|
| Authored by: Gerry on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST |
Access Denied when I try to access the page with the documents.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: shaun on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:15 PM EST |
Users don't have sufficient permissinion
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Stefan on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST |
"Access Denied
Access to this page is denied. Either the page has been moved/removed or you do
not have sufficient permissions."
02.29GMT[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:45 PM EST |
| http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040103144354238 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darthaggie on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST |
| Didn't SCO claim that Novell couldn't acquire SUSE because of a non-compete
clause? Huh, wonder what this means:
2.8.
Agreements.
With respect to the Business, Seller is not a party to, and the
Business is not subject to:
(e) Any contract containing covenants purporting
to limit Seller's freedom to compete in any line of business in any geographic
area;
Gee, that doesn't look like a non-compete
clause, but then again, IANAL, just a dumb Aggie... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Jude on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:51 PM EST |
Minor quibble: The dark blue "highlighting" makes the black text
very difficult to see. Perhaps a lighter color would be more suitable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST |
Amendment 2
C. Novell may execute a buy-out with a licensee
without any approval or involvement of SCO, and will no longer be bound by any
of the requirements stated in Section B. above, if: (i) SCO ceases to actively
and aggressively market SCO's UNIX platforms; or (ii) upon a change of control
of SCO as stated in schedule 6.3(g) of the Agreement.
Looking
at the contract, I can't find the schedule 6.3(g). Did something get removed at
some point in time?
---
Bill Catz -
"The number of UNIX
installations has grown to ten, with more expected." -- UNIX Programmers Manual,
2nd Ed. June, 1972 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Ruidh on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 10:12 PM EST |
I'm afraid I think this agreement sold the copyrights to Sys V. If it did not do
so, there would be no purpose to this section.
1.6 [...]Seller's
Licenses to Assets.
Concurrent with the Closing, Buyer and Seller shall
[...]enter into a license agreement [...]providing Seller with a royalty-free,
perpetual, worldwide license to (i) all of the technology included in the Assets
and (ii) all derivatives of the technology included in the Assets, including the
"Eiger" product release (such licensed back technology to be referred to
collectively as "Licensed Technology").
If the agreement did not
transfer the copyrights to SCO, there would be no need to license them back to
Novell. Since contacts are interperted so as to give meaning to every section,
the only conclusion I can reach is that copyrights were transferred. I think
anyone who believes otherwise needs to explain exactly what Novell is licensing
from SCO here.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SkArcher on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST |
Section 1.2b;
Seller shall be entitled to conduct periodic
audits of Buyer concerning all royalties and payments due to Seller hereunder or
under the SVRX Licenses, provided that Seller shall conduct such audits after
reasonable notice to Buyer and during normal business hours and shall not be
entitle to more than two (2) such audits per year. The cost of any such audio
shall be borne by Seller, unless such audit reveals a payment shortfall in
excess of 5% of amounts due hereunder in which case the cost of such audio shall
be borne by Buyer.
So, if I am reading this right, Novell have the
right to audit SCO with a view to determining the correctness of the SCOs Unix
licensing rights for devinations of System V?
So, in theory, Novell could
demand the infringing code from SCO to 'verify' the correctness of their claims
with regards to Novells property?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Mark Grosskopf on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 10:53 PM EST |
Many of the ellipsis replacing stricken text are longer than the little flyover
can present.
How about using a java popup window, like many sites offer for definitions,
specific help and reference text.
Just a suggestion...
MG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 10:56 PM EST |
| I can get to it. Nice piece of work... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 10:58 PM EST |
OK this agreement applies to OLD SCO. Have we seen the agreement that
transferred rights between old SCO and New SCO? After all New SCO is really
Caldera, which isn't the buyer as referenced in this document. So when the
switching around and swapping between Old SCO and Caldera occurred, what did
THAT agreement say about intellectual property ownership?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: surak on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST |
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend,
modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior
written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and
direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or
shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any
manner or respect by Seller.
IANAL, but it looks to me like
SCO can't terminate or even modify IBM's SVRX license without prior written
consent from Novell. You think they had Novell's consent when they terminated
IBM's AIX license? $3 billion says no. :-P
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 11:48 PM EST |
Look at G and H:
G. Microsoft agreement (Xenix Agreement) - Xenix compatibility and per copy fee
agreement. Seller will agree to discuss with SCO Seller's interpretation of
this agreement.
H. Microsoft Agreement (Extra-Ordinary Discount) - Microsoft's additional
discount beyond 50%
I remember being on a newsgroup probably 5-10 years ago, and having a Microsoft
rep pop up and say that they were the largest distributor of Unix in the world.
Don't rememeber what newgroup, don't remember who it was or what year, but
this reminded me of that.
It would be interesting to see the Microsoft Unix contracts.
Wayne
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rand on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 11:58 PM EST |
| You should read the comments on Slashdot.
The denizens are being, well,
courteous and respectful (mostly). It's almost Groklawish over
there. ---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an aircraft...they
were the first to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 02:29 AM EST |
What was described as a ``blue'' background is rendering as dark purple on my
browser/monitor. I'd siggest something much lighter like, say, cyan. Either
that or change the text color to something like yellow or white so it can be
read.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: davcefai on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 04:40 AM EST |
As a non-American non-lawyer I need to ask:
Does this mean that before the SCO-IBM litigation can proceed it may be
necessary to have an SCO-Novell case to determine who owns the copyright? Or is
it up to IBM to bring this up in court ("Your Honour, they don't own
it!")? Or can Novell start an action to stop SCO claiming rights that
Novell own?
A possible downside of all this is that the GPL may not be tested in court this
time round. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 01:13 PM EST |
I would like to suggest the follow for the background colors of the text:
blue - #AACCFF
red - #FFACAC
That should make it more readable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tyche on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 01:36 PM EST |
| I noticed 3 places near the beginning where it would appear that audit was
misspelled. I also noted a couple of points. My text is Italic
Bold. The rest is normal text:
ARTICLE I
THE ACQUISITION
1.2.
Payments.
Seller and Buyer further acknowledge and agree that Seller is
retaining all rights to the SVRX Royalties notwithstanding the transfer of the
SVRX Licenses to Buyer pursuant hereto, and that Buyer only has legal title and
not an equitable interest in such royalties within the meaning of Section 541(d)
of the Bankruptcy Code.
Point 1. Does this mean that, should SCOG
fold, that all that could be passed to either Canopy or IBM would be the
Licensing permissions (ie: the ability to collect and pass on royalties of
Unixware?). Or would the whole thing go back to Novell.
(sp?) The cost of any such audio – audit?
(sp?)
The cost of any such audio shall be borne by
Seller, unless such audit reveals a payment shortfall in excess of 5% of amounts
due hereunder in which case the cost of such audio shall be borne by
Buyer. (Underlined words are questionable)
Seller and Buyer
agree that the license that Seller is entitled to exercise after Closing
pursuant to Section 1.6 hereof is a right not sold to Buyer and as such is a
right retained by Seller.
Point 2. This would seem to support point
1.
Craig
(Tyche) ---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is
not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."
Stephen Hawking [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 04:26 PM EST |
Oh, my. How cool!
(I've got soooo much to be doing... but I can't take my eyes off this.)
Thank you Hans Stoop. Thanks, PJ.
TFL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 05:17 PM EST |
III. TUCEDO Transaction Processing
in my recollection the system was called TUXEDO so the line should read:
III. TUXEDO Transaction Processing
sorry to be pedantic. This is really very useful. Contrats to the editor...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dex~ on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 02:44 AM EST |
More corrections to OCR (assumption ;) ). After a quick scan of the original
text of these agreements and ammendments, I think these corrections and the ones
above about the word "audio -> audit" in 1.2(b) would also apply
to the original.
1.3 (a)(iv) Assumption of Obligation. Tot he extent that an order...
"Tot he" should be "To the"
1.4 The second sentence (I believe it's the second one...)
reads: "In the event that notwithstanding the efforts of Selle and
Buyer"
There should be an "r" after "Selle".
2.8 (c) "... Seller during t he twelve-month period ended July 31, 1995
exceeded 31,500,000"
"t he" should be "the" and "31,500,000"
should be "$1,500,000"
2.9 (b)(iv) No audio or other examination
"audio" should be "audit"
FYI: I compared these items to the PDF for possible mistakes in the original
document.
These are just the ones that popped out at me while I was reading throught the
text. I only made it to Article V. So this is in no way a complete or
comprehensive list of all errors.
Dex
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST |
Perhaps this is the key to why Novell owns the copyrights.
Section 4.16 states that SCO does not have any substantial rights to licesne
SVRx -- given this, why would SCO need the copyrights for SVRx?
Here is the text:
"In addition, Buyer shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into new
SVRX Licenses except in the situation specified in (i) of the preceding sentence
or as otherwise approved in writing in advance by Seller on a case by case
basis."
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJP on Thursday, January 08 2004 @ 12:12 PM EST |
| Looking at the merged version of the Unix aquisition
docum
ent,
in schedule 1.1(a) V A (excluded assets) we see the
following:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the [...]
copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement
required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX
and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO
for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and
trademarks.
This is going to take a lawyer (or two, or three...) to
sort out - maybe even
a judge.
The interesting part is what copyrights did
Novell actually own at the time?
The Sys. V code carried AT&T copyright
notices, and was presumably registered with the copyright office. Did Novell
change all those notices, and did it re-register with the coyright office? If
not, although it may have had the legal right to the copyrights, they may have
still been with AT&T until Novell actually claimed them. So at the time of
the contract, there may have been no copyright
owned by Novell to
transfer.
This could well be the crux of Novell's claim to now own
them.
IANAL etc....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: telamonides on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST |
could someone please consider changing the color of the font to white on those
passages with the colored backgrounds? it is almost impossible to see them.
thank you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, April 28 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
From SCO's answer to IBM's second amended counterclaims:
84.
Admits the existence of the letter of June 12, 2003 but denies any right in
Novell to waive or revoke SCO's rights and denies any legal or factual basis for
the letter and denies the remaining allegations of P.84 not specifically
admitted herein.
From the Asset Purchase Agreement between
Novell and Santa Cruz Operation, section 4.16B:
(b) Buyer shall
not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under
or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In
addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend,
supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any
SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In
the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX
Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted,
the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf.
[Emphasis
added]
Looks to me like the above is all the authority and legal
basis novell needs to take the action (overriding SCO's termination of IBM's
SVRX license) it did, and this very section was referenced in Novell's letter of
June 12 (below):
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the
following:
- Asset Purchase Agreement by and between The Santa Cruz
Operation Inc. and Novell, Inc., dated as of September 19, 1995, and more
particularly to section 4.16(b) of that agreement;
- Amendment No. X to
software agreement SOFT-00015...
and two letters...
How
can SCO say Novell has no legal authority or basis to take the action they did
when that authority is cited right in the letter telling SCO what they did?
Does SCO think they can just pretend 4.16(B) doesn't exist and that'll make it
go away? Or are they even crazier than I thought they were?
---
What goes
around comes around, and it grows as it goes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
