Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/10/2010 11:32 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: 1. Remember, everyone has the ability to sue anyone for anything at any time in the US. Whether they'll be successful is a whole 'nother matter ;). 2. The crux is that tSCOG does NOT own the copyrights. I suspect the APA ( Amendment 2) was worded they way it was because NO ONE knows who owns what - the early UNIX history, due to the laws at the time, the ATT monopoly agreements, academic freedom, etc, resulted in lots of folks owning the code, some in the public, some by ATT, some by UC (BSD code), some by whoever contributed. So when Novell sold the agency to SCO (Santa Cruz, not tSCOG), Amendment 2 was, in my opinion, worded such that if it turned out the copyrights WERE needed, research would be done, and the appropriate transfers made. Since SCO in 10 years never came forward asking, I don't think anyone bothered researching it. Exactly, but while the courts have found that the APA ( amendment 2) did not transfer the copyrights this is still under appeal. The reason that the copyrights were withheld according to testimonies, is that SCO at that time could not afford the asking price, and the Novell BoD wanted protection in the case SCO filed for bankruptcy. I happen to think that Caldera International did not do due diligence when they bought the Unix division from SCO. However, 2 judges and a jury so far have all said they didn't transfer to SCO, and therefore not to tSCOG. 3) until tSCOG can show that there is code in there that a) they own the copyright to, and b) that they did not authorize the incorporation of the code into Linux (as opposed to the Caldera code that is / was in there, put in there by Caldera employees under direction of Caldera and Ransom Love to make the improvements), no worries. tSCOG in the IBM suit managed to identify something like 300 lines (we don't know what the lines are - that's under seal) that they MIGHT be able to claim copyright over. Agreed. The original issue in the IBM case is the 3 products tSCOG claims violate the IBM Unix contract as derivative works. These are SMP, NUMA (through IBM's acquisition of Sequent), and JFS (which IBM claims is the OS/2 version, not the Unix version). IBM deposed a number of people trying to show that they had a waiver from ATT. In any case, the SCO vs. Novell verdicts trump all of this. I suspect that there is very little chance that this case will ever see the light of day. 4. The only other claim they're trying to weasel in (but haven't yet, because they were denied their third change of their complaint in the IBM case) is copyright on methods and concepts - which a) are not copyrightable (unless some court extends copyright), and b) probably not patentable at this point due to the wide-spread nature. ATT gave the code away partly to enable the teaching of methods concepts. If I recall, this is probably related to the original ATT vs. BSD back in the 90s, but this was settled out of court. If I remember correctly, Eric Raymond wrote a position paper asserting this back in 2003: http://catb.org/~esr/hackerlore/sco-vs-ibm.html Basically, the 10th Circuit could either refuse to hear tSCOG's complaint, or give them another hearing. The panel will be a bit different since, Judge McConnel has left the bench to become Director of Stanford Constitutional Law Center. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/10/2010 11:38 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: Forgot to add - should any code be identified, I anticipate the Linux community would recode around the issue within weeks, if not days. Absolutely. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
If I recall, this is probably related to the original ATT vs. BSD back in the 90s, but this was settled out of court. If I remember correctly, Eric Raymond wrote a position paper asserting this back in 2003: http://catb.org/~esr/hackerlore/sco-vs-ibm.html As I have written before: http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg28058.html the original SCO under Doug Michels had given code to Linux and had taken code from Linux. Since this was done freely and without duress, I think it would be hard to prove that Linux developers infringed SCO's copyrights. I found this interview with Doug from about 3 years agointeresting to watch for historical value: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2340931131449512735# 0-15:34 is about the founding of SCO and their dealings with ATT and Microsoft. 15:34 to 18:48 is about why he sold SCO to Caldera. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/11/2010 09:24 AM, Jon 'maddog' Hall wrote: If I recall, this is probably related to the original ATT vs. BSD back in the 90s, but this was settled out of court. If I remember correctly, Eric Raymond wrote a position paper asserting this back in 2003: http://catb.org/~esr/hackerlore/sco-vs-ibm.html As I have written before: http://www.mail-archive.com/gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org/msg28058.html the original SCO under Doug Michels had given code to Linux and had taken code from Linux. Since this was done freely and without duress, I think it would be hard to prove that Linux developers infringed SCO's copyrights. I found this interview with Doug from about 3 years agointeresting to watch for historical value: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2340931131449512735# 0-15:34 is about the founding of SCO and their dealings with ATT and Microsoft. 15:34 to 18:48 is about why he sold SCO to Caldera. You certainly did. The SCO vs. Novell case is much about whether the copyrights passed to SCO via the APA. I really don't know why tSCOG went after IBM so hard in the first place. I think that they didn't know what they got from SCO. Doug was pretty clear that they did not buy everything from Novell. I believe that the Caldera management may not have realized that SCO did not own the Unix copyrights. I think that the original Caldera plans under Ransom Love were entirely different from the Darl McBride vision. What amazes me at the moment is why tSCOG under ch. 11 is pushing the litigation so hard. This is where I see some invisible hand in the background, such as Yarrow or even Microsoft. But, while I might agree that it would be difficult to prove both copyright and patent infringement, it still places a dark cloud over Linux from the standpoint of businesses who want to use it. Since the Linux vendors are indemnifying Linux, and have been since the Darl empire struck, it is still around until a stake is driven into the heart of tSCOG, whether that will be done by the 10th circuit or yet another Federal judge who knows. Stewart seemed to be more pro tSCOG than was Kimball. If the 10th district decides to send it back again, I would love to see it go back to Kimball. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: I have not looked closely at the contract SCO has with Boies, Schiller and Flexner or Hatch, James and Dodge. BSF signed up to handle all the legal cases for a what amounts to a fixed fee - tSCOG's appeals are paid for. Of course, they lost in front of a judge, appealed that they were entitled to a jury, lost in front of the jury, and now seem to be appealling that they shouldn't have gotten what they asked for. Love to see how 10th circuit rules on this jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/10/2010 05:56 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: I have not looked closely at the contract SCO has with Boies, Schiller and Flexner or Hatch, James and Dodge. BSF signed up to handle all the legal cases for a what amounts to a fixed fee - tSCOG's appeals are paid for. Of course, they lost in front of a judge, appealed that they were entitled to a jury, lost in front of the jury, and now seem to be appealling that they shouldn't have gotten what they asked for. Love to see how 10th circuit rules on this jeff Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah). Yes they did pay in advance. 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 :-). I would suspect that this is only a formality, and they plan to appeal to SCOTUS. 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. Remember that Yarrow is the major stockholder (if I recall) and did loan them some significant money in Ch. 11. It's possible that they are trying to dry up the pool so they don't have to pay Novell anything. 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. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@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. 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 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?:) jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/10/2010 09:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@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 g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: On 07/10/2010 09:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@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). Thanks. Interesting, as BSF are the paid-up law firm. 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. 1. Remember, everyone has the ability to sue anyone for anything at any time in the US. Whether they'll be successful is a whole 'nother matter ;). 2. The crux is that tSCOG does NOT own the copyrights. I suspect the APA ( Amendment 2) was worded they way it was because NO ONE knows who owns what - the early UNIX history, due to the laws at the time, the ATT monopoly agreements, academic freedom, etc, resulted in lots of folks owning the code, some in the public, some by ATT, some by UC (BSD code), some by whoever contributed. So when Novell sold the agency to SCO (Santa Cruz, not tSCOG), Amendment 2 was, in my opinion, worded such that if it turned out the copyrights WERE needed, research would be done, and the appropriate transfers made. Since SCO in 10 years never came forward asking, I don't think anyone bothered researching it. However, 2 judges and a jury so far have all said they didn't transfer to SCO, and therefore not to tSCOG. 3) until tSCOG can show that there is code in there that a) they own the copyright to, and b) that they did not authorize the incorporation of the code into Linux (as opposed to the Caldera code that is / was in there, put in there by Caldera employees under direction of Caldera and Ransom Love to make the improvements), no worries. tSCOG in the IBM suit managed to identify something like 300 lines (we don't know what the lines are - that's under seal) that they MIGHT be able to claim copyright over. 4. The only other claim they're trying to weasel in (but haven't yet, because they were denied their third change of their complaint in the IBM case) is copyright on methods and concepts - which a) are not copyrightable (unless some court extends copyright), and b) probably not patentable at this point due to the wide-spread nature. ATT gave the code away partly to enable the teaching of methods concepts. jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
Forgot to add - should any code be identified, I anticipate the Linux community would recode around the issue within weeks, if not days. jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 7/10/2010 9:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: 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 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 :) Thank you, Mr. Smith for your clear summation. I've long since last track of the in outs of all this. Other than the FUD (or otherwise) impact on Linux, I would not be interested in this matter, as I neither enjoy soap operas nor reality TV. The fact that this travesty has ground on so long both amazes and appalls me (IANAL, so perhaps this is common normal, though it boggles my mind). When the dust settles, and truth justice triumph (in other words, Linux, through its avatars, Novell IBM), hopefully there are enough resources to reimburse those who suffered through this process. If not, more revenue, and emotional catharsis, could be raised to compensate, through A Modest Proposal of mine: Confine Darl, the various attorneys, Yarrow, and the other SCO miscreants to a desert island, which is well-equipped with hidden cameras, though with as few resources as SCO truly had, and see what develops. Revenue could be generated by selling advertising and gambling on individual participants dominance length of survival. It would have much of the appeal of those game shows, soap operas and reality TV, which appear to captivate much of society. While it would be appropriate to deliver the Survivors-to-be to the island via a train wreck, however, a plane wreck would work (as it is the 21st century and our metaphors do need an update - plus I haven't figured out how to have a train wreck on a desert island). We could thrill to their emerging micro-society (ala Lord of the Flies), watch their gambols through the wilderness as they realize they truly are Lost and chill to their rising awareness that they themselves are the only protein source on the island. As I couldn't come up with a T-Rex to put on the island to eat any of the lawyers (for comic relief), this is then an alternative: Darl Yarrow, after capturing the attorneys (Dewey, Cheatam and Howe) in a long, long chase, broil them over a fire in an attempt to extract their only remaining value. Think I could get any takers to my Modest Proposal? -- Dan Jenkins, Rastech Inc., Bedford, NH, USA, 1-603-206-9951 *** Technical Support Excellence for four decades. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org writes: BTW: The bankruptcy hearing scheduled for July 12th has been cancelled. *Again*? This is, what, the fourth time? -- Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/09/2010 09:12 AM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote: Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org writes: BTW: The bankruptcy hearing scheduled for July 12th has been cancelled. *Again*? This is, what, the fourth time? I'm not sure on the cancellation of the hearing. The more interesting elements might be Novell's response to the appeal. It might also be that both IBM and Novell submit more motions to the bankruptcy court to try to force SCO into chapter 7. On the last appeal they successfully got a judge with connections to the Hatch family. Note that Brent Hatch is Orrin Hatch's son. Judge Stewart one time served as a Staff Assistant to Orrin Hatch. Maybe SCO will keep appealing until Kevin McBride (Darl's brother) because a Federal District Judge :-) -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
And we thought they were dead :-)
Unbelievable, SCO files another appeal. From Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100707202429776 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) ... Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Jury Verdict entered in this action on March 30, 2010, the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 10, 2010, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying SCO’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial dated June 10, 2010, and the Final Judgment entered on June 10, 2010. --- Essentially, they had a number of summary judgements against them in the first go-around plus a trial which they appealed, and the 10th Circuit gave them another trial with another judge. They lost the second trial with the jury awarding Novell the Unix IP, they appealed to the judge to vacate the jury award which was denied, and now they are appealing again. In terms of Linux, the issue is certainly who owns the Unix IP. In both the first go-around where Judge Kimball awarded the Unix IP to Novell, and the second go-around it does appear that the Unix IP is somewhat safe in the hands of Novell, but some strange things can happen. There is a scheduled bankruptcy hearing scheduled for next Monday where the bankruptcy judge should finally hear the results of the trial as well as this intent to appeal. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
This is doubly sad and disturbing because from what I've seen in the past few years is that Novell has made huge strides in expanding their open source solutions and offerings, most often in conjunction with the OpenSuse projects. And SCO keeps rising from the dead; maybe all those volcano and atomic bomb analogies were not so far off earlier on this list. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: Unbelievable, SCO files another appeal. From Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100707202429776 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) ... Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Jury Verdict entered in this action on March 30, 2010, the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 10, 2010, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying SCO’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial dated June 10, 2010, and the Final Judgment entered on June 10, 2010. --- Essentially, they had a number of summary judgements against them in the first go-around plus a trial which they appealed, and the 10th Circuit gave them another trial with another judge. They lost the second trial with the jury awarding Novell the Unix IP, they appealed to the judge to vacate the jury award which was denied, and now they are appealing again. In terms of Linux, the issue is certainly who owns the Unix IP. In both the first go-around where Judge Kimball awarded the Unix IP to Novell, and the second go-around it does appear that the Unix IP is somewhat safe in the hands of Novell, but some strange things can happen. There is a scheduled bankruptcy hearing scheduled for next Monday where the bankruptcy judge should finally hear the results of the trial as well as this intent to appeal. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
We'll have to see what the 10th District has to say. Not sure if they will get any of the same justices they saw before, I believe one retired. I have not looked closely at the contract SCO has with Boies, Schiller and Flexner or Hatch, James and Dodge. There were some items a few years ago where a fund was set up for the attorneys. I suspect that if the 10th district accepts the appeal that there could be some fireworks. Judge Stewart from the latest trial commented on how good the lawyering was. While there were several other issues, the on on the APA where Novell sold Unix to Santa Cruz is the most important because it is where the Unix IP was not transferred. In this case, I think it is like a prisoner on death row trying to get his execution vacated. BTW: The bankruptcy hearing scheduled for July 12th has been cancelled. I suspect that there are no significant motions before this court. On 07/08/2010 02:11 PM, David Hardy wrote: This is doubly sad and disturbing because from what I've seen in the past few years is that Novell has made huge strides in expanding their open source solutions and offerings, most often in conjunction with the OpenSuse projects. And SCO keeps rising from the dead; maybe all those volcano and atomic bomb analogies were not so far off earlier on this list. On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org mailto:g...@blu.org wrote: Unbelievable, SCO files another appeal. From Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100707202429776 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) ... Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc., hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Jury Verdict entered in this action on March 30, 2010, the district court’s evidentiary rulings at trial, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated June 10, 2010, Memorandum Decision and Order Denying SCO’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the alternative, for a New Trial dated June 10, 2010, and the Final Judgment entered on June 10, 2010. --- Essentially, they had a number of summary judgements against them in the first go-around plus a trial which they appealed, and the 10th Circuit gave them another trial with another judge. They lost the second trial with the jury awarding Novell the Unix IP, they appealed to the judge to vacate the jury award which was denied, and now they are appealing again. In terms of Linux, the issue is certainly who owns the Unix IP. In both the first go-around where Judge Kimball awarded the Unix IP to Novell, and the second go-around it does appear that the Unix IP is somewhat safe in the hands of Novell, but some strange things can happen. There is a scheduled bankruptcy hearing scheduled for next Monday where the bankruptcy judge should finally hear the results of the trial as well as this intent to appeal. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
