|
|
| SCO objects to claims by Citi Financial, Snow Christensen and Mark J. Lange |
 |
|
Monday, July 20 2009 @ 01:01 PM EDT
|
SCO objects to several more claims, including Snow Christensen & Martineau's. If you are getting that deja vu feeling, you'd be right. SCO got their $100,000 claim tossed once, and the firm, SCO says, filed again, and it asks [PDF] that this claim also be tossed. Snow Christensen would prefer not to have its claim disallowed, I gather. This is the law firm that helped Caldera beat Microsoft into a settlement in Caldera v. Microsoft. SCO general counsel Ryan Tibbitts was with the firm back then. The firm accepted shares in SCO as part payment. Big mistake.
Here are the filings:
844 -
Filed & Entered: 07/16/2009
Objection to Claim
Docket Text: Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) Citi Financial, Inc.. /Debtor SCO Group, Inc.'s Objection to Claim of Citi Financial, Inc.. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit A # (2) Certificate of Service and Service Lists) (Makowski, Kathleen)
845 -
Filed & Entered: 07/16/2009
Objection to Claim
Docket Text: Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) Snow, Christensen & Martineau. /Debtors' Objection to Claim of Snow, Christensen & Martineau. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit A # (2) Certificate of Service and Service Lists) (Makowski, Kathleen)
846 -
Filed & Entered: 07/16/2009
Objection to Claim
Docket Text: Objection to Claim Number by Claimant(s) Mark J. Lange. /Debtors' Objection to Claim of Mark J. Lange. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1)
Exhibit A # (2) Certificate of Service and Service Lists) (Makowski, Kathleen)
What makes the one against Citi Financial interesting is that there is a 2003 update license for UnixWare attached as an exhibit [PDF]. On page 4, we learn that Citi Financial "bought a license to use an operating system called the 2661 SCO UnixWare 7.1.3 in November of 2003", specifically SCO Update Add-On for UnixWare 7.1.3, departmental edition NCB/NCP. It filed a contingent Proof of Claim, saying that is SCO no longer supported the software or rejected the license agreement, Citi's damages would be "in excess of $3 million". As of the date of the filing, back in April, SCO was still supporting the software. That's the contingent part, with Citi just putting its foot in the door, so as to assert its claims if ever SCO left it in the lurch. That was April. It's now July. And SCO now objects to this claim, on the grounds that it is based on a contingency that has not happened to date. It asks the court to disallow the claim, saying only if and when the contingency happens should the claim be considered. Page 8 is the Certificate of Right to Install and page 10 is the Certificate of License and Authenticity. The software license agreement begins on page 12.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
| Is Citi trying to get SCO to say its purchaser will honor these contracts? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
Please post corrections to this article below this message, including a sample
of the text in error and any suggestions or proof of what the corrected text
should be.
---
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
Please post any messages about Newspicks below this message, using the title of
the Newspick as the subject.
---
http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Arthur Marsh on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 01:26 PM EDT |
Please post messages to do with subjects other than this Groklaw article or
Newspicks below this message, using HTML mode if possible when including links
to other web sites like this: http://www.example.com. ---
http://ww
w.unix.org/what_is_unix.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 01:35 PM EDT |
One of the Exhibits to Citi's claim is a copy of their license. It is very
similar to the earlier SCO Licenses.
It says in part:
"You may load, copy or transmit ths Software in whole or in part only as
necessary to enable the Software to be used up to the permitted number of Users
on the permited number of computer systems and CPUs."
It is only slightly different from the original SCO version.
The Document is dated 1/10/2008.
This rest of it is also almost identical the old SCO licenses. The only
significant change I see is that the prohibition against reversle compling is
strengthen from the original SCO wording;
"You may not reverse compile the Software for any purpose."
To the more expansive;
"You shall not modify, decompile, disassemble, decrypt, extract or reverse
engineer the Software for any purpose.
I wonder which version AutoZone has. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mattflaschen on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
IANAL, but the way I read it, the authority (law) SCO cites for Citi Financial
states exactly the opposite of what they need it to say. The text (Code Section
502(b)) is (emphasis added):
"The court, after notice and a
hearing, shall determine the amount of (a J claim in lawful currency of the
United States as of the date of the filing of the petition, and shall allow such
claim in such amount, except to the extent that ... such claim is unenforceable
against the debtor and property of the debtor, under any agreement or applicable
law for a reason other than because such claim is contingent or
unmatured."
So the court can not disallow a claim solely
because it is contingent. Contingent claims are par for the course, and are
specifically mentioned among other places § 101 5 of the Bankruptcy Code
(emphasis added):
"The term “claim” means—
(A) right to payment,
whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated,
fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal,
equitable, secured, or unsecured; or
(B) right to an equitable remedy for breach
of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether or not
such right to an equitable remedy is reduced to judgment, fixed,
contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, secured, or
unsecured." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jheisey on Monday, July 20 2009 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
Citi Financial's claim looks to be bogus. I do not see anything in the contract
exhibits that stated that Citi Financial was entitled to perpetual product
support. Indeed, it provided only a ninety day warranty and stated that Caldera
might optionally provide updates. These were not required by the contract. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
