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
Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:12 PM EDT

It seems Novell moved for mistrial on March 15 at the trial in SCO v. Novell. And there has been a decision on Novell's motion to allow evidence. The docket doesn't yet reflect the order on the motion to allow evidence, but you can see that it happened in this, the full text of the order on the oral motion by Novell for a mistrial:
This matter is before the Court on Defendantís Motion for Mistrial, made orally on March 15, 2010. For the same reasons stated in denying Defendantís Motion to Allow Evidence Responding to SCOís Allegation that Novellís Slander Continues ďTo This Very Day,Ē Defendantís Motion for Mistrial is DENIED.
As soon as we have the order providing "the same reasons, I'll update this article.

Here's the order that we do have:

03/15/2010 - 799 - ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS ORAL MOTION FOR MISTRIAL. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/15/2010. (asp) (Entered: 03/15/2010)

Update: A tiny hint further:

03/15/2010 - 800 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ted Stewart: Jury Trial held on 3/15/2010. Our of the hearing of the jury, defendants move for a mistrial. The Court takes the matter under advisement. Trial continues. Testimony heard, exhibits admitted. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Edward Normand, Brent Hatch, Attorney for Defendant Sterling Brennan, Eric Acker, Michael Jacobs. Court Reporter: Patti Walker, Kelly Hicken, Laura Robinson. (slm) (Entered: 03/15/2010)


  


Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence | 125 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:25 PM EDT
Please title error > correction.

Not that there should be any in an article this short.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it always like this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:25 PM EDT
Does the legal system work?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Closing Arguments Here
Authored by: webster on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:26 PM EDT
.

Please put down what you would like to say to the jury in closing. Do this to
the end of the trial. Sometimes a fact or phrasing or analogy can be totally
persuasive in irrefutable. So give it a try.

Pick a side and an argument.

These could be inspirational either to use or rebut.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:27 PM EDT
Please set us know which News Pick you wish to discuss it your title.

Also, please follow PJ's house rules and post HTML in clickies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oy vey!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:27 PM EDT
eom

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:28 PM EDT
Any discussion not pertaining to this posting by PJ.

Please follow the rules and put HTML in clickies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
Authored by: GriffMG on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:31 PM EDT
tSCOg must have invented teflon too

B-(

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

Imparitality?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:32 PM EDT
Is there anyone who still thinks that Judge Stewart is acting in any way
impartial?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fair Trial?
Authored by: LocoYokel on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:34 PM EDT
I get the impression that this judge either intends to force this issue to
another appeal or he seriously wants to stack the deck against Novell.

Maybe if he makes it bad enough the Supremes will notice, grant certiorari and
order a stay until they hear the case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mistrial? Why?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:42 PM EDT
I thought Brennan was doing wonderful last week.
He nailed Mr. Frankenberg. He nailed Mr. Mattingly.
I loved it.
I could almost feel the disgust the jury must be feeling when seeing Brennan and
Acker at work.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
Authored by: bishopi on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:44 PM EDT
I'm thinking that to have moved for a mistrial, today's session must have been a
real doozy..... going to be real interesting to see what's in the reports.

Ian



---
Naughty SCO, EVIL SCO, BAAAAAAAD SCO!

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is all rather sad ...
Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:46 PM EDT
So sad in fact that I had to go to lamlaw.com and re-read the article that he
wrote on march 12 to cheer me up, I guess I shall have to wait until I can read
Judge Stewart's reasoning as to why, and on what grounds, he denied that SCO had
not 'opened the door'.

Color me Grumpy

---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | # ]

What If?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 08:53 PM EDT
What would happen if one of Novell's witnesses would tell the jury that
ownership of the copyrights had been decided in court previously in their favor?
Just like what SCO did with their witness?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • What If? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:00 PM EDT
    • What If? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT
  • What If? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT
  • What If? - Authored by: nattt on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT
  • What If? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 10:15 PM EDT
Were any Groklaw reporters there today? (N/T)
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:09 PM EDT
Were there?

[ Reply to This | # ]

This could be good news...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:19 PM EDT

it's possible, I suppose, that the judge is leaning towards an end-of-trial
summary judgment or directed verdict on the slander of title charge--and that
declaring a mistrial, or even allowing Novell to present evidence that would be
a red flag for an SCO appeal, would undermine this eventuality.

We've seen judges to this before in the SCO case history--rule SCO's way on
intermediate motions, than smack them down at the end.

Or maybe not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • This could be good news... - Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:33 PM EDT
    • Waffles - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 12:37 AM EDT
      • Waffles - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 01:34 AM EDT
        • Waffles - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 11:52 AM EDT
Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
Authored by: MikeA on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:20 PM EDT

Doesn't surprise me that the motion to admit the evidence was denied. But I would like to read the reasoning, and see what alternatives the Judge suggests.

Question: would the judge provide alternative relief, or would Novell have to request a specific alternative themselves?

---
ď'Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business' are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:20 PM EDT
I don't think Judge Gross would have to petition himself for chapter 7. Perhaps
you mean Judge Cahn?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chill: The Court takes the matter under advisement
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:24 PM EDT
Could we all please stop jumping to conclusions about bias and fix until we have all the facts?

And if you don't like the system, change the system. Calling the system a joke isn't a solution. Going to law school and becoming a judge is a solution. Registering people to vote and campaigning for legislators who uphold rule of law (including habeas corpus) is a solution.

Sure, there may very well be problems with the system. There may be systemic problems with the system. Many here are systems engineers. What is the problem with the current system? Fix it. Convince enough people that your solution is useful and necessary to clean out the bit rot.

I suppose a lot of it is venting. But I think it's showing disrespect until we know all the facts, and if law clerks are reading these comments to think about cert, we may want to be slightly more respectful of the system as it's currently instantiated.

Not that people haven't been venting about the legal system since the dawn of democracy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bias and Judge Dale A Kimball
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:37 PM EDT
Been there, done that.

It appears all Groklaw posters missed Kimball's bias.

All of you are a bunch of retards and filthy rats!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Okay then
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:38 PM EDT
Okay then, let's watch SCO lose after having *everything* tipped in their favor.

---
-inode_buddha

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Relax
Authored by: webster on Monday, March 15 2010 @ 09:46 PM EDT
.

The SCO part of the trial is going on. Novell gets to go at SCO maligning their
title "to this very day" also. We have a long way to go.

~webster~

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 01:22 AM EDT
I wonder if Judge Stewart is wondering why he didn't recuse himself.


---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge seems to have crossed a line
Authored by: ak on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 03:26 AM EDT
By denying those two motions the judge seems to have crossed a line. But I will
wait with my final judgment until I have read his written reasons to deny the
first motion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm speechless.
Authored by: Ian Al on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 05:48 AM EDT
Hey, I said 'I'm speechless'.

OK

<rant></rant>

---
Regards
Ian Al

PJ: 'Have you read my open letter?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Novell call Judge Kimball?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 16 2010 @ 10:39 AM EDT
Something I've always wondered... If SCO has a surprise witness or three up
their sleeve, could Novell have one in the form of Judge Kimball?

"What is your conclusion with respect to the copyrights of Novell, and
whether any transferred to SCO?"
"What do you base that conclusion on?"

[ 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 )