0
Believe it or not, SCO isn't dead yet. SCO Group, by its lawyers Boies Schiller & Flexner and Hatch & Dodge, has just asked the US District Court for the District of Utah to reopen [PDF] its litigation against IBM:
Quote
SCO respectfully moves the Court to reopen this case in order to proceed with SCO’s unfair competition claim concerning the Project Monterey joint venture and with SCO’s tortious interference claims alleging that IBM interfered with SCO’s market position and business relationships.
Its reasons are in the redacted Memorandum in Support [update: SCO has once again filed an inadequately redacted document, so I've pulled the PDF until they replace it], so some of it is for the court's eyes only. But it's about two claims, evidently, "the Project Monterey joint venture (the 'Project Monterey Claim') and with SCO’s tortious interference claims alleging that IBM interfered with SCO’s market and business relationships":
Quote
The Project Monterey Claim and the Tortious Interference Claims are unaffected by the final judgment entered in SCO v. Novell, Civil No. 2:04CV139 (the “Novell Litigation”), which the Tenth Circuit has now affirmed. This Court need not await the resolution of that litigation, because it has ended.
I gather this means they won't be appealing the SCO v. Novell decision, the deadline for which is November 28th, I believe. And it's not asking to reopen SCO's claims exactly, except via two IBM summary judgement motions, while leaving the rest of IBM's claims frozen in limbo. It's not the first time SCO tried this. But who exactly is "The SCO Group" nowadays?
In the Memorandum, SCO says these are the motions that it wants to revive:
Quote
SCO respectfully requests that the Court rule on IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Unfair Competition Claim (SCO’s Sixth Cause of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 782), which motion is directed at the Project Monterey Claim, and IBM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s Interference Claims (SCO’s Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action), dated September 25, 2006 (Docket No. 783), which motion is directed at the Tortious Interference Claims.
It's desirous of reviving *IBM* claims, then.
Don't the living dead ever get tired?
Source: Groklaw.net via Slashdot
