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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Mediation would cost extra without helping anything | 193 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Doesn't mediation require IBM to agree to it? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 06:41 AM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Mediation would cost extra without helping anything
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 09:10 AM EDT

If SCOg was honestly willing to consider mediation they'd already be quite aware they have nothing for the negotiating table.

Their claim is "tortious interference in licensing Linux" combined with "tortious interference for creating a competitive product". My interpretation of the situation.

Interference with regards licensing Linux based on Copyrights the Court has ruled they do not have? This should be a non-starter.

If entity A claims "you painted my fence, you owe me $5", entity B tells you "you did not paint his fence, don't pay him", the Court says "entity A, you don't own that fence - entity C owns the fence and if the person who painted the fence owes anything they owe entity C". Now entity A is going after entity B for interference.

Personally, I can't see how that claim shouldn't be dead in the water.

Since SCOg has no claim to the code they claimed Linux infringed, any claims of IBM saying they didn't have any claim should be dead on PSJ.

The second claim with building a competing product - well.... I never thought I'd see anyone claiming that as anti-competitive (tortious interference) but I guess it makes sense one of the SCOg crowd would say it if anyone was going to.

Since SCOg has nothing for the negotiating table - any time spent there would be time and costs wasted. Are they really concerned about their money when they're suggesting a method to waste more of it? I don't think so. I hope the Judge feels the same way.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCO doesn't need mediation
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 09:48 AM EDT
They just need to call up IBM's lawyers and say they give
up, and want to wrap everything up. They should also
consider apologizing off the record for all the expense they
have caused IBM throughout this vexatious litigation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCO is trying to appear reasonable
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT

They know IBM is not going to agree to any mediation that doesn't end in
abject surrender. I suspect that they may hope to blacken IBM's name
before the judge, because if I was IBM, I wouldn't see anything worth
mediating.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCO proposes mediation
Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 01:08 PM EDT
Could it be a typo?

Maybe what SCO wants is court ordered Medication ? On a parallel track?

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I think they've got a chance at this.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 11 2013 @ 02:48 PM EDT
If Judge Nuffer handles the case like Judge Stewart did with SCO v. Novell, it might go something like:
  • Let's have a scheduling conference. What's the first date you can each get two lawyers to SLC?
  • If you want to do any breifing, make it fast.
  • I've got two open trial spots, here, pick the first one.
  • You've both had years to prepare, don't ask me for a delay for any reason.

Stewart pushed the schedule very hard; he's the only one in the Utah group that has managed to get an SCO case concluded. Wouldn't be surprised that others might take notes on how...

Come to think of it, I wonder if SCO is asking for what they think they're going to get, so they can spin it as a win?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

SCO proposes mediation
Authored by: bwbees0 on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 01:20 AM EDT
Isn't the SUSE arbitration still on the books along with others such as Red Hat (See The Order - A Chapter 11 Trustee is to be Appointed; SCO's Sale Motion Denied - Updated) and stayed pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings? It seems that winding up the bankruptcy may allow others to show up and have their day in court as well.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )