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
SCO's Files Objections to Judge Brooke Wells' Order - Sealed
Friday, July 14 2006 @ 04:29 AM EDT

Here it is, right on time, SCO's objections to the recent order by Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells, but it's sealed! Is that not a hoot? So much secrecy in this SCO litigation. They are filing objections under seal, challenging an order that sanctioned them for holding back evidence. Ironic, no?:

I think maybe SCO chose the Cathedral method, because there are too many eyeballs in the Bazaar. Bob Mims has a bit more, but he includes comments from two analysts who have yet to get one thing right about SCO that I can recall. In fairness to SCO, I don't see any way to evaluate their chances on *this* filing until we can read it. Still, the valuable information is that apparently SCOfolk told him the basis of their objections:

The appeal, technically an "objection" seeking Kimball's review, argues that Wells' reasoning confused SCO's contractual allegations over IBM's alleged export of the code with SCO's Unix copyright claims.

SCO attorney Brent Hatch said the appeal, which [it] was filing electronically with the court clerk's office Thursday night, also contends Wells took out of context some of the case law she cited to support her ruling.

So they are claiming mistake of law. Good luck, dudes. Export of the code? Does that mean export out of the US? Or export from AIX or Sequent to Linux? I can't tell from the article.

I view this objection as more of a placeholder anyway, to preserve the issue for appeal at the end of the case, after SCO loses at trial. If it gets that far. If you read this article, you'll understand a bit about preserving issues for appeal. It's in a criminal context, but the concepts are more or less the same.

What else did you expect them to do? If they don't object, they sink like a stone. Even a long shot is better than that. So they have decided to take their shot, their long shot.

It's possible they will file a redacted version later. They are supposed to, if they can. I gather it was nip and tuck to get it filed on time anyhow, so let's not leap to the conclusion that we'll never get to see any part of it. I'm sure you've seen by now that it tends to all come out somehow, whether in replies or in hearings. Meanwhile, yes. It's frustrating, because we can't do analysis or present any rebuttal evidence. Hmm. Perhaps there is a method to their madness, as the expression goes.


  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 )