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 Redacted Memo in Support of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:14 PM EDT

Oh, yummy. Here is SCO's redaction of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief [PDF].

I have only had a moment to read it quickly, but I confess that I'm a little disappointed. I thought it would be better than this. I doubt any old timers will be surprised. In a sentence, SCO argues that if SCO had no right to enter into the SCOsource license agreements, and if Novell didn't approve SCOsource licensing, then Novell has no right to the money SCO got from SCOsource.

Uh huh. SCO logic, whereby all brain synapses fire in only one direction all the time -- in service of the noble goal of making sure SCO keeps Novell from getting its money, while forcing Novell to spend buckets more on lawyers. So, who gets the money in SCOland? Guess. Microsoft and Sun, you silly wabbits. Who'd ya think?

At least that's what I get from the implications of footnote 3 on page 13.

Why shouldn't those two enablers be rewarded for their lack of due diligence and for helping SCO hold up the marketplace in what Novell has called a scam? Bonus points for trying to destroy Linux. Certainly they deserve every penny back.

Oh wait. SCO already told the court, it's pretty much all gone. All the dollars they have left are different dollars. Hmm. What a dilemma. I know. How's this? The new moneybags partners offering to save SCO could pay all the perps? Why wouldn't that be a SCO dream come true?

Here's the docket:

507 - Filed & Entered: 03/12/2008
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [506] Sealed Document, SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief by Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)


  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 )