Week 2, Day 6 of SCO v. Novell Trial - The Mistrial Motion, Kim Madsen, Steve Sabbath, Darl McBride

By Anonymous

March 15 2010

"So, two SCO witnesses who totally contradict each other.
Perfect. That's what happens when you don't bother to read
contracts but yet recall perfectly 15 years later what it
said, even what it should have said when it doesn't so say.
Hence the question about perjury."

I hope the jury is sharper than I am - because I'm not
seeing the "total contradiction" between these two
witnesses ... Help

11:13 PM EDT

Week 2, Day 6 of SCO v. Novell Trial - The Mistrial Motion, Kim Madsen, Steve Sabbath, Darl McBride


March 16 2010

You missed it and so will the jury, most likely, because this is what happened:

Mr. Normand then read Amendment 2: "exclude all copyrights and trademarks." Copyrights required to enter into new SVRx? No. If Novell were retaining copyrights, would you have heard about it? Yes. Were copyrights required to run the business? Yes, my gosh, how could you not? You need them to enforce your rights to your software.

Judge Stewart then called a 20-minute break.

After returning, and before the Jury was brought back in, there were more discussions. Judge Stewart said that he read as much as he could during the break of Mr. Sabbath's declaration and said that on its own it rebuts Ms. Madsen and he sees no need to bring her back. Mr. Jacobs wishes to do so in front of the jury and read paragraphs from his declaration that include his contradictions.

Mr. Jacobs states that Mr. Sabbath had the declaration in front of him during his deposition and referred to it. Therefore the jury should be able to see that document as it would be in court.

Judge Stewart asks doesn't Novell have him saying as much verbally during the deposition? Mr. Jacobs admits that they did not have him read his declaration aloud during the deposition. Judge Stewart says Novell may not read it aloud to the jury and that he's not going to make up for what counsel failed to do during the deposition.

01:39 AM EDT


Thanks for the explanation

By jbb

March 16 2010

I think it is hard to grasp because it makes no sense. I thought Judge Stewart had said that he was going to let the parties introduce new evidence to rebut testimony. Yet here it seems that Novell is not allowed to rebut Madsen's testimony because they didn't figure out beforehand that they were going to need to rebut it.

Is it customary to require people to always read their declaration at their deposition? That's seems like a huge waste of time. Is the declaration going to be part of the court record? If so, is Novell going to be allowed to point out the discrepancy even though they can't read the declaration aloud?

02:08 AM EDT

Thanks for the explanation

March 16 2010


Stewart is giving all the breaks to SCO. There is
no other way to describe what is happening. I
don't know why, but that is what it is. And that
is why Novell moved for a mistrial. It's obviously

So we haven't heard the last of this, I'm sure.

02:21 AM EDT


Copyright 2010 http://www.groklaw.net/