Headlines:- SCO Responds to Novell's Motion to Allow Evidence, 12:58 PM
- Novell's Petition for Writ of Certiorari - as text, Saturday 06:02 PM
- Monday's Bankruptcy Hearing Rescheduled for April 7 at 3 PM, Saturday 03:22 PM
- Day 5 of the SCO v. Novell Trial & Some Help for Journalists Covering the Trial - Updated, Friday 08:32 PM
- Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way", Friday 03:01 PM
- Novell's Motion to Allow Evidence: SCO Opened the Door, Friday 10:14 AM
- Day 4 of the Trial in SCO v. Novell - and Novell's Petition for Certiorari - Updated 5Xs, Thursday 08:11 PM
- Updating the Mozilla Public License, Thursday 11:07 AM
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune, Wednesday 11:59 PM
- Volunteer Needed for Thursday Trial Coverage, Wednesday 04:52 PM
| SCO Responds to Novell's Motion to Allow Evidence |
 |
|
Monday, March 15 2010 @ 12:58 PM EDT
|
On Friday, at the trial in SCO v. Novell, SCO told the judge that they'd file their response to Novell's Motion to Allow Evidence on Monday. And so they have:Novell seeks to present evidence to the jury in the form of snippets of text selectively lifted from prior judicial opinions in this case. Novell claims these snippets would be used to rebut the factually correct assertion, made in SCO’s opening statement and the answer of one witness to a single question, that Novell’s claim of ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights continues to appear on Novell’s website “to this very day.” As with Novell’s previous attempts to introduce such evidence, the Court should reject this attempt to present the jury with judicial statements, not in context, that are not relevant to the claims and defenses presented here, but that would create jury confusion and be highly prejudicial to SCO. Wait. That's not how we remember it. We remember SCO saying not just that the claim of *ownership* continued to this day; they said that the *slander* continued to this very day. From the transcript [PDF]:
So this is a campaign of slander, broadcast and repeated to the world that continues to this very day....
And to this day Novell, on their web site, continues to republish that slander. You gotta watch the Boies Boyz, my friends, with a very close eye. They could talk a bird out of a tree before he realizes there is no worm.
|
|
|
| Novell's Petition for Writ of Certiorari - as text |
 |
|
Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 06:02 PM EST
|
We have Novell's Petition for a Writ of Certiorari [PDF] as text. This is its petition, asking the US Supreme Court to review the
decision by the US Court of the Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Here are the two orders that the appeals court reviewed, Judge Dale Kimball's
August 10, 2007 Memorandum and Order and the November 20, 2008
Final Judgment. Odds are always against the petitioner to the U.S. Supreme Court, of course, and the earliest it could be heard would be in April, we learned from a remark at Friday's trial in SCO v. Novell, so the trial will be over before this is heard, even if it beats the odds. Here are the rules [PDF] of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Rule 10 tells what kinds of cases they are more inclined to accept. Nevertheless, it's an important document, because it raises an important question: how should copyright transfers be evidenced? US Copyright law requires a writing, but what should happen if the writing isn't clear about which copyrights, if any, were conveyed? Should it be up to a jury to decide and more or less make it up out of the memories of participants of yore? You think I jest. Not at all. That is exactly what is happening in SCO v. Novell currently in the trial. How would you like to have your copyright ownership decided like that? Still want to if the memories relied upon are those of Darl McBride and his friends and allies?
|
|
|
| Monday's Bankruptcy Hearing Rescheduled for April 7 at 3 PM |
 |
|
Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 03:22 PM EST
|
The hearing on the motion to approve the sale of SCO's mobility products to Darl McBride, exCEO of SCO, has been rescheduled. So don't show up, if you were planning to on Monday. It is now set for April 7th at 3:00 PM Delaware time, unless there are no objections and no competing offers, in which case the judge can just sign off on it.
|
|
|
| Day 5 of the SCO v. Novell Trial & Some Help for Journalists Covering the Trial - Updated |
 |
|
Friday, March 12 2010 @ 08:32 PM EST
|
One of our reporters in the courtroom today, bprice, has sent his first dispatch. More to come. He had a pleasant chat with Tom Harvey of the Salt Lake Tribune. And in the trial itself, there was testimony from Bill Broderick again, then Ty Mattingly.
|
|
|
| Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O'Gara: "I Need You to Send a Jab PJ's Way" |
 |
|
Friday, March 12 2010 @ 03:01 PM EST
|
So. Now I know. Now we all know.
Blake Stowell, then the PR guy for SCO, sent an email to Maureen O'Gara,
saying "I need you to send a jab PJ's way," and then right afterwards
she wrote that invasive so-called expose, in which she revealed, or at
least intended to reveal, things like who I called on my phone. A la the
HP scandal. She got fired for doing it the way she did, and the
then-publisher apologized to me publicly, but she says in the deposition
she's not sorry a bit.
We learn this by reading excerpts from her deposition, previously under
seal, attached to a letter [PDF] SCO's attorney sent to the court. SCO doesn't
want the part of her deposition video played where she talks about me
and Groklaw. It's beyond eye-opening, however, despite her pretense, as
I see it, that there is no connection between the two events.
They also don't want the part about an email she sent to SCO, subject
line, "I want war pay," played. It's allegedly humor. Just chatter. But
you know, she is on the list of people SCO owes money to, now that I
think of it, filed in connection with the bankruptcy. I wonder for what?
|
|
|
| Novell's Motion to Allow Evidence: SCO Opened the Door |
 |
|
Friday, March 12 2010 @ 10:14 AM EST
|
Yesterday, at the end of the day at the trial of SCO v. Novell, there was a discussion of whether certain evidence could be let in after all, due to something SCO said. Judge Ted Stewart asked Novell to put it in the form of a motion, and they have. SCO accused Novell in its opening argument four times of slander of title "to this very day". And in questioning Duff Thompson yesterday, the lawyer asked him if he saw evidence of slander of title to the present, and he said yes. It indicates a desire for damages covering the entire time period. However, Novell points out that prior rulings by this court and the appeals court found that Novell was in fact the owner of the copyrights, among other things, and Novell thinks it is grossly unfair that it can't be allowed to mention those salient facts to the jury, if the judge is going to allow SCO to claim damages "to this day": In view of the foregoing, the Court should permit Novell to introduce evidence that Novell’s representatives acted with knowledge of the following three facts: 1. Judge Kimball ruled on August 9, 2004, that “the APA did not transfer any copyrights” and “the agreements raise substantial doubt as to whether the APA as amended by Amendment No. 2 qualifies as a [17 U.S.C.] Section 204(a) writing”;
2. Judge Kimball ruled on August 7, 2007 that “Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights”; and 3. The Tenth Circuit recognized on August 24, 2009 that “Novell has powerful arguments to support its version of the transaction.” SCO's attorney Stuart Singer may have gotten carried away with his theatrical indignation. And when a party slips like this, what lawyers call opening the door, it can indeed have consequences. Novell was just waiting for a moment like this.
|
|
|
| Day 4 of the Trial in SCO v. Novell - and Novell's Petition for Certiorari - Updated 5Xs |
 |
|
Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 08:11 PM EST
|
They played videos in court today, day 4 of SCO v. Novell's jury trial. SCO claims it has a surprise witness, like that surprises anyone that has been following SCO's legal ways. There was a dispute about that, but I gather it will happen eventually. And Novell has filed its notice that it has filed its Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking them to take a look at what the Appeals Court did. We have the document now for you as well.
Update 4: With all the reports now in, what happened today in court becomes clearer: SCO continued its presentation, with video depositions played, of Jack Messman, Doug Michaels, Burt Levine, Jim Wilt, Alok Mohan, and some live testimony by Bill Broderick. And the surprise witness looks like it will be one of the lawyers who drew up the APA, perhaps Aaron Alter, who you may recall worked on the same team as Tor Braham, but Braham was the lead attorney for Wilson Sonsini. He will be testifying for Novell. As you noticed in opening argument, Novell pointed out they had lawyers who drafted both the APA and Amendment 2, and SCO had no lawyers to testify for them. So I gather SCO would like to remedy that. However, it's not certain. One witness thinks the name mentioned was Troy Keller.
|
|
|
| Updating the Mozilla Public License |
 |
|
Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 11:07 AM EST
|
Mozilla is updating its license, and you can participate, just as you did in the GPLv3 updating process. It'll be going on for a while, until the end of 2010, in monthly stages, and each part of the schedule will only last one month, so I'm letting you know now, even though we are all riveted to Utah and the trial at the moment, so you can begin to think about it and maybe make use of intermissions in the Utah story.
|
|
|
| Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune |
 |
|
Wednesday, March 10 2010 @ 11:59 PM EST
|
Here's what the Salt Lake Tribune reports happened today at the SCO v. Novell trial, all of which it records as if it were all so. Let's see if it is, by comparing what is reported about the testimony with what we already know. Part of what Groklaw does is insist on checking facts. So, let's do that. And then I'll share with you what our reporter there today has to say.
|
|
|
| Volunteer Needed for Thursday Trial Coverage |
 |
|
Wednesday, March 10 2010 @ 04:52 PM EST
|
Our scheduled reporter for Thursday and Friday is still a flu patient, and so we do need someone to cover Thursday's SCO v. Novell trial. If you can, please email me and I'll give you instructions. Trust me, you'll have fun. And the rest of us will be so grateful. Thanks!
Update: I'm just learning that the two reporters scheduled for today couldn't go after all. Medical issues. So hit the Paypal button, y'all. We'll order a daily transcript so I can at least tell you about what happened. It'll take a while to get it, so stay tuned, but no need to refresh every ten minutes or anything.
|
|
|
First | Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next | Last |
Seeing is believing when Microsoft talks nice about former foe Apple
First it was Steve Ballmer at the University of Washington, praising iTunes' App Store.
Then a few days ago it was Brad Smith, the company's general counsel and senior vice president.
Smith gave more definition to this new alliance I'm seeing between Microsoft and Apple, united against Google....It's getting hard to keep track of who is a friend and who is an enemy here. [PJ: Road map for you: proprietary closed v. open source, aka old v. new.] - Brier Dudley,
Seattle Times
Google's Open Source Stars
The tables below, list some of Google's eclectic mix of open source luminaries grouped by project.
No doubt I've forgotten some, so don't hesitate to contact me with corrections/additions. - pixelbeat
Tim Bray goes to Google
The reason I’m here is mostly Android. Which seems to me about as
unambiguously a good thing as the tangled wrinkly human texture of the
Net can sustain just now. Here’s why. Tim Bray, Ongoing
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but
of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will
be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s
discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court
considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United
States court of appeals on the same important matter;
has decided an important federal question in a way that
conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort;
or has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of
this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the
decision of another state court of last resort or of a
United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals
has decided an important question of federal law that
has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or
has decided an important federal question in a way that
conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the
asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the
misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. - Supreme Court Rules, 2010 [PDF]
Lawyers, Looking to Launch a Blog? Read This First
Herrmann’s article is a very engaging read (though we admit that as law bloggers ourselves, we’re not exactly disinterested.) We can’t imagine, however, that anyone would actually get to the end of Herrmann’s article still determined to launch a blog. - WSJ Law Blog
Shock jock Hal Turner will choose new defense team for third trial
The second mistrial, declared Wednesday after the jury deadlocked, wasn’t the outcome his lawyers wanted, but they still called it a victory — especially since the government was allowed to fly the three targeted judges in to testify when such testimony was ruled to be irrelevant to the threat charge in the first trial....
As he prepares for a third trial, Turner has decided to part ways with his defense team. - NorthJersey.com
Hubble 3D Opens In IMAX Theaters March 19
Hubble 3D takes us further into space than any motion picture has done before. We not only follow the final servicing mission crew on its paces through training, and then the real thing on orbit, we get to go out deep into space, literally to the edge of the known universe, where the Hubble Space Telescope has photographed the strange and bizarre in ultimate detail.
For myself, I admit of expectations to see beautiful imagery in this movie. What IMAX has not delivered on that? I anticipated it would include many gorgeous photographs of the heavens, blown up to giant IMAX screen size, but even then, in all candor, this movie went far beyond my high expectations. To say that I was in awe with my jaw on the theater floor, would be an understatement. - Science Daily
Watch This!
Firefox 3.5 is the first browser to support open video formats, allowing movies to become part of today’s dynamic web pages without requiring a plug-in. Go ahead – give it a try. - Mozilla
Math, Science, and Unix Underpants, by Bill Amend
Jason Fox's perpetual obsession with being the ultimate science and math nerd is an ongoing story line in FoxTrot and one of its most popular themes. In this first ever FoxTrot themed book, the best math, science, and other geek-worthy cartoons are collected for all of FoxTrot's many fans. - Amazon.com
The Secret Origin of Windows
The similarities between the products were largely due to the fact that both Windows and Macintosh has common ancestors, that being many of the earlier windowing systems such as those like Alto and Star (the latter shown at left) that were created at Xerox PARC. History shows that Jobs in fact visited PARC and hired people from there to join Apple. But Apple’s first graphical-interface computer, the Lisa, failed, and there was a time even in the first year of its launch that it was unclear whether the Macintosh would make it. From my perspective, Microsoft’s support of the Macintosh helped it survive through its most critical time and continues to be a platform the company continues to support. To me, the allegation was almost insulting. If I wanted to copy the Macintosh, I could have done a much better job.
The trial dragged on for months, but eventually settled not so much because of Apple’s claim of visual copyrights, but in part because the companies actually had signed an agreement long before where Apple had previously granted a license to Microsoft to use any part the interface included in its applications for the Mac. Even so, I had never used this to consider copying the Mac user interface. However, I can recall that within my first year at Microsoft, Gates had acquired a Xerox Star, and encouraged employees to try it out because he thought it exemplified the future of where the PC would be headed and this was long before Microsoft even saw a Mac or even a Lisa from Apple. [PJ: The history of Windows, the Pravda version. Is there some huge PR effort going on to try to rehabilitate Microsoft's and Bill Gates' reputations? In any case, you may wish to peruse the Comes v. Microsoft exhibits, if Microsoft history interests you.] - Tandy Trower, Technologizer
Older News Picks

Submit a Link
Suggest a news story to our News Picks Editor.
| Click on any day to search postings for that date. | |
Articles Only
Shortcuts
Articles Only
Headlines only
Groklaw RDF
Groklaw RSS
News Picks RDF
News Picks RSS
|