Granting the Novell request for the same judge to be assigned to both cases surely wouldn't slow down the Novell case at all, but it would help the new judge having to suddenly deal with these complicated and interwoven cases to at least comprehend how they interact, particularly with respect to the GPL.

Don't forget that Judge Dale Kimball was assigned to both IBM and Novell. So assigning the two cases to one new judge to replace him would simply be returning to a kind of status quo. And if Novell prevails in the arbitration, SCO's copyright claims pretty much go poof. Why wouldn't you want to do that first, particularly since now it's ripe on the vine, whereas when the Utah court decided to go forward on both tracks, the arbitration was just beginning. It would have been decided long ago, had it not been for SCO's bankruptcy filing.

Neither SCO nor Mr. Cahn show any comprehension, from what I could see, of the General Public License and how it will affect SCO.

You'll recall that Apple told the California court that it would be filing this motion before Thanksgiving, and it now has. It has asked the California court to issue a permanent injunction against Psystar, and it would like it to cover all versions of Apple's Mac OSX software, including Snow Leopard, which is what the Florida case is supposedly about. If the Florida case is sent to California, that would ensure that any injunction would cover the entire enchilada.

Apple tells the court that Psystar is losing like crazy in California, and the Florida filing is Psystar forum shopping so it can attempt to relitigate issues it is losing or has already lost in the California action.

I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage. This means that Capone and Marvel can still live in the top level of the Explorer namespace, but will run separately. We can continue to use the iShellBrowser APIs for MS provided views such as control panel, and can use them for other MS-provided views that don't create a large compatibility or ISV issue....

Having the Office team really think through the information intensive scenarios, and be a demanding client of systems is absolutely critical to our future success. We can't compete with Lotus and Wordperfect/Novell without this. Our goal is to have Office '96 sell better because of the shell integration work, and to have the Ren/Office effort yield technology that can be an integral part of the shell in Windows '97.

Wayne R. Gray ("Mr. Gray" or "Movant") has moved to lift the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. $ 362(d) (the "Motion"), in Movant's words, to "permit the Debtor" to participate in pending litigation' and an appeal. The basic problem with the Motion is that the Chapter 11 Trustee does not wish to participate and Mr. Gray lacks standing to compel his participation. Mr. Gray's effort is confounding to the Court because he invested considerable time and money in an obviously ill-founded, losing effort. The Court is willing to give Mr. Gray the benefit of the doubt that he filed and proceeded with the Motion in the good faith belief that he is entitled to the relief. The Court is nevertheless fully satisfied that Mr. Gray is completely wrong.

11/25/2009 - 973 - Memorandum Order (related document(s) 942 ) Order Signed on 11/25/2009. (TAS) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

It's Comes Plaintiff's Exhibit 1614 [PDF], an email thread begun by Dennis Adler to Jeff Price, with ccs to Bill Miller and David Cole, at Microsoft, and the subject line is "Undoc APIs document". The thread goes from April 7 to April 12, 1993.

For Psystar, this isn't the fun part. Apple's expert calculates [PDF] statutory damages from copyright infringement at "between $1500 and $300,000 and the statutory damages to Apple as a result of Psystar’s violations of the DMCA are between $449,500 and $4,495,000".

The settlement terms were sealed for all these years, but lo and behold, now that mystery is solved. There are many more goodies on the list of exhibits.

We also find out what Caldera/Canopy then paid Novell from that $280 million: $35.5 million at first, and then after Novell successfully sued Canopy in 2004, Caldera's successor-in-interest on this matter, an additional $17.7 million, according to page 16 of the Memorandum.

Microsoft claims that Novell is not the real party in interest in this antitrust case, and so it can't sue Microsoft for the claims it has lodged against it, because, Microsoft says, Novell sold its antitrust claims to Caldera when it sold it DrDOS. So the exhibits are trying to demonstrate that Novell got paid in full, so to speak, via that earlier litigation. As a result, we get to read a number of documents from the Novell v. Canopy litigation. Novell responds [PDF] it retained its antitrust claims in the applications market.

So those are the parties' positions, but to us, this is a history. We have all the Microsoft exhibits for you, thanks to your kind donations, and there are a lot of exhibits. We'll be posting all the exhibits to the Novell response in opposition to this motion next, so keep in mind this is only half of the story.

When we purchased the audio, the court didn't mention any time embargo, unlike what happens with transcripts, so I hope I can share the audio shortly, and I will check with the court next week about that. It's fascinating, but they may want to give the parties time to ask for any privacy redactions first. I'll share it as soon as I can without causing problems. Meanwhile, I'll tell you what I heard.

Update: The answer from the court was a firm no, not now, not ever. It's for personal use only.