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's Motion for Audio of Hearing at 10th Circuit Ct. of Appeals Granted ~pj
Wednesday, June 19 2013 @ 02:49 AM EDT

Novell applied at the end of May for audio of the oral argument before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals May 6th in Novell's appeal in Novell v. Microsoft, the antitrust litigation over WordPerfect:
Novell requests a copy of the oral argument recording so that it may be transcribed and referenced during the future course of Novellís dispute with Appellee Microsoft Corp.
The court has granted the request, with an order saying both parties will be sent a copy. That isn't what Novell asked for. Microsoft didn't oppose the motion, but it didn't join it either. Novell asked: "Should the Court grant this request, the mp3 recording may be sent to Joshua I. Schiller" at Boies Schiller. The reason Novell gives for its request means, I gather, either that Novell expects to try to appeal to the US Supreme Court if it is not successful in its appeal at the Tenth Circuit; alternatively, it hopes the case will be remanded to Utah for the trial its appeal is asking for, and it wants the transcript for reference in that context. Either way, the story won't end here.

Here are the filings:
05/29/2013 - Open Document [10076418] Motion filed by Appellant Novell, Inc. to release the oral argument recording. Served on: 05/29/2013. Manner of service: email. This pleading complies with all required (privacy, paper copy and virus) certifications: Yes. [12-4143] JIS

06/10/2013 - Open Document [10080162] Order filed by Judges Kelly, Gorsuch and Holmes granting Attorney motion to release oral argument recording. Served on 06/10/2013. [12-4143]

We are still waiting for the appeal court's decision.

Say, a shout out to the parties: we'd love to publish the transcript, if you two can agree to allow it. Should you grant this request, the mp3 recording may be sent to pj at groklaw.net.

: )

Novell's motion is approved as to form for this type of motion, as you can see from the docket entry. The motion's page on compliance ("CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION AND PRIVACY REDACTIONS") says this:

I certify that a copy of the foregoing APPELLANTíS OPENING BRIEF as submitted in Digital Form via the Courtís CM/ECF system is an exact copy of the written document filed with the Clerk and has been scanned for viruses. In addition, I certify that all required privacy redactions have been made.
This isn't the opening brief, so I gather they just used a form that was in the computer without remembering to change the name of the document, but the court either didn't notice or didn't care. In any case, it tells you what the requirements are supposed to be.

  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 )