Hearing Date Set for SCO vs. Novell

duh P3rf3ss3r writes "According to Groklaw, a hearing into seven summary judgement motions in the SCO vs. Novell case has been set for 31 May at 9 am before Judge Dale Kimball. Groklaw's PJ speculates that David Boies may have to show up for SCO just to keep their case alive."

Comments

This could be dramatic

[Anonymous Coward]

It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account. That would bankrupt SCO and SCO's management would be replaced by a bankruptcy trustee. All the court cases would be negotiated by the trustee and this whole mess would come to a screaming halt.

Blink-blink

[AndroidCat]

Judge Dread and David Bowie must appear? Wait, I think the coffee has brewed. (SCO stories are always at least a two-cup problem and I'm down a cup this morning. Fill'er up, premium!)

Re:This could be dramatic, but probably not.

[Jaywalk]

It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account.

While it's possible that Kimball will rule from the bench, it has not been his style to do so with anything major. He tends to assemble rulings that cover every point raised in the hearing, including some he claims weren't really worth listening to in the first place. For example, in the IBM case, SCO argued that a ruling had to be reviewed from the starting point ("de novo"). Kimball said SCO was wrong and that a de novo review wasn't required, but that he did one anyway "out of an abundance of caution" and still found against SCO. Best guess is that he's doing it so the outcome of the case is bulletproofed against appeals; probably a good idea because SCO fights every detail tooth and nail, regardless of how hopeless the situation.

I do expect the hearing to at least generate some humor, especially item 180. This is where SCO tells the court (apparently with a straight face) that "the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor." In English, they are saying there is no way the contract did not transfer copyrights in spite of the fact that the contract explicitly includes the copyrights in the list of things not transferred. I'm really looking forward to hearing their explanation of that one.