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
SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again. - Updated
Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:24 PM EDT

SCO has filed its notice of appeal:

07/07/2010 - 881 - NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 876 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, 878 Judgment, 877 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for New Trial, Memorandum Decision filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1088-1150192. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 07/07/2010)

As you can see, they hope the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will bail them out again:
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Jury Verdict entered in this action on March 30, 2010, the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 10, 2010, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying SCO’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial dated June 10, 2010, and the Final Judgment entered on June 10, 2010.
They're appealing everything, in short, or they'd like a new trial. Because three trials isn't enough when you're not having fun. Speaking of which, I confess. I'm so sick of SCO I could spit.

Update: I couldn't help but recall IBM's question in its reply to SCO's opposition to its motion to convert, a year ago:
A. The Debtors Should Not Be Allowed to Remain in Chapter 11 Indefinitely Just to Pursue Litigation

3. At each stage of these Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors have argued that they need only one more step in the Utah litigation for them to rehabilitate. Their First Extension Motion filed on January 2, 2008 argued for more time to propose a plan until the Utah Court reached judgment "even if the entire judgment is on appeal". (First Extension Motion at ¶ 13.) Their Second Extension Motion filed on May 9, 2008 argued for more time to reflect the results of the May 2, 2008 trial conducted in the Utah litigation. Their Third Extension Motion filed on August 11, 2008 sought an extension until 45 days after entry of final judgment (which this Court did not grant) on the ground that entry of final judgment and commencement of an appeal would facilitate a sale or recapitalization. In arguing their Fourth Extension Motion, they stated in Court they needed only until May 6, 2009 oral argument in the appeal.

4. Now, the Debtors argue that if only they can hold out until a favorable decision in their appeal in the Utah litigation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the "Tenth Circuit"), they will be able to rehabilitate, customers will return, cash will be available, claims will be reduced and investors will be knocking down their door. (Debtors' Response at 10-12.) However, they admit that a favorable ruling would result only in returning the matter to the Utah Court for trial.

5. One is left to wonder, will the Debtors then argue for further deferrals of these Chapter 11 cases, in stages, until the Utah Court tries the case, until the jury returns a verdict, until the Utah Court enters judgment, until the judgment is appealed, until there is oral argument on the appeal and until the Tenth Circuit decides? Is their present prediction that passing the next stage of litigation will make rehabilitation possible any more likely to pan out than their prior four predictions? Will the process start all over for the IBM Case, which is not nearly so advanced as the Novell Case?

At the time, I thought it was hyperbole. Now I think we are going to live this, every step, sort of like the infamous Boies Schiller gardener case. Remember that?
The parties settled their differences in August 1998, but have been suing each other over compliance with the terms of their settlement agreement ever since. Throughout the litigation, Habie and her attorneys have been sanctioned nine times by six different judges for violating at least 13 court orders related to the settlement and discovery orders.

In February, Lewis, who is handling the case pro se, filed a motion asking Judge Crow to disqualify Boies from the case because his firm was bankrolling Habie's five-year court battle against him. Having Boies' firm pay Habie's legal fees gave her an unfair advantage because she had no financial incentive to resolve the dispute quickly, Lewis argued.

"No reasonable person ever would have set aside 10 sanction orders by six different judges and continued the relentless pursuit of the destruction of the Lewises without the assurances and backing of powerful and committed legal counsel such as David Boies," Lewis said in court papers.

That was back in 2003. The case, which began in 1996, was still going on in 2006, although Boies Schiller was ordered off the case. Litigation isn't always rational.

  


SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again. - Updated | 412 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
teehee
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:29 PM EDT
may as well!

[ Reply to This | # ]

/me checks calendar
Authored by: archanoid on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:34 PM EDT
Hmm. Not April 1st. Oh well. I can't say I'm surprised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:38 PM EDT
Awwwww... ain't that CUTE!!?? The little company that thought it
could!! Too bad what it thinks it can do is steal software from a
few thousand people around the world, and that trash ain't gonna
wash. Have fun with that, SCO. How in the world the trustee could
think this is in the best interest of the company and its
creditors is completely beyond me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Only notice of appeal, a couple of days before the deadline
Authored by: UncleJosh on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT
And, coincidentally, a couple of days before the next hearing in bankruptcy
court in Deleware.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:39 PM EDT
PJ (July 4):
I gather we all must wait to see what SCO comes up with next. No doubt the lawyers are thinking, trying to come up with something. Will they appeal? I can't imagine what. The judge ruled for them in almost everything during the trial.

What in the world does the prolonged silence mean?
*snerk* Well, now we know!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps Cahn wants to get fired.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:41 PM EDT
It does make me wonder what it would take to get Cahn removed. If he wanted out
now or as soon as all the money is gone is this how you do it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:54 PM EDT
we can only hope that the appeals court refuses to hear the case or tells them 3
striks and your out and scotus does the same. Because you know they will.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surely this can't go on forever? Can it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT
Is there some limit on this?

Or can they just keep appealing?

This is a serious question. Regardless of whether this appeal is granted, does
the system allow infinite appeals?

Or when you go to court there is the very real possibility the issues are NEVER
resolved?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: polymath on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 08:58 PM EDT
In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle...

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections if any here please
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT
This would be a fine place to put corrrections.
It might be helpful to summarize in the title ..
e.g. corrrections->corrections

If PDFs are involved, checking the original is recommended.
Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT
"...the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial..."

Really? Seriously? I thought they won all of those rulings...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic posts here please
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:07 PM EDT
Please post here for topics not relevant to this article,
but on topic for Groklaw in general. The intersection of
law and technology might not be too far off the mark.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks thread
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT
This would be a fine place for your posts relating to
the various Newspicks. Please help folks out by at least
giving the title of the Newspick, if not a link to the
pick itself. It is not uncommon for picks to sometimes
scroll rapidly down (really ... watch sometimes) and be
no longer visible well before your interest in PJs article
has waned.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES thread
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:13 PM EDT
COMES transcriptions here please.
Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: electron on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:14 PM EDT
It seems to me that this sort of corrupt gaming of the judicial system is unique
to the USA.


---
Electron

"A life? Sounds great! Do you know where I could download one?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many millions has Cahn blown through?
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:14 PM EDT
I can't see how continuing to squander money on hopeless appeals is going to do
SCO's creditors any good at all. Cahn is clearly not working for the benefit of
creditors which leaves a big question as to what is he actually doing other than
fattening the wallets of all the consultants he hires? It's beginning to look
more and more like a racket. Become a trustee, then make all the money flow to
your friends in the form of professional services. That is the only thing I see
going on here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:18 PM EDT
Ye gods! What will it take to finally kill this case - crosses, stakes, garlic,
holy water!?!
[I mean the case, not the people involved, BTW]
Or maybe that's the wrong metaphor - perhaps more like a zombie - every time
it's buried it claws itself out of the grave and keeps shambling blindly
onwards.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is going to need money ...
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:23 PM EDT
SCO is going to need money going forward.
They are going to get it one way or another,
by hook or by crook.

Perhaps Cahn should begin to take seriously some of
the money making opportunities that have been presented.

I still think non-exclusive non-transferable source
licenses can generate substantial income for now.
It also needs to be acted upon before all the bits
and know-how are gone.

I also think Cahn could auction off rights to the
unredacted versions of various redacted and/or sealed
court documents. These would be presented once all
possible appeals are lost, and SCO is to be dissolved.
Should SCO win, they can simply refund the winning
bids, and keep those documents. I would guess there
would be interest from a number of parties or people
in such documents. It would likely fetch the most
if the eventual access were auctioned off on each
document separately rather than all together.

(Of course I would want Cahn's neck to personally
be on the line if for any reason the documents cannot
be delivered when the time comes)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Honestly, I would have been surprised only if they hadn't appealed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT
Realize that Cahn, Fatell, Gross, Yarro, and all their cronies know that SCOG is
practically worthless and the only thing SCOG is good for is as a litigation
lottery fund.

They're not interested in reviving SCOG as a going concern. All the feigned
outrage was and is just a stage play for the gullible. In reality, the SCOG
band of merry men are feeling roundly humiliated and dejected and have no desire
to face the world as a software company. They're too proud. You probably know
how it is when: you make a dumb move and instead of a "mea culpa," you
try to save face; but every additional move you make keeps burying you further
and further. And when the humiliation you were trying so desperately to avoid
finally catches up with you, it hits you with a force many times greater than it
otherwise would have. We shall yet see a [C]aldera formed in the Utah desert.
:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:34 PM EDT
They're appealing everything, ...

Ah yes, the pasta strategy. Throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: ndowens04 on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:36 PM EDT
I wish they would give up, ugh. Can they ever get the point that they have lost
many times because nobody buys into their lies. Is this ever going to stop? I
guess they will keep trying until they win or have no money at all. They should
focus on running their business instead of using the courts for their dance
floor. I am sure there are plenty of other cases that needs to be taken care of
instead of wasting people's time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: cmcnabb on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:38 PM EDT
Albert Einstein has been reported to have once said that insanity was doing the
same thing over and over and expecting a different result. By this definition,
the fellows at SCO should be committed to their nearest mental institution.

---
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the
government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's a pump & dump (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT
Not a troll, but seriously
has no one here been through a pump and dump before?

No takers on my bet, now $100
the bet is

SCO will one night/ weekend clean out their offices and be gone
without a trace

loser pays $100 to charity of winners choice.
Scanned receipt (jpg/PDF) must be provided within 3 weeks of losing the
bet

anyone can take this bet but I posted this when this started
and to this day no one has dared bet against me

i know exactly how this will end up, I lived through it first-hand

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: blaisepascal on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:04 PM EDT
If I understand the process right, this is what happens
next:

1. The case gets appointed a panel of three judges on the
10th circuit CoA.
2. SCO submits briefs detailing their appeal
3. Novell submits a reply brief
4. SCO submits a reply to their reply
5. The Judges hold oral arguments
6. The Judges issue an opinion.

If, as we exect, the judges decide to sustain the district
courts rulings, then SCO can appeal to the 10th Circuit
<i>en banc</i>, but unlike this appeal, the 10th Circuit can
decline to hear it. Similarly if SCO chooses to appeal to
the SCOTUS.

Hmmm, Novell currently has an outstanding petition to SCOTUS
regarding whether or not copyright transfer has to be
explicit. With the ruling as it stands, their petition is
moot, but with the appeal, it's still live. So if SCO won
their appeal and got another trial, they could still lose
the existing appeal, pulling the rug out from under the 2nd
trial... Interesting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOmbie - when corporations become one of the undead
Authored by: tz on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:09 PM EDT
No Suferatu allowed.

This is worse than the dismembered Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy
Grail.

Or the dead parrot sketch:

Ms Pamela: Look, matey, I know a dead corporation when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.

Delaware: No no They're not dead, they're, they're restin'! Remarkable corp, the
SCOrwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful logo!

Ms Pamela: The logo don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/dead-parrot.htm

Keep the red dress ready for a little while longer, sigh.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How about them stock figures?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:34 PM EDT
Well, well, well, what have we here? I just looked up SCOXQ.PK on Yahoo!
Finance, and this is what I found:

Last trade: $0.0425 at 12:40pm EDT
Change: $0.00
Market cap: $917,490

N.B.: I had to disable JavaScript to get the market cap to stay on the page. The
funny part is, with JS enabled, the market cap dropped to $0.00.

So they have roughly 21.6M shares, and all that could get them at the current
going price is less than a megabuck.

Please, somebody, anybody, force this into Chapter 7 before they have a chance
to default everything over to Ralph Yarro.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals - A Mixed Curse
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 10:43 PM EDT

Oh! --Early. This was expected early next week on deadline with far more suspense. That SCO is so contrarian! They took the thrill out of it. That has saved a few clicks. It's a good time to sort things out.

  1. This keeps alive the Writ of Cert before the SCOTUS. As long as that is alive, it can moot anything that happens in the last trial and appeal. Given that this whole jury retrial experience corroborates what Judge Kimball originally did, the parties and Justices will have a hard time ignoring it as they will officially have to.
  2. In their Notice of Appeal they include basically everything. This is a precaution. They may not appeal everything in their brief. Why not appeal? They did so well their first time before the Tenth Circuit. The Circuit bent over backwards to help them. Even a murderer asks for probation. If you don't ask, you shall not receive. Maybe McConnell will cartwheel back by special designation. They will pray for their wildest dreams and hope for the Circuit's best. The Tenth have guaranteed jobs. A little awkward scrutiny never scared them. The SCOnks are surrealists.
  3. The question now is will Novell cross-appeal everything. They should given the way Judge Ted Stewart slammed the door on any reconsiderations consistent with the Tenth Circuits decision but not appealed by Novell. Remember one can not appeal anything that was not requested or objected to at trial. So the appeal is just repeating the pleadings of the trial after checking them for updates. Novell actually has far more to appeal than SCO.
  4. Another question is why Cahn, the Trustee of nothing, is bothering to appeal. Is there bargaining still going on? He must be guaranteed further expenses by an interested fairy because he is not going to pay out of his own pocket and SCO's pocket is running out. He could also fold before the brief is due with little damage. He is not using his judgment as to the merits of SCO's case. He says what he has to in court. After Chapter 7 there is Chapter IC from the Twilight Zone. He is doing someone's bidding. This is why a bankruptible company was used in the first place.
  5. The FUDmongers will not die. Is this scorched earth for spite? Guarantees and threats have been made. The message they are sending is do not dare to resist them. It will cost you either way. Dominance takes vigilance. SCO and BSF are merely their tools. A nearly omnipotent power does not see little setbacks in the little legal arenas of one country as anything other than the next step.

The Judgment stands stronger after a jury and two bench trials. The first SCO appeal is negated. This greatly enhances the amusement value.


~webster~

Tyrants live their delusions. Beware. Deal with the PIPE Fairy and you will sell your soul.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Look on the bright side
Authored by: ailuromancy on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:17 PM EDT

Judge Cahn plans to max out Yarro's loan. He might even convince Yarro to throw more money at professional services the litigation. If any part of the appeal succeeds, BSF have to argue it for free.

Dear Santa,

For Xmas, I would like Yarro and BSF to sue each other so they only waste their own time and money, and not Novell's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An Ethical Vacuum
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:31 PM EDT
Now (and I know this could have been - and was - said from
the very beginning) this is getting ridiculous.

I mean, are they out to make it patently (oops!) obvious
that all they are doing is lining lawyer's pockets with
monies owed to creditors? Is this not a bit 'over the top',
even for this storied crew??

The lawyers I understand - you gotta keep the love goin'
until everyone gets a piece of the ever-diminishing pie,
don’t ya know...but the US Trustee and his Firm? This is not
giving anyone - save the (many) players enriched by the
process - a very good impression of the US legal system.

PJ has "shined the light" on literally dozens of assorted
and sundry truly troubling high jinks, expensive frivolities
and pure nonsense put forth by this ‘crew’ over the past 7
years, but these last few months while in Bankruptcy Court
take the cake. I am…speechless

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell should also appeal
Authored by: whitleych on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:50 PM EDT
Defensive appeal. They didn't last time and it cost them a thing or two. This
time they should appeal every single adverse decision that was made. In
particular, the decision that they could not pursue punitive damages, etc.
Yeah, it may cost them money to do it for no gain, but at least next time the
thing gets kicked back down they'll both be playing the but the appeals court
found for me game.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can remember a time when...
Authored by: Totosplatz on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:51 PM EDT
People used to look forward to tSCOg declaring bankruptcy, as if that would
surely do them in once and for all.
Bankruptcy has not even touched this outfit! I'm all for the stake but they have
no heart to drive it through...

---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Filing fee $ 455
Authored by: Gringo on Wednesday, July 07 2010 @ 11:55 PM EDT

Couldn't $455 be better spent on things like paying off the poor pizza delivery guy that got stiffed when SCO declared bankruptcy, along with the bill they left unpaid at the local mom & pop run office supply store? What I am saying is there must be many good and decent citizen that have to do without something because all these high-powered lawyers want to play their lofty games in their ivory towers. Nobody cares about the little guys who are the backbone of society. $455 doesn't seem like much, but at least it would be something. Has Judge Gross ever given a thought for these people?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I guess this is telling us there is still ...
Authored by: dmarker on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 12:17 AM EDT

money left in the litigation kitty.

BS&F obviously feel they need to keep working so they can drain it all out.

:)

Time for a dire straights rewrite -
'Look at them Bozos, that the way to do it, Money for nothing and appeals are
free'

DSM :(

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hee hee. All paid for, all the way through appeals.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 02:04 AM EDT
Well, why not? It's (almost) free.

Can BS&F bill any kind of money whatsoever for the case as it goes along
(assuming that SCO does not win, ultimately)?

Perhaps this is a gambit to make BS&F pay back some of the
"capped" money after all, if they fail to go all the way - and
BS&F are refusing to pay the money back. What other sense could there be in
pursuing this dead case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Does this just extend the clock?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 02:22 AM EDT
SCO now has some more time to actually file their appeal.

Does this filing do anything more than simply give them a little more time?

If I were Cahn I would have BSF preparing an appeal (for free) and have Blank
Rome negotiating with Novell (and possibly IBM)to tie up loose ends.

His most powerful negotiating weapon at this point is the cost of continuing
this case.

---
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 | # ]

SCO Appeals. No supprise.
Authored by: sscherin on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 03:09 AM EDT
As I see it SCO has no choice but to appeal.

If they don't the Novell case ends and IBM steps up to bat..
Without the copyrights IBM will wipe the walls with them..
Heck it would be same result even with them..

SCO's only hope is to keep dragging things out as long as possible and try for
a miracle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What, no arguments?
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 03:25 AM EDT
What, no arguments for approving their appeal? Or is it just not yet?



.


---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 04:11 AM EDT
Would this open the door for Novell getting their slander of title claims
reinstated? Getting another trial could make matters worse for SCO..

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • How? - Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:43 AM EDT
    • But - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 08:46 AM EDT
      • But - Authored by: Wol on Saturday, July 10 2010 @ 09:50 AM EDT
    • How? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 10 2010 @ 03:28 AM EDT
I'm just amazed and appalled!
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:17 AM EDT
Actually I guess I'm not surprised (due to it being NewSCO) but just appalled
that this travesty of justice is allowed to go on and on.

SCO have had fair trials, fair appeals and have been allowed to drag this on for
a ridiculous amount of time. If this had been <some other company> vs
Microsoft or Oracle or Cisco etc then it would have been over years ago.
Proprietary vs Open Source politics is definitely in the background somewhere
gumming up the works (my own opinion by the way).

I have my own (tiny) company and if I failed in a case (in the UK) - it would be
over (perhaps after one appeal). Not dragging on and on ad infinitum.

The legal system has been as fair as possible to NewSCO - they have failed (as
they should have done) and now they must pay the price. This appeal is (IMHO)
just their way (yet again) of delaying the inevitable.

---
Microsoft Software is expensive, bloated, bug-ridden and unnecessary.
Use Open Source Software instead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:25 AM EDT
The involuntary actions of a dead corpse maybe - they just don't know when to
lay down and die. Pity poor Novell - they're going to end up paying for this as
well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:28 AM EDT
That's it - they're hoping for armageddon to arrive before these court cases
come to an end. God - I was in my 30s when all of this kicked off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn's strategy is obvious...
Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:57 AM EDT

Appealing clearly gives him some leverage to negotiate with Novell. Novell can contemplate the cost and expense of another trial, from which they have nothing to gain but everything to lose. What a position they are in! SCO has the full weight of the bankruptcy court behind them as they continue to harass Novell with a frivolous suite. This is terribly unjust.

I can imagine Cahn like a cold-blooded chess player. Queen to rook four - and he sits back and contemplates his move, savoring the new position. Only, something is missing here, and what is missing is any sense of right or wrong. Ethics, morals - there are none involved for Cahn. He has his chess pieces to move around the board - the paid up contract with Boise Schiller, full immunity from any consequences. Novell has been forced into a duel in which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. It was even worse for them in the trail in front of Judge Steward, where they were forced to fight with their hands tied behind their backs. Even so they won - but won what? They only won the prospect of having to face yet another appeal. What has Novell ever done to deserve such abuse from the legal system for which they pay taxes to support?

Many years ago there was this television series called "V". It put forth the proposition that there are aliens living among us disguised as human beings. Only we could see that the aliens were actually lizards when there was nobody watching. There was this one scene where an alien, disguised as a judge, retired to his chambers for a little snack. At this point we didn't know for sure that he was an alien. In his office he had a terrarium with a couple of "pet" rats living in it. He picked up one by the tail, contemplated it for a moment, then suddenly opened his mouth much wider than any human could and swallowed it whole. We knew then beyond any doubt that he was an alien. Similarly, we see Judge Cahn opening his moulth wide to swallow Novell.

Judge Gross was never compelled to permit SCO to embark on this path in the first place. There was a point way back when Novell explained SCO's game to the judge, calling it a "litigation lottery". It was clearly a difficult decision for Judge Gross, which he resolved by calling for a retired judge to oversee SCO in Chapter 11. Many of us had expectations that that might not have been such a bad idea, as we had hopes that such a person would quickly see through SCO's game and put an end to it. Personally, I had even greater expectations, like he would immediately do a full audit of the books and investigate former management.

I think I can understand Judge Gross. Imagine you are the judge, and furthermore you are a bit intellectually challenged, but with a strong sense of fairness and justice. Though Novell has clearly explained to you why SCO should be sent to Chapter 7, you can't really grasp the plain language of the APA. Being a bit slow, and easily manipulated by a bunch of slickers, you consider what would happen if there was actual merit in SCO's position. Why then, it would be a travesty of justice to force them into Chapter 7, wouldn't it? So you do what Judge Gross did - get a legal expert to act as trustee and get to the bottom of this.

Now I spoke kindly of Judge Gross, suggesting that this all began out of his sense of fairness. He could just as easily have denied SCO continued existence, and he can deny it now. The scales of justice are so out of balance now against Novell, that it defies logic. Novel will speak once more to Judge Gross, and I am convinced that if they get no sympathy from him they will appeal his decisions to a higher court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Of Couse.
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 08:04 AM EDT
Scorpions leopards spots etc., etc.


---
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 | # ]

This is NOT SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT
This is also NOT the Chapter 11 Trustee.

This is Ralph moving his sock puppet.

Ralph has that 'loan' he made to NewSCO. NewSCO can't pay back the 'loan'.
NewSCO probably won't make payroll shortly (like this month?).

Under the terms of the 'loan', Ralph has control of the litigation, so this has
to be Ralph's decision.

This opens two questions:

a. When the litigation officially moves to Ralph's "Sock Puppet II",
has he actually scraped off all the adverse litigation (IBM counterclaims, Red
Hat, etc.) ?

b. Ralph was a director of NewSCO, a stockholder. Normally he would
nevertheless be insulated from liability for NewSCO actions (the corporate veil
thingy). Will so blatently taking over the litigation give the Nazgul a pretext
to move directly against Ralph? Which Ralph would have to defend against with
his own money.

Bonus Question: Does the transfer of the litigation to Sock Puppet II give BSF a
pretext to get out from under? Maybe not, but forcing Ralph to litigate the
continuation of the litigation (again on his dime) might give BSF the leverage
to make Ralph go away (eventually).

IANAL, IDEPOOTV
JG

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 12:44 PM EDT
  • Making payroll? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 01:25 PM EDT
SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again.
Authored by: Rubberman on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 10:34 AM EDT
SCO, the company that wouldn't die - coming soon to a theater near you as
"Night of the Living Deadbeats of SCO"!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Not to me it doesn't!!!
Authored by: cricketjeff on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 10:48 AM EDT
Your headline states that SCO Appeals
This really can't be right
When just the word brings screams and squeals
They aren't a pleasant sight

There is no way that SCO Appeals
To either me or you
The merest glance at them reveals
An unappealing view

I hope the court for these Appeals
Don't read your headline wrong
But recognise the dodgy deals
That SCO did all along

Is there an end to these Appeals
That's my appeal today
Or do they go on till MacBride steals
What's all of our's today!



---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals... Anyone know of a good Cryopreservation lab?
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:02 AM EDT
I would really like to see Boise's great grandchildren finish this case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long until arguments?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:05 AM EDT
How much time does SCO have to present their arguments? In
Germany, you typically have a 2 weeks deadline to file an
appeal and another 2 weeks to file your arguments (the latter
accumulating with the former to a full 4 weeks). How long in
the US?

__
magicmulder

[ Reply to This | # ]

showing my ignorance
Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:15 AM EDT
Although filing an appeal at this point looks like a strange brew of nerve and
stupidity to me, is there any chance that this is also just SOP? In the
dealings that I have had a legal defeat (patents), the attorneys used every
chance at an appeal as standard procedure.

Completely irrelevant to SCO tangent... we were on our last appeal for a product
where the examiner just did not get the novelty. The chemicals were described
were in prior art, but not the way they were combined. Anyone skilled in the
art would have predicted a solid, based on a read through the recipes. We
combined them to make a liquid that we could pump, pour, and meter. I took some
material with me to the examiner's office for that meeting when we were a hair's
breadth from a final rejection. When he saw the liquid, his eyes got wide, and
he approved our patent.

Again, that tangent has no reference to SCO; we actually had a reason to appeal
beyond filing one just because we could.

Regards,
mc

[ Reply to This | # ]

[#1133] Hearing cancelled
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 11:17 AM EDT
Ha ha ha!
What a farce!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some proper responses...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 12:43 PM EDT
Heather O'Rourke - Poltergeist II: "They're baaaaack!"

Bob Denver - Gilligan's Island: "Uh oh..."

Sigourney Weaver - Alien: "Ohhhh, great!"

Don Johnson - A Boy and His Dog: "Now what'd they hafta go and do that
for?"

Irene Ryan - The Beverly Hillbillies: "I'll git my shotgun!"



[ Reply to This | # ]

From what I recall....
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 01:05 PM EDT
... isn't any further appeals going to be done by the Lawyers pro-bono? Please
someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this mean that now the lawyers who
said it was a good idea to persue this whole ordeal ALSO get shafted? Am I wrong
for thinking this is a Good Thing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Legal Arguments???
Authored by: sonicfrog on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT
OK. Here is the challenge. On what legal basis could SCO possibly challenge and
be granted an appeal? And remember, "I Lost" is not a winning argument
to qualify for an appeal... Or am I wrong on that???

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Legal Arguments??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT
  • Easy challenge - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 06:54 PM EDT
best interests
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 05:49 PM EDT
this will continue as long as it is in someone's best interest to do so. At the
point that either Novell or IBM takes an action that will make it not in
someone's best interest to continue it will end.

How to make it not in someone's best interest? I'm not sure, one thought would
be to bring criminal charges against some of the parties in this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO: new business
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 08 2010 @ 07:00 PM EDT
SCO has entered a new business - they collect, what people spit in front them,
dry and sell it. As PJ gave her part to it, they promote it using her name.

Their new business is flourishing.

cb

[ Reply to This | # ]

So much for the U.S. Legal System
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 09 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT
Millions of dollars spent over absolutely nada -- SCO has provided absolutely
*no* evidence, and yet they are able to keep this BS going for seven years even
though they've lost case after case, motion after motion.

And I thought I was jaded before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please light my bulb
Authored by: CaptainDangeax on Friday, July 09 2010 @ 06:45 PM EDT
I'm surprised SCO can appeal again. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how it works in
France. First trial, a judgment. Either party, or both can appeal. It means
second trial. Either party can then ask the "cour de cassation", which
does NOT judge the facts, but only verify the law has been well interpreted
during the 2 first trials. If (and only if) not, the "cour de
cassation" can send back the litigation to appeal court, for a third
judgement. But, if the "cour de cassation" says "everything OK
with the law", it's over. No more appeal. At first, French judges tend to
heavy the result, if the looser makes an appeal without strong statement. It's
also bad viewed if proofs are put on the table, proofs that could have been
shown during the first trial. Appeal is some kind of "quite ou
double".
The only way is to ask "cour de revision", only if new proofs are
coming out, strong enough to alter the judgments.
The truth is, French judges are very corporate and don't like to say
"justice got it wrong at first".
My appologies for my english. My question is "how come SCO to appeal,
appeal an appeal, and ask for a judge to over-rule ? What is this system where a
plaintif can gamble again and again ?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again. - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 10 2010 @ 03:15 PM EDT
If this ever ends, it will surely qualify for "Zombie Kill of
the Week".

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Appeals. Yes. Them Again. - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 11 2010 @ 10:37 AM EDT
The judge ruled on matters of law. PJ declared victory. I took a vacation from
Groklaw.

Big Big Big mistake. I should have known better. But this is not PJ's fault,
but all mine for assuming.

Oh well.....

[ 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 )