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
Novell Motion in Limine No. 1 - Let's All Live by the Mandate Rule, Shall We? - Updated
Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:41 AM EST

Novell has filed its first motion in limine [PDF], the full title of which is Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Claims Not Included in SCO's Appeal or the Tenth Circuit's Limited Mandate. It's making me chuckle.

Ah! The mandate rule. Since the judge, the Hon. Ted Stewart, highlighted it in one of his recent orders, as had Judge Cahn before him, Novell's response is, Fine. Let's all live by the mandate rule. Judge Stewart denied one of Novell's summary judgment motions, holding that the Tenth Circuit “remanded this matter to the Court for trial on those four specific issues identified in the mandate,” and that “[b]ecause of the specific nature of the mandate, the Court is not free to explore matters outside of it.”

So what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. Obviously, we'll find out now what Judge Stewart is made of, since it was his order that brings this motion in limine's argument to the fore. To deny Novell's motion, Judge Stewart has to more or less admit he goofed in his order on Novell's summary judgment motion on the slander of title special damages claim (or alternatively that he was too strict about the mandate rule in his order on Novell's 60(b) motion), which I earlier indicated I thought he had. What to do? What to do?

Now, judges are used to acknowledging their own errors, as it's part of their job to be reviewed by their superiors in the chain if not always by their betters. So that isn't likely to be a problem. I discern, then, that unless the fix is in, as they say, this motion in a normal universe would be granted. In short, I think we are about to find out if we are in a normal universe in Utah for the upcoming SCO v. Novell trial, beginning on March 8, or not.

Here it is:

02/06/2010 - 627 - MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Claims Not Included in SCO's Appeal or the Tenth Circuit's Limited Mandate filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Final Judgment, # 2 Exhibit 2-Tenth Circuit Opinion, # 3 Exhibit 3-SCO Appeal Brief, # 4 Exhibit 4-SCO Reply Brief, # 5 Exhibit 5-Ruling, # 6 Exhibit 6-Order)(Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 02/06/2010)

I don't think it much matters to Novell which way the judge rules, by the way, in that they won't mind if he decides the mandate rule isn't as restrictive as he earlier thought it was. Then they'll bring back to the table his order [PDF] denying their Rule 60(b) motion regarding the SCOsource license money. No judge, even if the fix were in, can blatantly favor only one side to a dispute. It has to be a lot more subtle and plausible-seeming than that, even if it is happening, which, in my experience, is rare. Litigation requires a very strong stomach and steady nerves. You have to have the ability to function well even if some ruling goes against you. Things don't always go your way, no matter how good you are or even how right. It's all in taking the long view, and trusting that the rules of the road matter and usually prevail in the end. And then not giving in to negativity, but instead, when the judge hands you lemons, thinking hard to figure out how you can turn them into some mighty refreshing lemonade.

When did Cahn talk about the mandate rule? Well, not directly, but I noticed at the last bankruptcy hearing that his attorney, Bonnie Fatell, said this in the context of opposing SUSE's motion to resume the arbitration:

Trustee has considered this and his view is that if there is an appeal, the legal issues have already been decided on SJ and the 10th Circ. has laid out a roadmap for how the trial should proceed, and so if there is an appeal it would probably be limited to evidenciary rulings or if there is a jury charge.
I noted the wording, "the 10th Circuit has laid out a roadmap for how the trial should proceed," and I figured that would be their strategy going forward, that on every issue in dispute, SCO would claim that the mandate rule applied and try to make the appeals court judgment apply somehow in their favor at every turn. And it gave me chills, I confess, when I saw that Judge Stewart was channeling that very theme in his recent order. SCO really only has won once in the entire 7 years of litigation, IIRC, and that was the appeals court ruling, so they would naturally wish to milk it for all it's worth, but how to explain the judge's order? I confess I could not. But what was clear was that both SCO and the judge were on the same page as regards the mandate rule. By the way, we have added a section listing all the substantive court orders in the SCO v. Novell litigation, so you can check me on that, if you want to.

But now, my friends, we have come to a true fork in the road. I can' t help but enjoy the view, and I'm looking forward to reading SCO's opposition to this motion, not just the judge's order. If you recall, which you probably don't, the first time around, when the parties filed their motions in limine, SCO tried to reargue issues already decided. So it isn't just the judge who is in an odd box now. Their whole style has been, as I see it, trying to reargue matters already decided, over and over, and also bringing in surprise elements to blindside Novell and IBM. How can they do that in the new trial, if the mandate rule strictly applies? Like I said, it is making me grin.

If you've forgotten what a motion in limine is, here's the definition from Nolo's Plain English Dictionary:

A motion made before a trial begins, asking the court to decide whether particular evidence will be admissible.
Update: The judge wants to hear from SCO:

02/08/2010 - 628 - DOCKET TEXT ORDER Plaintiff is directed to respond to 627 MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Claims Not Included in SCO's Appeal or the Tenth Circuit's Limited Mandate filed by Novell, Inc., by February 12, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. No attached document. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/8/2010. (tco) (Entered: 02/08/2010)

Here's the filing referenced, SCO's initial appellate brief, and here's the Novell motion in limine:

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

WORKMAN | NYDEGGER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Sterling A. Brennan (Utah State Bar No. 10060; [E-mail])
David R. Wright (Utah State Bar No. 5164: [E-mail])
Kirk R. Harris (Utah State Bar No. 10221; [E-mail])
Cara J. Baldwin (Utah State Bar No. 11863; [E-mail])

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs, Pro hac vice; [Email]
Eric M. Acker (Admitted Pro Hac Vice; [E-mail])
Grant L. Kim (Admitted Pro Hac Vice; [E-Mail]) [address]
[phone]
[fax]


Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,

v.

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

Case No. 2:04CV00139

NOVELL’S MOTION IN LIMINE
NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENT CONCERNING
CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN SCO’S
APPEAL OR THE TENTH
CIRCUIT’S LIMITED MANDATE


Judge Ted Stewart

Novell moves to preclude SCO from presenting evidence or argument on claims not included in SCO’s appeal or the Tenth Circuit’s mandate. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial on copyright ownership and SCO’s related claim for specific performance of Novell’s alleged duty to transfer copyrights to SCO. SCO did not appeal — and the Tenth Circuit did not reverse — the judgment on SCO’s slander of title claim or the copyright ownership portions of its unfair competition and covenant of good faith claims. Thus, SCO should be precluded from presenting evidence or argument on those claims.

I. BACKGROUND

SCO asserted four separate claims related to ownership of the UNIX copyrights in its operative Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 96, ¶¶ 91, 108, 99 & 122):

(1) Novell slandered SCO’s title by falsely stating that Novell owns the copyrights;

(2) Novell breached the APA by failing to specifically perform its obligation to transfer the UNIX copyrights to SCO;

(3) Novell breached the implied covenant of good faith under the APA and TLA by denying that it owns the copyrights; and

(4) Novell engaged in unfair competition by falsely claiming ownership of the UNIX copyrights.

Judge Kimball ruled on summary judgment 1 that “Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.” (Ex. 5 at 62.) Judge Kimball held that this ruling entitled Novell to summary judgment on all four claims above. (Id. at 62, 63, 65, 99.) On specific performance, Judge Kimball emphasized that “[n]either the original APA nor Amendment No. 2 entitle SCO to obtain ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.” (Id. at 62.) On unfair competition and good faith, Judge Kimball granted summary judgment on the additional ground that SCO had failed to present evidence that Novell’s public statements were “objectively unreasonable” or

1

"based on anything but its good faith interpretation of the contracts.” (Id. at 64-65.) In November 2008, Judge Kimball entered a final judgment dismissing “SCO’s claims for Slander of Title (Count I) and Specific Performance (Count III),” as well as “SCO’s claims for Breach of Contract (Count II)...and Unfair Competition (Count V), insofar as these claims are based on ownership of pre-APA UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.” (Ex. 1 at 1.)

In its opening brief, SCO asked the Tenth Circuit to reverse the rulings that “Santa Cruz did not acquire the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights under the APA” and that “SCO is not entitled to specific performance, requiring the transfer of those copyrights now,” as well as several unrelated claims (Ex. 3 at 70); but it did not seek reversal of the judgment on its slander of title claim, or the copyright ownership portions of its unfair competition and covenant of good faith claims (which were barely even mentioned). (See id. at 2, 4, 11, 31, 51, 70.) The Tenth Circuit remanded with a mandate closely tracking SCO’s request for relief:

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment with regards to the royalties due Novell under the 2003 Sun-SCO Agreement, but REVERSE the district court’s entry of summary judgment on (1) the ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; (2) SCO’s claim seeking specific performance; (3) the scope of Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA; (4) the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA. On these issues, we REMAND for trial [emphasis added].
SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1227 (10th Cir. 2009) (reproduced as Ex. 2).

Novell initially interpreted this remand as not necessarily barring retrial of other claims. Novell moved for relief from the judgment on its claim for SVRX royalties, as that judgment was based on the copyright ownership ruling that the Tenth Circuit reversed. This Court denied that motion, holding that the Tenth Circuit “remanded this matter to the Court for trial on those four specific issues identified in the mandate,” and that “[b]ecause of the specific nature of the mandate, the Court is not free to explore matters outside of it.” (Ex. 6 at 4.)

2

II. ARGUMENT

This Court ruled that the Tenth Circuit’s mandate limits the trial to the four specific issues identified in its mandate. The mandate includes (1) copyright ownership; (2) specific performance; (3) Novell’s rights under Section 4.16, which concerns SVRX licenses (and not copyright ownership); and (4) applying the covenant of good faith to those rights. The mandate does not include SCO’s slander of title claim or the copyright ownership portion of its unfair competition and good faith claims because SCO did not appeal, and the Tenth Circuit did not reverse, the judgment on these claims. The Tenth Circuit remanded for trial on copyright ownership in connection with SCO’s claim for specific performance and not in connection with any other claim. Copyright ownership is an essential element of SCO’s specific performance claim, as this claim requires SCO to prove that the contract entitled SCO to ownership, but Novell failed to sign the necessary transfer documents.

SCO may argue that the judgment on its slander of title claim should be vacated because it was based on the copyright ownership ruling that the Tenth Circuit reversed. However, this Court has already rejected that argument in the context of Novell’s Rule 60(b)(5) motion:

[SCO] could have easily argued to the Tenth Circuit that, if this Court’s decision concerning the ownership of the copyrights was reversed, the decision concerning [slander, unfair competition, and good faith] should similarly be reversed. [It] did not. The Court cannot ignore [SCO’s] decision not to address this issue on appeal.
(Ex. 6 at 4 [substituting SCO for Novell, mutatis mutandis].) See also SCO Group, 578 F.3d at 1226 (“An issue or argument insufficiently raised in a party’s opening brief is deemed waived”). Under the Tenth Circuit’s mandate and this Court’s recent ruling, SCO should be precluded from presenting any evidence or argument on the slander of title, unfair competition, and good faith claims that were not included in SCO’s appeal or the limited mandate.

3

DATED: February 6, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Sterling A. Brennan
WORKMAN NYDEGGER

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.


Judge Kimball’s summary judgment ruling and final judgment, the Tenth Circuit’s opinion, and SCO’s appeal briefs are reproduced as exhibits hereto.

4


  


Novell Motion in Limine No. 1 - Let's All Live by the Mandate Rule, Shall We? - Updated | 233 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections here in title n/t
Authored by: webster on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:43 AM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here
Authored by: jbeadle on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:49 AM EST
Please make links clickable...

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

All things COMES here, please.
Authored by: jbeadle on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:50 AM EST

Thanks,
-jb

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks comments here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:51 AM EST
The title of your post should reflect the NewsPick title.

Thanks,
-jb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Happy Super Bowl comments here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:53 AM EST

If anyone is so inclined...

Thanks,
-jb

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander
Authored by: jbeadle on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 12:18 PM EST
Don't you just love MoFo???

If nothing else, they are certainly greasing the skids in case they need to
appeal the trial in the Hon. Ted Stewart's court...

Thanks,
-jb

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Punt! I say
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 01:27 PM EST

A joy to read!

Substituting SCO for Novell -- what a show!

:-)


bjd


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No doubt - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 01:32 PM EST
    • No doubt - Authored by: kenryan on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 02:49 PM EST
      • No doubt - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 08:10 AM EST
  • The worrier in me - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 10:51 AM EST
So What?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 01:32 PM EST
Since this case has left Judge Kimball's court, it has gone into someplace that
seems very much like Alice in Wonderland. Its an incredible place where
copyright law is interpreted differently in the 10th District then it had been
in the past and in every other district. It's a world in which a federal judge
rules that a ruling that was mooted by what the appellate court ruled, should
stand. Why shouldn't the rules be different in this world for SCO and Novel?
Judge Stewart can sit on the bench as long as he would like to. Unless someone
brings criminal charges against him, which is very unlikely, he will never be
impeached. So why not make two different sets of rules?

[ Reply to This | # ]

a chance to see which way the wind blows ...
Authored by: nsomos on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 01:56 PM EST
This will be a great chance to see which way the wind happens
to be blowing. I hope the judge realizes that there are
many bright minds watching and analyzing everything he does.

Any rude or coarse unfairness or favoritism will not be
allowed to pass without notice or comment. While it may be
true that not all Groklawers will notice or understand all
that takes place, it is equally true that it is extremely
unlikely that we will all be fooled and all miss something.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"To thine own self be true"
Authored by: webster on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 02:45 PM EST
.
The Court of Appeals certainly left a smelly one. They are starting to count
the ways, to say nothing of the rules of evidence.

Judge Stewart will bite his stiff upper lip with gritted teeth and plow forward
with his already imperfect trial. He will grant this motion for the sake of
consistency and the appearance of fairness, if not more. That's what the parties
get for going to trial, decisions such as they are. That is what justice is.

One surmises that SCO may concede given everyone's position the last time this
came up, but that's not their style --unless they are racing the clock and their
wallet. They will use Novell's argument with a straight face. Imagine if the
Judge swallows his words and denies this motion without hearing again. Novell
would have to file for recusal.

If Stewart is not in a hurry, maybe they could re-certify it all back to the
Circuit for more of their intentions, if not wisdom.

How many motions in limine will there be?

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Simple?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 03:30 PM EST
Let's look again at the quote from the writings of the tenth circus.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment with regards to the royalties due Novell under the 2003 Sun-SCO Agreement, but REVERSE the district court’s entry of summary judgment on (1) the ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; (2) SCO’s claim seeking specific performance; (3) the scope of Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA; (4) the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Novell’s rights under Section 4.16 of the APA. On these issues, we REMAND for trial [emphasis added].

You see, the specific matter of royalties SCO owes Novell were part of the appeal, and the tenth circus did rule on those specific matters. The judge has does not have discretion to include these matters in the trial, becuase this would contradict the specific points of the mandate.

In complete contrast the matters of slander of title, etc, were not part of the appeal, and the tenth circus did not rule on those specific points. The judge does have discretion to include these matters in the trial, because this would not contradict the specific points of the mandate.

Motion denied.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, PJ, I hope you are right.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 04:44 PM EST

No judge, even if the fix were in, can blatantly favor only one side to a dispute. It has to be a lot more subtle and plausible-seeming than that

Have you forgotten about Judge Gross' rulings so quickly?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Motion in Limine No. 1 - Let's All Live by the Mandate Rule, Shall We?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 05:57 PM EST
"... we are about to find out if we are in a normal universe ... or
not"

LOL. Tell it like it is, PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The real issue is the size of the dancing floor
Authored by: PolR on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 07:50 PM EST
PJ said:
I discern, then, that unless the fix is in, as they say, this motion in a normal universe would be granted. In short, I think we are about to find out if we are in a normal universe in Utah

...

No judge, even if the fix were in, can blatantly favor only one side to a dispute. It has to be a lot more subtle and plausible-seeming than that, even if it is happening, which, in my experience, is rare.

You know what I thought upon seeing this? We will find out if the judge is not subtle. But if he is nothing conclusive will happen.

Then I realized that Novell's motion is barring SCO from doing a do over on a large part of the trial. Does this matter? Unfortunately I think it may not. This slander of title thing is a charade. The real issue is that SCO is trying to get hold of the copyrights despite the APA because they need them for the IBM trial and selling SCOsource licenses. They won't mind much losing on the charade as long as they win on the copyrights. The issue that really matters to SCO is the one being tried. So a subtle judge that wants to provide a fix would just grant Novell's motion and then proceed to help SCO get the copyrights.

I am NOT saying that the fix is in. I am just speculating on the scenarios that follow from PJ's comments.

What Novell really wins from this motion is that it reduces the size of the dancing floor for the SCO lawyers' tap dance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell and Utah
Authored by: Ollathair on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 08:13 PM EST
For those who think the fix is in, because SCO are playing to a home crowd, in
their home state, consider this;

Novell have and continue to have, a large presence in Utah.
Novell are also a major employer in Utah.
Novell have a Technology campus in Utah, that also provides a lot of their
R&D.

A lot of the players involved in this saga, that are Native to Utah, are or were
at one time, connected to Novell, in some way.

So, while Judge Stewart may be interesting, in that he appears to favour SCO, at
this point, as PJ has noted, should Judge Stewart deviate to far from the
acceptable norm, then Novell's MoFo crew will certainly pull him back into
line.

Unlike the Delaware B.K. Court Judge, whose job is to provide Commercial
entities mostly whatever they want, within the Delaware B.K. Court rules, while
often being free to loosely enforce their own Delaware B.K. Court rules, within
reason, Utah District Court Judge, Stewart, is bound by far higher standards,
whether he likes it, or not.

The worst possible outcome for SCO, is that Judge Stewart creates any issue in
law, where his ruling would be appealed, as opposed to could be, which is SCO's
forte.

Any ruling made by Utah District Court Judge, Stewart, that is outside of the
scope of the Utah District Court, or could be considered LEGALLY unfair or
unreasonable, will backfire in a spectacular fashion.

Novell can insist that this Utah District Court Judge RECUSE himself, should he
make any ruling that is too far out of the norm.

For that matter, Novell can also insist that Judge Stewart RECUSE himself if he
shows to much BIAS, or if he is found to be connected to SCO, or influenced by
any third party.

Should anything like that happen, it would be a disaster for SCO, as they would
so damage their standing in the local community, that a Utah Jury trial would
become a liability, not an asset.

As for Judge Stewart being corrupt, I have yet to see anything that yet rises to
that level.

Lacking apparent wisdom in his Judicial rulings, to date, certainly, there
appears to be no argument there.

However, Novell has given clear indication that they intended to quite
vigorously enforce the rules of the LEGAL road, where the Utah District Court is
concerned.

Should Judge Stewart indeed RECUSE himself, or be forced to do so, then the next
most likely Judge to be assigned this case would be Judge Campbell.

That then, would truly be a disaster for SCO.

However, given SCO's previous history, until we see how their first day in Court
works out, then we can but speculate outcomes.

The first speculation is, if they can get that far, by this March, or more
telling, if it gets pushed back?.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So who decides the scope of the trial, and when?
Authored by: ChrisP on Sunday, February 07 2010 @ 11:42 PM EST
The Appeals Court sent back 4 issues to be tried by jury. No doubt they will
need refining, and how is a jury supposed to navigate their way through contract
and California fair play laws to decide on the two APA 4.16 issues?

Judge Stewart's order denying Novell's motion to bring the royalties back into
play appears to support the view that only those 4 issues are in play. However
his order on the SJ motion about slander of title leaves two avenues for SCOG to
pursue on that, and would other dependant claims be allowed?

I think its important to Novell not to be found guilty of slander of title. That
would damage their reputation so we see with this present motion in limine a
sort of pre-emptive strike to preserve Kimball's slander judgement, and others.

Is it possible we won't find out until the first morning of the trial after
final arguments about the jury instructions are resolved?

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My favorite part - mutatis mutandis
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 11:11 AM EST
Substituting [SCO] for [Novell] in pointing out the Judge's previous order
denying appeal of already decided issues that weren't appealed until after the
10th Circuit decision is priceless.

I would not be surprised if Novell hadn't taken this tack in the original appeal
request to this Court, on purpose. It gives them an awfully big stick to hit
either SCO or the Judge with to keep this farce trimmed down timewise and
scopewise. Or gives them the power to stretch it out until SCO runs out of
money. It also gives them an awfully good case for appealing any prejudicial
decisions down the road.


- Celtic_Hackr

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOsource license money - Novell Motion in Limine No. 1 - Let's All Live by the Mandate Rule,...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 04:08 PM EST
Makes one wonder if Novell planned this when they filed to revisit the SCOsource
license money issue. Perhaps expecting it to be quashed this way so they could
use it now to tie SCO's hands, having experience with the way SCO operates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The judge wants to hear from SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 04:38 PM EST
Oh dear, we've heard this before, remember when the tenth circus wanted to hear
from SCO? I hope the judge doesnt signal that he wants the words to to deny the
motion ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Motion in Limine No. 1 - Let's All Live by the Mandate Rule, Shall We? - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 05:11 PM EST
Seems to me that the biggest upside for Novell to block the re-raising of the
Slander of Title claim is that it leaves only contract-based claims on SCO's
table.

While Slander of Title was always a vast stretch to prove for SCO, it is a tort
claim, and opens up a different world of potential damages.

So -- to block that claim now, seriously undercuts SCO's leverage in negotiating
"on the courthouse steps", as the upside on contract damages is a more
limited universe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

America oh america
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 06:24 PM EST
lets see if this trial can last another 7-8 years.
WHAT a waste of money , htink about how much of all this could have been spent
on haiti to help people.

IF copyrights were 12years and patents were abolished what a world .....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Motion in Limine - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 08 2010 @ 08:46 PM EST
Interesting to note, that when Novell filed the original request for trial for
the MS-SCO monies, Judge Stewart ruled immediately without hearing from SCO.
Now the new order from the Judge is "SCO respond". Could this be
construed as showing favoritism? Or, did he just realize now he's closed the
SCO box, and they won't have much to argue?
IMHO, to sway the jury SCO was probably counting on the likes of people who
don't have a contractual involvement to tell all the nasty stuff the mean 'ole
Novell did to SCO. Now, they can't bring MOG and others to sing that tune.
Of course, the could always say, "Well, let Novell bring that stuff up,
cause we don't have any money", so yeah, we'll allow stuff outside the
Appellate Court ruling. Of course, would Novell's answer be, nope we're fine
with the limits imposed by the Appellate Court and carried out by this court, we
were just ensuring the boundaries apply to everyone.

[ 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 )