|
Stewart Rules on Daubert Motions: SCO's Experts Can Testify |
|
Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 04:58 PM EST
|
Judge Ted Stewart has denied all three Novell motions for Daubert hearings. In essence, he says, let the jury decide. Novell can cross-examine them to highlight any flaws.
Here they are:
03/02/2010 - 745 - MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 659 Motion for Daubert Hearing. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/02/2010. (asp) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/02/2010 - 746 - MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 655 Motion for Daubert Hearing. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/02/2010. (asp) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
03/02/2010 - 747 - MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 657 Motion for Daubert Hearing. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/02/2010. (asp) (Entered: 03/02/2010)
On G. Gervaise Davis, the first SCO expert, Stewart carefully outlines what Davis will be allowed to say and what he will not, also relying on SCO representations as to what they will and won't ask him. (You know SCOfolk always keep their word, don't you?) For example, he won't be allowed to tell the jury who he thinks owns the copyrights. He can testify as to his experience over his working life as an attorney as to whether ownership of the copyrights was necessary for SCO to operate its business, but he "will not be telling the jury that the law does require ownership". With regard to Christine Botosan, he decided that the perceived weaknesses in her method and conclusions go to their weight, not their admissibility, "and are proper fodder for cross-examination". That was SCO's argument, if you recall. As to Novell's claim that she was a conduit for hearsay, Judge Stewart says experts can base their opinions on "evidence not otherwise admissible" if it's the type "reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field." Novell can highlight weaknesses in cross-examination. As for Gary Pisano, Stewart claims Novell didn't challenge the Yankee Group study methodology, just Pisano's ability to recall what it was. Novell did argue that Pisano's reliance on the study was flawed because it was insensitive to price, but Stewart rejects that argument saying that SCO says Pisano did consider price. Again, he tells Novell to use cross examination or call its own expert to refute Pisano, which we know Novell plans to do. And the judge says he'll include in the jury instructions "how to evaluate the credibility of expert witnesses." If he tells them to evaluate it as he does here, however, I doubt that will be the least bit helpful to anyone but SCO, frankly. Speaking of analysts, I recalled today another reason SCOsource wasn't popular. According to Dion Cornett, then an analyst covering SCO, here's what he said, in June of 2004, was damaging SCO business across the board: "Some of their core customers are being scared off by the lawsuits," said Dion Cornett, an analyst at Decatur Jones Equity Partners. "SCO has sued some of its customers, and that is what's scaring people off."
So, according to this analyst, SCOsource was connected with lawsuits in the market's mind, and they ran from SCO. I just mention it in case anyone is looking for an analyst. In fact, for quite a long stretch, IIRC, he was the only analyst covering SCO. Last I heard, he was at Red Hat.
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:07 PM EST |
kurexions => corrections [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:09 PM EST |
Use the title whenever it's helpful [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:15 PM EST |
No on-topic stuff here!
Otherwise we'll take you out back and shoot the breeze with you :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Does SCO sue Tarantella? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:33 PM EST
- microsoft wants to tax us - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:48 PM EST
- Off topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:55 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 06:28 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 07:52 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: elronxenu on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 08:16 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 08:51 PM EST
- I doubt this has much to do with our tempest - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:12 PM EST
- The ABCs of Elliott Associates - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:18 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:57 PM EST
- It's not about Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:59 PM EST
- Parawhoogle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 10:02 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 10:42 PM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 12:00 AM EST
- I think it's just an asset stripping raid. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 12:58 AM EST
- Too much anonymous misinformation flowing here - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 03:25 AM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: ralevin on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 11:32 AM EST
- Elliott Associates Offers to Buy Novell - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:05 PM EST
- Complication - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:50 PM EST
- Clarification - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 11:00 AM EST
- Off topic here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 07:36 PM EST
- hedge fund offer 2b for novel - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 09:39 PM EST
- Rise of the Citizen Scientists - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 01:35 AM EST
- Apple sues HTC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 02:24 AM EST
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:18 PM EST |
For all you busy beavers who aren't currently distracted by the main ring of
this circus.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:20 PM EST |
Like "D'oh bears", do-bees and don't-bees [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 05:27 PM EST |
Why am I not surprised that Novell's motions were denied? Still, after this,
certain yahoos won't be able to complain that SCOXQ.BK didn't get their day in
court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 06:06 PM EST |
Since these are all such appallingly uncredible witnesses, Novell's lawyers
should have a field day tearing them apart in court. Fetch the popcorn![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Splendid! - Authored by: Lazarus on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 06:15 PM EST
- Splendid! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 06:18 PM EST
- Splendid! - Authored by: itsnotme on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 02:43 AM EST
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 06:40 PM EST |
... to hang themselves and then a couple more feet, just to be
sure.
Does
it really help SCO to be able to trot out witnesses and
experts only to have
them thoroughly debunked by Novell?
The primary thing the jury must decide
is who is telling the truth
and who is lying. I've got no problem with giving
the jury
another chance to see through SCO's tissue of lies (YMMVG).
The
10th Circuit CoA said they want a jury to hear SCO's
witnesses so Judge Stewart
is going to let the jury hear SCO's
witnesses. Anything less risks another
successful appeal by
SCO if they lose.
If Judge Stewart calls a reasonably
fair
fight in the courtroom, I still don't see how SCO stands a chance.
IMO
the danger this month (March, 2010) is in from shenanigans
in Delaware, not in
Utah.
What the heck is going on in Delaware with those two
egregiously
foul motions to hand over everything to Darl and
Yarro? Why bother with those
motions if they will almost surely
be denied? If the motions are granted then
Darl and Yarro
stand to inherit everything and can crank up their anti-Linux
freakshow at a latter date. I think the reason these motions
were filed is
to block any possible legitimate short-term bailout.
What
happens if
SCO goes chapter 7 in the middle of the trial
(especially when it looks like
they are going to go down in
flames)? Will the trial continue or will the
proceedings
be halted yet again right before SCO expects to receive the coup
de grĂ¢ce? Are they going to be able to spin it that everything
they said was
true and they would have been totally vindicated
if only they had a few more
weeks to get to the end of the trial?
Or are they going to say that the
possibility of billions and
billions of dollars at the end of the litigation
rainbow justify
stiffing the creditors completely and
giving everything that is
left to Yarro and Darl despite the
egregious terms?
This is just my
opinion. YOMVG.
--- You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 06:41 PM EST |
Dion Cornett's remarks remind me of something I have been wondering about. The
common view seems to be that Microsoft is behind these cases as an attack
against Linux. Perhaps, instead, it was an attack against SCO, Linux only being
a secondary target.
SCO, with a reliable server presence, developing a Linux desktop and knowing the
retail industry would be a threat to Microsoft world domination. Where would W2k
or XP be in the lucrative supermarket market if Linux cash registers were
reporting back to Unix servers? Likewise the office desktop and back office.
Perhaps, by getting SCO to drop Linux like a hot potatoe and change its focus to
a litigation base they sought to remove a dangerous competitor while causing
collateral damage to a rival OS.
Just a thought.
Tufty
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: CraigV on Tuesday, March 02 2010 @ 10:26 PM EST |
I can't help but wonder if Novell's ability to present a clear picture of their
case will be hindered by the necessity of spending time on debunking SCO's bogus
experts.
It seems to me that a common tactic in arguing is to divert the discussion to
unimportant side points to hide one's weaknesses on important aspects.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 12:28 AM EST |
G. Gervaise Davis (...) He can testify as to his experience over his
working life as an attorney as to whether ownership of the copyrights was
necessary for SCO to operate its business, but he "will not be telling the jury
that the law does require ownership".
Here's a few questions
that I would like to see asked of Mr. Davis:
- Q: Are you familiar
with how SCOG conducted business in the past? (A: Maybe).
- Q: Are you
familiar with the name that SCOG originally operated under? (A:
Caldera).
- Q: What was Caldera's major product prior to the purchase
of Santa Cruz's Unix business? (A: Linux).
- Q: Did Caldera raise money
from investors based on the premise of operating a Linux business? (A: Yes).
- Q: Did Caldera own all or substantially all of the copyrights to
Linux when operating that business? (A: No).
- Q: Was Caldera able to
operate that business without owning those copyrights? (A: Yes).
- Q:
Why would Caldera require the copyrights to Unix in order to operate a business
very similar to one that they were already operating without owning copyrights?
(A: ???).
- Q: In what manner was SCOG not able to operating a business
in the manner envisioned under the original agreement? (A:
???).
Of all the companies that would try making a
claim like this, Caldera, one of the very earliest Linux distros, seems like the
least believable one to make such a claim. Are they claiming now that their
representations to their original investors were all based on lies? What are
they admitting to here?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 02:50 AM EST |
Novell will now have to put resources (the valuable time of skilled lawyers)
into preparing their cross-examination of these dubious witnesses. Their
testimony could, despite Novell's best efforts, still confuse the
jury.
Testimony which has been shown to be worthless should simply not be
presented to the jury. The decision to allow it all, and thereby lengthen the
trial, was surely wrong. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: peope on Wednesday, March 03 2010 @ 05:18 AM EST |
This reminds me of the old pope and the crusades when he said "Kill them
all and let god sort them out".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|