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: But waitaminnit, yer Honor ~pj
Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:15 PM EDT

SCO, of course, is asking [PDF] the judge in U.S. District Court in Utah to reconsider his order denying SCO's request to reopen its case against IBM.

You knew they would:

SCO submits that reconsideration is appropriate because the Bankruptcy Court overseeing SCOís bankruptcy proceedings lifted the stay of IBMís counterclaims in February 2012 and IBM agreed to the reopening of the case should that stay be lifted. The Bankruptcy Court order lifting the stay was previously submitted to the Court with SCOís Request to Submit for Decision, on June 14, 2012. (Exs. A and B.) Accordingly, SCO respectfully asks the Court to reconsider its decision and grant the Motion to Reopen the Case forthwith.
They are right about the Bankruptcy Court lifting the stay. So unless the judge is much more clever than I am, which is likely actually, I suspect he'll have to grant the motion to reopen, and then we'll see IBM make its moves. But of course, SCO wants more.

Here's what else SCO wants:
Should the Court grant the Motion, SCO respectfully submits that the Court would benefit from oral argument on the unresolved summary judgment motions and respectfully requests that the Court schedule such argument. In addition, insofar as the Court would benefit from supplemental briefing regarding any changes in the law relevant to the unresolved summary judgment motions, SCO remains prepared to provide such briefing at the Courtís direction.
The very last thing in the world that SCO wants is to have to rely on the record so far. As is SCO's wont, it would like to try to go after IBM's money in some new and creative way. I don't think it can possibly have any impact on Linux, but with SCO, you never know for sure what they'll come up with, so I keep my eyes open.

The filings:

05/07/2013 - 1110 - MOTION for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Motion to Reopen the Case re 1109 Order on Motion to Reopen Case, Order on Motion for Hearing, Memorandum Decision and Memorandum in Support filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 05/07/2013)


  


SCO: But waitaminnit, yer Honor ~pj | 206 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Kerecktions --> Corrections
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:17 PM EDT
Post 'em here with the oopsie in the title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Please use links to the newspick you are discussing, so we can access them after
they scroll off the page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:19 PM EDT
Keep the discussion off topic, or you will be forced to represent SCO in the
coming case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:20 PM EDT
Keep the Comes transcriptions coming. Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quadrafect Post
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:22 PM EDT
I did it, my 2nd or third Quadrafecta (I think)!

*Slow clapping*

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO: But waitaminnit, yer Honor ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 01:36 PM EDT
The stay was lifted February 2012, or maybe June 14, 2012.
If I understand the Timeline correctly, SCO requested a
change from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August 16,
2012. Did that perhaps "de-lift" the lifting of the stay, or
create another one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

changes in the law?
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 03:16 PM EDT
I can think of no changes in law that would apply here.
Are they going to attempt to confuse a judge?

Whatever, bring it on, it will be interesting.

Just like Prenda, they don't know how to quit.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO: But waitaminnit, yer Honor ~pj
Authored by: phands on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 03:51 PM EDT
So.....this is after they destroyed any "evidence"?????

This is just more SCO madness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Twits in Utah
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 05:44 PM EDT
Stupidity flows down hill. It must, it's pooling in Utah!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did the Delaware count *approve* the stipulation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT
I see where IBM and SCO have stipulated in bankruptcy court that the stay in
Utah could be lifted, but I don't see any evidence that the bankruptcy court
actually acted and lifted the stay.

Am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not bad work
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 05:53 PM EDT
This seems to be way better than SCO's usual motions, possibly because this time
they actually have a reasonable argument to make. They just make that argument,
without any of the usual tap-dancing. How refreshing (and how unusual).

But... *why* are they doing this? Do they really want to be in court facing
IBM's counterclaims? Are they delusional enough that they think they're going
to come out money ahead in that encounter? Do they still think the FUD has some
value, or that they're going to recover their "good name", or some
other PR-type reason? Or is it just "we have to act like we really
believe, in order to avoid sanctions and/or veil-piercing"?

Is it in order to collect more fees? There's no more juice left in that
orange.

The trustee thinks the claims have merit? Who gave him that idea? Who sold
that idea so hard that the trustee still thinks it's true? Are they still
selling it? If so, who and why? If not, in light of the completely one-sided
defeat that SCO suffered in Novell, why can't the trustee wake up and smell
reality?

What's going on here?

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

I would laugh myself sick...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 06:00 PM EDT
... if the Utah court replied, "Yes, we know the stay was lifted. But we
know, and you know, that you have no case and never did, and we refuse to waste
our time on this junk."

They'd say it like judges, of course...

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is a bucket of boogers
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 08:05 PM EDT

Try to grasp some -- you can't, its glibness escapes your grip.

I think I drew that comparison earlier, quite a few moons ago.

bjd


[ 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 )