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
Novell's Replies on Motion to Stay and For More Definite Statement
Monday, June 19 2006 @ 10:12 PM EDT

Lots of Novell goodies just got filed with the court. Today was the deadline to reply to SCO's opposition to Novell's two motions. Here's Reply in Support of Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration and Reply in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for a More Definite Statement of SCO's Unfair Competition Cause of Action. There is a declaration by a Novell attorney also and plenty of exhibits too.

Novell doesn't mince words. I've glanced through it all quickly and the nicest thing Novell says about SCO is that it is confused about the applicable law. The worst thing they say is that one thing SCO said is frivolous. In between, you find some mockery and disdain.

Novell is the beneficiary, of course, of IBM's careful, gentlemanly foundational work to expose SCO's less appealing profile, and so Novell doesn't have to go through all the "After you, Alphonse" pleasantries while getting the judge up to speed on what the court is dealing with here. This court knows. Even so, it's breathtakingly plain-spoken. I'd say Boies Schiller has met its match for aggression, although Novell is never nasty or underhanded, and I anticipate fireworks to come in the Novell litigation.

Here are all of today's filings, so you can see where the exhibits go. As we put up the text, I'll go into more detail, but I know you want to read it all right away:

Any help doing text versions would be greatly appreciated. I got an email this week from a blind Groklaw member, thanking me and all of you for our kindness in doing this work, which he appreciates deeply. PDFs can be a serious problem for the blind. And this way, the documents are easily searchable too. Just leave a comment if you can OCR or HTML one of the documents, so we don't duplicate work, and then send it to me in a plain text email, in the body of the message, with a note as to what credit you'd like. Thank you. This case is getting more and more intriguing. I'll explain next.


  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 )