|
SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification |
|
Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 12:52 PM EST
|
After nagging and whining for almost a year about the need for Linux vendors to offer indemnification, Darl McBride offers this reaction to Novell's announcement that it is now offering indemnification for enterprise SuSE: "We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position." There needs to be an award for whatever this quality is. It's uniquely Darl, no doubt about it. The fact that it's so unattractive should not blind us to its worthiness as something so outstandingly beyond the usual it should be recognized with an award as an example of... what is it, exactly? Gall seems too small a word. First he claimed lack of indemnification indicated that no one dared to offer it, proving there were "problems" in Linux. Now offering it proves there are "problems" in Linux and the limitations, which are of course standard in any indemnification, prove no one dares to offer much. Just breathtaking. Speaking of indemnification, does SCO offer indemnification for its products? I'd like to see what they offer up on their web site. Wait, there is more.
On their site, taking their cue presumably from Novell's
release earlier of its correspondence with SCO on Novell's web site, now SCO has put up the various agreements they had with Novell, which Groklaw already has made available on our Legal Docs page as well as in the chronological SCO Archives. They also direct folks to a Novell press release, which they claim supports their Amendment 2 giving them IP rights. The SCO statement quotes part of one sentence from the Novell press release: In June 2003, Novell publicly confirmed with a press release, available on Novell's Web site at http://www.novell.com/
news/press/archive/2003/06/pr03036.html, that amendment 2 to the asset purchase agreement "appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996."
Here's the rest of what that press release says, the part SCO left out: To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996. The amendment does not address ownership of patents, however, which clearly remain with Novell. Novell reiterates its request to SCO to address the fundamental issue Novell raised in its May 28 letter: SCO's still unsubstantiated claims against the Linux community.
That just is not the same thing at all. I am amazed SCO would use this as "proof" that they got the copyrights. Nevertheless, McBride's statement reiterates that SCO owns copyrights, etc. and Darl adds that they still plan to come after "infringers" down to the end user level: "Based on the asset purchase agreement, amendments, press releases and other publicly available documents, SCO has rights to all UNIX and UnixWare source code, legal claims, contractual rights, including copyrights, necessary to protect its intellectual property," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc. "Indemnification programs or legal defense funds won't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. SCO is willing to enforce our copyright claims down to the end user level and in the coming days and weeks, we will make this evident in our actions."
Isn't that endearing? If Dark Darl ever wonders at 2 AM why the whole world appears to be now uniting against him, methinks he should read his statements in today's SCO press release. SCO has also put out a press release, a rather odd one, regarding OSDL.
Update: And here's SCO's press release:
SCO Reiterates Ownership of Unix Intellectual Property and Prepares to Press Copyright Claims
LINDON, Utah, Jan 13, 2004 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) today reiterated its ownership of UNIX intellectual property, source code, claims and copyrights and has made all of the documents surrounding the companies ownership of UNIX and UnixWare available for public viewing at www.sco.com/novell . The Web site includes access to the asset purchase agreement, the amendments to the asset purchase agreement, and the joint press release that was issued at the time SCO purchased the UNIX assets from Novell in 1995. The press release confirms that SCO purchased the UNIX "IP" along with the UNIX business and source code, among other things.
The asset purchase agreement, signed by Novell and SCO executives in September 1995, as amended, states that all of the following transferred to SCO:
-- All UNIX rights and ownership
-- All claims against any parties relating to any right, property or
asset included in the UNIX business
-- All UNIX source code
-- All UNIX contracts, copyrights, and licenses
The asset purchase agreement provided Novell with a UNIX license, but with the conditions that Novell use the licensed technology only for internal purposes, or for resale in bundled or integrated products sold by Novell which do not directly compete with the core UNIX products of SCO. SCO believes that a Novell Linux offering is clearly competitive with SCO's core UNIX products.
Amendment 2 to the asset purchase agreement, also available from SCO's Web site, reiterates that the copyrights and trademarks required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies transferred to SCO. It also states that Novell may not prevent SCO from exercising its rights with respect to UNIX System V source code.
In June 2003, Novell publicly confirmed with a press release, available on Novell's Web site at http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/06/pr03036.html, that amendment 2 to the asset purchase agreement "appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996."
"Based on the asset purchase agreement, amendments, press releases and other publicly available documents, SCO has rights to all UNIX and UnixWare source code, legal claims, contractual rights, including copyrights, necessary to protect its intellectual property," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, The SCO Group, Inc. "Indemnification programs or legal defense funds won't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. SCO is willing to enforce our copyright claims down to the end user level and in the coming days and weeks, we will make this evident in our actions."
On the topic of Novell's recently announced indemnification program, McBride stated, "We believe Novell's indemnification announcement is significant for a couple of reasons. By announcing the program they are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through the restrictions and the limitations on the program, they are showing their unwillingness to bet very much on their position."
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services visit http://www.sco.com .
SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of The SCO Group, Inc., in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare 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.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST |
Long-time listener, first-time caller.
PJ, I think the word you're looking for is "doubleplusgoodspeak."
The
SCO Group sure lives in its own, 1984-ish world....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:35 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: Alex on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:38 PM EST
- Chutzpah - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:24 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:46 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:07 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 07:17 PM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 08:31 PM EST
- Darl should receive the Hypocrite of the Year Award - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 11:02 PM EST
- SCOspeak - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:35 AM EST
- SCOspeak - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 10:35 AM EST
- SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 03:29 PM EST
|
Authored by: nealywilly on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:42 PM EST |
This is funny "Based on the asset purchase agreement, amendments, PRESS
RELEASES and other publicly available documents..."
Since when do PRESS RELEASES give anyone rights?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
It is interesting that SCO has to quote Press Releases (out of context to
boot) instead of the legal documents they have posted to their site. They are
betting no one will actually go to the website to read the documents.
To
paraphrase Bugs Bunny, "They don't know us very well, do they?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
>"....they are acknowledging the problems with Linux"
To date, the only proved problem with Linux is SCO's allegations.
Ah... the FUD flows again.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
I'm still waiting for Darl to include Indemnification with it's new licencing
program. this way those licencees will not be sued by the linux kernel
developers if they try to sell closed versions of the products based on code
from the linux kernel.
has this been asked at the teleconferences?
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mhoyes on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST |
I think the word you are looking for is CHUTZPAH. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST |
More of the usual from SCOG.
Reading one of the PDFs show that SCOG was/is in violation of the SCO/Novell
agreement as they were not making the payments as required. Looks like Novell
could tell SCO they just lost all rights to Unix. Period. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST |
. . . "in the coming days and weeks ... " Tack on
"years".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nealywilly on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST |
GO HERE:
http://pacer.utd.uscourts.gov/images/203cv0029400000095.pdf[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DrStupid on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST |
"now SCO has put up the various agreements they had with Novell, which
Groklaw already has made available on our Legal Docs page"
I can't understand why SCO didn't take the load off its hard-pressed web
servers by just providing a link to Groklaw! ;);) ;);)
More seriously, I presume that they are banking on site visitors not actually
reading the documents in conjunction with Novell's letters...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nealywilly on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST |
SORRY FOR FALSE ALARM [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:52 PM EST |
Forbes response re Linux
brothers and SCO...this analyst has a clue
....But independent
software developers, many of whom portray a passionate, teeth-gnashing hatred
for Microsoft, are likely Linux's strongest backers. Lately their wrath has been
visited on SCO as well, as they see the Utah company claiming to own what no one
owns. Linux forces great and small seem to be joining as one.
Has
Lyons been taken off the case?
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:00 PM EST |
I think the Yiddish word chutzpah captures Mr. McBride's behavior perfectly.
Someone once gave this definition of chutzpah:
Chutzpah is the quality of a person who would murder both of his parents and
then plead for mercy from the court because he's an orphan. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ctrawick on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST |
PJ, you need to fix the link to SCO's Novell agreements page.
I remember browsing through that SCO/Novell agreements page last week... I'm
pretty sure that it's not new, and definitely not since Novell posted their
stuff. At least not since I heard about it today. Can anyone else confirm
this?
chris[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST |
Anyone else think this "duel by press release" is getting a bit
silly?
Another thing that's getting old fast, is Darl's constant promising
"you'll see...in the next few days!". And then, nothing happens.
It's all getting to be a bit predictable, and seems like the media should be
starting to notice that very few of Darl's promises of action end up coming
true.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST |
"There needs to be an award for whatever this quality is. It's uniquely
Darl, no doubt about it. The fact that it's so unattractive should not blind us
to its worthiness as something so outstandingly beyond the usual it should be
recognized with an award as an example of... what is it, exactly? Gall seems too
small a word. "
The Inquirer.net called it "outrageous brass" in one article:
"... How SCO could sue IBM after doing this is... simply, splutter,
spit... nothing less than mind-blowingly, outrageous brass!"
http://www.chipzilla.org/?article=9952 -- an 11 June 2003 article:
SCO might recycle AT&T's Unix blunder [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: krow on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST |
Darl's personal response to the Novell Indemnification can be found here. Cheers, Craig
--- Corollary to Clarke's Third Law:
Any technology
distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kalimar on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:20 PM EST |
Wouldn't the fact that someone is willing to indemnify or insure against
something, be a sign that they DON'T think it would happen? Offering to
indemnify users should be a sign that they are pretty sure there's nothing
wrong with Linux _right_now_. That's not to say that someone in the future
might put in something that compromises Linux, but right now the fact that so
many people are willing to say "Hey, we'll indemnify you against at least
SCO" seems to indicate that _right_now_ they think Linux is pretty safe.
Otherwise, why expose themselves to potential loses?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shoden on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST |
http://www.forbes.com/columnists/
Was he freelance? Was he ever listed here?
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nixon on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST |
Just to expand on the above, in a pressrelease from
Jan 12, Darl is quoted:
"If vendors feel so confident with
the intellectual property
foundation under their massive contributions into
Linux, then they
should put their money where their mouth is and protect end
users with
true vendor-based indemnification," said Darl McBride, president
and
CEO, The SCO Group, Inc.
In a pressrelease
the very following day, he is quoted:
On the topic of
Novell's recently announced indemnification program,
McBride stated, "We believe
Novell's indemnification announcement is
significant for a couple of reasons. By
announcing the program they
are acknowledging the problems with Linux. Through
the restrictions
and the limitations on the program, they are showing
their
unwillingness to bet very much on their
position."
Well. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sam on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:39 PM EST |
Let's see, it appears that Darl's mouth has gotten him into at least four,
count 'em four, arguably five different lawsuits. Can he handle them all
simultaneously?
1. SCO V IBM - derivitives, numa et.al., Monterey claims.
IBM v SCO - Lanham Act and patent counter claims.
2. Red Hat v SCO - business interference.
3. SCO v Novell - copyrights and non-compete claims.
4. SCO v End User - software licensing claims.
I think Darl is already off stride a bit. Yesterdays "put your money where
your mouth is" PR was quite defensive, though he seems to have regained
some composure with today's PR.
We'll see how he does with the next IBM court filing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:44 PM EST |
I think the collective state of delirium that SCO management is in cannot be
taken at face value. There must be some reasonable explanation why they're
doing this - a bunch of men don't go crazy all at the same time and same
direction. Their Linux claims already seem to be proven baseless many times, but
maybe the whole hoopla is just a smoke screen for other, more sinister acts?
dennis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST |
Cynicism: Belief that the entire point of human life is the satisfaction of our
most basic natural needs (money), without any respect for social conventions
(freedom, choice).
Thank you, Darl, for the new dimension you've added to the meaning of this
word...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST |
I think the point of this entire charade is to increase the costs of free
software.
Before I could go install Debian, get timely security patches
and so on, all for free. Now, I have to worry about getting sued, which more or
less forces me to either go with vendor indemnification or rely on a more
insurance-modelled approach -- but both of these options cost money.
The
whole point seems to be "See? Linux is just as expensive as everything
else."
I suppose in some ways this was inevitable -- it seems to me that
almost every other social good has been corrupted by the greed of the few.
Welfare, for instance, is great in theory, for those who legitimately need it;
but any welfare system will be abused by those who really don't, and just prefer
it to having to work for a living. And so the costs of welfare programs grow
needlessly high because not everybody wants to play by sane rules.
Or
health insurance in the US. The doctors code the forms to maximize their
incomes, so the insurance companies invariably recode every form they get
from doctors. Legitimate doctors who coded the forms correctly in the first
place then need to call the insurance companies and get the problems resolved --
meanwhile I've been charged three hundred dollars for a doctor's visit my
insurance should have covered.
I'm off-topic though. What I'm trying to
say is, there are forces of greed that wield incredible power, and they are
trying to use that power to prevent the rest of us from living in a sane world.
They refuse to allow us to have free software -- they want everything in the
world to come with a hefty price, and they're doing everything they can to force
us to live in that world. If we want to release our code as free software then
they'll just keep throwing out frivilous lawsuits because they can afford to and
we can't.
Outrage.
But on the positive side, there does seem to be
an awareness of this tactic among the big open source players, and the
unification of forces we've seen in the past week is encouraging. It will make
it that much harder for the next SCO to come along with wild theories about the
GPL raising the Founding Fathers from their peaceful graves so that they can
carry out our evil Communist agenda using newfound undead powers and so
forth.
But other than these provisional steps, what else can be done to
protect free software? How can we help protect the guy with a small database
application on sourceforge from the McBrides of the world?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST |
In a story on Forbes.com SCO is quoted as saying, "Commercial end
users of Linux that continue to use SCO's intellectual property without
authorization are in violation of SCO's copyrights."
Well, duh, but SCO
does not say in this quote that using Linux constitutes using SCO's
"intellectual property" without their permission. Their statement is basically
a tautology that has no meaning outside itself. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: shoden on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 02:57 PM EST |
OK, thanks.
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:02 PM EST |
Whitefang9992000 from yahoo found something interesting, if you think its
important someone send this to PJ:
www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1300411,00.asp
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols interview with Ransom Love.
--------8< quote >8--------
Indeed, at first we wanted to open-source all of Unix's code, but we quickly
found that even though we owned it, it was, and still is, full of other
companies' copyrights.
The challenge was that there were a lot of business entities that didn't want
this to happen. Intel [Corp.] was the biggest opposition.
--------8< quote >8--------
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=1600684464&a
mp;tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=80374
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST |
Ring - Ring, Ring - Ring.....................
[Twenty Minutes Later]
Ring - Ring, Ring - Ring.
(1) Err Hello
(2) Is that S.C.O. Sales Desk
(1) Err, Umm, I think, err yes it is.
(2) I am interested in getting a product brochure, I was about to hang up
though. Our Company needs a Unix Solution.
(1) Sorry, actually, Im the cleaner, everyone is busy Im affraid, all leave
cancelled, the receptionist is busy making coffee, even the programmers are on
the photocopiers, and Darl, the boss, well he's up on the roof and the board
are trying to talk him down safely.
(2) Err, not to worry, I'll try someone else.
(1) Yeah probably best, Everyone here says Linux is much better anyway!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST |
A direct copy from:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/Final_SCOsource_QandA.html
(is it legal to do this?)
>>
Is SCO going to sue Linux vendors?
SCO is a Linux vendor and a member of United Linux. We have no interest in suing
Linux vendors. While we haven’t formulated the details of our new SCOsource
effort, we’re confident that we can work together with other vendors to clear up
IP issues in a fair and amicable way.
<<
wonder what their definition of "amicable" might be?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stray on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:20 PM EST |
For the sake of clarity, I will refer to The Santa Cruz Operation—now
Tarantella, Inc.—as SCO/Tarantella and SCO Group—formerly Caldera Systems—as
SCO/Caldera.
Hold on! That document SCO/Caldera provides on their
web site was between SCO/Tarantella, not SCO/Caldera. Wasn't one of the
stipulations of the 1995 Asset Purchase Agreements that some IP rights
SCO/Tarantella acquired (and the ones that SCO/Caldera is talking about here)
would revert to Novell upon resale or transfer of the old Unix
code?
Can someone look this up for me? I'm still waiting to finish
downloading the zip-file from Novell (it's really getting hammered). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST |
I was suffering from FW (FUD Withdrawal)
I'm much better
now.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST |
I think the word you're looking for is "hutzpah" which defined as
"Utter nerve; effrontery"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:48 PM EST |
SCO's Notice of
Compliance re: IBM
Discovery [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST |
www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/noticeofcompliance.pdf
They are stonewalling, reportedly have handed over 60 pages of stuff, and
repeating the "we'll be able to explain what IBM has done wrong after IBM
hands us all the code they have ever written".
And because fo the holidays, they didn't have time to get the files from all
the persons. Sheesh - the company has billions on the line (if they are to be
believed), a judge ordered them to produce stuff, and they SHUT DOWN for
holidays? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST |
Although it was not huge, SCOX suffered another loss on the big board at the
NYSE. However, I think the five day trend is more telling: a loss of $2.25 per
share (18.10 --> 15.85 as of 3:45 PM EST).
SCOX has been in slow tumble all day, following a rather sharper downturn
beginning on Monday morning (01/12/2004). Between the numerous indemnifications
that are being plied against Linux, the financial community appears to be wising
up. The SCO case looks weaker by the day. With Novell's release of documents
today, the writing appears to be on the wall: SCO will have a very difficult
time proving its claim in the face of counter-claims that appear well
documented.
Even McBride's vehement statements today could not halt the increasing tailspin
of the SCO stock price. They had best come up with something more convincing in
the next twelve days, or life for SCOX will become meager.
Truth ultimately prevails when even the lies about lies crumble so readily
under scrutiny.
RDH[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maco on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST |
Someone mentioned Mel Brooks - yes! - in the grand traditon of Charlie Chaplin
in The Dictator and Mel Brooks in The Producers, this has the
makings of some serious comedy. Thank you Darl! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST |
I posted this off-topic earlier:
------------------
In looking at
the APA, including Amendment 2, we see the following. The sale wasn't
"Everything UNIX-related", as SCO would have it. It was just what was listed in
the list of Assets minus what was listed Excluded Assets. All patents are
excluded. All copyrights and trademarks are excluded, except some are included.
The ones that are included are those owned by Novell and which are also
"required by SCO to excercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX
and
UnixWare technologies".
"Acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare
technologies" is not "access to licensing revenues" nor is it "protection of
technologies". It simply means the implementation of the agreement. The
document throughout refers to "UNIX and UnixWare" as what's being
sold.
-
What UNIX technology is SCO trying to acquire that now makes
owning UNIX copyrights necessary?
-
Does "required" mean that if SCO can
exercise its rights to acquire a UNIX technology without the copyright, it
doesn't get the copyright?
-
Does "required" also imply "sufficient"?
That is, just
because SCO would need a certain copyright in order to "exercise
its rights" to acquire a UNIX technology, does that mean they get the copyright
even if they also would need ten other things they don't have?
-
In
order for SCO to use the copyright in court, it would have to be registered.
Even if Novell owned a copyright, neither SCO nor Novell could exercise that
right unless it were registered. Does "owned by Novell as of the date of the
Agreement required by SCO to exercise its rights" mean the copyrights that had
been registered at that time?
-
Is the set of UNIX copyrights
transferred to SCO subject to extension whenever SCO thinks it needs them, or
was the set fixed at Closing, or was it all of them?
-
Was the set of
copyrights transferred to SCO
empty?
-------------------
Schedule 1.1(a)
Assets
1. All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare and Auxiliary
Products,
including but not limited to ...
[...]
Schedule 1.1(b)
Excluded Assets
I. Any asset not listed on Schedule 1.1(a) including
without limitation ...
[...]
V. Intellectual Property
A.
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks
owned by
Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its
rights
with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare
technologies.
--- (I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
I think a new take on an old concept suits Dressup Darl, in light of his biz
model.
So, how about this:
Pre Darl, PR stands for Public Relations,
after Darl, it stands for Public Rotations.
How he can do that
without getting dizzy is something fascinating, yet I do NOT want to
know.
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST |
Actually, everyone agrees the problem is SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seeks2know on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST |
I've done a little research regarding SCO's selling of UNIX licenses
to
Microsoft and Sun - and Novell's claim that SCO owes them 95% of
this
revenue. (Some of this is repeated from an earlier post of mine
in a
different thread.)
First of all, some readers were asking whether
Microsoft and Sun
Microsystems were existing UNIX licencees. They answers are
yes
and yes.
Was Microsoft an existing UNIX
Licensee?
From Wikipedia's
page
defining
Xenix:
Microsoft
purchased a license
for UNIX
7th Edition from AT&T in 1979,
and announced on August
25,
1980.
also
Microsoft transferred
ownership
of
Xenix to SCO in an agreement
that
left Microsoft owning 25% of SCO. However,
Microsoft continued to use
Xenix
internally, submitting a patch to support
functionality in UNIX
to AT&T in
1987,
which
trickled down
to the
code base of both Xenix and SCO
UNIX.
----
-
Was Sun an existing UNIX
licensee?
From web
page at FressBSD.org:
In
particular,
Sun
Microsystems
licensed UNIX and implemented a version
of 4.2BSD,
which they
called SunOS™.
And from the
Wikipedia's
page
on Sun Microsystems:
The Sun 1 was
shipped
with
Unisoft
V7 UNIX. Later in 1982 Sun provided a customized 4.1BSD
UNIX
called SunOS
as an
operating
system for
its workstations
but later along with AT&T it
integrated BSD UNIX and System
V into Solaris,
w
hich is rather akin to System
V.
-----
Next question: Does
SCO owe Novell 95% of revenue from
existing UNIX license revenue?
In Novell's
December 23rd letter to SCO on this subject:
At no
time
did SCO
consult with
Novell on this issue -- notwithstanding Novell's
95%
interest in
revenues from these SVRX licenses.
From the 1995
Novell-SCO
Asset Purchase Agreement Schedule paragraph
1.2(b):
Royalties. Buyer agrees
to
collect and pass through
to Seller one hundred
percent (100%) of the
SVRX Royalties as defined and
described in Section 4.16
hereof. Seller
agrees to pay Buyer an administrative
fee of five percent (5%) of
the
SVRX Royalties.
-----
Finally does SCO have the authority to modify an
existing license
agreement without Novell's approval?
The answer comes
from the APA, of course:
4.16(b) Buyer shall not, and shall
not have the
authority to, amend,
modify or waive any right under or assign any
SVRX License without the
prior written consent of Seller.
-----
Perhaps the deal with Microsoft did not involve a
SRVX Licence?
Per SCO's
press
release:
LINDON, Utah, May 19, 2003 -- The SCO®
Group
(SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX®
operating system, today announced
it has licensed its UNIX technology
including a patent and source code licenses
to Microsoft®
Corporation.
Well, discard that theory...
(Although I am confused by what
patent SCO could have licensed. Perhaps all the
value is in the
patent and none in the source code?)
-----
On the
subject of the Sun license, the details are a little more
sketchy. I could not
find a SCO press release on this
topic. However, I did find this comment in
their December
2003 8-K filing with the SEC:
SCOsource
licensing initiative was $10.3 million, and
was derived from
licensing agreements reached with Microsoft Corporation and
Sun
Microsystems,
Inc. earlier in fiscal 2003.
So, SCO says the
revenue from Sun was the result of a license
agreement. Since it is reported as
SCOsource revenue, I assume
that this related to the UNIX technology that was
purchased from Novell
by OldSCO. After all, SCO defines SCOsource on their
website in
the following manner.
SCOsource is a new business
division to manage its
UNIX® System
intellectual
property.
-----
I am sorry, but I can't see much wiggle
room for SCO here.
--- "Two things are infinite; the Universe and
human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the Universe."
- Albert Einstein
regarding The SCO Group's exec team [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 08:11 PM EST |
"what is it, exactly? Gall seems too small a word."
I think it's what's known in Yorkshire as "brass neck".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 09:00 PM EST |
I'd like to know how exactly someone is going to indemnify me if SCOG's
complaint against me is based upon the presumptiont that I made copies of Linux?
Isn't that my action not my Linux vendors?
Just playing devil's advocate....
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
I came, I saw, I stuck around.
IANAL, etc...
Remember, just because SCO says it's so doesn't make it so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 03:05 AM EST |
Mohammed Saeed
al-Sahaf! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 03:21 AM EST |
The interview with Novell is about the SuSe buy. I found the following
part funny (emphasis are mine):
we soon found out that we needed
to have a [Linux] distribution. So we said, 'we are as good as those guys are,
why don't we go put it together ourselves?' As a matter of fact the SCO
thing had surfaced and we said hell we'll call it
Kleenex.
h@ns [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST |
The idea that Darl would sue any one and every one because of his other views of
the GPL meaning no one controls Linux, but every one does means he never did see
indemnification as a way of protection. What Darl does is try to make every
thing right and wrong at the same time. These type of ethics will always makes
him right, at least in his own mind. The rest of us that don't have our heads
in the sand will see him going left and right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST |
There is a word to describe what Darl keeps doing. It's called a "Double
Bind". It's very difficult for people's brains to accept this because we
unconsciously try to put things in order. Where if someone says "you are
wrong if you do this", our brains assume that if we don't do this or we
do the opposite, we are right. It's only natural. But then if after, the same
person comes and says "you're still wrong" then our minds get
confused and angry. We need to understand the logic and put things in order to
be at peace.
Well, there IS NO order to a circular self fullfilling argument. It's
impossible to argue or prove wrong because the logic behind the argument is
wrong to begin with and that's precisely the way it's intended.
Anybody can make up half truths and unverifiable statements. And then come up
with more to counter any arguments.
It IS quite possible to be right every single time if you never have to back up
what you say with actual facts. And it's also impossible to counter unfactual
arguments WITH facts. Anybody can counter Darl's arguments by just saying
"No I own UNIX". And they'd be just as right as HE is and the
argument would be over. He'd say "You're wrong, if I wanted to, I could
prove it but I wont." And you could reply " NO, if I wanted to I
could prove it too, but I won't either"
and so on till the end of time.
There is NO argument without facts and there is nobody right without PROOF.
None of witch as been presented by SCO so arguing Darl's statements is useless.
There are no facts to argue over.And when there are, the interpretations are all
wrong.
---
No guns, no bombs...just brains
The way it should be.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST |
SCO is making threats in the UK now according to Vnunet:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1152026
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 11:42 AM EST |
SCO's own documents contradicted their statement on their Novell Document
website. On their website, just b4 the documents, It says that it purchased the
UNIX rights according to Schedule 1.1A. What it fails to mentioned is that
Schedulre 1.1A must be intepreted together with Schedule 1.1B (Excluded asset)
as required in the APA Section 1.1(a). Schedule 1.1B(V)(A) originally said No
Copyright/Patent transferred to SCO except trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.
Amendment 2 (also on SCO website) amend it. Some people argues that Novell has
doubt on whether Amendment 2 exists or not as they cannot find it on their file.
However, there is no indication in Novell's letter that they dispute the
validity of the amendment, in fact, they provide answers to SCO assuming the
amendment is valid. Nonetheless, Novell's interpretation is transfer is only
required if SCO can demonstrate it *need* it for to fulfill its obligation, but
SCO says *all* IP had been transfered. Novell's is of course more logical.
It brings me back to one of the TV program that shows how a con-artist stays
within the limit of the law because of different interpretation. That guy was
taking money from people by offering them job as "Area Manager". The
text in the advertisement:
With our help, posters and mail shots can be sent to thousands of potential
customers and we will split the profit 50-50 between the company and you.
The question is : Who prepare the posters and mail shots? Company or you?
Answer: you.The company will only help you to prepare it.
Why? it is the comma between "help" and "posters" that
makes the difference!
In SCO case, there is not even a comma to consider...
Hence SCO is bigger conman?? Hmm....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|