We have the transcript of the summary judgment motions that were argued on April 30th, in the middle of the SCO v. Novell trial. But there's an odd notice on the Docket list. We actually have had the transcript for a couple of days, but there is this notice on the court's docket:

**RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on April 30, 2008-Motion for Summary Judgment before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura W. Robinson, CSR, RPR, CP, [Telephone number].

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/4/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/16/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/12/2008. (jmr)

So that is the holdup. I'm trying to find out if we can publish the version we purchased. I think the notice is something Utah does for all transcripts now, and I see nothing in the transcript that would qualify as something secret. But out of respect, I'm waiting until I can make sure. However, while we wait, there is nothing stopping me from telling you what I read, and once the ban is lifted, I'll provide the PDF.

Organize corporate records files SCO Global, Inc. (1.25), review disclosure schedules and e-mail messages from client concerning disclosure schedules (.3); discuss schedules with D. Marx and update schedules according to conversation with same (1.3)

What is SCO Global? Why now? And why does SCO Global keep cropping up? I first noticed SCO Global's corporate documents mentioned in Dorsey & Whitney's first bill, and I asked at the time what SCO Global does, but I didn't follow through. This time, I did. After following the thread as far as I can, it seems that at a minimum, SCO Global is one of the US subsidiaries that SCO wants to sell, as you can see by the now withdrawn York deal's proposed and withdrawn ABA, where it is listed as a signatory Seller. I'll show you what I've found.

472 - Filed & Entered: 05/12/2008
Hearing Cancelled. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Docket Text: HEARING CANCELLED. Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing. Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. Hearing scheduled for 5/15/2008 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Service and Service List) (Werkheiser, Rachel)

I thought at first SCO must have given up, but no. The status line reads like this: "This matter has been continued to the hearing on June 17, 2008 at 2:00 p.m." SCO never gives up.

I know you are wondering about the docket entry just before this, #471, and the delay is because I got intrigued by one element in the bill from Dorsey & Whitney, and I'll tell you what I have been researching in connection with it in the next article.

But earlier, there was an exhibit attached to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its 4th Claim for Relief, namely Exhibit 7 [PDF], a May 12, 2003 letter from CEO Darl McBride to Questar CEO Keith Rattie. We never had time to do it as text back in December when it was filed, but I have time now, especially now that we see it matters, and it so, so clearly shows that back in 2003, SCOsource absolutely was about Unix System V, the original AT&T code "licensed by AT&T to approximately 6,000 companies and institutions worldwide", as SCO describes it in the letter, and not UnixWare, which isn't mentioned at all and couldn't be described that way. So here is the letter as text, for the record, and happily the judge has this exhibit in hand.

It's so funny, after the August 10th Utah decision that informed SCO it doesn't own the copyrights to Unix it claimed, to read McBride's description of proprietary software as carefully built in a process "designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code." He contrasts Linux as being a kind of anonymous free for all, with no one caring about who owns what. How hilarious that in fact the court ruled that is was proprietary SCO who didn't know who owned the UNIX code. So much for carefully monitoring IP ownership rights. As for security, I give you Microsoft's record in that department. Exhibit A.

With respect to Blender, what can you tell me about your community/user feedback that you have heard regarding file formats? Specifically, Microsoft is slowly shifting toward a more open standards based approach to its file formats. The ISO standard Office Open XML is an example of the direction we are moving towards. A good user experience of Blender on Windows is good for your project/community and good for Microsoft. What we are trying to understand is what file formats, which are not open or not fully open, are impeding the optimal experience with your community.

OOXML is an example of openness? They're kidding, right?

While on the surface, one might think this is an example of greater openness on Microsoft's part, I thought it would be probably a good time to point out Microsoft's competitive strategy against Linux and FOSS. I think this is an example of its announced strategy to "outsmart Linux", as Ballmer put it, using "openness" -- a Brand X, tilted version of it -- to do it.

The GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers. These benefits include lower prices, better access and more innovation.

Just in case Skype is thinking deep second thoughts tonight.

Well, today was the hearing, and Welte reports that one of the judges told Skype's lawyer that if a copyright owner wants a publisher to publish his book in a "green envelope" (dust jacket), it might seem odd to the publisher, but he can't publish without the green envelope. In short, don't touch the GPL code if you don't follow the requirements of the license.

Like it or lump it. I think that's how one would translate into English the judge's mindset.

At that, after a break, Skype decided to accept the lower court decision and skip the appeal. And so the GPL wins again.

To all those who don't like the license: you don't have to use it. Just write your own code. But if you want to use GPL code, the license comes with it. It's a package deal. Thanks.

They seem to be running out of things to do, which may explain why Tanner has applied to the court for permission to audit SCO's 401K next.

But what was more interesting to me was a piece of "evidence" that he tried to introduce into the record via his testimony. It's a letter from 1996, I believe this letter [PDF] to Prentice Hall, the publishers, about who to contact regarding certain Unix works. The timing is after the APA in 1995. This may be the low water mark in the SCO saga's "evidence", so I thought I'd go over a few details about it. For sure, the SCO lawyers, at least, had to know that it doesn't prove what McBride tried to use it to prove, although they did quote from the letter in SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its 4th Counterclaim for Relief, and in Support of SCO's Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment , a motion Novell won in the August 10 decision. So, the letter didn't help SCO at all then, and it is unlikely to do so now.