Here it is, SCO's competing version of Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
04/19/2010 - 853 - Proposed Findings of Fact by SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
SCO insists still, despite the jury's verdict, that the intention of the parties to the APA in 1995 was to transfer the copyrights, and they'd like them now, please. They also ask for a ruling that Novell can't assert waivers regarding SCO's claims against IBM. However, SCO says in the first footnote that it will be filing a "renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding copyright ownership under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), and, in the alternative, for a new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. If this Court grants the Rule 50 motion, SCO's claim for specific performance is moot, and if this Court grants a new trial under Rule 59, the Court may defer ruling on the claim for specific performance."
So, there you are, ladies and gentlemen. The SCO Group.
When Judge Dale Kimball ruled against them, they went to the media and the appeals court, and claimed it was unfair. They got their day in court. And now that the jury SCO asked for has agreed with Judge Kimball that SCO didn't get the copyrights under the APA, SCO wants this new judge, the Hon. Ted Stewart, to hand them the victory anyway, since to SCO it's obvious the jury got it wrong as a matter of law.
More...
