Judge Kimball Strikes SCO's Jury Trial Demand

watchingeyes writes "In a ruling on various pre-trial motions in limine and other, similar motions in the SCO vs Novell case, Judge Kimball today issued a ruling striking SCO's demand for a jury trial, ruling that Novell's claims seek equitable, and not legal relief. In addition, he denied SCO's request for entry of judgment that would allow them to appeal his ruling on the UNIX copyrights and Novell's waiver rights, ruling that if SCO wants to appeal any of his rulings, it can do them all at once after trial. He also granted Novell's request to voluntarily dismiss its own breach of contract claim, denied SCO's motion to exclude press coverage and evidence from the IBM case, granted Novell's motion in limine preventing SCO from contesting his summary judgment ruling at trial, granted Novell's second motion in limine preventing SCO from arguing that SCOsource licenses that license SVRx only incidentally aren't SVRx licenses, denied another SCO motion in limine which improperly asked the Judge to issue rulings on contractual issues and denied Novell's final motion in limine which sought to prevent SCO from contesting Novell's apportionment of royalties analysis. Looks like SCO will be facing a trial in-front of a judge which has already ruled against them numerous times."

Comments

Re:english not good enough

[Crypto Gnome]

America may have many things wrong with it, but in this case (pun intended) it's very nice to see a sitting judge wield a powered nail-gun with such accuracy.

Re:english not good enough

[advocate_one]

In short: SCO is screwed. After Novell is through with them, if anything is left, IBM will launch its Lanham Act claims against SCO and there will be a smokin' hole in Linden, Utah, where SCO HQ used to be.

I want to see them go and pierce the "corporate veil" and go after the source of the money SCO used to bankroll the lawsui^H^H^H^H^H^Hscam... I want to know who the real "PIPE Fairy" is... we all suspect Microsoft, but I want to see hard evidence that can be used against Microsoft.

Maybe the most important remaining issue

[Anonymous Coward]

One question that will be settled at trial is apportionment. That is, how much of the money paid by Microsoft and Sun belongs to Novell. The judge has clearly said that some of the money belongs to Novell. The best SCO can do is argue that it is a very small amount.

SCO's problem is that they basically told the SEC that all the money belongs to Novell. SCO tried to have that evidence excluded but failed.

It is likely that Novell will get more than 50% of the money. The judge will grant a constructive trust. SCO will be immediately bankrupt. The trustee will march in and kick the current SCO management out. The trustee will agree to anything the creditors (IBM, Novell mainly) tell him. The cases will end immediately.

AllParadox, a retired lawyer who has been following the case closely, predicts that Judge K. will issue an order sanctioning SCO's lawyers. Some of them could end up being disbarred. It will serve them right. This case has been an incredible misuse of the courts.

Re:Maybe the most important remaining issue

[keraneuology]

AllParadox, a retired lawyer who has been following the case closely, predicts that Judge K. will issue an order sanctioning SCO's lawyers. Some of them could end up being disbarred . It will serve them right. This case has been an incredible misuse of the courts.

One can only hope, but this is very unlikely. The legal system is loathe to expel their own - when judge Susan Chrzanowski was caught having an affair with a defense attorney who was a) pleading cases before her b) given a virtual monopoly on court-appointed indigent cases, c) murdered his wife the day after having yet another sexual rendezvous with the judge and the judge was caught in several lies regarding her involvement her only punishment was 17 months paid "vacation" (they called it a suspension, but she collected around $200,000 and full benefits), six months unpaid leave, and instead of being disbarred was allowed to return to the bench. Retired state justice Charles Levin who oversaw Susan's review originally ruled that she had done nothing whatsoever that merited punishment.

If cases like this don't merit any punishment from the ranks of the legal system, why would a couple of lawyers playing hardball in a case that most americans don't understand or care about be prohibited from paying more dues to the various lawyer associations?