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
Novell v. Microsoft Antitrust Trial Re: WordPerfect Set for Oct. 17 in Utah - by pj
Tuesday, September 20 2011 @ 09:11 PM EDT

The Novell v. Microsoft antitrust trial over WordPerfect and Quattro Pro has been scheduled for October 17. Novell won the right to this trial on appeal, if you recall, after Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled [PDF] on summary judgment in favor of Microsoft in the lower court in Baltimore, Maryland. You can listen to the oral argument [mp3; Ogg] before the appellate panel, if you'd like to review the issues. Microsoft asked for a rehearing [PDF], but it was denied [PDF], and the mandate issued [PDF] on June 9th.

So, we're off to the races. Well. Turtle races. The alleged wrongdoing happened between 1994 and 1996. This might clue you in to why antitrust is an approach of last resort. It simply takes too long. Maybe that's why some decide to do it.

I really hope some of you can attend. Bill Gates may be called as a witness, if that inspires you. If you'd like to, and you haven't done so before, you can email me and I'll give you some instructions. One of the key issues is Microsoft withholding APIs from Novell, and I just came across an exhibit from the Comes v. Microsoft collection here in Groklaw that I think might be relevant on that point.

Everything in the appeal hinged on whether an APA between Novell and Caldera was clear or ambiguous, as the court stated in its ruling sending the case back to Utah for trial:

Although the underlying lawsuit involves complex issues of antitrust law, the primary question before us is one of contract interpretation: whether a 1996 contract between Novell and a third company divested Novell of its right to bring the present claim. Concluding that Novell retained ownership of the claim, which is not otherwise barred by res judicata, we remand for further proceedings.
The "third company" was Caldera, back when it was a Canopy Group company and before it morphed into SCO Group. This is very much like the issue in SCO v. Novell, but this time it was Novell arguing that a jury trial was required to decide the meaning of an APA. Anyway, Novell won the right to the trial, so now the case will be about the complex antitrust issues, and it will be a 6-8 Week jury trial set for Monday, 10/17/2011, at 08:30 AM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Salt Lake City, UT. That's quite a long trial. If you recall, SCO v. Novell was only 15 days. And it's quite unusual for Microsoft to allow an antitrust trial to go forward, and the summary judgment issue about Caldera/Canopy would have prevented this trial, had Microsoft been successful on appeal. They usually settle with requirements for confidentiality, from what I've seen, so this is significant that we'll get to see the trial.

Judge Motz is the judge that has been handling the case in Maryland, but he's going to commute back and forth between Baltimore and Salt Lake City, Utah. I know. I can't figure that out either, unless everyone figures he's so deep into it now, he might as well finish. There are other possibilities.

Already the parties are scrambling over every little detail as each has filed proposed jury instructions and voir dire questions. There's also a hearing on a collateral estoppel motion [PDF] by Novell set for September 27 at 2:15 in Baltimore, and more hearings in Baltimore on motions in limine on October 7 at 2:15 PM. Collateral estoppel here means you can't re-litigate issues already decided in earlier court decisions, and Novell doesn't want to have to re-litigate issues decided in the US v. Microsoft case. I have all the pertinent filings for you.

To give you more of an idea of what it's all about, here's Microsoft's Memorandum Objecting to Novell's Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions [PDF] and in support of its own, and on page 13-15, Microsoft tells the court what it sees as Novell's burden in the case, a burden it feels Novell will not be able to successfully meet:

Indeed, the sole remaining claim in this case is not about whether Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct that harmed markets for word processing software or spreadsheet software. Novell had alleged in Counts II through V of its Complaint that Microsoft unlawfully monopolized or attempted to monopolize purported markets for word processor software and spreadsheet software – the markets in which WordPerfect and Quattro Pro actually competed – but those four Counts were dismissed as barred by the applicable four-year statute of limitations and not tolled by the Government Case. Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2005 WL 1398643 (D. Md. June 10, 2005), aff’d, 505 F.3d 302, 321-23 (4th Cir. 2007). Novell’s remaining claim, Count I, was able to benefit from the Clayton Act’s tolling provision only because it alleged harm to competition in the PC operating systems market. (See Compl. ¶ 153.) Therefore, to prevail, Novell must prove that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive conduct directed against WordPerfect and Quattro Pro and that such anticompetitive conduct both (a) caused injury to Novell’s business productivity applications, and (b) “contributed significantly to Microsoft’s maintenance of a monopoly in the PC operating system market.” In re Microsoft, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 743, 747-50. That will be difficult for Novell to do, but Novell should not be allowed to dodge the problem….

As this Court has previously explained, “[t]o be sure, Novell cannot piggy-back on the anticompetitive harm caused by conduct directed at third parties without actually showing the conduct which injured its applications had an anticompetitive impact as well.” In re Microsoft, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 750. In order to prevail in this action, Novell must prove that Microsoft’s three allegedly anticompetitive acts were directed at WordPerfect and Quattro Pro, that those three acts injured those products, and that the same acts also contributed significantly to Microsoft’s maintenance of a monopoly in the PC operating systems market. Id. at 748. Ignoring these specific elements, the Disputed Instructions would improperly tell the jury that Novell can recover if Microsoft injured other companies’ products in other time periods and in other markets….

A. Elements of Section 2 Claim

To violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act, a defendant must (1) have monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) engage in unlawful monopolizing conduct – that is, “willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historical accident.” In re Microsoft, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 744 (quoting Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407). To prove the second element, a plaintiff must show that defendant (a) engaged in anticompetitive conduct that (b) caused injury to plaintiff’s products, and (c) caused anticompetitive harm in the relevant market. Id. at 744, 748. Novell’s Disputed Instructions do not correctly state these legal requirements.

B. Novell’s Burden to Prove Conduct That is Considered Anticompetitive Under the Antitrust Laws

The conduct at issue in this case is Microsoft’s alleged failure to (1) provide formal documentation of the namespace extension APIs; (2) grant Novell an exemption to requirements for obtaining a license to use the “Designed for Windows 95” logo; and (3) provide custom print processor functionality in Windows 95. To determine whether this alleged conduct violates the antitrust laws, the jury should be sufficiently instructed about how the law defines anticompetitive conduct.

I don't think it would be so hard to prove that this was Microsoft's intention, or at least that it was discussing doing this very thing. Take a look, for one example, at this exhibit, #5572 [PDF] from the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust trial exhibits collection on Groklaw, titled "Some Ideas on Exploiting Product Synergy in Word," by Mike Mathieu, Word Program Management at Microsoft. It is dated 1993 but projects over the next five years. Its theme is how to keep WordPerfect and other targeted competitors from competing equally, suggesting that one means might be to "exploit private interfaces":
Introduction

During the past few years, we have been able to steal significant market share away from WotdPerfect An important lesson to learn here is how relatively easy it was for us to do this. It should serve as a warning for Word. In today’s market, word processing might be called mission critical, but no specific word processor can be called mission critical. As long as there are low transition barriers, it will be all too easy for a small, new, low-priced competitor to come along, erode prices, and steal business from us.

An important goal in the 3-5 year timeframe is to increase the "mission-criticalness" of Word-at least to the same level that an app like Excel is considered mission critical. In the past, file formats, macros, unique features, and app-specific user interface conventions were all barriers to transition. In today’s competitive world we must go far beyond these former barriers and exploit synergy with business system components that will help entrench Word. This document services as a starting point for the general discussion of how to better entrench Word, and offers some ideas on the potential areas for developing synergy with other products.

Email Integration

Besides a true word processor, the next most common editor used by the average person is their email editor. If we can make Word so that it can take the. place of the email editor, then users will be more satisfied -- they get a more feature rich mail editor and it’s totally consistent with their word processor and we will be able to leverage off o£ the company’s choice of email system (a mission critical system) and link it to purchases of Word. Today we don’t really integrate any better with MS Mail than somebody like WordPerfect does.

The question then becomes whether we exploit private interfaces in Mail to make this happen, or whether we rely on public interfaces -- which our competitors can use for the same purpose. When the email system comes with the OS, this becomes a bigger problem. One possible idea is that this extra level of integration only comes when using the distinct Microsoft Mail product, as opposed to the mail client built into Windows. (Is the current plan still to ship two separate mail clients?)…

Shell Integration

The idea here is that once a user has bought into Windows, aside from the ability to run other Windows app, the shell itself is probably the most important component of their user experience. (This in itself should serve as a warning to the Chicago group. Too big of a change would lower the barriers for competing shells.) Having Word integrate perfectly with the shell would give us an advantage over those word processors who didn’t integrate as well. …

Hyper-Integration with Excel and Office

It’s not clear what this means in terms of features but the idea is to use (private?) interfaces between Word and Excel (and the rest of the Office?) to provide a tremendous level of integration. This might be describing the Integrated Office, or it might just be extensions to the apps in the current Office.

This is precisely what Novell charges Microsoft with doing, actually, if I've understood its position. I'll let Microsoft describe how it sees it:
More specifically, Novell first alleges that in October 1994, Microsoft withdrew support for four namespace extension APIs in a beta release of Windows 95. According to Novell, because these four APIs were not documented formally, the versions of WordPerfect and Quattro Pro designed for use with Windows 95 were both late to market and of lower quality than they otherwise would have been.
Coincidence? This memo, to me, reeks of a desire to do exactly what Novell is saying Microsoft did do, hobble at least certain competitors, WordPerfect specifically, by keeping certain APIs secret so Novell couldn't integrate as smoothly as Microsoft could.

APIs are, of course, what the copyright claims are about in Oracle v. Google, if you recall, ironically enough. But in the Novell antitrust case, the issue is that Novell claims that Microsoft shared the APIs with others, while keeping Novell shut out. You can see from this 1994 internal Microsoft email [PDF] that Microsoft certainly did share with others, and there's a section mentioning Novell, with the Microsoft goal of seeming open, while keeping vital things close to their vest:

Much of Windows' success can be credited to the broad range of available third party applications and hardware products. OUr Windows strategy requires that we continue to extend and evolve Windows APIs, SPIs and DDIs which will require the continued support of ISV's (includes IHV efforts, too). Over the next 12 months the main focus of DRG will be to migrate today's Windows applications to Chicago, as well as target new applications for Chicago.

We are challenged by the movement to component software, a real paradigm shift for our competitors to exploit. Our initial ISV support for OLE 2 shows positive signs for our continued control of the next generation of APIs for software applications. This will be our 2nd priority....

Development Tools - Getting support for our new APIs requires the support of key development tools. The leading tools vendors include Borland Int'l, Digitalk, Powersoft, Symantec, and Blue Sky. Beyond these key ISVs there are additional players and categories that can not be ignored. The taxonomy broadly includes: low-level compilers & debuggers for many languages (C, C++, Fortran, Cobol, etc.), GUI layout tools, scripting languages, case tools, and high-level, application-builder products....

Competitive Strategies

Our major competitors (Novel, Lotus, and IBM) have all established DRG-like efforts. So far, most have been primarily one-to-many evangelism efforts....

MS is constantly positioned as the closed Proprietary solution. This will encourage continued EBM (everybody but Microsoft) efforts in the future. Our best response is:...

  • Open Process - collaborate with the software development community to define defacto standards. Design previews used to get buy in from ISVs. Workshops / Account management keeps ISVs on our path.

  • Carefully evaluate the tactical & strategic ABM efforts. Give ground on tactical, meaningless battles to bolster "Open" industry perception. Attack aggressively ABM initiatives that are strategic.

We should not be paranoid but recognize that our competitors will continue to band together in a variety of efforts directed against us. Unanticipated mergers or acquisitions may also create more powerful competitors.

So I don't think it's possible for Microsoft to plausibly deny that they had such a strategy or at least it was being discussed.

Novell is currently accusing Microsoft of playing games in pre-trial last-minute moves, as you can see in this letter [PDF] to the judge, complaining about that Microsoft memorandum in opposition.

I mentioned that Bill Gates may be called as a witness, and you can see Microsoft's proposed list in its proposed voir dire [PDF], the questions it wants to ask potential jurors. The parts marked with shading are the ones Novell thinks Microsoft should not be allowed to ask. Question 50, for example, proposes to ask them if they've ever used OpenOffice or NeoOffice or Google Docs or AbiWord, which didn't exist back when the events on trial occurred and/or are Open Source, so there's nothing much Microsoft could do to compete in the usual ways against them. The intent of the question, though, might make one think that a long list of office suites could make the jurors conclude that there was plenty of competition back in 1994-1996 and nothing Microsoft did held it back, since there are so many today. Novell's simple questions [Part 2] are here.

The judge sets out the schedule, including oral argument on Novell's collateral estoppel motion [PDF; Microsoft's Opposition; Novell's Reply] on September 27:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHAMBERS OF
J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 28, 2011

Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation MDL 1332
Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. Civil No. JFM-04-1045

This will confirm the matters we discussed during the telephone conference held yesterday (as supplemented by my subsequent conversations with members of the Clerk’s Office in Salt Lake City).

1. Approximately 150 prospective jurors will be asked to come to the courthouse in Salt Lake City to fill out a questionnaire before trial. Kris Porter, Chief of the Jury Section of the Clerk’s Office in Salt Lake City, believes that it would be better if the prospective jurors came in on October 5, 2011, rather than October 12th as we discussed. The reason for their suggestion is that in Salt Lake City many persons take a vacation during the week of October 10, 2011 pursuant to what is locally known as the “School Holiday.” Unless I hear from you to the contrary on or before August 5, 2011, I will assume that the October 5th date is all right with you.

2. The Clerk’s Office can make two copies of the jury questionnaires, one for each side. I hope that perhaps we can hold a telephone conference on the record sometime during the week of October 10, 2011 to discuss any proposed strikes for cause so that the selection process on October 17th can go smoothly. In that regard, if we believe that we can select a jury from less than the number of prospective jurors who pass the questionnaire screening, I would suggest that we initially call that lesser number in. I have found (as I am sure you have found as well) that the greater the number of jurors present, the longer the selection process is.

3. Ms. Porter advised me that it would be fine if we sent the proposed jury questionnaire to her in mid September, after our pretrial conference on September 14th.

4. The Clerk’s Office in Salt Lake City will immediately give me a password and send me notices of ECF “hits” of the documents you file in Utah. As we discussed, you may consider that I have approved your joint stipulation regarding the admissibility of business records. I will formally approve the stipulation after I have received an ECF password.Case 2:04-cv-01045-JFM Document 56 Filed 07/28/11 Page 2 of 2 5. The trial schedule that you propose, from 8:30 to 1:30 with two breaks, is fine with me and the Clerk’s Office in Salt Lake City. 6. You will submit proposed voir dire questions and a proposed jury questionnaire on September 8, 2011. As previously set, the pretrial conference will be held in Baltimore on September 14, 2011 at 4:30.

7. The briefing schedule proposed in Mr. Johnson’s letter of July 20, 2011 (document 135) is approved.

8. A hearing on the collateral estoppel motion will be held on September 27, 2011 at 2:15 pm. A hearing on the motions in limine will be held on October 7, 2011 at 2:15 pm. Both hearings will be held in Baltimore.

9. We will try to sit as many Fridays as possible in Salt Lake City. I will let you know at the pretrial conference the Fridays on which I must return to Baltimore. I now know that I have to be in Baltimore on Friday, October 21, 2011. Further, as I believe I have previously advised you, we will not sit at all during the week of October 31, 2011 because of a previous commitment I have. I believe that these are all the matters that need to be confirmed now. If there are any additional matters that I have forgotten that you think should be confirmed now, please let me know on or before August 5, 2011.

cc: Aaron Paskins, USDC, District of Utah
Kris Porter, USDC, District of Utah
Ruth Schriock, USDC, District of Utah
Louise York, USDC, District of Utah

And here's the docket entry about the trial, the motion hearing, and hearings on motions in limn:
59 Filed & Entered:   08/02/2011
Set/Reset Trial Order Deadlines Docket Text: Set Deadlines: Proposed Voir Dire due 9/8/2011, Proposed Jury Instructions due 9/8/2011.

6-8 Week Jury Trial set for Monday, 10/17/2011 at 08:30 AM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Salt Lake City, UT.

Pretrial Conference set for Wednesday, 9/14/2011 at 4:30 PM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, MD.

Motion Hearing on the collateral estoppel motion set for Tuesday, 9/27/2011 at 2:15 PM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, MD.

Motion Hearing on motions in limine set for Friday, 10/7/2011 at 2:15 PM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, MD. See docket entry [56] for details. (rks)

Here are some other recent filings, if you want to brush up, plus the full docket since it was decided to go to Utah for the trial:
[-] - Filed: 07/18/2011
Entered: 07/21/2011
Add and Terminate Judges
Docket Text: Judge J. Frederick Motz added, out-of-circuit judge assignment. Judge Ted Stewart no longer assigned to case. (ce)

35 Filed: 07/18/2011
Entered: 07/20/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Designation and Assignment of a Senior United States Judge for Service in Another District. Judge J. Frederick Motz is designated to perform judicial duties in the USDC Utah for this case. (ce)

36 - Filed: 07/18/2011
Entered: 07/20/2011
Order from MDL
Docket Text: ORDER from MDL Panel - Conditional Remand Order signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the MDL Panel on June 30, 2011. (ce)

37 - Filed: 07/18/2011
Entered: 07/20/2011
Stipulation
Docket Text: JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING THE RECORD ON REMAND by Microsoft, Novell. (ce)

48 - Filed: 07/18/2011
Entered: 07/21/2011
Receipt
Docket Text: Receipt of Order Remanding this case back to Utah from the District of Maryland, case 1:05cv01087JFM and MDL 1332; Dockets and Joint Stipulation Regarding the Record on Remand. Copy of receipt returned to Maryland (ce)

38 - Filed & Entered: 07/20/2011
Notice PHV Requirements
Docket Text: NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS for appearance phv emailed to attorney Michael Edmund Jacobs, for Plaintiff Novell. (ce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2011: # (1) Email re: PHV Application) (ce).

39 - Filed & Entered: 07/20/2011
Notice PHV Requirements
Docket Text: NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS for appearance phv emailed to attorney Alexander W. Major, for Defendant Microsoft. (ce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2011: # (1) Major Email re PHV) (ce).

40 - Filed & Entered: 07/20/20
Docket Text: NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS for appearance phv emailed to attorney G. Stewart Webb, Jr., for Defendant Microsoft (ce) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2011: # (1) Webb - Email re PHV) (ce).

41 - Filed & Entered: 07/20/2011
Remark
Docket Text: Remark - Alexander W. Major, PHV counsel on the Maryland case will not be appearing PHV in the Utah case (per phone call 7/20/2011). (ce)

42 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
Notice From the Court
Docket Text: NOTICE FROM THE COURT re: Conference Call re: trial, documents etc. set for 7/27/2011 at 4:30 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel are to make arrangements for this call. (ce)

43 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
Clerks Order
Docket Text: ORDER signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz. All documents filed previously in the Maryland case, 1:05cv01087JFM will be accessed through PACER at the Maryland website and will not be copied to the District of Utah docket by the Clerk's Office. However, the few documents designated by counsel from the MDL 1332 case will be entered on this case as "File Received". (ce)

44 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
File Received
Docket Text: File Received/Downloaded from MDL 1332 pursuant to [37] Joint Stipulation of Parties re: Designation of Documents: (Attachments: # (1) Doc 1651 - Entry of Appearance of R. Bruce Holcomb for Novell, # (2) Doc 1652 - Entry of Appearance of Milton A. Marquis for Novell, # (3) Doc 1671 - Amd Stip Protective Order, # (4) Doc 1673 - Paperless Order Approving Amended Stip Protective Order, # (5) Doc 1693 - Transcript dated July 6, 2005 re: Conference Call, # (6) Doc 1696 - Letter from G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Esq re: Conference Call set for 8/3/2005, # (7) Doc 1706 - Memorandum re Interlocutory Appeal signed by Judge Motz, 8/19/2005, # (8) Doc 1707 - Order Certifying Issue to the Fourth Circuit signed by Judge Motz 8/19/2005, # (9) Doc 1738 - Letter from Jeffrey M. Johnson, Esq. re postponement of discovery pending Appellate Ruling, # (10) Doc 1777 - Transmittal Sheet re Notice of Appeal, # (11) Doc 1877 - Judgment from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, # (12) Doc 1880 - Mandate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals) (ce) Modified on 7/21/2011 to modify text (ce).

45 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE - Docket from US District Court for the District of Maryland, case 1:05cv01087JFM. (ce)

46 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE - MDL Docket from the US District Court for the District of Maryland, case MDL 1332. (ce)

47 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
Exhibits
Docket Text: EXHIBITS received from the District of Maryland, case MDL 1332 filed by Microsoft (oversize, not scanned) - Exhibit 31 and 43 to the Affidavit of Steven L. Holley in Support of Microsoft's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and filed in MDL 1332, dated 11/13/2009.

Exhibit 31 - Complaint filed in the District of Utah in this case on 11/12/2004;
Exhibit 43 - Complaint filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Utah County, State of Utah, case 000402011 filed 6/16/2000, Novell v. Caldera. (ce) Modified on 7/21/2011 - these documents will be placed in the court file (ce).

49 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of James Robertson Martin, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1398598, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A Pro Hac Vice application, proposed Order, ECF registration form)(English, Maralyn)

50 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Adam Proujansky, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1398622, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A Pro Hac Vice application, proposed Order, ECF registration form)(English, Maralyn)

51 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Paul R. Taskier, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1398624, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A Pro Hac Vice application, proposed Order, ECF registration form)(English, Maralyn)

52 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Miriam R. Vishio, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1398629, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A Pro Hac Vice application, proposed Order, ECF registration form)(English, Maralyn)

53 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jason D. Wallach, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1398637, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A Pro Hac Vice application, proposed Order, ECF registration form)(English, Maralyn)

54 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Stipulation
Docket Text: STIPULATION Regarding Business Records Exception to the Hearsay Rule by Novell. (English, Maralyn)

55 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Hearing by Novell (July 27, 2011, 4:30 p.m. EST) (English, Maralyn)

57 - Filed: 07/27/2011
Entered: 08/01/2011
Telephone Conference
Docket Text: Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. Frederick Motz: Telephone Conference held on 7/27/2011. See entry [56] for details. (rks) 56 - Filed & Entered: 07/28/2011
Correspondence
Docket Text: Correspondence confirming the matters discussed at the conference held on July 27, 2011. (JFM)

58 - Filed: 07/29/2011
Entered: 08/02/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE - Updated Docket from US District Court for the District of Maryland, case 1:05cv01087JFM (Attachments: # (1) Docket Sheet) (asp)

59 - Filed & Entered: 08/02/2011
Set/Reset Trial Order Deadlines
Docket Text: Set Deadlines: Proposed Voir Dire due 9/8/2011, Proposed Jury Instructions due 9/8/2011.

6-8 Week Jury Trial set for Monday, 10/17/2011 at 08:30 AM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Salt Lake City, UT.

Pretrial Conference set for Wednesday, 9/14/2011 at 4:30 PM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, MD.

Motion Hearing on the collateral estoppel motion set for Tuesday, 9/27/2011 at 2:15 PM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, MD. Motion Hearing on motions in limine set for Friday, 10/7/2011 at 2:15 PM before Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore, MD. See docket entry [56] for details. (rks)

60 - Filed & Entered: 08/08/2011
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: MOTION Seeking Collateral Estoppel filed by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn)

61 - Filed & Entered: 08/08/2011
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [60] MOTION Seeking Collateral Estoppel filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix A, # (2) Appendix B, # (3) Appendix C, # (4) Exhibit 1, # (5) Exhibit 2--Part 1, # (6) Exhibit 2--Part 2, # (7) Exhibit 3, # (8) Text of Proposed Order)(English, Maralyn)

62 - Filed & Entered: 08/10/2011
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Robert A. Rosenfeld, attempted - not known, unable to forward. (djs)

63 - Filed & Entered: 08/10/2011
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Robert A. Rosenfeld, attempted - not known, unable to forward. (djs)

64 - Filed & Entered: 08/10/2011
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Robert A. Rosenfeld, attempted - not known, unable to forward. (djs)

65 - Filed & Entered: 08/11/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: Final MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Sharon L. Nelles, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1411177, filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Supplement Application for Admission/ECF Form, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Jardine, James)

66 - Filed & Entered: 08/11/2011
Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: First MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Jury Questionnaire filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Holley, Steven)

67 - Filed & Entered: 08/12/2011
Order
Docket Text: Paperless ORDER granting re [66] First MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Jury Questionnaire filed by Microsoft. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 8/12/11. (JFM)

68 - Filed & Entered: 08/15/2011
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Robert A. Rosenfeld, addressee unknown, return to sender. (djs)

69 - Filed & Entered: 08/19/2011
Terminated: 08/25/2011
Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(Jardine, James)

70 - Filed & Entered: 08/19/2011
Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Appearance by Justin T. Toth on behalf of Microsoft (Toth, Justin)

71 - Filed & Entered: 08/22/2011
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Robert A. Rosenfeld, addressee unknown, return to sender. (djs)

72 - Filed & Entered: 08/22/2011
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [60] MOTION Seeking Collateral Estoppel - Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Renewed Motion Seeking Collateral Estoppel filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix A, # (2) Appendix B, # (3) Appendix C)(Jardine, James)

73 - Filed & Entered: 08/25/2011
Order on Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: Paperless order granting [69] Motion for Leave to File Overlength Memorandum. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 8/25/11. No attached document. (JFM)

74 - Filed & Entered: 08/25/2011
Mail Returned
Docket Text: Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Robert A. Rosenfeld, addressee unknown, return to sender. (djs)

75 - Filed: 08/29/2011
Entered: 08/30/2011
Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel
Docket Text: NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL of Robert A. Rosenfeld on behalf of Microsoft (asp)

76 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2011
Terminated: 08/31/2011
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Reply Memorandum in Support of Renewed Motion for Collateral Estoppel filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Text of Proposed Order)(English, Maralyn)

79 - Filed: 08/31/2011
Entered: 09/07/2011
Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
Docket Text: DOCKET TEXT ORDER granting [76] Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 9/7/11. No attached document. (JFM)

77 - Filed & Entered: 09/01/2011
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of John E. Schmidtlein, Registration fee $ 15, receipt number 1088-1426323, filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A (Application, Proposed Order, ECF Registration Form))(English, Maralyn)

78 - Filed & Entered: 09/01/2011
Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion
Docket Text: REPLY to Response to Motion re [60] MOTION Seeking Collateral Estoppel filed by Plaintiff Novell. (Attachments: # (1) Appendix A, # (2) Appendix B, # (3) Exhibit 1, # (4) Exhibit 2, # (5) Exhibit 3, # (6) Exhibit 4)(English, Maralyn)

80 - Filed & Entered: 09/09/2011
Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply Memorandum re [80] MOTION Seeking Collateral Estoppel filed by Plaintiff Novell filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Jardine, James) Modified by adding link to motion per counsel on 9/9/2011 (rks).

81 - Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Objections
Docket Text: OBJECTIONS to Novell's Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions and in Support of Microsoft's Proposed Preliminary Jury Instructions filed by Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C)(Jardine, James)

82 - Filed & Entered: 09/12/2011
Status Report
Docket Text: STATUS REPORT for the September 14, 2011 Pre-Trial Conference by Microsoft. (Jardine, James)

83 - Filed & Entered: 09/13/2011
Objections
Docket Text: OBJECTIONS to [81] Objections, [82] Status Report filed by Novell. (English, Maralyn)

84 - Filed & Entered: 09/15/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE of Novell's Proposed Jury Questionnaire by Novell (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 Jury Questionnaire--no objections, # (2) Exhibit 2 Jury Questionnaire--additional questions) (English, Maralyn)

85 - Filed & Entered: 09/15/2011
Proposed Voir Dire
Docket Text: Proposed Voir Dire by Plaintiff Novell. (English, Maralyn)

86 - Filed & Entered: 09/15/2011
Notice of Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF FILING of Microsoft's Proposed Supplemental Juror Questionnaire filed by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D)(Jardine, James)

87 - Filed & Entered: 09/15/2011
Proposed Voir Dire
Docket Text: Proposed Voir Dire by Defendant Microsoft. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Jardine, James)


  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 )