decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 06:36 PM EST

Here is the complete complaint with exhibits in the SCO v. Daimler Chrysler lawsuit.

Exhibit A is the software agreement between AT&T and Chrysler Motors Company ("AT&T Information Systems Inc. Software Agreement" dated September 2, 1988) and Exhibit B is the December 18, 2003 letter from SCO to "Chief Executive Officer, Chrysler Motors Corporation", one of the "Dear Unix licensee" letters.

You'd think they'd bother to get the name of the CEO and while they were at it, get the current name of the company right too. I know they always tell you to do that when you send a resume. This seems more important than that. The company today does business as the Daimler Chrysler Motors Company LLC. The LLC stands for Limited Liability Company, by the way. Chrysler Motor Company was a licensee in 1988. Is Daimler Chrysler Motors Company LLC still under that license, without any schedules or amendments or letters in the interim? I wonder if the right person even got the letter? I can't wait to read DC's answer. Our thanks to KSham for running to the courthouse and scanning it all in for us.


  


SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint | 198 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
News, URL's here...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST
Put all news, URL's, updates here....

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: jkondis on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:11 PM EST
I've been thinking this could be extra interesting given the company is now
based in Germany.

Is this a sneaky way around court rulings in Germany? How will the German
courts react to SCO's attack?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are the Teeth in the contract?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:16 PM EST
Maybe I missed something. The contract SCO quotes requires its customer to make
a certification, but perhaps the contract does not say what will happen if it
does not make such certification. I don't think SCO quoted any such contract
term. If so, what penalty would be appropriate, and would it even exceed
$25,000?

Also, it is OBVIOUS that the certification SCO required Daimler to sign exceeds
what is required by contract. Daimler can certainly argue that SCO's request to
certify was defective or excessive.

- The Precision Blogger
http://precision-blogging.blogspot.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: sam on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
So DC is a legacy UNIX licensee that Novell retained rights to in the APA?

---


Don't forget. IAAL. (I am a layman.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO's lease agreement for Lindon offices
Authored by: atul on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST
Available here:

http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/south520.lease.2002.01.10.shtml

Not my area of expertise. I'm hoping someone who knows more about this area can
take a look and see if there's anything interesting or suspicious here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST
Question Is D-Chrystler still a SCO customer? Do they still pay licensing
fees?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's case boils down to...
Authored by: engineer_scotty on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:25 PM EST
... "they aren't telling us they are innocent, so they must be guilty."

That will go over well.

As others have posted, the scope of the SCO "audit" is well in excess of what is required by the UNIX contract. DaimlerChrysler is well within its rights to refuse to participate (beyond counting licenses and CPUs...)

e_s

[ Reply to This | # ]

Name wrong?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST
Isn't this lawsuit about Daimler-Chrysler not responding to an SCO letter
demanding proof of compliance? What if SCO had the name(s) wrong on that
original letter as well? Would that matter at all?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Derivative Works
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:29 PM EST
On Page 11 of the PDF (Grant of Rights) it states: "Such right to use
includes the right to modify such software product, provided that any such
modification or derivative work that contains any part of a software product
subject to this agreement is treated hereunder the same as such software
product. AT&T-IS claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a
modification or derivative work that is not part of a software product."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:31 PM EST
I would love to be a Dialmer Cyrstler laywer -- becasue I would be tempted not
to even show up to court. When the judge issues a bench order or a ruling
against Dialmer Chrysler Corparation, I would simply ignore it. After all, the
offical name and the name DBA, is Dialmer Chrysler Motor Company, LLC., not
Dialmer Chyrslter Corpartion, and a judgement against Dialmer Chystler
Corparation does not apply to Dialmer Chyrsler Motor Company, LLC. I mean, you
can't be expected to respond to a lawsuit if it is not addressed to you, even if
the intent was to aim it at you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Did DC fail to use section 6.03?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:32 PM EST
Assume for the moment that DC (or Chrysler before them) quit using the software
covered by the contract. Section 6.03 spells out what they were supposed to do
- destroy all copies, and certify to AT&T that they had done so. If they
didn't do that, as far as AT&T (and Novell and SCO) knew, DC was still a
licensee.

This is not a really important point, but it might explain why DC thought they
could blow off SCO, and why SCO thought they couldn't.

A brief glance at the filing shows what seems to me to be DC's obvious reply:
"Compare what the contract says with what the letter asks for."

MSS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why.
Authored by: atul on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST
Well, because they're leasing their offices from Canopy, for starters. It's not
exactly an arms-length relationship, and I can just see them burying some shady
provisions in the agreement. Maybe something along the lines of a sneaky way to
shovel assets from SCO up to Canopy by considering them as contents of the
subleased building, I dunno.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Oops. - Authored by: atul on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:34 PM EST
Mail Merge...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST

What a concept!

Surprised they didn't just address it to "To Whom It May Concern:".

Just another indication as to the seriousness of the problem that SCO is addressing. ("We're much too busy defending our alleged IP property to actually know the name of the CEO of the company that we're accusing!")


[ Reply to This | # ]

Certification letter is strange
Authored by: star-dot-h on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:37 PM EST
It asks DC to certify that they have not "contributed Unix" code to
Linux. Huh? how would they have done that. Seems to be treating DC as a
development organisation and contributer - NOT an end user at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe there is another reason
Authored by: rgmoore on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST

It looks as though SCO is stretching once again:

Nevertheless, DC has failed to provide the contractually required certification of compliance that SCO requested. DC has in fact refused even to respond to SCO's request. It would be irrational and contrary to DC's self-interest for DC to violate the license's certification requirement's [sic] this way unless DC was also violating the license's limits on permitted use of UNIX technology, precluding DC from certifying compliance.

I don't know about that. I can think of plenty of reasons that DC might not have responded. The letter might have been lost or ignored because it was sent to the wrong person. DC might have decided that auditing their systems to be sure that they were in compliance was a big hassle, and the cost of doing so wasn't worth the small risk of a lawsuit. They might have looked at SCO's demands, concluded that they were far beyond what the license required, and decided to ignore the whole thing.

If SCO were sending me threatening letters like that and I thought I was out of compliance, the last thing I'd do would be to stand out by refusing to answer at all. I'd be much more inclined to lie ("Yep, we're 100% compliant!") in the hopes they'd go and sue somebody else. Given the number of Unix licenses they have out there, I can't imagine that they could go over every certification of compliance with a fine toothed comb looking for discrepancies.

---
Behind every sleazy lawyer, there's a sleazy client.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO used wrong address! Chrysler moved in 1997!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:50 PM EST
The address given in the 1988 contract is Highland Park

This is the address that SCO's 2003 letter is the same Highland Park address.

Chances are, that any variant of Chrysler, probably never received the letter.


Chrysler's worldwide headquarters moved to Auburn Hills several **years** before
(1997), and AFAIK the only vaguely Chrysler-related stuff in Highland Park still
left is historical stuff, possibly a museum.

As a result of this, the city, Highland Park nearly went bankrupt.



http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/H/HighlandPk.html

"The city experienced major outmigration in the 1980s and 90s as the
automotive industry, including the world headquarters of the Chrysler Corp.,
left the area."


http://www.etaiwannews.com/Perspective/2002/06/15/1024111644.htm

"On Friday, the wheels are scheduled to come off Highland Park. This city
of about 16,000, once an upscale enclave and until the mid-1990s home of
Chrysler Corp.'s world headquarters, is broke."


http://www.detnews.com/2000/detroit/0011/05/s06-142260.htm

Highland Park lost 7,700 high-wage jobs when the former Chrysler Corp. moved its
headquarters from Highland Park to Auburn Hills in 1997.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OCR TEXT: SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: fjaffe on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:55 PM EST
Sorry, I don't have time right now to further clean this up. Enjoy!
----
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff, vs.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
JOEL H. SERLIN (P20224)
BARRY M. ROSENBAUM (P26487) Attorneys for Plaintiff
2000 Town Center, Suite 1500 Southfield, MI 48075
(248) 353-7620
THERE IS NO OTHER PENDING OR RESOLVED CIVIL ACTION ARISING OUT OF THE SAME
TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAIINT.


NOW COMES Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") by and through its
attorneys, Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess & Serlin, P.C., and Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, and for its Complaint against Defendant DaimlerChrysler
Corporation ("DC") alleges. as follows:


Introduction


1. SCO is the exclusive licensor of software licenses for the UNIX operating
system. These software licenses are agreements that restrict the permitted use
of the UNIX operating system. To help insure compliance with the restrictions on
such permitted
Defendant.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
OAKLAND JUDGE RAE LEE CHABOT
OUNTY SCO GROUP INC V DAIMLERCHRYS
04-056587


II
II
Case No. 04
p
12:
0
1
use, the licenses include a monitoring and reporting mechanism designed to
detect (and thus deter) violations of those agreed limits. Specifically, the
licenses require licensees to certify their compliance with those restrictions.
Like all provisions in the license, these reporting and monitoring provisions
exist only because they have been agreed to by the licensee.
2. SCO has requested that DC provide the contractually required certification
that DC is
complying with the terms of its UNIX technology license. SCO has thus asked DC
to
certify--as contractually it must-- that its use of UNIX technology is within
the agreed
parameters of permitted use established by the license.
3. DC agreed to and accepted the terms of its UNIX license. DC has received very
substantial benefits as a result of entering that license and DC has never
challenged the validity of that license.
4. Nevertheless, DC has refused to provide the contractually required
certification of
compliance that SCO requested. DC has in fact refused even to respond to SCO's
request. It would be irrational and contrary to DC's self-interest for DC to
violate the
license's certification requirement's in this way unless DC was also violating
the
license's limits on permitted use of UNIX technology, precluding DC from
certifying
compliance.
5. By refusing to provide the certification that the license requires as a means
of enabling SCO to monitor compliance with, and thus protect, the rights that DC
agreed to respect, DC has compelled SCO to institute this litigation to secure a
judicial remedy.
2
Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
6. Plaintiff SCO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in the County of Utah, State of Utah.
7. Defendant DC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in the County of Oakland, State of Michigan.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over SCO's Complaint because the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00)
Dollars and/or is otherwise within the equitable jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Venue is properly situated in Oakland County, Michigan because DC has a place
of business in Oakland County-
Background Facts
10. UNIX is a computer software operating system. Operating systems serve as the
link between computer hardware and the various software programs (known as
applications) that run on the computer. Operating systems allow multiple
software programs to run at the same time and generally function as a
"traffic control" system for the different software programs that run
on a computer.
11. In the business-computing environment for the Fortune 1000 and other large
corporations (often called the "enterprise computing market"), UNIX is
widely used.
12. The UNIX operating system was originally developed by AT&T Bell
Laboratories
("AT&T"). After successful in-house use of the UNIX software,
AT&T began to
3
license UNIX as a commercial product for use in enterprise applications by other
large companies.
13. Over the years, AT&T Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
AT&T, and its related companies, licensed UNIX for widespread enterprise
use. Pursuant to a license with AT&T, various companies, including
International Business Machines, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
Silicon Graphics, Inc., and Sequent Computer Systems, became some of the
principal United States-based UNIX vendors, among many others.
14. These license agreements place restrictions on the valuable intellectual
property developed by AT&T, which allow UNIX to be available for use by
others while, at the same time, protecting AT&T's (and its successor's)
rights.
15. Through a series of corporate acquisitions, SCO presently owns all right,
title and interest in and to UNIX and UnixWare operating system source code,
software and sublicensing agreements, together with copyrights, additional
licensing rights in and to UNIX and UnixWare, and claims against all parties
breaching such agreements.
16. During the past few years a competing, and free, operating system known as
Linux has been transformed from a non-commercial operating system into a
powerful general enterprise operating system.
17. Linux is a computer software operating system that, in material respects, is
a variant or clone of UNIX System V. According to leaders within the Linux
community, Linux is not just a "clone," but is intended to displace
UNIX System V.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract/Declaratory Judgment)
18. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 - 17 above- 4
19. SCO is the successor to AT&T under that certain Software Agreement
originally executed by and between AT&T and Chrysler Motors Corporation
designated as SOFT-01341 (the "DC Software Agreement" or the
"Agreement"). The DC Software Agreement specifies the terms and
conditions for use of authorized distributions of UNIX System V source code,
including modifications and derivative works based thereon, by Defendant. The DC
Software Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit
20. With respect to the scope of rights granted for use of the System V source
code under Section 2.01 of the DC Software Agreement, Defendant received the
following rights in UNIX:

[A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the United States
each Software Product identified in the one or more Supplements hereto, solely
for Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction
with Designated CPUs for such Software Product. Such right to use includes the
right to modem such Software Product and to prepare derivative works based on
such Software Product, provided that any such modification or derivative work
that contains any part of a Software Product subject to this Agreement is
treated hereunder the same as such Software Product. (Emphasis added.)


21. Defendant agreed in §2.06 of the DC Software Agreement to the following
restrictions on use of the Software Product (including System V source code,
derivative works and methods based thereon):

No right is granted by this Agreement for the use of Software Products directly
for others, or for any use of Software Products by others ... .
5
22. Defendant agreed in §7.09 of the DC Software Agreement to the following
restrictions on transfer of the Software Product, including resulting
modifications or derivative works of UNIX System V:

[N]othing in this Agreement grants to Licensee the right to sell, lease or
otherwise transfer or dispose of a Software Product in whole or in part.

23. Defendant agreed under §7.05(a) of the DC Software Agreement to the
following restrictions on confidentiality of the Software Product:

Licensee agrees that it shall hold all parts of the Software Products subject to
this Agreement in confidence for [SCO]. Licensee further agrees that it shall
not make any disclosure of any or all of such Software Products (including
methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone, except to employees of Licensee
to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are granted
hereunder. Licensee shall appropriately notify each employee to whom any such
disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept
in confidence by such employee.

24. Consistent with these restrictions, in § 2.05, Defendant also agreed to
account to SCO on an annual basis regarding its use of System V software
licensed pursuant to the Software Agreement. Specifically, § 2.05 provides as
follows:

On [SCO's] request, but not more frequently than annually, Licensee shall
furnish to [SCO] a statement, certified by an authorized representative of
Licensee, listing the location, type and serial number of all Designated CPUs
hereunder and stating that the use by Licensee of Software Products subject to
this Agreement has been reviewed and that each such Software Product is being
used solely on such Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for such
Software Products in full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.
(Emphasis added.)
6
25. Section 2.05 of the Software Agreement is designed to insure compliance by
DC "with the provisions of this Agreement," and to do so by supplying
a monitoring mechanism that prevents and deters violations of the Software
Agreement.
26. By letter dated December 18, 2003, SCO requested that DC provide the writing
required under § 2.05 certifying that DC was "in full compliance with the
provisions of [the Software Agreement]." Although DC should have been in a
position to produce such a compliance certification on shorter notice, SCO's
letter requested that the required certification be provided within 30 days of
receipt of that letter. (The SCO December 18, 2003, letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit "B").
27. DC has refused to comply with its obligations under § 2.05 of the Software
Agreement. Specifically, DC has refused even to respond to SCO's request for the
contractually required compliance certification within 30 days, or at any time
since. DC has thereby refused to state that it is not now violating its
obligations under the Software Agreement, and DC has refused to state that it
has not in the past been violating its obligations under the Software Agreement.
DC has refused to provide such a certification even though it is also one of
DC's express obligations under the Software Agreement to provide such a
certification.
28. On information and belief, DC's refusal to certify that it is not violating
the DC Software Agreement is also based, in part, on DC's use of UNIX
technology, in violation of the DC Software Agreement, in migrating its
installed base to the Linux operating system.
29. It would be irrational and contrary to DC's self-interest for it to continue
to withhold the requested certification and thereby violate the Software
Agreement's reporting
7
requirements if DC were not also violating the Software Agreement's
non-reporting,
core substantive requirements.
Prayer for Relief
Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:
Enter an order that DC has violated § 2.05 of the Software Agreement by
refusing
to provide the certification of compliance with the "provisions" of
that Agreement;
Enter an order declaring that DC has not complied with, and instead has
violated, the provisions of the Software Agreement with which § 2.05 required DC
to certify
compliance;
Enter an order permanently enjoining DC from further violations of the DC
Software Agreement; and
Issue a mandatory injunction requiring DC to remedy the effects of its past
violations of the DC Software Agreement; and
Award damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and
Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff together with costs, attorneys' fees and
any such other or different relief that the Court may deem to be equitable and
just.
8
Jury Demand

SCO demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

SEYBURN, KAHN, GINN, BESS AND SERLIN, P.C.
By:
Joel H. Serlin (P20224)
Barry . Rosenbaum (P26487) Attorneys for Plaintiff
2000 Town Center, Suite 1500 Southfield, MI 48075-1195 (248) 353-7620
Stephen N. Zack, Esq. Mark J. Heise, Esq.
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Bank of America
Tower
100 South East 2'd Street, Ste. 2800
Miami, FL 33131
(305) 539-8400

Robert Silver
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
(914) 749-8200

Dated: March 3, 2004
9
. SS-Soft. Corp.-030184-070185 Agreement Number SOFT-01341
AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC.
SOFTWARE AGREEMENT

1. AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC., a Delaware corporation
("AT&T-IS"), having an office at 100 Southgate Parkway,
Morristown, New jersey 07900, and
CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
having an office at 12800 Oakland Avenue, Highland Park, Michigan 48288,
' for itself and its SUBSIDIARIES (collectively. referred to herein as
"LICENSEE") agree that, after execution of this Agreement by LICENSEE
and acceptance of this Agreement by AT&T-IS, the terms and conditions set
forth on pages 1 through 8 of this Agreement shall apply to use by LICENSEE of
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS that become subject to this Agreement.
2. AT&T-IS makes certain SOFTWARE PRODUCTS available under this Agreement.
Each such SOFTWARE PRODUCT shall become subject to this Agreement on acceptance
by AT&T-IS of a Supplement executed by LICENSEE that identifies such
SOFTWARE PRODUCT and Iists the DESIGNATED CPUs therefor. The first Supplement
for a specific SOFTWARE PRODUCT shall have attached a Schedule for such SOFTWARE
PRODUCT. Any additional terms and conditions set forth in such Schedule shall
also apply with respect to such SOFTWARE PRODUCT- Initially, Supplement(s)
numbered 1
are included in and made part of this Agreement.
3. Additional Supplements may be added to this Agreement to add additional
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (and DESIGNATED CPUs therefor) or to add or replace DESIGNATED
CPUs for other SOFTWARE PRODUCTS covered by previous Supplements. Each such
additional Supplement shalt be considered part of this Agreement when executed
by LICENSEE, if required, and accepted by AT&T IS.
4. This Agreement and its Supplements set forth the entire agreement and
understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and merge all
prior discussions between them, end neither of the parties shall be bound by any
conditions, definitions, warranties, understandings or representations with
respect to such subject matter other than as expressly provided herein or as
duly set forth on or subsequent to the date of acceptance hereof in writing and
signed by a proper and duly authorized representative of the party to be bound
thereby. No provision appearing on any form originated by LICENSEE shall be
applicable unless such provision is expressly accepted in writing by an
authorized representative of AT&T-IS.
Accepted by:
CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION AT&T INFORMATION
SYSTEMS INC.
By '(Signature) ' (Date) y (Signature)
O- L. WILSON
(Type or print name) (Type or print name)


Manager, UNIX Software Licensing (Title) (Title)
Key #22212 & 22213
Page I of 8
SS-Soft. Corp. 030184-070185
I. DEFINITIONS 1.01 CPU means central processing unit.
1.02 COMPUTER PROGRAM means any instruction or instructions, in source-code or
object-code format, for controlling the operation of a CPU.
1.03 DESIGNATED CPU means any CPU listed as such for a specific SOFTWARE PRODUCT
in a Supplement to this Agreement.
1,04 SOFTWARE PRODUCT means materials such as COMPUTER PROGRAMS, information
used or interpreted by COMPUTER PROGRAMS and documentation relating to the use
of COMPUTER PROGRAMS. Materials available from AT&T-IS for a specific
SOFTWARE PRODUCT are listed in the Schedule for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT- Certain
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS available under this Agreement may contain materials prepared
by other developers.
I.05 SUBSIDIARY of a company means a corporation or other legal entity (i) the
majority of whose shares or other securities entitled to vote for election of
directors (or other managing authority) is now or hereafter controlled by such
company either directly or Indirectly; or (ii) the majority of the equity
interest in which is now or hereafter owned and controlled by such company
either directly or indirectly; but any such corporation or other legal entity
shall be deemed to be a SUBSIDIARY of such company only so long as such control
or such ownership and control exists-
H. GRANT OF RIGHTS
2.01 AT&T-IS grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive
right to use in the United States each SOFTWARE PRODUCT identified in the one or
more Supplements hereto, solely for LICENSEE'S own internal business purposes
and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to
prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided that any such
modification or derivative work that contains any part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT
subject to this Agreement is treated hereunder the same as such SOFTWARE
PRODUCT. AT&T-1S claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a
modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
2.02 (a) LICENSEE may permit access to SOFTWARE PRODUCTS by its contractors and
allow use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS by its contractors on DESIGNATED CPUs, provided
such access and use is exclusively for LICENSEE in connection with work called
for in written agreements between LICENSEE and such contractors in accordance
with Section 2.02(1) of this Agreement. LICENSEE may designate contractors' CPUs
as DESIGNATED CPUs pursuant to Section 2.04 and furnish SOFTWARE PRODUCTS to
contractors for use on such CPUs.
Page 2 of B
SS-Soft. Corp.-030184-070285
(b) Any claim, demand or right of action arising on behalf of a contractor from
the furnishing to it or use by it of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS shall be solely against
LICENSEE.
(c) Contractors shall agree to the same responsibilities and obligations and
other restrictions pertaining to the use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS as those
undertaken by LICENSEE under this Agreement.
(d) When a contractor's work for LICENSEE is completed, all copies of SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS furnished to such contractor or made by such contractor and all copies
of any modifications or derivative works made by such contractor based on such
SOFTWARE PRODUCT shall be returned to LICENSEE or destroyed, including any
copies stored in any computer memory or storage medium.
(e) A contractor may not acquire any ownership interest in any modification or
derivative work prepared by such contractor based on or using a SOFTWARE PRODUCT
subject to this Agreement unless such contractor also becomes a licensee of
AT&T-IS for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
(f) LICENSEE and any such contractor shall enter into a written agreement before
or at the time of permitting access to or allowing use of any SOFTWARE PRODUCT
by a contractor or furnishing a SOFTWARE PRODUCT to a contractor- Such written
agreement shall be consistent with the requirements of this Section 2.02- Copies
of such agreements shall be provided to AT&T-IS on request; however,
portions of such agreements not required by this Section may be deleted from
such copies.
2.03 A single back-up CPU may be used as a substitute for a DESIGNATED CPU
without notice to AT&T-IS during any time when such DESIGNATED CPU is
inoperative because it is malfunctioning or undergoing repair, maintenance or
other modification.
2.04 LICENSEE may at any time notify AT&T-IS in writing of any changes, such
as replacements or additions, that LICENSEE wishes to make to the DESIGNATED
CPUs for a specific SOFTWARE PRODUCT- AT&T-IS will prepare additional
Supplements as required to cover such changes. Changes covered by a Supplement
shall become effective after execution of such Supplement by LICENSEE, if
required, acceptance thereof by AT&T-IS and, in the case of each additional
CPU, receipt by AT&T-IS of the appropriate fee-
2.05 On AT&T-IS'S request, but not more frequently than annually, LICENSEE
shall furnish to AT&T-IS a statement, certified by an authorized
representative of LICENSEE, listing the location, type and serial number of all
DESIGNATED CPUs hereunder and stating that the use by LICENSEE of .SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement has been reviewed and that each such SOFTWARE
PRODUCT is being' used solely on DESIGNATED CPUs (or temporarily on back-up
CPUs) for such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS in full compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement-
Page 3 of 8
SS-Soft. Corp.-030184-070185
2-06 No right is granted by this Agreement for the use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
directly for others, or for any use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS by others, except
LICENSEE'S contractors pursuant to Section. 2-02, unless such uses. are
permitted for a particular SOFTWARE PRODUCT by a specific provision in the
Schedule for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT- For example, use of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT in a
time-sharing service or a service-bureau operation is permitted only pursuant to
such a specific provision.
III. DELIVERY
3.01 Within a reasonable time after AT&T-IS receives the fee specified in
the first Supplement for a SOFTWARE PRODUCT, AT&T-IS will furnish to
LICENSEE one (1) copy of such SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the form identified in the
Schedule for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
3.02 Additional copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS covered by this Agreement will be
furnished to LICENSEE after receipt by AT&T-IS of the then-current
distribution fee for each such copy.
IV. EXPORT
4.01 LICENSEE agrees that it will not, without the prior written consent of
AT&T-IS, export, directly or indirectly, SOFTWARE PRODUCTS covered by this
Agreement to any country outside of the United States- LICENSEE also agrees that
it will obtain any and all necessary export licenses for any such export or for
any disclosure of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT to a foreign national.
V.. FEES AND TAXES
5.01 Within sixty (60) days after acceptance of this Agreement by AT&T-IS,
LICENSEE shall pay to AT&T-IS the fees required by the Supplement(s)
initially attached hereto for the DESIGNATED CPUs listed in such Supplement(s).
5.02 Within sixty (60) days after acceptance of each additional Supplement by
AT&T-IS, LICENSEE shall pay to AT&T-IS any fee required by such
additional Supplement for the DESIGNATED CPUs listed in such additional
Supplement-
5.03 Payments to AT&T IS shall be made in United States dollars to
AT&T-IS at the address specified In Section 7,10(a).
5.04 LICENSEE shall pay all taxes, Including any sales or use tax (and any
related interest or penalty), however designated, imposed as a result of the
existence or operation of this Agreement, except any income tax imposed upon
AT&T-1S by any governmental entity within the United States proper (the
fifty (50) states and the District of Columbia). Fees specified in Supplement(s)
to this Agreement and in Schedule(s) attached to Supplement(s) do not include
taxes. If AT&T-IS is required to collect a tax to be paid by LICENSEE,
LICENSEE shall pay such tax to AT&T-IS on demand.
Page 4of 8
SS-Soft. Corp.-030184-070183
VI. TERM
6.01 This Agreement shall become effective on and as of the date of acceptance
by AT&T-IS.
6.02 LICENSEE may terminate its rights under this Agreement by written notice to
AT&T-IS certifying that LICENSEE has discontinued use of and returned or
destroyed all copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement.
6-03 If LICENSEE fails to fulfill one or more of its obligations under this
Agreement, AT&T-IS may, upon its election and in addition to any other
remedies that it may have, at any time terminate all the rights granted by it
hereunder by not less than two (2) months' written notice to LICENSEE specifying
any such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified
therein shall have been remedied; upon such termination LICENSEE shall
immediately discontinue use of and return or destroy all copies of SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement.
6.04 In the event of termination of rights under Sections 6.02 or 6-03,
AT&T-IS shall have no obligation to refund any amounts paid to it under this
Agreement.
6.05 LICENSEE agrees that when a SUBSIDIARY'S relationship to LICENSEE changes
so that it Is no longer a SUBSIDIARY of LICENSEE, (i) all rights of such former
SUBSIDIARY to use SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement shall immediately
cease, and (ii) such former SUBSIDIARY shall immediately discontinue use of and
return to LICENSEE or destroy all copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this
Agreement- No fees paid to AT&T-IS for use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS on
DESIGNATED CPUs of such former SUBSIDIARIES shall be refunded; however, LICENSEE
may substitute other CPUs for such DESIGNATED CPUs in accordance with Section
2.04.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
7-01 This Agreement shall prevail notwithstanding any conflicting terms or
legends which may appear in a SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Page 5 of 8

SS-Soft. Corp.-030184-070285
7.02 AT&T-IS warrants for a period of ninety (90) clays from furnishing a
SOFTWARE PRODUCT to LICENSEE that any magnetic medium on which portions of a
SOFTWARE PRODUCT are furnished will be free under normal use from defects in
materials, workmanship or recording. If such a defect appears within such
warranty period LICENSEE may return the detective medium for replacement without
charge. Replacement is LICENSEE'S sole remedy with respect to such a defect.
AT&T-IS also warrants that it is empowered to grant the rights granted
herein. AT&T-IS and other developers make no other representations or
warranties, expressly or impliedly. By way of example but not of limitation,
AT&T-IS and other developers make no representations or warranties of
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, or that the use of any
SOFTWARE PRODUCT will not infringe any patent, copyright or trademark-.
AT&T-IS and other developers shall not be held to any liability with respect
to any claim by LICENSEE, or a third party on account of, or arising from, the
use of any SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
7-03 No right is granted herein to use any identifying mark (such as, but not
limited to, trade names, trademarks, trade devices, service marks or symbols,
and abbreviations, contractions or simulations thereof) owned by, or used to
identify any product or service of, AT&T-IS or a corporate affiliate
thereof. LICENSEE agrees that it will not, without the prior written permission
of AT&T-IS, (i) use any such identifying mark in advertising, publicity,
packaging, labeling or in any other manner to identify any of its products or
services or (ii) represent, directly or indirectly, that any product or service
of LICENSEE is a product or service of AT&T-IS or such an affiliate or is
made in accordance with or utilizes any information or documentation of
AT&T-IS or such an affiliate.
7.04 Neither the execution of this Agreement nor anything in it or in any
SOFTWARE PRODUCT shall be construed as an obligation upon AT&T-IS or any
other developer to furnish any person, including LICENSEE, any assistance of any
kind whatsoever, or any information or documentation other than the SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS to be furnished by AT&T-IS pursuant to Sections 3.01 and 3-02-
7-05 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
subject to this Agreement in confidence for AT&T-IS. LICENSEE further agrees
that it shall not make any disclosure of any or all of such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
(including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone, except to employees
and contractors of LICENSEE to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for
which rights are granted hereunder. LICENSEE shall appropriately notify each
employee to whom any such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in
confidence and shall be kept in confidence by such employee. If information
relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any lime becomes
available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to
LICENSEE, its contractors or employees of either, LICENSEE'S obligations under
this section shall not apply to such information after such time.
Page 6 of 8
SS-Soft. Corp.-030384-10I485
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7-05(a), LICENSEE may distribute
copies of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT, either in modified or unmodified form, to third
parties having licenses of equivalent scope herewith from AT&T-IS (or a
corporate affiliate or authorized distributor thereof) for the same SOFTWARE
PRODUCT, provided that LICENSEE first verifies the status of the recipient by
calling AT&T-IS at 800-828-8619 (or other number specified by AT&T-IS).
AT&T-IS will give oral verification of the recipient's status for recipients
in the United States and written verification for recipients outside the United
States- LICENSEE shall maintain a record of each such distribution and, for each
quarterly period (ending on March 31st, June 30th, September 30th and December
31st) during which any such distribution occurs, forward a copy of such record
for such period to AT&T-IS at the correspondence address specified-in
Section 7.10(b) within thirty (30) days of the end of such period. Such record
shall include, for each such distribution. the identity of the recipient, the
date of verification, the name of the person at AT&T-IS providing
verification and the date of distribution. LICENSEE may also obtain materials
based on a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement from such a third party
and use such materials pursuant to this Agreement, provided that LICENSEE treats
such - materials hereunder the same as such SOFTWARE PRODUCT-
7.06 The obligations of LICENSEE, its employees and contractors under Section
7.0.5(s) shall survive and continue after any termination of rights under this
Agreement or cessation of a SUBSIDIARY'S status as a SUBSIDIARY.
7.07 LICENSEE agrees that It will not use SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this
Agreement except as authorized herein and that it will not make, have made or
permit to be made any copies of such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS except for use on
DESIGNATED CPUs for such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (including backup and archival copies
necessary in connection with such use) and for distribution in accordance with
Section 7.03(b). Each such copy shall contain any copyright notice, proprietary
notice or notice giving credit to another developer, which appears on or in the
SOFTWARE PRODUCT being copied. Specific instructions regarding such notices may
also appear in the Schedules for certain SOFTWARE PRODUCTS.
7.08 Neither this Agreement nor any rights hereunder, in whole or in part, shall
be assignable or otherwise transferable by LICENSEE and any purported assignment
or transfer shall be null and void.
7.09 Except as provided in Section 7.05(b), nothing in this Agreement grants to
LICENSEE the right to sell, lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of a SOFTWARE
PRODUCT in whole or in part.
Page 7of 8
SS-Soft, Corp.-030184-031986
7.10 (a) Payments to AT&T-IS under this Agreement shalt be made payable and
sent to:
AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS P.O. Box 65080
Charlotte, North Carolina 28265
(b) Correspondence with AT&T-IS relating to this Agreement shall be sent
to:
AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS UNIXY(TM) Software Licensing
P.O. Box 25000
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
(c) Any statement, notice, request or other communication shall be deemed to be
sufficiently given to the addressee and any delivery hereunder deemed made when
sent by certified mail addressed to LICENSEE at its office specified in this
Agreement or to AT&T-IS at the appropriate address specified in this Section
7-10. Each party to this Agreement may change an address relating to it by
written notice to the other party.
7-11 If LICENSEE is not a corporation, all references to LICENSEE'S SUBSIDIARIES
shall be deemed deleted.
7.I2 The construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the
law of the State of New York.
Page 8 of 8
052386-052287 Page 1 of 7

Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0 International Edition** May 22, 1987
I. Fees

(a) Right-to-use fees

(i) Initial DESIGNATED CPU $65,000

(ii) Each additional DESIGNATED CPU $20,000

(iii) Each of third and subsequent DESIGNATED CPUs after initial sublicensing
fee has been paid $ 2,000

(iv) Fees listed in item (iii) above do not cover distribution of a copy of this
SOFTWARE PRODUCT

(b) Distribution fee for each additional copy of this
SOFTWARE PRODUCT $ 2,000

(c) Upgrade Fees

LICENSEES for any prior release or version of UNIX System V may upgrade those
systems for the following fee:

Information on upgrade fees from other UNIX operating systems is available upon
request.

(d) Right-to-use fees, upgrade fees and the distribution fee are subject to
change upon ninety {90) days notice.

(e) Sublicensing fees (applicable only to SUBLICENSED
PRODUCT under a Sublicensing Agreement)

(i) Initial $25,000***
*UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T in the USA and other countries.
**Furnished to LICENSEES outside the United States ***Not payable by LICENSEES
who have paid Initial Sublicensing Fee for
another release or version of UNIX System V
$22,000
052386-052287 Page 2 of 7

Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition** May 22, 1987


Per Copy Fees (See Notes land 2)

Base System $ 30
Kernel Extension 10
Basic Utilities Extension 20
Advanced Utilities Extension 60
Administered System Extension 80
Software Development Extension BO
Terminal Interface Extension 30

Unlimited User System combining the above
seven components $150
1-2 User System combining the above seven
components 50

Network Services Extension $ 30

(iii) UNIX System V ASSIST Software may be provided with a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT
at no fee.

(iv) The extensions are defined in the System V Interface
Definition, Issue 2, Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Use of any portion of an extension in
deriving a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT will require payment of the full fee for that
extension except as listed below:

- Routines from files in usr/src/lib whose pathnames end in .o or .a may be
included in object-code format in customer developed applications software
without payment of a sublicensing fee to AT&T. .

• Routines in directories usr/src/head may be used to interface to routines in
usr/src/lib whose pathnames end in .o or .a or files in usr/lib whose pathnames
end in .a without payment of a sublicensing fee to AT&T.
0.52386-052287 Page 3 of 7


Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition**
May 22, 1987


(v) Sublicensing fees are subject to change on
ninety (90) days' notice. However, if the per-copy fees are increased, a
licensee may continue to pay the per-copy fees in effect at the beginning of
such licensee's then-current period (initial period or additional one-year
period) until the end of such period.

Notes:

1. A 1-2 user system is defined as having input/output ports for
(a) not more than two (2) login terminals (including the, system console, if
any) or (b) a login terminal and a network connection.

2. "User" means a login terminal for entry of information and display
or printing of Information, such terminal being serviced on a time-sharing basis
by an end-user CPU running a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT based on UNIX System V, Release
3.0 or UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition. An end-user must not
be given the ability to increase the number of users supported by a SUBLICENSED
PRODUCT for a 1-2 user system.

2. Documentation Furnished (a) Printed Documentation

AT&T 3B2 Computer UNIX System V Release 3.0 - - Documentation Roadmap
- Product Overview
- Release Notes
- Systems Administrator's Guide
- Systems Administrator's Reference Manual
052386-052287 Page 4 of 7 Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition**
May 22, 1987

2. Documentation Furnished (Cont'd)
AT&T UNIX System V Release 3.0 -
- Programmer's Guide
- Programmer's Reference Manual
- STREAMS Programmer's Guide
- STREAMS Primer
- Network Programmer's Guide
- User's Guide
- User's Reference Manual

UNIX System V ASSIST Software - User's Guide Development Tools Guide
Release Notes

Computer Remote File Sharing Utilities Release 1.0
alease Notes
Computer Networking Support Utilities Release 1.0 :Release Notes

programming Language Utilities Issue 4 Release Notes. anced Programming
Utilities Release Notes.

X System V Release 3.0 Source Code Provision e Notes
Porting Rules
I Interface Definition, Issue 2
Programmer's Handbook
Computer Systems Documentation Catalog Computer Software Catalog. UNiX System V

s marked with a pound sign (4) may NOT be reproduced, ne purchased from
AT&T.

s noted in Section h, LICENSEE may reproduce no more copies of the printed
documentation per DESIGNATED ditional copies may be reproduced only upon
execution element for UNIX System V, Release 3.0 and UNIX , Release 3.0
International Edition - Documentation
:ion and payment of the appropriate fees.
052386-052287 Page' 5 of 7

Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition** May 22, 1987


NOTE: The printed documentation listed is general in nature and not intended to
completely describe the COMPUTER PROGRAMS listed in Section 3; nor are all
COMPUTER PROGRAMS described in such
documentation necessarily included in the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.


3. COMPUTER PROGRAMS Furnished

The COMPUTER PROGRAMS listed in this section will be supplied on nine track,
1600 BPI magnetic tape or data cartridge.

(a) The usr/src directory and subdirectory file system in cpio format. Includes
the following subdirectories and their associated lower level subdirectories and
files:

cmd lib
head scripts
uts
(b) Source code for the graphics software.
Includes the graphics make file (graf.mk) and the following directories and
their associated files and subdirectories:
include src

Note: The "crypt" command, scripts, library function and associated
documentation are not included in UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International
Edition.
4. Sublicensing (under a Sublicensing Agreement)

(a) A SUBLICENSED PRODUCT based on UNIX System V, Release 3.0 or UNIX System V,
Release 3.0, International Edition, may include:

(i) COMPUTER PROGRAMS in object-code format. All COMPUTER
PROGRAMS may be treated as object-code except for files and subdirectories under
directory usr/src.
052386-062287 Page 6 of 7


Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition**
May 22, 1987


The following text and data files and directories may be treated as .object
code:

usr/src/cmd/spell/american usr/src/cmd/spell/list
usr/src/cmd/spell/british usr/src/cmd/spell/local
usr/src/cmd/spell/extra usr/src/cmd/spell/stop

(ii) The following, documents are proprietary to AT&T and may HOT be
distributed with a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT:

AT&T UNIX System V, Release 3.0 - Source Code Provision
Release Notes
System V Porting Rules

(iii) Except as noted in Section 2(b), not more than two copies of the permitted
printed documentation may be reproduced and distributed with each copy of a
SUBLICENSED PRODUCT containing the BASE system without
execution of a Supplement for UNIX System V, Release 3.0 and UNIX System V,
Release 3.0 International Edition - Documentation Reproduction and payment of
the appropriate fees.

(iv) Documents which may not be reproduced may be purchased from AT&T and
distributed with a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT based on UNIX System V, Release 3.0.

(b) A SUBLICENSED PRODUCT must conform to the following requirements:

(i) if a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT contains any portion of the
BASE System, such portion must conform to the System V
Interface Definition, Issue 2, Volumes 1,.2 and 3
("SVID2").

(ii) After June 30, 1988, if LICENSEE offers a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT containing a
portion of the BASE System such
SUBLICENSED PRODUCT must conform to the entire BASE
system as defined in SVID2.

(iii) if a SUBLICENSED PRODUCT contains any portion of the NETWORK SERVICES
EXTENSION, such portion must conform to the SVID2 and must be designed to run
with BASE Systems that conform to the SVID2.
052386-052287 Page 7 of 7
Schedule for
UNIX* System V, Release 3.0
and
UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition**
May 22, 1987
(iv) After June 30, 1988, if LICENSEE offers a SUBLICENSED
PRODUCT containing a portion of the NETWORK SERVICES EXTENSION such LICENSEE
must also offer either a single SUBLICENSED PRODUCT containing the entire
functionality of the NETWORK SERVICES EXTENSION or multiple
SUBLICENSED PRODUCTS which when combined contain the entire functionality of the
NETWORK SERVICES EXTENSION. Such SUBLICENSED PRODUCTS(S) must conform to the
SVID2 and must be designed to run with BASE systems that conform to the SVID2.

(v) A SUBLICENSED PRODUCT containing any portion of any extension outlined in
Section 1(e)(11), except the SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION, must be designed to
run with BASE Systems that conform to the SVID2.
(vi) A SUBLICENSED PRODUCT containing any portion of UNIX
System V ASSISI Software must he designed to run with
BASE Systems that conform to the SVID2.

(c) A SUBLICENSED PRODUCT does not need to conform to the SVID2 if it is being
used on a CPU for porting and development
activities related to such SUBLICENSED PRODUCT. 6. Other Software
The products listed below may be used in' the United States on DESIGNATED CPUs
for UNIX System V? Release 3.0 as if they were that
product. The products may also he used outside the United States
on DESIGNATED CPUs for UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International Edition as if
they were that product. Only those products marked with an "@" may be
shipped outside the United States by AT&T.
All prior releases and versions of UNIX System V @All prior releases and
versions of UNIX System V, International Versions
UNIX System III
UNIX 32V Time-Sharing System, Version 1.0
UNIX Time-Sharing System, Seventh Edition
UNIX Time-Sharing System, Sixth Edition
UNIX :Programmer's Workhench System, Edition 1.0 UNIX Mini Time-Sharing System,
Version 6

6. Time Sharing

UNIX System V, Release 3.0 or UNIX System V, Release 3.0,
International Edition, may be used on a DESIGNATED CPU for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT
to furnish a time-sharing service to third parties. A SUBLICENSED PRODUCT based
on UNIX System V, Release 3.0 or UNIX System V, Release 3.0, International
Edition, may also be used to furnish a time-sharing service to third parties.
COPY
December 18, 2003
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION 12800 OAKLAND AVENUE
HIGHLAND PARK, MI 48288
USA


Re: AT&T / SCO License No. SOFT-01341 Dear UNIX Licensee:

You are designated as Licensee under the above-referenced software licensing
agreement (the "Agreement"). The undersigned SCO Group, Inc.
("SCO") is the successor licensor. The Agreement is in full force and
effect according to its terms.

License Grant to Use UNIX Technology

You were granted under Para. 2.01 of the Agreement:

[A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the [Authorized
Country] each Software Product identified in one or more Supplements hereto,
solely for Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or in
conjunction with Designated CPU's for such Software Product. Such right to use
includes the right to modify such Software Product and to prepare derivative
works based such Software Product, provided that the resulting materials are
treated hereunder as part of the original Software Product.

The Software Product thus includes more than the base System V release licensed
by you. Software Products also includes: (a) the UNIX software release based on
UNIX System V prepared by your UNIX vendor and (b) modifications to, or
derivative works based on, any UNIX product made by you.
Limitations on Use of UNIX Technology

Your limitations on use and other obligations under the Agreement include the
following:

Para. 2.06. No right is granted by this Agreement for the use of Software
Products directly for others, or for any use of Software Products by others.
[This is expanded under 2.06 under some contracts.]

Para. 4.01. Licensee agrees that it will not, without prior written consent of
[SCO], export, directly or indirectly, Software Products covered by this
Agreement to any country outside the[Authorized Country].
Para. 7.05(a). Licensee agrees that it shall hold all parts of the Software
Products subject to this Agreement in confidence for [SCO]. Licensee further
agrees that it shall not make any disclosure of any or all of the Software
Products (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone, except to
employees of Licensee to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which
rights are granted hereunder. Licensee shall appropriately notify each employee
to whom such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and
shall be kept in confidence by such employee.

Para. 7.08. Neither this Agreement nor any rights hereunder, in whole or in
part, shall be assignable or otherwise transferable by Licensee and any
purported assignment or transfer shall be null and void.

Para. 7.09. [N]othing in this Agreement grants to Licensee the right to sell,
lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a Software Product in whole or in
part.

Required Certification Re: Use of UNIX

You are also obligated to certify proper use of the Software Products by you
under the Agreement, as required by the following Para. 2.05:

On [SCO's] request, but not more frequently than annually, Licensee shall
furnish to SCO a statement, certified by an authorized representative of
Licensee, listing the location, type and serial number of all Designated CPUs
hereunder and stating that the use by Licensee of Software Products subject to
this Agreement has been reviewed and that each such Software Product is being
used solely on such Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for such
Software Products pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.

Accordingly, SCO requires written certification by your authorized
representative under Para. 2.05 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Such
written certification must include statements that:

1. You have held, at all times, all parts of the Software Products (including
methods and concepts) in confidence for SCO.

2. You have appropriately notified each employee to whom you have disclosed the
Software Products, and taken steps to assure that such disclosure was made in
confidence and must be kept in confidence by such employee. Please provide
evidence of your compliance with this obligation. This evidence may include, but
not be limited to, nondisclosure agreements, employee policies or manuals, or
other such evidence of compliance..

3. Neither you nor your employees with access to the Software Products have
contributed any software code based on the Software Products for use in Linux or
any other UNIX-based software product.

4. Neither you nor your employees have used any part of the Software Products
directly for others, or allowed any use of the Software Products by others,
including but not limited to use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software
product.

5. Neither you nor your employees have made available for export, directly or
indirectly, any part of the Software Products covered by this Agreement to any
country that is currently prohibited from receiving supercomputing technology,
including Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and any other such country, through a
distribution under the General Public License for Linux, or otherwise.
6. Neither you nor your employees have transferred or disposed of, through
contributions to Linux or otherwise, any part of the Software Product.

7. Neither you nor your employees have assigned or purported to assign, any
copyright in the Software Products to the General Public License, or otherwise
for use in Linux or another UNIX-based software product.

SCO will not allow UNIX Licensees to make any improper use of the Software
Products, including the use of the Software Products to assist development of
Linux. If you fail to make, or are unable to make, a full and complete
certification as required above within 30 days of receipt hereof, SCO may pursue
all legal remedies available to it including, but not limited to, license
termination rights.

Yours truly,

THE SCO GROUP, INC.


By: Bill Broderick
Director, Software Licensing 430 Mountain Avenue
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
908-790-2270
bbroderi@sco.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: linonut on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST
This is a joke, right? They're basing this case on a 17-year-old
agreement between AT&T and Chrysler?

Did Chrysler or whomever ever return the "product", thereby
terminating the license? How would SCO (new) know if it
were terminated in this way before SCO (new) was "involved?"




---
I use Linux. So sue me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Xmas Card
Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:08 PM EST
Imagine you're a cleck in Daimler mail room, you get a forwarded letter
sent to the wrong company name, naming the wrong company officer,
sent to the old 1980's corporate headquarters, from a previous supplier
that is too dumb to update its (former) Customer's Lists.

It is not sent by messenger or prority mail or anything.

So you say, "Another Christmas Card" from the past, and dump it to
the
Recycle tub.

Later, the sender sue Daimler, deposing as exhibit of their utter oafishness
the 3-levels-deep misadressed letter.

If I was the Judge, I'd be suitably impressed.

_Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: sbungay on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:10 PM EST
'Scuse my ignorance.... but somehow I don't think that Chrysler signed
anything limiting them to any of the items listed in the letter that pertain to
Linux. This clause is interesting...

"[N]othing in this Agreement grants the Licensee the right to sell, lease
or otherwise dispose of a software product in whole or in part."

So if you bought it you keep it and can NEVER be rid of it? Seems rather
onerous doesn't it? Then we get to the definition of a Software product...

"SOFTWARE PRODUCT means materials such as COMPUTER PROGRAMS, information
used or interpreted by COMPUTER PROGRAMS and documentation relating to the use
of COMPUTER PROGRAMS. AT&T-IS for a specific SOFTWARE PRODUCT are listed in
the Schedule for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. certain SOFTWARE PRODUCTS available
under this Agreement may contain materials prepares by other developers."

Now that first sentence in the definition strikes me as overly broad, heck it
appears to include the DATA used by a computer program! Does the second sentence
narrow the scope? Oh we need the definition of COMPUTER PROGRAMS...

"COMPUTER PROGRAM means any instruction or instructions, in source-code or
object-code format, for controlling the operatiuon of a CPU."


---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.

IANAL IAAP

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:16 PM EST
By far, my favorite thing to note here is that the letter which contains
excerpts from the software agreement leaves out the best part of 7.05(a).

"If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this agreement
at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts
not attributable to LICENSEE, its contractors or employees of either, LICENSEE'S
obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such
time".

It's quite interesting to note that many of the other paragraphs quoted are
given in their entirety, but not this one because of the obviously bad news for
TSG.

I also wonder why DC doesn't just terminate their SysV source license? Could
the really need 20 year old source code written for the AT&T 3B2 anymore?
Do they even KNOW where it is? Or WHAT it is?

One more thing, how does TSG figure that not replying to their letter is doing
more than $25,000 damage? That's just too funny!

Eric

[ Reply to This | # ]

I read the complaint this is my comment
Authored by: Night Flyer on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:17 PM EST
I posted this before but it seems more appropriate here:

In years past I worked for a large multinational, and we received letters like
the one from SCO now and then.

Usually we were too busy to pay attention to them unless the letter was
accompanied by a work order from someone quite high up in the company. To do an
audit of hardware and software corporate-wide internationally is a pain in the
butt in quiet times. At year-end? No way... Year-end stuff, invoicing,
inventory, payroll change-overs..., actually we were annoyed that we usually
worked through the "Christmas break" while marketing people were at
home partying.

If DC didn't respond to these intrusive requests outside of the terms of the SCO
software contract, I understand. I know more than a tiny bit about IT, and it is
unclear to me how to answer the SCO request (based on "The Certification
Letter" post above) even if I wanted to.

To comply to the spirit of the request would be a horrifically large internal
project requiring, amongst other things, interviewing past employees about NDA,
reviewing all software that may or may not have been customized, searching
"the ancient-files warehouse". A corporation such as Chrysler, (which
has the AT&T license) probably has done all sorts of tweaks and additions of
features to the code over the years, making it all the more complex.
----------------------------
And exactly how does SCO expect to ever get repeat or increased business from DC
after this lawsuit, (whether they win, lose or draw)?

DC is in the business of making vehicles, not spending time in court arguing
about Linux/UNIX issues.

---------------------------------------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • 419 SCAM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 11:21 PM EST
AT&T 3B2 Computer
Authored by: glchisum on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:26 PM EST
ha, ha

the software agreement is for unix on an AT&T 3B2 computer. i doubt these
pieces of iron even exist now. they are probably gone along with the 1600 bpi
tapes.



---
What doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is the exihibit demonstrating that they RECEIVED the letter...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST
i.e. certificated letter signature by someone receiving the letter for the
corporation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • There isn't one - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:35 PM EST
Wasn't SVR3 open-sourced by Caldera?
Authored by: Liquor A. on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 08:31 PM EST
Isn't this a license for one of the 'ancient unix' versions that was released to
the public by Caldera?

After all, it refers to being the version for an AT&T 3B2 machine. So I can
easily guess that D-C's reply would be that they stopped using the system and
CPU's somewhat after the time of the transfer to Novell - and since the contract
specifies that all communications (i.e. the notice that use has been
discontinued) should be sent to PO Box 25000 Greensboro NC., then it's most
probable that AT&T didn't notify Novell - and it's going to take a while to
find our copy of the notice, since it's lost in the corporate vaults somewhere.
SCO didn't provide ANY evidence of having provided D-C with change of address
notifications.

For that matter, the contract says nowhere how long D-C can take to reply, but
it DOES say that (after a minimum of two months notice) that the remedy for a
breach of the T&C is that D-C will discontinue use of SVR3 (a given to have
already occured) and return or destroy the software - which is probably though
not provably destroyed when the machine went to the scrapheap.

It could be that D-C has been trying to find an old copy just to be able to give
them back something - then let SCO try to verify that the 800Bpi tape does
actually have the returned software.

Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on keeping records like this?
BSA and Microsoft notwithstanding?

For that matter, what does it take to make a charge of barratry stick?



---
Liquor A.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now taking wagers
Authored by: PeteS on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 09:32 PM EST
As this agreement is from 1988 (7 years predating the sale of assets to Santa
Cruz), I would wager that Novell will step in shortly 'waiving SCO's purported
rights' in accordance with section 4.16 of the Asset Purchase Agreement, just as
it has already done with IBM, SGI and Sequent.



---
Today's subliminal thought is:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contract with AT&T not SCO?
Authored by: turtle on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 10:01 PM EST
It appears that the contract was originally with AT&T, so it would have been
AT&T that DCC would have had to provide the audit to.

Assume that the change of ownership does imply that DCC now has to provide the
audit to SCO instead, and that SCO does have a right to sue DCC. Wouldn't SCO
have to return 95% of damages won to Novell as DCC is an existing customer (and
SCO/Novell contract requires 95% of income from existing UNIX customers to be
returned to Novell).

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO misquotes the contract
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 10:14 PM EST
In at least one respect, SCO's letter significantly misquotes the contract that it purports to enforce -- namely the famous section 2.01, concerning the treatment of derivative works.

From the contract:

2.01 AT&T-IS grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the United States each SOFTWARE PRODUCT identified in the one or more Supplements hereto, solely for LICENSEE'S own internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided that any such modification or derivative work that contains any part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement is treated hereunder the same as such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. AT&T-IS claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
As quoted in the letter:
[A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use in the [Authorized Country] each Software Product identified in one or more Supplements hereto, solely for Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction with Designated CPU's for such Software Product. Such right to use includes the right to modify such Software Product and to prepare derivative works based such Software Product, provided that the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original Software Product.
Some of the differences are trivial, such as the use of upper and lower case. However the verbiage about derivative works is distinctly different. In particular, the letter omits the last sentence of the original, the "what's yours is yours" clause.

I have not made similar comparisons with other sections of the contract, such as the provisions for auditing. It is clear in any case that SCO sent out a one-size-fits-all form letter, and made no serious attempt to research the particulars of the relevant contracts.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that such blatant misrepresentations in SCO's letter would, at the very least, mitigate any culpability that DC might have in their failure to respond to SCO's satisfaction.

Scott McKellar
http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/

[ Reply to This | # ]

    If it weren't so sad it'd be funny ...
    Authored by: Tomas on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 10:19 PM EST
    Overall this "case" is so ridiculous that it is amazing.

    Starting with the original overreaching letter asking for so much more than the contract called for.

    Then sending that letter to no-one in particular at the wrong company name to an address abandoned by the company six years ago is just so ... sorry, I don't have the words to describe the idiocy. *sigh*

    Other than that, though, have y'all noticed some of the beyond belief claims in that letter? Just looking at the very last paragraph:

    SCO will not allow UNIX Licensees to make any improper use of the Software Products, including the use of the Software Products to assist development of Linux.
    Does this flight of insanity mean SCO doesn't even think it's OK to develop or compile anything non-UNIX on a UNIX system? Unbelievable. Even Microsoft uses Xenix/UNIX machines in developing MS Windows and other MS software.

    I'm certain that using UNIX or MS Windows, or, heck, even CP/M is perfectly legit in devoloping Linux. I even know people who have written bits and pieces on a Mac using Mac OS.

    Additionally, they seem to even admit in the letter that if DC fails to comply with what is in the contract for SVR3 running on one or more Western Electric/Teletyhpe/AT&T 3B2 machine(s), that SCO can ask them to, uh, stop running it on those 3B2's.

    If you fail to make, or are unable to make, a full and complete certification as required above within 30 days of receipt hereof, SCO may pursue all legal remedies available to it including, but not limited to, license termination rights.

    Sad, very sad.

    ---
    Tom
    en.gin.eer en-ji-nir n 1: a mechanism for converting caffeine into designs.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Thirty Days
    Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 10:42 PM EST
    I notice that the original contract contains no time limit on the audit responsibility. Unless there's some default in contract law of thirty days, SCOX appears to have made that particular item up from the whole cloth.

    I do rather wonder whether D-C has an absolute get-out-free card from

    • the address screw-up
    • the fact that SCOX can't even show that the letter was received, and
    • the fact that since the original contract didn't contain any time limit, SCOX' "30 days" might as well have been "30 seconds."
    That, of course, plus the possibility that they cancelled out 'back when and can prove it. Remember, AT&T admitted that they didn't even know who-all was still an active licensee, and although Novell might have been better neither the Santa Cruz Organization nor Caldera seem to have been all that fussy about paperwork.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Daimler Chrysler AG would be the successor in interest.
    Authored by: BigDave on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST
    IIRC, Chrysler was merged into Daimler Chrysler AG. Daimler Chrysler Motors
    Company LLC is only the US subsidiary for running the business here.

    It is kind of funny that not only did they address the letter wrong, but the
    suit is filed against Daimler Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation. It
    seems to me that Chrysler can at least use it to make a point to make the SCO
    attorneys look incompetant.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Blame for outdated address
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 11:21 PM EST
    We may ridicule SCO for sending its letter to an outdated address.  In all fairness, though, the contract makes both parties responsible for notifying each other of address changes.  See section 7.10(c):
    Any statement, notice, request or other communication shall be deemed to be sufficiently given to the addressee and any delivery hereunder deemed made when sent by certified mail addressed to LICENSEE at its office specified in this Agreement or to AT&T-IS at the appropriate address specified in this Section 7.10.  Each party to this Agreement may change an address relating to it by written notice to the other party.
    Chrysler may have failed to notify SCO of the address change.  Since UNIX changed hands several times, it is also possible that Chrysler didn't receive one of several notifications that should have been sent by the licensor du jour.

    Until we have the facts, let's not be too hasty to blame SCO in this regard.  There's plenty enough else to blame them for.

    Scott McKellar
    http://home.swbell.net/mck9/sco/

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Two-way street?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 11:44 PM EST
    Why doesn't DC just counter-sue SCOG for non-performance?

    It is clear the 3b2 cannot run modern applications such as (OpenOffice? take
    your pick). SCOG has failed to maintain the system so it can run such common
    apps.

    SCOG seems to be saying "even though this software is for 20 year old
    machines, you still must pay us millions". Why doesn't DC just say:
    "No, you failed to perform, and cannot fix your software so the 3b2 can run
    even the most basic business applications."

    If SCOG wants the license to last 20+ years, maybe they should consider the
    ramifications from the other direction?

    Then SCOG would have to admit that the software, the machine and the code are
    obsolete - or they'd have to invest tens of millions to improve Unix, just for 1
    or 2 possible licenses.

    Maybe DC should be demanding a list of SCOG employees who are qualified and
    certified to work on 3b2s?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Daimler Chrysler Corporation, LLC, whatever
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2004 @ 11:47 PM EST
    There has been a lot of talk about SCO not getting Daimler's name correct, but
    in the document, they say "A Delaware Corporation." Isn't it possible
    that, in Delaware at least, DC does business as DaimlerChrysler Corporation,
    <i>not</i> LLC? I know that depending on what state you are doing
    business in, a company can have different names.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
    Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 12:58 AM EST
    I note what appear to be some omissions in SCO's complaint, things which do
    appear in the documents accompanying the complaint (the exhibits):

    1) In regard to the certification requirement SCO claims D-C violated, the
    complaint lists only the stipulations in the original AT&T license
    (basically identification of the CPUs the code is used on), and makes no mention
    of the stipulations unilaterally added by SCO.

    2) In regard to derivative works, SCO's complaint makes no mention of the
    AT&T license section stating that AT&T claims no ownership in any
    portion of code not developed by them.

    3) In regard to non disclosure requirements, SCO makes no mention of the
    AT&T license statement that the licensee is released from the non-disclosure
    requirements if the information is at any time released to the public not by
    actions of the licensee.

    4) SCO's complaint makes no mention of the AT&T license provision that the
    licensee may at any time terminate the license by returning or destroying all
    copies of the software.

    Would any or all of these omissions constitute grounds for dismissing the case?

    IANAL.


    ---
    What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Question on unclean hands
    Authored by: bubba on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 01:49 AM EST
    While I suspect there may be many defenses that could be applied to DC's
    defense, I have a question I'm trying to research about the applicability of the
    doctrine of unclean hands.

    IIRC, the doctrine has been applied to counter a software license dispute where
    the licensee argued that the licensor's terms had effectively attempted to
    extend the licensor's rights beyond the scope of those they held under
    copyright.

    I wonder, even if this were to be judged strictly a contractual dispute, whether
    or not this could apply on one or more levels. For example, by my reading, the
    December 18th letter by SCO demands information and affirmations well beyond
    those stated in the license. It even seems to ask for tacit affirmation of SCO's
    unproven position that SCO's code is inappropriately in Linux.

    Even if it weren't stricken by the judge, I think any competent jury would see
    though SCO's tactic in their letter: "Certify that you have stopped beating
    your wife..."

    I, like others, noticed this possible trap they set when reading the copy of the
    Dec 18th letters after they went public. My idea at the time, if I had gotten
    one and been in the hotseat would have been to ignore the questions asked by SCO
    that were beyond the contractual language and issue a statement back to them
    with the lists of CPUs etc. and certifying in the exact same language as the
    contract "that each such Software Product is being used solely on such
    Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for such Software Products in
    full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement" and no more. Too
    late for some, but maybe not all? Any thoughts?

    I think it would be interesting to see what other ways unclean hands doctrine
    has affected software licensing and contracts, but I don't know where to start.

    IANAL as if it isn't obvious..

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Was this filed in the correct location?
    Authored by: OldPro on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 01:55 AM EST
    According to the contract:

    7.12 The construction and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of New York.

    Can they file in Michigan if the contract specifies that New York State laws are governing?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO version of "Toddlers Property Laws"
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 03:06 AM EST
    Adapted from "Toddler Property Laws", with extensions suitable for
    SCO, Canopy, Caldera, or their execs:


    1 - If I like it, it's mine

    1a - SCO Corollary - If I don't like it's mine too

    2 - If it's in my hand, it's mine

    2a - SOC Corollary - If it's in your hand, it's mine

    3 - If I can take it from you, it's mine

    3a - SCO Corollary - If I can't take it from you, I'll lie cheat deceive mislead
    or perjure myself to try to take it.

    4 - If I had it a little while ago, it's mine

    4a - SCO Corollary - If I didn't have it, a little while ago or a long time ago,
    it's mine

    5 - If I think it's mine, it must never appear to be yours in any way even.

    5a - There is no SCO Corollary - this is simply a restatement of SCO's
    "concepts"

    6 - If I'm doing or building something, all the pieces are mine.

    6a - SCO Corollary - If YOU are doing or building something, all the pieces are
    mine, even if I'm only guessing that you're building something or if I have to
    lie to a judge to make them think you are building something

    7 - If it looks just like mine, it's mine

    7a - SCO Corollary - If it doesn't look like mine, I'll lie, cheat,
    misappropriate, steal, perjure myself, or do whatever else is needed to make it
    look like whatever "it" is, it's mine

    8 - If I think it's mine, it's mine

    8a - SCO Corollary - If I don't think it's mine, it's mine anyway, under the
    DMCA, the ASPCA, or the EFLTA (Elmer Fudd License Transfer Agreement), the
    constitution, the first amendement to the Federation of Interplanetary Chumpkins
    Doctrine, and any other document I can think of.

    9 - If you try to take what is mine, I will cry until Mommy thinks you hit me -
    and then I'll take back what's mine.

    9a - SCO/Canopy Corollary - If you take from me, even if I have no idea what
    "it" is, or how or if I own "it", I'll fight you, lie,
    cheat, perjure myself, sell my soul to the devil or my company to Microsoft,
    make love to sheep, or do whatever else I think I have to to try to get
    "it" back because "it's mine"

    10 - If you disagree with my principle of "it's mine", I'll beat you
    up.

    10a - SCO Corollary - If you disagree with me at all, then you are a communist,
    a liar, un-American (whatever that means), unconstitutional, you have not
    listened to my paid analysts or rocket scientists or lawyers, and you must be
    funded by IBM and can't be trusted even though I've secretly been funded by
    Microsoft and their friends.

    Now, we can just rate McBride, Stowell, Sontag, Heise, Tibbits, Yarrow, and
    their band of merry men with simple numbers. Example: "Daimler Chrysler
    wouldn't answer our (misaddressed, misdirected, and misguided) letter."
    Response: just answer "Another 2a, 4a, 7a, 10 play, huh?".

    There now, isn't that a lot easier?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    11 Years too Late?
    Authored by: yorkshireman on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 04:42 AM EST
    This article from 1993

    http://www.simson.net/nextworld/93.2/93.2.ApMay.Community03.html

    Discusses one possible replacement for the ATT 3B2 servers at Chrysler which
    were already describ3ed as "obsolete".

    It seems unlikely that they would not have found a satisfactory replacement over
    the next 11 years.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Has Chrysler contributed code to Linux?
    Authored by: crs17 on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 04:47 AM EST
    Has DaimlerChrysler ever been anything but a user of linux?

    Is it possible for someone who has the linux source to grep through the code
    looking for contributor's addresses on the credits list? Are there any
    contributions from people with Chrysler or DC email address or DC copyrights?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The funniest part is this...
    Authored by: eggplant37 on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 06:01 AM EST
    "28. On information and belief, DC's refusal to certify that it is not violating the DC Software Agreement is also based, in part, on DC's use of UNIX technology, in violation of he DC Software Agreement, in migrating its installed base to the Linux operating system."
    So, suppose that DC long ago decided to wipe all the systems it ever used SCO UNIX on, or replaced all those machines, and relegated all the disks, boxes, manuals and retired machines to the dumpster, thus no longer considers themselves SCO customers. How does one go about becoming an ex-customer of SCO? Was DC supposed to have notified Darl & Co in writing that they've decided that SCO UNIX no longer meets their needs, thus they've dumpsterized *everything*?

    Darl thinks that once you're a customer, you're locked in to use SCO UNIX and nothing *but* SCO UNIX, from reading this crap suit. I'd say that the best defense is to tell Darl & Co to take a flying leap; we ain't usin' yer software any more, in any way, shape or form, and Linux ain't yers.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Change of control
    Authored by: minkwe on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:07 AM EST
    Section 7.08 of the license says you can not transfer it. Isn't that enough to
    dismiss the suit?

    ---
    Just my 0.02€ contribution to the floccinaucinihilipilification of SCO.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Plan
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:13 AM EST
    This is your typical 'Look at the Wookie' ploy, and it seems that everybody here
    is falling for it. (Discussing the 'merits' of the case, when it's obvious that
    the case has no merits.)

    SCO's plan seems pretty obvious to me - it's a variation on the ploy they tried
    (unsuccessfully) on IBM a year ago.

    SCO probably knew that DC isn't using the system any more, and they probably
    knew they sent the letter to the wrong address - SCO *did not* want DC (or
    anyone else) to reply; the purpose of the letter was simply to set up grounds
    for an easily dismissable lawsuit.

    Why? Because they're going to offer to settle, for much less money than it will
    cost DC to go to court.

    The terms of the settlement will include an NDA, stating that DC can't say
    anything about it... then Darl can go out and spew forth more FUD and lies
    ("DC knew they were in the wrong, they offered to settle, rather than face
    our top-notch attorneys in court! They bought Linux licenses from us!") in
    an attempt to boost their stock price.

    I just hope that DC decideds to call SCO's bluff, and launch a countersuit
    against them.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Daimler Chrysler uses SCO
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:16 AM EST

    I do consulting work for a very large Chrysler dealer.
    Tucked away in a corner there is a SCO UnixWare 7.0 (I
    think) box - they call it the 'Chrysler Dial' machine. I
    think it is used for ordering parts.

    That machine is marked for death - they're going to
    some web based thing just like all of the other
    applications that used to be on Unix hosts.

    I find it funny, but it appears that Chrysler Dial boxes
    running SCO are all on IBM hardware ... made ya smile,
    didn't I? :-) :-) :-)

    If the lease term doesn't require us to return that
    machine we're probably going to flip a quarter and put
    either RedHat or SuSE on it to purify its negative karma.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
    Authored by: pooky on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 09:30 AM EST
    It appears to me that SCO seems to think that if you were EVER a licensee, you
    are somehow still bound to comply with their rediculous audit request that is
    beyond the scope of what is allowed in the license.

    It's interesting that SCO is suing for failing to respond to the audit, wouldn't
    the normal 1st step be for SCO to tell DC that the license has been revoked?
    Wouldn't that be a more prudent 1st step in attempting to gain DC's compliance?
    SCO doesn't seem to be doing much to further the interest the audit provision of
    the license was supposed to serve, rather it's an excuse to commence legal
    action.

    It appears to me SCO is looking for excuses to sue people in court, and I have a
    hard time believing any jury won't see it the same way. SCO could have and
    should have done far more to force DC's compliance before resorting to this
    step.

    -pooky

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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    1987 !
    Authored by: blang on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 11:32 AM EST
    The contract SCO is flaunting, includes proces etc., about designated CPUS,
    dated 1987 for SysV r 3.

    What are the odds that any computers at all at DC is still using SYSVR3. Most
    likely, the only remnannts of such old stuff, might be manuals collecting dust
    in some basement.

    If I were DC, I would sue for a full refund, and inform SCO that any traces of
    SYSVr3 would be shredded.

    The designated CPUS probably must have been decommisioned 10 years ago.

    Asking a large coroporation like this to check the serial numbers on 20 years
    old machines (when life expectancy on such mahines is 5 years at best seems to
    me like nothing but harassment.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What can SCO actually license?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 12:18 PM EST
    "SCO is the exclusive licensor of software licenses for the UNIX operating
    system."

    To me that means that they can sell you a license to a license to UNIX, but not
    a license to UNIX itself. Sloppy writing again?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2004 @ 02:15 PM EST
    I doubt they care who got the letter, it wasn't anything but a publicity grab.
    I think the DC lawyers will just laugh this off.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Exhibits to Daimler Chrysler Complaint
    Authored by: walth on Friday, March 19 2004 @ 12:56 PM EST
    Very first line of the submitted court document is factually incorrect on TSGs
    part.

    "SCO is the exclusive licensor of software licenses for the UNIX
    operating system."

    "the UNIX operating system" is singular - i.e., there is no other UNIX
    operating system other than the SCO UNIX operating system. Not correct (see
    BSD). Or SCO is the 'exclusive licensor' for ALL UNIX operating systems - again
    not correct, and not what the sentence states.

    [ 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 )