|
|
|
|
||
2009-05-07: Judge McConnell: "Do you seriously want us to believe that Amendment 2 accomplished nothing? Transferred no copyrights at all?"Report from Denver: The SCO v. Novell Appeals Court Hearing May 07 2009 - 04:14 PM EDT By Anonymous Let me report what I heard in the courtroom. Judge McConnell (brilliant, BTW) stated that SCO's position that Amendment 2 was a clarification of the intent of the deal and conformed the deal to what the parties had already agreed to. He said "that strikes me as very reasonable and logical." When Novell's lawyer tried to advance the fiction that Santa Cruz was simply a licensee to UNIX just like IBM and HP, Judge McConnell squashed him and said "so you're telling me the Santa Cruz agreement here is just like IBM's?" Novell: "Er, ah, no its an APA." Judge: "That is what I recall, Santa Cruz bought the WHOLE business, they're not just a licensee." Novell: "Ya, but . . . " Judge Lucero: "Novell would you please just respond to our questions, for once." Judge McConnell: "Do you seriously want us to believe that Amendment 2 accomplished nothing? Transferred no copyrights at all?" Novell: "That's our position." Judge: "Sorry, that is just unreasonable. I can't agree with you and I cant see any way you will be able to avoid a trial." Judge to SCO: "You are simply asking us to remand this back to the district court for trial, right?" SCO: "Yes, your honor." Judge: "That is what I thought; thank you." PJ knowing your view that there can never, ever, ever; no matter what, be any positive news for SCO, I'm still surprised that you are encouraged by what happened yesterday. My observation is that Novell got its head handed to it. Report from Denver: The SCO v. Novell Appeals Court Hearing May 07 2009 - 07:57 PM EDT By PJ So, since you are clearly a SCO insider, how about sharing a transcript with us, so we can verify? I was going to write to both Novell and SCO and ask, but since you came here, how about it? We'd love to see it, and as you know, there is no transcript for the public. That of course makes it possible to write any old thing and pretend it happened, but the way to let me weigh the value of your comment would be to see a transcript. If you are correct, I will not only acknowledge it, I'll publish it so the whole world can read it, if you give permission. I would also like to ask you some questions: 1. I have long wondered if there was some kind of anticipated help SCO was expecting from an appellate judge, specifically the judge appointed by Bush, and I also wondered if that was why SCO was in such a rush to get the appeal going, before he retired. I do recall that at the very beginning of the case, a SCO executive told us that we should not be surprised if the Bush administration entered into the case. That didn't happen, but at the same time, we see, according to your account, that the very judge I've wondered about seemed to be favoring SCO. Can you or anyone there comment? 2. Did Darl attend? He told the Salt Lake Tribune that he flew to Denver to attend, but did he? And I'll answer your question honestly. I don't really care about the appeal. Even if it is remanded, I don't really think it much matters to the ultimate outcome. And personally, I would welcome it, because there are some issues that didn't make it into an appeal by Novell, but I think they would be effective before a jury, and I expect if the case is remanded that there will be an opportunity to present them. What do you see as your strongest argument, by the way? Why don't you write an article about it for Groklaw? Love to publish it. Seriously. Darl, Tibbits, Singer, take your pick. Copyright 2009 http://www.groklaw.net |
return to message board, top of board |