Out of Time?

Out of Time?

By Anonymous

March 24 2010

Mr. Brennen asks Judge Stewart, If it looks like SCO has more time, uh, hypothetically, if SCO has more time, on the last day, they'd be out of time? Judge Stewart smiles and responds, I think they've been warned.

What is this all about? Concern by Novell that SCO may be able to (re)call a witness and Novell would not be allowed to cross-examine?

And does they refer to Novell or SCO in this statement?

12:59 PM EDT

Clarification

By chrisbrown

March 24 2010

The time they refer to is the time they've already used (Like a chess
timer).The two sides indicated they have assigned time to the sidebars a little
differently, but they've split the difference to determine how much they've
used.

They know how much remains based the 8:30am to 1:30pm (less the breaks).

At that time SCO had used more time than Novell.

Mr. Brennan basically wanted to know if, in the event that SCO had used more
time than Novell, and (relative to the amount of time left in the day) had
essentially run out of time usable for cross-examination. Mr. Brennan wanted to
know if he could actually rely on that being the case.

The Judge's commented (his words, not mine) that "I think they've been
warned" I interpreted as "I think they've just been warned of your
strategy." It could also have been "I think I've warned them enough
about time," however it didn't match his amused expression than my first
interpretation did.

04:58 PM EDT

Remaining Witnesses

By ChrisP

March 24 2010

Novell had 10 witnesses on their will call list. At 2 a day they will only
present 7 of them. Which 3 are going to be left out?

If SCO are running out of time it means they spent too long examining their own
witnesses. Perhaps inevitable given the twisty-turny nature of their evidence.
The more they say the more Novell can challenge on cross-examination and the
more time SCO has to spend on re-direct to twist the evidence back into their
own favour.

Novell are winning this battle.

---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

Not winning on the clock..

By chrisbrown

March 24 2010

I don't believe how much time each side matters as much as what's being said.

I believe SCO's case seems to be more about "winning" the copyrights
through tortured reading of APA+A1+A2 language plus a number of uninvolved
people who are mistaken about what was sold. Novell's case is pretty simple...
We had two businesses, the Unixware 32bit binary product, and the SVRx (32, 64,
n-bit) source code licensing business... They sold the binary business outright
and retained the source code business. Copyrights stayed with the source code
existent at time of APA.

Keep in mind that I missed the first week of SCO's witnesses including the
opening comments.

That being said, in the week and a half I've been there, Novell is IMHO winning
right now based on the strength of their witness testimony.

My own impression of witness credibility puts SCO at about 50% and Novell at
over 90%.

Applying the credibility to what the witness testified to and where that witness
was in relation to relevance, Novell has all but nailed their case already.

But as I have more information gleaned over the past 7 years that is not
available to the jury, I'm no predictor of how the jury perceives the
witnesses.

Of course there's still the matter of what, exactly, will appear in the jury
instructions and verdict form.

07:07 PM EDT