And we thought they were dead :-)

[Jerry Feldman]

On 07/10/2010 09:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
>   
>> Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah).
>> Yes they did pay in advance.
>>     
> BSF are the ones handling the lawsuits.  They signed up through the
> appeals process.
>   
Not altogether true (from Groklaw):
07/07/2010 - 881 <http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-881.pdf> - NOTICE
OF APPEAL as to 876 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, 878 Judgment,
877 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for
New Trial, Memorandum Decision filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA
for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1088-1150192.
(Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 07/07/2010)

You will notice that this notice is filed by Brent Hatch (Hatch, James
and Dodge), not Edward Normand (BSF).
>> Recall, when the jury said that Novell
>> owned the copyrights, they sent a motion to Judge Stewart to vacate that
>> verdict, and the judge denied the motion. The 10th circuit sent the
>> appeal back to Judge Stewart's court, I wonder where they will send the
>> appeal this time, maybe back to Judge Kimball :-).
>>     
> Judge Kimball rules as a matter of law the contract was clear, and
> tSCOG didn't get the copyrights.  tSCOG appealed to the 10th circuit
> that it should be a jury who decide.  10th Circuit ruled ruled that,
> even if Judge Kimball was right (they actually stated in their
> decision Novell had compelling arguments), it was for a jury to decide
> (as tSCOG asked for), and sent it back to the district court, where
> Judge Kimball recused himself (for reasons I don't recall), so it
> ended up with Judge Stewart for jury trial.  The jury (which tSCOG
> asked for) ruled tSCOG didn't get the copyrights (probably not helped
> by Darl testifying they didn't need the copyrights to conduct business
> under the APA, only for their new extortion scheme).  tSCOG appealed
> to Judge Stewart on the grounds, basically, that the jury they had
> asked for had to be wrong (to quote a movie line "I object on the
> grounds its damaging to our case").  Judge Stewart denied their
> appeal.   Now they're appealing back to 10th Circuit that both the
> jury (that they asked for) and Judge Stewart must be wrong, because no
> one could possibly rule against them.  My suspicion is the 10th will
> deny them this time, but IANAL, so who knows?
>   
I would agree here. I'm not sure how much history that the justices will
hear in the appeal. I'm sure the Novell attorneys will make sure they
remember what they said before.
>> I would suspect that
>> this is only a formality, and they plan to appeal to SCOTUS.
>>     
> I suspect they'll continue to appeal as long as they can.  Of course,
> there's no requirement SCOTUS hear the appeal :)
>
>   
>> Maybe Ralph
>> Yarrow will sponsor another law in Utah that can be applied retroactively.
>> I'm really wondering who is actually driving this whole thing. Is it
>> Judge Cahn (ch. 11 trustee) or BSF, or Yarrow.
>>     
> That's a great question.
>
>   
>> Remember that Yarrow is
>> the major stockholder (if I recall) and did loan them some significant
>> money in Ch. 11.
>>     
> He did loan - and if they default or go into Chapter 7, he gets all
> the assets, with none of the liabilities (IBM suit, etc).  They're
> attempting to sell the Unix agency business (but not the Unixware
> copyrights) to someone (notice they are claiming in the suit that this
> couldn't happen, so Novell must have sold them the copyrights).  They
> sold off Me, Inc to Darl (for less than the cost of doing the sale -
> how that managed I don't know, but the Bankruptcy Court approved it).
>
>   
>> It's possible that they are trying to dry up the pool
>> so they don't have to pay Novell anything.
>>     
> Supposedly they've set up a trust for an agreed-to amount.  We'll see.
>
>   
>> In any case, what is the next step. Will IBM and Novell try to place SCO
>> in ch 7 again. In any case the saga continues, and Linux is still in
>> jeopardy until this case is finally put to bed.
>>
>>     
> Linux is safe, in my opinion.  It's too widely used, and so far tSCOG
> has presented no evidence (to quote Judge Kimball "Is that all you've
> got?:")
>
>
>   
While I think that Linux is pretty safe, this is still a club that hangs
over it. While most Linux vendors are providing indemnities, as long as
SCO has the ability to sue, then there is a bit of doubt. Who owns the
copyrights is really the crux of the matter, and very important in the
bankruptcy. Essentially they sold the mobile business to Darl.



-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20100710/79d8cdee/attachment.bin