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

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Here it is: SCO's Reply to Novell's Response to Motion for New Trial

By Pamela Jones et al.

Here it is, SCO's Reply to Novell's Response to SCO's Motion for a new trial or for the judge to just give them the copyrights:

05/28/2010 - 875 - REPLY to Response to Motion re 874 MOTION for New Trial filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 05/28/2010)

I know some of you wondered if SCO had given up and faced reality and wasn't going to file. Hah! Nevah happen. The full title of the document is "SCO's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial". Wow. It's like the good old days with SCOfolk. Here's why they say they need the copyrights:

Because ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights is required, at least, for SCO to enforce its rights against third-party infringers and to pursue enforcement of claims transferred to it under the APA, the jury's verdict cannot stand.

They want to sue the world some more, at least, and their argument has shifted a bit now to depending on the claims they say were transferred to them under the APA. Wait. Did they argue that at trial? It's true they fought for a jury trial, but "doing so does not surrender the protections provided by law for a case where the jury is confused or misled into an untenable decision." OMG. The jury was "confused" or "misled". Of all people to complain about *that*! They are so funny to me. I hope the judge has followed to cases enough over the years to understand why.

Full post as published by Groklaw on May 28, 2010 (boomark / email).