Novell's Motion to Allow Evidence: SCO Opened the Door(Groklaw)

SCO has been rather arrogant about their slander of title claim from the beginning. And it is about to bite them in the rear.

You never really know how a trial is going to turn out. And, yes, it is entirely possible to open the door for evidence that you truly want to keep hidden from the jury.

Read this article on Groklaw.

Yes, the judge should allow the knowledge of prior decisions by the courts by Novell. Clearly such knowledge can and does affect what we think and feel. And SCO's desire to paint Novell as some company out to harm poor ole SCO has just bit the dust.

The truth is that both parties to a dispute should have a right to not only listen to their own lawyers regarding what their legal rights might be but they also have the right to listen to decisions by the courts as well. And that is true even if those decisions are not binding on the parties.

SCO has made the mistake from the very beginning that any effort to challenge their false claims in regard to the copyrights somehow generated greater liability on the part of Novell (or IBM or Linux customers). Pure hubris. Pure BS. And now they have gone too far.

Some readers may remember the early discussions here and on Groklaw when SCO first filed its complaint for slander of title. They claimed slander (I guess) because they did not want to appear to the public as being uncertain in any way that they own the copyrights. After all, the extortion plan would not work otherwise. And now they have failed to see the value in backing off that plan. Poor trial management at best.

It is one thing to be uncertain about your legal rights/standing early on. But, once you have a judge decide in your favor, that completely changes the situation.

It was not necessary for SCO to claim Novell continues to slander to this day.

The jury must realize that Novell's actions may have been appropriate because they were correct.