|
|
| There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar |
 |
|
Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:00 AM EST
|
Scott Lazar, who wrote the Grinch That Stole Linux for Groklaw, has been inspired again, this time by the last article where I wrote, "So that's the plan, Stan", and has come up with another parody for us, Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows. Enjoy.
*********************************
Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows,
by Scott Lazar
"The problem is all inside your OS",
Linus said to me
The answer is easy if you
Take it logically
I'd like to help you in your struggle
To be free
There must be fifty ways
To leave your Windows
He said it's really not my habit
To intrude
Furthermore, I hope my coding
Won't be lost or misconstrued
But I created it myself
Despite IBM being sued
There must be fifty ways
To leave your Windows
Fifty ways to leave your Windows
CHORUS:
Ooo try the new Red Hat,
Or the new SuSE, Bruce
You don't need XP Pro, Joe
Just get yourself free
Hop on the F/OSS, Gus
You don't need to spend much
Just download with ease, Lee
And get yourself free
Linus said it grieves me so
To see your server in such pain
I know there is much you can do
To make it secure again
I said I appreciate that
And would you please explain
About the fifty ways
Linus said why don't you
Just give it a try tonight
And I believe very shortly
You'll begin to see the light
And then I tried it
And realized Linus was absolutely right
There must be fifty ways
To leave your Windows
Fifty ways to leave your Windows
CHORUS:
Ooo try the new Red Hat,
Or the new SuSE, Bruce
You don't need XP Pro, Joe
Just listen to me
Hop on the F/OSS, Gus
You don't need to spend much
Just download with ease, Lee
And get yourself free
Copyright © 2003 Scott Lazar
In appreciation and thanks to Paul Simon.
http://www.paulsimon.com/index_main.html
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST |
Before that will happen - there must be games, games, and more games.
I am speaking as a father of one 13 yo girl and a 9 yo son.
We are using Linux on our 2nd (slower) machine, but the kids won't touch it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Technically right, but - Authored by: hhouwaard on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Liassic on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:22 AM EST
- Psst... Wanna download a game? :) - Authored by: penfold on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:31 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: tclark on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:38 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:52 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: mac586 on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
- Tuxracer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:16 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:03 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Captain on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: CPD on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:22 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:45 AM EST
- Yeah, maybe if cosoles didn't stink - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:26 AM EST
- If you're kids like pool... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:42 AM EST
- XMAME ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST
- XMAME ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:09 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: robert on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:17 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:59 AM EST
- There are lots of games in there - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:03 AM EST
- Games? - Authored by: rc on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST
- get a ps2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST
- All these suggestions and no one has mentioned Neverball? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST
- Win XP no good for games either - Authored by: Magpie on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST
- Linux for home desktop - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST
- POV From A Game Industry Insider - Authored by: ZeusLegion on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:10 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:56 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:35 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:38 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: jdos on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:50 PM EST
- Morphix Gamer Live CD - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 09:31 AM EST
- 50 ways to leave windows.....maybe but... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 10:34 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 11:20 AM EST
- Technically right, but - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 11:44 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST |
Whistle, whistle. Wahoo. Encore! Encore!
clap clap clap clap clap
Very nice. Clever.
Where's my lighter?
TFL
I hope Paul Simon doesn't take this wrong...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST |
As a testimonial, I finally got rid of the Win95 partition on the 5x86 120 in
the basement over the weekend, replacing it with Caldera OpenLinux 2.3. The
process was smooth and seamless in comparison to the torture of a Win install
(in dim recollection after ~7 years). Performance is quite good and hardware
autodetection got essentially everything, with the expected exception of the
ProSonic 16, which I'll have to probe for using the isapnptools (included in
the distro). I now have an adequate, multiuser machine from what had been an
obsolete hulk. Kudos to Caldera for a well packaged distro. Thanks Darl.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:36 AM EST |
| :D [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:03 AM EST |
| What? The lyrics aren't gpl'd? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPL ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:15 AM EST |
If you want people to leave MS Windows and move to Linux then the following
situations are going to have to be addressed.
This is based on installation Mandrake 9.1 in a IBM Thinkpad A30P and may not be
representative of other’s needs.
Equipment
1. The version of Thinkpad being reviewed came factory equipped with a modem and
two Ethernet ports – one for DSL and one for IBM’s version of internal
wireless.
2. The computer also comes with a joy stick type mouse and a video port for an
external monitor.
Issues are based on a non techie ability to configure the system WITH OUT
additional technical help.
Issues
1. The modem supplied is a Lucent Technology Win Modem. While there are Win
Modem drivers for some Lucent Technology Win Modems the one in the Thinkpad is
not currently supported. To solve this issue a full PCMCI modem is being used.
2. One can easy configure the Thinkpad to use either the Ethernet or the modem
but NOT BOTH. Note this is a laptop so it is moved from location to location at
which some have wireless, some only DSL, some only phone and unfortunately
others nothing. So while all means on connection are required only one is used
at a time.
3. This being a laptop it is used for presentations. Configuration of the
external video port is NOT a configuration option.
4. This laptop uses a joy stick for a mouse. Two button mini mice are readily
available that work very well. Configuration of two mice is not a configuration
option.
5. Open Office Word is currently about on par with MS Word 4. Major issue is cut
and past special characters specifically tab and paragraph controls plus others.
Modification of these control codes is paramount in reconfiguration of certain
word process documents for presentation in a usable format.
6. Open Office does not have an easy configurable simple data base for use with
small sets of data.
7. Cut and Past has to be made to work at all times. Currently cut and past
works great in Gnome or KDE but not between Gnome programs and KDE programs.
Note: As a techie I have all these items working in MY computer.
BUT!
As far as a none techie ability to handle these issues that is another matter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:41 AM EST |
I am running Red Hat 9 on a AMD K6-2 366 MHZ and it is slower than slow. Much
slower than Windows 98. Yet I see some say the Linux they are using is much
faster than Windows. I have 196 MB RAM on a Chaintech motherboard with Award
BIOS and a 20 GB hard drive which I would think to be more than adequate. Can
someone please point me to somewhere or someone that can help me get it up to
speed?
Thanks.
---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Don't use KDE/GNOME - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:55 AM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: IANAL on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:13 AM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:47 AM EST
- More - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:57 AM EST
- Slow - and I wanna go fast! - Authored by: rc on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 11:00 AM EST
- OT: RH9 speed trials? - Authored by: Anon Ymonus on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: pscottdv on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:09 PM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: lpletch on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:00 PM EST
- There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Windows, by Scott Lazar - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:12 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST |
Ah, man, I always get to the concert late.
This is based on
installation Mandrake 9.1 in a IBM Thinkpad A30P and may not be
representative
of other’s needs.
I'm not sure I'd pick Mandrake for a laptop. Maybe
Xandros 2.0 would work better for you. It has more of a business flavor about
it (formerly Corel Linux). It comes with CodeWeaver so you can run MS Word,
Excel and Photoshop right out of the box.
5. Open Office Word is
currently about on par with MS Word 4. Major issue is cut
and past special
characters specifically tab and paragraph controls plus others.
Hmmm,
which version of OO comes with Mandrake? Is it 1.0 or 1.1? I'd give OO Writer
in 1.1 a better rating than Word 4. Even started using it at the office to make
our forms because you can export them as PDF's.
I'm always amused by
people who say x-y-z have to be addressed before Linux can go anywhere. It's
going just fine. Windows issues aren't any less vexing, it's just a different
set of problems. With XP it's bloat, speed and security.
Personally, I'd
rather deal with the setup issues and have a more secure PC at the end than have
a no brainer set up and have to constantly worry about the virus of the day. My
buddy has an XP network at the office. He spends more time working on his five
machines in a week than I work on any of my Linux boxes in six months. And
every time I go in that pop-up spyware has wiggled its way back on to his
machines again. Nothing like bringing a customer in and having porn pop ups
flashing invitingly on the desktops. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:50 AM EST |
NZ SCO (contains SCO quotes)
http://www.computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/UNID/D37286F3D6AE3273CC256E21000F7AE6?Op
enDocument
Red Hat warranty
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1445761,00.asp
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=47334
Australia SCO (SCO quotes)
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39119204,00.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:05 AM EST |
i believe the correct term to be "fair use" which covers parody and
educational purposes and.
What Weird Al needs permission to get is the music and not the text,
since he doesn't modify the music (and if he did it can hardly be called
parodic IMO)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:22 AM EST |
Actually my slightly older kids (15 and 17) will fire up Linux to play the KDE
and GNOME games... but dont really care to use it for anything else... They
inform me that I am a geek and that Linux is for geeks...(neither of which is
really true, but how do you argue logically with those who prefer to use win98!
)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:40 AM EST |
Good job!
Might I suggest "Hop on the F/OSS, Boss" for a slightly better
rhyme?
I've long felt that the FOSS movement needed some catchy tunes.
---
He who sells / What isn't his'n / Is headed for / Some time / In prison /
Burma-Shave
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST |
Im 16 and i think saying that linux *needs* games is a fallacy, i play games in
win98 and my school work and internet browsing in linux, as linux is free it
dosent really disadvantage me other than i know my school work isnt going to die
on me (like it has in windows) due to some "Sercurity Flaw" so i
dont think it is needed to conquer the desktop but it would be cool if linux
could play all my windows games.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST |
| The
Princess Bride
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST |
(Warning! Keyboard immersion alert!)
Back in '76 Rolling Stone produced a list of 50 ways to leave your lover, most
more whimsical than Simon's (like "Get on the trolley, Ollie"). In
that spirit I set out to compile a list of fifty ways to leave your Windows, but
so far have only gotten so far as 30. Perhaps the community can supply the
rest?
(c) 2004 Scriptwriter, released under the GPL.
Fire up the FOSS, Boss
Put your data on the bus, Gus
Load a copy of vim, Jim
Look it up in man, Stan
Write your apps in C, Lee
Make Google your pal, Al
No more BSoD, McGee
Don't need no SCO, Joe
Stick it to Bill, Phil
Never have to reset, Chet
Make your Pentium fly, Guy
Liberate your CPU, Stew
Load up the SUSE, Bruce
Do an install, Paul
Compile your kernel, Vernal
Turn the monitor on, John
Set your pager to less, Jess
Make an RPM, Clem
Use a USB drive, Clive
Your TCO's fallin', Colin
Filter your spam, Sam
Your computer will rock, Doc
Get your Ethernet set, Rhett
Take your privacy back, Jack
Escape DLL hell, Mel
No more registry woe, Moe
Get away from the FUD, Bud
Connect your database, Ace
Serve your stuff on the web, Jeb
Write the scripts in Perl, Earl
---
He who sells / What isn't his'n / Is headed for / Some time / In prison /
Burma-Shave
irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST |
Vaporware: Nuke 'Em
if Yoa Got 'EmMeanwhile, dishonorable mentions go to SCO for
the as-yet-unseen Unix code that the company alleges was ripped off in Linux,
and to Microsoft for its "secure computing initiative" and the ever-slipping
ship date for Longhorn, which is shaping up to be a very promising candidate for
the Vaporware awards in 2006, 2007 and maybe even 2008.
very
appropos including these two companies in the same paragraph.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:37 PM EST |
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/20/1728236&mode=thread&tid=110&
amp;tid=187&tid=88
http://www.redhat.com/apps/redirect.apm/about/presscenter/2004/press_OS_assuranc
e.html?rhpage=/index.html/ent_news**[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stanmuffin on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST |
Here is
Enderle's latest fluff piece on Linux. I'll let you read his convoluted view of
marketplace FUD for yourself, but I couldn't resist posting this quote. Take a
look at this incisive analysis:
One of the ways you can tell is
by looking at the recent financial numbers from HP (NYSE: HPQ) and IBM. IBM is
reporting about US$1 billion in Linux-related revenue, while HP is reporting
$2.5 billion. To me, that says the value of indemnification and not being
part of the SCO action is worth $1.5 billion to HP and has cost IBM at least
that much in lost revenue.
Is this what analysts are
supposed to do? He hasn't looked into the differences between IBM's and HP's
business models, or even determined whether the two figures are actually
comparing the same thing. He just ascribed the difference between the two
numbers to the fact that HP offers indemnity.
That seems to be a very
hasty conclusion to me. Maybe HP's Linux revenue figures include toner
cartridge purchases from Linux-based datacenters. You never know. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:51 PM EST |
While we are doing parodies ...
If you want to see Sorry Carly I
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031204233657111#c30141
You walked into the courtroom like you were walking onto a yacht
Judge Wells strategically punched below one eye
Your tie it was on too tight
You had one eye in the mirror as you watched yourself gavotte
And you dreamed that you could extort any Unix partner
Dollars from your partner, and....
You're so vain, you probably think this site is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this site is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
Caldera sued Microsoft years ago when everyone was still quite naive
Well you said that they made such a pretty penny
a much larger payoff you did conceive
But at SCO you wasted away the things you bought and one of them was UnixWare
You had some dreams they were clouds in my kernel, clouds in my kernel and....
You're so vain, you probably think this site is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this site is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
Well I hear you went up to Redmond your extortion somehow won
Then you flew your Lear jet up to Santa Clara to see the total collapse of the
Sun
Well, you're where you should be all of the time
And when you're not you're with
Some underworld spy or spewing out new FUD
A scumbag lawyer trying to sue a customer, and....
You're so vain, you probably think this site is about you
You're so vain, I'll bet you think this site is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 01:51 PM EST |
I'm not giving you the link. I'm not providing a quote. Suffice to say that
Enderle has proven yet again just what a feeble witted one note flack he is - I
look forward to him completeing his ascent into the lightbulb of professional
suicide, only so I can immediately forget him.
Thanks again,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST |
Skip the ELUA, Bula
DeCrypt the DOC, Spock
Cut the Updates, Bates
Pick your own Codex, Joe-dex
Stop that WinCE, Vince
The (ms)Blasters, in the Past, Marcass
-- Tom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST |
Wheres the .mp3 for it?
;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 02:50 PM EST |
If there was a version of Quicken and TurboTax for Linux, I believe people would
try Linux at home. Until this happens, there won't be any great migration from
MS Windows to Linux. I have two boxes at home, one Linux and one Windows, and I
have very little reason to use the Linux box. I like it better, but even with
the fact it does not have the problems Windows does, I don't have any real
reason to use it exclusively. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iZm on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:14 PM EST |
M$
dirty
dealings again.
---
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own
reward. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST |
| Are We Running low on SCO Scoop? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maxhrk on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:36 PM EST |
Hello Pj, been while since i post on this groklaw.net I just hiding and click to
see what's up on groklaw.net without making any comments. :).
Anyway I got mandrake 8.2 up and running good and yes it is old product anyway,
not anything new. few months back when my monitor broken down so i have to wait
few month and get new one and had mandrake up and running good. I am still
learning about linux and all that.
Anyway, Some browser act weird sometime and i cant even install newer version of
glibc (RPM) instead of old one. it is funny that my mozilla browser exit
silently without any display of error.
finally, other than that, I likes it. I am about to buy new SuSe by next month
hopefully. I am still learning slowly in process to know about linux. :)
Cheer.
P.S. execuse my grammar errors if any.
---
Sincerely,
Richard M.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST |
Sco to sue Novell...
http://biz.yahoo.com/pr
news/040120/latu099_1.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 03:41 PM EST |
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK3.story&STORY=/www
/story/01-20-2004/0002092621&EDATE=TUE+Jan+20+2004,+03:25+PM[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:09 PM EST |
| SCO is now suing Novell for "Title Slander". Heres
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK3.story&STORY=/www
/story/01-20-2004/0002092621&EDATE=TUE+Jan+20+2004,+03:25+PM the link to
the story.
---
only the soul matters in the end [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:16 PM EST |
1. What happened about the Novell audit?
Novell have been waiting on a response for some time and I don't see a SCO
response on Novell's site.
I was under the impression the deadline (on SCO) was now or near.
Could it pre-emptive SCO strike because of this?
2. SCO presumably intend to give some of the docs that Santa had, to IBM
imminently.
Presumably that includes the Sun and Novell licenses from SCO.
If IBM gets them, maybe SCO is worried how Novell would react (see point 1, my
understanding is these are among the issues of the audit).
Could it pre-emptive SCO strike because of this?
3. Has IBM responded at all to SCO's Jan 12 filing?
I've noticed that (nearly?) everybody on groklaw who has commented, seems to be
thinking, that things are likely to go south for SCO in the IBM case soon.
Could it pre-emptive SCO strike because of this?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST |
Here's the body of the PR
Statement
LINDON, Utah, Jan. 20 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO
Group, Inc., the owner of the UNIX® operating system and a leading provider of
UNIX-based solutions, today filed suit against Novell for its alleged bad faith
effort to interfere with SCO's rights with respect to UNIX and UnixWare®. Among
the allegations in the suit:
* Novell has improperly filed
copyright registrations in the United States Copyright Office for UNIX
technology covered by SCO's copyrights.
* Novell has made false and
misleading public claims that it, and not SCO, owns the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights.
* Novell has made false statements with the intent to pause
customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.
* Novell has
attempted, in bad faith, to block SCO's ability to enforce its copyrights.
*
Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its copyrights, its
business, and its reputation.
The lawsuit, filed in Utah
State court, in Salt Lake City, requests preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief as well as damages. The injunction would require Novell to assign to SCO
all copyrights that Novell has wrongfully registered, prevent Novell from
representing any ownership interest in those copyrights, and require Novell to
retract or withdraw all representations it has made regarding its purported
ownership of those copyrights.
"SCO takes this action today given Novell's
recent and repeated announcements regarding their claimed ownership of the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights. SCO has received many questions about Novell's actions
from potential customers, investors and the press. Although SCO owns the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights, Novell's efforts to claim ownership of these copyrights
has forced this action," said Mark Heise, partner, Boies, Schiller and Flexner,
LLP. "We encourage the public and commercial Linux users to read the Asset
Purchase Agreement from 1995 (including Attachment E found at
www.sco.com/novell) and Amendment 2 so they can see for themselves that SCO owns
the copyrights to UNIX and UnixWare."
The lawsuit seeks damages in an amount
to be proven at trial for Novell's alleged slander of SCO's title to the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights. In addition, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages in an
amount to be proven at trial for Novell's malicious and willful
conduct.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: minkwe on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST |
Was attachment E available before?
It appears SCO bought copyright to programmer guides and manuals. If Heise is
referring to them in the press release, the it means the bofoon thinks
attatchment E refers to unix code. :)))
---
SCO's lawsuit is a little like locking the door on Martin Luther King Jr.'s jail
cell and expecting to stop the civil rights movement. [C|net][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST |
Hmm, heating up a bit, check article
The lawsuit, filed in Utah State court, in Salt Lake City,
requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as damages. The
injunction would require Novell to assign to SCO all copyrights that Novell has
wrongfully registered, prevent Novell from representing any ownership interest
in those copyrights, and require Novell to retract or withdraw all
representations it has made regarding its purported ownership of those
copyrights.
Bob
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST |
When is the Open Group going to step in and mention that they own the trademark
to Unix? I mean they have been on the sidelines for far to long.
---
only the soul matters in the end[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:21 PM EST |
What are the chances someone in SLC can get to the courthouse by the end of the
day?
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST |
Surely SCO must be the holder of the highest legal costs to profit ratio in
history :-)
It's difficult to know what SCOv2 can do now. Having to fight for clear
ownership of Unix copyright in the courts is going to take years, cost a
fortune, and in the mean time nobody will be buying licenses. But Unix is just
not worth the fight -- whats the estimated value of Unix? $50M or so? That's
about the same as the recent cash injection -- but now even that money has a
doubtfull ownership. I would guess that Novell will put in a claim for it's
95% share and ask the court to freeze it until the claim is settled.
It's a good day to die, SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: davew33 on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:30 PM EST |
This just in: SCOX has sued Novell for slander...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/01/20/HNscosuesnovell_1.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: atul on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:37 PM EST |
Like the IBM case, it's not directly a copyright case, it's over something
else called "Slander of Title".
Here's part of a post on the Yahoo SCOX board defining what this is. I get the
impression that it's normally applied to real estate, not copyrights, but doing
so isn't out of the question.
==============
Here's more on "Slander of Title":
Slander of Title
To recover in an action for slander of title, a party must allege and prove: (i)
the utterings and publishing of disparaging words; (ii) that they were false;
(iii) that they were malicious; (iv) that special damages were sustained
thereby; (v) that the plaintiff possessed an estate or interest in the property
disparaged; and (vi) the loss of a specific sale. Malice is a basis for recovery
of actual damages in a slander of title case means merely that the acts must
have been deliberate conduct without reasonable cause. A patent may well be the
subject of a slander of title action as Prosser and Keeton state that intangible
interest such as "trademarks, copyrights [and] patents" may be the
subject of the tort.
As compared to other "injurious falsehood" causes of action, slander
of title or property differs in that there is no presumption of damages. The
plaintiff must show that he or she sustains special damage proximately,
naturally and reasonably resulting from the alleged slander. Attorneys' fees
are not recoverable in slander of title actions, and neither damages to
reputation nor consequential mental damages are recoverable in action for
slander of title. The plaintiff must prove the loss of a specific sale, i.e.,
that a pending sale was defeated by the slander. However, the reasonable expense
of litigation necessary to remove the doubt, or cloud, from the property or
title thereto has been held to be recoverable. Additionally, punitive damages
are also recoverable in an action for slander of title. Thus, as was the case
with a defamation cause of action, a plaintiff should allege that defendant's
actions were both intentional and with malice.
"Emerging State Law Claims Prompted by Patent Enforcement"
By Paul C. Van Slyke
h++p://articles.corporate.findlaw.com/articles/file/00644/008654
============== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:37 PM EST |
complaint is up at http://www.sco.com/novell/
complaint_filing_jan_20_2004.pdf [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
If Novell and SCO lock into a court dispute on the Unix copyprights, wouldn't
it be reasonable to suspend the IBM trial until the issue is resolved?
Or will only the copyright infringment parts be iced? Any guesses?
(Or even better, knowledgable answers?)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 05:41 PM EST |
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/01/20/210253.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=18
5&tid=187&tid=88&tid=99
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040120/latu099_1.html
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:10 PM EST |
SCO EXPECTS NO RESPONSE FROM NOVELL
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3301341
"The timing is unrelated to the [LinuxWorld] show," SCO spokesman
Marc Modersitzki told Internetnews.com.
Modersitzki said the suit was filed this morning, and Novell has not yet
responded. "We don't expect any response," Modersitzki added.
"Some of the responses Novell has offered prior to today have confused
customers as to the ownership of Unix. We want to clarify that."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:11 PM EST |
According to:
http://www.sco.com/novell/complaint_filing_jan_20_2004.pdf
SCO is being represented by Kevin McBride!
Steve[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:31 PM EST |
SCO sues Novell - retaliation expected
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 20/01/2004 at 21:15 GMT
Get The Reg wherever you are, with The Mobile Register
The SCO Group has sued Novell, claiming the born-again Linux company is
interfering with SCO's right to collect money from Linux users.
The 'Slander of Title' suit - which is invoked when ownership of a contested
property has not yet been established by the courts - seeks to block Novell from
filing further UNIX™ copyrights that SCO claims are rightfully its own.
At issue is the 1995 agreement which Novell says transferred some rights to the
SCO Group - but not the rights that SCO says it has, and that it needs to pursue
its IP claims against IBM and Linux users. SCO's move isn't unexpected , and
many anticipate that Novell will file a suit declaring that SCO has broken the
1995 agreement. Novell has been auditing SCO for compliance in recent weeks, and
without the agreement SCO would have little basis on which to pursue its wide
ranging IP licensing strategy.
"We encourage the public and commercial Linux users to read the Asset
Purchase Agreement from 1995 (including Attachment E found at
www.sco.com/novell) and Amendment 2 so they can see for themselves that SCO owns
the copyrights to UNIX and UnixWare," said Mark Heise of law firm Boies,
Schiller Flexner in a canned statement.
SCO is also asking for punitive damages from Novell. ® [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PM on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:32 PM EST |
This lawsuit against Novell must surely leave SCO's licencing scheme in
tatters. That is unless SCO can win some immediate injunctions against Novell
which won't happen.
The lawsuit can only be one big PR stunt to keep that stock price high. It
probably came as no surprise to Novell, as its actions have been pretty
provocative recently (with good cause).
Novell, wisely, will want to keep its mouth shut. However it should take the
opportunity of using its defence filing as a PR release. Hopefully the info
will get through to the brainless one eyed twits in the financial media.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST |
IANAL, IMHO:
1. I've read the SCO complaint
It seems to suffer from the usual confusion between Old-SCO (Tarantella) and
SCO/Caldera
There seems to be some interesting quoting style. For example, the quote of
Novell's CEO containing "absurd", in SCO's complaint is linked to
the copyright registrations - but in the text of the letter as published by
Novell, seems to be linked to Darl McBride's allegations of a conspiracy
against SCO by Novell + IBM
2. Attachment E
http://www.sco.com/novell/attachmente.pdf
I only scanned this -- is there anything in there which is not a manual or
specification (i.e. a document as opposed to actual source code).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 06:52 PM EST |
Sorry my formatting is broken.. I've attempted to follow the original document
line breaks (with the exception of the adresses in the
beginning)
Please note any typos in this thread.
[Stamp:
FILED 04 JAN 20]
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark R. Clements (7172)
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
10 West Brodway, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah
84101
Telephone: (801) 363-6363
Facsimile: (801) 363-6666
Kevin P. McBride (4494)
1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite
900
Santa Monica, California 90401
Telephone: (310)
393-1080
Facsimile: (310) 393-1214
Stephen N. Zack
(pro hac vice pending)
Mark J. Heise (pro hac vice pending)
BOISE,
SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
100 Southeast Second Street, Suite
2800
Miami, Florida 33131
Telephone: (305)
539-8400
Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
Attorneys for
Plaintiff The SCO
Group,
Inc.
*-*-*-
********************
IN THE
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF
UTAH
********************
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NOVELL, INC.
a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Civil No.
040900936
Judge: Anthony B.
Quinn
*-*-*-
Plaintiff, The
SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO")
sues Defendant Novell, Inc. ("Novell") and alleges
as
follows:
1. NATURE OF THIS ACTION
1. Through
an Asset Purchase Agreement
dated September 19, 1995, as amended ("Asset
Purchase Agreement," attached
hereto with amendments as Exhibit "A")
wherein Novell
received 6.1 million shares of SCO
common stock, valued at
the time at over $100 million
in consideration, SCO, through
its
predecessor in interest, acquired from Novell all right,
ttile, and
interest in and to the UNIX
and UnixWare business, operating system, source
code, and all copyrights related
thereto, as well as all claims arising
after the closing date
against any parties relating to any
rihgt,
property, or asset included in the business.
2. In
attachment E of Novell's
Disclosure Schedule to the Asset Purchase Agreement
(Exh.
A at Attachment E), Novell provided a
list of approximately 106
copyright registrations
(encompassing 8 pages) covering
products relating
to the business transferred to SCO.
3. In the course of
exercising its
rights with respect to UNIX and UnixWare, SCO has
filed
for copyright protection with the
United States Copyright
Office.
4. In a bad faith effort to interfere
with SCO's
exercise of its rights with respect to UNIX and
UnixWare technologies,
Novell has, in
disregard of its obligations under the Asset
Purchase
Agreement, and subsequent to
the Asset Purchase Agreement, filed for copyright
protection in the same UNIX technology
covered by SCO's
copyrights.
5. Recently, Novell repeatedly claimed
publicly
in press releases and otherwise that it, and
not SCO, owns the UNIX and
UnixWare
copyrights.
*-*-*-
6. Novell
has made such statements with
the intent to cause customers and
potential
customers of SCO to not do business
with SCO and to slander and
impugn the ownership
rights of SCO in UNIX and UnixWare, and
to attempt,
in bad faith, to block SCO's ability
to enforce its copyrights
therein.
7. Novell's false and misleading
representations
that it owns the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights has caused and is
continuing
to cause SCO to incur significant irreparable harm
to its
valuable UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights, to its business, and its
reputation.
8. Through this action for slander of
title
against Defendant Novell, SCO seeks the following:
a) a preliminary and
permanent
injunction: (i) requiring Novell to assign to SCO all
subsequently registered copyrights
Novell has registered in UNIX and
UnixWare;
(ii) preventing Novell from
representing in any forum that
it has any ownership
interest whatsoever in the Unix
and UnixWare
copyrights; and (iii) requiring
Novell to retract or withrdraw
all
representations it has made regarding its purported
ownership of
the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights; and
b) actual, special, and
punitive
damages in an amount to be proven at trial based on
Novell's slander of SCO's title
and interest in the Unix and UnixWare
copyrights.
II. PARTIES JURISDICTION AND
VENUE
9. Plaintiff SCO is a Delaware
corporation with its
principal place of business in Utah
County, State of
Utah.
*-*-*-
10. Defendant Novell is a
Delaware
corporation wiht its executive offices and headquarters
in
Waltham, Massachusetts that it does
business in the State of Utah, has
a registered agent in
Salt Lake County, Utah, and lists a
sales office
located at 15 West South Temple, Suite
500, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
11. This Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over
this matter persuant to section 78-3-4 of the
Utah
Code.
12. This Court has personal
jurisdiction over Novell
because Novell transacts substantial
business in the State of
Utah.
13. Venue is proper in this Court
persuant to section
78-13-7 of the Utah Code.
III. FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
14. Schedule 1.1(a) to the Asset
Purchase
Agreement provides that SCO, through its
predecessor in interest,
acquired from
Novell:
I. All rights and ownersihp of
UNIX
and UnixWare, including but not
limited to all versions of UNIX
and
UnixWare and copies of UNIX
and UnixWare (including revisions
and
updates in process), and all
technical, design,
development,
installation, operation and
maintenance information
concerning
UNIX and UnixWare, including
source code, source
documentation,
source listings and annotations,
appropriate engineering
notebooks,
test data and test results, as well as
all reference
materials and support
materials normally distributed by
[Novell] to
end-users and potential
end-users in connection with the
distribution
of UNIX and UnixWare...
II. All of [Novell's] claims
arising
after the Closing Date against any
parties relating to any
right,
property or asset included in the Business.
(Exh. A,
at Schedule 1.1(a) I and II)
*-*-*-
15.
In Amendment No. 2 to the Asset
Purchase Agreement, Novell and SCO made clear
that
SCO owned all "copyrights and
trademarks owned by novell as of the
date of the [Asset
Purchase Agreement] required for SCO to
exercise its
rights with respect to the acquisition
of UNIX and UnixWare
technologies,"
and that Novell would no longer be liable should
any third
party bring a claim against
SCO "pertaining to said copyrights and
trademarks"
(Exh. A, Amendment No. 2 to the Asset
Purchase Agreement
dated October 16, 1996 at 1)
16. Software technology is
valuable
only insofar as the intellectual property contained therein
is
protected from unlawful
misappropriation. Copyrights provide critical
protection
against misappropriation established by
the United States
Congress under the Copyright
Act. SCO required the full
copyright
protection it purchased from Novell to enforce its
rights in
UNIX and UnixWare technology,
including proprietary source code,
against
infringing parties.
17. Based on the clear
and unambiguous
terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement and
Amendment No. 2
thereto, SCO is the
sole and exclusive owner of all copyrights related
to
UNIX and UnixWare source code and all
documentation and peripheral
code and systems related thereto.
18. Novell, with full
knowledge of
SCO's exclusive ownership of the copyrights related to
UNIX
and UnixWare, has embarked on a
malicious campaign to damage SCO's ability
to
protect its valuable copyrights in UNIX
and UnixWare. In particular,
Novell has
wrongfully asserted ownership over UNIX
and UnixWare
technologies by filing for
copyright protection in its own name,
and has
made numerous false and misleading
public
*-*-*-
representations
disparaging SCO's
ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
and
claiming that it, and not SCO, owns the
UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights.
19. Novell's false oaths and misleading
public
representations and wrongful assertion of
ownership rights in UNIX
and/or
UnixWare include, but are not limited to, the following:
a)
Despite the clear language of the
Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment No.
2
thereto, on May 28, 2003, Novell's
Chairman, President, and SCO Jack
Messman
("Messman") based at
Novell's headquarters in Waltham,
Massachusetts, publicly
claimed that Novell did not transfer
the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights to SCO
and that "SCO is not the owner
of the
UNIX copyrights." Messman's statement
was published in several
newspapers,
including the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret
News, and was
timed by Messman to be
released on the eve of the release of SCO's
quarterly statements.
b) In a letter dated June 6,
2003,
directed from SCO to Novell, SCO brought to
Novell's attention
Amendment to to
the Asset Purchase Agreement that clearly
evidences
that the UNIX copyrights
were in fact transferred from Novell to
SCO.
c) Following Novell's receipt of
SCO's June 6, 2003,
letter, Novell issued a press
release dated that same date
which
recanted Messman's prior statement claiming
Novell owned UNIX
copyrights stating
"[t]he amendment [to the Asset Purchase
Agreement]
appears to support SCO's
claim that ownership of certain copyrights
for
UNIX did transfer to SCO in
1996."
d) In a letter of the
same day, June
6, 2003, directed to SCO, Joseph Lasala, Novell's
General Counsel based at Novell's
headquarters in Waltham,
Massachusetts,
continued to call SCO's claims
"absurd" and
"unsubstantiated."
e) In a letter to SCO on June 26,
2003,
from Joseph Lasala, Novell's General Counsel
based at Novell's
headquarters in
Waltham, Massachusetts, Novell acknowledged
that
Amendment No. 2 "appears to
support a claim" by SCO to "some
copyrights",
but at the same time, Novell called
SCO's claims of
ownership of UNIX and
UnixWare "simply wrong" and
declared "that we
do not agree with SCO's public
statements in this
matter."
f) In a letter from Joseph Lasala,
Novell's
General Counsel based at Novell's
headquarters in
Waltham,
Massachusetts, dated August 4, 2003, Novell responded
to SCO's
registration of UNIX System
V copyrights with the United States
Copyright Office, and explicitly
"dispute[d] SCO's claim to ownership of
the
copyrights-"
g) Despite Amendment 2 of the
Asset
Purchase Agreement that clearly established
SCO's ownership of
the copyrights,
Novell continued with its unfounded and
malicious
campaign to slander SCO's
ownership of the copyrights. In fact, Novell,
again falsely asserted ownership of
UNIX copyrights by submitting twelve
certifications beginning on September
22, 2003 through October 14, 2003, to
the
United States Copyright Office. In
these certifications, Novell
publicly claimed to
be the copyright owner of several
versions of UNIX,
including the following: (1)
*-*-*-
UNIX System V/386 Release 4 Version
3; (2) UNIX System V/386 Release 4
2;
(3) UNIX System V/386 Release 4
Version 4; (4) UNIX System V/386
Release 3
2; (5) UNIX System V/386 Release 3 0;
(6) UNIX System V/386
Release 4 0; (7)
UNIX System V/386 Release 4 1ES; (8)
UNIX System V
Release 3 2/386; (9)
UNIX System V Release 3/386; (10)
UNIX System V
Release 4 2MP; (11) UNIX
System V Release 2; and (12) UNIX
System V
Release 4 1ES/386. Novell
published its false certifications to
the
world by placing them online at its website.
h) Also on
October 10, 2003, Novell
publicly filed under oath with the United
States
Copyright Office four different
iterations of a "Declaration
Regarding Ownership"
of UNIX copyrights TXU-510-028,
TXU-511-236,
TXU-516-704, TXU-516-
705. In each of these sworn
documents, Novell
declared "that it retains all or
substantiall all of the ownership
of
the copyrights in UNIX, including the U.S.
Copyright Registration
referenced
above."
i) In a press release dated
December
22, 2003, Novell, despite its June 2003 statement
that SCO
owns the copyrights, Novell
stated that "it owns the copyrights in UNIX,
and has applied for and recived
copyright registrations pertaining to
UNIX
consistent with that position."
j) In a
press release dated January
13, 2004, Novell again knowingly and
wrongfully
made the false claim that "it
retained ownership of [UNIX]
copyrights."
20. Novell's false oaths and wrongful
claims of
copyrights and ownership of UNIX nad
UnixWare are in bad faith and
consitute
a knowing and intentional disregard for the
truth.
*-*-*-
21. Novell's wrongful
claims of
copyrights and ownership in UNIX and UnixWare have
caused, and
continue to cause,
irreparable harm to SCO, in the following
particulars:
a) Customers and potential customers
of SCO are unable to
ascertain the truth of
ownership in UNIX and UnixWare, and
make
decisions based thereon; and
b) SCO's efforts to protect
its
ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, and copyrights
therein, are subject
to a false cloud
of ownership created by
Novell.
IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Slander of
Title)
22. SCO realleges and incorporates all
prior
paragraphs by this reference as if fully set
forth
herein.
23. SCO is the sole and exclusive
owner
of all copyrights related to UNIX and UnixWare
source code and all
documentation and
peripheral code and systems related
thereto.
24. Novell has slandered SCO's title
and rights to
its UNIX and UnixWare copyrights and
damaged SCO's business reputation
and
relationships with potential customers by making
false oaths of
cownership to public
officials, and by repeatedly representing both to the
public in general and directly to
several of SCO's customers and
potential customers that
Novell, and not SCO, owns the UNIX and
UnixWare
copyrights.
25. Novell's representations regarding
its
purported ownership of UNIX and UnixWare are
patently false, and Novell
made such
representations intentionally, maliciously, and with
the utter
disregard for the
truthfulness
thereof.
*-*-*-
26. As a consequence of
Novell's
conduct as alledged herein, SCO has incurred actual and
special
damages in an amount to be
proven with at trial.
27.
Novell's conduct as alledged herein
was intentionally and maliciously designed
to destroy
SCO's valuable rights to the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights and
further destroy SCO's
business livelihood. As such, this
Court should
impose an award of punitive damages
against Novell in an amount to
be
proven at trial.
V. PRAYER FOR
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SCO prays this
Court grant
relief against Defendant Novell in
favor of SCO as
follows:
1. For actual and special damages in an
amount to
be proven at trial for Novell's slander of
SCO's title to the UNIX and
UnixWare
copyrights;
2. For punitive damages in an amount
to
be proven at trial for Novell's malicious and willful
conduct as
alleged herein.
3. For a preliminary and
permanent
injunction (a) requiring Novell to assign to SCO any and
all
copyrights Novell has registered in
UNIX and UnixWare; (b) preventing Novell
from
representing in any forum that it has
any ownership interest
whatsoever in the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights; and (c) requiring
Novell
to retract or withdraw all representations it
has made regarding its
purported
ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
4.
For attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and all other legal
and equitable
relief deemed just and proper by
this
Court.
*-*-*-
VI. JURY TRIAL
DEMAND
SCO demands trial by jury on all issues
so
triable.
DATED this 20th day of January,
2004.
By: [Signature]
HATCH JAMES &
DODGE
Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
BOIES,
SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Stephen N. Zack
Mark J.
Heise
Keven P. McBride
Attorneys for
plaintiff
Plaintiff's Adress
355 South 520
West
Lindon, UT 84042
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ATTN: SCO complaint as text - Authored by: BigTex on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
- "UNIX and Unixware" - Authored by: atul on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:23 PM EST
- ATTN: SCO complaint as text - Authored by: rand on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:30 PM EST
- can SCO delay IBM cases - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST
- ATTN: SCO complaint as text - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:34 PM EST
- Typos - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:49 PM EST
- More Typos - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST
- Sources of Quotes - Authored by: SkArcher on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:41 PM EST
- Misleading Statement - Authored by: SkArcher on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:15 PM EST |
Has SCO shot itself in the other foot?
For the first time, SCO is admitting to the whole world that it does not have
clear title to the property they say they do, and that everyone else apparently
agrees. An excellent hook for SCO's would-be extortion victims not to cave in.
And an admission that press releases aren't going to cut it anymore.
Could a preliminary injunction cut both ways? Be nice to see the judge enjoin
both sides from making or enforcing claims about this property -- including
(hope against hope) a gag order?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:34 PM EST |
Hi all, (i know this doesn't fit into this thread)
i'm from germany and read the whole SCO-FUD the last few months. there are some
news now on the heise-newsticker saying that sco sues novell.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.01.04-013/
Basically it says that novell left out one document when it lately claimed their
copyrights on unix.
this one should by the central document showing that novell doesn't have any
more rights on unix.
http://www.sco.com/novell/amend_apap2.pdf
i am no expert on justice, so plz someone comment this[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:35 PM EST |
1. From SCO complaint
19. Novell's false oaths and
misleading public representations and wrongful assertion of ownership rights in
UNIX and/or UnixWare include, but are not limited to, the following:
d)
In a letter of the same day, June 6, 2003, directed to SCO, Joseph Lasala,
Novell's General Counsel based at Novell's headquarters in Waltham,
Massachusetts, continued to call SCO's claims "absurd" and
"unsubstantiated."
2. Where the quote comes
from:
I have received your letter to Jack L. Messman with
respect to "Novell's May 28, 2003 Press Release."
For your information,
Novell has today issued a press release with respect to Amendment No. 2. A copy
is attached for your ease of reference.
Your letter contains
absurd and unfounded accusations against Novell and others, coupled with
a veiled threat to publicly state those allegations in a SCO press call to be
held today at 11:00 am EST. Novell continues to demand that SCO cease and desist
its practice of making unsubstantiated allegations, including the
allegations contained in your letter of June 6, 2003.
3. On
the face of it, it seems that Novell alleges that SCO sent a letter that
contains "absurd", "unsubstantiated", "unfounded" allegations against Novell...
rather than Novell making claims about SCO's copyrights in this
letter.
So the question is what letter is Joseph A. LaSala, Jr. in item
2 (above)?
Well it thanks to GROKLAW it only takes a moment to look up,
and I've highlighted the allegations, that Novell is presumably referring
to.
In a well-orchestrated press release on May 28, 2003
entitled "Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux," you
stated:
"Importantly, and contrary to SCO's assertions, SCO Is not the
owner of the UNIX copyright."
As you know, your accusation that SCO
does not own the UNIX copyrights was false and was without a good faith basis
for belief. The documents clarifying this issue have been In your possession
for nearly seven years. Any question of whether the UNIX copyrights transferred
to SCO under the Sept. 19, 1995 Asset Purchase Agreement was clarified in
Amendment No. 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 16, 1996. You
either knew or should have known of Amendment No. 2 prior to issuing your press
release attack against SCO's ownership rights of the UNIX copyrights on May 28,
2003. Therefore your conduct in this matter was either maliciously or
recklessly intended to harm SCO's share value and customer
relations.
As to the question of whether your conduct was
malicious or reckless, we have a direct statement that Chris Stone, an executive
employee working closely with you on this matter, stated that the timing of your
May 28, 2003 press release was intended to coincide with our earnings
announcement that occurred later that day, I am also concerned that IBM
may have possibly been involved in your decision to issue this groundless press
release based upon statements you made in our telephone conversation on June
5th.
You should know that your actions may have been serious
violations of the United States securities laws. Your press release, coupled
with its intended timing to coincide with our May 28 earnings announcement
appears to have been deceptive and manipulative conduct intended by you to
artificially depress SCO's stock price in violation of the Federal securities
laws, including but not limited to SEC Rule 10b-5.
SCO will hold a
press call today at 11:00 am EST to clear up this matter so that our
shareholders and customers are fully aware of SCO's rights with respect to the
UNIX copyrights, You have time before that call to take the following corrective
action in order to possibly mitigate any liability on the part of you, Jack
Messman, and Novell, to SCO and to your own shareholders for your false and
groundless accusations:
1. Affirm publicly that Novell has not
retained any rights in and to the UNIX copyrights.
2. Affirm publicly
that all UNIX copyrights transferred to SCO pursuant to Amendment No. 2 to the
Asset Purchase Agreement.
3. Voluntarily disclose to us in a clear and
forthright manner the date and substance of all conversations between Novell,
its management and/or counsel, and IBM, its management and/or counsel with
respect to the question of SCO's copyright claims to UNIX.
4.
Voluntarily disclose to us in a clear and forthright manner the date and
substance of all conversations between Novell, its management and/or counsel,
and IBM, its management and/or counsel with respect to Novell's decision to
issue the May 28, 2003 press release and the timing thereof.
These
public statements and information about your communications with IBM regarding
the topics identified above need to be presented to our satisfaction today
before 10:30 EST.
You are further instructed to retain for future
discovery all notes, phone records, emails and other communication by and among
Novell management and/or counsel and IBM management and/or counsel since and
after March 6, 2003.
Thank you for your immediate attention to these
important matters.
Yours truly,
Darl McBride
President
and CEO
The SCO Group, Inc.
4. So, in short:
(i)
Darl writes a letter containing a bunch of allegations about Novell (quoted as
item 3)
(ii) Novell replies that SCO's allegations are "absurd"
"unfounded", "unsubstantiated" (item 2)
(iii) SCO claims that Novell's
response to SCO's allegations, was a statement about SCO's
copyrights!
IANAL, IMHO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST |
| Just Learn How To Code, Toad.
Show 'Em Your Perl, Girl.
Go Back to the
Roots, Toots.
Windows is Silly, Millie.
Linux is cool, Jewel.
Stallman
Is Tall, Man.
Linus won't snarl, Darl.
Console is easy, Louisee.
(Bonus
points if you recognize the TV show that comes from!)
Icons suck,
Chuck.
Forget the Mouse, Spouse.
Tap your finger,
Ginger.
---
73/88 de KQ3T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST |
SLANDER OF TITLE - Common law tort impugning ownership of land. Now extended to
personalty. Interferes with P's ability to alienate land, with resultant
economic harm.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s051.htm
I have not (yet) been able to find any situation where it applies to anything
other than land or personality.
Can it apply to copyrights?
I can see damages, if the case is proven, being a possible form of relief.
I can see injunctive relief, if the case is prove, being a possible form of
relief.
But is "transfer these copyright registrations" an applicable form
of relief under this tort, even if proven?
IANAL
But I am confused[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:25 PM EST |
Hmmm. On the eve of LinuxWorld. Hmmm. Just a few
days before the next regularly-scheduled court
appearance with IBM.
Coincidence???
(Think I'll go watch the State of The Union speech...)
John [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: eamacnaghten on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST |
Well - a threat of one at least...
http://www.s
mh.com.au/articles/2004/01/21/1074360802009.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Tuesday, January 20 2004 @ 09:43 PM EST |
| This is part of the original APA. Could this have a major effect on the
case?
9.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordances with the laws of the State of California regardless of the
laws that might otherwise govern under applicable principles of conflicts of
laws thereof. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rodrin on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST |
Burn a Linux Distro
(with apologies to Tony Orlando and Dawn)
I've lived with Bill; I've done my time;
Now I've got to know what is and isn't mine;
I've put up with Windows long enough; I'll soon be Free;
If you'll show me what to do with this blank CD;
Burn an image, please.
CHORUS:
Burn a Linux distro on this blank CD;
I've tried three point one right up through XP;
If I can't get a distro on this blank CD,
It's the next virus, and spyware for us,
On our Windows XP;
If you won't burn a Linux distro on this blank CD.
Conversion please work for me;
'Cause all my data's in Office XP;
I'm still locked in Windows; OpenOffice holds the key;
An open data format's all I need to set me free;
Burn an image please.
CHORUS:
Burn a Linux distro on this blank CD;
I've tried three point one right up through XP;
If I can't get a distro on this blank CD,
It's the next virus, and spyware for us,
On our Windows XP;
If you won't burn a Linux distro on this blank CD.
Now the whole darn LUG is cheering as they hold out to me
A brand new Linux distro on this burned, my burned CD.
OK, you can stop groaning, now. The pain will subside eventually. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
If you aren't going to put out a recording, you ought to make it legally
possible for someone else to. All in the spirit of the thing, y'know.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 12:53 PM EST |
From
Ecommerce
news : "My opinion is that, on the surface, the executives at
Caldera (which originally bought the Unix System V copyrights in 1995 from
Novell and were all ex-Novell executives) would have had to have been extremely
stupid or crazy to pay in excess of $100 million and not get the
copyrights," DiDio said.
"executives at Caldera": What an
idiot!
But what a stupid argument: they paid a lot of money so they
must have bought the worldcopyrights. Perhaps these
famed executives (at SCO) were stupid or crazy? ---
-----
For a
few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at http://scosource.com/index.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 03:28 PM EST |
Man, I found this "poem" rather dull and lacking, sorely, in
cretivity. And, the laugher is...the author actually copyrighted this? The
irony is...that's the only thing funny about the "poem".
copyright 2004, Anonymous User[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nextstep on Wednesday, January 21 2004 @ 11:30 PM EST |
Ok, the following prevents me from trashing Win Xp altogether (I have a Win XP
PC, and a dual boot Dell notebook, running XP and Redhat 9 with KDE):
[1] A good Linux based accounting system that integrates with Mozilla
Thunderbird. My current accounting package (Pastel V6) only integrates with
Outlook, and it has the ability to set up recurring invoices.
[2] Support on Linux for my Sony Ericsson P800 smartphone.
[3] A fast and convenient way to run Photoshop and Flash MX on Linux. Yes, I
know about Wine, etc, but not all the Photoshop features are supported, and to
the best of my knowledge Flash MX cannot even run using Wine.
[4] Better game support (it would be great if I can play Flight Simulator and
Star Craft on Linux).
The rest is pretty much covered ...
--
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 22 2004 @ 03:22 AM EST |
| PJ, stick to SCO stuff. Microsoft bashing doesn't suit you. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
