"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.
"Here's what Judge Stewart quoted from the appeals court:"
