Edward Cahn, SCO's appointed Chapter 11 Trustee, now making decisions for SCO, has filed an opposition to SUSE's request to lift the bankruptcy stay so the arbitration can go forward.

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.

Novell has filed two motions today, one for a judgment on SCO's slander of title claim -- the promised Rule 50(a) motion -- and one to strike testimony inconsistent with the unambiguous contract language. ...

In the latest news from SCO's slow boat to absolutely nowhere, Novell has filed its opposition to SCO's motion to stay taxation of costs.

Novell has filed its Reply [PDF] in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment in Novell v. Microsoft, the antitrust litigation in Maryland regarding WordPerfect. Technically, it's Novell's Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Microsoft's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Here's that Cross Motion and here's Microsoft's Opposition [PDF] to Novell's motion.

Novell has filed its Reply to SCO's Opposition to Novell's Motion to Set Aside Judgment...

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.

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...

Judge Stewart has denied Novell's Motion in Limine No. 7, saying that the motion is "essentially one for partial summary judgment and, as such, is untimely." He also says they can bring their issues up in jury instructions. That was SCO's argument, which has been adopted wholesale. But I think it's a bit of sleight of hand to say it's a matter for summary judgment.