Message ID: 168010
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-08-17 10:30:00
Subject: DC hearing video & order at scofacts
Several new records in the DaimlerChrysler case are now at
scofacts.org, including video and an unofficial transcript
of the hearing, and the resulting August 9 written order.
(That's a summary of the hearing and all the directly
related docs. From there, you can click on the case number
for the full case file.)
Both attorneys mention that the Judge's office has
emphasized to the parties that she has read all the written
arguments and that oral arguments are to be kept brief. The
Judge does not ask any questions while listening to
arguments, and it appears she is completely unmoved by
anything either side says, because immediately after the
attorneys finish (and the video includes a clock display so
you can tell there aren't any cuts), she begins reading an
order that she must have prepared before the hearing based
solely on the written arguments.
The meat of the order is "In this case, the court is going
to grant the motion for summary disposition pursuant to
[Michigan Court Rule 2.116](c)(10) as to all claims except
for the alleged breach of contract for failing to respond to
the request for certification in a timely manner. The
agreement is silent as to the time period defendant is
allotted to respond to the request for Certification, and
thus the law implies a reasonable time period. The issue of
what is reasonable must be decided by a finder of fact, thus
making summary disposition inappropriate pursuant to (c)(10)
as to the timeliness issue.
"However, the contract very clearly does not require
certification of the various clauses contained in the
agreement, as 2.05 relates to the current use of the
software by its unambiguous terms. Thus, defendant is not
required to certify, for example, that it has not exported
the software to a prohibited country. Specifically,
defendant is not required by 2.05 to certify compliance with
... 2.06, 4.01, 7.05, 7.08, 7.09, as requested by
plaintiff's correspondence. Therefore any claims for
failing to certify compliance with those sections of the
agreement are properly dismissed pursuant to (c)(10) as
defendant has no contractual obligation to make such
"As to the claim seeking a declaratory judgment, this is
also dismissed pursuant to (c)(10), as there is not a
controversy at issue requiring any such declaratory
judgment, nor has plaintiff addressed this requested relief
in its response to the motion for summary disposition."
In case you're wondering: no, it's not a bootleg video. It
was provided by the court in response to my request (see
) that it be made available for distribution over the
internet. I would claim that it is, in some vague way,
incurably afflicted with my Precious Intellectual Property,
and then sell it to you pay-per-view, but SCO's lawyers are
too busy to take my case.
The text of this Yahoo Message Board post has been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board user "al_petrofsky" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.
Copyright 2004 Yahoo! SCOX. Messages are owned by the individual posters.