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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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

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 files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell
Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:02 PM EDT

SCO has filed a motion asking to expedite its appeal of its loss in SCO v. Novell.

I wonder if this might explain all the delay on the sale of assets, because SCO says the reason it wants to hurry the appeal is because of the IBM case being stayed until SCO v. Novell is fully resolved. Can't you just see SCO waltzing in to the December 1st hearing in bankruptcy court and telling the judge that it couldn't find a qualified buyer, but they will be flooded with candidates just as soon as their appeal is decided, and that they've asked that it be expedited? I sure can.

It also mentions the Red Hat case, but considering it was Red Hat that filed that litigation against SCO, not the other way around, I don't see how it's SCO's business to ask to expedite because of that one. I also doubt most sincerely that SCO wants to hurry up on that litigation. So I consider it camouflage. Red Hat and IBM aren't asking anybody to expedite anything, because as it stands right now, they are free of SCO.

So what does that leave? What is happening, I think, is that SCO wants to be able to get a shot at IBM. If it can get a win at the appeals court, even if it's again only a temporary reprieve, it may think it will be able to find a buyer for these assets it's trying to sell, even if in the end it loses again. Bagholders don't like being left holding the bag, I discern. Maybe, then, the hope is to sell the assets, make what they can, and leave the carcass on someone else's lap.

Believe it or not, SCO tells the court that it, its creditors (*which* creditors?) and the court agree on the following:

The Bankruptcy Court has observed, and SCO and its creditors agree, that the resolution of the actions against Novell and IBM bears directly on SCO’s business and its ability to exit bankruptcy.
I'd opine that it depends on how you define "exit bankruptcy". It's free to sell its assets, shut down, and die any time.

Nah. Not SCO. Someone still hopes to be naughty and sue the world over Linux. It's a fixation with these guys. SCO's Trustee Edward Cahn seems to actually think SCO has a shot at getting money out of IBM, but I consider that out of the question. Surely by now, IBM would have settled if it ever planned to. And in courtrooms, SCO has a nearly perfect record of failure, so this is more an idée fixe than a realistic hope. And you know how those work out.

Here's the filing:

11/04/2010 - Open Document - [9812715] Motion filed by Appellant SCO Group to expedite case. Served on: 11/04/2010. Manner of service: email, ECF/NDA.

And here's the meat of the filing, and yes, SCO has two paragraph 3s and no paragraph 7:
Plaintiff-Appellant, The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), respectfully moves the Court to hear oral argument in this case at the earliest practicable opportunity, and thereafter to expedite its resolution of this appeal.

In support of this Motion, SCO states:

1. At issue in this case are the rights of the parties concerning UNIX, one of the most popular computer operating systems in the world.

2. In addition to the instant litigation against Defendant-Appelee, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”), SCO is involved in two other cases concerning its intellectual property and contract rights in UNIX.

3 SCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2007, following the district court’s summary judgment rulings that this Court largely reversed. SCO has thus been in bankruptcy for over three years.

3. In March 2003, SCO brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), to enforce its intellectual property and contract rights in UNIX. In August 2003, Red Hat, Inc. (“Red Hat”) brought suit against SCO in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In both cases, the UNIX copyrights at issue in the instant action are also at issue in most or all of claims and counterclaims. Accordingly, until this Court resolves the issue of the ownership of those copyrights, the IBM and Red Hat litigations cannot be fully resolved.

4. Indeed, soon after SCO filed for bankruptcy protection, the district court below stayed the IBM litigation pending resolution of the instant case. In addition, on September 10, 2010, the district court denied SCO’s motion to proceed with SCO claims that are independent of the resolution of this action. The district court ruled that “proceeding in the IBM litigation in the piecemeal manner suggested by the SCO Group” would be “inefficient” because “the claims in the Novell litigation are inextricably intertwined with the claims in the IBM litigation.” The court further noted that, “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.”

5. The district court in the Red Hat case has also stayed the action pending resolution of matters in SCO’s lawsuits against Novell and IBM.

6. In September 2007, SCO filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. SCO’s pending actions against Novell and IBM have been identified as among SCO’s principal assets. The Bankruptcy Court has observed, and SCO and its creditors agree, that the resolution of the actions against Novell and IBM bears directly on SCO’s business and its ability to exit bankruptcy.

8. In sum, the resolution of several federal court actions and the disposition of issues in the bankruptcy cases all turn on the resolution of the instant appeal.

9. SCO therefore respectfully requests that oral argument be held at the earliest practicable opportunity, and that the Court thereafter expedite its resolution of this appeal.

10. Novell does not oppose this Motion but takes the position that this appeal can be resolved without oral argument.


  


SCO files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell | 540 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OFF TOPIC Thread
Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:10 PM EDT
Please keep it off topic

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:13 PM EDT
Please point out the error as well as the correction, thusly,
here --> hear

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:14 PM EDT
Aha! Trifecta

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

An expedited NO?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:17 PM EDT
Maybe SCO will get part of what it wants. The Appeals court should deny (in an
expedited fashion) SCO's request for another kick at the can.

[ Reply to This | # ]

EVERYTHING you need to know about SCO can be found in paragraph 7 (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:33 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Numbering...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:36 PM EDT
Two Paragraph 3s, but no Paragraph 7. [sarcasm] Strange, SCO's paperwork,
pleadings, and deposition requests have always been picture perfect [/sarcasm]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everyone in Utah is delusional
Authored by: kawabago on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:40 PM EDT
That's the only explanation for what they do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Financial question
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:51 PM EDT
Just how far into the red can SCO go here? This is a serious question. Already
it has become apparent that they are not going to pay any post-petition debts,
but how far can this go? I think one reckoning was that they are now about $4MM
in the hole. Can it go to $10MM? $100MM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Number 4
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:19 PM EDT
4. Indeed, soon after SCO filed for bankruptcy protection, the district court
below stayed the IBM litigation pending resolution of the instant case.

Is that correct?

My recollection was the Kimball only allowed discovery to proceed. My review of
the IBM timeline left me confused.

---
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 | # ]

Another delay chess move on their 5 year plan?
Authored by: tce on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:26 PM EDT
Seems like every litigation step is hooked at the last possible minute with
another litigation thread... If you had a few million to spend and put 1000s of
hours into the sneakiest litigation planning possible, could a decision tree of
all the best possible delay steps be created 10 feet thick?

I suspect yes. What kind of action would lead to discovery that would
illustrate a plan to waste 10 years of court resources?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 05 2010 @ 11:49 PM EDT
10. Novell does not oppose this Motion but takes the position that this appeal can be resolved without oral argument.

Of course. SCO could have thrown in the towel years ago and accepted defeat, paid Novell/etc, and sulked off into the sunset.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The secret code in the numbering
Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:05 AM EDT
The numbering can't be an error. The motion is signed by lawyers from Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP. Seeing as how they are being already being sued by
clients who are claiming that David Boies has not been paying sufficient
attention to cases that are not high profile or profitable enough, there is no
way that BS&F would allow such accidental sloppiness.

No, there must be a hidden message encoded in the strange numbering. I think I
have figured it out.

Certain numbers stand out: 1 stands out by being first. The first three is
missing the '.', the second three stands out by being repeated. The 7 stands out
by being missing.

Put that together and you get 1337 which is leet-speak for 'leet. That's how
h4x0rz talk, in case ur a n00b.

Now why would David Boies sneak a hidden message like that into this motion? The
answer is that he didn't, of course. You wouldn't expect Boies himself to write
this motion, and probably not even the lawyer who signed it, Edward Normand.
Probably they are no longer paying any attention to this case. They handed off
all the work to a paralegal. That's right, one of the secret cabal whose leader,
known only by the acronym PJ (a hyper-recursive acronym that stands for
"PJ's Plainly Just PJ" which refutes that claim that she is a team of
IBM lawyers and is the source of the cheer "PJ! PJ! PJ!") runs
Groklaw, the public face of the cabal, while paralegals all over the country
secretly infiltrate law offices to undermine the efforts of all who would seek
to deny all of us of our Four Freedoms.

That is the true meaning of this motion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO expedites motion to expedite appeal
Authored by: webster on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:15 AM EDT
.

A lot of LOL at just 9 comments.

Novell suggests foregoing oral arguments entirely. Not a bad idea
though SCO can't admit it. Silence would spare them some
awkwardness.

Cahn needs cover. He should throw out this dead baby with the bath
water but some prominent shareholders will attack him as long as the
crumpled lottery ticket is in the baby's mouth. Control of this litigation
is their only asset, a nuisance and their downfall.

Not even the usual deal lurkers are stepping forward now. Cahn wants
to keep paying the professionals, but he can't unless someone throws
more money after bad.
A loss on appeal will end it for Cahn. Some one can buy it then for
token cures and change.

-webster-

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO’s principal assets...
Authored by: Gringo on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:40 AM EDT

SCO’s pending actions against Novell and IBM have been identified as among SCO’s principal assets?

What wako nutjob identified these pending actions as assets??? Gee, if I had assets like that, I sure wouldn't need any liabilities! ...and they are "among" SCO’s principal assets... Like, right there at the top with all their other assets. So what would these other assets be? Their moribund Unix business perhaps? Can you think of anything else? After all, they already sold one other top asset - the fork lift.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:21 AM EDT

Interesting. In the first appeal, we had:

  1. 23-Jan-2009 Appellant's motion filed by SCO Group to expedite case.
  2. 04-Mar-2009 Appellant's deficient brief filed by SCO Group.
  3. 09-Apr-2009 Appellee/Respondent's brief filed by Novell
  4. 23-Apr-2009 Appellant's reply brief filed by SCO
  5. 06-May-2009 Case argued
  6. 24-Aug-2009 Affirmed in part, Reverse; Remanded.

Now we have:

  1. 09-Sep-2010 Appellant/Petitioner's brief
  2. 29-Oct-2010 Appellee/Respondent's brief
  3. 06-Nov-2010 Motion to expedite
  4. ?? Appellant's reply brief
  5. ?? Oral Argument (if needed)
  6. ?? Decision

What is interesting is that the first expedited appeal took 7 months after the request to expedite. When will SCO file their response? If they really want to hurry up, they would have filed their reply with the motion to expedite. In any case, I don't see how we would get a decision before April. Perhaps April 1st. That would be appropriate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO "largely" distorts facts
Authored by: Gringo on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:38 AM EDT

3. SCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2007, following the district court’s summary judgment rulings that this Court largely reversed.

In reality, the Court affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and remanded for trial. The "largest" part, Novell's ownership of the copyrights, was not reversed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 02:40 AM EDT
2. In addition to the instant litigation

A new definition of 'instant' a la SCO?
Instead of 'quick' it now means 'at least multiple years'?
How will this affect peoples attitude towards the use of 'instant' coffee?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's motion practice is not math. ...nt
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 04:31 AM EDT
.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing transcript extract prediction :-)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 07:00 AM EDT
Here is a prediction of an extract from the trasnscript of the next bankruptcy hearing.

MS. FATELL: ... the temporal proximity of a definitive ruling by the Tenth Circuit on whether or not the Debtors owns legacy software around which its business is built. Furthermore, the determination if it goes as the Trustee anticipate and desire, would unlock the door to perhaps enormous damages and will reconfigure the marketplace for operating system software. This is a battle that began six years ago and has consumed tens of millions of dollars in legal fees.

When it comes to TSCOG,you don't even need a crystal ball.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bagholders and Copyrights
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 07:24 AM EDT
"Bagholders don't like being left holding the bag, "

I think that is the issue.

"Accordingly, until this Court resolves the issue of the ownership of those
copyrights, the IBM and Red Hat litigations cannot be fully resolved. "

SCO can not sell anything that is in any way dependent on copyrights, until this
is settled. They can't sell the servicing business, the litigation business or
even the SCO Unix business until they can tell a buyer exactly what they can
sell. I think SCO "...telling the judge that it couldn't find a qualified
buyer,..." is probably a true prediction.

In light of this, the Nov 30th sale probably won't go through, unless the
appeals court does respond before the end of the month.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time for a new motion to proceed with Swiss Arbitation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT
Or should that wait until the appeal is decided?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm Confused (again)
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 09:09 AM EDT
In item number 10 SCO states that Novell thinks the appeal can be resolved
without oral arguement; I thought Novell requested oral argument. ???

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Energizer Bunny of litigants strikes again
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 10:43 AM EDT

Hoo boy, are these people persistent. Persistence us supposed to be a good
trait. Heck, it is. PJ has proven that by persisting in covering these idiots
for too many years now.

But I get the impression that they are still dreaming of a possible win. The pot
of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I don't know what these people are smoking, but I'm sure it's illegal.


---
Wayne

http://madhatter.ca/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don;t Understand the inclusion of IBM / Red Hat
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 11:07 AM EDT
I don't understand the listing of the IBM and Red Hat litigation in the motion.


How is the resolution of their appeal of the Novell case, to the extent it
resolves SCO's right to proceed in SCO's suit against IBM and Red Hat, relevant
to the asset auction?

The appeal also has no bearing on the valuation of the auctioned assets, as SCO
is not selling the litigation rights, they are aiming to retain them.

I could understand if SCO referred to resolving Novell's right to oppose an
assignment of the UNIX assets to a third party buyer -- but that has nothing to
do with the IBM case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How quick might an expedited appeal be?
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:08 PM EDT
Any guesses, based on experience preferably? Just curious to know how much longer this shenanigans will last.

I am guessing that when SCO lose the appeal it will have to be instant Chapter 7, and am also guessing that the alleged sale can not proceed until the appeal is resolved, so if it is delayed they will go to Chapter 7 anyway when the cash runs out.

I think that Cahn has goofed big time, and now knows it. He has very little wriggle room left. This request for the appeal to be expedited feels like sheer panic. He is probably in danger of being sued by the shareholders and/or creditors, or at least severely losing face, having failed to do anything useful at all in the part of the three years of Chapter 11 in which he has been trustee. If he had been doing his job properly, SCO would have been out of Chapter 7, one way or the other, ages ago (consider GM for example), but instead he has wilfully used the remaining assets to enrich Blank Rome. US BK law is broken in allowing that, but that is another debate, another time.

Cahn's only miniscule hope now is having the jury verdict overturned by the appeal court, so he actually has something to sell. I have just looked up into the sky, and there were no airborne pigs, so I draw my own conclusions....

My opinion only of course, and IANAL, so please feel free to correct me where I am wrong. This is Groklaw, and we all do like things to be correct. So if my feelings are garbage, please tell me. I will not be offended. (But I am offended by the actions of Cahn and Gross.....)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Playing the courts of being wronged..
Authored by: HockeyPuck on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 12:15 PM EDT
This seems to be an attempt by SCO to blame the court(s) for their financial
misery. The tone to me says, "do to judicial mistakes we wouldn't be where
we are financially". You guys "screwed this up for us".

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO, sco, sco
Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:34 PM EDT

You can go ahead with the IBM trial any time you want. The jury has spoken in the Novell case, it is over. The only reason you can't move on is because of your own merit-less appeal.

This is like SCO throwing a pass on 4th and goal that was nowhere near a receiver so the refs called it incomplete. SCO is asking the refs to hurry up with the instant replay because they want to kick the extra point and get on with the game.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO, Look to Yourself!
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 01:43 PM EDT
Four-and-a-half years, SCO vs IBM was dragged out for, by SCO, expedited delays
and all, with a SCO vs Novell prevarication pitched in for good measure.

Three years plus of bankruptcy in the making and still going forward like a
train off the rails. How many reorganisation plans did we have to wait for?
"Emergency" ones, at that?

And now, SCO is in a hurry to litigate. Because it suits them. Oh, woe!

Seven-and-a-half-years. I've gone greyer in that time. Heck, I dare say some
Groklaw followers have even died!

Yes, I too wish someone would help SCO to die more quickly. It's their turn
now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Barking mad
Authored by: rsmith on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 02:47 PM EDT

And there I thought that the SCOG couldn't surprise me anymore. Until I read the following:

SCO’s pending actions against Novell and IBM have been identified as among SCO’s principal assets.

First of all there is the disturbing mentality that sees civil lawsuits as assets rather than a failure to settle a dispute in another way that wastes less resources.

And second the sheer stupidity of picking one lost lawsuit and one lawsuit eviscerated by summary judgement with mostly only IBM's counterclaims left!

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is just backing up their sandbag
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT
It's easy to read too much into this, but I think SCO simply
can't present a legitimate buyer, thus the recent delay(s).

If they had gone into December 1 court / meeting without a
bidder / buyer and said at that time that it was because of
appeals cloud, then they'd get slapped harder than if they
use that excuse plus add "which is why we've petitioned the
court to expedite the appeal" (as in "see, we're reeeeally
serious about this").

nealywilly is not a lawyer (was in "hiding" while my job got
too close to some issues covered on groklaw though)

[ Reply to This | # ]

the Swiss Arbitration hurdle
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT

Suppose in an alternate universe, SCO wins on its second appeal to the Circuit in the Novell case, allowing them to proceed against IBM. The odds would still be hugely against them. Judge Cahn should clue in to this fact.

Firstly, the long-stayed arbitration in Switzerland would become very relevant. That arbitration was about the United Linux contracts, and ultimately the GPL. See e.g. story=20071019130537565 on Groklaw:

Swiss Arbitration Terms of Reference, as text...

Saturday, October 20 2007 @ 03:48 AM EDT

19. A fundamental premise of the UnitedLinux project was that SCO, SUSE and the other UnitedLinux members would have the right to commercialize the technology in the UnitedLinux Software independently, free from claims that other members had any proprietary rights to such technology that could threaten the common project...

Given that Caldera/newSCO did participate in UnitedLinux, and did willfully distribute Linux under the GPL (including all contributions by Caldera, IBM, and others), and did so even after it filed suit against IBM, I don't see how they could win the arbitration given the plain facts of the evidence. After all, the Swiss court is not likely to be impressed by SCO's expensive American lawyers who speak neither German, French, Italian, nor Romansch.

In addition, it was apparent from the source code presented in court in the IBM case that SCO had no smoking gun against IBM.

Judge Cahn, wake up! SCO's case is hopeless, and you have already sucked all the money out of the corpse that you reasonably can. YOU should ask Judge Gross to send the remains to Ch 7 for burial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

For once I'm with TSCOG!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 08:53 PM EDT
Yay, please, let the 10th decide this appeal in manner which
will expedite the proceedings of the case between TSCOG and
IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO files motion to expedite the smokescreen
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, November 06 2010 @ 11:45 PM EDT
This is a smokescreen to allow SCO to go to the bankruptcy court and say they
need more time.

The Appeals Court will not doubt to do what they did last time, tell SCO they
will hold everybody to the deadlines and if SCO wants to go faster they can file
faster.

SCO will then tell the Bankruptcy Court, they need a little more time because
the appeal will be resolved real soon now because the Appeals Court has agreed
to expedite the appeal.

---
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 | # ]

42
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 01:14 AM EST
The only answer that fits.

The trick is to phrase the question properly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell
Authored by: Patrick Corrigan on Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 12:06 PM EST
I would agree, but as you point out the AV vendors did not inform their
customers, so using a third-party AV product didn't help. It took someone
outside the AV community to reveal its existence. According to Wikipedia:

"This was discovered and publicly revealed by Mark Russinovich on the
Sysinternals blog. Other operating systems were not affected."

As a side note, since Microsoft now owns Sysinternals, what is the possibility
of Sysinternals exposing this today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Huh?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 01:45 PM EST
    Trend Micro is not a patent troll. They are a 3rd tier security product
    company. Their products run on linux & windows, clients and servers. I
    have used them in the past and even worked with their staff.

    Patent Trolls are shell companies.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    How to *really* irritate people ...
    Authored by: dmarker on Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 09:35 PM EST

    Make remarks like this in a filing "Accordingly, until this Court resolves
    the issue of the ownership of those copyrights, the IBM and Red Hat litigations
    cannot be fully resolved. "

    What did tSCOg really say ??? ...
    "Accordingly, until this Court (and if not this court then another &
    another & another ...) resolves the issue of the ownership of those
    copyrights (100% in our favour, just once, with no further counter appeals
    allowed), the IBM and Red Hat litigations cannot be fully resolved (even though
    few sensible people believe what we said, what we say & our chances of
    getting what we want)."

    DSM

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Motion has been Granted In Part
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, November 08 2010 @ 02:13 PM EST

    Latest on PACER from Denver:

    This matter is before the court on Appellant’s Unopposed Motion to Expedite Appeal (the “Motion”). Upon consideration, the Motion is granted in part, as provided below.

    Appellant’s optional reply brief remains due November 15, 2010. No extensions of time to file this brief will be considered.

    This appeal will be placed on the January 2011 oral argument calendar.

    The decision on whether to expedite consideration of, and the decision in, this case is referred to the panel of judges that will decide the appeal on the merits.

    ---
    "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The number seven.
    Authored by: Silurian on Monday, November 08 2010 @ 03:01 PM EST
    There is nothing new here, TSCOG have always sought to avoid the number seven. Remember, oh twelve to eighteen months ago now, in Delaware, how TSCOG sought to avoid the number seven. So, here we are now, in Denver, and TSCOG still strive to avoid the number seven.

    Heptarine
    The colour of money in the TSCOGWorld, also often called the seventh colour. This fictional colour is strongly indicative of money and can only be seen by lawyers (who sometimes describe it as resembling a fluorescent greenish-green-green) and cats.

    [With apologies to the esteemed wikipedia.]

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    New MOR!!! (n/t)
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 08 2010 @ 03:30 PM EST

    [ 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 )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.08 seconds