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.


To read comments to this article, go here
Lamlaw on SCO's Contract Claims
Monday, January 24 2005 @ 05:59 AM EST

I guess what I like about Lewis Mettler's Lamlaw is that he doesn't use weasel words. Unlike a lot of lawyers, what he writes is plain English and there is no doubt what he intends to mean. I know some of you have said there are too many stories this weekend, but that's what snow does to me. And I think you'll be interested to know what he predicts, post the discovery order. I am highlighting the part that particularly struck me:

"I know that SCO stills clings to the hope that the IBM case will someday reach the trial in court. But that does not appear to be likely. Getting past those motions for Summary Judgment are going to take a whole lot more than simply begging for more discovery. And [the] only way you defeat a motion for Summary Judgment is by outlin[ing the evidence you have that if believed by the jury will support a decision in your favor. Failing that there will be no trial on those issues. So it is likely although not certain that the IBM will be gutted almost as badly as the DCC case before a jury can even be summoned. . . .

"Trade Secrets are gone. There never were any patent claims. The Novell case may very well nix any hope that SCO has over any copyright issues (since they most likely will be found to NOT be holding the copyrights anyway). And that means the only claim left for SCO is based upon contract law. And that is looking very bad for SCO.

"Even if the wording in the contract between AT&T and IBM favored SCO's position (and it does not), both AT&T and Novell pretty much waived or canceled any such claims by way of their actions over the years. And rare indeed are the contracts cases where a third or fourth or fifth successor in interest in the contract is able to impose upon the other party an understanding that runs contrary to the predecessors and the practice throughout the execution of the contract. That is just not likely to happen. I put SCO's chances in succeeding on the contract issues somewhere between nil and zero. . . .

"Strange it is that SCO was a direct beneficiary of the effort by IBM to contribute technology to Linux. And they killed their own goose. It may not have been golden. But it was a goose. Now all they have is a dead bird. And when these cases finish up by eating the meat off the carcass, the bones will be buried somewhere. Or simply discarded out back.

Between nil and zero, the man said.


  View Printable Version


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 )