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
Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 10:19 PM EST

Here is the Novell Notice of Removal as text. The PDF is here. Notice the judge listed on the papers? Judge Kimball.

Yes. The very same.

***************************************************************

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
John P. Mullen, #4097
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL
ACTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441
AND 1446
(Federal Question Jurisdiction)

Judge Dale A. Kimball
DECK TYPE: Civil
DATE STAMP: 02/06/2004 @ 14:49:53
CASE NUMBER: 2:04CV00139 DAK

Defendant Novell submits this Notice of Removal of this action to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. In support of this removal, Novell states the following:

1. On January 20, 2004, an action was commenced in the Third Judicial District Court, in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, entitled The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., Civil Case No. 040900936. A true and correct copy of the Summons, Complaint, and all other process, pleadings, and orders served upon Novell are attached hereto as Exhibit A as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a).

2. On January 20, 2004, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") served Novell with a copy of the Summons and Complaint. Aside from the material in Exhibit A, Novell is not aware of any other process, pleadings or orders served upon Novell in this action.

3. Novell files this Notice of Removal within one year of the date the action was originally filed and within thirty days of receipt of the Complaint by Novell. Removal is accordingly timely.

4. Promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, Novell shall give written notice of the removal to SCO by and through its designated counsel, and to the Clerk of the Third Judicial District Court in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). A true and correct copy of the Notice to Plaintiff and to Clerk of Court of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court (without exhibits) is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

JURISDICTION

5. This Court has original jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) in that SCO's cause of action arises under the federal Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq.

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION

6. A district court has original jurisdiction over cases "arising under" federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7. A case arises under federal law if it requires interpretation of the Copyright Act. T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823, 828 (2d Cir. 1964) ("an action 'arises under' the Copyright Act. . . if the complaint. . . assert a claim requiring construction of the Act."); Gerig v. Krause Publ'n., Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 1261, 1267, 1267 n.5 (D. Kan. 1999) (stating that the Tenth Circuit has adopted this test).

8. In its Complaint, SCO sets forth a cause of action for slander of title based upon its alleged ownership of certain copyrights by transfer from Novell. SCO alleges that it has become the sale and exclusive owner of certain copyrights by virtue of the Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment No. 2 thereto. (Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 17.)

9. SCO further alleges that Novell has made false claims of ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. (Ex. A, Compl. ¶ 24.)

10. One of the elements of a slander of title claim under Utah law is that "the [allegedly slanderous] statement was false." First Security Bank of Utah v. Banberry Crossing, 780 P.2d 1253, 1256-57 (Utah 1989). SCO has alleged that Novell's statements asserting ownership of the UNIX and Unix Ware copyrights are false.

11. Accordingly, SCO's cause of action for slander of title requires that it prove Novell's statements asserting ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights are false; that is, that SCO owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.

12. According to SCO's Complaint, Novell's statements asserting ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights are false because the Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment No. 2 constitute a transfer of copyright ownership to SCO.

13. The Copyright Act exclusively governs all transfers of copyright and states that "[a] transfer of copyright ownership. . . is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing. . .." 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).

14. Therefore, SCO will need to establish that the Asset Purchase Agreement and/or Amendment No. 2 constitutes an "instrument of conveyance" or "note or memorandum of [ ] transfer" under the Copyright Act sufficient to transfer copyright ownership to SCO. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).

15. The Asset Purchase Agreement and/or Amendment No. 2 does not constitute a "instrument of conveyance" or "note or memorandum of [ ] transfer" under the Copyright Act sufficient to transfer copyright ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).

16. The question of whether a purported copyright assignment constitutes an "instrument of conveyance" or "note or memorandum of [ ] transfer" under the Copyright Act requires interpretation of the Copyright Act and is sufficient to render this action within the original jurisdiction of the federal courts. Jasper v. Bovina Music, Inc., 314 F.3d 42, 46-47 (2d Cir. 2002).

17. Therefore, this action is removable to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

VENUE

18. Removal to the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, is proper because the Complaint was filed in Salt Lake County, Utah. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a).

WHEREFORE, Defendant Novell gives notice that the above-described action pending against it in the Third Judicial District Court, in and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, is removed to this Court.

DATED: February 6, 2004.

ANDERSON & KARRENBERG


[signature]
Thomas R. Karrenberg,
John P. Mullen,
Heather M. Sneddon

Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 6th day of February, 2004, I caused to be mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION UNDER 28 D.S.C. §§ 1441 AND 1446, via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following:

Brent O. Hatch
Mark R. Clements
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]

Kevin P. McBride
[address]

Stephen N. Zack
Mark J. Heise
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]



Exhibits/ Attachments to this document have not been scanned.

Please see the case file.


  


Novell's Notice of Removal - as text | 236 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Hon. Dale Kimball
Authored by: Scriptwriter on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:09 PM EST
So does this mean he will be trying the case?

And does that mean that Judge Wells will be the magistrate judge again?

And if so, what does that mean for SCO's legal team?

Days of Our Lives has nothing on this story.

---
They can have my copy of Linux when they pry it out of my cold, dead flippers.

irc.fdfnet.net #groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this mean the are moving to or from Utah?
Authored by: penfold on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:11 PM EST
I read it as Novell requesting it be tried in Utah. So, Judge Kimball gets to
watch the SCO dance twice?

I don't think I could handle it...

So, how big of a monkey wrench is this in SCO vs IBM? SCO has a hard enough time
keeping their case straight with just one court case and the press... Now having
one Judge seeing everything they have done/will do MUST negatively affect their
cases.



---
Blood from a turnip? That's easy! Try getting SCOX to produce evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's next for Novell?
Authored by: gnutechguy on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:26 PM EST
Could someone give me an idea how this action with Novell will play out. SCO has
danced around actually submitting any meaningful evidence to IBM for almost a
year! How long will it be before Novell gets the lawyer's equivalent of the
Keystone Cops in Heise and McBride in a live courtroom where they must answer
real questions?

Plus, will the fact that SCO has been dancing for a year with IBM impact this
case? IANAL so thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comparing Lawyers
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:29 PM EST
The first thing I notice is that Novell's lawyer also appears to be able to
write clear, readable English.

Good. I've all but had to stop reading the SCO stuff. Mariott et al are a joy
to read, and I'm glad that Karrenburg and associates continue the tradition.

It almost makes me wish that SCO had a case, so that their lawyers didn't have
to write such junk.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Bombs - Boom, Boom, Boom on SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:30 PM EST
The proceedings and actions by Novell are like living in a tunnel
and hearing the bombs raining down everywhere above.

A steady boom, boom, boom...

No one on the SCO side, Microsoft side, 50 Million dollar pipe
investor side, Gartner side, or Boies side... are sleeping well
tonite!

I wonder what they will say tomorrow when they crawl out of the
tunnel and spin everything as being wonderful in SCO land?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
Authored by: dentonj on Tuesday, February 10 2004 @ 11:59 PM EST
15. The Asset Purchase Agreement and/or Amendment No. 2 does not constitute a "instrument of conveyance" or "note or memorandum of [ ] transfer" under the Copyright Act sufficient to transfer copyright ownership. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).
SCO has pointed to Amendment 2 whenever they are questioned on whether they own the copyrights to UNIX. This is really damaging to SCO's claim of ownership over UNIX when Novell tells them that Amendment 2 does NOT transfer copyright ownership.

ouch

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST
Do any of you people who are praising Novell realize that Novell tried the same
thing SCO is doing to Linux, they just did it to BSD. They weren't quite so
obnoxious about it, but they certainly tried to make very bogus claims to BSDs
intellectual property.

DanW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Insider Transactions
Authored by: dentonj on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SCOX

Has anyone compiled a total amount of the insider transactions from SCOX? A nice big dollar amount should give reporters an indication on what the executives inside SCO think of the chances of winning the lawsuit(s).

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Would do no good - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:33 AM EST
    • The SEC - Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 04:45 AM EST
      • The SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST
        • Wages... - Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST
          • Wages... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 04:13 PM EST
      • The SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST
        • The SEC - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 04:10 PM EST
  • Insider Transactions - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST
Assistant professor of Earth system science: "They'll be exposed for the frauds that they are"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:11 AM EST
From a story at news.com about UC Irvine purchasing an IBM supercomputer cluster that runs AIX -- a rather innocuous story:

An assistant professor of Earth system science said about SCO: "It's a laughable lawsuit. It will certainly be resolved sometime in the next decade, and they'll be exposed for the frauds that they are."

When assistant professors of Earth system science are so informed about this lawsuit, can reporters be far behind?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm reminded of a scene from "Liar Liar"
Authored by: deadtom on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:11 AM EST

Jim Carey: “Your honor I object!”

Judge: “Why?”

Carey: “Because it's devastating to my case!”

---

My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another sign of SCO bad faith
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:33 AM EST
On May 29, 2003, SCO sent a letter to Sequent Computer Systems providing notice that it would terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement as of Secptember 2, 2003 if Sequent did not remedy certain alleged breaches of the license agreement. On Agust 11, 2003, SCO sent another letter to Sequent purporting to terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement. IBM, on behalf of Sequent, responded to these letters by letter of August 14, 2003.

In short:

SCO - May 29th - you have until September 2 to cure the alleged breaches.

SCO - August 11th - we have terminated your license already

In short: Even on SCO's own theory they didn't provide all the time they themselves chose to allow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expect another McBride manifesto
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:39 AM EST
Expect another McBride manifesto soon... they have to keep that stock above the
RBC/Baystar convert price or it's spontaneous wallet combustion... (SCOX will
have to purchase shares at a loss to cover RBC/Bayster's options... sniff
sniff.. is that leather burning...???)

"I have a list! IBM, Intel, and Novell are hotbeds of communist
insurgency! We will protect the sanctity of our precious bodily fluids!"

Maybe he'll send more letters to congress, or start harping on export control
nonsense (even the NSA has acknowledged that export controls on crypto are
futile and worthless).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Notice of Removal -- Another nail ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST
Notice what has happened to SCO's claims (and possible escape routes) since Friday:

  • charge IBM with misusing SysV code: Clanng! shut because there's no evidence [IBM]
  • charge IBM with misusing AIX code: Clanng! shut because it's IBM's code [Novell] -- in a wonderfully-timed publication of AT&T documents
  • charge IBM (or anyone else) with copyright infringement (as SCO does --very strangely-- in their new proposed "amended complaint"): Clanng! shut because SCO doesn't hold the copyrights [Novell] -- this latest move by Novell is explicitly designed to draw attention to the copyright claims -- especially Judge Kimball's attention, and even if for some reason the Notice of Removal is rejected and the Utah court retains the action, this Notice will in any case have made the good judge aware of the controversy ...

... and the odds of the (already skeptical) Judge accepting yet another "amended" -- i.e. completely reworked -- complaint are, to say the least, very loooong...

SCO obviously thought that with a little shouting and a high-profile law firm, they could make an easy bundle from a company buying them for their nuisance value. But it didn't work, and three sides of the box are now shut.

Kimball, turn on the trash compactor...

--Craig

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO's Suit vs Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:52 AM EST
Under US law is it true that Novell as the defendent has a stronger position
against SCO?

Novell can countersue with as many claims as they might have initiated
themselves but they will look less petty in front of a jury because they did not
attack.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kapow!
Authored by: Nathan Hand on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 02:12 AM EST
13. The Copyright Act exclusively governs all transfers of copyright and states that "[a] transfer of copyright ownership. . . is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing. . .." 17 U.S.C. § 204(a).

Notice that this is the same argument that Darl used to "prove" that SCO never transferred their copyrights away under the GPL. "It has to be in writing!", he claimed. Sure, Darl is mistaken because he thinks that the GPL has something to do with transferring copyright (it's a LICENSE not a transfer of copyright) but I love the sweet poetic justice of his own argument being used against him.

Guess what, SCO. You just lost! You didn't get the transfer of copyright in writing. Therefore it never happened! Kaloo, Kalay. What a beautiful day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • [OT] Singing - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 06:17 AM EST
  • Kapow! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:59 PM EST
  • Kapow! - Authored by: Tomas on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:19 PM EST
Typo correction
Authored by: TwinDX on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:40 AM EST
In paragraph 8:

SCO alleges that it has become the sale and exclusive owner

I suspect that should be 'sole'.

Steve

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
Authored by: Greebo on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 04:55 AM EST
I'm having a hard time following all this legal stuff.

Now we have so many cases against SCO, and different Judges etc, can someone
please remind me how Judge kimball fits into all this, and why most people think
this is significant that he's the judge here?

Sorry if this sounds like a no brainer to most people here, but it's a bit
confusing and IANAL.

Cheers,

Greebo

---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am not a Lawyer, but I wonder...
Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 05:01 AM EST
I had thought that the SCOundrels were being very careful to avoid a copyright
claim with Novell, inasmuch as that would tend to land them in Federal Court.
Is Novell's argument really strong enough to move this case? (I know, I know, I
just have to wait a couple of weeks(?) and see how it goes, but surely someone
here will offer an educated guess. Please!)

It seems to me it is only a contract issue. (With a contract that says
California is the jurisdiction, oddly enough.)

The Flatlander

I am gonna run out of popcorn before this is over; but I really don't want to
move from my seat.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Delaware corporation
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 05:32 AM EST
Could somebody be so kind and explain why both SCO and Novell are a Delaware
company and why the case ends up in a Federal court in Utah?
Looks like both companies have their official HQ in Delaware for tax reasons.
But what would happen if SCO sues Novell in Hawai instead of Utah?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT : More news from Australia
Authored by: Greebo on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 05:38 AM EST
Kind of off topic, but i found this story about SCO in Australia, and their efforts to sell IP licenses there.

My favourite part was :

Meanwhile, O’Shaughnessy has confirmed introductory discussions with a number of organisations are under way adding that the licence is necessary for companies wanting to leverage their Linux investments and continue business without interruption.

“So far we’ve had a mix of responses, but generally organisations have been very interested to hear directly from SCO about the licences," O’Shaugnessy said.

'Organisations have been very interested to hear from SCO directly...' - I bet they have. In the same kind of way you're interested when you see the small dog in the park picking on the large German sheppard. You know that a big smack in the face is coming for the poor little dog, but you can't help but watch and see what happens.

Also, Cyberknights, who have been sending SCO the ultimatums to put up or shut up have this excellent summary page. I like the URL name as well - http://www.cyberknights.com.au/scoaway.phtml. scoaway ! Excellent!

Cheers,

Greebo

---
------------------------------------- ----
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT] Register: Novell turns the screws on SCO
Authored by: rjamestaylor on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 06:26 AM EST
Nothing we have seen on Groklaw, but Google just sent out a new News Alert referring to the Register's (UK) article: Well, maybe one thing I haven't seen:
    That leaves a large part of SCO's case against IBM holed below the waterline. The parallel, and far murkier case of "Project Monterey" - the deliberate co-mingling of SCO's UnixWare, IBM's AIX and Sequent's Dynix which the parties all agreed to co-mingle back in 1998 - is another matter.
That's not a matter of concern for open source, but it would be sad if SCO stayed around to fight IBM on purely bilateral contract issues. I'm hoping for SCO to cease to be an entity.

---
SCO delenda est! Salt their fields!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unix v. Linux - the SCO view...
Authored by: gbl on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 08:50 AM EST

http://sco.com/5reasons/

---
If you love some code, set it free.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • DoS.... - Authored by: rakaz on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 10:16 AM EST
Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST
I must say I'm not surprised by this at all. Noticed how it came out as soon as
the names of the companies that bought licenses came out, and as soon as
copyright charges were brought by SCO? I've been thinking all along that Novell
has been waiting for the right moment to pull this one out.

See, anybody can claim they own anything. Unless it actually hurts someone, they
won't get sued. I could claim I own the Empire State building if I wanted to, as
long as I don't try to rent space on it, nobody will really care. Since SCO was
already getting sued by Red-Hat over the false claims they made, there was no
point in Novell suing them for pretty much the same reasons.

I was thinking that untill SCO sued someone over the Copyright OR SCO illegally
sold a license for the copyrighted material that Novell considers they own,
there was no valid reason for Novell to sue. But as soon as a license was sold,
and the names became public for the first time this week, or untill they sued
someone for copyright infringement, as they did against IBM this week, it left
SCO wide open to this very valid lawsuit from Novell.

They've been very smart to wait this long. They gave SCO as much rope as they
could. Pulling too early would have left SCO a chance to get out of it, but now
it's too late. SCO gladly took the rope, made a noose and sliped it around their
necks. Now all Novell needs to do is pull.

Novell ensured that SCO has to battle not on 2 but on 3 fronts. All that's left
to do is wait and see what kind of death it's going to be. Slow and painfull or
quick and ...painfull.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Another SCOG?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 09:11 AM EST
Here is a short but intriging interview with Altnet CEO Kevin Bermeister. Apparently, Altnet is applying SCOG-style business model in a bid to capitalize on P2P.
  • What right do you have to a technology that has been around for decades? BERMEISTER: In the 1980s, the chief scientist of Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Altnet's parent company, invented a specific use of file hash as it relates to the distribution of content on a widely distributed network. With P2P, dynamic nodes are automatically established and files are indexed by hash to improve network efficiency. This way, users can seek a file from a number of sources and have a better chance of getting it.
  • Why are you suddenly claiming ownership? Right now, P2P is the Wild West of the Internet, and we see an opportunity to commercialize it. Without that patent, a series of claims would inevitably be made not only on Altnet, but on other parties. We want to use the patent to create partnerships.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • OT: Another SCOG? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 09:43 AM EST
      • OT: Another SCOG? - Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:20 PM EST
        • P2P? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:55 PM EST
    • "Invented" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 12:27 PM EST
    • OT: Another SCOG? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 05:00 PM EST
    • Oops... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST
      • Now - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 09:07 AM EST
    OT: Lawsuit if SCO miraculously wins?
    Authored by: kcassidy on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 10:43 AM EST
    I have a brief question which seemed to pop into my mind...

    Hypothetically, SCO could win. (This is a major hypothetical.) For argument's sake, let us assume that they did. They won their case against Novell, which indicate that they own all of the copyrights on UNIX and UnixWare. They won their case against IBM, thus gaining billions of dollars in income for the company and proving that anything based upon SysV code is owned by SCO by the definition of derivative work.

    So now SCO owns it all. Everything. Would this mean then that there is grounds for a monopolization and/or antitrust lawsuit against SCO in the US as well as around the world? IANAL (although I am writing the LSAT in a few months so give me about 4 years... yes, a programmer with a law degree), and I am not a US citizen so I am not completely familiar with how the antitrust and monopolization lawsuits work, but it is something that just popped into my head. If they prove that they own everything and they have complete control, would they not paint themselves into a corner somehow this way?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
    Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST
    I wouldn't worry too much about the scope of this particular case. Novell has a
    great excuse to get out of the local court and into Federal court, thanks to SCO
    not thinking through their complaint against Novell. SCO should have sued Novell
    for contract breach 1st, then added a slander complaint later based on the
    outcome of the 1st action.

    Novell seems to be taking and approach that will drag the APA through a legal
    wringer and what spits out on the other side will have court backing. If SCO
    loses the action, they simply lose the ability to claim copyright ownership of
    the code, misappropriated or not, and that's the end of threats against Linux
    users and the copyright claim against IBM.

    Now Novell, once in Federal court, might decide to then file a counter suit
    against SCO for breaching the terms of the APA, and resolve the entire issue of
    SCO's rights in UNIX and their abilities to enforce those rights once and for
    all and with court backing. That action is potentially the end of SCO as a
    company if they lose, as a potential remedy for Novell is a permanent injunction
    against SCO enforcing the courts interpretation of SCO's rights or worse (for
    SCO) a nullification of the APA returing UNIX to Novell.

    -pooky

    ---
    Veni, vidi, velcro.
    "I came, I saw, I stuck around."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What's Your Vote?
    Authored by: maco on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 11:55 AM EST
    When SCOX ignores/trashes Novell's letter (again), how will Novell respond?

    1. do nothing (again)
    2. threaten breach of contract
    3. sue SCO for breach of contract
    4. add counterclaims to "slander of contract" suit
    5. other

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:17 PM EST

    Probably hazardous duty pay, plus x days times ten percent of the days listening to the SCO speak for rest and relaxation on top of normal vacation days. :P

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: old SCO terminology?
    Authored by: idahoan on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:19 PM EST
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/33326.html

    quote:
    "If SCO allowed companies to contribute derivative UNIX code to Linux and
    give it away for free, it would destroy the value of all other versions of UNIX,
    including SCO's own, not to mention the versions of UNIX made by SUN, HP, IBM,
    SGI, Sequent, Hitachi, Fujitsu, Siemens, and every other one of the 6,000 other
    licensees. Why would SCO not have such a provision in their licenses?"
    unquote

    How do they word it this way "other versions..." and now say some is
    based on their "version"??
    Too many questions in my mind about all of this so I guess I better just read
    and learn from all of you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Slightly OT question
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST
    What advances has SCO added to UNIX in the last few years? SGI added XFS,
    IBM added JFS, etc, but I don't know what SCO has added.

    IBM was/is licensing technology that seems to be going nowhere without
    them. I'd be ticked also.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • suedo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
      • suedo? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
    What happened at high noon?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST
    It's well after noon, and ever since noon utah time scox
    stock has been steadily climbing and novell has been
    dropping. What happened?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    No news???
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:30 PM EST
    Other than a zdnet artical posted after noon today, I
    cannot seem to find any press regarding, imho, the most
    important 24 hours of this saga.

    What's up? Am I not looking right, or is the "main
    stream" media actually ignoring any news damaging to SCO?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • No news??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:41 PM EST
    • No news??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST
      • No news??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:54 PM EST
    • No news??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST
    Novell Motion to Dismiss?
    Authored by: mitphd on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 03:57 PM EST
    Does anyone know about a Motion by Novell to dismiss the Slander of Title lawsuit? An article on ZDNet says
    Novell also filed a motion Monday to dismiss SCO's slander suit, saying the company hasn't proven that Novell's claims are false. "Without conclusively establishing that it owns the Unix and UnixWare copyrights, SCO cannot show that Novell's statements to the contrary are false, and cannot prevail," according the filing.

    The motion also claims SCO's suit fails to establish specific grounds for damages. "SCO's allegations are plainly insufficient," according to the filing. "They are precisely the type of general allegations of some speculative injury that the special damages pleading requirements for a slander of title action are meant to avoid."

    It sounds reasonable. Is it true?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell's Notice of Removal - as text
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 11 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST
    A cheap monty python gag on SCO speak. "I will not buy this record it is
    scratched". Meaning? Look for the dodgy hungarian phrasebook.

    :)

    [ 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 )