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
More Novell Filings too
Monday, October 02 2006 @ 10:26 PM EDT

Novell also has some filings, and while it's mostly sealed, including as exhibits the Sun and Microsoft 2003 agreements -- which is really hard to bear, not getting to read those two documents -- I do notice on docket number 151, the Jacobs Declaration, that item 14 on page 3 mentions amendments to the Microsoft agreement.

That is the first I've heard about that, as far as I recall:
14. Attached as Exhibit 12 are true and correct copies of the amendments to the 2003 Agreement between SCO and Microsoft (referenced in paragraph 13, above), as produced in this litigation by SCO with Bates range SCO1200026-1300031. Novell has added page numbers, from 1 to 6, in the lower right corners for citation purposes. This Exhibit is being filed under seal pursuant to the August 2, 2006 Stipulated Protective Order. The public version of this declaraton does not include this document.

Boo hoo! I'd give a lot to see those two amendments. I'd love to know the date even. Was it the same day as the original agreement? Or after it was clear SCO was tanking? Can you imagine what Microsoft wishes *now* it had written in the agreement? So, we don't get to see them. But let's not despair. Maybe SCO will "goof" again and read them by mistake at a hearing and then happen to leak the contents to a friendly reporter. In a perfect world, you know that would be what would have to happen. Most of the exhibits are SEC filings by SCO, quarterlies and annual reports, and what a depressing tale they tell. If you're SCO. Here's what is on Pacer right now:

10/02/2006 150 **SEALED DOCUMENT** DECLARATION of Michael A. Jacobs re 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. NOTE: Document Oversized - Not Scanned/Attached. Retained in Clerks Office Sealed Room. (blk, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

10/02/2006 151 REDACTION to [150] Sealed Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in support of 147 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction by Defendant Novell, Inc.. NOTE: Oversized - Partially Scanned/Attached. Retained in Clerks Office for Viewing. (blk, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

10/02/2006 152 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Novell, Inc. re [150] Sealed Document, (Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction) (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

10/02/2006 153 NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Declaration of Michael A. Jacobs in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [REDACTED pursuant to the August 2, 2006 Stipulated Protective Order] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. re 151 Redacted Document, (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

10/02/2006 154 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Novell, Inc. (Memorandum in Support of Novell, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [Filed UNDER SEAL pursuant to the August 2, 2006 Stipulated Protective Order]) (Sneddon, Heather) (Entered: 10/02/2006)

Happy reading! This is all, of course, in support of Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction.

It's a good thing for SCO they added a couple of lawyers to replace the ones that recently left. They have serious motions coming at them from all directions, from Novell and IBM, and the arbitration on top of it all. It's beginning to feel a little like the Alamo.


  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 )