Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Parties File Sealed Trial Briefs; Novell's Redacted Amended Trial Brief, as text

By Pamela Jones et al.

Trial briefs have been filed by the parties in SCO v. Novell. Novell filed one originally filed back in September of 2007, but SCO filed for bankruptcy in Delaware instead of filing a trial brief in Utah. Now, having failed to escape the trial in Utah, which is now scheduled to start on the 29th, it has finally filed a trial brief, although it's not yet available in a redacted version for the public. Novell's redacted Amended Trial Brief [PDF] is available, however, and I have it as text for you.

Comparing the two versions is interesting, in that we see Novell's carefulness in answering all that SCO has raised recently, including the argument that when it said UNIX System V, it meant UnixWare, because that is where UnixWare comes from. Novell points out that it doesn't matter where UnixWare came from, since SCO has only identified Unix System V post-APA code as allegedly being in Linux.

And we learn that SCO, judging by its briefs filed to date, isn't going to be presenting any SCOsource licensees as witnesses. Instead, Novell says SCO apparently plans to argue what the licensees *intended* to license. Novell calls that hearsay, and so, once again, Novell must raise Ye Olde Rules of Evidence, specifically the hearsay and parol rules of evidence. Some things about SCO never change.

Morrison & Foerster are not just phoning it in, in other words. They've taken care to leave no stone unturned, including presenting new cases to support the additional arguments.

Full post as published by Groklaw on April 24, 2008 (boomark / email).