Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Intellectual Property Law
: GroklawNovell Moves for Judgment on Slander; SCO Moves to Limit Closing Argument
By Pamela Jones et al.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Novell moves for judgment on slander of title and damages:Defendant Novell, Inc. ("Novell") respectfully moves the Court to grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of Novell because plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") has failed to introduce legally sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find for SCO on its claim for slander of title. Specifically, SCO has not shown that: (1) Novell acted with constitutional malice, (2) Novell's statements were disparaging, (3) Novell's statements were unprivileged, (4) Novell's statements were false, or (5) Novell's statements caused special damages. Moreover, SCO has failed to introduce sufficient evidence supporting an award of punitive damages.Meanwhile, The SCO Group wants to limit Novell's closing arguments:
Plaintiff, the SCO Group, Inc., respectfully submits this memorandum of points and authorities concerning the proper scope of closing arguments. Specifically, documents and testimony that have not been admitted into evidence at trial should not be shown or read to the jury, such as the demonstratives used by Novell during the testimony of Novell's expert, Mr. Terry Musika. SCO also objects to any attempt by Novell to argue to the jury that Novell's assertion to ownership applied only to UNIX, and not to UnixWare copyrights, extant at the time of the APA. SCO further objects to any attempt to argue to the jury points contrary to questions of law that have been decided by the Tenth Circuit opinion in this case.
Full post as published by Groklaw on March 26, 2010 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Jevic Transportation
allegedly failing to give 60 days warning before closing plant.
Police Officer Slander
City of Detroit agrees to $25,000 settlement.
Divorce Slander
Sara Evans pays ex husband $600,000 in alimony divorce settlement.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Obama Moves to Limit ‘Reckless Risks’ of Big Banks
Prosecutor's Misleading Rebuttal Argument at Trial Not Plain Error
Maryland Moves to Limit Death Penalty
"Demos Announces Two Key Appointments in Democracy Program"








