Novell has filed its first motion in limine [PDF], the full title of which is Motion in Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence and Argument Concerning Claims Not Included in SCO's Appeal or the Tenth Circuit's Limited Mandate. It's making me chuckle. Ah! The mandate rule. Since the judge, the Hon.

Here you go, munchkins. Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied.

There is a hearing coming up on February 4 at 3 PM before Judge Stewart in SCO v. Novell, and I surely hope some of you can attend, regarding Novell's recently filed motion asking to set aside an earlier judgment by Judge Kimball, so Novell can go after monies SCO took in from Microsoft and companies that bought a SCOsource license. But there's something odd in the notice about the hearing.

I told you I thought we'd hear from Novell, and so we have: Novell has filed a motion asking the court's permission to reply to SCO's Opposition to Novell's Motion in Limine No. 1.

My, if we think we're having trouble keeping up, how'd you like to be Judge Ted Stewart? Or Sterling Brennan, for that matter? So many filings already, and more today.

SCO has filed its "renewed" motion for judgment "as a matter of law", with its supporting memorandum. They ask the judge to rule over the heads of the jury and decide that the jury "simply got it wrong" when it ruled that SCO didn't get the copyrights in 1995 from Novell. In the alternative, they'd like a new trial.

The chickens have flown home and are circling SCO, looking for a place to roost, with SCO doing its dance to postpone the inevitable. Judge Ted Stewart, who presided over the SCO v. Novell second trial has denied SCO's motion to stay taxation of costs, a motion which Novell opposed.

Yesterday, at the end of the day at the trial of SCO v. Novell, there was a discussion of whether certain evidence could be let in after all, due to something SCO said. Judge Ted Stewart asked Novell to put it in the form of a motion, and they have. SCO accused Novell in its opening argument four times of slander of title "to this day".

SCO, "by and through the Chapter 11 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Edward N. Cahn", has filed its opposition to Novell's Motion to Set Aside Judgment. This is the motion that will be argued on February 4. SCO argues that if Novell wanted to argue this, they should have appealed it, and that's a strong argument...