With regard to Count I, Microsoft's Motion asserts two grounds for dismissal:

1. Novell does not own the claim, because in 1996 it sold to Caldera, Inc. any claims it had against Microsoft and is not therefore "a real party in interest". The settlement was paid to Caldera, and they claim a substantial portion of the claim was given to Novell.

2. Novell isn't seeking damages for any Novell products that competed in the PC OS market; it only asserts injury to products in other markets. A private antitrust plaintiff lacks standing to recover to injuries to products not competing in the "allegedly restrained market".

With regard to the rest, it says this:

3. Novell sold its word processing and spreadsheet applications to Corel in 1996. There is a statute of limitations of four years for such claims, so unless there is some valid ground for tolling, Novell's claims are time-barred. Novell claims that the DOJ litigation tolled. But MS asserts that the DOJ complaint made no claims about word processing or spreadsheet applications. That difference in markets is fatal to Novell's effort to toll the statute of limitations with respect to Counts II through VI . . . "

Novell's complaint is here, if you wish to review. The various counts go like this:

• Count I is Monopolization Of The Intel-Compatible Operating Systems Market;
• Count II is Monopolization Of The Market For Word Processing Applications;
• Count III is Monopolization Of The Market For Spreadsheet Applications;
• Count IV is Attempted Monopolization Of The Market For Word Processing Applications;
• Count V is Attempted Monopolization Of The Market For Spreadsheet Applications; and
• Count VI is Exclusionary Agreements In Unreasonable Restraint Of Trade.

If you have forgotten, the Statute of Limitations is explained here. And if you would like to compare the legal filing with Microsoft's press release, you can find it here.

What stands out to me is that the press release says: "Given that Novell hasn’t owned WordPerfect for eight years, their claims should be barred by the legal doctrine called the Statute of Limitations." I was therefore expecting that they would say the entire complaint, all the claims, were time-barred. They don't. Claim I is evidently not time-barred. They have asked that it be dismissed on two other distinct grounds.