY WON'T YOU STAY DEAD?!?"

I'm guessing it will go something like this: SCO will likely win in Utah (I'd
love to play with their D20's for just one session....). They then get a cash
infusion thanks to some shakedowns like with AutoZone. Just enough to continue
their lawsuits but not enough to handle the arbitration so it will remain
stayed....

I keep looking for that one little piece of hope, and I just can't find it....

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch.
Authored by: arnotsmith on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:02 PM EST
It appears that this is now a totally political exercise.

Does that mean it is no longer a suitable subject for Groklaw?

Just wondering ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch.
Authored by: Kevin on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:28 PM EST
The Boies boys seem to be able to snow judges (and, I presume, will have an
equal ability with juries). This case seems to be coming back from the grave.

What I'm afraid of - given how the bankruptcy court in Delaware and the circuit
court in Utah have been favoring SCO - is that somehow the trial will also
manage to decide that SCO conveyed no rights to SuSE under the United Linux
agreements, without SuSE ever getting its day in court to contest it. SCO's
puppet master has simply outbid Novell, and justice is obviously for sale to the
highest bidder.

---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

balance of hardship
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:34 PM EST
The court says that the fact the trustee is rebuilding SCO's business (suing and
intimidating Novell's customers and other Linux users) should balance out the
hardship that Novell has in only being allowed to participate in the parts of
these lawsuits that SCO wants to advance.

That seems utterly illogical to me.

What are the actual rules for balancing hardship for a bankruptcy court?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Rules? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:43 PM EST
    • Rules? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:34 AM EST
      • Rules? - Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:48 PM EST
Delaware... (all you need to know really). - nt
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 10:42 PM EST
.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pessimism in Utah
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 15 2010 @ 11:52 PM EST
I know that many things have not gone "Our" way. I think that a jury
trial still has a good chance of finding that the copyrights did not transfer
just by the structure of the contract. Add to this the parole evidence, the
muddled ownership of copyrights, the lack of evidence to transfer from old SCO
to new SCO and change of control. I can see a jury being sympathetic to the home
town team, but they still need facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Since I Gave Up Hope, I Feel A Lot Better (a.k.a. Plan B)
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 12:03 AM EST
Hey, everybody!

Okay. I can find no reason to not think that the fix is in and SCO will win
against Novell and IBM, and they'll resume their attacks on Linux.

So...is there a way to invalidate what they claim they own, and prove that they
do not? I'm thinking it might be our best chance to put brakes on this runaway
train.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 01:04 AM EST
To borrow an Irish phrase.

US Courts simply don't like to delegate 'justice' to overseas venues, and there
is a suspicion that only US courts can deliver 'real justice' as can be seen in
the case in the Supreme Court over custody rights. I sincerely hope that the
Supreme Court will take up the copyright conveyance case, otherwise the appeal
and counter appeal will see the SCO saga continue well into 2020 - or until SCO
has no more money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well I can't say that I like this
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 01:33 AM EST

However I think we are being a bit to harsh in our criticism of the judge. If
the
GPL wasn't brought up in court, he cannot take it into account.

So I'd suggest that we blame the lawyers instead.


---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Motion points out 3 million dollar payment, why hasn't it been paid?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:20 AM EST
The motion actually referred to the appeal confirming that SCO has to pay Novell
the $2.5 million dollars they are owed (Page 4). The judge wrote this, I'm
wondering as to why Novell has not been paid the $2.5 million dollars they are
owed?

Or have they already been paid? I remember that there was a constructive trust
that the money was put into but considering how much money SCO has blown
through, is the constructive trust still intact?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Told you so.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:47 AM EST
Judge Gross never intended to even seriously consider going against the Trustee.
He loves the guy, he isn't going to rule against him. He made some noise that
he would consider SUSE's position, just to appease them. I don't believe for a
second he ever even considered granting the stay.

[ Reply to This | # ]

We've Done Sublime. Meet Ridiculous
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 05:21 AM EST
On January 9th, Trustee Edward Cahn filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court
asking for the company's Stock Options scheme to be approved. Don't you love
that it's called a scheme? Maybe it should have been "scam", but
scheme's close enough for me...

Anyway, the Trustee wanted Judge Gross to approve the scheme, which will of
course result in more TSG assets - this in the form of shares that are
potentially worth very little right now - to be shared among the remaining
directors and employees. In other words, this motion is going to further dilute
and deplete the remaining assets of the estate.

Now here we are, a week later, and the same Judge has denied a motion to go to
arbitration on the grounds that it will deplete SCO of precious resources that
it needs for other things [like the Utah trial].

How can Judge Gross sit in his courtroom, with a straight face, and pass rulings
like this? I do not mean to be disrespectful of the US legal system. But this is
a sham, a travesty and it's utterly ridiculous.

To be honest, I am surprised that Novell aren't putting this Judge on notice a
little more. This court needs a wake-up call.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 08:03 AM EST
...the bankruptcy judge doesn't want anyone using litigation against SCO to
prevent SCO from continuing its illegal business, whilst allowing SCO to
continue its illegal business from behind the shield of bankruptcy.

The judge is effectively saying: I don't know who would win the arbitration, and
am not prepared to consider who might win the arbitration, therefore SuSE would
not win the arbitration.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wondering...
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 08:09 AM EST
Supposing arbitration remains stayed and the upcoming Utah trial occurs.
Regardless of who at trial is ruled to own the unspecified copyrights, what then
is the state of SCO vs Novell? Aren't there significant issues still to be
resolved, one of which is arbitration? (I don't see that arbitration would go
away if Novell is ruled to own, as arbitration was already occurring anyway,
well after Kimball ruled that Novell owned.) Would the remainder of SCO vs
Novell be stayed or unstayed?

It seems the litigation mess isn't going to go away and this is a Gross delay of
the inevitable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could we review the lawsuits and links
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 08:41 AM EST
Ive gotten everything all jumbled so i don't have a good grasp of whats what in
this so could somebody do a "last time on The TSCOG Circus" kind of
thing.
we have
The Bankruptcy: Delware emitting stays on other cases
The Novell Case: all but over with only the apa copyrights question to be
figured
The IBM case: Stayed due to both the Novell and bankruptcy
The Suse arbitration: Stayed due to the bankruptcy but could in fact gut the
bankruptcy and novell case is allowed to procede
The various minor cases: mostly either in stasis or stayed but would be more or
less trivial

have i missed anything???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Considerable harm
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 09:16 AM EST
The Court will deny the Motion based upon its findings that SCO would suffer considerable harm were it to permit the Arbitration to proceed.
At what point in the bankruptcy process does the harm to the rest of the world get to outweigh the potential harm to the debtors? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few ... or the one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Abuse of the bankruptcy system
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:29 PM EST
The judge is correctly implementing the rules of bankruptcy, the problem is that
those rules were never intended to be used this way. Chapter 11 is about giving
a company temporary protection from its debtors while it sorts itself out. You
aren't supposed to stay in Chapter 11 for years and pursue litigation. SCO's
lawyers (and now Cahn's lawyers) have cleverly manipulated the situation to
allow them to remain under the protection of the court indefinitely and are
using that protection to give themselves an unfair advantage in litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 03:50 PM EST
    • Not - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 08:12 PM EST
  • Abuse of the bankruptcy system - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 18 2010 @ 07:18 PM EST
SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch. - Updated
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 06:21 PM EST
I am disgusted at the way this whole court system seems determined to stack the
deck and load the dice wholly in SCO's favor. It makes my cynical mind wonder
if there is some secret behind the scenes hanky panky going on with a certain
powerful corporate interest, that us ordinary folk aren't privy to.

I hope and pray if it is that it will be thoroughly exposed and all those
involved thoroughly discredited.

---
Trusted computing:
It's not about, "Can you trust your computer?"
It's all about, "Can your computer trust you?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wouldn't mention the GPL either...
Authored by: BitOBear on Saturday, January 16 2010 @ 07:01 PM EST
Given this bankruptcy judge's apparent disregard for even his own rulings (q.v
the whole time-line thing etc) the last thing I would want is for this court to
make some sort of sua sponte ruling about a GPL issue.

It wouldn't be enforceable if the court ruled that "obviously SCO owns the
United Linux copyrights" etc, but it could be a huge pain in the behind in
the actual courts of record in the various litigation.

Given the willful and reckless disregard and general bias of this court, I would
only ask it once, and only ask it for the minimum; and I would bring none of my
issues or variables into play here at all.

As long as none of the creditors do anything to make the code look like a
"asset" of SCO that the bankruptcy court would have jurisdiction over,
things will come out reasonable in the end.

Better to spend the time now, then throw gas on the fire of dumbness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch. - Updated
Authored by: tanner andrews on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 10:36 AM EST
And how do you appeal discretion?

It is appealable. The court has abused its discretion if no reasonable person would agree with the court's ruling.

There is a body of appellate law where the standard of review is abuse of discretion. Part of the job in an appellate lawyer's initial brief is to identify the standard of review. So, in a case like this, you would phrase the question presented as, more or less: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to lift the stay of arbitration, where the issue in arbitration is largely dispositive of the case?

The lawyer for the appellant has the advantage of being able to frame the question. On the other hand, he also has the disadvantage that the trial court is presumed to have gotten it right.

---
I am not your lawyer; please ignore above message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch. - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 11:34 AM EST
I think we all (those of us who haven't yet) need to stop and fully realize the extent of the impact a favorable ruling, one that would cover linux users, would have on the US economy. Right now, Microsoft is the largest supplier of computer operating systems to the US government- including the US military.
I know, from personal experience, that the FOSS/linux FUD surrounding the SCO/M$/Novell/IBM has had a tremendous impact on the atmosphere in the government as a whole when it comes to choosing OS for rollouts and deployment on new servers and systems.
The enterprise level FDCC (standardized Federal Desktop Core Configuration) was a godsend for M$ and was mandated for deployment throughout the military and federal complex. Server 2003 is standard, as is Vista (no, not Win7).
In command and department meetings across the government, it is M$, M$ and more M$. In spite of any bogus PR from the POTUS and the WH, FOSS and linux are actively discouraged. No one in the government, civilian or military is being trained for FOSS and the only plans, the only alternative contengencies if something were to happen to M$ is paper. That's right, paper is the preferred alternative to a catastrophic failure of M$ viability. Thank about that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SUSE Motion to Lift Stay Denied. Natch. - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 11:42 AM EST
>
And I do believe Judge Gross is competent to understand such things, if he had
wished to figure out SCO's likelihood of prevailing
<

Based on the story so far, I have severe doubts. At least, that is better than
the alternative thought.

Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, does this preclude SUSE goint to the arbital tribunal anyway?
Authored by: OmniGeek on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 01:14 PM EST
Given that the UnitedLinux arbitratal tribunal in Switzerland is outside US
jurisdiction (whatever Judge Gross may say), is SUSE prevented from asking the
tribunal to just go ahead, even though an in absentia decision may then be
appealable by SCO?

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • A question - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 17 2010 @ 05:30 PM EST
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 )