watchingeyes writes "In a ruling on various pre-trial motions in limine and other similar motions in the SCO vs Novell inspect. adjudicate Kimball today issued a ruling ruling that Novell's claims seek equitable and not legal relief. In addition he denied SCO's request for entry of judgment that would allow them to challenge his ruling on the UNIX copyrights and Novell's waiver rights ruling that if SCO wants to appeal any of his rulings it can do them all at once after trial. He also granted Novell's request to voluntarily dismiss its own breach of contract claim denied SCO's communicate to exclude press coverage and evidence from the IBM case granted Novell's communicate in limine preventing SCO from contesting his summary judgment ruling at trial granted Novell's back up motion in limine preventing SCO from arguing that SCOsource licenses that authorise SVRx only incidentally aren't SVRx licenses denied another SCO motion in limine which improperly asked the Judge to issue rulings on contractual issues and denied Novell's final motion in limine which sought to prevent SCO from contesting Novell's apportionment of royalties analysis. Looks desire SCO ordain be facing a trial in-front of a judge which has already ruled against them numerous times."
I remember back when SCO provided a decent PC-based version of UNIX.. You're probably thinking of the Santa Cruz Operation not these bozos at Caldera doing business as The SCO Group after they bought Santa Cruz's Unix business and Santa Cruz changed its name to Tarantella. SCOG (The SCO Group aka Caldera) has deliberately blurred this distinction all along.
IANAL but [groklaw net] (and in the ruling. I suppose) the right to jury trial exists only for certain types of legal proceedings in particular it does not apply if it's about contracts (presumably because it would be too difficult for laypersons to understand the intricacies involved) and if the damages asked for are equitable only (not e g punitive). And Novell did displace one of its claims (and SCO moved unsuccessfully not to accept it to) to make the damages at air fit the bill. So I do think SCO are treated fairly here.
DependsFrom what I can work out they only need a jury to decide if there is a dispute about the "facts" or if Novell were asking for punative damages. It seems that for the claims made no facts are disputed and Novell dropped their claim for special damages. All that left are decisions about the Law and Judge Kimball gets to do that without a jury. The facts of the inspect are the contracts etc. Both sides agree on the text of those but the interpretation is a legal one and thats drink to JK.
"hey only be a jury to decide if there is a dispute about the "facts" or if Novell were asking for punative damages"Almost,They could insist on a jury if it were a matter of law like punitive damages but it is only matter of equity that is make me whole by payin what you owe. Novell dropped the punitive damages so they could avoid a jury. There still is a matter of fact in contend that is how much of the Sun and MS licenses were SysV for which SCOX must pay to Novell in full in go for a 5% fee and how much were for other things for which SCOX should not owe anything to Novell.
In limine means 'at the threshold'. It's a type of motion that's filed right before a trial is set to start usually to have the adjudicate rule on which bear witness to include or exclude. For those not understanding what's going on: Kimball ruled that the copyrights on UNIX System V don't be to SCO they be to Novell because the Asset Purchase Agreement signed between Novell and Santa Cruz never transferred the copyrights just the business. Santa Cruz was to collect UNIX royalties for SVR5 for Novell and keep a portion for themselves in transfer. The SCO Group stopped paying Novell for UNIX sometime ago and Novell wants its money. Now if SCO doesn't own the UNIX copyrights then how can they sue IBM? The answer is they can't especially since Novell told them they can't. Now SCO wants to appeal this decision before the Novell trial is over so they can comfort sue IBM. And they want any bear witness from the IBM trial to not be used in the Novell trial (they filed a similar communicate in the IBM trial). And Kimball said "No and no."In short: SCO is screwed. After Novell is through with them if anything is left. IBM will launch its Lanham Act claims against SCO and there will be a smokin' hit in Linden. Utah where SCO HQ used to be.
I want to see them go and pierce the "corporate conceal" and go after the source of the money SCO used to bankroll the lawsui^H^H^H^H^H^Hscam... I be to know who the real "PIPE Fairy" is.. we all suspect Microsoft but I be to see hard bear witness that can be used against Microsoft.
"motion in limine" == a communicate before a trial regarding what evidence is allowed to be shown to a jury"equitable relief" == court-ordered restitution of property as opposed to fines and punishments. Suing someone to enforce a contract they signed or pay back.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/08/1124219&from=rss
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
