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
Transcripts of the IBM and Novell Hearings
Friday, June 25 2004 @ 04:17 AM EDT

We have the transcripts of the two hearings, the SCO-IBM dispute over bifurcation of the patent claims and the dispute over whether to prolong discovery and the trial, and the SCO-Novell hearing about the motions to dismiss and to remand. I haven't had time to read the Novell one yet, but I didn't want you to have to wait.

So here are the IBM hearing transcript of the June 8 hearing and the the Novell hearing transcript of the May 11 hearing.

I have had a quick look at the IBM hearing, and several things jump out. First, IBM wiped up the floor with SCO, despite the new SCO IP lawyer, Mr. Frei, being quite a smoothie, very quick on his feet. It isn't his fault he had to argue a losing case. He did a creditable job.

IBM did a fabulous job of making sure this judge understands that SCO has virtually conceded that IBM has not taken any of UNIX System V code and put it in Linux, or as Mr. Marriott puts it:

"After two motions to compel and two orders requiring disclosure, it's become clear, in fact SCO has effectively conceded, that it has no evidence that IBM took source code from the UNIX operating system and put it into Linux. Instead, the crux of the case, it is now clear, is that IBM, according to SCO, has taken its own code out of its own separate operating system."

What the case is really about is whether SCO gets to control the entire world's derivative code that they didn't write and that they don't own the copyrights to, just because of a contract that SCO says they suddenly discover gives them that power, all with the apparent goal to make sure no large corporation with a license from AT&T ever gets to donate anything of significance to Linux.

It is a remarkable statement from IBM, and SCO didn't directly dispute it, although Hatch at one point earlier routinely mentioned that SCO's copyrighted code was put into Linux. SCO had two opportunities to dispute what IBM said but didn't, despite this being their motion, meaning they get more times to speak and rebut than IBM gets.

It's like with the motion papers. Whoever brings the motion gets two bites of the apple: first you bring a motion, the other side answers, and then you get to respond. Same at the hearing. First SCO spoke, then IBM, and then SCO got to respond. Each got an extra 30-second chance at the very end, but no matter how you look at it, SCO got opportunities to argue against what IBM said and they never did that I can see.

When I read the reports of the eyewitnesses who attended the hearing, I thought the Judge telling IBM's attorney to get to the point indicated some hostility. I don't now that I read the transcript. I see now that he was indicating that he knows what an operating system is, and he just wanted not to waste time on that and get to the relevant point. That is a good sign.

The only reason, I now believe, that SCO got a delay at all, now that I've read the transcript, is because they argued they couldn't physically handle so many depositions in such a short period of time left, plus Mr. Frei arguing that they are down to very little discovery time and only three interrogatories, and they haven't even started patent discovery. IBM of course pointed out there was nobody preventing them, and even said they, SCO, have yet to notice even one deposition, which amazes me and speaks to how much of a hurry they are in, and now I see that Judge Kimball is just being prudent. By giving them a bit more time, it precludes SCO being able to argue on appeal that they didn't have time to prepare properly and, just in case SCO is really unable, you give them the benefit of the doubt. You definitely want to cut them off at the pass on any such argument on appeal. And whether or not they are responsible for the mess they are in -- and Hatch alludes to the games they played with discovery, without giving it that name -- you really don't want this case decided on anything but the merits, not on who can physically cover all the depositions.

You will also note that we can guess what Judge Wells' order about handing over affidavits and declarations 48 hours prior to a deposition stemmed from. Of the three possibilities I laid out yesterday, I would say it looks like number one to me, tattling to mommy and being believed. SCO seems desperate here. They actually argue that IBM should offer to prove their case by bringing forth not what SCO asked for but what they meant, what they should have asked for if they had done a better job of framing the question.

Here are the snips I thought were the most significant, starting with the new lawyer on the patent bifurcation, Mr. Frei, which he lost, and then Hatch and Marriott on the scheduling order, where SCO partially got a delay but not what they were asking for. I think you'll see why SCO really wanted to bifurcate the patent counterclaims:

Frei: The case needs to proceed at its own pace. . . .

But it looks like IBM filed the patent counterclaims to have a spillover effect in the rest of case as far as the jury deliberations are concerned. They have said clearly in their brief, and I quote:

SCO claims to respect the intellectual property rights of others. It has infringed and is infringing on a number of IBM's copyrights and patents.

Just the risk of prejudice to the jury that if they think we infringed IBM's patents that somehow our claim doesn't have merit, the rest of our claim doesn't have merit, just that risk of confusion is enough to sever the case.

Hatch: In addition to that matter, there's been, you know, as always at the beginning of the case, the complexity, when we're dealing with good attorneys and aggressive attorneys, there's been a considerable amount of jockeying that has affected the schedule. And part of that resulted in Judge Wells at one point staying discovery for a period of three months. And then at the end of that three months, giving one party 45 days to respond to some of the discovery the motion compel at the beginning of that. So that took about four and a half months out of it, as well. . . .

Marriott: After two motions to compel and two orders requiring disclosure, it's become clear, in fact, SCO has effectively conceded that it has no evidence that IBM took source code from the UNIX operating system and put it into Linux. Instead, the crux of the case, it is now clear, is that IBM according to SCO has taken its own code out of its own separate operating system. And that, as they describe the contract case being the crux of the case is the case as they appear to see it.

SCO asserts essentially that it either owns or has the right to control a very significant chunk of the world's operating system source codes. All of the UNIX V family operating source code.

SCO acknowledges that IBM owns its own home-grown code, but contends it has the right to control that code. And SCO asserts the right to control, to license, the Linux operating system developed by thousands of developers over a decade. . . .

From the beginning of the suit SCO asserted that we had infringed SCO's copyrights related to the UNIX System V family operating system. And SCO doesn't own the copyrights for the IBM operating system and the copyrights with respect to Linux are owned by those thousands of individuals and corporations which have made contributions to Linux. But it asserts that IBM has infringed its copyrights. . . .

In the 15 months of this litigation, SCO has not noticed a single deposition of IBM. . . .

Even today, Your Honor, SCO has still not identified in more than a year in litigation a single line, not a single line of the UNIX System V code, this is not UNIX System V code, a single line of the code from this family operating system which we're alleged to somewhat misappropriate.


  


Transcripts of the IBM and Novell Hearings | 179 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: PJ on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 05:21 AM EDT
Pls. put any typos and other corrections here, so I can find them easily. Thank

you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Posts Here
Authored by: jdg on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 05:38 AM EDT
Place off-topic posts here.

---
SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Back to Copyright arguments again? Thought they'd given up on that...
Authored by: mcstafford on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 05:49 AM EDT
From page 21 of the IBM transcript:

"...it's about our allegations and contentions that IBM has moved
source code that _WAS COPYRIGHTED AND OWNED BY US_ under which IBM
had the contractual obligations not to use elsewhere, and they've moved it to
Linux."

Say WHAT? I don't seem to recall that they've come up with a single line of
code that "copyrighted and owned by" SCO that IBM has placed in
Linux. In fact, I seem to recall that they'd given up on that whole line of
thinking to concentrate on the "OBLIGATIONS NOT TO USE ELSEWHERE"
garbage.

Interesting that they've tried to glue those two lines of thinking together into

some kind of frankenstein argument here...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcribing
Authored by: gormanly on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 06:17 AM EDT
I'm reading the Novell one and transcribing as I go - anyone else working on
this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

So, what's fair?
Authored by: Jude on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 07:01 AM EDT
Just the risk of prejudice to the jury that if they think we infringed IBM's patents that somehow our claim doesn't have merit, the rest of our claim doesn't have merit, just that risk of confusion is enough to sever the case.

SCO argues that awareness of IBM's patent claims would prejudice the jury WRT SCO's own claims.
However, SCO's intensive efforts to publicize their own complaints against IBM has probably
made it impossible to find a jury for the patent claims that would be unaware of SCO's original complaints.

SCO appears to be arguing that SCO must be protected from possible jury prejudice, despite
the fact that SCO's behaviour has made it practically impossible for IBM to get similar protection.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcripts of the IBM and Novell Hearings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 07:27 AM EDT
Interesting point on Page 24 (line 18) of the Novell transcript - it talks about
the transfer of "The Unixware Business", not Unixware as a whole.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcripts of the IBM and Novell Hearings
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 07:59 AM EDT
p27: "the Unix operating system, your Honor, was first developed in the
beginning in 1969 by AT&T and Bill Lattery."

I was wondering who this mysterious programming genius "Bill Lattery"
was - I had always associated Unix with Thompson and Ritchie at AT&T.

Couldn't be "Bell Laboratory" now could it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

List of persons who had access
Authored by: Kevin on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 08:05 AM EDT
[SCO's lawyers] actually argue that IBM should offer to prove their case by bringing forth not what SCO asked for but what they meant, what they should have asked for if they had done a better job of framing the question.

Moreover, their own actions - in the Court record - are inconsistent with the argument. SCO requests the names of everyone who has been on IBM's Linux project. IBM provides 7200 names. SCO complains that the names of Sam Palmisano and IBM's Board of Directors aren't on the list. IBM responds by expanding the list to 8000. And now SCO argues that what it really wanted was the names of the 250 programmers that some old IBM press release mentioned.

Complaining that IBM's first response was insufficiently detailed, and then complaining that it was a blatant attempt to drown SCO in detail? That goes beyond desperation. Does SCO think that Judge Kimball and Magistrate Wells don't talk to one another? Or is SCO seriously asking us to believe that IBM's directors are kernel hackers in addition to being financiers?

Damned lies. (Don't assail my language. "Damned" is precisely the correct technical term.)

---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell to dispense with both cases?
Authored by: winnetuxet on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 08:50 AM EDT
From the SCO v. Novell Hearing May 11, 2004

Mr. Michael Jacobs (Atty for Novell): You have two of the many SCO cases that
are now filed around the country.
Judge Kimball: So I've read.
Mr. Jacobs: And they're alleging copyright infringement in SCO v. IBM. So I just
want you to have in mind what you're doing here may have some bearing on your
other case. I think it would be useful to walk you through the asset purchase
agreement because...
Judge Kimball: I can solve them both by some ruling here?

Looks to me me like Judge Kimball already has a good idea of how to dispense
with both cases. Notice it was he that suggested the idea!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO has not noticed a single deposition of IBM
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 09:13 AM EDT
Can someone tell me what "SCO has not noticed a single deposition of
IBM" means in plain english?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good attorneys vs. aggressive attorneys?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 10:03 AM EDT
The phrase the judge used, "when we're dealing with good attorneys and
aggressive attorneys," struck me. You think he was characterizing two or more
law firms, on different sides of some case he drew? And if so, which attorneys
do you think were on which side?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcribing IBM text
Authored by: Kelledin on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT

Anyone transcribing the IBM hearing yet? If not, I'm on it.

---
<Lionel Hutz> I'll be defending...The SCO Group!!!??? Even if I lose, I'll be famous!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should have been bifurcated...
Authored by: kenryan on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 10:38 AM EDT
<underwear mode=kevlar> <!--asbestos is too scratchy-->

I never thought I'd have agreed with *anything* SCO
had to say, but after reading the transcript and
thinking it over...

IMHO I think Kimball should have gone ahead and let SCO
bifurcate the patent stuff from the rest of the case.
I don't think it would have mattered a bit in the long
run.

First, I'm not thrilled in the first place about patents
being used as weapons, even against folks like this. I
know our broken patent system allows it (arguably
encourages it) but as someone who dreams of starting a
technology company the whole notion gives me the
heebie-jeebies.

Second, is it truly necessary to scorch, salt, irradiate,
*and* cast a pox on SCO's earth? I suppose the value it
does have is to serve as warning that anyone else trying
this stunt will also face IBM's full broadside...

Third, I think there is a valid point in that due to the
patent system brokenness, where the defendant has the far
greater burden to invalidate or otherwise defend against
the claims than the patent holder has to prove infringement.
The presumption of validity means the defendant has a whole
lot of work to do. Even if SCO has the entire rest of the
case resolved *today* IMHO they still have a significant
uphill effort to fight the patent fight (assuming there's
anything left after being scorched, salted and irradiated).



---
ken
(speaking only for myself)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells' role
Authored by: hhind on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 11:14 AM EDT
I have been seeing hints that Judge Wells is much more involved in the day-to-day aspects of discovery than what is indicated in the record. Yesterday I speculated on this a bit with regards to the fact that she held a teleconference hearing on June 7 to deal with the protective order, and then on June 8 (same day as the hearing before Judge Kimball) held another teleconference to deal with the 48 hour notice for depositions. As we now see from the transcript (p. 45) it is clearer that PJ's option 1 "somebody tattled to mom about a late affidavit" is obviously the most likely.

My question is, Is there any record available of the interactions of the parties with Judge Wells? Are these teleconferences recorded/transcribable, or are they similar to conversations in the Judge's chambers that the public is not allowed access to?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG made a good faith effort...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT
...to comply with discovery. They really did. SCOG desperately wants to find
the copied code. While that statement is technically correct, it paints a
misleading picture.

A bank robber's good faith effort to run away as fast as he can't doesn't mean
he's fully acting in good faith. SCOG's global actions are in bad faith, even
though they may at times try to do the odd thing right.

SCOG's argument on this can be summed up as "we tried really really really

hard to show that IBM was bad, and we couldn't. Make them tell us! They
know they were bad!"

Going back to the core of this, though, even if SCOG is 100% right about what
IBM was doing with AIX code and with their tortured contractrual
interpretations, they are still morallly wrong. IBM wrote that code, IBM added
that functionality, IBM developed the ideas and methods that they are adding
to Linux. Even if IBM signed a ridiculous contract that gives SCOG perpertual
control rights over anything that inhaled a whiff of SYSV, they have no moral
right to it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kind of funny.
Authored by: frk3 on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT

O.K., this is not going to be some insightful analysis, not about points missed (by either side), etc.

Now, maybe I am wearing big blue colored biased sunglasses, but I can't help but think that near the end of the hearing, TSG's arguments fall into the category of something like:

Mom, tell him to stop, he is looking at me, and I have told him to stop looking at me on numerous occasions, and you also told him to do so twice. And, even though he is not looking at me, his head is turned in my direction, and even though his eyes are closed, I still think he is peeking at me. Make him stop. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (instert temper tantrum).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transferring copyrights-SCO v Novell
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Hatch's argument for SCO from the Novell transcript:
. . . Simply put, the 204(a) is the same. It doesn't apply any standards at all. Just like Jasper, its only requirement is there be a writing. And I don't think there can be really honest dispute that there is a writing here.
It looks like here Hatch's argument is that just any old writing will do. He very conveniently ignores that the writing must contain language specifically transferring the copyright and specifying what is being transferred. If I understand Hatch's argument correctly, Novell could have written, "Kiss my foot," and that would have been enough to transfer the copyrights.

I don't think so.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Non-literal humorous transcription SCO v. IBM
Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT

THE COURT: That's the dream I was speaking of earlier

MR. HATCH: Yes. I think the reason the lawyers are here, Your Honor, and it may actually be a dream for clients that we finally quit doing our work. But the reality is we're humans, too, and the schedule I think becomes a little onerous physically.

Also I think...

MR. MARRIOT: Objection, Your Honor!

THE COURT: Mr. Marriot, this is not a trial. You may respond but not object.

MR. MARRIOT: Yes, Your Honor, but I must point out that some of my colleagues were once human, but now they are the Nazgul.

THE COURT: Duly noted, continue Mr. Hatch.

"italics indicate my own fabrications"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO may be right!
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 02:46 PM EDT
Imagine the possability that SCO may be right regarding their interpretation of
the copyright being transfered.
They hint that there is more evidence to come (depositions, documents, press
releases etc).

But this lawsuit was about 'slander of title'! If there is so much yet to prove,
and it is not obvious from the very begining, there can not be any slander of
title. If Novell had good reason to belive what they said then the case is over!
And that is regardless of who acutally owns the copyright!

Now, SCO has always tried to delay. In this case they are in a desperate hurry!
They have to prove that they own the copyright. But that can not be done in this
lawsuit! To the best of my understanding they will have to take Novell to court
over the copyright issue, not 'slander of title'. In this case the time works
against SCO!
Maybe Novell should ask for the process being stayed instead of dismissed! That
would make SCO sweat!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge Wells didn't know who should go first?
Authored by: GLJason on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 03:59 PM EDT
Hatch talking for SCOX at the top of page 50:
[Judge Wells] said, look, you say, IBM, you've got to have SCO go first. SCO, you say you have to have IBM go first. I don't know (emphasis mine) But I'm going to make a call. It's right in the order. It's as plain as day. It doesn't say what they say, you're the plantiff. I'm going to make you go first.
Hatch, who argued the above in court, was at the hearing that this transcript is from. Judges don't make rulings on the flip of a coin. They don't order a motion to compell and at the same time ORDER the stay of discovery from the other party until it is completed just because they feel like it. In her ruling, Judge Wells made it clear she took into consideration the motions of both parties, supporting documents, and relevant case law. Apparently she accorded more weight to IBM's arguments. This was her opening thoughts before arguments were heard, and what the essence of her ruling was:
Based upon my review of those items, I would tell you what my intention is today so that we can then focus the argument towards that particular end. As I've stated, and based upon my review of those items mentioned, it would be my intention to grant defendant IBM's motion to compel answers as to both sets of interrogatories, and to require plaintiff SCO to file responses to these interrogatories or affidavits indicating that they are unable to do so and why within 30 days of the entry of this order. I would further intend on directing that IBM's responses should correct those deficiencies that are set forth in the defendant's addendum which was filed on 11-4 of this year, and that is to include answers to Interrogatories No. 12 and 13. Now, in the interim, it would also be my intention to otherwise postpone all other discovery until such filings have been and compliance has been achieved.
I don't know about the judges here, but I would be VERY offended if a lawyer was putting words into my mouth in another court. I think Kimball should call Wells and ask her what her thoughts were when granting IBM's motion to compell and initiating the stay in discovery. I'd bet anthing she won't tell him "I just didn't know who to let go first..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hatch fudges
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 04:59 PM EDT
From SCO v Novell, Mr. Hatch says
We're going to find that Novell transferred copyrights to us at the time of closing.
That won't fly. According to the APA schedule 1b, all copyrights were specifically excluded from the assets that were transferred at the time of closing. Amendment 2 which was executed at some time after the closing (if it is valid at all), merely modified the exclusion on certain, unspecified copyrights. It did not convey anything, and there is no schedule of what specific copyrights, if any, would have been conveyed if there had been a conveyance.

IANAL, but I have learned much about legal matters from reading Groklaw. [And, no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express!]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Hatch fudges - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 06:31 PM EDT
List of 7200 names
Authored by: Graywing on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT
Don't know if anyone will read this but I was reading the IBM transcript and noticed a bit of dispute of the interrogratory that resulted in IBM providing a list of 7200 names of the people that had access to the code. IBM says if merely answered the request and SCO says thats not what they asked for. Well with a little digging:

From SCO's SCO Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel

"Idenetify all persons who have or had access to UNIX source code, AIX source code and Dynix source code, including derivative works, modifications, and methods. For each such person, set forth precisely the materials to with he or she had access."

IBM's Response was :

"In addition to the forging general objetions IBM specifically to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeks information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. IBM also objects to this interrogatory on the grounds that the phrase 'derivative works, modifications, and/or methds,' as used in this Interrogatory, is vague, ambigous, and unitelligible. IBM further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad to the extent it seeks the identification of 'all' persons who have had access to the subject code and information. Subject to as limited by, and without waiving the forgoing general and specific objections, IBM provides the following, based upon a reasonable search of IBMS's records: a listof persons (including current and former IBM employees, IBM contractors and employees of IBM vendors) who may have or may have had access either to AIX source code or to AIX changes and fix records (Attachment B); a list of persons at IBM who may have current assess to Dynix code (Attachment C); and a list of persons (current and former IBM employees) who may have or may have had access to UNIX System V source code (Attachment D).

By my reading of both the interrogratory and the response and the verbal battle at the motion hearing IBM gave them ""all personsons have or had access to UNIX source code, AIX source code and Dynix source"

SCO's Lawyers once again forget what they said. Next you will hear them tell the judge "Well that's what we said but what we meant was..." just like my little sister used to do.

---
Ahh!! The mind what a wonderful trap.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two questions
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 05:34 PM EDT
1) Would someone please explain exactly what a deposition is? Who benefits
from them? Why are they important? Why do they take so much time?

2) Is it a lot of work to convert these scanned PDF files into text or a pdf
file with text information (as opposed to text as a scanned picture)? Does it
have to be retyped or is there like a GPL'd OCR program that can parse them
quickly (GPL OCR ASAP ;) ).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Missing documents?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 25 2004 @ 07:21 PM EDT
I cannot locate the letter from May 28, 2003 that Mr. Hatch is quoting from:

"Novell challenged SCO's claims to UNIX patent and copyright ownership and demanded that SCO substantiate its allegations that Linux infringed SCO's property rights. Amendment 2 to the 1995 SCO-Novell asset purchase agreement was sent to Novell last night by SCO. To Novell's knowledge, this plan is not present in Novell's payment. The amount of energy support [sic] SCO's claim that ownership to certain copyrights bringing [sic] did transfer to SCO in 1992."
[page 23 at 2-10]

Could it be an error in transcript or did they misrepresented the facts to the court? I look at this http://ww w.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/5_28_03_n-sco.pdf and cannot find language even close to the quote. Was there another letter? -- dennis

[ Reply to This | # ]

Screwup quoting from AT&T license agreement
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 26 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT
Hatch quotes from section 7.06:

Licensee agrees that it shall hold all parts, NOT JUST
SOME OF THEM, BUT ALL PARTS of the software products ...
[in confidence] ...

(The words in caps are not in the agreement but were added
by Hatch. The words in brackets are in the agreement but
were not quoted by Hatch.)
Note that he stresses the wording about "all parts." What he
neglected to do was to check the side letter that IBM had
with AT&T, where section 7.06 is superceded by a new version
in which the wording about "all parts" is deleted:

7.06 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold SOFTWARE
PRODUCTS ... in confidence for AT&T.

This change in wording means that SCO cannot apply this
clause about confidentiality to any arbitrary bit of AIX,
whether it includes SVR4 code or not,
but rather one must first determine if any such bit
meets the definition of a derivative work (and a such
must be treated as part of the original software product)
before deciding if the clause applies.

[ 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 )