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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
The Exhibits in Support of Novell's Motion for PSJ on 4th Claim for Relief - Updated
Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 12:15 AM EST

For historians, not to mention us munchkins, I thought it'd be a good idea to list what all the exhibits are which are attached to the Declaration of David Melaugh [PDF], filed in support of Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief.

It's beginning to jell in my mind what I believe this new Novell motion is for -- Novell wants to establish firmly that SCO had no contractual authority to enter into SCOsource licenses in the first place. It's not about money. It's about establishing once and for all that Linux is free of SCO's accusations, and that no one need ever fear a repeat performance by them or any later acquirer of their alleged assets. SCO is not, after all, the only greedo on the planet. But why now? What is new?

I note that Novell only received SCO's responses to Novell's Second and Third Sets of Interrogatories in mid-July of 2007. The court ruled on all the summary judgment motions on August 10th, to give you a feel for just how late in the process that is, especially when you consider that Novell served its Second [PDF] and Third Set of Interrogatories [PDF] within days of each other late in September of 2006. I'm thinking that may explain the new Novell motion for partial summary judgment, because at that point, Novell must have seen something they thought was important they could use, and Exhibit 14 is included, SCO's responses. It's filed under seal, unfortunately. The tardy responses, I would imagine, reflect a SCO desire to keep the materials out of view until the last possible moment, hoping, I'm guessing, that it would be too late to do anything meaningful with the materials. Keep in mind that interrogatories ask for answers to questions but also for documents regarding those answers. Ironically, the bankruptcy stay provided time and now a new opportunity presents itself to use the materials, and so here they are, in support of this motion.

The most interesting exhibit by far of the ones not sealed is Exhibit 2, where SCO in December of 2002 announced SCOsource to "License Unix Intellectual Property and Protect Linux." Note that this is *not* the same as the press release dated January 22, 2003, which also announced SCOsource and the retention of Boies Schiller but did not mention protecting Linux. The differences are significant, raising questions in my mind as to the role played by Boies Schiller in causing those differences to be played out. The second press release was titled, "SCO Establishes SCOsource to License UNIX Intellectual Property" with the subtitle, "SCO, the Majority Owner of UNIX Intellectual Property, Creates New Licensing Programs to Expand Access to Its UNIX Technology, Beginning With SCO System V for Linux". At the time of the first press release in December of 2002, SCO, then calling itself Caldera, was still selling Linux, if you recall.

And if you can read Exhibit 7, the Darl McBride letter to Questar's CEO without your blood boiling, you must be under sedation. And one of the sealed exhibits is Questar's agreement it signed with SCO, Exhibit 18, so I guess it did the trick.

Finally, we find out something I don't seem to recall noticing before, the dates Sun and Microsoft signed on to SCOsource, and it turns out Sun was first, in February of 2003. Microsoft didn't buy its version until April. In between, SCO sued IBM, in March. Maybe we've noticed those dates before, and it just hits me hard every time.

Some of them are sealed exhibits, unfortunately, but by listing them all, you can at least see what the court gets to see, thus getting an overview, and I've also included not only the PDFs but where we have text done already, a link to that as well. I've noted where there could be differences between what is listed and the version we previously already had as text, and if you note any others, please sing out.

Here, then, are the exhibits:

  • Exhibit 1: A presentation, titled "SCOSource Announcement", dated December 11, 2002 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 2: A press release by SCO entitled, "SCO Establishes SCOsource to License Unix Intellectual Property and Protect Linux", dated December 11, 2002

  • Exhibit 3: A presentation by Jay Petersen on "SCO System V for Linux Sales Guide - Internal Use Only", dated February 26, 2003 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 4: A draft letter from Darl McBride, dated May 12, 2003 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 5: A letter from Darl McBride to Jack Messman, dated May 12, 2003 [text]

  • Exhibit 6: A letter from Darl McBride to Fortune 1000 Companies, dated May 12, 2003 [text]

  • Exhibit 7: A letter from Darl McBride to Keith Rattie, President and CEO of Questar, dated May 12, 2003.

  • Exhibit 8: The "Declaration of Robert A. Marsh" submitted in the SCO v. IBM litigation, dated April 5, 2006 [text]

  • Exhibit 9 [part 2 and part 3]: The Asset Purchase Agreement dated September 19, 1995 [text]

  • Exhibit 10: Amendment 1 to the APA [text]

  • Exhibit 11: The Software License Agreement between Sun Microsystems, Inc. and SCO, dated February 25, 2003 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 12: Amendment 2 to the APA, dated October 16, 1996 [text]

  • Exhibit 13: The Release, License and Option Agreement between Microsoft and SCO, dated April 30, 2003 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 14: SCO's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Novell's Second and Third Sets of Interrogatories, served on Novell on July 12, 2007 (excerpts only; filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 15: The Intellectual Property License Agreement between SCO and Everyone's Internet, Ltd, dated December 13, 2004 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 16: The Intellectual Property Compliance License Agreement for SCO UNIX Rights between The SCO Group and Computer Associates International, Inc. dated August 11, 2003 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 17: The Corporate Intellectual Property Agreement between SCO Group and HEB Grocery Company dated July 30, 2004 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 18: The Intellectual Property Compliance License Agreement for Linux between The SCO Group and Questar Corporation dated January 16, 2004 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 19: A letter from Richy Anderson to Jerry Wiener dated April 30, 2004 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 20: A Purchase Order dated October 14, 2003 (filed under seal)

  • Exhibit 21: The SCO Group, Inc.'s Intellectual Property License Agreement (filed under seal) [For the record, note there was also this version, called "Intellectual Property License for Linux" which was obtained from SCO by LWN in August of 2003, and here's a screenshot of SCO's website I took in December of 2004]

  • Exhibit 22: The Business Cooperation Agreement between The SCO Group and Cymphonix Corporation dated March 24, 2005 (filed under seal).

And so we have it for the record, here is Exhibit 2. You'll notice that SCO claimed to own patents, which a simple reading of the APA would have told even the simplest soul was not true. They list UnixWare as a trademark of the Open Group. And while the press release claims that the new licensing was to "protect" Linux from any IP claims based on UNIX, since the press release also claims that SCO owned it all lock, stock and barrel, I think we can discern that SCO meant to sue way back then. It offered its customers a free license for SCO's version of Linux, and I think we can figure out the plan from that. I gather the first plan was to make money from Linux and use patents to shut down, or get licensing money from, all other distributions.

Speaking of plans, remember when Darl McBride told Jonathan Barr at Bloomberg News, as published in the Salt Lake Tribune on August 4, 2003, that Robert Bench submitted a stock sale plan for insiders in January of 2003, "months before litigation was contemplated"?:

"Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench began the selling by SCO insiders, four days after SCO filed the suit against IBM. Bench is selling to help pay a $150,000 tax bill, McBride said. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, companies are no longer able to loan executives money to pay taxes or other expenses.

"Bench submitted a sale plan in January, months before any legal action against IBM was contemplated, McBride said. His agreement called for the sales to begin on March 8. He planned to sell 5,000 shares a month for the next 12 months, according to the plan."

Read this press release and ask yourself if that rings true, something I noted at the time.

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Blake Stowell
The SCO Group
[email, phone, url]

Laura Sexton/David Close
Schwartz Communications
[email, phone]

SCO ESTABLISHES SCOsource TO LICENSE UNIX INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY AND PROTECT LINUX

SCO, the majority owner of UNIX intellectual property, creates licensing programs to assure UNIX IP protection for Linux environments, introduces SCO System V for Linux and retains David Boies to investigate and advise SCO on IP issues

LINDON, UTAH -- Dec. 11, 2002 -- The SCO Group (Nasdaq:SCOX), a leading provider of Linux and UNIX business software solutions, today announced that it has created a new business division to manage the licensing of its UNIX intellectual property and protect Linux from UNIX IP issues that are associated with the popular open source operating system. The new division, called SCOsource, will manage the substantial UNIX intellectual property assets owned by SCO, and will operate an array of licensing programs.

Key components of today's announcement include:

  • The creation of SCOsource, a division of SCO that will expand the licensing of the company's core intellectual property, including the core UNIX source code.

  • The first offering from SCOsource will be SCO System V for Linux -- an end-user licensed product for use on Linux systems. SCO System V for Linux has two key components that protect and expand the use of Linux as a business server platform. First, SCO System V for Linux provides unbundled licensing of SCO UNIX System shared libraries for use with UNIX applications running on Linux. Second, users of SCO IP Pack licensed systems are protected from future claims based on unlicensed use of SCO UNIX intellectual property in Linux.

  • The appointment of David Boies and the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner to help research and advise SCO on the company's intellectual property.


SCO Creates SCOsource

Page 2

SCOsource

SCO's patents, copyrights and core technology date back to 1969 when Bell Laboratories created the original UNIX source code. SCOsource, a new division within SCO, will manage the licensing of this software technology to customers and vendors.

"SCO is the developer and owner of SCO UnixWare and SCO OpenServer, both based on UNIX System V technology," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group. "SCO owns much of the core UNIX intellectual property, and has full rights to license this technology and enforce the associated patents and copyrights. SCO is frequently approached by software and hardware vendors and customers who want to gain access to key pieces of UNIX technology. SCOsource has established a formal licensing program which will make these technologies available to our partners and customers."

SCO System V for Linux

Customers frequently cite intellectual property concerns as a barrier to their adoption and use of Linux. To alleviate this uncertainty, SCO today is announcing a program that protects customers from any claims to SCO UNIX source code as it pertains to Linux. Customers who purchase a one-time SCO System V for Linux license will be protected and can be assured that the SCO UNIX source code in Linux is authentic and safe from IP patent issues.

"Certain companies in the IT industry would like to see Linux fail and have been spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about Linux and intellectual property," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president for SCO's operating systems division. "Linux came from UNIX and SCO is the core holder of patents, copyrights and source code for UNIX. We are a Linux vendor and want to see Linux succeed in the market, and as a result, we are implementing a program to protect Linux customers from UNIX IP claims."


SCO Creates SCOsource

Page 3

Licensing of UNIX System Shared Libraries

In addition to IP protection, the SCO System V for Linux license will provide access to SCO's UNIX System Shared Libraries for use with Linux. Customers frequently use SCO's shared libraries to allow UNIX applications to run on Linux. In the past, SCO's UnixWare and OpenServer license agreements did not allow these UNIX libraries to be used outside of SCO's operating systems. With this announcement, customers can now legitimately license these libraries from SCO for use with Linux without having to license the entire SCO operating system. This will enable customers to now run thousands of UNIX applications on Linux.

"The most substantial intellectual property in UNIX comes from SCO," said Sontag. "While Linux is an Open Source product, it shares philosophy, architecture and APIs with UNIX. Starting today, SCO's libraries will be available to third-party application developers, OS vendors, hardware providers, services vendors, and end-users. SCO will help customers legitimately combine Linux and UNIX technology to run thousands of UNIX applications. SCOsource plans to create other new licensing programs to make our rich inventory of UNIX System technology available to the market."

Appointment of Boies, Schiller and Flexner

As part of SCO's plans to protect its intellectual property, the company has retained David Boies of the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner for research and protection of SCO's patents, copyrights and other intellectual property.

99-Day Amnesty Period and Pricing

Beginning today, for customers currently making use of SCO's UNIX System Shared Libraries outside of SCO's operating systems or those who wish to gain SCO UNIX IP protection for Linux, SCO is establishing a 99-day amnesty period for customers to gain a SCO System V for Linux software license. During this 99-day period, SCO System V for Linux is available at a discounted price of $99 per CPU. Following the amnesty period, SCO will offer SCO System V for Linux for $149 per CPU. Volume licensing discounts will be available to enterprise customers and OEMs.


SCO Creates SCOsource

Page 4

Beginning in January, SCO is offering customers of SCO Linux Server 4.0 a license to SCO System V for Linux as a free value-add to their use of SCO Linux. Future updates to SCO Linux Server will include a license to SCO System V for Linux.

Parties interested in purchasing the SCO IP Pack license should email SCO at [redacted] or call [redacted] in the U.S. or contact their local SCO office found http://www.sco.com/worldwide. For more information about SCOsource, visit www.sco.com/scosource or e-mail SCO at [redacted].

About SCO

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX), formerly called Caldera International, provides "Powerful Choices" for businesses through its UNIX, Linux and Volution product lines and services. Based in Lindon, UT, SCO has representatives in 82 countries and 16,000 resellers worldwide. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com.

SCO, SCOsource and the associated SCO logo are trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.


  


The Exhibits in Support of Novell's Motion for PSJ on 4th Claim for Relief - Updated | 174 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here, please
Authored by: josmith42 on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 12:20 AM EST
for PJ

---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: josmith42 on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 12:21 AM EST
Clickable links are really cool.

---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

News picks discussions here...
Authored by: josmith42 on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 12:22 AM EST
If you like...

---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SVRX licenses
Authored by: GLJason on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 12:42 AM EST
This makes it clear that those SCOSource licenses were SVRX licenses. Exhibit 7
clearly states that SCO was claiming that Linux infringed on legacy SVRX Unix
code, not UnixWare. In the agreements SCO was, especially later, careful to
only talk generically about 'our rights'. In Exhibit 7 however they clearly
mention Unix rights like those licensed to thousands of other companies and they
can only mean the SVRX contracts. I don't see how SCO can even claim now that
those SCOSource licenses were not 'SVRX licenses' with regard to the APA and
therefore have Novell entitled to the royalties (minus a 5% administrative fee
which would probably be forfeit due to SCO's misconduct).

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Exhibits in Support of Novell's Motion for PSJ on 4th Claim for Relief
Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 01:03 AM EST
I was re-reading Ex8 after PJs comments on the tone of the letter from Mr.
McBride to Mr. Rattie of Questar, and sort of focused on the terms for the SCO
Intellectual Property License with Everyone's Internet (EV1). Exhibit A of the
license (all found in Exhibit 8) describes the license fees as US $1,400,000,
less $600,000 promotional allocation. The question arises, could we expect The
SCO Group to be forced to disgorge the total license fee in the event that the
license is found to be a System V license in the Utah court? The irony would be
profound.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 01:46 AM EST
As an admitted Sun supporter.

I've suggested before that the dates of the Sun agreement clearly imply it was
in the works before the SCOScorce program was launched.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

"filed under seal"
Authored by: gdt on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 02:45 AM EST
Dear PJ,

It may be worthwhile e-mailing Questar asking for a copy of their licensing
agreements with SCO. They may well not be the party that is choosing to submit
the document under seal.

Best wishes, Glen

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Exhibits in Support of Novell's Motion for PSJ on 4th Claim for Relief - Updated
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 07:15 AM EST

Beginning in January, SCO is offering customers of SCO Linux Server 4.0 a license to SCO System V for Linux as a free value-add to their use of SCO Linux.

Yep, looks to my IANAL-type eyes like Caldera was offering new System V licenses. Which they "knew or should have known" that they weren't allowed to do without checking with Novell first.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pervasive Guilt
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 08:28 AM EST
Perhaps it is also becoming more apparent why this summary judgment needs to be
the beginning of the landslide that should wipe out McBride and all the other
folks directly involved in setting up the scheme. This includes BS&F who
went way over the line of "defending a client" and well into the realm
of "enabling criminal behaviour". If this is not done it will send the
message that what we have seen is acceptable business practice. If we see them
ground into the dirt then they will become an example of why not to do it. Too
many business decisions are made based on what can be done as opposed to what
should be done. Daryl had ownership spelled out to him when he asked Novell for
the patents. He went ahead anyway assuming that he, personally, would not be
hurt. He needs to be wrong. Ditto Boise. Ditto some other folks I don't need
to dig out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Footgun That, Like A Cannon, Has A Time Delay Fuse
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 10:04 AM EST
Hey, everybody!

I had a feeling something like this would happen. By trying to create a
seperate trial, they bought themselves some precious delay. But it's a
two-edged sword, and we see that now. Novell just discovered another ace in
their pile.

I knew this wasn't about money. Oh, money's nice, don't get me wrong, but I
knew there had to be a bigger prize they were playing for. And here's the gag:
SCO has squandered all it's good will and better legal representation on the
early stuff, so this critical late stuff won't get the defense it desperately
needs.

Keep this in mind -- each new thing uncovered makes it easier to hammer SCO on
criminal charges. It's like I say, Time is kind to NONE of us.

SCO gambled. I'm with PJ that this whole thing was an attempt to use the legal
system to rewrite copyright laws in cyberspace. PJ should be proud. She
created an insurrection to prevent it from happening. And not only is SCO going
to lose, but the very laws they sought to confound are only getting stronger.

PJ's right. This is fascinating to watch.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"Philosophers love WISDOM, not mankind."
--Rat
"Pearls Before Swine"

[ Reply to This | # ]

"time delay" "fuse" is redundant
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 10:22 AM EST
A "fuse" is a timing device.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What Exhibit 2 tells us
Authored by: timkb4cq on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 11:13 AM EST
So in December 2002, SCOSource was to help protect Linux, but in 2003 it was about charging Linux users for IP violations. What happened in between? The hiring of Boies Schiller & Flexner, It seems to me, that Boies Schiller informed Darl that his strategy would violate the terms of the GPL that was Caldera/TSCOG's only license to distribute Caldera Linux. Therefore SCOSource couldn't be used to protect their own Linux.

In my opinion, Darl decided that SCOSource licensing revenue, forced by lawsuit if necessary, would be more profitable than continuing to distribute Linux and modified SCOSource accordingly.

Of course, that would make all of TSCOG's GPL violations willful. Not that that matters anymore...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The PR in Ex. 2 was never published
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 12:38 PM EST

It's not archived on ir.sco.com, which doesn't prove anything, but SCO mentions in IBM 908 at 10 that it delayed the press release announcing SCOsource until January 2003. (This observation is due to sk43999 on another site.) Considering the quite different licensing terms and pricing in the exhibit, the strategy seems to have evolved quite a bit during the interval.

The most amusing part of Ex. 2 is a quote from Sontag:

"Certain companies in the IT industry would like to see Linux fail and have been spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux and intellectual property," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president for SCO's operating system division.

One wonders which evil companies SCO was protecting Linux from. Surely not the same ones SCO made a deal with to finance its anti-Linux campaign just a few months later?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"...it just hits me hard every time."
Authored by: webster on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 01:44 PM EST
..
--------"Microsoft didn't buy its version until April. In between, SCO sued
IBM, in March. Maybe we've noticed those dates before, and it just hits me hard
every time.--------


1. Why does this hit so hard? If one is hit below the belt by a bully, it
hurts every time. "Every time?" It is still going on. It still
hurts. It has never stopped hurting.

2. It hurts because it is a hostile act.

3. Consider the question: "What if the Monopoly had acquired SCO and took
off on this course themselves? Would it have succeeded?"

3-1 IBM realized that the Monopoly is SCO. The Monopoly did not check with the
Linusians or IBM about this. They just sent a couple days profit at SCO to get
high-powered legal representation in the hopes of destroying Linux, open source
and its big patron, IBM. The Monopoly found IBM making billions off Linux
intolerable. They still do and they will not quit.

3-2 So the question above is wrong. The Monopoly has attacked Linux. SCO
would not have started their letter-writing campaign, and flashing Boies name
without assurances of litigation back-up. This user is convinced that SUN acted
at the Monopoly behest when they purchased their license. SUN millions and the
letter campaign did not do the trick. The Monopoly had to fund the litigation.
Surrogate lawsuits and dubious patents are the weapons of corporate battle.
Compete is too good a word.

4. Novell's PSJ on the 4th claim is a logical extension of the APA and the
August Tenth Decision. SCO must choke on its own words.

5. The Monopoly has created two monsters here. Themselves and the multi-headed
Davids that run around in Open Source. No business or government can stand up
to the Monopoly. Those businesses or governments may not realize it yet, but
they are still fooled by Monopoly "innovation."

5-1 So why can't the goliath crush these Davids. They don't fight fair.
Success is remaining free and open, not selling more than the Monopoly. They
value interoperability efficient code. They improve it willy-nilly. They
encourage and value diverse-purposed distrivutions. They make anti-propietary,
-business decisions and consider that good. Their values are not Monopoly
values. Indeed, some use open code for the mere sake of not using Monopoly
code. They shouldn't get rich. The Monopoly can't let this spread. The Davids
are ganging up and establising a separate ecosystem that doesn't need them.
There is very little one can't do with OpenOffice compared to the more expensive
and locked-in Monopoly Office. More people are realizing this all the time.
That is why MonopolyXML must succeed at all costs.

5-2 FUD and lies don't work when there are better systems out there proving
them wrong. The Monopoly has to purchase and lock-in their believers. With
their huge base and retailer lock-in, they have years of dominance ahead. But
the little alternative keeps their price down somewhat.

6. This user is clearly idle and biding time at the inlaws for the third
holiday. Rambling rants are in order on this expensively-rejuvenated Monopoly
box. The computer man was not cheap. Their solution is to have no one use it.
They have been advised. It will be dragging in weeks. Fortunately Mardi Gras
comes early this year.



---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit 8 The Declaration of Robert A Marsh
Authored by: webster on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 05:11 PM EST
..
1. This is from the IBM litigation.

2. Mr. Marsh admits that he didn't have a clue of what he was getting into. He
says he made a business decision to prevent himself or any of his server
customers from being sued. He soon regretted his decision as he angered many of
his clients and many cancelled his services. He sooned learned a lot, including
Red Hat's defense fund and indemnification. If he had known about these, he
would not have signed with SCO.

3. He makes clear in no uncertain terms that he did not meant to approve or
endorse SCO's interpretation of the Intllectual Property aspects of the deal.
He also required limited PR in the deal and confidentiality of terms. The more
fool he for trusting SCO since they promptly interpreted his action as an
endorsement of their code claims and had more than the one designated person to
talk about the deal. It was a disaster for him. He really should have asked
around.

4. He candidly details all this in his declaration. The lawyers helped him,
but his bitter experience is the source.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Coincidence?
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, December 23 2007 @ 10:30 PM EST
I've noticed that Novell announced the purchase of SUSE on Nov. 4, 2003 or less
than 5 months after Darl's letter to Jack Messman (Ex. 5). Perhaps Novell had
decided to get into a better position to fight back?

---
May the source be with you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO THE NEW MS - The Exhibits in Support of Novell's Motion for PSJ on 4th Claim...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM EST
It offered its customers a free license for SCO's version of Linux, and I think
we can figure out the plan from that. I gather the first plan was to make money
from Linux and use patents to shut down, or get licensing money from, all other
distributions.

Same tune, different partners:

Novell Suise Linux and Microsoft.

Are you sure you aren't thinking about Microsoft as you wrote that? After all,
SCO owned no Unix patents. It seems to me they took patents off the table
fairly early in the game. However if they thought to use patents in the
originally developed scheme, you would think they would know what patents they
were supposedly in possession of.

Four years later and I still can't figure out what they were really thinking.

[ 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 )