decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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 files motion to expedite appeal of SCO v. Novell
Friday, November 05 2010 @ 10:02 PM EDT

SCO has filed a motion asking to expedite its appeal of its loss in SCO v. Novell.

I wonder if this might explain all the delay on the sale of assets, because SCO says the reason it wants to hurry the appeal is because of the IBM case being stayed until SCO v. Novell is fully resolved. Can't you just see SCO waltzing in to the December 1st hearing in bankruptcy court and telling the judge that it couldn't find a qualified buyer, but they will be flooded with candidates just as soon as their appeal is decided, and that they've asked that it be expedited? I sure can.

It also mentions the Red Hat case, but considering it was Red Hat that filed that litigation against SCO, not the other way around, I don't see how it's SCO's business to ask to expedite because of that one. I also doubt most sincerely that SCO wants to hurry up on that litigation. So I consider it camouflage. Red Hat and IBM aren't asking anybody to expedite anything, because as it stands right now, they are free of SCO.

So what does that leave? What is happening, I think, is that SCO wants to be able to get a shot at IBM. If it can get a win at the appeals court, even if it's again only a temporary reprieve, it may think it will be able to find a buyer for these assets it's trying to sell, even if in the end it loses again. Bagholders don't like being left holding the bag, I discern. Maybe, then, the hope is to sell the assets, make what they can, and leave the carcass on someone else's lap.

Believe it or not, SCO tells the court that it, its creditors (*which* creditors?) and the court agree on the following:

The Bankruptcy Court has observed, and SCO and its creditors agree, that the resolution of the actions against Novell and IBM bears directly on SCO’s business and its ability to exit bankruptcy.
I'd opine that it depends on how you define "exit bankruptcy". It's free to sell its assets, shut down, and die any time.

Nah. Not SCO. Someone still hopes to be naughty and sue the world over Linux. It's a fixation with these guys. SCO's Trustee Edward Cahn seems to actually think SCO has a shot at getting money out of IBM, but I consider that out of the question. Surely by now, IBM would have settled if it ever planned to. And in courtrooms, SCO has a nearly perfect record of failure, so this is more an idée fixe than a realistic hope. And you know how those work out.

Here's the filing:

11/04/2010 - Open Document - [9812715] Motion filed by Appellant SCO Group to expedite case. Served on: 11/04/2010. Manner of service: email, ECF/NDA.

And here's the meat of the filing, and yes, SCO has two paragraph 3s and no paragraph 7:
Plaintiff-Appellant, The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), respectfully moves the Court to hear oral argument in this case at the earliest practicable opportunity, and thereafter to expedite its resolution of this appeal.

In support of this Motion, SCO states:

1. At issue in this case are the rights of the parties concerning UNIX, one of the most popular computer operating systems in the world.

2. In addition to the instant litigation against Defendant-Appelee, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”), SCO is involved in two other cases concerning its intellectual property and contract rights in UNIX.

3 SCO filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2007, following the district court’s summary judgment rulings that this Court largely reversed. SCO has thus been in bankruptcy for over three years.

3. In March 2003, SCO brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), to enforce its intellectual property and contract rights in UNIX. In August 2003, Red Hat, Inc. (“Red Hat”) brought suit against SCO in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In both cases, the UNIX copyrights at issue in the instant action are also at issue in most or all of claims and counterclaims. Accordingly, until this Court resolves the issue of the ownership of those copyrights, the IBM and Red Hat litigations cannot be fully resolved.

4. Indeed, soon after SCO filed for bankruptcy protection, the district court below stayed the IBM litigation pending resolution of the instant case. In addition, on September 10, 2010, the district court denied SCO’s motion to proceed with SCO claims that are independent of the resolution of this action. The district court ruled that “proceeding in the IBM litigation in the piecemeal manner suggested by the SCO Group” would be “inefficient” because “the claims in the Novell litigation are inextricably intertwined with the claims in the IBM litigation.” The court further noted that, “when the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in the Novell litigation (No. 10-4122), either party may move the court to re-open the case.”

5. The district court in the Red Hat case has also stayed the action pending resolution of matters in SCO’s lawsuits against Novell and IBM.

6. In September 2007, SCO filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. SCO’s pending actions against Novell and IBM have been identified as among SCO’s principal assets. The Bankruptcy Court has observed, and SCO and its creditors agree, that the resolution of the actions against Novell and IBM bears directly on SCO’s business and its ability to exit bankruptcy.

8. In sum, the resolution of several federal court actions and the disposition of issues in the bankruptcy cases all turn on the resolution of the instant appeal.

9. SCO therefore respectfully requests that oral argument be held at the earliest practicable opportunity, and that the Court thereafter expedite its resolution of this appeal.

10. Novell does not oppose this Motion but takes the position that this appeal can be resolved without oral argument.

  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 )