decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:52 PM EDT

Hot off the presses: Judge Dale Kimball has issued a 102-page ruling [PDF] on the numerous summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell. Here it is as text. Here is what matters most:
[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights.

That's Aaaaall, Folks! The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". That's the ball game. There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses.

If anyone can please put this into text for us, that'd be simply great. [We have it done.] There is a filing in IBM also, and here's the docket entry:

08/10/2007 1077 - NOTICE OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR STATUS UPDATE. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8-10-07. (sih) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

Judge Kimball asks the parties, in view of the ruling in Novell, which "significantly impacts the claims and counterclaims asserted" in IBM, to prepare by August 31 "a statement of its view of the status of this case and, more specifically, the effect of the SCO v. Novell decision on each of the pending motions."

All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

But we must say thank you to Novell and especially to its legal team, Morrison & Foerster, for the incredible work they have done. I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through, but they won what matters most, and it's been a plum pleasin' pleasure watching you work. The entire FOSS community thanks you for your skill and all the hard work and thanks go to Novell for being willing to see this through.

I'm eating chocolates!

My thanks to Jill C. Carpenter for the cartoon, and to UserFriendly's JD Frazer, who inspired it.

Here's the Conclusion section, which sums up the decision:

***********************

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on Novell's slander of title claim. Accordingly, Novell's slander of title claim is still at issue.

The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright to enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement claim and a breach of contract claim based on the non-compete restrictions in the license back of the Licensed Technology under APA and the TLA. The court further concludes that there has not been a change of control that released the non-compete restrictions of the license, and the non-compete restrictions of the license are not void under California law. Accordingly, Novell's motion for summary judgment on SCO's non-compete claim in its Second Claim for breach of contract and Fifth Claim for unfair competition is granted to the extent that SCO's claims require ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, and denied in all other regards.

Furthermore, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of the term "SVRX License" in the APA is all licenses related to the SVRX products listed in Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA. Therefore, Novell is entitled to a declaration of rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent. Accordingly, Novell's motion for partial summary judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief for declaratory judgment is granted, and SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief is denied.

Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement. Furthermore, because Novell has obtained the information that it would otherwise obtain through an accounting during the course of this litigation, the court denies Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting. However, the court also notes that SCO has a continuing contractual obligation to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in the APA.

Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; SCO's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [Docket No. 180] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim [Docket No. 171] is GRANTED; SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim [Docket No. 224] is DENIED; SCO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell's First Claim [Docket No. 258] is DENIED; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [Docket No. 271] is GRANTED; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims [Docket No. 273] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [Docket No. 275] is GRANTED; and Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to Establish Special Damages [Docket No. 277] is MOOT.


  


Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive! | 1540 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: devnull13 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT
Yes!!! :)

JR

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT
Victoire!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT
For all those misteaks --> mistakes

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

OFF TOPIC
Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT
Off Topic Posts start here....

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

European time
Authored by: IMANAL on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT
CET 22:54, when it matters the most.

More than three years to hear that. Wow!!!

.


---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • and all the money - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:45 AM EDT
  • European time - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT
Newspick Discussion
Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:01 PM EDT
As we are being trained to do...
Discuss your newspicks here so we can pick them out

---
--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT
Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!


Err...let the appeals begin....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT
We're dancing now! How soon until red dress time??

Oh my goodness, if I hadn't been sprawled on the couch, laptop in lap, and
somewhat near sleep, I'd have fallen out of my chair. I'm suddenly wide awake
and looking to see where the order is. I want to read the news with my own eyes,
not that I don't believe the inestimable PJ's posting here on Groklaw.

Oh, there will be much celebration here. I've awaited this day with bated breath
for years and can now relax and breathe much easier.

WOOT!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:03 PM EDT
Congratulations Novell!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What wonderful news!!!
Authored by: itchytweed on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:04 PM EDT
After being on vacation for a week and no data service due to a toes-up DSL
modem, this is wonderful news to test the replacement equipment on. Now to wait
for the rest of the fireworks to go off!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT
Executive summary of the other important conclusions of this motion
(p100-p102):

[...] Novell is entitled to a declaration of rights under its Fourth Claim for
Relief that it was and is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to
waive its claims against IBM and Sequent [...]

[...] The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO’s 2003 Sun and
Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of
Schedule 1.1 (a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare,
SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the
appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed
to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable
for conversion.[...]

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect
to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because
there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO
owes to Novell [...].

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: chaz_paw on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT
WOW!

---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles

[ Reply to This | # ]

Text Version Coming Up
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT
I'll do the text on it, if you can wait until I get home (and until I pop a cork
to celebrate).


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about slander of title?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT
The case was not about copyright ownership, but about slander of title. Now
could not SCO at least get a ruling on attempted slander of title, on the basis
that Novell could not possibly have believed to own the copyrights even though
it did?

Something like that. Or so.

Anyway, let's hope that the court handed SCO enough rope to hang itself on three
or four gallows.

And what does this mean for the counterclaims? License money, enough to let SCO
go broke. Will they survive long enough to see their other cases thrown out of
court?

Basically this leaves only the IBM case, and on the flimsiest legal theories.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let the fireworks begin!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT
Soon we should see some "interesting" press, and possibly a few Flying
Chairs (tm).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Main News Sources
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:11 PM EDT

With regards the ruling, the phrase SWEEEEEETTTTT just doesn't seem to cut it ;)

As of 3:09 Edmonton, AB time: nothing in the main news sources showing up on Google quite yet. Wonder when they'll wake up.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:12 PM EDT
This *is* interesting, since the conveyance from AT&T to Novell has never
been questioned, and Novell themselves may never have received complete
copyright ownership in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alright! First round is on me!!!
Authored by: saltydogmn on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT
Let's all toast the fact that SCOX is now, indeed, toast.



CHEERS!



Here's to you, Darl. HA!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO shares to teh moooon !
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT
SCOX always rises on bad news, so I predict that on Monday the share price will
reach $100.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Justice
Authored by: ox on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Even an old disenfranchised jaded Viet Vet stands in awe. Justice is served! The
Light has won a major issue in modern America. {Blinks in amazement}

---
ox
Linux Reg.#199890

[ Reply to This | # ]

Timing
Authored by: anesq on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:18 PM EDT
As a bit of color commentary on the timing:

Judicial clerks, the judicial assistants who go to work for judges usually right
out of law school, generally work for a judge for a year or two, and generally
from September to September. They also tend to do the heavy lifting on opinions
like this, and can have a lot of institutional knowledge on particular cases in
their heads. I suspect that this opinion came out now because it needed to be
finished before the current clerk(s) left and the new clerk(s) came on board.
This way, Judge Kimball doesn't have to get yet another clerk up to speed on the
case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:19 PM EDT
So much for TSG's Fifth Cause of Action against IBM!

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stock price?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Doesn't the stock price normally react to things like this? :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT
So what do we do now, Brain?

Narf!

--
BMO - snoopydancing in the smoking crater

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speculation on news magazines?
Authored by: chris hill on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT
How do people think magazines like Forbes will spin this?

They don't like to admit they're wrong, and have tried to paint SCO as the
protectors of all that is good with Dan Lyons.

Will they back down and admit they're wrong, or will they say it's delayed
justice and SCO will win in the end?

Chris

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yay!!!
Authored by: Filter on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:31 PM EDT
Yay!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:33 PM EDT
hahahahaha!!!! how awesome! appeal time?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hope the red dress isn't at the cleaners.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT
Bwaa haa haa haa haaaa! Bye bye SCO!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oooops! - n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT
Tufty

[ Reply to This | # ]

Breach of Fiduciary Duty / Conversion
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT
Discuss here

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Waiver discussion
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:36 PM EDT
Discuss here

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG vs IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT

So... the big question:

    Will SCOG accept they went down the wrong path completely when they decided to sue IBM or will they still - being as stuborn as they seem to be - insist that they're in the right?
My vote is that they'll insist IBM is all about the contract and that the ownership of the Unix copyrights means nothing because they still control IBM's works due to the contract interpretation. After all, they've used that line already in a few places.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hallelujah!
Authored by: bigbert on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:39 PM EDT
SO good to hear! Thanks to all involved, and especially to PJ who has kept on,
year after year, to hammer home the point.

Any bets how quickly the rest will unravel? Will we have peace by Christmas?


---
--------------------------
Surfo, ergo sum.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No constructive trust
Authored by: esni on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:40 PM EDT
'The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with
respect to the Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or
Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;'

Why is that?

---
Eskild
Denmark


[ Reply to This | # ]

Huzzah! God Lord, it Took Long Enough!
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:47 PM EDT
On a beautiful summer Friday evening, no less!

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Lindon!

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Understand....
Authored by: tredman on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:49 PM EDT
I UNDERSTAND that this is only the Novell case, and IBM, Red Hat and AutoZone
still wait in the wings for their day...

I UNDERSTAND that this doesn't settle all claims on both sides, that we still
have some work to do on what remains...

I UNDERSTAND that we've only just scratched the surface on this, what with the
litany train of appeals to come...

With that said, I just have two words:

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Okay, now that I have that out of my system, this weekend should be about
getting the decision transcribed into plain text, finding out what motions are
still on the table, analyze what this moots in the IBM case as well as RH/AZ,
and seeing where we go next.

It's far from over, and the case has been on a downhill slide for some time now,
but I think we've reached the point where spin just ain't gonna cover it up any
more.

I think there are also implications with this in terms of the Novell/Microsoft
deal. Does their ownership of the UNIX copyrights give them an upper hand in
that relationship, or will we see the agreement start to wither? Or was the
upfront money that MS ponied up on that deal a portent that Bill et al truly
knew the UNIX technology which Microsoft has dutifully licensed for years,
stayed with Novell after all?

There is work to be done, but tonight, everybody raise a
glass/mug/flagon/container of choice in the air and celebrate a milestone. PJ,
Mathfox, and all the rest of you deserve it.

---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

Complain?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:51 PM EDT
I'm double-dog glad that Judge Kimball issued the ruling we've all been
anticipating, and the the bad guys didn't win.

My only complaint is that the plaintiff of these cases was able to drag them out
for *over 4 years* before the first seriously dispositive ruling was issued.

To put this in perspective: I became an IBM employee a few months after the SCO
debacle started. I worked there for four years, following the SCO cases here at
Groklaw for most of that time. Then I quit my job and moved on to a new job, 9
months ago.

And its only now that SCO is finally getting the proper slapdown that it was
obvious (by 2004 at the latest) that they deserved.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: MacsEntropy on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT
Put on your red dress, mama,
'Cause we're goin' out tonight;
Put on your red dress, mama,
 'Cause we're goin' out tonight.
You better wear some boxing gloves,
 case some fool might wanna fight...

(old blues song; no idea where from; I heard it first from Jose Feliciano in about 1974)

That one's for you, PJ, but I think maybe Josh'a Fit de Battle ob Jericho might be more fitting for the rest of us...

---
"Trusted third parties" aren't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great! And, I can't wait for the other shoe...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:55 PM EDT
Something about a filing in the IBM case? Oh, I can't wait!

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fave line so far
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT
On page 50 (begining of the last full paragraph)
In Blumenfeld v. R. H. Macy & Co., 92 Cal. App. 3d 38 (1979), the California Court of Appeals rejected a similar attempt to interpret “all” to mean “less than all.”

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is the fat lady singing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:59 PM EDT
Is the fat lady singing or is she warming up.
I think it is the introdution

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmm
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:00 PM EDT
I like how Judge Kimball very clearly distinguishes between "Santa
Cruz" and "Caldera/The SCO Group" in this ruling, even to the
extent of replacing something (presumably "SCO") with "[Santa
Cruz]" in quoted passages (e.g. on page 7 of the ruling, where he quotes
from the APA)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: jjock on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:02 PM EDT
Daily reading of Groklaw has taught me many things about the
workings of the courts and the lawyers, but the most important
word I have learned is conversion. SCO stole from Novell and
now they are going to have to pay.
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: osaeris on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:05 PM EDT
Well done. I've largely been a lurker but I'm very impressed by the collective
might!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: WE'RE THERE!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT
We're there! We're there!

A very happy Groklaw member, om1er - at work, not signed in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will this make a shortcut in the IBM case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:15 PM EDT
How will this affect the IBM case?
Also, I guess SCO's slander accusation is void now.
I hope IBM won't stop now, and they will prove that SCO knew they had no
copyrights. So IBM could move forward, and eventually criminal charges agains
McBride and Co. could be filed as well. Maybe even M$'s role is revealed as
well?
Yeah, i know i want too much :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX stock
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:16 PM EDT
will the scox stock actually drop like it would for other companies, or will it
defy gravity and make a monumental jump skyward? i'm thinking even scox can't
put enough lipstick on this pig to get anyone to buy

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • its all lipstick - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
  • SCOX stock - Authored by: jmc on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:08 AM EDT
Claims CounterClaims Roll call??
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT
so what exactly is left of the Novell case?
(and how much of IBM is intact??)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Haha - end of page 50 to top half of page 51
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT
It turns out that 'all' means 'all' and not just some bits now and other bits
then. Haha!

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm eating chocolates!
Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:23 PM EDT
Oh yeah? I've got Mega M&Ms, fresh cherries, and a glass full of Patron
Tequila Sunrise going.

Like I said, celebration be happening here!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing words
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT
Alas, one word I was hoping to find was missing:

"Frivolous"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fudiciary duty?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:25 PM EDT
It is my understanding that if an officer of a company breaches his or her
fucidiary duty they can be held personally liable. The court ruled SCO breached
its fucidiary duty. Is there any way Novell can now hold the corporate oficers
liable for SCO breaching that duty, since they had a fucidiary duty to the
company and it was by their management the company breached its duty?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:28 PM EDT
Entertaining quote from SCO's website :D
http://www.sco.com/scoip/lawsuits/ibm/index.html

On March 6, 2003, The SCO Group filed a civil lawsuit against IBM. SCO's
principal claims arise out of IBM's alleged breaches of its obligations under
UNIX license agreements that IBM and Sequent, a company now owned by IBM,
entered into with AT&T in 1985. SCO claims that IBM violated those
agreements when it removed substantial source code from AIX and Dynix, two
UNIX-based products, and dumped that code into Linux. In addition to multiple
claims for breach of contract, SCO claims that IBM infringed SCO's UNIX
copyrights;

SCO never owned the UNIX copyrights so the above quote must be a lie.. finally
proven wooot go novell!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now we know why the copyrights didn't transfer
Authored by: sirwired on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:29 PM EDT
Finally, we know why the copyrights didn't transfer.

Throughout all this copyright tussling and APA Amendment tussling, SCO has
repeatedly asked why they would have paid money for UNIX and
<i>not</i> picked up the copyrights. I actually thought it was a
pretty good question, even if the documents were clear in the fact that the
copyrights did not transfer.

If you look starting at page 9 or so, you see some declarations I don't think we
have seen before (correct me if I am wrong) stating that SCO could not have
afforded the copyrights, and all they were buying from Novell was the right to
develop their own product based on UNIX. In addition, the deal was structured
in such a way that if SCO went bankrupt, no title to anything UNIX (other than
the development rights) would be part of the bankruptcy estate. Not even the
license revenue. (Which is why it was 100% passed-through to Novell, and then
5% went back to SCO. If SCO had taken ownership of the revenue and instead
required to send 95% of it to Novell, Novell would have just been another
creditor in a bankruptcy.)

SirWired

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good morning SCO...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT

...and how are you today?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A toast!
Authored by: stgilbert on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:35 PM EDT
Hi folks! Long time lurker, first time poster here. I know there is still more
to come, but I've poured drinks for my family and we're giving a toast (even
though most of them have only the vaguest clue as to what we're celebrating): to
IBM, Novell, Groklaw, the FOSS community, and everyone else who stood up to the
thieves at SCO. And also to the not-so-good ship SCO herself: may she sink
quickly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm amazed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:40 PM EDT
Goodness. How long is it now that this mess has been going on, five years? And I
guess basically it's over now.

I guess my main response right now is kudos to PJ for her amazing and tireless
journalism throughout this case. I'd be curious, PJ, what are your plans are as
to what you're going to do next once the autozone/IBM stuff gets mopped up?

Have you considered writing a book about this entire debacle?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • I'm amazed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:42 PM EDT
Great. We had chocolate tonight already. Oh PJ? It wasn't just the courts - it
was
you girl!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bad News!
Authored by: xtifr on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT

No! This is terrible news! I kid, of course, but this ruling does have one minor drawback: the question of whether any "stolen" code ever did make it into Linux will now never be examined. I mean, most of us realize how stupid it would be to steal code just to post it publicly where millions of people can see it, and that stealing GPL'd code by proprietary developers is far more common. And now we've lost an opportunity to drive that point home, and rub it in the face of those who like to accuse FLOSS developers of being a bunch of renegade hippy pirates. I would rather have seen a ruling on IBM"s alleged infringement of SCO's alleged copyrights before it was decided that SCO didn't own bupkiss. I suspect that IBM would have rathered that as well. But oh well.

I also wish this ruling had come a couple of days earlier. Linuxworld in San Francisco ended yesterday. If this ruling had come in during the conference, there would have been dancing in the halls. I would have loved to have seen that! :)

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Fine Grind Indeed!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT
"The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but exceedingly fine".
W. Churchill


Many thanks to P.J. and everybody in the community!!!!

Ockham's Razor


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO "evidence" was indeed pathetic
Authored by: sirwired on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT
SCO's "evidence" about the intent of the APA was pathetic. Novell had
the actual folks that drafted the agreement, and of course, the plain language
of the agreement itself.

What did SCO counter with?

A bunch of folks that knew about the agreement, read it while it was being
drafted, in some cases revised it themselves, but all of whom were somehow
surprised that it didn't transfer copyrights, even though it was as plain as day
in the APA.

How exactly did they expect to win bupkis with these clowns?

SirWired

[ Reply to This | # ]

I read the part on copyrights
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT
Kimball tells SCO that no, SCO does not own the copyrights. Not from the APA,
and not from Ammendment 2. Not in 1995, not in 1996, not in 2003, and not in
2007. Just NO!

MSS2

PS: For those wondering, 1995 was the APA, 1996 was the ammendment, 2003 was
the request from SCO to Novell for the copyrights, and 2007 was this wonderful
day.

Enjoy the chocolates, PJ!

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is hope
Authored by: glitch on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT
For the United States Of America!

This is way bigger than IBM, Novell, Groklaw & Open Source
It's about freedom, truth, & liberty. This lawsuit is like many others where
lawyers on behalf of their clients
go after deep pockets... to many times cases are settled to save aggravation
time and money.

Someone needs to be held accountable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: oldgreybeard on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT
The end has truly begun.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: comms-warrior on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT
SCOx's share price? Down the toilet come market time, (except for the stuff
traded after the bell?)

Darl's Empire? et tu Kimball? Someone shoved a knife in, twisted, wiggled and
broke the handle off.

It's not that BSF didn't know this was coming.. They may act like a mob of
brown-shirts, but they aren't stupid lawyers.. They could see the delusional
bent the case was taking and tried everything to keep it going, to see if
IBM/Novell blinked.

Novell nor IBM did blink - now BSF will start appealing like mad to reverse an
irreversible position - wasting more time and money, money that is now owned by
Novell!

The lessons learned from this whole saga? If you get into legal trouble - you
would be better off going Pro se than hiring BSF...

Chris Ford.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who's laughing now?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT
Hi Laura and Rob. Are you reading this?

:-))

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: wzzrd on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM EDT
Hale fracking lujah

justice has not died just yet

thanks for reporting this great news, pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

Conversion
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:00 PM EDT
I like the ruling on copyright. But I REALLY like the ruling on conversion
because it's half way to proving that the SCO directors can reasonably be
thought of as crooks for letting SCO try to take money that did not belong to
SCO.

So, to what extent can the directors be prosecuted for approving an illegal act?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OMG! Is this real? Is this April 1st? OMG its real.
Authored by: JasonWard on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:01 PM EDT
Joy joy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Waive bye-bye!
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:03 PM EDT
I do rather regret the fact that several of the points in the IBM and AutoZone cases have become moot thanks to Novell's waiver. We'll never see those resolved on their merits.

Oh, well -- I guess I'll just have to live with my disappointment.

Now let's see: what's left in IBM? Hmmm.... looks like counterclaims are all that's left on the table. Pity that, eh Darl?

[ Reply to This | # ]

from the pdf -- 2005?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT
Accordingly, Novell and Santa Cruz executed a "Bill of Sale", on
December 6, 2005....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT
It's now very, very clear that Darl & Co. absolutely positively KNEW they
did not own the copyrights at the time they started the racketeering scheme
called SCOSource. It may not happen, but this greybeard programmer sure hopes
to see Darl in court for fraud facing a gallery full of the many distinguished
people he had the gall to call "thieves".

I'mjustabigcat, not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now that the PSJ's have recognized at least most of the obvious...
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT
Maybe this is the beginning of the fun phase, when the scum that started this
are held accountable for their incompetence and dishonesty... which reminds
me... any chance of Lyans and O'Gara being publicly reminded or at least shown
for their role in sowing disinformation to propagate this mess?

I did wonder, for a moment, whether I should be happy-dancing at someone's loss.
However, when such dishonest, libelous, incompetent, sleazy,
societally-worthless scum as embodied by SCOX started this mess, then having
justice served will indeed be cause for happy-dancing. And justice has not been
served, yet. The fun will lie in the counterclaims. I hope that breach of
fiduciary duty is a criminal, rather than civil offense, and that we see Mr.
McBride led away before he has a chance to leave the country. Any chance he
might have that slimmest thread of competence that would have had him keep some
evidence of under-the-table PIPE-fairy backstopping, just to make him valuable
as a witness in a bigger case? What about the legal malpractice of Boise et al?
You can't tell me that they weren't capable of reading and interpreting the
APA.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And the music for the occasion is...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:17 PM EDT
For Novell and IBM,, the music is sweet and victorious...something like Queen's
"We Are the Champions" or something.

For SCO, can we cue up the Loser's Music from "The Price is Right"?

"Doo doo da doooooo....waaaaaaahhhhhh!"

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

An upside on an upside for Novell!!!
Authored by: comms-warrior on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT
Not withstanding a few loose threads, (albeit very strained threads), they have
comprehensively *lost* against Novell and IBM.

The Summary Judgment now affirms Novell is the owner of Unix - This means that
when SCO goes broke (I suspect sometime in the next two weeks!) The Unix
Copyrights can only flow back to a Linux "friend" (fiend?) as a court
has proved so without any room for doubt. Bankruptcy administrators can't sell
this "asset" off to recover money... Microsoft can't get to it -
Novell is in a strong position.

If Novell moves this code to the Public domain, Microsoft would be left a
"shag on a rock" with their Linux "patent" threat. I'd love
to see that, but I'm not sure if they will ....


Time to open that bottle of Moet... :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's face is all red
Authored by: jbb on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT
Darl's face is all red
SCO's owners are blue
'cause none of our Linux
is belong to you

---
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Congrats PJ
Authored by: Bas Burger on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:26 PM EDT
The first goal of Groklaw is being fulfilled but of course there are more
battles to be fought.

---
No comments...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appropiate movie scene similies to the occasion
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:28 PM EDT
For PJ:

"I am NO MAN!!!" as she stabs the Witch King in the face.

For the rest of us Groklawers:

"I'm already on my way out" as Wedge and Lando shoot the main reactor

Either way, I think a lot of Ewoks and Hobbits will be celebrating tonight. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: We're There! (Reprise)
Authored by: om1er on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT
Want to bet that SCOG's lawyers say "Oh, that stuff. That's not what the
case was about."

Nevertheless: WE ARE THERE, CAMPERS!



---
Are we there yet?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Doubting Thomas here.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:36 PM EDT
PJ wrote:
All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.
So to summarize:
  1. Microsoft hired these guys to cripple Linux in the business world for the many years until they got Vista out.
  2. IBM, Red Hat, and many other companies lost business for years because CEOs wanted to "play it safe" until people got around to finishing these court cases.
  3. One of the 3 court cases is over; and the cloud of the other two remain.
  4. Unix now belongs to the new anti-Linux Microsoft pawn; and whether or not Linux is misusing any Unix stuff is still unsettled. Did I get any of that wrong?
    If not, what's to celebrate?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

The (eventual) Press Releases
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:37 PM EDT
Won't both parties now file press releases claiming the Judge ruled in their
favor?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Notes from Underground
Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:47 PM EDT
SCOX cheerleader Scott Lemon hasn't updated his blog, but the August 6 entry might serve the purpose just as well, worth checking out. Implosion in Salt Lake

M'OG's usual Friday morning post on her sites miss as well, though a headline at linuxgram, at the end of the scroll: "SCO Mobile Moving" means she hasn't forgotten about that court date just yet.

Lastly, Michael Anderer has caught religion in a big way. He has assumed a CEO role at C2 Systems in Georgia, a spinoff of his S2 Partnership. C2 Systems has taken the leap into the linux distro development world: Olmec Embedded Linux

I don't know whether to 'dis the 'pathetic one' as an ungodly opportunist, or welcome him to the fold.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell is now MS's best friend
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:49 PM EDT
I hate to be a party-pooper, but let's wait and see what Microsoft's patent deal
with Novell really bought. I highly doubt it was the right to use Novell's
patents.

By Monday, I expect to see an announcement by R. Hovsepian of Novell regarding
'good will' and 'co-operation' and 'industry leadership', which will boil down
to letting TSG do whatever they want, as long as they recognize Novell's
controlling interest.

This is not over, not by a long shot.

Cheers!

Mark S.
Dallas, TX

[ Reply to This | # ]

Affecting the 2001 Caldera licence?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:51 PM EDT
http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf

I wonder if this one, from Caldera before they turned
SCO, is now void. That would be a truly bad day for
UNIX® archivers and the BSDs.

Could please anyone shed light on this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Zak3056 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:51 PM EDT
Allow me to be the first to say:

Nah nah nah nah!
Nah nah nah nah!
Hey Hey Hey!
Goodbye!

[ Reply to This | # ]

So Novell owns them copyrights after all.
Authored by: brickviking on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM EDT
I've no doubt it's already been said, but this really does pull the legs out
from underneath SCOX on their case against IBM, as they can't reasonably pursue
a case for infringement of copyrights they don't <em>own</em>, but
have merely sublicenced (if I have that right) from Novell.

Good one, PJ, and the rest of the team. I have been waiting for this decision
for a while, and will watch to see what happens with the other relevant cases.

I'm off for a whisky.

Incidentally, will there ever be a CDROM or DVD produced containing the evidence
presented, along with a guideline to the case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

US Court System - I'll complain ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM EDT
... in the friendliest possible way! <grin>

No matter how big a "win" this turns out to be for Novell and
subsequently IBM (and will they really win if they can't recover their costs
from a bankrupt company?):

There's still something massively broken in the system that allowed the case to
continue for this many years without SCO being forced to present some up-front
prima facie evidence that they had a case to argue.

The problem appears to be the US's "discovery" mechanism - "we
honestly, truly, believe that x did us wrong so we want to go on a three-year
fishing expedition to see if we're right".

Instead of - "here is some hard, irrefutable, evidence that x has done us
wrong - we now need discovery of y and z to quantify the extent of that wrong
and identify who the specific guilty people are".

It's my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that the latter is how the UK
legal system works.

Certainly, the only cases I know of in the UK that have ever run this long are
antitrust/fraud style cases brought by the government and/or its agencies
against multinationals.

No simple copyright/contract case between two private companies could possibly
survive more than a month without the judge seeing solid prima facie evidence
that a violation of civil or criminal law had occurred.

In the case of SCO v World+Cat that would have been something like the
infringing code - *presented on the first day of the trial!!!*

Having worked for the last couple of years in a legal firm (in IT, not law), and
in reading Groklaw over the same period, I've now got a massively higher opinion
of lawyers than I used to have.

But you guys over there in the US need to put some brakes on their antics in
cases like this!





[ Reply to This | # ]

The US legal system - I'll complain ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT
... in the friendliest possible way! <grin>

No matter how big a "win" this turns out to be for Novell and
subsequently IBM (and will they really win if they can't recover their costs
from a bankrupt company?):

There's still something massively broken in the system that allowed the case to
continue for this many years without SCO being forced to present some up-front
prima facie evidence that they had a case to argue.

The problem appears to be the US's "discovery" mechanism - "we
honestly, truly, believe that x did us wrong so we want to go on a three-year
fishing expedition to see if we're right".

Instead of - "here is some hard, irrefutable, evidence that x has done us
wrong - we now need discovery of y and z to quantify the extent of that wrong
and identify who the specific guilty people are".

It's my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that the latter is how the UK
legal system works.

Certainly, the only cases I know of in the UK that have ever run this long are
antitrust/fraud style cases brought by the government and/or its agencies
against multinationals.

No simple copyright/contract case between two private companies could possibly
survive more than a month without the judge seeing solid prima facie evidence
that a violation of civil or criminal law had occurred.

In the case of SCO v World+Cat that would have been something like the
infringing code - *presented on the first day of the trial!!!*

Having worked for the last couple of years in a legal firm (in IT, not law), and
in reading Groklaw over the same period, I've now got a massively higher opinion
of lawyers than I used to have.

But there needs to be some legislative brakes put on their antics in cases like
this!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:41 PM EDT
Thanks Groklaw
Thanks to the larger community

This cannot be overstated, its a victory for freedom and democracy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Whoooo Hooooooooooooooo :)
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:43 PM EDT
Great News!

I have to say I will take great pleasure when SCO is taken to task for this
ridiculous case.

/breaking out the bubbly :D

---
Linus
The bulk of all patents are [bad]...
Spending time reading them is stupid...

Moglen
I can change the rules...
The coupons have no expiration date..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Actually it doesn't matter about the news mags...
Authored by: bbaston on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
... since the credibility of Groklaw and PJ are over the moon while the believability index of Forbes et al is about six feet under the sand of Death Valley (lowest point in US).

PJ, I've got on my Red Dress pin. Take the night off!!!!!!!!!!!!

---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great, so when will Novel....
Authored by: arthurpaliden on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT
Now since Novel is recognized as the owner of the Unix copyrights et la how
long will it be before they, Novel, certify that the Linux OS does not infringe
on any of the Unix copyrights or if it does which ones they are. This of course
should be an academic exercise for Novel since the have access to both sets of
source code. Or are they going to pull and tSCOg and not tell us and use the
same threat for their own personal gain.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT
I want my $699 back. :-(

[ Reply to This | # ]

One SCO wish comes true
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT
The traffic seems to have brought the site down for a little while. So, SCO did
get one wish granted. They put Groklaw off line. Too little to late though. ;)
Thanks PJ, but I've been a one issue reader. I may take Groklaw out of my tool
bar soon. I've been coming here at least once a day for years now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:03 PM EDT
What a wonderfully clear articulation of the deconstruction of the contract and
analysis of each of the claims. Judge Kimball has, in my non-lawyer opinion
done a superb job in crafting this so that anyone reading the ruling can follow
his logic.

It's nice to see the court telling SCO that they don't know how to read, too.
:-)

...D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fascinating. Now what does TSCOG do?
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:13 PM EDT

Appeal. Definately appeal. It's their only hope.

Of course the trial isn't that far away, and I have a suspicion that the trial
will be an even worse nightmare for them. The Management and Board must have
chewed their fingernails off up to the elbow by now.

I don't feel sorry for them though. If you can do the crime, you can do the time
(wish I could remember where that quote is from - guess I watch too many cop
shows on TV).


---
Wayne

http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chocolate - Willy Wonka's golden ticket
Authored by: atheist on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:20 PM EDT
Cool

What I would like to see next is Novell announce, as each voucher is redeemed,
which bogus patents now belong to the community, as GPL3 versions of programs
get incorporated into Suse.

Or have they already said that MS patent assertions are FUD?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Belgian chocolate ?
Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:21 PM EDT
I should share this one who earned it!

---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! I can't believe that it finally "ended"!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:22 PM EDT
I am a longtime lurker, brought to you good folks by slashdot and digg. PJ, you
are an amazing person and your dedication to this is just beyond what anyone
could imagine. I applaud your efforts and your determination to this case.

The "common folk" here should take a bow themselves. What a way for a
community to get together and bring down something evil.

Someone should make a movie about this. It's got all of the elements to be a
blockbuster.

Congrats to all, and thanks for the most entertaining and informative site I've
ever been to on the 'net. I'm sticking around to see where the pieces go....

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Sun Agreement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:24 PM EDT
I don't know if anyone else noticed, but Kimball cited an important paraphrase
from the Sun agreement.

As I've long assumed, Sun's deal w/ SCOX was so they could open source Solaris,
which is pretty much canonical SVRX because it was a joint development effort
between Sun and AT&T that gave rise to SVRX.

The operative word is "disclose" (p. 40 of the ruling PDF) in both
"source and object (binary) code".

At the same time that SCOX was suing IBM for $4 billion (or whatever that number
morphed into ;-) for disclosing SVRX source code and methods in Linux (pure BS
as we've seen), they sold Sun the rights to disclose SVRX in Solaris for $10
million.

As I see it, even if SCOX won the IBM case (which seems completely impossible to
me), they placed a valuation on the disclosure of SVRX source code that would
limit damages to less than they've spent on legal fees.

Of course, the really delicious part is that as far as I can see (IANAL), the
Novell trial will be not about how much Novell owes SCOX, but how much SCOX owes
Novell.


What a lovely day!

rhb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: webster on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT
..
something was up. GL wouldn't load. I finally got to another computer and read
a link to GL then finally got on. Indeed a plum, pleasing, pleasure. It's hard
to keep up from here in Honduras. Greetings to all and thanks PJ for leading us
through this mess. The bad part is over. How much does IBM want to mop up?



---
webster


© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: cyphergirl on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:32 PM EDT
I've been lurking since 2003 and this is my first post. I am elated to see this
finally happen.

PJ, tonight I salute you with 2 (or maybe 3 :) ) glasses of fine Georgia
Riesling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It ain't over til it's over?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:35 PM EDT
PJ, don't these decisions count as dispositive?
If so they are subject to appeal, right? This could still go on forever if so.

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

Media coverage
Authored by: cymraeg on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:46 PM EDT
As of about 8 PM US Central Daylight Time, I was able to find the following articles on a variety of websites: Each publication has a different take on the news. You'll have to decide for yourself if they are cheering or disappointed.

Cymraeg
"An optimist says the glass is half full, a pessimist says the glass is half empty, an engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

My prediction
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:46 PM EDT
SCOBK by the end of Monday.

JSL

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • My prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:45 AM EDT
  • My prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT
  • Perhaps so - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT
Statements on impact in SCO V. IBM due in only 3 weeks
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT
Judge Kimball asks the parties, in view of the ruling in Novell, which "significantly impacts the claims and counterclaims asserted" in IBM, to prepare by August 31 a statement of its view of the status of this case and, more specifically, the effect of the SCO v. Novell decision on each of the pending motions."
How long did Kimball consider the PSJ's? Months and months and months. That Kimball is giving the parties just 3 weeks to assess his rulings' impact on SCO v. IBM is very telling. I think he thinks there is very little left to decide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reap what you sow, Darl and Ralph!
Authored by: belzecue on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT
What a way to start the day! (morning in Western Australia).

Congratulations to the Novell and IBM teams for showing us how to litigate with
honour. Thanks to BSF for demonstrating the opposite ('nuf said).

Thanks to PJ for keeping a calm, firm guiding hand on the crazy circus that was
the coverage and discussion of the case. Imagine if, for the past three to four
years, we'd only heard about this in the press (SCO's PR, 'fake' Dan Lyons, the
MOGster, etc.). Sure, there were some other informative community sources out
there, and kudos to them, but Groklaw quickly became ground zero. Apart from the
lawyers, has anyone had to work as hard as PJ during this? Keeping the
information and analysis flowing? Keeping the signal to noise ratio as high as
possible? No. Thank goodness for PJ's passion for the law and her passion to get
to the truth.

Through Groklaw and its sharp-eyed community, PJ demonstrated the power of the
"many eyes make all bugs shallow" approach. In this case, it's
"many eyes make all lies shallow."

There will be appeals, I suppose, and mopping up, and who knows what other
twists and turns remain -- e.g. Hovsepian still worries me, and I wonder if he
too will try to 'monetize' Unix now that the ownership is clear.

But today is a day to celebrate and reflect and be thankful. To that end, let me
be the 236,418th to punch the air and voice a mighty "W00T!"

Reap what you sow, Darl and Ralph!

[ Reply to This | # ]

BAM! BANG! KA-POW!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:41 PM EDT
[Novell] SCO, you lied, you stole, you lied some more, you filed frivolous
lawsuits, you lied to the courts and you tried to extort money from innocent
Linux users.

You also attacked an innocent blogger who exposed your scam, and paid media
shills to further your attacks.

At long, long last, Kimball has finally hobbled you in your ill founded and
illegal actions.

[IBM - Preview of coming attractions] Now hold still while I break your other
knee...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:48 PM EDT
YEEEEEEE HAAAAAAW!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remember "Illiad's" cartoon of you?
Authored by: tyche on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:55 PM EDT
SCOsinks.jpg has been scaled up to 850 pixels high and placed on a blue vertical
gradient background as my new wallpaper. I should probably take a screenshot
and send it to the "Community Cafe" Ubuntu Forum. Congratulations,
PJ.

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

In many ways, scox won, justice lost
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:01 PM EDT
Happy with the decision today. But, I think many here, even PJ, still don't get
it.

The point of this lawsuit was not to "win." Not in the sense of a
final court decision. The point of this lawsuit was to exist - to cast a cloud
of doubt over the legality of Linux. That, and of course, to make some money for
scox execs.

Before the scam: scox was as good as dead anyway. Look at their financials if
you don't believe me. You may have noticed that it is usually not the strong
companies that becme msft puppets. Darl made out like a bandit, as did Kevin,
and BS&F did best of all.

Praise the US justice system? I think not. If I claimed I owned the Brooklyn
bridge, and I sued NYC over it. And I cost NYC $100 million in legal defense.
Then after an astonishing 4.5 years the court finally discovers what was obvious
from the start - that, of course, I don't own the Brooklyn bridge: would that
show the justice system as being brilliant, or incompetent? I doubt I can expect
any honesty from that question.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I really think this is a net loss for GPL
Authored by: wethion on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:15 PM EDT
This ruling, as far as I can understand, is merely a ruling on a contract
between two competing parties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL or
GNU/Linux or Free Software. The GPL remains untested. I actually would have
preferred to see SCO win against Novell and then have to contend with the mighty
IBM machine. At this point, all of IBM's footwork and steelclad lawyering is
moot, if I understand correctly.

So, Free Software has received a setback because of the bad publicity.

M$ succeeded in using proxies in a conflict, and suffered no negative
ramifications.

IBM now will have little to no chance to hone it's GPL defense skills in what
looked to be a "all but sure to win" practice run.

The GPL remains untested.

Free Software remains under threat from the M$ juggernaut.

BTW, I will no longer use the term Open Source or Open Source Software. I will
use strictly the terms Free Software when referring to the movement as a whole,
and the term GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system commonly known as
Linux.

PJ, I love you for what you've done, and I understand everyone's desire to
gloat, but methinks the battle has just been enjoined. What we've seen thus far
is naught more than M$ testing the waters to see which strategies could bear
fruit.
Just my $.02.
Peace,
V

---
Jon Postel, you are missed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Narrowing of remaining claims
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:23 PM EDT
It looks to me like some of SCOs remaining claims only remain because Kimball has drastically narrowed their scope. Re unfair competition:

The license in the APA and the TLA does not preclude Novell from pursing its business. Rather, the license merely restricts Novell's ability to use SCO's property and is part of an ongoing relationship between the parties.

So SCOs unfair competition claims seem limited to Novell's use of SCOs property (presumably Unix/UnixWare derivatives) rather than Novell's business in general. Sounds like a major limitation to me.

(IANAL)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: kberrien on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:24 PM EDT
<exhale>

A great pop the cork moment! Congrats to Novell, and PJ for being a big part in
making the public's decision a lot faster than the courts.

A little vindication on the linux side, and some good slapping of SCO and we're
all set.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, should we hate Novell or what?
Authored by: Bojan Sudarevic on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:24 PM EDT
So, is Novell Good Guy or Bad Guy? Groklaw is very funny sometimes.

---
Bojan Sudarevic

[ Reply to This | # ]

To Darl and all of SCO
Authored by: rsi on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:32 PM EDT
Please join with me while we all sing:
Where is the moment we needed the most
You kick up the leaves and the magic is lost
You tell me your blue skies fade to grey
You tell me your passion's gone away
And I don't need no carryin' on

You stand in the line just to hit a new low
You're faking a smile with the coffee to go
You tell me your life's been way off line
You're falling to pieces everytime
And I don't need no carryin' on

Cause you had a bad day
You're taking one down
You sing a sad song just to turn it around
You say you don't know
You tell me don't lie
You work at a smile and you go for a ride
You had a bad day
The camera don't lie
You're coming back down and you really don't mind
You had a bad day
You had a bad day
...

Daniel Powter - Bad Day Lyrics

We feel your pain Darl! ;^)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are some of the celebrations premature?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:41 PM EDT
Among other important points, Judge Kimball ruled that Novell did not transfer
the copyrights to Unix SVRX (and other versions) to SCO and that it retained the
right to waive violations of the provisions of the SVRX licenses.
It appears that the issue of whether Linux infringes SVRX copyrights is still an
open question. In his ruling, the judge seemed to imply that the license from
Novell to Santa Cruz gave Santa Cruz the right to prosecute actions for
infringement of the copyrights. Specifically at issue is whether the sale of
SUSE Linux by Novell violates the terms of its TLA and whether this infringes
SCO's rights (as licensee under the APA) in the SVRX Copyrights. While Novell
can waive the claims against existing licensees (e.g. IBM), it cannot waive
copyright infringement claims against those who do not hold a license.
It would appear that the question of whether Linux infringes (Novell's)
copyrights is still open and it would appear that by way of the APA and the
license(s) granted by it, SCO has the right to pursue claims against non-SVRX
licensees who they claim infringe the copyrights.
Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I don't agree that Linux infringes the
copyrights, only that those claims are not yet settled. The trial of the claims
for breach of contract and copyright infringement against Novell for the sale /
distribution of SUSE Linux, which survive this ruling may (should) decide that,
but the question seems to be very much open in a legal sense.
Am I wrong?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Settlement?
Authored by: Ikester on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT
Now that, after the appeals and/or accounts run dry, we can safely assume that
Novell will be compensated with the dry husk of SCO. It seems like it would then
be up to Novell to decide how to manage IBM's counterclaims. Some folks have
bemoaned the fact that, due to Novell going first, IBM did not have the
opportunity to get Linux declared clean of infringing code. Is it possible that
something like this could be worked out in a settlement between IBM and Novell?
Or are IBM's counterclaims really toast?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic...
Authored by: wethion on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:45 PM EDT
On that thought, it's a good day. There were some sound slap-downs handed to
TSG, no doubt. All's well that ends well.
Peace,
V

---
Jon Postel, you are missed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: sonicfrog on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT
My life seems a little empty now that the fantastic ruling is in...

Oh SH>>> It's time to party!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell owns UNIX but all is not well.
Authored by: TedSwart on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT
Whilst the judges ruling that Novell owns the Unix and Unixware copyrights is
welcome it does not exactly come as a surprise. Moreover, the good news is sadly
tarnished by the dishonourable deal which Novell reached with MS. Methinks we
need to see some more convincing developments which undercut the MS monopoly
such as a decision by ISO to deny OOXML their seal of approval.
The imminent end of SCO's bogus cases against Novell, IBM and Red Hat is indeed
a blessing but we still badly need eternal vigilance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:59 PM EDT
Hmmm...so, does someone have a list of commentators/pundits who predicted SCO
would win?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: SteveOBrien on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:05 AM EDT
A happy day indeed. Thank you for your work, PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delivery Service?
Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:07 AM EDT
Is there anybody that I can send chocolate to, and be reasonably sure that it'll get to the lady with the red dress on?

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:49 AM EDT
1) So what happens to groklaw now?

2) Since the patent deal Novell has been treated as much a pariah by some as
SCO. To the point that there were some people who said things "We should
show Novell what happens when you cross the linux community". So what if
Novell tries to do the same thing. Not to stop linux, but to be the only people
who can legally distribute linux?

What is to stop Novell from starting the whole process again? Would IBM fight
again, or tired of the litigation
just settle with Novell.

Since SCOs claims against IBM are now moot, what legal protections has linux
won?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:58 AM EDT
Not so fast! The court did not rule that SCO-created copyrighted code (derivative code) belongs to Novell. I believe that means SCO does own its own "Unix" copyrights and those copyrights could still allow SCO to argue that Linux is in violation of SCO-owned Unix copyrights.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:05 AM EDT
I wonder if Darl thinks that opening up the second law suit and suing Novell for
slander of Title was a good move after all. Had he not there might have actually
been some other issues on the table with regard to the IBM lawsuit. This ruling
effectively wipes out the majority of the IBM case, although should SCO survive
the next few months they might still be able to get Novell on the no-compete
clause, but I don't remember if Novell or SCO breached first. Anyone know off
the top of their head if Novell bought SUSE before or after SCO got it's funding
from Sun and M$?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A ruling to die for, Darl!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:07 AM EDT
Our thanks to PJ and the many folk who worked tirelessly with her to make the
court materials available to all of us so quickly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT
The court also acknowledged that SCO owns copyrights on the derivative code it
created under the contract with Novell. Doesn't that mean that SCO owns Unix
copyrights irregardless of the finding that Novell didn't transfer Novell's
copyrights? Methinks that leaves SCO enough wiggle room to still be a nuisance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's Insidious Plan
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:16 AM EDT
Darl planned all along that Groklaw would be created in response to SCO's wild
claims knowing that the end of Groklaw would follow on the heals of the court's
decision that SCO grossly misrepresented their case.

Darl wins. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: bilfurd on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:23 AM EDT
Yeaaaahhhh! News worth celebrating!
  1. It's Friday!
  2. The Honorable Judge Dale Kimball has jugulated SCO's legal actions
  3. After many years, I finally have the opportunity to use "jugulated" in a sentence
Many, many thanks to PJ and all those that donated their time and effort to cover the SCO shenanigans.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bright Flash
Authored by: maz2331 on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:24 AM EDT
I was wondering what that big flash out to the west was earlier. Now I know -
it was the entire SCO vs Everybody saga being nuked into oblivion. Expect
follow up legal strikes as the counterclaims begin to detonate soon afterwards.

The smoking crater is forming as we watch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: chad on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:25 AM EDT
Judge Kimball was paying attention, wasn't he. An a 102 page document,
explaining everything that went into his decision in order to withstand the
inevitable appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: wharris on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:53 AM EDT
<blockquote>
All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain
about the US court system now.
</blockquote>

<p>I accept that dare. It has taken the US court system three years to
agree
that a contract avaialble since before the start of the case did not transfer
copyright to SCO. In that three years, multiple summary judgement requests
on this very point have been denied, IBM and Novell have had to spend tens
of millions of dollars against a baseless claim. Money that SCO can not repay
even if the court orders them to. And this does not count for the massive
costs IBM had to pay to comply with SCO's discovery orders for code the court
now recognizes was not theirs for violations the court now recognizes Novell
properly waived.</p>
<p>Before this case started, SCO was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

This case provided SCO, the corporation, with massive capital infusions and a
new lease on life. It has provided SCO directors not just with an opportunity
to profit from stock sales, but a paying job for much longer than it seemed
like SCO would last in 2002. </p>
<p>In short, while this ruling is a tremendous victory against SCO, it has

come several years too late to restore my (lack of) confidence in the US justice

system. I will remind everyone that SCO made similar threats against Linux in
Germany, and a German court was able to stop SCO within 3 weeks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A crude summary
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:08 AM EDT
As far as I can tell, this is basically where SCO v Novell now stands.
Corrections appreciated.

SCO 2nd Amended Complaint

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060109231849961

1. Slander of Title (by Novell)
Denied

2. Breach of the APA and TLA
Denied in part (possible Unixware derived infringement)

3. Alternative Breach-of-Contract Claim Seeking Specific Performance (transfer
copyrights)
Denied

4. Copyright Infringement
Denied in part (possible Unixware derived infringement)

5. Unfair Competition
Denied in part (SUsE?)


Novell Counterclaims

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060921155822851

1. Slander of Title (by SCO)
TBD by Jury

2. Breach of Contract: 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA (right to audit)
Basically moot

3. Breach of Contract: 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the APA (Royalties)
Granted

4. Declaratory Relief: Rights and Duties under § 4.16(b) of the APA (right to
waive claims)
Granted

5. Declaratory Relief: Rights and Duties under § 4.16(b) of the APA (right to
approve new licences)
Granted

6. Constructive Trust/Restitution/Unjust Enrichment
Denied due to uncertain amount

7. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Granted

8. Conversion
Granted (amount TBD by Jury)

9. Accounting
Moot due to discovery

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clearing Linux...
Authored by: mtew on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:31 AM EDT
The purity of Linux with respect to SVRx may not get settled directly as a
result of this order. It was not one of the issues raised in either the IBM or
Novell case. It was an issue in the Red Hat case, but only with respect to SCO.
With tSCOg not having the copyrights, the issue becomes moot.

The question is how can a definitive settlement of this issue can be reached?

I'm not a lawyer so this is speculation.

Novell, as the nominal copyright holder is key to any solution. Without their
cooperation, getting an answer becomes much more difficult. Is it in their
interest to see the issue settled?

Assuming that it is in their interest and they are willing to cooperate, what
could be done?

The first step would be a real examination of the SVRx and Linux code. That
suggests a community project. A major problem is assuring those that study the
SVRx code will not get tarred by the 'contamination' brush tSCOg was waving
around. This would require Novell to provide an 'anti-NDA'. Something like the
FSF would need to review it. Other issues concern resources and methodology.

If the study reaches a conclusion and any problems found can be resolved, the
next question is how to assure that the results are a proper legal precident.

No answers, just questions...

---
MTEW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: KAKMAN on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:33 AM EDT
Hey PJ, does this mean you can now make live appearances in other media without
fear of getting harassed or subpoenaed by the Lindon gang or their Redmond
string pullers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Blast from User Friendly's Past
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT
Finally!!!

PJ, I've had this (among others!) cartoon up above my desk for a long,
long time now. I've been waiting for the day when it would be proven right!

To Groklaw and UserFriendly!!

You know not how indebted I am to you both over the years!

Thank you from the bottom of my heart...

[ Reply to This | # ]

NOTICE OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR STATUS UPDATE
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:50 AM EDT
How much of the ruling directly applies to the IBM case?
Clearly the part about Novell waiving the contract claims, which certainly takes
most of the (hot) air out of SCO's case. But does the whole decision transfer
over? Isn't the decision based on the evidence presented in this case? Could SCO
argue that there was evidence presented in the IBM case that was not presented
in the Novell case. Or information not presented in the IBM case that was
presented in the Novell case that would change the the outcome?

Is this why IBM asked to have all the material from the Novell case admitted
into the IBM case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Pending motions - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:18 AM EDT
SCO to be Hax0rcised today!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:15 AM EDT
What a great timing. Planned since some time SCO will be Hax0rcised today at the Chaos Communication Camp 2007. The Day of Judgment has arrived.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SO WHERE ARE PRETENDERLE, DIDIOT & O'GARA NOW?!?!?!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:21 AM EDT
Gee, you think we'll hear from them? Do you think they'll put their pro MSFT
spin on it? That there's still hope for SCO?

PJ, thank you for standing up for true journalistic integrity. This truly has
been a pleasure. Not that it's over by any means, but the Fat Lady is sure
warmed up. I look forward to the next large exploration of legal subject matter.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note to PJ: Please stop making excuses for the court system
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:22 AM EDT
Dear PJ, if you think this makes the US court system look good, you're *still*
too close to it. What happened here was still a travesty, and if you think this
somehow vindicates the sorry excuse for a legal system we have, you're wrong.

It only proves yet again how hopelessly broken it is, that someone like IBM had
to wait this long and spend so much money, and even now, it's the Novell case
that got decided, not IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who's going to play PJ in the film?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:27 AM EDT
Meryl Streep is a little old now, so who would play PJ in the film version of
this saga?

Fran

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO spin?
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:35 AM EDT
I can see the MOG and BOR reports now?
"Court rules UNIX copyrights are valid"...

LOL

Can we see a "piercing of the corporate veil" to recover money from
SCO execs and lawyers next?

---
If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO minivan of mimes
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:40 AM EDT
It's old but it's funny: <a
href="http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75144&cid=6728865"
>The SCO minivan of mimes</a> (some "language"). C where are
you? That was a brilliant post!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, that's PJ,
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:42 AM EDT
eating chocolate at the top of the page. But who is the lady in the red dress dancing in the sidebar of Tux Deluxe?

[ Reply to This | # ]

he SCO minivan of mimes
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:44 AM EDT

It's old but it's funny: The SCO minivan of mimes (some "language"). C where are you? That was a brilliant post!

(reposted because original was in the wrong format)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well Done PJ
Authored by: CD Baric on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:07 AM EDT
You have every right to be proud for the profound effort and lasting effect you
have had on these proceedings and the entire field of IT law.

All I can say is, Well Done PJ, Well Done!

CD Baric

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:17 AM EDT
Wired said there was a response from SCO on their website, at
http://www.sco.com/scoip/lawsuits/novell/index.html

But, when I went to check, the website was down. The whole website. Which
speaks well of their site maintenance, the reliability of the software that runs
it, or how quickly the power company decides whether bills are likely to get
paid.

-dB


[ Reply to This | # ]

Settlement!
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:24 AM EDT
I think I have changed my mind. Is it possible for Novell and SCOG to settle
over the last of the issues rather than go to jury trial?

Novell know they are not going to get much of the Sun & Microsoft money.
Perhaps the two sides will do a deal to clear the non-compete and conversion
issues. Now the big issues are settled it seems pointless to take these side
issues to the wire.

IBM, of course, are still putting their plans to lay waste to SCOG and salt the
earth. The embarrassment of losing to Novell in no way compensates for the
impugnment of IBM's reputation. Settle? As if!

"Put on your red dress PJ
'cos we're goin' out tonight"

with apologies to De Santa (IIRC)

---
Regards
Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't Get Too Comfey.,,
Authored by: TheEvilTroll on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:40 AM EDT
So, PJ, you think that this latest ruling vindicates your claims that SCO was full of hot air and bluster?
You think that they mean that your predictions of ultimate SCO ruin were accurate?
You think that you think this means that it's all over for SCO but the moaning an knashing of SCO executive teeth, as they worry about the counter-claims??
You think that this means the death of one more Redmond-financed attack on Linux?
You think that you now have the right to sit back, suck on a thick, dark piece of chocolate an celebrate?

Well, well .. well . . . I'll think of something!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well SCO has to put on a good face
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:46 AM EDT
SCO beleives the recent decision by Judge Kimball reinforces our position.

The court ruled that "Novell's slander of title claim is still at
issue."
This directly contradicts Novell's claim that we slnadered their title.

SCOs copyright entitlements are upheld by the court when it states
"The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright to
enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement claim and
a breach of contract claim."

Additionally the court has scolded Novell by declaring "The court denies
Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting."

We beleive that this case is leaning towards a final declaration in favor
of SCO and we fully expect the court to award SCO the punitive and compensetory
relief we are seeking from Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slander of title counterclaim
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT
I think Novell's slander of title counterclaim will be interesting. For their
counterclaim, they have to establish that Novell has the copyrights (done), SCO

doesn't have the copyrights (done), there were special damages (I think we can
say that, because Novell had to defend itself in a court case because of SCO's
false claims). The open question is that of malice. <br><br>
I think the criterion is whether SCO could have reasonably assumed that they
own the copyrights. It has been ruled now that their assumption was wrong, but
was it ever reasonable, was it made up maliciously, or was it one grand self-
delusion?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open Source Law
Authored by: nattt on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT
I asked a question on Slashdot a while back about what the equivalent to open
source software would be for the legal system.

Soon after that, PJ started Groklaw, answering my question in a very positive
way.

Now we're seeing the fruits of that first build of open source law. And not only

that, but we've all learned so much about patents and copyrights and contracts
along the way.

Thanks PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX dodges a bullet temporarily
Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:56 AM EDT
Because the constructive trust was denied (dispute of amount), SCOX can wait
until it's decided to have to restate their accounts for the past 4 years, but
that time will most assuredly occur, possibly even if the firm goes into Chapter
13 - indeed at that time it's quite probable imo.

On a related note, Darl got his $1m bonus based on a profitable quarter, as I
recall. Once that quarter is restated with no profit, he may (or may not) be
liable to refund it as he knew, or should have known, that the money on the
balance sheet did not then and does not now belong to SCOX. The extensive use of
'plain language of the contract/clause' in the decision might help that happen.

Sarbanes-Oxley anyone?

PeteS


---
Only the truly mediocre are always at their best

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:06 AM EDT
All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

My name IS Thomas and I double dog doubt the US court system. If this fight had been between Linus and SCO Linus would have lost years ago despite not a single legal difference in the issues at hand.

What made the system "work" was injections of huge amounts of cash and time, neither of which the real creator(s) of Linux would have had access to without the (much appreciated) help of IBM and others.

US Law - the best justice money can buy.

TWW

[ Reply to This | # ]

We should all appeal!!!!
Authored by: comms-warrior on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:28 AM EDT
Hey - We should all appeal and then take bets on how long the buggers survive.

I'm reckoning on two weeks. I had it wrong previously, by my last count, they
should have been gone and buried about 8 months ago.

Hey SCO - I have 32 Uby servers - Frigg'n SUE ME!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: trekkypj on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:18 AM EDT
Huzzah!

Fantastic outcome - no doubts that Groklaw's part in documenting the SCO cases
played its part. :D

Now when's the book going to be written to explain the whole story from start to
finish? ;)

---
"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."
WC Fields.

[ Reply to This | # ]

However . . . .
Authored by: Nice Kitty on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:58 AM EDT
However, as of 11 August, 2007, @ 0745, SCO, by way of its' website; see below, continues to claim (that):

"Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries."

Hmmm. More interesting read under "Warranties and Disclaimers".

Perhaps Darl & 'Company' have _not_yet_ "gotten the message".

[ Reply to This | # ]

So What? Who Cares?
Authored by: dobbo on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:09 AM EDT

While I would not wish to dampen the happy sprints of those calibrating personal I don't see anything worth me popping a cork for. This is a ruling on who does or does not own some propriety chuck of closed source software. Unix is dead, long live Linux. The only relevance this decision has for me is in that it allows the SCO v IBM case to go forward.

So the following questions are in my mind:

  1. If SCO appeal against this decision while that cause additional delay to the IBM case?
  2. If SCO now owes Novell more money than is has and declares itself bankrupt what happens to the IBM case?
  3. As SCO doesn't own the copyright to Unix how could they grant Sun a license to open Solaris? And if they couldn't isn't Sun now in volition of copyright law? Couldn't Novell now sue Sun (assuming they can prove ownership, after all they did that deal with Microsoft which wasn't exactly in the spirit of Free Software)?

I thought Groklaw was now dedicated to looking at the legal issues surrounding Open Source and Free Software. For me that means that the IBM counterclaims which involve the GPL are the important stuff, everything is just bumf, stuff we had to wade through to get to the stuff that matters.

Dobbo


Bumf is British slang and is short for bum (more British slang for backside) fodder. I believe if comes from WWII where unwanted printed material was cut into little sheets, tied together with little bits of string and then hung on a nail next to the toilet. Well manufacturing soft, fluffy toilet paper was not a priority; there was a war on you know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suggestion to Novell - put UNIX and UnixWare source trees out to pasture, at TUHS
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT

As I expected, Novell has won the most important aspects of this case, and frankly I'm glad that part of the case/s is over.

Now Novell has to decide what to do with the Unix System V Release X source trees it has the copyright to, since the whole farce has shown rather too openly one of the major problems with the "Intellectual Property Rights" regime currently in force - namely, that deeply hidden historical facts in a science and commercial field as rapidly moving as the computer one is, can turn toxic. And that therefore, a cleansing of the stables is best before, not after, they turn into the Augean Stables.

Since the SVRx source tree is arguably - and provably - obsolete in the sense that Linux became its equal in about 1996-98, and since there is a group of Unix fans with a suitable web site, my suggestion to Novell is to put it out to pasture, under a suitable OSI-approved license - the GPL v3 would occur to some to be the most appropriate, while other people would argue most strenuously for the BSD or MIT X11 license ;) And simultaneously issue a declaration that the requirement for a Unix System V Release x license that bedevilled the likes of the OSF/1 operating system, and similar requirements for other related Unix-based or Unix-like operating systems, was waived, and The Open Group could release as much of the source tree of OSF/1 as it could, at its discretion.

(actually, the GPL v3 license would be best insofar as it would kill at least two birds with one stone - its software patent provisions would kill off the threat of SVRx and SVRx-based software patents haunting the Free and Open Source Software communities; and releasing it under the new GPL version would help mollify those amongst us who had written Novell off completely following its "patent peace" with Microsoft. It wouldn't mend bridges completely, but being willing to assign a former valuable commercial property to the care of the community, and also sink any related submarine patent threats, would show a care for community values. my 0.02c worth. ;)

Of course, Novell could also do something to build bridges, based on its possession of the Unix System V Release x source trees and copyrights thereto - it could do a study of Microsoft's entire software patent portfolio, comparing and contrasting it with the "methods and concepts" known and used in Unix. Then it could do a compare and contrast between Unix and Linux and Microsoft Windows, and point out the not-so-novel aspects of the latter. Microsoft's in great need of the exercise back-pedalling on its claims of software patents willfully violated by Linux hackers, would provide.

Well, that's my 0.02c worth. Novell is welcome to make whatever use of it that it feels is useful.

---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

IIs any Microsoft shareholder arround?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT
Wouldn't it be appropriate to ask Microsoft what they really got for their
investment an if they are willing to sue SCO. Is this called a 'snake oil for
shareholders value'- investment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:40 AM EDT
All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.

Whoah, hold on there. Are you seriously suggesting that if after several years the courts FINALLY reach the conclusion that was obvious to every informed person from the very first day, this should inspire confidence in the legal system? Because, speaking as someone outside the legal profession, I am not reassured. This thing has been going on since 2002, and SCO never at any time had anything that even vaguely resembled a legitimate case, but our legal system has allowed them to significantly harrass a number of parties with obviously-spurious suits for the better part of a decade.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: fredex on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:55 AM EDT
Oh frabjous day!!! :) :) :)

Bye bye, Darl! It's been nice knowin' ya! (not)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:57 AM EDT
Any comment by SCO yet, whatsoever? This is one of those days when I'd love to
read some spin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

tSCOg still has the noncompete in their favor
Authored by: aha on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:27 AM EDT
tSCOg still has a big stick to hit Novell. The noncompete clause of the
contract was upheld. This may mean that Novell will have to settle with Caldera
for money or divest themselves of SUSE. I suspect those at SUSE would like the
divestiture.

---
You get what you focus on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: ashnazg on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:30 AM EDT
So, does this mean I can stop reading Groklaw now? ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: butrusgali on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:31 AM EDT
well everything you celebrate is true and ok with me. i wanted SCO to go down
the drain,
but beware of the U.S supreme court which is highly politica$$$$ and corrupt

[ Reply to This | # ]

SarbOx and "knew or should have known"
Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:32 AM EDT
Among other items that Hizzoner cites are the evidence that SCOX in general, including Darl and Ralph in particular, knew from the outset that they didn't have the Unix copyrights.

My, oh, my.

Just think of all those conference calls, all those SEC filings, etc. All of them carrying criminal penalties.

Or, a bit more likely (given the general disinclination to prosecute in the current Administration), consider the possibility of criminal fraud charges in Texas where Robert Marsh lives.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:34 AM EDT
The Chronology is wrong. CP/M was written after Unix.

Multics inspired Unix only in the sense that it encouraged the AT&T
developers to do something completely different. The name is a joke: Multi(cs) =
many, Uni(x) = one, get it?

Multics was the operating system for the big General Electric mainframes. It was
way big and way, way late. The guys at the AT&T lab got bored waiting for it
to be finished and decided to write a much simpler operating system for a DEC
minicomputer they had sitting over in the corner doing nothing. Since the GE OS
wasn't ready, they had nothing better to do either. The rest is history.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT
well not much to say... other than HURRAY! and BRAVO BRAVO!!
klap klap klap klap!!

---
-Skuggi.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This case is far from over!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:45 AM EDT
Next comes the appeals. Already Microsoft is activating its hideous
plans that were ready on the shelf. You might call it unfair. You might
want to declare victory and call it quits. Think again, or be blindsided.

This case has entered a new phase.

SCO's lawyers are maneuvering to keep their side out of prison.

Microsoft had already seen this outcome and has been preparing the
way forward.

The best permanent solution is to declare Microsoft an illegal monopoly
and split it up into an OS company and an applications company. You
cannot change corporate DNA without some splicing and tremendous
pressure.

Community, rejoice and prepare!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Chronology is wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:56 AM EDT
Your Chronology is wrong. CP/M was written after Unix.

Multics inspired Unix only in the sense that it encouraged the AT&T
developers to do something completely different. The name is a joke: Multi(cs) =
many, Uni(x) = one, get it?

Multics was the operating system for the big General Electric mainframes. It was
very big and very late. The guys at the AT&T lab got bored waiting for it to
be finished and decided to write a much simpler operating system for a DEC
minicomputer they had sitting over in the corner doing nothing. Since the GE OS
wasn't ready, they had nothing better to do either. The rest is history.

I doubt they copied any code. Everybody was writing operating systems back then,
and like music, software was in the air. (What, you're going to sue me for
playing "Stairway to Heaven" on the ukulele?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

But SCO has to appeal, right?
Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT
But still, excellent news. We have been waiting long enough!

---
It's not the software that's free; it's you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

S.E.C. FRAUD CHARGES NEXT FOR SCO ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:05 AM EDT
Conrad Black's recent white collar crookery fraud convictions pales in
comparison to SCO's pretending to "own" something it never did. All
one needs to do is read SCO's (et al.) prospecti filed with the S.E.C. to see
what SCO has been telling shareholders about what SCO "owns".

Black could get up to 35 years in jail for just 3 fraud convictions. I wonder
what the count would be for SCO (et al.)?


http://www.sec.gov/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:09 AM EDT
I was thinking of Caldera, only without the capitalization; as in the molten
heart of a volcano...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:21 AM EDT
Well I looked, and looked, and looked in all those comments and still could not
find the reaction from mog and lie'n. They must have something inspiring to
add.

Lovely day today.

[ Reply to This | # ]

a complain then for PJ
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:43 AM EDT
As another said of the UK Justice system im sure that the canadian system would
not allow such a travesty of justice to carry on 4.5 years with NO PROOF. PJ if
anyhting this really does show how broken your system is. That someone can make
allegations and unless you are rich and powerful you will not survive ( perfect
example is the lawsuits by the RIAA in sueing poor people whom cannot afford to
defend themselves you
blast the founding fathers that i believe if you look what they say, they
themselves would be appalled. )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who's rustling cattle now, Mr All Hat?
Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:33 AM EDT
This from SCO's website, viewed today...

CEO Darl McBride Interveiw [sic] on Business Jive Podcast

Darl McBride is CEO of SCO Group, a pioneering developer of Unix-based networking solutions.

In his interview, Darl discusses being raised by a bona fide cowboy, the law of the harvest, and the similarities between cattle rustlers and certain defendants in a certain high-profile lawsuit. -- link

O RLY?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT
well not much to say... other than HURRAY! and BRAVO BRAVO!!
klap klap klap klap!!

---
-Skuggi.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The end could be very near.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT

The court has ruled that SCOG owes Novell $BIGNUM for the Microsoft and Sun
licences.

Under UK law (how does USA law apply) Novell could now issue a Statutary Demand
claiming in detail the amounts owed and go direct to a Summary Bankruptcy
Petition.

At that point SCOX would have 2 options, the debt having already been proven :-
1) Pay the entire amount within 14 days or be automatically bankrupt.
2) Petition the Bankruptcy Court disputing in full and specific detail some
detailed items not clearly covered by the judgement within 14 days AND pay the
undisputed amounts within 14 days or be automatically bankrupt.

END of story.
But probably not quite as simple in the USA ?.

[ Reply to This | # ]

chown
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:27 PM EDT
Linux mallxs.nl 2.6.18-4-k7 #1 SMP Wed May 9 23:42:01 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux

Judge Dale Kimball at the console:
> chown Novell Unix*

PJ at her console
> chmod 777 Linux*

McBride on his first Sony
> su
su: Authentication failure
Sorry.

Solved a small problem in Utah; lets us now focus on Redmond

/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

At long last!
Authored by: snakebitehurts on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:39 PM EDT
It was a long time coming. Wow. The Judge clearly was able to sort through all
the bullhockey and focus on the issues.

I also noticed that his decisions were near mirrors of PJ's many analysis's of
the various filings over all these years. Way to go PJ!

I have read the the ruling a couple of times now. I note that SCO can persue
Novell on "breach of contract" for their distribution of Suse linux as
a competing product.

I'm surprised no one has commented on this. There is no mention of SCO
distributing linux - and even being a linux company - itself for years. IBM has
pointed this out about a million times in their filings and it should be
interesting what the Judge has to say in that case.

I guess I'm wondering what will happen if the judge (in IBM) says "SCO -
you did it too (distributed linux)" and how that will tie back to any small
hope SCO has left in this case.

Seems odd that SCO could sue Novell for distributing Suse linux as a
"competing product" when SCO did the exact same thing. I am certain
that the judge will have much to say about it.

In any case, it will be fun watching the final pieces come together as SCO is
crushed into dust.

We know SCO never gives up. I fully expect to see SCO file an appeal that the
"judge got it wrong because ....".

Overall it's a wonderful day for PJ, open source, and for all of us who have
watched this for years.

MikeD

[ Reply to This | # ]

Saturday morning cartoons
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT
Like Wile E. Coyote, SCO ran off the edge of a cliff, chasing the Linux
Roadrunner--we've watched SCO treading air for 3 years, and now Judge Kimball
has handed them the anvil!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does SCO's contract with Boies cover an appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:48 PM EDT
Just curious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now for the counterattack
Authored by: stites on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:49 PM EDT

Novell is asking the court for money from SCO and will probably be awarded more money than SCO has. Novell can probably bankrupt SCO without anybody else's help.

IBM has counterclaims against SCO that IBM can pursue. IBM has not named any amounts yet but IBM could possibly bankrupt SCO without anybody else's help.

Red Hat has sued Novell for damages. The Red Hat case has been stalled forever but it will probably start up again as SCO's cases against Novell and IBM swiftly unravel. Hopefully Red Hat will be able to do SCO serious damage in Red Hat v SCO.

SCO v AutoZone has been stalled for a long time. I think that AutoZone is not so much interested in punishing SCO as to just getting SCO out of their hair. Hopefully the Novell ruling will give AutoZone their wish.

The U.S. Federal government has done nothing about the crimes committed in association with this case. One reason may be that the Federal government is reluctant to intervene while the case is in civil court. If so, then the SEC may now enter the fray. Here is a list of thinks the SEC could investigate.

SEC complaint

--------------------
Steve Stites

[ Reply to This | # ]

The view from SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:28 PM EDT
my sco source tells me that there are now 2 factions in sco management:
optimists and pessimists. it is unclear which faction will emerge on top.

the pessimists draw pretty much the obvious conclusions from the ruling, and are
talking to the press. the optimists are biting their tongues and want to press
on.

the optimists believe that sco is still in with a chance to get a decent
settlement. their reasoning is:

- they avoided the bullet of the constructive trust

- some portion of the sun and ms revenues will need to go to novell, but it will
be considerably less than 95% (if it was 95% then novell would have already been
awarded the money). all the witnesses to the sun and ms deals are either sco,
sun or ms employees, and all will argue the deals are mainly about unixware and
sco derivative code, and not really much about legacy svrx code/licenses.

- kimball didn't give novell anything on the linux licenses like ev1. he didn't
require sco to give an accounting (in fact he ruled in sco's favor on this one).
he didn't classify linux scosource as svrx. so sco can keep 100% of future
linux licenses as well as money from previous linux licenses.

- yes kimball said the original unix copyrights belong to novell. but kimball
also said that the derivative copyrights for sco's versions of unix (i.e. open
server and unixware) belong to sco. sco still have a copyright claim against
novell for infringement of these copyrights. sco also have breach of contract
(the non-compete) and unfair competition claims for infringement of these
copyrights.

- they accept sco will lose on novell's slander of title claim, but damages
novell wins on this claim will be minimal (things like some attorney fees on
researching and filing copyrights).

so for sco vs novell at trial, they think:

- sco will be able to win some copyright related damages from novell, under
copyright, unfair competition and contract (non-compete theories)

- novell will be able to win some percentage (much less than 95%) of sun and ms
deals.

- novell will win nominal slander of title damages from sco

=> overall: sco comes out ahead in turns of damages won

plus, they still have the derivative code owned by sco stick to scare up some
sco-source licenses. in fact, they will argue to potential licensees, that
their copyrights though narrower than they originally thought, have now been
confirmed by the court.


now sco v ibm::

yes, they lose on their contract claims against ibm

but they believe they can make their 5th cause of action, the copyright claim,
potentially winnable by focusing on derivative code owned by sco found in linux,
rather than on unix code in linux, or ibm's continued distribution of aix.

they think they can also get some damages on unfair competition and interference
with contract (but not ibm interference with the novell contract).

as far ibm counterclaims are concerned
- the contract claims - they believe they are safe because ibm can't show they
didn't have a good faith belief in their termination, etc.
- the lanham act and slander claims - most of their comments are privileged,
some nominal damages to ibm
- gpl stuff - ibm may win on these, but they don't think the damages will be
anything but nominal

=> overall: sco comes out ahead in turns of damages won


so, if both cases go to trial, they think they'll survive, still have a stick to
beat linux with, and maybe even come out slightly ahead. and then, they'll
appeal and try and get some of issues they lost on overturned. they see
themselves continuing to inflict pain on ibm, novell and linux for several more
years... unless they are paid off.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: MattZN on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:29 PM EDT
Congratulations, PJ! And congratulations to the open source community in general!

-Matt

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's start a "put up or shut up" campaign against MS's 235 patent infringement claim
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:30 PM EDT
How about those of us that use and love open source starting a campaign to get
Microsoft to show the 235 patents it claims are infringed. After all, what is
MS afraid of other than the facts that their claims will be proven false? I
think one target audience of such a campaign is all of the journalists that
cover computer related news, especially those that like to parrot this claim
like it's real and proven.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's prosecute the SCO execs
Authored by: enigma_foundry on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT
This opens the door for slander of title, plus the funding by Microsoft has got
to be dug through.

Any chance of seeing Bill Gates prosecuted under RICO?

---
enigma_foundry

Ask the right questions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:46 PM EDT
WOOOHOO!!!!
Finally after all these years. Righteousness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO knew d**n well they didn't own the copyrights when starting up SCOsource
Authored by: seekamp on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT
Looking at pp. 28-29 it couldn't be much clearer. Darl is contacting Novell over and over again about getting the copyrights. He knew he didn't have them and he also knew that Novell was refusing to give them, but SCO went on with the SCOsource initiative anyway.

So the bottom line to me is (1)he knew he didn't have them, and (2)he knew that Novell wasn't just going to give them to him. So he couldn't possibly know that they would ever get them. Obviously the only way to get them would have been to sue for them.

So why didn't they sue, if you want to assume that they had a chance of winning the suit and getting them? I guess because it would have been abundantly clear to everyone (even the EV1's of the world) that they didn't own any copyrights and didn't have a basis for the SCOSource licensing racket. But if they thought they had a real chance to get them, wouldn't they have sued anyway and said to potential licensees "buy the license for $699 now, or it will be $2,000 when we win the lawsuit and we WILL win the lawsuit.". Instead, once Novell didn't go in on the scheme and told the world SCO didn't have the copyrights, they thought it was better to pretend they had them and do a slander-of-title suit? Maybe Darl really believed (though I doubt it) that it was a clerical error that the copyrights were not transferred to the original SCO, but the fact is he knew they didn't since he was asking for them.

I know they had dancing dollar signs in front of their eyes, but given they knew they didn't own the copyrights, how could they go forward with the scheme? Were they all planning to make their millions and skip the country, because even if people did not find out right away eventually they would have found out that they didn't own anything that would give them a basis to sue UNIX users, much less Linux users? Even if the SCOSource agreement was written in such a way (and I assume it was) so as to try to absolve them of ever having to show they had a right to sue anybody, wouldn't the legal system and the facts of the matter have caught up with them eventually?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Kimball also said... - Authored by: RPN on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:17 PM EDT
  • Short answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT
    • Short answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:57 PM EDT
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: cricketjeff on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:31 PM EDT
Will put something more considered on nicewaistcoat.com later and then copy it
here but here's a bit of celebratory doggerel for now:-


My mate Darl just gave me a call
To ask me to say hi to y'all
He says he's glad the judge can see
The clear way to SCO's victory
He says he never claimed to own
The copyrights that they'd been shown
Now all that guff is cleared away
We're free (he says) to win the day
When you've read the judgement properly
You'll see you owe SCO an apology
By choosing about one word in six
The judgement becomes a simple fix
The money from Sun, and the M$ dough
He gets to keep, the judge says so
(well keep for now and that's enough
He'll figure out some other stuff)
Not all SCO's claims are utter rot
(Though what is left is not a lot)
And my chum says he's bound to win
George's friend God has promised him!
So don't all dance with your red dress on
The man from SCO is not yet gone
If you knew at the start you had no case
Then losing what you had is no disgrace
Through all this fight my friends been winning
He's been paid every week since the very beginning!
Until the courts get that cash repaid
Darl's still on top when results are weighed
The only losers are the people who
Will lose their jobs and their pensions too
And Darl don't care one jot for those
Who's fingers crept beneath his toes
The case was a scam from the very start
And it's still a scam in this final part
I'm sure he'll still pull something funny
When the time has come to stump up money!!!!


PS I shall remain glued to Groklaw, after all there is still a long way to go in
this case, as I imply above I doubt Darl will do anything other than paint this
as a victory and will be talking out of his chair cushion about it very soon.

PPS can someone clever do a chart of the claims and counter claims in each case
showing what is left unresolved?

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comment policy suspended?
Authored by: Marc Rochkind on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:09 PM EDT
(Yes, I'm that Marc Rochkind.)

Of course, it's a day to have some fun, but surely the "no personal attacks" policy is worthless unless it applies on days when people want to make personal attacks.

The policy is:

8. No personal attacks on anyone, friend, foe, or each other. I want Groklaw to always be a pleasant site, where we can relax and enjoy our work and our interaction. If we are civil to each other, the Golden Rule, if you will, we'll enjoy Groklaw more and we'll get more work done too.

Here are just two of many examples, one coming from PJ herself:


Now that the PSJ's have recognized at least most of the obvious...
Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT
Maybe this is the beginning of the fun phase, when the scum that started this are held accountable for their incompetence and dishonesty... which reminds me... any chance of Lyans and O'Gara being publicly reminded or at least shown for their role in sowing disinformation to propagate this mess?

I did wonder, for a moment, whether I should be happy-dancing at someone's loss. However, when such dishonest, libelous, incompetent, sleazy, societally-worthless scum as embodied by SCOX started this mess, then having justice served will indeed be cause for happy-dancing. And justice has not been served, yet. The fun will lie in the counterclaims. I hope that breach of fiduciary duty is a criminal, rather than civil offense, and that we see Mr. McBride led away before he has a chance to leave the country. Any chance he might have that slimmest thread of competence that would have had him keep some evidence of under-the-table PIPE-fairy backstopping, just to make him valuable as a witness in a bigger case? What about the legal malpractice of Boise et al? You can't tell me that they weren't capable of reading and interpreting the APA.

The view from SCO
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT
These are the same dunderheads who thought this SCOsource thing was worth pursuing in the first place.

They are dumb as rocks if this is their analysis, in my view. They will go down in history as the stupidest management team in the history of the world. Even Enron would take second place, if they refuse to read the writing on the wall after this ruling.


 

Wait a minute... it just occurred to me that I'll probably get a response or two to the effect that these aren't "personal attacks." OK... fair enough. Maybe I can learn something today. If "scum," "sleazy," "dunderheads," "dumb as rocks," and "stupidest" aren't personal attacks then, I wonder, what would personal attacks be?

--Marc
basepath.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time for SCO to Appeal - The Only Delay Left
Authored by: Bill The Cat on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT
SCO has appealed or challenged every major motion that didn't go their way.
This one is sure to get appealed. This is, after all, the only delay mechanism
SCO has left. Even if there is no way they could win, the filing and process
will add additional delay to the outcome. Possibly a lot -- you never know.


---
Bill The Cat

[ Reply to This | # ]

Heavenly Fireworks!
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:43 PM EDT
It would appear that even the Gods are celebrating tonight - just seen some
perseid meteors.
Brilliant streaks of light agains a huge dark background.
I think I'll call that one Kimball....

[ Reply to This | # ]

one of those shares ...
Authored by: Latesigner on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:45 PM EDT
A new market for SCO.
I want a SCO share, on parchment, to hang on my wall.

---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are the SUN/MS licenses still valid?
Authored by: gard on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:55 PM EDT
Hi,

- Was SCO authorized to enter in to these deals on their own? IIRC, Novell/SCO
contract required Novell's approval of any deals with existing SVRX licensees
which SCO failed to do.
- So, apart from the question of how much of that money should go to Novell,
isn't there also a question of whether whatever licenses / additional rights
Sun/MS thought they were buying is even valid?
- Did SCO sell something that they had no right to sell?
- Did Sun/MS knowingly buy something that they knew to be of questionable
ownership / stolen property?
- And, if the licenses are invalid, what are consequences to Sun/MS if they have
availed themselves already of privileges based on such invalid licenses?

gard

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:00 PM EDT
My guess is that there would be a donation involved, so it is more of a Clinton
pardon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:21 PM EDT
It is now time for IBM, Red Hat, Autozone, etc., to take the offensive.

They should mount a concerted legal [and marketing] offensive to utterly destroy
what is left of TSCOG, the executives and board of directors of TSCOG and any
and all supporters of their illicit game.

Leave no stone unturned. Do not just defoliate. Scorch the earth -- salt it as
well.

krp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Further predictions ...
Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:36 PM EDT

Just looking at what we know ...

1) tSCOg have been ruled to not own the Unix copyrights

2) The court has ruled that Novell has the right to determine what litigation
can & can't be initiated by tSCOg against UNIX Sys5 licensees

3) Novell has already ordered tSCOg to drop its contract litigation against IBM

4) Novell and IBM both have serious counter claims against tSCOg

5) The bulk of the cases has now shifted from tSCog being the aggrieved
litigator to tSCOg becoming the defendant and clearly in hot water


Comments/Predictions:

> (obvious) tSCOg cannot and won't survive the cases when they do come before
juries because the bulk of their case is shot to pieces whereas the Novell &
IBM counterclaims are now stronger

> Novell will be able to demand the money they want from tSCOg but not quite
the full amounts

> tSCOg won't be able to pay in money and will have to hand over assets as
part of the settlement

> If there is anything left of tSCOg after the Novell jury case, IBM's
counter clams will end tSCOg completely.

****************

So I am betting that Novell will end up with the UNIX business handed back to
them.

Novell will not entertain the same stupidity that tSCOg did in taking on IBM re
Linux (remember this current ruling does not give Linux the clean bill of health
we all wanted)

Novell will place the copyrights into a trust such that no othr successor in
interest can pull another tSCOg stunt

tSCOg will go down in IT history as one of the great fiascoes of the current
era

Microsoft will feel the heat as it gets investigated over its role in setting
tSCOg up with investor funds & lawyers to go after IBM

DS Marker


[ Reply to This | # ]

Movie scenes?
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:59 PM EDT
I believe a "This is Sparta!" moment is appropriate.
(But the kick is from the rear)

---
If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has the train pulled into the station yet. - Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and Unix....
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:06 PM EDT
Earlier today I was thinking about the stipulations to delays that have been
granted. (Latest was the posting:Final Pretrial Order in SCO v Novell Delayed
to Aug. 17). There was also: ORDER granting [374] Motion for Extension of Time
to file objections to the Pre-Trial Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures until 8/31/07.

It seemed to me that it was like waiting for a train at a station. You've been
waiting for hours, then off in the distance you hear the whistle and your hopes
are up. Finally it is getting here. But that was when the train was still in
the country outside of town. As it approaches town it slows down, and it seems
the closer it gets, the slower it goes, until finally just a few blocks away it
seems to be moving barely faster than a walk.

Then I check in and find this posting from yesterday.

Has the train pulled into the station yet? If so, when will they open the doors
so we can board?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hmmm, thinking out loud :)
Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:12 PM EDT


What I would like to see happen ...

> Novell takes tSCOg's assets incl the portion of the Unix business tSCOg
does hold

> Novell based on their past successful litigation against Microsoft in the
DrDos case, commences litigation against Microsoft for all the stolen
copyrighted code taken from Unix and put illegally into Windows & Windows
NT.

Full disclosure by Microsoft :)

:) :) :)

DSM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT
Thanks for all you've done for we readers, PJ and eat all the chocolate you
want! ;-)

KM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Pirulo on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:32 PM EDT
So now the Microsoft and Novell makes a lot of sense for Microsoft, as in they
are legally protected against any suing action by Unix owner itself.

I wonder if Novell has enough right to free the whole enchilada under the GPL,
and if so, whether they'll do or not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cruix of the matter - Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell.....
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:34 PM EDT
"Santa Cruz assigned various items of intellectual property to Caldera in
an agreement dated May 7, 2001"

"That Assignment Agreement purports to transfer various UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights. Caldera Agreement § 1, Sched. C. In the Assignment Agreement, Santa
Cruz made representations and warranties with respect to the intellectual
property rights being transferred. Id. § 8(v). The Assignment Agreement states
that Santa Cruz "has no knowledge of any fact that would prevent
[Caldera's] registration of any Rights related or appurtenant to the Inventions
and Works or recording the transfer of Rights hereunder (except that Assignor
may not be able to establish a chain of title from Novell Inc. but shall
diligently endeavor to do so as soon as possible)." Id."

Caldera was trying to get the chain of title cleared up from Santa Cruz
Operation. They were trying to get it from Novell. Novell wasn't playing ball.
Caldera tried to get it directly from Novell.

Makes me wonder if the whole purpose of the Caldera buyout from the start
anticipated some sort of IP blackmail program, regardless of what was said
publicly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Further prediction
Authored by: dmarker on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:45 PM EDT

The Novell tSCOg trial will not proceed (the trial hasn't been stopped. The
ruling from Kimball just guts most of tSCOg's case, not Novell's counter claims,
so a trial is still scheduled).

Prediction is that Novell and tSCOg will announce a pre-trial settlement
possibly this coming week.

Am not yet willing to predict if the same will happen between IBM & tSCOg as
IBM may just want to drag tSCOg's sorry carcass over the coals a few times as it
rubs their nose in its (IBM's) counter claims. IBM may see value in tSCOg
being 'pilloried' as a fair warning to any others like them who have a mind to
take IBM on.

DSM

DSM

[ Reply to This | # ]

More than just a ruling. The Judge lays out the entire time line of what was going on and why.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT
The judge lays out a lot of history here, that answers questions. For example,
I've always felt that making sure of your ownership of copyrights is a good
first step before making claims based on those copyrights. Here the judge
documnents:

"On January 4, 2003, McBride received an email from Michael Anderer, a
consultant for SCO retained to examine its intellectual property. Supp.
Brakebill Decl. Ex. 12. Anderer stated that the APA "transferred
substantially less" of Novell's intellectual property than Novell owned.
Anderer noted that Santa Cruz's "asset purchase" from Novell
"excludes all patents, copyrights, and just about everything else."
Id. Anderer cautioned that "[w]e really need to be clear on what we can
license. It may be a lot less than we think."

When your lawyer offers advise, it is wise to follow it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:16 PM EDT
I think the non-compete is also largely gutted by the ruling.

It survived summary judgement because Kimball interpreted non-compete narrowly,
to that part of Novell's business that is directly related to the APA et. al. So
I think Novell's Linux business is out-of-scope for the non-compete stuff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novells waiver
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:18 PM EDT
So does novell have to officially issue a new waiver, or are they able to just
reiterate the original one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Novells waiver - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 05:55 AM EDT
Hey Darl!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:31 PM EDT
Sucks to be you...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Several worrisome little niggly questions
Authored by: KAKMAN on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:39 PM EDT
What is Novell going to do with its Unix IP once all the flotsam and jetsam
rendered by this tempest has been cleared away? What if it has already been
doing something, pending the outcome of this case? Novell's revenue problems are
far from over - why should it formally allow the code to be licensed under any
version of the GPL or any open source or free software license? What fat
desperate ubiquitous company could easily overpay Novell for those IP rights,
once all the smoke has cleared?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Congratulations
Authored by: leopardi on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:01 PM EDT

Belated congratulations to all involved. Now, to see how SCO vs IBM pans out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fat Lady has not sung. -- Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare c...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:21 PM EDT
This should put closed to the case SCO vs IBM. (Novell directed SCO to desist
and the Judge said SCO had to comply with Novell.) But IBM still has counter
claims against SCO.

It's clear Microsoft saw the writing on the wall, so their deal with Novell
ought to keep them in the clear.

But I think there might be a problem regarding Sun. SCO did not have authority
to sell to Sun what they sold them. Then Sun open sourced Solaris. Now Sun is
a champion of ODF and has open sourced Java, the big competitor to .NET.

Quite frankly, I'm worried. Novell can't count on any money, because the amount
can't be determined until trial. By then it may be too late.

Autozone is a different animal altogether. I'm not sure what the fact that SVRX
copyrights can't be involved would have to do with Autozone using SCO developed
code to convert to Linux. Autozone has disputed that, but don't know if there
is still something triable there.

Redhat should be able to push forward now, I would think. Clearly SCO has no
basis to go after Linux licenses based on SVRX copyrights, and Redhat should be
able to get a decision on that. It's in a different court, and Redhat is simply
asking for a judgment they are not infringing SCO copyrights. If SCO has
anything they developed themselves unique to x86 that's found in Linux they had
better speak up with specifity pronto!!!! The SCO FUD has gone on long enough
and needs to be brought to a halt right quick.

Regarding the MS FUD, acceptable words fail me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Obviously IBM paid PJ to write this post
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:28 PM EDT
And I, for one, am going to wait for the real legal analysis to come from Bob
Enderle, Maureen O'Gara, and Laura Didio.

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

comment count - Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:29 PM EDT
1134 comments and counting. Do we have a new record here?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another important Groklaw revelation: "trade press" and "analysts"
Authored by: bobn on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:10 PM EDT
As part of the legal analysis, PJ also conclusively demonstrated that the vast
majority or the trade press and analyst crowds do nothing more than regurgitate
press releases or garble wire stories - when they are not actual industry
shills.

Uncovering Forbes, syscon, Enderle, Lyons, Didio and others of their ilk as
FUD-mongers, not to say plain liars, was a *huge* step in understanding this
morass.

Time and again, PJ and the rest of Groklaw had it right and the press and
analysts had it wrong.

---
IRC: irc://irc.fdfnet.net/groklaw
the groklaw channels in IRC are not affiliated with, and not endorsed by,
either GrokLaw.net or PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sure, I'll complain about the US court system
Authored by: dwheeler on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:31 PM EDT
PJ says: "All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end."

Well, I'm still concerned about the US court system, frankly. Whether or not there will be real justice in the end is yet to be determined. I can certainly hope. This recent decision is a fine decision, yes, and it's very encouraging. But will justice will be provided to all parties, including those not officially parties to the cases? That is not so clear.

Yes, clearly the court did look at all the evidence, and it did eventually determine that contracts are really contracts, and that the copyrights didn't transfer just like the contract said they didn't transfer. That final result, at least, looks very good and extremely justifiable (given the brief here, it's hard to believe it was even an issue). And looking down the road, this ruling will certainly defang much of the IBM, Red Hat, and Novell cases.

But whether or not justice will really be meted out depends on how you measure justice... and of course, what eventually happens. If you only look at SCO the business, and what is likely to eventually happen, perhaps it's justice. A company that claimed to own something, sued everyone over it, and then turned out not to own it (and it KNEW that, see their own advisors), will probably go out of business. If you view it ONLY from "what happens to SCO", perhaps that's reasonable.

But looking at things more widely, I'm concerned that real justice will not be meted out. Many people and organizations have been hurt by this travesty - will they really get justice? Red Hat, Novell, IBM, and others have lost many sales, as well as had to spend many dollars on legal work. Those sales would have probably brought many other sales by now, too. So they've lost a HUGE amount of money, and I doubt that SCO's resources will begin to cover this. So no matter what, they will not be made whole. In addition, the reputations of GNU/Linux developers (inc. the Linux kernel), their projects, and open source software projects in general have had their reputations sullied, and perhaps not gained the number of users (and thus developers) they should have gained. I don't see any compensation in the works there.

Even worse, some people (hi Darl!) appear to have been unjustly enriched by this nonsense. They make WAY more in a year than I do, yet I haven't driven an entire multi-million dollar company into the dust as they are doing. Making poor decisions is one thing, I don't think people should be punished for making honest mistakes. But this ruling seems to make it clear that SCO's management was told they didn't own the copyrights, quite early on; Darl even tried to get the copyrights from Novell (unsuccessfully) after they'd started selling what they didn't have. If you KNOW you don't own something, and you sell it anyway, isn't that fraud? I don't understand why it wouldn't be (though I'm admittedly not a lawyer). Based on what I've read, justice would have to include piercing the corporate veil, to ensure that those who enriched themselves on this scheme had to give up all that money, and also pay for the suffering of others. Piercing the corporate veil is rare - as it should be - and we don't know if that will happen. Yet I think that until there are stiff monetary penalties on the PERSONAL accounts of those responsible, that completely eliminate all enrichment they got from this, there is no justice. Until that happens, it just shows that it's okay to destroy companies that are the lifework of others, as long as you can extract a lot from the till. (Maybe their actions are more justifiable than I've seen. If so, fine. But I sure haven't read much that justifies them; it looks BAD from here.)

Justice delayed is still justice denied. Especially since it's unlikely that the damage SCO has done will be fully compensated for, and there's still a good chance that those who perpetrated this scheme will walk away richer for it. Four years is an absurdly long time to decide that a contract actually says what it means. I don't think the judge is doing anything wrong; he seems to be very interested in getting things done right, according to the law. But the system he's working in does not seem to work as well as it should.

What worries me most is that while Novell and IBM can handle the costs, it suggests that no small company can afford justice against a larger company that can afford the lawyers... they'd have to fold long before now. I would like to believe otherwise... that it is still possible for small companies to stand up against large companies with nonsense claims. I'd like to know why I can believe that, though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: dpuryear on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 12:11 AM EDT

Well, this is good news. I doubt anyone really imagined things would play out differently, but this was something of an albatross for IBM and the open source community.

--
Dustin Puryear
Author, Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers
http://www.puryear-it.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX Source
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 12:14 AM EDT
I have to wonder if there are going to be any reprocushions from the people that
bought source licenses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now it's Red Hat's turn
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 12:29 AM EDT
Don't forget the Red Hat vs. SCO case. That's been stalled since 2004, until
something decisive happened in the other cases. Well, this is decisive. SCO's
only defense against Red Hat involved copyright ownership - there's no contract
between Red Hat and SCO to argue over. Now that SCO is without copyrights, Red
Hat can now ask that the stay be lifted.

In SCO's last report to the Delaware court handling the Red Hat litigation, they
make a big point of how strong their copyright position is in the Novell case.
That now backfires; Red Hat can quote that back to the judge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you PJ and all of Groklaw
Authored by: CraigV on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 01:52 AM EDT
What a joy it has been to read Groklaw during these long,
tedious proceedings. The incredibly high intellectual
climate of Groklaw, inspired by PJ's amazing efforts has
kept me coming back daily. That will not stop with the
demise of SCO. There is still too evil that must be
watched, understood, and defeated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maureen must be at it again
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 02:27 AM EDT
I won't even link to the sys-con article almost certainly written by MOG. It is
once again "reporting" at its worst. After stating that Judge Kimball
ignored all the SCO testimony supporting SCO's APA dreams, it states
"Instead he pretty much hung his hat on a declaration from Novell's former
general counsel David Bradford, a last-minute witness that SCO couldn't depose
because the time for depositions had passed, saying that he and Novell's outside
counsel, a guy from Wilson Sonsini, changed the APA and omitted the copyrights
to protect Novell in case the Santa Cruz Operation failed since Santa Cruz
couldn't come up with the full price Novell contemplated for Unix."

Why does anyone pay her to write this trash?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A reminder of McBride's original claim
Authored by: dmarker on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 03:37 AM EDT
SCO Group sues IBM D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still reading and some interesting points so far...
Authored by: Hyrion on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 05:27 AM EDT

I'm on page 65 and will be calling it a night shortly. It's interesting to note the following:

A comment to Section 205 of the Restatement Second of Contracts states that the implied covenants are violated "by dishonest conduct such as conjuring up a pretended dispute, asserting an interpretation contrary to one’s own understanding, or falsification of facts.”
All three of the examples seem to fit any number of SCOGs own activities.

It's also interesting to note an item on page 33:

Schedule 1.2(b) also states that the royalty obligation set forth in this schedule would terminate after Novell received payments equal to $84 million or December 31, 2002, whichever is sooner.
That seems to indicate that the licensing of Sun and MS in 2003 are SCOGs to own. The questions that clause raises may be why Judge Kimball refused to grant Novell's request for the constructive trust. As I'm only up to page 65, I'll have to see what else Kimball says with regards to that portion.

RAS

---
IANAL - But I am very curious and like to research.
There are many kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses.
RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: bilateralrope on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 06:42 AM EDT
Now would be a good time to remember the photograph here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

doubts regarding a stockholder suit against SCOX' directors
Authored by: mcinsand on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 06:59 AM EDT
Am I overly cynical in thinking that a side effect of the games that kept SCOX'
stock from staying delistingly-low might be to make a stockholder suit less
likely? Could there have been enough stock dumped to be picked up by an
SCOX-friendly party to make the common individual stockholder effectively
powerless? Say I was an employee with a chunk of SCOX stock as my 401k. 1)
How would I, or a small group of us, afford the legal horsepower to mount an
attack. 2) Why bother, with nothing left of the company?

Yes, our system is broken. We need a stronger deterrent against nuisance
lawsuits. Lawyers that file a suit that goes against the clear, plain contract
language need to be disbarred, period. To do otherwise is to completely
abrogate their responsibilities as officers of the court. Right now, our legal
system really is the equivalent of a lottery, where you can buy tickets for
nothing to have a good shot at a multimillion (or multibillion) dollar prize.
We need to have some punishment for those parties that file a suit when
information at hand clearly indicates to a competent plaintiff or lawyer that
the case is nonexistent. For the tens of millions of dollars spent by IBM and
Novell, hard jail time should be a minimum. What would happen to anyone else
that irresponsibly destroys that much value in property? For an attorney that
assists, disbarment and equal prison time should also be a minimum.

Now, I'm not talking about those cases where people are left damaged or
destitute because of someone's misconduct. If we have a defective product on
the market and someone is injured as a result, then compensatory and punitive
damages are just... so long as that person did not ignore the 'do not use in the
shower' warning with a toaster.

[ Reply to This | # ]

US Courts suck
Authored by: garbage on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 07:48 AM EDT
It is worth noting is that it has taken 4-1/2 years for the US court to decide
one aspect of the case!!!!!!

When SCO tried to make commercial Linux customers in the EU pay up for what it
claimed was use of its IP, a court promptly threw out its claim - which
Daimler-Benz challenged - and SCO fell silent in the EU thereafter.

In Australia, after the complaints were made to the ACCC, SCO fell silent.

Frivolous claims seem to be entertained much longer in the US than in other
parts of the world. The same goes for patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: comms-warrior on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 08:03 AM EDT
No - Microsoft would face problems on three counts:

1. Simple conspiracy. The DOJ would end up getting into that one.

2. Novell could block the sale as it has rights over the now bankrupt company.

3. The APA allows them to terminate if SCO went broke.

In the end of this, Darl is looking down the barrels of a jail term for criminal
negligence - I'd love to see that... Microsoft, won't put themselves in the line
of fire for what I believe to be another pseudo-intellectual from Utah.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Waiver
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 09:50 AM EDT
I was never sure about the copyright issue, but I thought that the waiver
provisions would be perfect for a PSJ. I never expected them to get both!

I'm floored.

And, of course, the Novell trial starts soon, with mostly Novell counterclaims
on the list.

I'm almost going to miss SCO...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jill C. Carpenter
Authored by: om1er on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 10:10 AM EDT
Ms. Carpenter has quite the talent. I've enjoyed all of her creations for
Groklaw.

Thank you, Jill, for the great cartoons.


---
August 10, 2007 - The FUD went thud.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The waistcoated view
Authored by: cricketjeff on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 11:13 AM EDT
It's not my best but here is my latest take. Thanks to PJ and all the rest for getting us this far.

The beginning of the end

Long years ago PJ decided
To follow a new law suit
Groklaw was where she posted her musings
On SCO’s copyright pursuit

It wasn’t all clear when the cases were started
Which way the issues would break
SCO we were sure must have some good pointers
Perhaps they had found a mistake

PJ has posted, for free open view
Everything SCO has alleged
The channels of history of Unix and Linux
Her readers have most deeply dredged

It was rather surprising, to those in the know
The SCO never showed what they knew
And through the first weeks of the lawsuits existence
Our suspicions of sharp practice grew

Now after years of to-ing and fro-ing
Of cases being started at whim
The judge in the cases has finally spoken
Now lets turn to listen to him

“The copyrights that SCO says they’re defending
Belong it is clear to Novell”
“The rights to enforce them, or to waive their enforcement
Belong to Novell as well”

“The money that SCO has raised for their funding
Is clearly in part not their own”
“They must work out quite quickly what part of the money
Has been an unwitting loan”

“For the lawyers still working on the other cases
Please read all my words and decide
What issues remain in the cases you’re running
And must be put to one side”

The supporters of freedom are happy as Larry
They see there’s an end to this mess
Those who sell software of dubious pedigree
Aren’t talking right now to the press

It will be many days, that much now seems certain
Before we all know the end game
It is hard to see how Linux can be damaged
And SCO not end up in shame

So PJ is shopping at Red Dresses R Us
And grinning from one ear to t’other
And Darl is considering where he goes next
And crying out loud for his mother!

Usual rules on copyright etc.

The rest of the relevant poems are linked from here

---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

User Friendly: *AHEM* *AHEM* *AHEM*
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 11:50 AM EDT
http://w ww.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/07aug/uf010612.gif

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Website still insisting you need to sign up for SCOSource
Authored by: cymraeg on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 11:52 AM EDT
As of 10:45 AM, US CDT, the SCO website was still telling everyone that:

"SCO has an obligation to stockholders, customers and employees to protect the value of its assets. SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user’s predicament. SCO has determined that it can accommodate both conditions by offering a license that cures the IP infringement in Linux. This new license is called "SCO Intellectual Property Protection" and applies to commercial use of the Linux 2.4 and later versions. The license insures that Linux end users can continue to run their business uninterrupted without misusing SCO's Intellectual Property."

Here's a link to their page on SCOSource (SCO Intellectual Property Protection).

I wonder how long this will stay up...

Cymraeg

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: jig on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 01:14 PM EDT
just waiting for the other shoe to drop with Novell's agreement with MS...

;(

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Why????? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:26 PM EDT
Groklaw, Slashdot, The Register, the Corporate Media
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
Carrying on from what another poster, bobn, said in a reply entitled

'Another important Groklaw revelation: "trade press" and
"analysts"'


It is an anathema for Groklaw to have links to articles in the
corporate media's Web-Sites. The goals of the corporate media
are at odds with the goals of Groklaw. The corporate media are
heavily dependent on advertising: this includes sites like Slashdot,
and The Register. And the content of their Web-Sites reflects the
conservative, reactionary outlook of the corporations who give
them this advertising revenue. They rarely if ever post articles
which are at odds with the interests of their advertisers: in fear that
they may loose their revenue. And they are more than willing to
post press releases from their corporate backers as facts, as News,
and to spread the propaganda of their Public Relations
departments. They have little or no interest in the truth or justice.
Whatever interests they do have in these virtues are limited in so
far as it promotes the interests of their corporate backers.

In other words, their interests are the polar opposites of sites like
Groklaw. Thus it is an anathema for Groklaw to refer to these sites,
and encourage people to go there for facts. It is an anathema for
people who follow and believe the articles at sites, like Slashdot
and The Register, to be encouraged to believe that they have
some kind of kindred spirits in Groklaw. Groklaw closely examines
court cases to a depth, and a length, which is unheard of in the
Corporate Media: including sites like Slashdot and The Register.

Make no mistake! These sites will gloat over SCO's predicament
just as anyone else, celebrate as much as those who faithfully
follow Groklaw, and values its content. But truth be told, if another
corporation like SCO, more powerful, more wealthy, embarked on
a similar course of action, they would back them to the hilt, and
spread their propaganda. Especially if they turned out to be one of
their major advertisers, such as Microsoft, which a lot of the
corporate media in the IT industry depend on: including many
Web-Sites nominally partial or dedicated to Linux (such as
Slashdot, The Register, and Linux Today). And if that brought
them in conflict with Groklaw, they would not hesitate to ignore it,
or attack it, its authors and its content.

The Trolls that often visit Groklaw, whenever some unfavourable
news comes out about Microsoft, are the children of these
corporate media. These same Trolls have replied to this thread to
the effect that they cannot wait for news of SCO's predicament to
appear in the corporate media, in order to validate it somehow; as
if hearing it on Groklaw was not enough; as if hearing it on
Groklaw makes it unreal. Their Strawman Arguments and other
rhetoric, would pale in comparison with what you will see from
their parents, if ever Groklaw was to cross their path, by going up
against their major corporate backers. That Groklaw will cross their
path is inevitable. Anyone committed to truth or justice will
eventually be run over by that juggernaut, sooner or later. So why
give them oxygen by including links to their Web-Sites on
Groklaw?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 09:11 PM EDT
I view this as a trial balloon by SCO where they are getting a free analysis of
whether to proceed to trial or not by independent third parties who have
detailed knowledge of the case (Groklaw readers).

What better way to get an unbiased analysis then to post on a forum and see what
the responses are and then talk it over with your attorneys.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • free analysis? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 09:15 PM EDT
Any takers on how much SCOX tanks in trading tomorrow?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 09:45 PM EDT
Darl is dog food. The end. Buh bye.

Sure we will still have to go through appeals and whatnot but You can bet with
this ruling Novell is going to come back quick and attempt to remedy the amount
SCOX owes them so they can collect it or get it in escrow so SCOX cannot burn
through it (like they haven't already).

What's a more interesting question is this. Assume SCOX cannot pay Novell
whatever the final amount is and SCOX loses their appeal of the ruling. SCOX
will likely be in bankruptcy to pay Novell, is it conceivable that Novell will
end up owning SCOX? And what happens to all that Unix IP then? Novell cannot
ever claim they had no idea they distributed Linux and they fought to retain
ownership of the IP here. Translation, no one will ever be able to assert a
claim of copyright infringement against Linux again based on Unix copyrights.
There will never be another SCOX. Patents are next folks. Lessee what Microsoft
does now that it's trick dog is dead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Authored by: hendra on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 05:52 AM EDT
Please forgive my ignorant soul, but can Muckrosoft owns Novell, one way or
another? I mean, after that sleeping-with-the-enemy episode between Novell and
Muckrosoft almost a year ago, I'm no longer the same person.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Laura Didio Question's Novell Viability
Authored by: th80 on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:20 PM EDT
Guess who was wrong! *GASP*!?!?!?!?!?!??!

ZDNet, 07/28/2003 By Laura Didio

Under Heading Vendor Losers

"Novell. The fact that SCO registered its UNIX System V copyright lays to rest an earlier, erroneous contention by Novell president, Jack Messman, claiming that SCO did not own the copyrights. There’s no excuse for the head of a $1.1 billion corporation to make such a public faux pas. It is a simple matter for Messman to exercise due diligence and phone Novell’s lawyers to review the terms and conditions of Novell’s 1995 sale of the UNIX System V contracts to SCO. At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to malign SCO. At best, it was a stupid mistake that indicates Messman was more concerned with speaking out before first being sure of the facts. Ultimately, this embarrassment will cause Novell customers to further question the company’s viability."


That's just one of many things she got wrong, here read it for yourself. It feels so good to read this now, 4 long years later.
SCO Group Gains Psychological Edge, Registers UNIX System V Copyrights

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daniel Lyons - Big 'No' To SCO
Authored by: th80 on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:29 PM EDT
well... well... well.... look who turned against SCO....
Big 'No' To SCO

[ Reply to This | # ]

An image is worth a thousand words!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:01 PM EDT
Click here!

You're welcome! :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Simpson Comment to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 06:51 PM EDT
http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Simpsons-Nelson-Haha-Posters_i424903_.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! I sure picked the wrong time to go on vacation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 21 2007 @ 12:21 PM EDT
Did I ever pick the wrong time to go on vacation! I purposely stayed away from
news sites, etc.. When I got back Monday, I thought 'Maybe there's something
interesting on Groklaw. Nope. Hmm... maybe I'll check the archives..."

This is fantastic. While it didn't ALL go as hoped (no trust, for instance), it
appears to be a thoughtful, well-reasoned and fair decision. I'm sure whatever
SCO has left at trial won't last very long.

Thank you, PJ, for sticking with this through thick and thin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )