Novell Files for Summary Judgment Against SCO 112
rm69990 writes "Novell filed a motion with Judge Dale Kimball asking him to grant summary judgment or a preliminary injunction on Novell's claims that SCO wrongfully retained the money it received from Microsoft and Sun for their SVRX licensing and sublicensing agreements. Novell indicated over a year ago, when they initially filed their counterclaims against SCO, that they were planning on asking Judge Kimball to force SCO to turn over these monies. However, Novell only recently received the actual licensing agreements between SCO, Sun and Microsoft through discovery, despite demanding copies of them as early as 2003, and thus was unable to determine that SCO had breached the APA until now, which is why this motion is being filed so late in the case. This motion will likely bankrupt SCO if granted."
Its about time (Score:2, Informative)
Why do I get that funny feeling that SCO is screwed?
This could be it. (Score:5, Informative)
So, Judge K. issues a summary judgement saying that SCO has to give Novell 25 million dollars right now. That bankrupts SCO. That doesn't stop the court cases though. The bankruptcy trustee appointed by the court replaces SCO's management. The bankruptcy trustee then negotiates with the creditors (mostly Novell and IBM). All the cases are settled out of court. My WAG is that the out of court agreements include SCO (as directed by the trustee) admitting that they are wrong about all the cases and all the counterclaims.
The counterclaim we all care about the most is IBM's counterclaim number 10. That's the one that says that there is no copyrighted Unix code in Linux. That will be the end of that particular piece of FUD.
My fondest wish is that Darl goes to jail for Lanham act violations or for something the SEC charges him with.
SCO is between a rock and a hard place (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If it's granted, what happens to the IBM case? (Score:4, Informative)
There are two separate requests. (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, the two requests are: 1 - A summary judgement. That is a final verdict. The judge tells SCO to give Novell Novell's money. In that case it doesn't matter what happens to SCO. If they go bankrupt it doesn't matter. The money belongs to Novell and Novell gets it, period. The judge can do this as long as there is no real dispute about facts. If he finds the wording in the various contracts to be sufficiently clear, he will issue the summary judgement as a matter of law. 2 - If the judge doesn't issue a summary judgement, Novell is requesting that the money be frozen to keep SCO from frittering it away. That's the case where the judge has to consider what harm may come to SCO. Even so, PJ over at Groklaw doesn't think that rule will protect SCO. Judge K. has been ultra conservative in his rulings, which is why this case has stunk up his court for so long, so I wouldn't be surprised if he applies the greater harm rule.
At this point it is entirely possible that Judge K. will issue a summary judgement. SCO will be bankrupt and all the cases will be quickly resolved by the bankruptcy trustee.
Re:Its about time (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, asking for one and getting it are two entirely different beasts.
Incorrect about Solaris. (Score:2, Informative)
The current versions of Solaris have nothing to do with BSD; that was SunOS 4.
What a Motion for Summary Judgment Is (Score:3, Informative)
If you are a lawyer: WTF? In what jurisdiction do judges only grant Rule 56 motions in cases where the claims are frivolous?
If you are not a lawyer: You're wrong. Summary judgment is basically a replacement for a trial, if the facts aren't in dispute. Motions for summary judgment say "there is no dispute as to the facts, so there is no need for a trial, because putting on witnesses, etc. is pointless where nobody disagrees about what the facts were. Consequently, the judge can go ahead and rule as to who wins under the law, and we should win because of X, Y, Z." The other side says either "there are still disputed facts, so there needs to be a trial" or "that's all true, but we win under the law because of A, B, C." Motions for summary judgment are granted all the time - just because there's no factual disputes left doesn't mean that one side now has a "flimsy argument". Both sides might have really good arguments, or the law might be so vague that it's not clear who wins, and so now it's up to the judge to figure out what the law is.
Oh, and a judge can dismiss an action sua sponte (on his own initiative) for being st00pid - it just doesn't happen often enough.