decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Novell Files Bill of Costs (once again) in SCO v. Novell
Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 08:07 PM EDT

Novell has filed a Bill of Costs in SCO v. Novell for $315,501.19. That reflects, according to footnote 1 of the Memorandum in Support, the "previously allowed costs of $99,639.09, in addition to the $215,862.10 in costs sought in this memorandum." That's just *costs*, not attorneys' fees, so it's things like experts fee, court reporter fees, and fees for transcripts.

In this case, I see also a listing for "Mock Trial DVDs" on page 7. I sure would like to have those DVDs myself. Drool. I'll look into it. Since the company sells them, I'm sure I won't be able to make them available for free, but at least I can tell you about them. And I mention it because some of you may wish to get your own copies.

Here's SCO's bottom line so far: The more SCO litigates, the worse it gets for SCO's bottom line. On paper. They never paid the earlier award, I gather, so it's a loss on paper. They are the Make-Me company.

Here are the filings:

06/24/2010 - 879 - BILL OF COSTS filed by Novell, Inc.. (Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

06/24/2010 - 880 - RESPONSE re 879 Bill of Costs,, Memorandum filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 06/24/2010)

From docket #880, which is marked a Response by the clerk but which is actually a Memorandum in Support:
2. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” In the present case, Novell is the prevailing party, as evidenced by the Final Judgment (Dkt. No. 878) submitted herewith as Exhibit A. Novell, as the prevailing party, respectfully requests the Clerk of the Court tax The SCO Group, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”), total costs to Novell in the amount of $315,501.191 as detailed below.

3. On or about December 10, 2008, Novell submitted a Bill of Costs (Docket No. 573) for costs incurred in connection with the judgment entered on November 20, 2008. Pursuant to this Court’s Order of April 22, 2009, Novell’s allowed costs of $99,639.09 were included in the judgment (Docket No. 595).

4. The documentation supporting the Bill of Costs submitted as Docket No. 573 has not been resubmitted, as it is already a part of the record of the Court. However, those previously awarded costs are properly included in Novell’s total costs.

Here's Novell's prior bill of costs. The last time, SCO asked for a stay on figuring out the costs until the appeals were finished. Judge Dale Kimball denied that request. Presumably it can do the same again, if it appeals this new bill of costs. Otherwise, it's time to settle up on the earlier costs, as they were already awarded.

As to the amount, it's up to Judge Ted Stewart to now decide on the new costs submitted, with SCO free to object. The last time, it objected to some of the costs, and the judge lowered the amount slightly, and then the clerk signed the bill of costs. I wrote at the time:

Two of SCO's four objections were sustained, and the amounts subtracted from the totals -- the hotel rooms rented for depositions and the costs for video syncing. So Novell will have to eat those expenses. But most of the costs were sustained. Now all Novell has to figure out is how to get SCO to actually pay them.
Judging from the new bill of costs including the amount earlier determined to be owed, I gather SCO never paid what it owed.


Novell Files Bill of Costs (once again) in SCO v. Novell | 316 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections (Mistake --> Correct)
Authored by: Cypher3c on Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 09:06 PM EDT
Please post corrections in this thread.

Ubersoft Lawyer: "Not only do I rule the world, but I get paid $300/hour to do
so" (

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Cypher3c on Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 09:07 PM EDT
Place newspicks here. Please include links and place the name of the article in
the title.

Ubersoft Lawyer: "Not only do I rule the world, but I get paid $300/hour to do
so" (

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Cypher3c on Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 09:08 PM EDT
Anything on topic is off topic here. Don't make us use force.

Muahaha! I have achieved the coveted hat-trick/triple play/trifecta...etc.

Ubersoft Lawyer: "Not only do I rule the world, but I get paid $300/hour to do
so" (

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES goes here
Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 09:13 PM EDT
For transcriptions

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My main question:
Authored by: Zak3056 on Thursday, June 24 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT
Does this count as pre-petition (based on the beginning of the case itself) or
post-petition (based on the fact that Gross unstayed this case?) i.e. does
Novell's claim go to the bottom of the pile, or do they get to stand in line
with the professionals and actually get paid?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A million here, a million there ...
Authored by: argee on Friday, June 25 2010 @ 12:27 AM EDT
Pretty soon, you are talking *real money.*

My guess is that a lot of people are just laughing at this
whole "try to get cash from SCO" charade. Might as well,
because crying ain't gonna do it.

My latest cynical prediction: Some judge orders the
"funds disgorged", but they argue it to death and the
disgorgement moneys also goes to the lawyers (on both sides).


[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Bill of Costs (once again) in SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2010 @ 12:49 AM EDT
Can someone explain why so many court reporters were listed in this? I'm
surprised to see multiple ones on the same days. Is it normal to have
redundancy, did they work different shifts or what?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do what?
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, June 25 2010 @ 05:00 AM EDT
I thought that the US system did not award costs to the winning party. I went to Judge Kimball's bench trial final judgement and could not find a reference to it.

I thought payment of costs was only one of the sanctions available for frivolous cases or lawyer mischief. In spite of my views of the SCO team behaviour I don't recall such sanctions being made.

However, SCO arguing against Novell's costs seems to suggest that there was money to lose, here.

I would be grateful if someone who knew, could outline the rules.

One piece of trivia I add to my collection is that the stipulated traced funds to be placed in the constructive trust was recorded in the final judgement, above. I thought that had only been done in the bankruptcy court.

Ian Al
SCOG, what ever happened to them? Whatever, it was less than they deserve.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO can't pay their own costs let alone Novell's
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Friday, June 25 2010 @ 08:19 AM EDT
Seems like we are going to be winding this up pretty quickly.

SCO is to the place where they can't pay the lawyers running the company, can't
pay the lawyers presenting their case and can't pay for the coffee for the
lawyers on the winning side.

Once the lawyers decide to quit then it's quitin' time.


just swimming round and round

[ Reply to This | # ]

So when to they have to pay?
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, June 25 2010 @ 09:30 AM EDT
And can they?

It seems to me that, fairly soon, SCO must be unable to pay their bills, and presumably then Chapter 7 is inevitable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Bill of Costs and shatters one of my delusions.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, June 26 2010 @ 10:57 PM EDT
I had held out some hope that SCO's agreement to pay the funds held in trust and
their lack of comment meant that SCO and Novell were going to resolve the suit
on quickly.

It appears that Novell filing for costs means things are not going that well.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Origin of Lawyers
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 27 2010 @ 03:09 AM EDT
Once upon a long time ago, two farmers had a dispute about a cow. And as they could not reach any agreement, they asked their neighbor to help resolve the dispute. As he did successfully, the two farmers asked him how they could thank him.

"I'll get the cow," he replied.

[ 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 )