|
SCO Fights for Survival in IBM and in Novell |
|
Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:36 AM EST
|
I barely know how to tell you this, but SCO has filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge Dale Kimball's November 29th Order in SCO v. IBM, the one affirming Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells' June 28th Order. I guess they figure things are so bad now, they have nothing to lose by trying. Here's the Notice of Conventional Filing [PDF]. Yes. Of course. It's under seal. So is the memorandum in support. Perhaps SCO will grace us with a redacted version in a bit. But in the meanwhile, we are left with our mouths open. Whatever are they thinking? Delay? You think? Or maybe desperation. This is the order whereby Judge Kimball dismissed SCO's objections to Judge Wells' order which had tossed out most of the items on SCO's list of allegedly misused materials. SCO asked Judge Kimball to do a de novo review, and he did. And after he did, he agreed with Judge Wells and affirmed. And now SCO is asking him to reconsider that ruling. Can you imagine Judge Kimball's feelings, seeing this show up? To say that I am fascinated to find out what basis SCO feels it has to ask him to go through all this again is an understatement. They have to have some legal basis on which to ask for this relief. As longtimers here will remember from early in 2005, when IBM successfully asked Judge Wells to reconsider an order, "a motion for reconsideration may properly be made to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice." So, SCO has to justify this request for reconsideration by demonstrating at least one of those two things. Knowing SCO, they'll claim both.
SCO finds itself in a real pickle. It followed a strategy that failed when both judges ruled against SCO the last week of November. You will recall that on November 30, Judge Wells also ruled from the bench, granting the relief in IBM's motion to confine SCO's claims to whatever SCO had put on the table by the end of discovery. As a result of those two orders, SCO's case shrank to almost nothing in two days, so I can't help but wonder if all the evidence they had kept up their sleeve just landed on Judge Kimball's desk. They won't describe it like that, of course. Perhaps we'll hear some paralegal just found it in a cabinet or something. The great Salt Lake parted, and after they miraculously walked through to the other side, they tripped on a rock and fell on some new evidence. If Microsoft is pulling SCO's strings, one can't help but wonder if perhaps SCO is supposed to make this whole litigation so endlessly horrible an experience that if and when Microsoft sues some Linux vendor or end user over some stupid patent or other Microsoft got out of the USPTO gumball machine, IBM will be so allergic to lawsuits, it won't have the heart to fight. Or perhaps they are hoping Judge Kimball will make some error, anything at all, that will make it possible to ask for leave to appeal or will enhance their appeal at the end of this case. Yes, Virginia, there is an end to this case someday. Un bel dei. One thing you have to say about SCO's legal team: they never give up. And they don't care what anyone thinks of them, not even Judge Kimball, evidently.
Then, in the Novell case, which I'm guessing SCO now wishes it never brought, they are filing motions and exhibits like mad. In particular, they've filed a sealed Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction (that's the one where Novell asked for its money from the 2003 Microsoft and Sun license deals) and in support of SCO's new Cross Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [PDF]. Here's why SCO says it is entitled to that relief:
SCO is entitled to summary judgment on Novell's Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims because the evidence of the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor. In the alternative, SCO is entitled to partial summary judgment on Novell's counterclaims for a constructive trust and/or accounting under its Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth causes of action on the grounds that Novell cannot satisfy the elements for such relief. We'll see about that. SCO's memo in support is sealed, so again we'll have to wait for a redacted version. It's a 54-page document, so SCO had to ask for permission to file an overlength document [PDF]. It also needed an extra day to file it, and Novell stipulated [PDF]to allow SCO the time. SCO also got permission [PDF] in SCO v. IBM to file an overlength reply memo in support of its spoliation motion. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that SCO is fighting for its life.
SCO has almost nothing to lose. What it needs to lose is its reputation with this court, and if nothing else SCO probably hopes Judge Kimball will look at all the arguments and exhibits and conclude that SCO's case wasn't completely frivolous when filed. If it was, and by now Judge Kimball probably has an opinion on that subject, SCO and SCO's lawyers could conceivably be sanctioned and IBM would be awarded damages. So they have a strong motivation to try to reach Judge Kimball on that point. In SCO's perfect world, he becomes so impressed, he rules in their favor on something, anything.
Attached to SCO's cross motion in Novell are 46 sealed paper exhibits. The clerk has placed this note in the Pacer record: Note: Exhibits are oversized and not attached in the pdf image. The Complete document is retained in the sealed room for access by authorized persons only. I can only guess, but this could mean they would rather the public never see those exhibits, whatever they are, or it's alternatively possible they just ran out of time and didn't get them scanned in. It's still possible, then, that we'll get a list of some redacted exhibits eventually that we will be allowed to pick up from the court. SCO is seriously stretched thin, between the two cases on two tracks simultaneously running them ragged.
|
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:54 AM EST |
If any...
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cybervegan on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:00 AM EST |
Please make links clickable if you can - just copy and paste the red example
"Clickable links:" under the Post Mode selector and change the
relevant bits. Put a new line in after "href=" - just before the first
quote, if your address line is long.
-cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Binary non-GPL modules. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:41 AM EST
- Infoworld error - MS format not approved by ISO - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:43 AM EST
- "Third Word exploit released" - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 06:13 AM EST
- openSuse downloads sky-rockets - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:22 AM EST
- Bill Gates on Baystar, the SCOG Scam and IP. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:37 AM EST
- The Indian call-centers will prosper - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:06 AM EST
- Google Patent Search launches - Authored by: Nivuahc on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:20 AM EST
- No exploits in latest M$ Word !! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:20 AM EST
- Tom Perkins to tell his story in a book. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:21 AM EST
- Politically Correct - Authored by: roadfrisbee on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:50 AM EST
- I get the joke, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:53 AM EST
- SCOX: change in behaviour - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:08 AM EST
- "Microsoft threatening its own customers" - Authored by: phaoUNTOtom on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:46 AM EST
- Microsoft innovation? - In hardware (not software) - Soap - Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 12:43 PM EST
- News Picks: FSF pledges $60,000 to Free Ryzom Campaign - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 12:53 PM EST
- "You Want A Piece Of Me? Huh?!?" - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:20 PM EST
- We should negotiate through OIN - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:41 PM EST
- Any relationship between Rob Enderle and BayStar's Paul Enderle - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 02:47 PM EST
- Can we help? - ".......we are checking to see if a Microsoft Office 2007 program is installed." - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 02:49 PM EST
- Hewlett-Packard Cuts Ties With Sonsini says "person with close connections to the Board." - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:48 PM EST
- How The MicroVell deal could come to pass - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:52 PM EST
- Linux XP - Authored by: clark_kent on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:24 PM EST
- Linux XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:36 PM EST
- Clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 05:22 PM EST
- Linux XP - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 06:44 PM EST
- 99 reboots of Linux XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:46 PM EST
- Linux (noob) XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:42 PM EST
- And still fails - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 09:32 PM EST
- Linux XP - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 15 2006 @ 04:04 AM EST
- Making fun of your own beliefs - Authored by: John Hasler on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 05:07 PM EST
- From the side-bar "MS-Novell webinar" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 06:37 PM EST
- U.S. Gets Subpoena to Force ACLU to Return Leaked Memo - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 06:47 PM EST
- Patent Trolls - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:15 PM EST
- Third MS Word Code Execution Exploit Posted - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:41 PM EST
- French Consumer Watchdog takes HP to court for bundling software with PCs. - Authored by: Brian S. on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM EST
- New Microsoft OS for Robots - Authored by: JScarry on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:04 PM EST
- Way off topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 15 2006 @ 08:56 PM EST
- Lock on comments on old threads? - Authored by: esni on Saturday, December 16 2006 @ 07:25 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:09 AM EST |
Novell says that "in exchange for Novell's retention of rights relating
SVRX Licenses, Santa Cruz received the right to develop, license and sell a new
merged UNIX product in the marketplace. (Undisputed Fact ¶ 4, supra.) Santa Cruz
obtained the right to convert "SVRX-based customers" to a UnixWare
derived product. (Id.) Santa Cruz also acquired Novell's UNIX-related customer
list as a platform for future business."
Does that mean that all rights relating to SVRX Licenses went first to SCOG and
then went back to Novell to pay for the right to convert "SVRX-based
customers"? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:19 AM EST |
If Microsoft is pulling SCO's strings, one can't help but wonder if
perhaps SCO is supposed to make this whole litigation so endlessly horrible an
experience that if and when Microsoft sues some Linux vendor or end user over
some stupid patent or other Microsoft got out of the USPTO gumball machine, IBM
will be so allergic to lawsuits,
This is why frivolous activities
from lawyers must be sanctionned. If the legal team is personally liable for
such barratry, they will be deterred from gaming the system on behalf of overly
rich clients or disposable strawmen.
This is also why IBM must strive to
pierce the corporate veil and expose any man that may hide behind the curtain.
Liability must fall where it belongs to prevent recurrence of the experience. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:27 AM EST |
Is there some special legal meaning to "undisputed" or those lawyers
simply don't know what the word means? Or maybe it is me?
My simplest definition is: "nobody says otherwise".
I'd like some native speaker with legal background please explain if I'm wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:45 AM EST |
"a motion for reconsideration may properly be made to correct clear error
or to prevent manifest injustice."
How many "clear errors" did SCO find in Wells' order? So SCO must be
able to find at least that many in Kimball's order, just for starters...
</sarcasm>
---
I would rather stand corrected than sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:46 AM EST |
The brash audacity of this filing! I'm struck agog. It's like the kid who shows
up to class, hasn't done his homework but claims that the dog ate it... Bullies
stole it on the way to school... Yeah... It's in my other jacket pocket... Yeah,
that's the ticket! It's been whisked away by aliens!! Please, give me just *one*
*more* *chance*.
What's to reconsider? SCO, you didn't do your homework! You failed to specify
what materials you claim IBM "stole" and put into Linux. Whatever it
is that IBM squandered, you are unable to reveal its specific locations in
Linux, AIX, and/or System V. What part of YOU FAILED do you miss here?
Put your dunce cap on, go sit in the corner, and try, please try, to absorb the
true, weighty futility of your cause here. Linux users and coders have been wise
to your nonsense since this sham of a case was started four years ago. The
judges caught on two years ago. However, you don't want either of these cases to
be decided now, so let's go for the gambit, eh? More delay. More frippery to
further keep Linux and IBM under a shadow of FUD until MS can get their new
flagship OS out on store shelves.
Words further fail to express my deepest contempt for you, SCO. Time is your
enemy. You are running out of time. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:48 AM EST |
You say "have to" as though that holds any meaning for SCO. That's
what they "have to" have to succeed, but just to file it? Not so
much.
I'm assuming that they're concentrating on the inevitable appeal now, giving
Wells and Kimball every possible opportunity to make a technical error, or to
provoke them into pulling a Judge Jackson (remember him in the Microsoft case?).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:49 AM EST |
I bet it's the stuff that was in the suitcase. And it's under seal because -
1. If anyone who knows about code sees it, they'll fall about laughing.
2. If you show some evidence, someone might research it and point out how
utterly bogus it is.
3. It's very demoralising to have people tearing your work to shreds. Especially
if you are a rocket scientist who doesn't want the world to know what you did.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BobinAlaska on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 05:12 AM EST |
This just gets weirder and weirder. Has anyone heard anything about SCOX
announcing their conference call yet? I can hardly wait to hear about their
results and how they will try and spin the events of the past couple of weeks.
---
Bob Helm, Juneau, Alaska
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 06:19 AM EST |
PJ Said:
"Perhaps we'll hear some paralegal just found it in a cabinet or something.
The great Salt Lake parted, and after they miraculously walked through to the
other side, they tripped on a rock and fell on some new evidence."
In SCO's super secret sealed memo:
“Your Honor, the Dry Cleaners return a luggage ticket they had found in Daryl
McBride’s pants pockets and when we went to the airlines to claim it, it turned
out to be Blepps briefcase! Now we have millions of lines to show.”
Okham's Razor
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 06:21 AM EST |
I am beginning to believe that SCO will soon present their evidence. It is
located on stone tablets, which they will place in a hat and dictate to the
court.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:02 AM EST |
All the previous ones have been taken apart by Groklaws hive mind, so they don't
want these dismantled too.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: entre on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:39 AM EST |
This motion for reconsideration could be about something much more simple. At
the conference call on or about December 22nd. or 27th. when Darl gets asked
about the loss of two thirds of their case he can now say: "That issue has
not been adjudicated yet completely, We look forward on our appeal to a complete
reversal of the judgement based on the facts of our case being undisputed and
overwhelmingly in SCO's favor."
This sounds so much like Darl it has to happen this way at the CC!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:47 AM EST |
Surprise, surprise. I don't remember anybody predicting this. I suppose we
should have though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:11 AM EST |
"SCO is entitled to summary judgment on Novell's Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims because the evidence of the parties' intent under
the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's
favor."
Pure desperation. Novell has presented
substantial evidence with their PSJ/PI filing and associated memorandum and
exhibits to at the very least dispute this statement (and at most win their
PSJ/PI motion). How BS&F can state that the parties' intent under the APA is
"undisputed" in their favor is beyond me (especially when TSG is not and was not
a party to the APA when executed, was not involved in the negotiations, and has
no first-hand knowledge of the parties' "intent" in any case).
This is not
the first time that TSG's attorneys have told the Court that such-and-such
facts were "undisputed" in a court filing when they actually were disputed. (And
of course we recall that TSG filed a
"stipulated" motion that wasn't "stipulated" by the other side.) One wonders
if such behavior is normal in a lawsuit, and if not, when such behavior will
come back to bite them in the form of sanctions.
--- "When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:12 AM EST |
How long can you continue this sco tactic before it is declared contempt of
court?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:42 AM EST |
In SCO v IBM 438, Order denying [380-2] motion to intervene (joined with [340-1]
motion by G2 Computer Intelligence), denying [380-3] motion to unseal court
files (joined with [340-1] motion by G2 Computer Intelligence) 04-28-05, Judge
Dale A. Kimball ordered:
(2) All future dispositive motions and memoranda that are filed under seal shall
be publicly filed with all confidential information redacted. Additionally, all
non-confidential supporting exhibits shall be publicly filed;
The order further states;
(3) After May 27, 2005, the court will award reasonable attorneys' fees to any
party that successfully challenges the opposing party's designation of a
document as confidential after such document has been filed with the court and
after having provided the party seeking confidentiality at least ten days to
remove the confidential designation;
Has anyone kept count of how many times either SCO or IBM have violated this
order?
Wouldn't it be fun to see IBM challenge the SCO non-filing of things in redacted
form ?
The order also states Sanctions will be considered if the court catches either
party, abusing sealing, on it's own.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:47 AM EST |
I wonder if the judge can just stay this motion indefinitely. This way he is not
forced to go through SCO's landmines in their overlength memos until after the
trial (they are going to appeal anyways). It is clear they are looking for him
to make a mistake or pull a Judge Brown.
If he rules on this, they are going to file a "renewed" motion for
reconsideration, of course, that one is going to be filed conventionally with
even longer overlength sealed memos.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:52 AM EST |
Hey, everybody!
So, do we have the usual IBM gets a say then SCO gets one more shot before the
judge rules, or can the judge just rule right now?
If IBM gets a response, why do I get the feeling Kimbal won't have to write
much
more in his opinion than "IBM correctly pointed out that...."
"Indisputed." Hey, pay attention here! There's nothing BUT dispute.
The only thing I predict is Kimball's ruling, whenever it happens, is going to
take a while. He'll want to make sure every bolt at the waterline is tight.
Boy, think what a mess things would be right now if Kimball were less
meticulous
than his is. =:-0
Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:57 AM EST |
I have this image of the Blepp briefcase showing up on Judge Kimball's desk,
looking like a steamship trunk of old, with stickers from around the world on
it. SCO's memo in support of the reconsideration "this 'evidence' has been
lost but now is found."
...D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Briefcase - Authored by: Wardo on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:07 AM EST
- Briefcase - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:22 AM EST
- Briefcase - Authored by: TAZ6416 on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:31 AM EST
- Briefcase - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:39 AM EST
- Briefcase - Authored by: esni on Saturday, December 16 2006 @ 06:14 PM EST
- Briefcase - Authored by: Wardo on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:42 AM EST
- Briefcase - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:46 PM EST
|
Authored by: gvc on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST |
Kimbal's ruling also included, almost as an afterthought, a ruling that the
trial would be deferred pending resolution of SCO v Novell. Perhaps that's what
they are asking to have reconsidered.
I think Kimbal is right, but at least asking him to reconsider is not absurd, as
it is for the ruling on evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 09:13 AM EST |
One of my professors when challenged on exam marks said he would review the
whole exam not just the question that the student thought was incorrect.
Did the claims that were permitted get a review as well?
Perhaps there are more that can be excluded.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gumnos on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 09:56 AM EST |
Note: Exhibits are oversized and not attached in the pdf image. The
Complete document is retained in the sealed room for access by authorized
persons only.
Looks like SCO has found a new legal strategy to
keep Groklaw's nose out of their filings...print out their pleadings &
arguments on posterboard (or perhaps 11"x17" paper) and then file it under
seal.
I wonder if they get to then write-off the cost of a wide-carriage
plotter/printer as a business/legal expense
:-)
-gumnos
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rollyk on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:31 AM EST |
Sherlock: "the 'game's afoot' my dear Watson !
The real game here lies with Microsoft. How much did MS pay in back fees to SCO
in 2003-4 ? $30Mil+
PJ wrote: "that if and when Microsoft sues some Linux vendor or end user
over some stupid patent or other"....
This will not be the last lawsuit. Any of us that have been sued or initiated,
business lawsuits wondered if there was ever an end in sight.
---
pay now, or pay later, there's no free lunch.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 10:49 AM EST |
Even if they just "found" something in the Great Salt Lake, that won't
demonstrate that it wasn't completely frivolous when they filed. It will only
prove that discovery was a fishing trip and they found "something",
however small to show that they *currently* have a shred of evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fishing Trip - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:25 AM EST
|
Authored by: Jude on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:22 AM EST |
SCO's quarterly report is due Real Soon Now, and they don't have *anything* good
to put in it. I'll bet they filed this just so they could hold up one glimmer
of (false) hope to the bagholders.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Michelle Readman on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:22 AM EST |
"But, Judge Kimball, we did submit this before the end of discovery! We
cannot be held accountable for the court's own poor filing practices in ancient
egyptian times!"
"So you poured sand over your printed work..."
"Egyptian sand!"
"_Ancient_ Egyptian sand!"
*Kimball blinks*
"Then Ra came and enslaved everyone!"
"(IBM still worship him, y'know)"
[Fearing all may be lost, BS&A decide it's time to use the Stargate
argument...][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:56 AM EST |
Earth to SCO:
- These are civil cases.
- There ain't no sanity
clause.
--- You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST |
What I am thinking is what if SCO did give to BS&A some evidence which has
now been excluded because of the lack of specificity. BS&A could be liable
for legal malpractice if they had the evidence but did not file it with the
court.
Possible?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 12:13 PM EST |
Some here and on other message boards have wondered if this filing was just to
say, "it's not decided." on the financials call.
I personally think it will be ruled on LONG before the con-call.
My hope is that it's ruled on prior to the end of next week.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:11 PM EST |
God Speed as you move head long into your exit plan [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:32 PM EST |
All of the comments so far have missed something obvious in the quest for (over)
analysing the motion.
It has been pointed out here in previous comments that there appears to be
someone interested in keeping the stock price above $1/share. Right now, the
stock price graphs are getting flatter at flatter at the 1.06/1.04 points.
But, the filing was made on 12/13. I submit that the purpose of the filing was
to give SOMETHING to the anonymous benfactor intent on the $1.06 price to hang
onto, to give him some justification to keep it up. If you look at the price
chart for 12/13, you will see that early in the day, and for several hours, the
price dipped below the aparent 1.04 trigger. Today, it dipped below that, but
almost immediately rebounded to $1.06
All this after dropping as low as .88 on Friday, and spending most of the day
Monday in the sub-$1.00 range. Methinks perhaps that somone is playing games
with stock prices.
But this makes me wonder what is so magical about a stock price of $1.06? I
have seen comments hinting that if it trades below $1, they face possiible
delisting, which makes sense, although clearly "just" being below $1
isn't enough, there must be a time threshold as well. ie, it must trade below $1
for five consecutive trading days. But even then, why $1.06? Why not prop it
up at $2? Maybe thos with more insight or financial expertise can comment....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hidden Agendas - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:49 PM EST
- Stock Indexes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 02:28 PM EST
- Stock Indexes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: BassSinger on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:49 PM EST |
Kimball: I find that SCO and BS&F are indeed entitled to relief.
SCO & BS&F: Thank you, your honor. What relief are you granting us?
Kimball: 40 years of free room and board at an appropriate Federal Facility.
---
In A Chord,
Tom
Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:53 PM EST |
> I can't help but wonder if all the evidence they had
> kept up their sleeve just landed on Judge Kimball's desk.
If yes, so what?
The appeal process exists to deal with errors of the court,
e.g. IBM asking Judge Wells to reconsider an order, or dirty
play by the other side. E.g. if I asked for X in discovery,
and didn't get it, and can show later in appeal that the other
side had X, and X could change the jury opinion, then I have
grounds to appeal. If I, or my lawyers, made a mistake by
not presenting X to the court, even though I had X, then
it is *my* problem.
So if SCO will land a ton of evidence on Judge K. desk then
he will be able to say something like: "Too late. You did
not submit this evidence when the court told you to. You
did a serious error, and it is your problem. The court has
no obligation to correct your error."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: anwaya on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 01:53 PM EST |
I say it's System 7 on tape.
On punched tape.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 02:08 PM EST |
Blimey. :o [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 02:27 PM EST |
SCO is entitled to summary judgment on Novell's Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims because the evidence of the parties' intent under
the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor.--My bold.
*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!?*?!
In SCO's favor? Where did they get that from, the Wishing Well?
Good thing I didn't have anything in my mouth, or I'd be looking for a
new keyboard about now.
--- What goes around comes around, and the
longer it goes the bigger it grows. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 02:32 PM EST |
First, the comment. SCO is obviously trying to prevent termination of this case
by creating an infinite loop. When this motion is thrown out, SCO will file a
motion for reconsideration of that decision, and when that motion is
rejected...
Now the questions. First, was this filed with Kimball? Or are they asking for
permission to do an interlocutory appeal?
Second, does Kimball actually have to wade through all of the sludge that SCO
just filed, or can he merely say "res judicata"?
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:03 PM EST |
It seems to me like this is just another step in setting up for an
appeal.
Think of it this way: If this really were manifest injustice,
they can't quietly acquiesce and then appeal later. Better to ask the Judge to
reconsider -- it will look better in the appeal.
In fact, assuming this
motion is denied, SCO might even plan to ask for leave to file an interlocutory
appeal, just for the delay that request will cause.
Finally, if there is
any issue on the table that could let SCO get a second trial, and all the
accompanying delays, on appeal, this would be it.
In other words, as
long as SCO's goal in the chess match is delay, asking for reconsideration was
an essential move.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pfusco on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 03:51 PM EST |
A belated expidited motion for a petition in support of permission to file an
overlength memo which is in support of the request to have Judge Wells recused
by Judge Kimballs de novo review of the facts in evidentiary procedings in an
appellant court hearing to be sceualled no later then the end of discovery.
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 04:30 PM EST |
This filing will allow Darl to claim that all SCO's claims are still under
consideration, at the next conference call (which should take place in about a
week).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 05:09 PM EST |
>>>
SCO is seriously stretched thin, between the two cases on
two tracks simultaneously running them ragged.
<<<
LoL... Kinda-like monkey-in-the-middle (for those of us
who were kids once)... Gotta love it.
WizLayer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 05:31 PM EST |
They already gave the arguments in their objection to Judge Wells's order,
but Judge Kimball didn't agree. Does anyone think either has any
merit?
1) There should be an evidenciary hearing with an item-by-item
ruling. In effect they already got this. Judge Wells reviewed each item
carefully and ruled that some (I think 4) could remain. SCO and IBM just didn't
have to argue each one on the merits. Personally I think such a hearing would
take on the order of 26,000 years for SCO to talk through :). The reasons the
others were thrown out were described in detail though, and applied to each one
the same so I don't think this would be a go.
2) It's impossible
for us to know the details requested, so the items should be allowed. I
think this is even more ridiculous, but the Judges didn't disagree with them.
The Judges just ruled I believe that SCO failed to obey the orders. That is
fine and dandy, as SCO never objected or asked for clarification on those
orders, even after IBM had told them exactly what they needed and that they
would bring it up with the Judge if SCO didn't improve their specificity. I
don't think either Judge ruled though on why they shouldn't remain in any case,
and why the orders must be construed as the court has. First off, SCO can't
even prove that IBM did anything wrong. They don't show where the communicated
information was in AIX or Dynix, let alone SVRX. The claims that were thrown
out actually lacked any evidenciary basis whatsoever, and I would have like to
have seen that said in the ruling.
Neiman Marcus. From SCO's own
lawyering at the Oct 24 hearing:
Now, I'd like to note that
IBM's showing of
prejudice is also inadequate. They have -- it's
basically an
analogy in the Magistrate's order to a
shoplifter from Neiman Marcus being
caught outside the
store but not being told what he has taken. And that
clearly
isn't the case here. We have provided tremendous
detail, in thousands of pages
of exhibits and the types
of examples we have shown. It's more akin to
that
shoplifter being told what he has taken but not being
able to, perhaps,
cite the catalog number where it
appears in the Neiman Marcus catalog. That
would be a
more are apt analogy, we contend.
I agree, with a
little exposition. Not only can they not cite the catalog number, they cannot
even show that they ever carried that item, or any items of that type. For
example, it's like SCO saying IBM stole a cell phone but SCO doesn't mention the
brand of cell phone that was supposedly taken. Not only that, but Neiman Marcus
does not and never has sold cell phones. Also they did a full cavity search on
IBM and they cannot find a cell phone.
That begs the question "Why is
SCO accusing IBM of shoplifting?" Their "evidence" they want admitted at trial
is one of their employees overheard IBM's friend ask IBM about their cell phone.
From that, they assumed IBM had a cell phone and that they must have stolen it
from the store, so they want to be able to accuse IBM of shoplifting in
court.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MrCharon on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 05:50 PM EST |
Assuming there is nothing new in their argument, does the judge have to go
through the whole briefing processes or can this be rejected on its face as
already being ruled?
---
MrCharon
~~~~
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 07:39 PM EST |
Just like he did with the De Novo review of Judge Wells'
order striking SCO's evidence. If Kimball grants the
motion to reconsider he forstalls an appeal, and if he
rules quickly there is little or no delay. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: thombone on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 08:37 PM EST |
I doubt it, actually. Seems like their only strategy is to try to cause more
legal red tape.
They've got nothing else, that much we are sure of.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 09:27 PM EST |
I'm going on the presumption that the main purpose of the Novell case was not
to actually prove Novell wrong in their claims, but rather to provide an air of
plausible deniability when IBM claims that Novell has forced SCO to drop their
claims against IBM.
In that context, what SCO would regret most about
Novell is that it's going as quickly as it is, and that it is now going
to be resolved prior to the IBM case.
It's now become all but impossible to
come up with excuses for how SCO thought it could have had a leg to stand on in
either of these cases. About the only explanations that seem to have any sort
of sanity left to them are simple stock scam, hoping that IBM would buy them out
(version of a stock scam), and desperate rear-guard/diversionary action
launched at the behest of someone like Microsoft.
Anybody with another
explanation? --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel
within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bigbert on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 09:32 PM EST |
....and this one:
(Caution: distasteful for some)
Link
Especially the
verdict! --- LnxRlz! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dave23 on Thursday, December 14 2006 @ 11:59 PM EST |
I think what really scares SCOX/BSF is that Judge Kimball has got it right on
the scheduling. The simpler case, SCO v. Novell, has passed its slower,
more complex litigative rival, SCO v. IBM, and will now go first. And,
as the Judge has noted, there are several decisions in SCO v. Novell that
are essential predicates to resolving SCO v. IBM.
If any of a
number of decisions "goes the wrong way" for SCOX in Novell, SCOX is
effectively out of business in IBM. And if at least one certain motion
in Novell is decided against SCOX, they are out of business, period. In
which case it is highly likely that the bankruptcy trustee will quickly call off
the dogsBSF.
So I think that — beyond the expected
complaints already mentioned — not only are SCOX/BSF asking Judge Kimball
to reconsider his decision wrt MJ Well's decision (including re-hearings on all
this 'new' secret sauce, I betcha!); but also they're asking him to reconsider
the fairness in the change in scheduling as well.
"We really need the more
complicated case to go first, yer honner!"
Yes, delay. Can SCOX/BSF get
the cart (IBM) before the horse (Novell) again? I think they'll
try! With reference to the court's new schedule SCOX/BSF's argument is so like
Micawber's argument: "I am apprehensive that such an arrangement might not
allow sufficient time for the requisite amount of - Something - to turn up."
— Chas. Dickens, David Copperfield
--- Nonlawyer Gawker [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 15 2006 @ 02:24 PM EST |
I think they already have logically invalid but persuasive sounding arguments
ready to go. (maybe BIFF is on BSF's team? In that case the arguments are
illogical, un-grammatical and not persuasive.)
It's easy to refute SCOG BS when it's written down and you have the time to find
the logical inconsistencies.
Not so easy when you're faced with contorted logic to refute it in the immediate
moment. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ghoti-fish - Authored by: darkonc on Friday, December 15 2006 @ 03:12 PM EST
- Ghoti-fish - Authored by: esni on Saturday, December 16 2006 @ 05:22 PM EST
- Ghoti-fish - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 16 2006 @ 09:25 PM EST
- Ghoti-fish - Authored by: Burger on Sunday, December 24 2006 @ 07:36 AM EST
|
Authored by: DMF on Sunday, December 17 2006 @ 11:46 AM EST |
I suspect someone on the SCO legal team has concluded that Groklaw is doing IBM
and Novell's research for them, so they are sealing their filings to put a stop
to it.
What, you don't think they were delusional already?
Anyway, what are the chances that they'll have to justify sealing all these
filings?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DMF on Sunday, December 17 2006 @ 12:12 PM EST |
One presumes that it wouldn't be good form to quote from a sealed filing or
redacted section. But in a case where an entire memo in support and exhibits
are sealed, is it necessary that an opposing memo also be sealed?
Or is there a chance that IBM will file a redacted reply with enough of a hint
that we could figure out what the basis for the motion is (claimed to be)?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|