GROKLAW
When you want to know more
but don't know where to look.

IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background,
so if you have a legal problem and want advice,
please hire an attorney.


Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Amazon Honor  System Click  Here to Pay Learn More

law.com Dictionary


Best News Site

2004 Linux Journal Editors' Choice Award
Best Nontechnical or Community Website

2003 OSDir.com Editor's Choice Winner
Best News Site


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
What's New

STORIES
3 stories in last 48 hours

COMMENTS last 48 hrs

Exhibit H to IBM's Memorand... [+36]
SCO's Memo in Opposition to... [+300]
SCO's Statement of Basis fo... [+13]
SCO's 3rd Quarter Teleconfe...
SCO's Opposition to IBM's M...
DaimlerChrysler Hearing Tra... [+72]
Autozone Files Emergency Mo... [+5]
Sontag Declaration in Suppo...
AutoZone Hearing Set for Se... [+2]
SCO's Shareholder Rights Pl... [+7]
Novell Hearing Will Not Be ... [+4]


Sponsors

Hosting:

hosted by ibiblio

Webmaster: MathFox

Meaning of 'Emergency Motion'? | 365 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:16 AM EDT


---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT
Authored by: ankylosaurus on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:17 AM EDT
First two posts? Wow!

---
The Dinosaur with a Club at the End of its Tail

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO fails IQ test
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:25 AM EDT
This is substantially similar to a post I made at the end of the last story,
edited to avoid repeating PJ's story
<BR><BR>
At the time of the hearing. I opined this was an
intelligence test for SCO.

Well, IMHO, they just failed it.

If SCO had been smart, they would have stuck rigorously to
the order (1. Say
they were seeking a preliminary injunction, and 2, The
preliminary injunction
was about OpenServer libraries), and asked for a
preliminary injunction on this
basis. In this event, I couldn't see the PI being denied,
because AZ would say
they weren't using these libaries anyway, they wouldn't be
harmed by the PI, and
the PI would be granted. In practical terms such a PI might
have no effect, but
it would have been a PR win for SCO.

SCO being, well SCO, seem to have gone for discovery anyway
in their usual hyper
aggressive fashion, and bended what they heard from the
judge to try to make it mean something different (perhaps the version they heard
is completely different from what's in the transcript)

- SCO (1) are not sure whether or not they are entitled to,
or (2) will seek a
PI (despite the court's order that they shouldn't conduct
any discovery unless
they were entitled to and would seek one - see court
transcript and signed order
from the judge)

- SCO (3) are not sure what the exact basis of the PI might
be (compare judge's
order)

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pulling out all the stops?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:33 AM EDT
This really makes them look desperate. They are pulling out all the stops,
going for any little angle, twisting around the justice system, trying to weasel
into any little crevice they can.

These people are like legal terrorists; you have to defeat them soundly and show
no mercy whatsoever.

It is good SCO attacked big corporations, because if they had started going
through small ones they could have destroyed dozens and left thousands
unemployed before hitting one big enough to have the resources to defend
itself.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's view of discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:33 AM EDT
Remember these quotes and also at http://lwn.net/Articles/38074/

"We get to really shake things up and get in to find out what really is going on over there,"

"The reality is that we are going into discovery right now and that might be the vehicle to be able to investigate what we need there anyway."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does SCO have no shame?
Authored by: Philip Stephens on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:45 AM EDT
SCO's tendancy to flaunt or reinterpret court orders to their liking is
mind-boggling. Did they really think that the judge would forget what he'd said
during the oral arguments?

I'm sorry, but I can no longer give SCO and their lawyers the benefit of the
doubt: they simply cannot be this stupid or incompetent. The only explanation
for these ridiculous motions is arrogance, and a willingness to try and game the
system.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay
Authored by: lazy on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:54 AM EDT
I think the judge was very disconnected with this case
when he ruled that SCO could do limited discovery if they
actually had the right to file for a PI. He said it almost
as if he was covering himself for other awkward things he said
in the hearing. Consequently I predict he will take advantage
of the stupidity in SCO's request and grant the stay.

---
vote with your wallet, not with your hands.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did anyone notice...
Authored by: Philip Stephens on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:55 AM EDT
..that in a footnote on page 2 of SCO's "statement of basis for claim for preliminary injunctive relief and nature of relief", they once again trot out their novel theory of copyright:

The term "copying" as used herein includes verbatim copying of code or man pages, and copying where the resulting product is substantially similiar to the original considering structure, sequence and organisation, and other non-literal elements of the code.

They...just...won't...give...up!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay
Authored by: marbux on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:06 AM EDT
Did anyone else notice that Autozone and SCO's local counsel in Las Vegas are
right next door, one in suite 1200 and the other in suite 1201 of the same
builoding?

I only noticed because I had an office in the same building (Bank of America)
for about a year while working on a major case in Las Vegas, back in the early
90s. I recall Schreck & Brignone being there at the time, don't remember the
other firm.

The Bank of America building is in downtown Vegas, only a couple of blocks from
the federal courthouse. That's an easy walk except in the most intense part of
summer, when you can burn your feet while walking, even wearing shoes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Comedy
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:12 AM EDT

Judge: SCO, you get the AutoZone's candy if you bring back my newspaper.

SCO: OK. [Goes out]

SCO: [Returns] I'm here for my candy!

Judge: Where's the newspaper?

SCO: [Surprised] What newspaper? You never mentioned any newspaper!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Broken Link, PJ
Authored by: Anthem on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:13 AM EDT
At least for me... following the link to the hearing gives me a 404.

Anthem

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not pulling any punches
Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:17 AM EDT
Page 2 : "... nothing more than a fishing expedition .."

Footnote 3 on page 5: "SCO's deliberate waffling ..."

Perhaps the judge will get clued up this time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why do the lawyers go along with this?
Authored by: AG on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:21 AM EDT
SCO has something like 6 law firms working for it. Each and every one of them is acting totally incompetent. The behavior of SCO's legal team in Las Vegas is close to contempt of court (maybe not in the punishable sense, but certainly in the eyes of the judge). Why would a law firm agree to do this? Don't these people have anything to loose? SCO will be history in a few month. The lawyers will have to work with this judge for years to come. Its not just Boies' firm that blows it every time they file a motion. All law firms associated with SCO look ridiculous if you compare them with IBM's or Novell's legal team. They file bogus motions. They try to misread orders at every corner. They tell conflicting stories to two different federal courts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cadence Vs. Avanti again
Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:22 AM EDT
I think too much is being read into the Cadence vs. Avanti judgement that the
possiblity of money eventually does not eliminate the presumption of irreperable
harm.

In Cadence vs. Avanti, there were a couple of serious differences:
1. The copied code was also secret.
2. Avanti was using the code to compete against Cadence -- in effect, using
Cadence's own code to steal Cadence's customers and obtain revenue that Cadence
could expect to receive if it were not for Avanti selling software that used
Cadence's code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO being Lazy or?
Authored by: Golem on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:22 AM EDT
The court said they were to agree on the order and write it up. SCO apparently
didnt agree on several of the points and they agreed to write up several
orders.

SCO never submitted an order. So either they forgot or were to busy or they knew
the judge would look at both orders and decide that Autozones version was
correct.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO could have supplied some evidence
Authored by: sander123 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 02:54 AM EDT
I'm surpised that SCO doesn't supply some proof. Hear me out:

When SCO writes:

'Based on SCO's employees' of the Autozone system, SCO is informed and believes
the Autozone 'copied' certain copyrighted material [...] including [...] static
shared libraries'

I presume that some part of it is probably true. SCO did have employees that
serviced the Autozone system. Why don't attach a deposition from one them to
actually show that?

Even if Autozone doesn't use the library *now* it certainly used it in the past.
They must have somebody who can testify to that. There case would be so much
stronger if they presented *some* evidence.


Sander (ianal)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay - PDF and text
Authored by: dodger on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 03:01 AM EDT
Filing for an emergency stay seems a good defensive move. Isn't there some
offensive move that AutoZone can take as well
that would put some sting into the slap that SCOG should get for rewriting the
judge's order, ignoring the court's decision, and pressing on with the circus?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meaning of 'Emergency Motion'?
Authored by: al_petrofsky on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 04:19 AM EDT

What definition of "Emergency Motion" does AutoZone have in mind? The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure don't say anything about emergencies, and the Nevada Rules only have a provision for emergency discovery disputes, which LR 26-7(c) says "shall be entitled 'Emergency Motion' and be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth" the efforts made to resolve the dispute without the court's help.

This seems like more than a discovery dispute. AutoZone is asking for "an order staying all remaining proceedings relating to the issue of preliminary injunctive relief", which would include not just the discovery (which hasn't yet begun) but also the (potential) motion for an injunction.

More importantly, if AutoZone does intend this as a LR 26-7(c) motion, then it screwed up by not including the affidavit.

Is there some other concept of "emergency motion" that's at play here?

---
scofacts.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has Autozone screwed up?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 04:49 AM EDT
What definition of "Emergency Motion" does AutoZone have in mind? The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure don't say anything about emergencies, and the Nevada Rules only have a provision for emergency discovery disputes, which LR 26-7(c) says "shall be entitled 'Emergency Motion' and be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth" the efforts made to resolve the dispute without the court's help.
http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/LR_IV.aspx

If AutoZone intends this as a LR 26-7(c) motion, then it screwed up by not including the affidavit.

Is there some other concept of "emergency motion" that's at play here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't get it.
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 04:51 AM EDT
Maybe it's because it's 3 am but I just don't get this.

The judge gave SCOG time to do limited discovery so that they could make produce
evidence that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Judge Jones: My contemplation was to allow you during thirty days to propound
discovery sufficient to form a factual presentation to the court that you have
the right to a preliminary injunction.

The Judge (and I don't think he was doing a very good job on this) gave SCO a
limited fishing expedition and didn't give them well defined limits.

Now SCO is doing that. What exactly does AZ have to fight this with?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Federal Juristiction
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 05:07 AM EDT
I've just reading a judgement in an unrelated case: Chamberlain Vs. Skylink which appears to conflict with Kimball's ruling in the Novell case, denying SCO's motion to remand.

In the Novell case, Kimball ruled that SCO's complaint "arose under" the copyright act, and required its "construction", which gave the Federal court subject matter juristiction. Applying the same reasoning to Chamberlain, it would appear to be a slam-dunk that Federal juristiction would apply. The case conserned the application of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, and the court analyses the legislation in merticulous detail.

Yet instead of concluding that it has subject matter juristiction over a DMCA claim, the court goes into an increadibly complex analysis, looking, not at the claim at issue, but various other claims in the litigation and how they had been dismissed. Finally it conclude that it has pendant juristiction.

So what's the difference between the two cases? I can think of two possibilities:

1. The DMCA is not considered part of the Copyright Act, for the purposes of determining subject matter juristiction. (This seems unlikely, given that the judgement itself says 'The provisions relevant to circumvention are all in a new chapter of the Copyright Act, Chapter 12, titled "Copyright Protection and Management System"')

2. Different rules apply to Federal juristicion and Appellate juristiction. If that is the case, which appellate court would hear any appeals of Kimball's rulings?

Could any Groklawyers, or knowlegable Groklaymen comment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay - PDF and text
Authored by: dopple on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 06:07 AM EDT
"SCO is further informed and believes that it is reasonably likely that Autozone has also improperly used and/or copied the following additional copyrighted code and manuals during and after the migration process:
[...]
(c) Kernel optimization features"
(emphasis added)

Wha...? I'm trying really hard to think of something that falls under that heading, is copyrightable, and is also possible to copy into a completely different kernel environment.. but I'm just not coming up with anything.

SCO reminds me more and more of an old co-worker who could always talk about how good he was, but never had any details when asked what he had done..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay - PDF and text
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 06:38 AM EDT
"The whole world eventually decided they'd be better off fighting to the
death, so to speak" PJ

That's because the text of SCOG's pleadings was made widely available to those
who would get off their butts and look for it. And word got around that fighting
back on the facts, the law and the facts relevant to the law won't hurt you
anywhere as bad as NOT fighting back at all. I'd say that for DCC, the SCOG
litigation was just an item of the cost of doing business - they get sued all
the time for various real or imagined reasons by all sorts of parties and DCC
has a budget requisition set aside for litigation anyway, and SCOG was just
another bunch of loonies, wannabe tough guys and wouldbe extortionists to be
dealt with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Are These Libraries Anyhow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 06:45 AM EDT

I'd really like to know what the hell is in these libraries that The SCO Group think is so damned bitchen that you cannot write code that runs on Openserver and Linux without using them. And yes, I do speak from experience on this one, albeit going in a different direction to Autozone.

A couple of years back, I wrote a load of code to go into a till system (I shall leave out whose system that was) running on Openserver. Much of that code was originally written, compiled and tested under Linux, then transferred to the Openserver system for the development of the surrounding user interface code. While most of the original code compiled successfully, there were things which had to be disabled or re-programmed in order to function under Openserver because it did not support certain things (C++ exception handling was a good example). Where necessary, this modified code was transferred back to Linux on occasion for further enhancements with absolutely no changes required in order to get it to compile. In other words, it was necessary to remove or change the APIs called in order to get Linux code to run on Openserver, but not vice versa.

And where were the precious static libraries? Nowhere to be seen!

We have already seen public statements from the folks at Autozone saying that they did not use The SCO Group's 'precious' to port their code. These libraries would have been unnecessary to that process if they had all of the source for their applications which, apparently, they did. Yes, it is possible that they hit something which was Openserver specific, but then code can be replaced. Having said that, I never found anything in a year or so of working on an Openserver system that could not be taken to a Linux system and compiled perfectly. If Autozone say they did not use SCO's 'precious' to port their code, then I am strongly inclined to believe them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow... SCO admits it's not SCO!
Authored by: Dark on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 07:10 AM EDT
From page 2 of their statement:
Santa Cruz Operations ("old SCO"), a predecessor in interest to SCO, ...
This is the first time I've seen them refer to Santa Cruz Operation as a separate company. They do get the name wrong, though, which is funny in its own way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay - PDF and text
Authored by: rjamestaylor on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 07:50 AM EDT
<SCOSource>
    Rhett, I'm weak, I'm fainting --
</SCOSource>

<RhettHat>

    Frankly, SCOSource, I don't give a [Edited for Groklaw]
</RhettHat>

---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Search Warrant analogy.
Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 08:24 AM EDT
SCO has a "thing" about discovery. If these cases were part of a
criminal investigation into theft of property the script would read something
like this.

SCOG keeps all his wordly goodies in a lockup. Over the years much has been
accumulated and inherited. SCOG is no longer sure exactly what he has got and
where it came from.
However recently he has been watching his neighbours with suspicion. They seem
to be doing so much better than him. Mrs. Jones at no.5 has been wearing some
jewellery that SCOG swears looks just like some he had stored and as for that
red lawnmower they've been using on the grass at no.11 . SCOG thought he had two
because he bought a second when the first broke down, but couldn't be quite sure
whether or not he took the first to the dump.

Standing in front of his pile in the lockup one day whilst not wearing his
tinfoil hat, SCOG became convinced that things were going missing and what's
more some of his neighbors seemed to have possessions he thought might well be
his. Nothing to be done except report them to the police.

On what grounds do you alledge theft? asks the desk officer. "Well they've
got possessions which look just like mine" says SCOG. "I marked all my
possessions with an antitheft code, can't you get a search warrant for the whole
street?". "Not that simple" says the desk officer, "we've
got to have more than that to go on". "We need a detailed list of what
is missing, a good description of said property and valid reasons why your
neighbors may be stealing from you". "No can do" says SCOG
"but if we just go and search I'm sure we'll find something".

Six months later and SCOG is still after a search warrant for the whole street
and still hasn't come up with a list of the alledged missing property.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re; Assyria & SCO
Authored by: digger53 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 08:31 AM EDT
It's hard to see SCO as an Assyria, Assyria was successful
after a fashion. MicroSoft has a better claim to the
mantle of Assyrian militarism. SCO is an Assyrian toad--or
a buffoon pretending to be Assyria.

PJ, have you read Arnold Toynbee's account of Assyria's
demise? Highly recommened.

Keep up the good work.

Jim

---
When all else fails, follow directions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Re; Assyria & SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:53 PM EDT
Definition of Copyright
Authored by: aaron_tx on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT
And once again we have $CO trying to apply copyright to unprotectable elements
of code - "and other non-literal elements of the code." If it is
non-literal, how can it be copyrighted?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emergency Motion
Authored by: Griffin3 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 09:15 AM EDT
I hate to be dense here, but, I've searched through the links on the left,
cannot find an answer. What does "Emergency" Motion to Stay mean?
Just, "Please break into your normal schedule and look at this"? I'm
not grokking the legal meaning from context, here ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Arias
Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 09:21 AM EDT
"Now, that's a very different song from the aria they sang in their complaint."

They're not singing arias, they're singing recitatives!

Disclaimer: if you did not get this joke, you must watch more opera.

---
Forty-two: the answer to the question of life, the universe, and everything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cross Disciplinary Perspective
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 10:48 AM EDT
I'm glad you've brought up history here for an analogy. Something I've been
thinking about for some time is that what might bring some intersting
prespectives on this case is if an anthropologist or sociobiologist ( or even a
psychologist) gave their opinion as to what's been going on.

For the record I dont use Linux, CBS's Survivor and Fox's American Idol are not
on the air at the moment, in their place I follow the SCO case for it's
entertainment value.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay - PDF and text
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT
Maybe their whole cause of actions is AZ using the manuals (unauthorized use)
for help in migration.

'Your honor, it is reasonable that they relied on our copyrighted manuals for
their migration, which is illegal and violates our interpretations of the
contracts and the copyright law'....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exactly what SCO planned and wanted
Authored by: feysage on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 11:21 AM EDT

And that, I now believe, is exactly what SCO planned and wanted. They wanted to be public bullies, to terrify companies into taking a license. I guess they thought after a few examples of terrorizing their victims by dragging them through a court process that was so ridiculous no one could feel their chances were any better than the victim's, everyone would line up like docile little lambs.

This has been discussed thoroughly on groklaw many times, but perhaps looking back at a specific example is useful. Of all the indicators that SCOG planned a legal shakedown merely on the nuisance value of litagation, this one is my favorite (emphasis mine).

At Silicon Stemcell, McBride and Anderer polished the strategy they'd repeat at SCO: turning intellectual property into a revenue stream. Anderer, McBride, and four managers who had served with them at Ikon's technology services division pooled their ideas for products, then attempted to patent them. It was 1999, and they were in the business vanguard, devising a new way to create wealth. Something as intangible as a claim to owning an idea, they realized, could be used to extract money from innovators in related fields. Even if Silicon Stemcell's patents weren't finalized, it might still be cheaper for startups to pay licensing fees to Anderer's group than to fight protracted legal battles. Silicon Stemcell wouldn't even have to create businesses, it could thrive just by collecting these fees. Stanford law professor Mark Lemley, who specializes in patent law, calls this "the business model of the new millennium."


From the Wired article The Linux Killer by way of Darl McBride, the Man Nobody Bothers to Hate, and His Buddy Mike Anderer Cook Up a Scheme

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO deliberately throws the PI motion
Authored by: elcorton on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 11:28 AM EDT
I think SCO intentionally served a defective statement on AutoZone,
knowing that the judge would then refuse to allow them to move for a
PI. Here is why.

Some here think that the judge made some sort of mistake in handing
SCO an engraved invitation to file for a PI. That's not true; he
knew exactly what he was doing. SCO obviously didn't want to move
for a PI; otherwise it would have done so when it filed the
complaint, as is usual in such cases. The reason why SCO didn't want
a PI is that it would then have to take part in a kind of
accelerated mini-trial, with relaxed standards of proof, and with
the judge as trier of fact. SCO would have to convince Jones that it
would probably win in the full trial. Among other things, it would
have to show that it was probably the rightful owner of the System V
copyrights, an impossible task in itself.

That's an invitation SCO can't accept and can't decline. If it
accepts, it will shortly lose the motion, and a second federal judge
will be on record as thinking that its case is weak. If it declines,
SCO will be admitting that its case is weak.

The solution is to deliberately botch the motion, so it will be
rejected on a technicality rather than on the merits. That's the
most inconclusive, and thus the best, outcome SCO can hope for.

And by the way, contrary to what some here have said, the Cadence
case shows that AutoZone can't defend against a PI motion on the
issue of irreparable harm. It would have to challenge SCO's case on
the merits, head on. The judge knows that, and that's why he put SCO
in this impossible position. The exception to the stay will be
canceled, and Jones won't have to do anything else except dismiss or
summarily decide the case after SCO loses to IBM on counterclaim 10.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How bad it is that lawyers run this world
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT
Doesn't this make it apparent how bad it is for the whole world that lawyers
make the rules for how things are done in the world these days? I don't know
right now how to fix this, or how to make it better, but in spite of the valient
work of PJ, this all looks very bad to me. Anyone else see it this way?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looks Like SCO *Won't* Be Filing Any New Suits
Authored by: JohnGabriel on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 12:48 PM EDT
PJ: "[SCO] wanted to be public bullies, to terrify companies into taking a
license."

They may have lost their edge, if they ever had and edge, on their ability to
"terrify companies into taking a license".

In particular Bert Young's comment on the new BSF agreement indicates that it
applies to "pending litigation" only. I can't think of any reason why
Bert would say "pending litigation" instead of "future
litigation" unless the agreement is limited to the pending lawsuit only.
Here's the quote from the Earnings Call Trancscript:

Bert Young: ... [W]e're pleased to have entered into a letter of intent with
Boies Schiller & Flexner ... Boies Schiller & Flexner has agreed to lead
SCO's efforts through the duration and completion of the *pending*
litigation." (emphasis mine)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why was DC case thrown out and not Autozone?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 01:06 PM EDT
How did DC manage to kick SCO arse, but Autozone is still in court? Aren't the
case identical? Can't Autozone just cite the DC case as a precedent, or at
least copy their legal tactics?

Did DC have better lawyers?
Is the court location a factor?
Or what?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Files Emergency Motion to Stay - PDF and text
Authored by: jim Reiter on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Don't you have to own the copyrights you claim have been infringeg?

Since Novell did not transfer any Patents or Copyrights to SCOI, where did
Caldera/TSG get these copyrights from?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO (almost) admit they are not entitled to preliminary injunction - about the delay
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 03 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT
One interesting point that nobody has touched on...

If I understand SCO's statement of claim correctly, their alleged knowledge is based on events in 1998-2000

That means that even if (arguendo) their claims were true, they waited at least four years before bringing the action against AutoZone in 2004.

I recommend referring back to AutoZone's reply memo in support of stay or more definite statement....

In this memo, AutoZone pointed to a couple of cases, where a long delay in bringing an action removed the presumption of irreparable harm with regard to a preliminary injunction. The long delay that removed this presumption, was, from memory, 11 months.

It seems to me, on that basis, SCO's statement almost admits that they are not entitled to a preliminary injunction on this principle alone.

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did anybody else notice their citation?
Authored by: bpmann on Saturday, September 04 2004 @ 12:10 AM EDT
Is that the Clinton vs. Jones case that I think it is?

Brian

[ Reply to This | # ]