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
Hearing in AutoZone set for November 2 at 9 AM
Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 11:19 AM EDT

There is a hearing set for November 2 at 9 AM in the AutoZone case, specifically on AutoZone's Motion to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Claims for Actual Damages, Statutory Damages and Attorneys' Fees. I surely hope somebody can attend.

And the second filing of the day is a stipulation to extend time for SCO to respond to the motion. Indeed, they have an uphill climb since AutoZone requires them to prove they actually own the copyrights, an uphill climb made more so by Novell filing for review en banc of that very issue. If you recall, at the hearing on September 22, 2008 they discussed how to go forward, and the judge basically said that they'd go forward with the ruling in Utah, and while SCO could argue that the court was wrong, and ask for a judgment nevertheless alternatively and then after all the appeals, if Utah was wrong, they'd have to redo.

But for now, it's Utah's decision that is the one SCO has to deal with, because Novell filed for a rehearing en banc, and as I understand the rules, that puts us back to Go, with the picture being that the case is on appeal, with no final appellate decision. And SCO has to prove a complete chain of title, and I don't think they can. I don't think anybody can, actually. USL distributed the early code without copyright notices.

09/15/2009 - 110 - NOTICE of Hearing on 108 MOTION to Dismiss in Part Plaintiff's Claims for Actual Damages, Statutory Damages and Attorneys' Fees : Oral argument is scheduled for Monday, 11/2/2009, at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Judge Robert C. Jones. (no image attached)(KXG) (Entered: 09/15/2009)

09/16/2009 - 111 - STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME by Plaintiff SCO Group, Inc.. (Pocker, Richard) (Entered: 09/16/2009)


  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 )