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 Campbell Rules: IBM Stays on Hold; SCO Loses Again
Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:11 PM EDT

Judge Tena Campbell has today ruled against SCO, who had asked to go forward against IBM in SCO v. IBM, without letting IBM go forward on its most significant claims. "The court declines," her order says, to reopen anything now, because too much depends on what happens in SCO v. Novell, and it doesn't make sense to divide the two cases. Until the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rules on SCO's recently filed appeal of its loss in SCO v. Novell, therefore, the SCO v. IBM case stays closed.

Here is the order:

09/10/2010 - 1093 - ORDER: court declines to re-open the case and resolve any motions - when the 10CCA has issued its decision in the Novell litigation (No. 10-4122), either party may move the court to re-open the case. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 9/10/10 (alt) (Entered: 09/10/2010)

Here's Groklaw's report on the status hearing where this matter was argued.

Here's the order as text, the first from Judge Campbell since she was assigned to this case:

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

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

_____________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

_______________________

ORDER

Case No. 2:03-CV-294-TC

______________________

Plaintiff SCO Group, Inc. has requested that the court re-open this administratively closed case and rule on two of many motions pending in this matter. Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) contends that sister litigation now on appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Case No. 2:04-CV-139, Appeal No. 10-4122 (the “Novell litigation”)) must be resolved before the court proceeds in the matter here (“the IBM litigation”).

The court, having reviewed orders and pleadings in the Novell litigation as well as pleadings in the IBM litigation, finds that the claims in the Novell litigation are inextricably intertwined with the claims in the IBM litigation. Accordingly, proceeding in the IBM litigation in the piecemeal manner suggested by SCO Group would be improper, would be an inefficient use of judicial resources, and would risk conflicting decisions.

The court declines to re-open the case and resolve any of the pending motions. When the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in the Novell litigation (No. 10-4122), either party may move the court to re-open the case. Until then, the matter will remain administratively closed.

SO ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2010.

BY THE COURT:

[signature]
TENA CAMPBELL
Chief Judge


  


Judge Campbell Rules: IBM Stays on Hold; SCO Loses Again | 260 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: jesse on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:24 PM EDT
If there are any for such short notice...

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks...
Authored by: jesse on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:26 PM EDT
And please use the pick for the title so people will know.
Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES here please.
Authored by: jesse on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:26 PM EDT
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: jesse on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:27 PM EDT
Anything else...
Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

Either party can move to re-open?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:31 PM EDT
Uh oh, did SCO open a door, it didn't mean to?

--Celtic_hackr

[ Reply to This | # ]

I bet that they appeal
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 09:48 PM EDT

Even though they aren't very appealing.

<ducks head quickly>


---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Inextricably intertwined
Authored by: cbc on Friday, September 10 2010 @ 11:01 PM EDT
Judge Campbell groks (opinion). And perhaps rocks (speculative statement not to
be construed as advice or prediction).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Campbell Rules: Not opening that Can of Worms
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 12:17 AM EDT

Good for Judge Campbell. She's says: Sorry SCO, not opening that can of worms! It would just be more pointless work for me, especially as you lost at every juridical turn.

SCO, if I bide my time, this case will just go away!

SCO, have a nice day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So intricate or entangled as to make escape impossible
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 02:02 AM EDT
So intricate or entangled as to make escape impossible. At least according to http://www.thefreedictionar y.com/inextricably.

Could that be the secret message from the Judge?!



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reselling hardware with installed software?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 02:24 AM EDT
Just wondering.. When I buy a PC and it has a copy of Windows on it, I am a
licensee for that copy. Does this verdict mean that when I sell my computer in a
few years, the license to Windows and all programs on it are automatically
void?

If that's the case it will have a huge impact on the second-hand PC and Server
market as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Campbell Rules: IBM Stays on Hold; SCO Loses Again
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 07:09 AM EDT
I see the 'judicial efficiency' point and I think I can see that the judge is
saying that the intertwined claims could result in conflicting decisions if not
dealt with, as a whole.

The 'improper' finding I find difficult to understand. (I find lots of things
difficult to understand). I'm sure that the judge had a precise reason for
including that finding and I would appreciate folks views on the import of
including it.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question that the Bankruptcy Court will surely ignore.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 01:34 PM EDT
SCO has sold the mobility business.

SCO is planning to sell the software business before the end
of the calendar year.

The Novell appeals process appears that it will inevitably
grind onwards to the Supreme Court.

The IBM case will remain stayed until the Novell appeals are
exhausted.

Exactly what will SCO's "business" be in the meantime? (I
mean something that will give the appearance of trying to
bring in money on a predictable basis to pay salaries and
bills, which is one of the supposed points of Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection.)

Who am I kidding? Trivial matter like this won't matter in
the magical realm of Delaware bankruptcy court, where the
next big bonanza payday is always hidden just around the
next bend. (See the Nortel bankruptcy.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm tired of waiting for Chapter 7
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT
I'm tired of waiting for Chapter 7.

Some judge somewhere has to call an end to this farce.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Press Release Prediction Competition!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 04:10 PM EDT
Unless SCO has miraculously changed, they will portray this as a win. How will
they do it...?! Your entries below.

And my entry is:
"SCO wins protection from IBM claims"

Or as an alternative:
"SCO protected from IBM courtcase".

Winner is the closest to the actual release title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Campbell Rules: IBM Stays on Hold; SCO Loses Again
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2010 @ 05:17 PM EDT
So let me see if I've got it straight...a software company can control the
resale of its software? Then that could cover anything from a GPS to a smart
phone to a used PC to any car or vehicle with software, even the software
embedded in the chips throughout the vehicle. This could lend itself to a whole
'nother battlefield in the old printer wars and lay out new battlefields on
every consumer product with embedded software. Even my house has security
software (including remote access and appliance control) embedded in the sentry
system, my fridge has internet capability and my TV is web capable. This is
going to be a nightmare. Is that the way I read this or am I wrong?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's wager!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 12 2010 @ 03:35 AM EDT
Let's bet on when we'll see another MOR from Mr. Cahn and assoicates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Stays on Hold
Authored by: WhiteFang on Sunday, September 12 2010 @ 08:49 AM EDT

Judge Campbell: ... finds that the claims in the Novell litigation are inextricably intertwined with the claims in the IBM litigation. ...

[deep sarcasm] You think?

What a catchy phrase. I couldn't have put it better myself

I should put it on a t-shirt, copyright it, start a new company selling bunions for bozos just so that I can trademark it and then file a patent for the application of oO--deep sarcasm--Oo as a business method to t-shirts.

Then I, too, can uselessly litigate for years.[/deep sarcasm]

At the time the motion was filed, I really wondered if the tSCOg legal team even tried to keep a straight face when filing.

---
"The so-called protection offered by DRM operates only at the
distribution end of the chain. It doesn't help artists eat better." Anonymous

[ 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 )