|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Stowell worked for Lineo too. - Authored by: atul on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- Corrections Here Please - Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Corrections Here Please - Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Missing ownership link - Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Prophetic? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- Corrections Here Please - Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Corrections Here Please - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Caldera begins... - Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Interesting article - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT
- Direct URL to Case 20030211 - Authored by: unixan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT
- calder or canopy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:28 PM EDT
- (OT) Daimler-Chrysler? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 10:40 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 02:52 PM EDT |
EOM [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7578
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sef on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
Ow. My head hurts.
This is awfully convoluted. Yuck! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
There's an important pattern here that we cannot
overlook:
- Canopy wants to make "oral agreements" more important
than the
actual written contracts.
- They want to introduce testimony
from witnesses as to what the
"intent" of the contract
was.
- 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: fgoldstein on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 07:14 PM EDT
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: Patrick Corrigan on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- Just a fast question....... - Authored by: savage on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:08 PM EDT
- I am wondering. - Authored by: LarryVance on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT
- Canopy Companies =! Automatically Evil - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT
- At this point, I'm really wondering... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 $35 million royalty
payment from Canopy's as its 'cut'.
The result is that this case has just continued on as Canopy tries to get the
allocation of costs over turned. Its likly that the case is about only a few
million from Novell's point of view, but unless it starts to incur external
legal costs, Novell is likely to be happy to allocate its legal staff as part of
its day to day business costs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
Ok, I must admit I am not an expert.
But I have been following this site very closely. And this is the first time I
hear of a case between Novell & Canopy??
Did anyone else know about this?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 12 2004 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
In the Caldera v Microsoft case, the OSes are Windows and DR-DOS, and
the
settlement terms, rumoured to include a nine-figure payoff to Canopy,
are
secret.
I never quite understood why MSFT would pay off Caldera.
According to Reliable Source Robert X. Cringely, in his book "Accidental
Empires", Gary Kildall and MSFT settled a suit over the origins of MS-DOS a long
time ago. Cringely strongly implies that QDOS, and hence MS-DOS 1.0, amounted to
nothing more than an x86 re-assembly of a disassembly of C/PM. In support of
this implication, Cringley quotes Kildall to the effect that strings in
arguments to MS-DOS and C/PM system calls (or whatever they call them,
interrupts?) end in a '$' 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: leguirerj on Thursday, May 13 2004 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5211674.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|