Message ID: 178342
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-09-09 19:24:00
Subject: AutoZone motion denied

As at the first hearing, but much more so, Judge Jones was
quite assertive this morning.

He started with "You know, I stayed the action", and said he
thought SCO had given "enough of a basis" to proceed with
time-limited discovery. He interrupted AutoZone several
times, and about ten minutes into the hearing, said he
wasn't satisfied with the answers he was getting to his
questions, and announced he would deny the order (before SCO
had said anything). There were a couple points AutoZone
tried to bring up that he didn't want to hear yet, and he
said AutoZone would just have to deal with this "darn little
period" of discovery.

An interesting thing that came out along the way was that
there's a 7-hour deposition of Jim Greer scheduled for
September 24.

At are letters from SCO and
AutoZone that fill in more detail about what went on between
the July 21 hearing and the August 6 order.

I should have the audio recording tonight.

Message ID: 178487
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-09-10 08:51:00
Subject: Audio and unofficial transcript avail.


One piece still missing is SCO's opposition memo. (Although
SCO prevailed on the motion at the hearing without saying
anything, it seems likely their written arguments did have
some effect.)

Sorry I raised some unfulfilled expectations with the
comment "I should have the audio recording tonight", but I
would like to point out that in Nevada right now, it is
definitely still night.

Message ID: 178488
Posted By: al_petrofsky
Posted On: 2004-09-10 08:53:00
Subject: Comments on the hearing

As you can hear or read for yourself, a whole lot of stuff
was peripherally touched on at the hearing.

One thing that stands out was Jones's statement that it
sounds like if Novell is found never to have transferred the
copyrights, then SCO has no case against AutoZone.

AutoZone makes it sounds like such a ruling from Utah might
be imminent, but I think that's wrong. Novell's current
motion to dismiss merely asks Judge Kimball to conclude
that, as a consequence of his prior ruling that there is
substantial doubt about the ownership, no malice can be
proven about Novell's statements, and thus the slander of
title claim must be dismissed. Novell is not asking the
court to find that Novell never transferred the copyrights.
Novell already tried that, and Kimball denied it.

I liked AutoZone's argument that SCO has not met the
pleading requirement to assert a claim and proceed to
discovery. That's the argument I was thinking of in message
167315. I don't understand why AutoZone doesn't seem to
have really mentioned it in its memo. It was the only
argument at the hearing that Judge Jones was willing to sit
through without interruption. Then AutoZone moved on to
another argument that Jones didn't like, and then Jones said
he'd had enough and ruled against AutoZone, without ever
addressing this argument.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have 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.