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
Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT

Now it's Novell and Canopy suing each other. You may have seen Grace Leong's exclusive story in the Daily Herald on April 2 about Canopy and Novell attending a hearing in a breach of contract case stemming from the DR-DOS lawsuit. Or maybe you didn't hear about it. I didn't until a reader sent it to me. There is, natch, an order sealing the case from the public, as always there seems to be in Canopy lawsuits, and that gives it a low profile and makes it hard to get a totally clear picture.

According to the Daily Herald article, Canopy says it all happened like this: Novell was really the one that wanted to sue Microsoft but was afraid of retaliation. So they negotiated with Canopy to do it for them, then sold them rights to the DR-DOS source code on condition that Canopy sue Microsoft. Novell retained rights to royalties and license fees, but they kept out of the written agreements the part about Canopy suing on their behalf. That, according to Canopy, was agreed upon orally, their little secret. Now Canopy is trying to compel them to live up to the alleged oral contract. Those Canopy folks seem to have altogether too much time on their hands.

Novell tells the story very differently, naturally, which is why they ended up in court.

It's a fight about money, actually. But it has the same smarmy feel we have become accustomed to in Utah lawsuits. Here's what happened so far. Novell sued Canopy first, saying they breached their contract. It seems Canopy, when it won the DR-DOS lawsuit, deducted money paid to their lawyers in the case before paying Novell royalties owed them under the Novell-Canopy agreement. Novell sued and prevailed, the court granting their motion for summary judgment, but now Canopy has appealed and is asking for a jury trial. There was a hearing on April 2, which is what the Daily Herald was reporting.

Here is how one of Canopy's attorneys described its appeal of the lower court's decision in an interview with Leong:

"'There were oral understandings outside the written agreement, and Novell wanted to hide what the actual oral agreements were from Microsoft for fear of retaliation,' he said. 'That's why there's no clear definition in the agreements of Novell's participation in the Caldera lawsuit against Microsoft, and no clear definition of how the proceeds should be divided.'"

I contacted Novell, of course, and Bruce Lowry said this about Canopy's allegations:

"The Daily Herald got it wrong. Novell agrees that there were 'rights and causes of action' included in the terms of the deal, but we certainly don't believe these included an unwritten obligation for Caldera to sue Microsoft, as Canopy attests and as the Daily Herald misquote of Lundberg implies. That's what this whole case is about. Canopy is claiming there were 'unwritten' agreements that they'd sue Microsoft and that legal fees would be shaved off from any eventual settlement money that Novell was due (as part of the Novell-Canopy deal, Novell was entitled to royalties for any revenues derived from DR-DOS). The court found in Novell's favor that there weren't any 'unwritten agreements'. That's what Canopy is now appealing...

"At Canopy's request, the case was sealed, so seeing the contract isn't doable. There were two agreements - an asset transfer agreement and a licensing agreement (this was acknowledged by Canopy in open court). "

I started digging, and here is what I found. A decision could come any time, although it could be some months from now, according to Novell attorney John Mullen. We can't get the documents, because of the order putting the case under seal, and the judge put everything under seal, not just certain details, so the Provo District Court won't release any of the filed documents without a judge's order and neither will the Appeals Court. But Novell utterly disputes Canopy's revisionist history, as they see it. Note that they did win in the lower court, not Canopy.

I think you will find the details of what I did find fascinating. First, I find it intriguing that Canopy would like to forget about a written document and introduce testimony to a jury to try to say a deal on paper isn't the real deal. Who does that remind you of?

And another interesting thing. Canopy is represented in this case by two law firms, one local and the other the Summit Law Group, which is based in Seattle, WA. You may remember that name. I remembered with a start that they were one of the sponsors of the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco back in March, where Novell's Chris Stone spoke, along with many others.

It turns out, after a little digging, that the Summit Law Group was started by thirteen attorneys, including Matt Harris, who two sources told me was involved in Lineo legal matters, and Ralph Palumbo, the latter listed as one of the attorneys for Canopy in the current case. ( John Mullen, listed for Novell, also represented Novell yesterday in the SCO v. Novell hearing.) Summit Law Group's customers page doesn't list Canopy by name, but it was one of the firms representing Caldera in the Microsoft antitrust action. Summit refers to a successful "multbillion dollar software antitrust action" on the firm's litigation page; on Palumbo's page it lists Caldera v. Microsoft as one of his cases, and it calls it a multibillion dollar antitrust action, which is interesting because so far as I know, the amount of the settlement was one of the things not publicly revealed, because that case was under seal too, of course. Now we know Summit says it was in the billions. They also later represented Lineo, another Canopy Group company, as you can see in this SEC filing. Here is a 1999 Caldera press release that tells the Lineo story and lineage this way:

"Caldera®, Inc. today announced that its embedded Linux® research and development plans will be carried forward by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Caldera Thin Clients, which was today renamed Lineo™, Inc. Lineo's embedded Linux platform, Embedix™, is based on Caldera Systems' OpenLinux®, a full-featured operating system platform. . . .

"'Caldera was the first company to invest heavily in the establishment of Linux as an acceptable business solution,' said Bryan Sparks, CEO of both Caldera, Inc. and the newly-evolved Lineo, Inc. 'Five years after forming Caldera, we are now launching Lineo for the purpose of defining the commercial embedded Linux marketplace and obtaining wide market implementation of this incredible operating system environment in compact devices worldwide.' . . .

"Lineo will continue to develop and market its DR DOS® product line to embedded OEMs, including Embrowser™(formerly WebSpyder), the company's DOS-based graphical embedded Web browser. For the past two years, revenues from the DR DOS product line have funded Caldera Thin Clients' embedded business and the research and development for both Embedix and Embrowser. Lineo has already begun to port Embrowser to Linux. . . .

"Lineo is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Caldera, Inc. . . .Caldera, Inc. was founded by Bryan Sparks in the fall of 1994, and was incorporated in January of 1995. Caldera received initial funding from The Canopy Group, the family trust of Raymond J. Noorda, former Novell, Inc. Chairman and CEO. Caldera's business plan was to offer products based on the then-fledgling Linux operating system to business customers. Caldera built its success with Linux-based products through reseller, retail and direct channels. In July of 1996, Caldera purchased the DR DOS business and all related DOS assets from Novell for purposes of offering these technologies into embedded markets as well as integrating these products with the existing Linux product lines. In the summer of 1998, Caldera, Inc. created two separate companies to further focus development, marketing and sales efforts. Caldera Systems, Inc. was created to develop Linux-based products for PC software markets, with greatest success on desktops and servers. Caldera Thin Clients, Inc., targeted the thin client and embedded systems markets.

"Today, Caldera Thin Clients changed its name to Lineo, Inc. -- in part to distinguish the company's embedded Linux products from Caldera Systems's full-featured OpenLinux solutions, and in part to emphasize the evolution of the company to focus on the emerging embedded Linux market. Lineo actively defines the embedded Linux market and offers embedded Linux-based components and solutions to OEMs. Lineo maintains a strong relationship with Caldera Systems and uses Caldera System's OpenLinux technology as a basis for its embedded Linux solutions. Lineo is the benefactor of a history with both Linux and embedded systems. Lineo is based in Lindon, Utah and has a sales office in Taipei, Taiwan. Revenues for the company remain private and are released only to prospective investors."

In 2000, Lineo gave thought to going public, and they told their history like this in this S-1/A SEC filing:

"We began operations as a part of Caldera, Inc. in July 1996. We were incorporated as a separate entity in the State of Utah in August 1998 as Caldera Thin Clients, Inc., changed our name to Lineo, Inc. in July 1999 and reincorporated in the State of Delaware in January 2000."

Lineo became Embedix, with Matt Harris as CEO, and Embedix was later acquired by Motorola/Metrowerks. Here's the press release fromm 2002 on the acquisition of Lineo:

"SPECIAL REPORT: Motorola/Metrowerks acquires embedded Linux pioneer Lineo

"Dec. 17, 2002

"It's official: Following weeks of speculation, Motorola's Metrowerks embedded tools subsidiary today formally announced that they are acquiring the key assets of Embedix Inc. (formerly Lineo, Inc.), one of the earliest and most popular providers of embedded Linux software and tools.

"Metrowerks is well known for its popular CodeWarrior integrated development environment (IDE), which is used for embedded system software development. Lineo and Metrowerks have had a long standing strategic partnership including a $22.5 million investment by Metrowerks in Lineo in September 2000.

"According to today's announcement, Metrowerks is acquiring all key Embedix assets, including . . .

• Embedix SDK, a development tool for configuring and packaging embedded Linux distributions

• Embedix Plus for Smart Handheld Devices (used by Sharp in its Zaurus family of Linux-based handhelds)

• Embedix Plus RG for Residential Gateways

• Embedix Plus for Digital TVs

"In addition to acquiring the Embedix assets, Metrowerks plans to retain a significant portion of the Embedix (Lineo) team, including key management, engineering, marketing, and sales personnel, according to John Smolucha, Metrowerks vice president of strategic marketing.

"Metrowerks will use the newly gained embedded Linux assets and talent to target manufacturers developing applications for PDAs, smart handhelds, residential gateways, digital TVs, and other embedded systems and devices, Smolucha said. Additionally, the company plans to offer Linux-based end-to-end solutions including middleware and IP stacks targeting the netcom, wireless, and consumer electronics markets."

DR-DOS went to Device Logics. Bryan Sparks, who worked at Novell and then founded Caldera, Inc., later ended up heading up Device Logics. Yes, that Caldera, Inc., the one that sued Microsoft. His bio says he oversaw the purchase of DR-DOS from Novell while he was at Caldera:

"In 1996, Sparks oversaw the acquisition of DR-DOS from Novell and the creation of a thin clients initiative that created software solutions for the embedded market. In 1999, this initiative was created as Lineo, Inc."

Then, after overseeing the acquisition of DR-DOS, Sparks spun it to Lineo, which he was also CEO of, and then, after he arrived at Device Logics, he bought it from Canopy Group. What I'm not clear on is how DR DOS went from Caldera to Lineo to Canopy. Caldera and Lineo were both Canopy companies, so maybe it was informal, but there does seem to be a bit of a hop, skip and a jump here in the chain of ownership that I can't yet explain. The one person who appears in each hop, however, is Sparks, leaving out the unexplained Canopy step. He buys it for Caldera, and it is then sent to Lineo, and then somehow it goes to Canopy, and there is Sparks, on the receiving end of the next hop to Device Logics. Here is the November 2002 Device Logics press release about that acquisition:

"DeviceLogics, Inc. today announced that it has acquired DR-DOS from the Canopy Group, a Utah technology venture group, and has plans to release in Spring of 2003 an 8.0 version of DOS, bringing it up-to-date with core embedded functionality. DeviceLogics also plans to release an updated software development kit (SDK) targeted at embedded developers.

"'Fortune 500 companies continue to depend on DOS-based devices to deliver their day-to-day services. Arguably, DOS remains one of the most stable OS environments and, with our planned enhancements, will continue to be deployed on embedded devices where stability and ease-of-development are king,' said Bryan Sparks, CEO of DeviceLogics, Inc. 'The scrawny, old cow is still giving milk.'"

"DR-DOS originated in 1987 at Digital Research, Inc.; was then acquired by Novell in the early 90s; in 1996, DR-DOS was acquired by Caldera, Inc., the same company that sued and settled out-of-court with Microsoft Corporation over DOS-related anti-trust allegations; in 1998, it was spun out to Lineo, Inc. (a Canopy company) where it underwent enhancements targeted at the embedded market and, in October 2002, was acquired by DeviceLogics, Inc.

"DeviceLogics, Inc. was founded by Bryan Sparks, Bryce Burns and Troy Tribe for the advancement of DOS as an embedded solution."

See what I mean about the missing link? Lineo had DR-DOS, and it wasn't acquired until December 2002, according to the date on the press release. But two months prior, in October, Device Logics buys it from Canopy. No Canopy is mentioned in their paragraph at the end describing the DR-DOS history, but yet Device Logics is announcing it is buying it not from Lineo (or Embedix), but from Canopy.

Matt Harris went to Embedix, which was acquired by Motorola, and it became Metrowerks. Harris is the CEO of Metroworks now. Small world, isn't it? This story is like visiting a small town in the Ozarks, where everyone is related to everyone else some way, somehow, and something just doesn't feel quite right.

Next, I got the eensie bit of information that is publicly available [1] from the court, the Case Summary for Novell, Inc. v. The Canopy Group, Inc. in the Utah Court of Appeals, dated April 2, 2004. Reading it as a paralegal, it looks to me like the administrator wrote up what the case is about from reading Canopy's version in its pleadings, without including anything from Novell, which is not all that rare, particularly because Canopy is the one asking for the appeal. I also don't know, and can't know, what pleadings were filed. The Administrator is evidently supposed to write up a brief background of the case and the issues, and it's logical that he or she looks at the pleadings to get that info. If you are in a hurry, and court personnel often are, you might just skim and write down a good enough version from whatever is on top, without checking carefully to make sure you get it all balanced and exact.

I draw that conclusion because the summary states as facts matters that are still at issue in the case, and yet I know from talking to the court that no decision has yet been reached. In a normal case, it wouldn't much matter, because you could read the documents each side filed in the case and find out for yourself what it is about; but when you can't do that, because the judge has ordered the case sealed, such a summary really needs to be exact, which this doesn't seem to be. On the other hand, because it's all black-boxed, who really knows?

It is a valuable document, despite being one-sided, because it lays out Canopy's case, and for that reason it is worth reading. It's possible the Daily Herald may have gotten its theme from this summary, in addition to talking with the attorneys at the hearing, and if you were not a lawyer or a paralegal and so didn't know how these things can work, reading the summary might cause you to get a wrong impression. So here it is:

Case Summary for
Novell, Inc. v. The Canopy Group, Inc.
in the Utah Court of Appeals

2 April 2004

I. Background

This is a breach of contract action. Novell, Inc. (Novell) owned the source code for DR DOS, a computer operating system, that was the target of anti-competitive practices by Microsoft in the early 1990's. Novell's board of directors worried that, if they brought suit against Microsoft in a private anti-trust action, Microsoft would retaliate with further unfair practices that could neutralize any anti-trust recovery. At the same time, shareholders would not permit Novell to simply walk away from such a significant cause of action.

Accordingly, Novell entered into negotiations with The Canopy Group, Inc. (Canopy), to sell DR DOS to Canopy. The main purpose of this sale was to obligate Canopy to bring suit against Microsoft, allow Novell to share in the recovery, and at the same time obfuscate Novell's role in the action. Novell insisted that its role be completely undetectable to avoid retaliation from Microsoft.

To accomplish this, Novell and Canopy executed two separate documents, the first a contract of sale, obligating Canopy to pay $400,000 for rights to the source code, and the second a temporary license obligating the company to pay $600,000 in license fees and "royalties'. The royalties included provisions for payment to Novell a percentage of any recoveries from lawsuits.

Upon execution of these documents, Canopy initiated suit against Microsoft. The dispute was settled by Microsoft and Canopy. Before Canopy paid Novell its percentage, Canopy deducted attorney fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses, applying the percentage to the remaining amounts. Novell initiated suit for breach of contract, claiming the two documents that constituted the contract made no allowance for the deductions Canopy made.

Upon competing motions for summary judgment, the Fourth District court granted summary judgment to Novell, ruling that the two documents, when read as a whole, constituted an integrated, unambiguous contract that allowed no such deductions.

II. Issues

Canopy appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Novell and the trial court's denial of summary judgment to Canopy. Canopy raises various challenges to the trial court's rulings regarding integration and ambiguity. For example, Canopy argues the written documents could not be integrated because obligation to bring suit against Microsoft, are not contained in the documents, although both parties agree that such an obligation was an essential provision in the contract.

That last sentence is obviously wrong, since it is the heart of the dispute. If the two sides agreed, they wouldn't be in court. So I take this document as reflective of Canopy's position only. One final note, in the SEC filing for Lineo, which was based on OpenLinux and was the usual Caldera meld of proprietary and GPL software, they list this in the risks section:

" . . .because we rely in part on open source intellectual property, we may find it necessary to defend the open source community from attempts by others to misappropriate, whether by copyright or otherwise, technology which belongs to the open source community."

If you have a taste for irony, I think it would be hard to top that.


[1] There is also a case history available for Novell v. Canopy, Docket Information Case - 20030211, Case: 000402011, status "Under Advisement". However, you can't link to it directly. Instead, click on their New Search button, and type in the case number 20030211, and it will show you the page.


  


Now It's Novell v. Canopy | 339 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Please put corrections in this thread, so I can find them quickly. Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just trying to deflect Novell's attention from the SCO case
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT
EOM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will they do it again with SCO?
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 02:55 PM EDT
I wonder if, in a few years time, Canopy will claim that Santa Cruz sold the
UNIX copyrights to Caldera with an unwritten agreement that Calder would change
it's name to SCO and start suing Linux users.

Actually, perhaps the agreement isn't unwritten and that's the real reason the
Santa Cruz Op --> Caldera transfer agreement has "gone missing."

:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: icebarron on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 02:59 PM EDT
Surely there must be some way to gain access to the sealed court documents. I
think we would be able to determine their pattern of abuse of the legal system,
as well as get an idea of their modus operandi on future litigation efforts.
They have proven not to be a investment firm to drive innovation, but instead
are vultures lurking over dead technology.

Dan
It's time to end the non-sensical lawsuit seeking carrion sucking companies like
Canopy...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sco settles copyright case over plagerism
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7578

[ Reply to This | # ]

I See A Trend Developing
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT
Doesn't this (Novell v. Canopy):
"'There were oral understandings outside the written agreement, and Novell
wanted to hide what the actual oral agreements were from Microsoft for fear of
retaliation,' he said. 'That's why there's no clear definition in the agreements
of Novell's participation in the Caldera lawsuit against Microsoft, and no clear
definition of how the proceeds should be divided.'"
sound like this (SCO v. Novell):
Brent Hatch: Mr. Jacobs reads the contract now without the benefit of a
knowledge of the contract. He leaves out large portions of the contract and we
haven't been through discovery to see what is said by those who were there.

I just love those non-literal interpretations!

[ Reply to This | # ]

That's Why You Put Contracts in Writing
Authored by: Ruidh on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:11 PM EDT
So that, later when it becomes clear that there's actually some money involved,
someone dosn't come back amd claim the agreement meant something else entirely.

It seems that SCOX's lawyers don't actually have any original ideas, so all they
are left with is recycling arguments used to geed effect by better lawyers
elsewhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

WOW!!! Dismissals, reinstatements and extensions.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:12 PM EDT
So Groklawyers think the SCO-IBM case is drawn out. Look at this one. Canopy
appeals, the court orders a default dismissal. After dismissal, they file for
an extension of time. The extension is granted, the dismisal reinstated, the
brief filed (presumably late). Three more extensions, WOW!


07/29/2003 Order of Default Dismissal
08/01/2003 Extension of Time Filed By Fax Granted
08/06/2003 Extension Granted
08/06/2003 Reinstated: Order of Dismissal
09/08/2003 Appellant's Brief Filed
09/08/2003 Misc Motion Granted 09/15/2003
09/15/2003 Misc Motion Granted
09/26/2003 Extension of Time for Appellee Stipulatio
10/09/2003 Supersedeas Bond filed
10/22/2003 Extension of Time for Appellee Granted 10/23/2003
10/23/2003 Extension Granted
01/06/2004 Appellee's Brief Filed
01/23/2004 Called for Record
01/27/2004 Calendared
02/09/2004 Motion-Continue Oral Argument
02/09/2004 Appellant's Reply Brief Filed
02/11/2004 Withdraw Motion
03/03/2004 Record Filed - Civil
04/02/2004 Submitted on Oral Argument

[ Reply to This | # ]

Statute of Frauds?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:22 PM EDT
Seems to me I remember something called the "statute of frauds," in
which any contract valued over a certain amount of money ($500?) has to be in
writing. I don't know if it's federal law, state law, UCC, common law, or
something else. I assume Utah has some kind of statute of frauds.

Anyway, Darl is trying to use the same "oral" trick in the copyright
dispute with Novell now before Kimball, in which Darl says he can produce oral
testimony that Novell intended to transfer Unix copyrights, no matter what the
documents show or don't show.

Well, that's what they get for trying to seal deals over drinks in a noisy
neighborhood bar. All Novell's attorneys have to say is that they couldn't hear
what Canopy's lawyers were saying, so there was no agreement.

It's truly pitiful that Canopy is reduced to "oral" contracts where
nothing can verified. Sound familiar?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Irony
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:25 PM EDT
If you want irony, how about the (alleged) history of Novell talking Canopy into
being a sock puppet, to create a lawsuit against Microsoft?

Although, I do notice that they seem to have deviated from the previous
"business model" in the current itteration.

1) Supposedly, Canopy paid Novell for DR-DOS (and, supposedly, rights to
sock-puppet-hood). In the later version, Canopy got MS to pay THEM to file a
suit.

2) In the case of DR-DOS, it appears Canopy actually GOT the copyrights.

3) In the case of DR-DOS, it appears Canopy WON the suit. (Perhaps #2
contributed to this.)

--------------

I also like the thought of Novell worrying about Microsoft retaliation. Bet
they're really glad they hid their involvement, so they'd be safe from Microsoft
using anti-competitive tactics against them.

-----------

I'm remembering an observation made by a character in a Spider Robinson story:
"God is an iron". (The character's response, on hearing this comment
was "And I'm a pair of pants with a hole burned in his a**?") The
explanation was "If a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is
an iron."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:31 PM EDT
I know I am not contributing much, since I am bit nieve about all this
litigation. But it is starting to look like the snakes are starting to come out
of the den. Or maybe the Godfather didn't like how Darl was handling things, so
he sent in his "brothers Tony and Angelo."

Whatever it is, definately better than a soap opera.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So essentially this boils down to...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Canopy is using SCO as a weapon in a personal vendeta to Novell?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Stoneshop on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Who does that remind you of?

What? You're asking us to use our memories for some associative information from the past? You don't have a document detailing the exact person or persons you allude to here? Tssk.

---
Rik
IANALJLMOY


[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: sef on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT

Ow. My head hurts.

This is awfully convoluted. Yuck!

[ Reply to This | # ]

There's an old saying...
Authored by: Prototrm on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT
...that a verbal agreement is worth the paper it's printed on. If you're willing
to bet your company's fortunes on one of them, you're a braver man than I, Gunga
Din.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT

It's not difficult to imagine Novell saying to Canopy, 'You'll need to sue Microsoft', with Canopy taking it as a term or condition of a contract, while Novell only meant it as a piece of advice or information, or as a recommendation for action to take in order to make the most of the deal.

In the case summary, it's said that "The royalties included provisions for payment to Novell a percentage of any recoveries from lawsuits." Would I be right to understand that this is quite a normal part of such contracts? That it would just be part of Novell contracting Canopy to carry out that part of Novell's business on Novell's behalf? It would seem to make a lot of sense for that to be the case, just as a matter of course.

It's too easy to imagine how conversations between Novell and Canopy might have gone, with Canopy taking things as oral contracts, while Novell only meant such things as information. Novell, I can imagine, would have been explaining why they were selling rights and stuff related to DR DOS. Canopy, on the other hand, saw their negotiations as constituting an oral contract.

It also seems very reminiscent of Novell's selling of Unix stuff, and The SCO Group's claims of what things meant, what was intended, etc.

Anyway, it's interesting stuff.

Thank you, PJ, and others, for all this hard work you're putting in to bringing these things to light :-)

---
Open and Honest - Open Source

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: m_si_M on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT
Unbelievable.

Groklaw: No stone unturned!

Canopy: No turn unstoned!

---
C.S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Important pattern here
Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT

There's an important pattern here that we cannot overlook:

  1. Canopy wants to make "oral agreements" more important than the actual written contracts.
  2. They want to introduce testimony from witnesses as to what the "intent" of the contract was.
  3. They want a trial by jury.

This is the exact same pattern as in the current SCO vs. Novell Slander of Title case. Neither Canopy nor SCO/Caldera wants to rely on the actual written contracts. Instead they'd rather rewrite history using their own witnesses that support their revised history. Also, they both demand a trial by jury no doubt hoping they can put on a show using their witnesses and succeed that way.

The pattern is blatantly obvious and I'm glad that we're exposing them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:45 PM EDT
Is this a normal business practice:

Step 1:
1) Become CEO of some large computer firm with IP assets.
2) Negotiate deal with some small upstart company to (ahem) sell assets. (but
with really vague legalese)
3) Leave big conglomerate
4) Manage to become CEO of same small upstart firm that is now a medium sized
almost conglomerate.
5) Litigate old conglomerate for billions becuase the wording on the contract is
vague...
6) Profit????

[ Reply to This | # ]

Precedent?
Authored by: jals on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT

Could it be they are trying to set a precedent to use for the Novell vs SCO Suit? Is this somehow factible? What I mean is, could they later state an unwritten agreement is binding?

[ Reply to This | # ]

At this point, I'm really wondering...
Authored by: ray08 on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:55 PM EDT
if there is a single good company left in Utah! This case, at this point, casts
doubts on Novell. We all knew Canopy is crap from day one, as I believe every
one of their companies are too. Ralph Yarro has already stated publicly that he
is not afraid of "taking on" anyone, including the likes of IBM and
M$: sound familiar?? (Darl) Canopy operates by moving funds from one company to
another, as each one needs. An "all-in-the-family" effect.

Now, how much is Novell involved in this case? Remember, the older Novell
spawned Canopy and most (or a lot anyway) of Canopy's holdings. Current Novell
management may have inherited some dirty laundry. FWIW

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:03 PM EDT
Having been brought up on a diet of US TV melodramas, I can only wonder that
there are not lots of murders connected with US business deals.

If I were a FOSS coder, and recently had my eyes opened as to what goes on with
these corporations, I think I might be tempted to say;
"'Expletive deleted' it, these people are not worth getting involved
with."

The FOSS community has integrity & ethics, the US business community seems
to be a moral wasteland.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: ujay on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Ok, Now I am seriously considering requesting the EPA to determine what is
leaking into the groundwater in Utah.

We have Canopy and SCO both claiming that contracts were written in error, and
'my buddy Bubba here can tell you what was really said.'

Is incompetence 101 a required course for business management in Utah? I've
known since I was 10 that if it isn't written down, you're SOL.

While piercing the veil of secrecy over Canopy may be nigh well impossible, it
should be possible to get a list of cases they were involved in, check SEC
filings for monies achieved in litigation, and other connections.

It's appearing more and more that SCO, Lineo, Caldera, Novell etc... are simply
threads in the web, and that Canopy is the bloated Shelob at the center.


---
Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into
code

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell v. Canopy - A Simple Explaination
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:13 PM EDT
Novell seem to simply be saying the the costs of the lawsuit should come from
Canopy's part of the settlement.

Presumably Canopy was responsible for the cost of manufacturing marketing and
selling DR-DOS, so there is an analogy there. Without knowing the figures it is
impossible to know if the arrangement was equitable or the costs inflated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A slice of my life
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:18 PM EDT
I was there and have seen it all. I had a front row seat. You are wrong if you
believe or speculate that the Novell, Canopy, Caldera, Lineo, SCO, etc. soap
opera has been an orchestrated effort. Rather, there were a series of decisions
made to make a business grow and prosper. Of course, the gravitation was to the
easist type of business rather than old fashioned business. What I mean is there
was too much old technology that had loose pieces available for further
exploitation rather than the creation of new technology.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's printed on"
Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT
Samuel Goldwyn (MGM).



---
To THE SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Confused, you will be!
Authored by: geoff lane on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:31 PM EDT
As the man said, "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on."

There's a very good reason why contracts are best written down - it's supposed to avoid this very situation. Unless Canopy can offer hard evidence (much better than "he said so") they are going to lose.

It occurs to me that ten years ago most of the major characters in this sorry saga were employed by Novell. At the time Novell was hell bent in committing corporate suicide - wildly adopting new markets and management in an attempt to move on from Netware. In the process much of the management ended up on the streets and apparently found Canopy/Caldera/SCO a nice warm place to settle.

I can imagine that a lot of old scores are being settled here. The dash to expensive legal processes in the hope of winning a legal lottery instead of investing in new technology means that when the process ends it doesn't matter if you have won, the money will all have disappeared into the lawyers pockets. So you don't have any money, don't have any product and don't have any customers.

It's like watching the last of the dinosaurs fight each other to the death over who gets to eat a little shrew-like mammal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I have a question
Authored by: sef on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:36 PM EDT

Novell sold DR-DOS to Canopy. If, as Canopy claims, this was so Canopy could sue MIcrosoft on Novell's behalf...

What was Canopy supposed to have gotten out of it?

Actually, this is really a question against Novell, I think: if Canopy couldn't even keep the legal fees from any settlements, what was the point?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why are they fighting?
Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:37 PM EDT
I have unwritten contracts with both Novell and SCO that say they have to pay me
95% of the income anyway, I don't mind which one of them signs the cheque.

IANALIATASSS
(I am not a lawyer I am trying a SCOG Style Scan)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:37 PM EDT
We've all been wondering why SCO chose to use a Slander Lawsuit. Im just
wondering, would this have anything to do with the two suits?

[ Reply to This | # ]

and the best part is...
Authored by: maco on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT
Canopy, having made billions(!?) on the MS lawsuit, hits on Novell for the lawyers' fees!

This is ethics at a new level. I am in awe.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One thing I know...
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:44 PM EDT
with all these lawsuits going on, all the lawyers must be getting filthy rich.
I don't know about anybody else.


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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Canopy folk
Authored by: kberrien on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Is it me, or do Canopy folk have a problem with contracts?

Second, if Canopy would be more than happy to proxy war on behalf of Novell, why
not (through SCO) proxy war against Linux on behalf of Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Under court Seal
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:55 PM EDT
It seems to me that there is much abuse of this, what requirements/justification
is there for sealing the proceedings of a civil case?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Memory check
Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:57 PM EDT
isn't one of Darl's claims that HE was part of the management of Novell and was
responsable for negociations.

maybe canopy should sue TSG and Darl.

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Memory check - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 12:13 AM EDT
    • Memory check - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 14 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
Now It's Novell v. Canopy How does this evolve and from where?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:08 PM EDT
ya gotta have a feeling that Utah is a pretty small place. I know it's got some
ski areas. Maybe all these players go skiing together, discuss and decide stuff
on the ski lift heading up the hill... and boom. It's a done deal.

I wonder how much of Novell that the Norda Family Trust still owns and how much
control this would give them. Then, one wonders, About a SCO/CANOPY... mix and
where does Novell come into this play.

Is someone out there doing a bit of GOOD COP, bad cop on Linux? If so, then who
is it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:20 PM EDT
This is somewhat old history, and the current case seems to be about the same as
2 people arguing over who should pay the tip at the end of the meal.

The Canopy v. Microsoft case finished in January 2000, with the reported result
that MS paid Canopy $250M. In May that year Novell booked a $35 million royalty
payment from Canopy's as its 'cut'.

The result is that this case has just continued on as Canopy tries to get the
allocation of costs over turned. Its likly that the case is about only a few
million from Novell's point of view, but unless it starts to incur external
legal costs, Novell is likely to be happy to allocate its legal staff as part of
its day to day business costs.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Now It's Novell v. Canopy
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT
Ok, I must admit I am not an expert.

But I have been following this site very closely. And this is the first time I
hear of a case between Novell & Canopy??

Did anyone else know about this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

MSFT payoff
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:31 PM EDT

In the Caldera v Microsoft case, the OSes are Windows and DR-DOS, and the settlement terms, rumoured to include a nine-figure payoff to Canopy, are secret.

I never quite understood why MSFT would pay off Caldera. According to Reliable Source Robert X. Cringely, in his book "Accidental Empires", Gary Kildall and MSFT settled a suit over the origins of MS-DOS a long time ago. Cringely strongly implies that QDOS, and hence MS-DOS 1.0, amounted to nothing more than an x86 re-assembly of a disassembly of C/PM. In support of this implication, Cringley quotes Kildall to the effect that strings in arguments to MS-DOS and C/PM system calls (or whatever they call them, interrupts?) end in a '$' character. Kildall knows why, but not even Gates knows why at MSFT.

I have a theory that since MSFT stole MS-DOS from DR and MSFT stole Windows NT from DEC (Micah, anyone?) MSFT has some kind of hidden shame. This shame gives it a neurosis that causes MSFT to go overboard when someone copies from them - product activation codes for XP, Palladium/NGSCB, the DRM in WMA, etc etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this the way the scam will be continued?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:31 PM EDT
I saw this on yahoo and wanted to see if the "groklawers"
here are familiar with this Canopy approach. I'm hoping
that IBM is big and mean enough that it won't work as well
this time
-----------------------------------------------------
>>
Yes, the Lineo bankruptcy was a sham. Egan and Canopy made
a secured loan to Lineo. Immediately used the loan to
cause a bankrupcy. Used the secured debt to get the assets
(Dr DOS and Embedix) to themselves.
<<

IIRC, Canopy also made a loan to SCOX some time ago. This
loan's secured by whatever precious IP SCO actually owns.
If BayStar wants to lay hands on the SysV copyrights in BK
court, they're going to have to fight Canopy for them.
Whoever wins is going to have to fight Novell over whether
SCO owned any copyrights to begin with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell v. Canopy - Makes no Sense
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:36 PM EDT
Even if you grant the Novell didn't want to make Microsoft mad, There could
easily have been a clause in the agreement dealing with a contingency of
litigation;

In the event that purchaser finds is necessary to take legal action to ... the
cost of litigation shall be deducted from the .... prior to payment of
royalties.

OF course the language woudl have to be rafted to match the rest of the
agreement.

IANAL but I see things like this in contracts all the time. I can't see how
Microsoft could object to this or how this would tim them off to a plan by
Canopy and Novell to sue them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: European Software Patent fight in France
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:53 PM EDT

There has been an open letter to the President of France from the heads of 31
software firms calling on the President to reverse the Irish Presidency's sneak
attack re-instating software patents.

Perhaps PJ can translate these and do a story on them. I understand that the
meeting to ratify the universal acceptance of software patents is being called
for Monday the 17th by the EU Council of Ministers.

http://fr.news.yahoo.com/040512/85/3spx4.html
http://www.aful.org/presse/pr-20040512-lettre_ouverte_au_president_republique

[ Reply to This | # ]

    But did Lineo get all DR DOS assets?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:53 PM EDT
    After looking into the 2000 Lineo SEC filing I find that Lineo only got
    "certain assets" related to DR DOS. Here is what I found.

    In the Overview section:
    "We began operations as part of Caldera, Inc. in July 1996 when Caldera
    purchased assets relating to a disk operating system, known as DR DOS. Caldera
    marketed DR DOS technology primarily as an embedded operating system for
    microprocessors to be used in products and systems other than desktop personal
    computers. In August 1998, we were incorporated as a separate entity, and in
    September 1998, Caldera transferred to us licensing rights and assets relating
    to the DR DOS and embedded system businesses. At the same time, Caldera
    transferred assets not related to those businesses to a separate entity,
    Caldera
    Systems, Inc. See "Related-Party Transactions" on page 55 for a more
    complete
    description of the transactions between us and Caldera Systems"

    In the Related-Party Transaction Section:
    " TECHNOLOGY


    In September 1998, we entered into a DR DOS License Agreement with Caldera,
    Inc., a company founded by Mr. Sparks, our president, chief executive officer
    and chairman of the board. The agreement granted to us a perpetual,
    non-exclusive, royalty-free worldwide license to make, use, sell, reproduce and
    distribute DR DOS. It also allowed us to create new products based on DR DOS.
    As
    consideration, we granted Caldera the right to receive shares of our common
    stock."

    and in the LINEO, INC AND SUBSIDIARIES section:
    "(1) ORGANIZATION AND DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

    Lineo, Inc. ("Lineo") was originally incorporated as a Utah
    corporation on
    August 26, 1998 as Caldera Thin Clients, Inc. and was reincorporated as a
    Delaware corporation on January 21, 2000. Lineo began operations in July 1996
    as
    part of Caldera, Inc. ("Caldera").

    Prior to July 1996, Caldera was developing and marketing Linux operating
    system software and related products for desktop personal computers and
    servers.
    On July 23, 1996, through an asset purchase, Caldera acquired certain rights
    related to a DOS-based operating system, which was marketed primarily as an
    embedded operating system in non-desktop microprocessors. Caldera continued the
    development of the DOS-based operating system for embedded applications.
    Caldera
    subsequently made the strategic determination to separate its two business
    lines
    into separate entities and, effective September 1, 1998, transferred certain of
    the assets relating to the DOS-based operating system to Lineo in exchange for
    18,000,000 shares of common stock. Also effective September 1, 1998, Caldera
    sold certain assets not related to the DOS-based operating system to Caldera
    Systems, Inc. ("Caldera Systems"). Prior to the reorganization of
    Caldera, The
    Canopy Group ("Canopy") was the majority shareholder of Caldera and
    continued to
    be the majority shareholder of Lineo and was the sole shareholder of Caldera
    Systems."

    So it seem that in September 1998 Lineo entered into a License Agreement and
    obtained "certain assets" related to DR DOS. I would assume that
    Canopy retained "certain assets."

    But the question is did Motorola get those "certain assets" when they
    purchased Lineo/Embedix?

    bphenry

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Multi-billion? Unlikely.
    Authored by: Dark on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 06:30 PM EDT
    I think the "multi-billion" phrase is more likely to refer to the
    damage claim than to the actual settlement amount. Just like SCO vs. IBM is a
    multi-billion lawsuit.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT - Novell demands for proceeds from license agreement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 06:39 PM EDT
    PJ,

    Have you heard anymore about the issue Novell raised sometime back, where in a
    letter from Novell to TSG that demanded an accounting of the license fees by TSG
    and back due payments to Novell, which included monies paid by Sun and Microsoft
    and basically TSG said get lost? Apperently, TSG has not paid any license fees
    monies to Novell in quite sometime and there is considerable amount back due,
    plus 95 per cent of the Sun and Microsoft monies if you believe Novell's request
    of TSG.

    In particuliar, Novell is claiming that 95 per cent of what both Sun and
    Microsoft paid TSG was owed to Novell, as these where both existing customers,
    and TSG has not paid Novell yet.

    I keep expecting Novell to announce another lawsuit against TSG, just like to
    current spat with Canopy about proceeds from DR-DOS (Microsoft).

    This seems to be a all to fimiliar pattern from Cnaopy.
    --- DR-Dos ----
    Canopy: What money?
    Novell: The DR-Dos lawsuit proceeds per our written contract.
    Canopy: That doesn't apply. After all, we had to pay the laywers and all of
    these expenses, we shouldn't have to share with you to!

    --- TSG ---
    TSG: What money?
    Novell: 95 per cent of the licensing fee you just recieved from Sun and
    Microsoft per our written agreement, plus the back payments you owe us.
    TSG: That doesn't apply, we have to bring all these lawsuits, and pay
    lawyers, and our expenses, we shouldn't have to share with you to!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The obvious queston that nobody is asking
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 07:52 PM EDT
    The obvious queston that nobody is asking:

    Is Canopy in some kind of financial black hole???

    There were only 2 half-way decent (using a very liberal definition of
    "decent") in the whole cruddy Canopy portfolio -- and Canopy seem to
    be determined to strip mine both of these.


    1. First we get the Altiris (first "decent" Canopy company). The
    stock price is temporarily bubbled up (artificially inflated?), and Canopy sells
    shares like no tomorrow.


    2. Next we get the SCO/Caldera thing.

    IMHO, the only three half-way plausible explanations that have ever been
    proposed are (it may be more than one of them)

    (i) It's an incredible long-shot to harass IBM into pay them something (billions
    or not)

    (ii) It's an attempt to get IBM to buy out SCO/Caldera

    (iii) It's a stock scam, to artificially inflate the price and make some money
    by selling shares during the bubble.

    None of these suggest a long-term interest in the company. In fact, all suggest
    the idea is to get as much money for Canopy as quickly as possible, and the
    destruction of SCO/Caldera is an acceptable risk (to yarro) in this plan


    3. We get this dispute with Novell.

    And this dispute suggests Canopy can't, won't or simply doesn't want to pay its
    bills.



    When you see this kind of pattern of attempting to turn assets into cash
    whatever the cost and risk, you have to start to wonder if the entity showing
    this behavior (i.e. Canopy) might be either in, or about to enter into, some
    kind of financial difficulties.

    I have no knowledge whether they are, or are not, but they are acting as if they
    are.


    Is it possible that they have frittered away Norda's billions in worthless dot
    com style investments?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 08:01 PM EDT
    HMM...

    Novel sues Canopy because they lost a percentage of revenue due to the deduction
    of legal fees, for a settlement that may have been in the BILLIONS?

    This means either Novel was due a very large percentage of the revenue. OR
    Canopy spent a whole lot on legal fees. (Possibly some of it funnelled to
    insider lawyers to avoid royalties). Canopy (possible comment) Yea we got 3
    Billion but it cost us 2.8 Billion in legal fees, those layers in Canopy er...
    the legal firm don't come cheap!

    There has to be substantial motivation there.....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Canopy Siphoning
    Authored by: maco on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT
    Wasn't there something about Canopy siphoning off much of the MS payout to
    Caldera, stiffing the shareholders?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    forgot to mention kuwan who brought this up on may 10
    Authored by: constant peers on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:25 PM EDT
    hark
    thanks buddys

    ---
    yes mind, it does matter. yes matter, do mind

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:56 PM EDT

    Can a plaintiff possibly prevail in a lawsuit based on an unfulfilled oral agreement? Without material proof whatsoever, an oral agreement is essentially a baseless claim as I see it.

    What if I go sue Canopy right now for a billion dollars saying that's what they promised to give me in an oral agreement. How does that differ from what Canopy is trying to pull in this case?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy--History lesson
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 10:15 PM EDT
    I find the whole "secret deal" thing hard to believe. I was working
    as a NetWare admin back when Norda was pretty much forced to leave Novell. It
    was about time. Norda was trying to use Novell as a weapon to wage a personal
    vendetta against Microsoft. I find it much more likely that the "verbal
    agreement" between Novell and Canopy was that "We'll sell you DR-DOS
    if you agree to get Norda out of here." The whole Canopy-Microsoft lawsuit
    was just a continuation of that personal war.

    What I do find interesting, though, is that in both cases, where Novell sold
    software (DR-DOS and UNIX), it retained royalty rights. I'm wondering if it
    retains any royalty rights to WordPerfect, which it sold many years ago to
    Corel.

    Brian M.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy
    Authored by: sbungay on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 10:37 PM EDT
    Bill must be wringing his hands in glee over how eaisly these greedy fools can
    be manipulated. While they noisely fight over what is essentially a dead-horse
    (DR DOS), and SCO stands in the corner wailing for attention with an albatross
    (UNIX) hanging around it's neck; the good ship Micro$oft is pouring on the coal,
    steaming towards the release date of their next big thing. By the time these
    guys get their heads out of the clouds and realize what has happened it will be
    too late for them. They are cuting themselves out of the game and they are too
    blinded by greed to realize it.
    Deja Vu... AT&T vs Berkely, only this time it's not Windoze 3.0 thats
    poised for launch, it's Longhorn; some of the same players though, IBM, Novell,
    UNIX (last time in the guise of AT&T, this time dressed as SCO) and the only
    ones actually benefiting are the Lawyers and M$. Another difference (thank
    God!)is that Linux development and deployment is continuing where BSD
    development & deployment stalled... something which must infuriate M$ to no
    end.


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

    IANAL IAAP

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Canopy, OS lawsuits and Secrecy
    Authored by: radix2 on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 11:21 PM EDT
    Just to clarify: Canopy did NOT grow out of Novell. Certain ex-Novell employees
    formed or joined Canopy, but that was not a Novell corporate initiative...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: little anti-F/OSS horror
    Authored by: AveryAndrews on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 01:54 AM EDT
    I can't find the place this was linked from, apologies if it was here!

    http://www.adti.net/outop.htm

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    At one time Caldera WAS going to open source DR.DOS
    Authored by: royc on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 04:09 AM EDT
    I am sorry if this is posted else-where. I did not see it as a top level thread
    (and think it should be).

    If I remember correctly, when Caldera (then a Linux Company) aquired Novell DOS,
    they anounced that they intended to open source the whole thing.

    They made the complete binaries available on their FTP servers (I had used
    NOVELL-DOS before and downloaded it as well from Caldrea).

    After a few months they did make a few of the programs source available (most
    notably, command.com) but then backed down on open sourcing everything.

    They also changed the projects name back to Dr.DOS (not sure if this was just
    before the Caldera-MS suit, but it sounds like Caldera was pretending that they
    were some one else even back then.)

    Not long after that they anounced that they were planning on marketing (now
    re-named) Dr.DOS as an embedded system.

    Then a bit later they pulled the OS from their FTP servers , stoped licensing it
    for free use, and started charging for it.

    Thing is, if I remember correctly, you could freely copy the Novell/Dr.DOS
    system, but the license to use it was as an individual, not as a business.

    Well, just a bit of history that I remember from the Dr.DOS deal.

    Roy

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: For your amusement...
    Authored by: WojtekPod on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 06:13 AM EDT
    Microsoft says it patches its software and Linux don't; of course it's customers
    who are guilty:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15881

    For Microsoft, it seems, "fair competition" and
    "truthfulness" are completely *out of use* terms.

    Disgusting.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy
    Authored by: odysseus on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 08:54 AM EDT
    I have little doubt that the substance of what Canopy is
    saying is true, its just their spin for unscrupulous
    reasons that is wrong.

    I'm pretty sure that Novell knew that had a good
    anti-trust case against MS, but decided that pursuing it
    could do more long-term damage than good. Once Noorda was
    gone, the head-to-head anti-MS drive within Novell
    declined, but Noorda knew that it could be a good
    money-spinner for his new start-up. Who approached who, I
    don't know, but there was only one logical reason for the
    purchase: to sue, and I'm sure it was discussed around the
    negotiating table, and I'll bet all legal papers were part
    of the asset purchase list. And Novell surely wouldn't
    hand over such a potential little earner without ensuring
    they got a cut of the proceeds, it would be irresponsible
    not to.

    Now, Canopy mis-characterises the story as "Novell made me
    do it" to save themselves handing over Novells fair cut
    ofthe proceeds.

    John.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO System V for Linux Release 1.0
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
    http://www.sco.sk/newsletter/newsletter-archive/SCO_Newsletter_6.html

    SCO System V for Linux Release 1.0

    The SCO Group announces availability of SCO System V for Linux Release 1

    SCO System V for Linux Release 1.0: SCO UNIX Runtime Libraries licenses binary
    SCO OpenServer shared libraries for use on Linux systems. Many Linux
    distributions include the Linux ABI facility. Linux ABI implements iBCS2: the
    Intel386 Family Binary Compatibility Specification 2". (Copyright 1991,
    1990, 1989 by Intel). iBCS2 support enables the Linux kernel to run binary
    applications that were compiled for SCO UNIX platforms. The SCO System V for
    Linux product gives customers a way to license and install the SCO OpenServer
    libraries for use by SCO UNIX binaries running on a Linux system.

    SCO System V for Linux Release 1.0 provides the same SCO shared libraries that
    are bundled with SCO OpenServer systems. This ensures that SCO UNIX applications
    have exactly the libraries that they need. These libraries are compatible with
    applications developed on earlier versions of SCO UNIX such as 3.2v4.2,
    OpenDesktop and all versions of OpenServer.

    SCO System V for Linux is available at no cost to current SCO Linux 4.0
    customers via the SCO Linux Update Service. For non-SCO Linux systems, the SCO
    System V for Linux rpm is available for web download. The rpm permits easy entry
    of the license data required for installation on non-SCO Linux systems.

    SCO System V for Linux is of value to any customer who wants to run SCO UNIX
    binary applications on Linux. The OpenServer libraries provided in Release 1.0
    are required by many legacy SCO UNIX applications. Potential customers include
    anyone looking to migrate all or parts of existing OpenServer or SCO UNIX
    applications on Linux using the Linux ABI facility and the SCO System V for
    Linux product. This can eliminate the need to either re-compile existing
    applications or replace them with native Linux applications. These are almost
    always time consuming and expensive approaches that customers would like to
    avoid.

    The combination of the Linux ABI and SCO System V for Linux provides the key
    enabling environment for running an SCO UNIX binary application on Linux.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: SCO luvs Tux
    Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 09:59 AM EDT
    At www.sco.sk, play "where's Waldo"... with Tux! I counted at least three...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • OT: SCO luvs Tux - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 12:52 PM EDT
    OT- the U of Toronto Open Source Conference
    Authored by: tangomike on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 10:00 AM EDT
    Good coverage of the conference, even in dead tree media. here'a an article on
    Day 1 including Eben Moglen's contribution:

    http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/04/05/10/0256258.shtml?tid=2&tid=82&t
    id=94



    ---
    To THE SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Identity Theft
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 11:03 AM EDT
    Suppose someone named Jane Doe had a grandmother named Susan Catherine Oliver.
    The grandmother got married years ago and is now called Susan Smith.

    Jane Doe renames herself Susan Catherine Oliver, and claims that since she is
    the only Susan Catherine Oliver in the family, everything about Susan Catherine
    Oliver belongs to her, including all achievements, assets, even her birthdate.

    This is called identity theft.

    What is the difference between Susan Catherine Oliver and SCO?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 11:04 AM EDT
    Honestly.

    If my company is ever approached by Noorda or Canopy Group, I will sell my
    shares, open source as much as I can, change my identity, and run like the wind.
    Otherwise, I will just camp out in the nearest court room; since that is where
    I would likely end up.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now It's Novell v. Canopy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT
    Here's some material on ethics and morality.

    http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_index.htm

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO Regional Newsletters
    Authored by: Alan Bell on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 11:32 AM EDT
    Sco Regional newsletter 1
    Sco Regional newsletter 2
    Sco Regional newsletter 3
    Sco Regional newsletter 4
    Sco Regional newsletter 5
    Sco Regional newsletter 6
    Sco Regional newsletter 7
    none of it new but the contrast between 6 and 7 is interesting.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT - Microsoft Goes Open Source !
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 12:06 PM EDT
    eweek is reporting:

    "Microsoft Releases WTL Source Code

    The company open-sources its Windows Template Library code, saying the move will
    make WTL no longer just something its users consume "but rather something
    they can pick up and modify."

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1591369,00.asp

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: Congress mulls DMCA revisions
    Authored by: leguirerj on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT
    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5211674.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO Copies from Book, Settles with Publishing Company
    Authored by: RabidBear on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 12:33 PM EDT
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7578

    Some time before mid-2003, SCO copied entire chapters of a No Starch book, The
    Book of Webmin by Joe Cooper, into SCO's on-line documentation.

    Wholesale copying, mmmm wonder why this sounds so familiar?

    What a bunch of chuckleheads.

    [ 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 )