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
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.


  


SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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: 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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

A word for Darl
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

Bluffing, as usual
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:45 PM EST
. . . "in the coming days and weeks ... " Tack on
"years".

[ Reply to This | # ]

ALERT: NEW DOC IN PACER HOLDING AREA
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

OOPS: IGNORE LAST POST
Authored by: nealywilly on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 01:47 PM EST
SORRY FOR FALSE ALARM

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

um... SCO taking Novell's cue?
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

Would you indemnify if you thought there were problems?
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 | # ]

OT: Forbes Columnists ... where's Lyons
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

Can Darl handle four lawsuits simultaneously?
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 | # ]

Deeper than it seems
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 | # ]

... what is it, exactly? Gall seems too small a word...
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 | # ]

New Costs to Free Software
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO is very, very, busy.
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 | # ]

SCO Says it has no interest in suing Linux Vendors
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 | # ]

UNIX rights reversion?
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 | # ]

PJ, Thanks so much, ...
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Delivers the goods to IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 03:48 PM EST
SCO's Notice of Compliance re: IBM Discovery

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO's notice of compliance is up
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 | # ]

Financials React to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO's Contribution to the World
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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.

  1. What UNIX technology is SCO trying to acquire that now makes owning UNIX copyrights necessary?
  2. Does "required" mean that if SCO can exercise its rights to acquire a UNIX technology without the copyright, it doesn't get the copyright?
  3. 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?
  4. 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?
  5. 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?
  6. 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 | # ]

Darl's New Acronym
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 | # ]

They are acknowledging the problems with Linux
Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, January 13 2004 @ 05:51 PM EST
Actually, everyone agrees the problem is SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Claim to SCO Revenue
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

I've figured out who Darl reminds me of...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 03:05 AM EST
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interview with Novell
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

SCO Reacts to Novell's Indemnification
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 | # ]

Economy with the truth
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 | # ]

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 )