SCO has filed its response to Novell's
Motion in Limine No. 1. And Novell has added another lawyer to the team, Daniel P. Muino.
SCO's opposition in essence says, "No fair, Novell! We appealed the copyright ownership issue, and the slander of title is sort of related, and so that should be enough."
Here's what I don't see SCO saying: "We *did* appeal the slander of title decision."
They can't say that, because it isn't listed. It would like us all to infer it. Maybe the judge will, but I find that argument a stretch, given that there are rules and all. Oh, that. Anyway, SCO argues, Novell used to say that slander of title was back on the table, so now it's changing. Like SCO never has done that. I recall it saying one thing in the AutoZone courtroom, another in the IBM courtroom and another in Red Hat, pretty much all at the same time. Isn't that your memory too? But in any case, Novell agrees that it has changed. It told Judge Ted Stewart that it thought a number of claims were back on the table, until it read
Judge Ted Stewart's words in denying
Novell's 60(b) motion, stating that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals mandated what items could be considered and no others.
More...
