decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Friday, July 29 2005 @ 07:37 PM EDT

I know you are waiting with eager anticipation, because today is the day Novell was to file its answer to SCO's slander of title complaint. I have verified that they have done so. Here is what I know so far, with the document to follow as soon as possible. UPDATE: Here it is [PDF], Novell's Answer and Counterclaims.

Here's the big news. Novell tells the court that SCO contacted Novell after Darl McBride took the helm, and they asked Novell to go in with them in a "Linux licensing program". Novell refused to participate, calling it a "scheme". It was in that context that SCO asked Novell to give them the Unix copyrights. They repeatedly made such requests, asking Novell to amend the Novell-Santa Cruz agreement to give SCO the copyrights. Novell repeatedly said no.

The next biggest news is Novell is bringing Microsoft and Sun Microsystems into the picture. It looks like we will eventually find out what role they played, if any. Novell tells us that it began an audit of SCO's activities in July of 2003, which it was entitled to do under the contract, but SCO refused to turn over requested information regarding Sun Microsystems' and Microsoft's licenses or any others under the SCOsource program. Novell says that SCO had no authority to enter into new SVRX licenses with Sun, Microsoft, or anybody else and they noted that the IP License for Linux SCO was offering appeared to be SVRX licenses, because they purported to grant rights related to UNIX System V or UnixWare. SCO never turned over anything, and that is the foundation of Novell's breach of contract claim, and it leads to the breach of obligation to remit royalties claim. SCO never asked Novell for permission to enter into any new SVRX licenses, so none of the new licenses, Novell asserts, falls within §1.2(e)'s exception to SCO's general duty to remit 100% of SVRX royalties to Novell. They are asserting their rights to all but 5% of what Sun and Microsoft paid.

They ask the court for specific performance, to compel SCO to comply with its audit *and remittance* obligations. Specific performance is legalese when you are asking the court to make the other party to a contract do what it said it would. They also ask the court to set up a constructive trust for SCO to deposit the revenues from Sun, Microsoft, and all revenue from its "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors," to protect Novell from "SCO's wrongful retention of monies owing Novell due to SCO's failure to perform its remittance obligations." That should get the SCO lawyers to wake up with a start. Do you think SCO is finally sorry it started down this road? I'll bet the lawyers are, even if SCO isn't. Novell has just handed them a lot of work to do, with uncertainty as to getting paid for it. That uncertainty is also why Novell asks the court to order a trust be established, because, Novell says, SCO is quickly dissipating its assets.

Discovery, here we come. We'll get to see those Sun, Microsoft and SCOsource licenses yet, methinks. If the court sustains these claims, all the SCOsource money SCO ever got or ever could get would go to Novell, with a small handling fee to them for their trouble. Actually not even that. Novell says SCO was unjustly enriched by keeping the revenue but not fulfilling its administrative, remittance and audit obligations, so they don't deserve the 5% either. Novell is aiming its arrows straight at SCO's heart, where it lives, namely its pocketbook. Oh, my, oh, my. Not to the moon after all?

Novell lists a number of affirmative defenses and several counterclaims, including slander of title. Yay. At last. I was pretty sure that was going to show up.

Novell's affirmative defenses are:

  • Privilege
  • Estoppel
  • Unclean Hands
  • Laches
  • Comparative Fault
  • Failure to Mitigate
  • No Causation
  • Claims barred in whole or in part by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Here's what they ask for in the Wherefore clauses:

  • That SCO take nothing by the Amended Complaint
  • That the Court enter judgment in favor of Novell and against SCO, dismissing with prejudice the Amended Complaint and each of its causes of action
  • That the Court award Novell its reasonable expenses and costs incurred, including without limitation attorneys' fees, in defending against the Amended Complaint
  • actual and special damages caused by SCO's slander of Novell's title to the UNIX copyrights
  • punitive damages for "SCO's malicious and wilful conduct in slandering Novell's title"
  • preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring SCO to withdraw its improperly registered claims to UNIX copyrights and to withdraw all other representations it has made regarding its purported ownership of the UNIX copyrights
  • actual and special damages caused by SCO's breach of contract
  • specific performance of future compliance with SCO's audit obligations
  • specific performance of future compliance with SCO's royalty obligations
  • an order imposing a constructive trust on the revenues remitted to SCO under new or amended SVRX Linceses
  • an order attaching SCO's assets pending adjudication of Novell's contract claims
  • declaratory relief establishing Novell's rights and SCO's obligations under the contract regarding section 4.16(b)
  • preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enforcing Novell's rights under the APA, including injunctive relief barring SCO from taking actions inconsistent with or in violation of sections 1.2(b), 1.2(f), 4.16(a) and 4.16(b)
  • for declaratory relief establishing Novell's rights and SCO's obligations under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the APA
  • an order of restitution of all monies constituting SCO's unjust enrichment
  • for an accounting of the royalties remitted to SCO under the SVRX licenses and the monies owing to Novell under the APA
  • for pre-judgment interest on any monetary recovery
  • any other relief the Court thinks is appropriate
They also ask for a declaration that Novell is entitled to direct SCO to waive claims against IBM, Sequent, and other SVRX licensees and that SCO is obligated to recognize the waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent. They also seek a declaration that SCO was obligated to seek Novell's prior approval to enter into new SVRX licenses or amendments to SVRX licenses, including SCO's agreements with Sun, Microsoft and other licensees. In the alternative, Novell asks for a declaration that SCO had no authority to enter into the Sun and Microsoft licenses or any IP licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors. Then they ask for a declaration that SCO is obligated to comply with Novell's audit demands.

Its Counterclaims:

  • breach of contract
  • accounting
  • restitution
  • slander of title
There is more about exactly what the deal was between Novell and Santa Cruz, about the amendments (Amendment 2 was merely an amendment to the schedule of excluded assets, Novell says, and so doesn't qualify as an instrument of copyright conveyance, it doesn't identify copyrights necessary at that time for Santa Cruz to "exercise its rights", and there's no language in it or the modified APA suggesting a contemporaneous transfer of any copyright, and nowhere is there any date for any purported transfer of copyrights, and by repeatedly asking Novell in 2003 to transfer the copyrights to SCO, it conceded Novell's rights), and yes, Novell tells the court that The SCO Group was not a party to the agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz, and by the way, Novell retained all copyrights in that deal. So the later deal between Santa Cruz and Caldera is clarified. Santa Cruz couldn't pass along to Caldera, now The SCO Group, what it never received. Why didn't they get the copyrights? They were short on money. Aren't you glad? If you wish to review the contract, don't forget we have them all on our permanent Contracts page.

And now we know Novell is a hero in this saga, and I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute, even though I already have it. I hope you do too, even if you don't need it. Imagine if Novell had said yes. They accuse SCO of knowingly making public statements of ownership to the media and in SEC filings that were false regarding their purported ownership of the copyrights, and the document lists some of the worst examples. Yoo hoo, Red Hat. I believe you have some Lanham Act claims? I think you're going to enjoy this document.

Remember I told you that Novell had hired a litigator, Kenneth Brakebill? He is listed on this Answer and Counterclaims. Welcome, Mr. Brakebill.


Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story | 838 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT, other links here, please...
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT
You know the drill, and anyway, it's posted on the entry form page...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: kbq on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 07:51 PM EDT
So PJ can see 'em...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank You Novell
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 07:52 PM EDT
I've just updated our product literature to make Novell/SuSE our recommended
Linux platform (we also run on windows). With Red Hat and Debian as
"other supported platforms".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks, PJ...
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 07:58 PM EDT you and (I assUme) Frank. Will you be posting links to the document as an
update on this page??


[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer with Counterclaims
Authored by: nadams on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 07:59 PM EDT
And now we know Novell is a hero in this saga, and I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute. I hope you do too, even if you don't need it.

You can purchase Suse Linux here:

But if you have money to burn, I would kindly suggest donating it to the FSF instead:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Impact on SCO v. IBM?
Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:02 PM EDT
Since it has been clearly shown (by PJ) that the SCO Group is NOT the Santa Cruz
Operation, could this impact SCO v. IBM if Kimball acknwoledges this fact in
ruling upon SCO v Novell?

More to the point, could be SCO v. IBM be dismissed as SCO lacks standing?

thanks for great news PJ!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer with Counterclaims and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: sbbeebe on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:05 PM EDT
What is a little confusing to me, is that given the apparently damaging nature
of this information to SCO, why it has taken so long for Novel to come forward
with it? Doesn't that seem a little odd.

But don't get me wrong - better late than never.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Highly unlikely scenario...?
Authored by: kutulu on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
<blockquote><i>It was in that context that SCO asked Novell to give
them the Unix copyrights. They repeatedly made such requests, asking Novell to
amend the Novell-Santa Cruz agreement to give SCO the copyrights. Novell
repeatedly said no.</i></blockquote>

Ok, this is something that has always confused me. Novell claims, and has
always claimed, that 1) SCO was never assigned and of the UNIX copyrights, and
2) SCO repeatedly asked Novell to assign those copyrights, to no avail. SCO
replies by producing a document that Novell claims it has never seen, but which
has a valid Novell signature and appears to assign something to SCO, but in a
very unusual and vague way. But, if SCO really did have this Amendment, why
would they keep asking for the copyrights? They beleived they already owned

Now, normally the next thought would never even cross my mind, but I am now left
to wonder, could this Amendment 2 be fake? I hesitate to even suggest something
THAT blatently illegal on anyone's part, and I'm assuming there's a more
rational explanation. But SCO appears to have done a significant number of
other shady things in this deal. So my question is, does outright forgery
actually occur in the real world? Is this something that anyone involved in the
cases would have considered a possibility? Or is that just fodder for bad movie

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer with Counterclaims: SLAM DUNK!
Authored by: tyche on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:16 PM EDT
Now THAT'S what I call a birthday present. Thanks, PJ. And to think that I
thought you hardly knew me :-)

I'm not worried about the amount of time it took Novell to answer TSCOG's
claims. They obviously did their homework and took the time to get the wording
just right (at least from what I see of PJ's presentation). I think this will
seriously affect the other cases (detrementally, for TSCOG) and could even cause
the stock market to have a serious look at their behavior. This is beginning to
take on the appearance of, "TSCOG threw down a metal gauntlet, and Novell
picked it up and slapped them up side of the head with it."


"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
Stephen Hawking

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS and SUN licenses must be interesting
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:21 PM EDT
But, no, there's no conspiracy, no, not at all.

MS and SUN were just looking into using Linux and wanted to make sure they were legit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A vision
Authored by: marbux on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:26 PM EDT
Three turkey vultures perch around the dying SCO body, waiting patiently until movement slows enough to begin their feast. Occasionally, one will fly down from its branch, pecking to see how much reaction remains. It is far too late for any hope of escape. The pleas for mercy do not register. The only item on the vultures' Day Planner is dinner.

Retired lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO -> Novell correspondence
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 08:38 PM EDT
I've been searching Novell's website in vain trying to find their correspondence
with SCO, back before SCO filed the lawsuit against IBM. I can't seem to locate

The documents provide the evidence that PJ described above (at least form what I

Can anyone provide a link to the PDF or scanned docs of this correspondence?
Sorry, but my time doesn't permit searching all the various web sources
(including this site).

Thanks in advance.

Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Imagine if Novell had said yes"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:02 PM EDT
Novell is a viable company and wants to stay in business. Getting involved in a
scheme with tSCOg would eventually put them out of business. They were smart
enough to see that they only had one choice.

Having said the above, everything Novell has done has increased my respect for
them. I'm with you PJ. I will be purchasing Suse before the end of summer.

btw. I'm dying to see how Biff spins this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcription Penguins -- Up, Up, and Away!
Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:12 PM EDT

I'll do pages 1-10 of the PDF (now that the swelling in my hand from that dratted yellow-jacket sting has gone down).

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: Glenn on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:29 PM EDT
Did anyone else note this?

110. novell also seeks an order from the court attaching SCO's assets pending
adjudication of this claim because SCO is quickly dissipating its assets.

Is this not going for the jugular?


[ Reply to This | # ]

The bit Novell missed out
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT
Novell doesn't seem to mention that SCO seems to (at times) claim to have
revoked SGI's license and/or threatened to do so (page 32 in section about IBM
and Sequent).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: kberrien on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT
W O W ! !

Just when I was thinking this was all played out, and had no more surprises.
This could get really messy, lord knows what skeletons with MS and Sun might
come out of the closet. Somehow I will not be surprised is SCO's stock tanks on
Monday (market folks just don't seem to get it), but this could do it.

If all this is true, what Novell claims (and I assume its is, why would they
make it up, they were winning the case) it kind of explains the crazy behavoir
on SCO's side, board memebers leaving, etc...

enough for now, gotta read the pdf.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paragraph 110
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:35 PM EDT
"Novell also seeks an order from the court attaching SCO's assets pending adjucation of this claim because SCO is quickly dissipating its assets."

Ha ha :-) :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

What SCO wants, SCO gets!
Authored by: Glenn on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:43 PM EDT
They wanted litigation, and they got it!!!!!! I am waiting for the spin on
this one by the SCOG and also by our favorite trio. I won't mention their

[ Reply to This | # ]

Constructive Trust?
Authored by: stend on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:45 PM EDT
They also ask the court to set up a constructive trust for SCO to deposit the revenues from Sun, Microsoft, and all revenue from its "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors," to protect Novell from "SCO's wrongful retention of monies owing Novell due to SCO's failure to perform its remittance obligations."
OK, presuming that the court grants this request, what does that do to the SCO Group? According to the S-1, they had about $26.6m in SCOsource revenue in 2003-4. Since they only had (at the time of writing) $14.1m in cash and cash equivalents and $3.9m in "restricted" cash, could they be forced to place all or most of their available cash in this constructive trust? Could the constructive trust itself drive them into bankruptcy?

Please see bio for disclaimer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: plungermonkey on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:49 PM EDT
Why do I get the impression that the poop has just hit the fan?

This is gonna be absolutely riveting to watch the upcoming firestorm. Hope 'ol
Darl is wearing his nomex underoos...

An ignorant person knows no better, a stupid person knows better and still does
what is wrong. Which one are you?

[ Reply to This | # ]

tSCOg assets
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:51 PM EDT
Based on our experience with the SCO-IBM case, we must assume it will be several
years before final judgments are passed down in this case. By then, tSCOg will
presumably be history. The major question is whether Novell's request to lock
up tSCOg's assets will be granted and, if so, when that might occur. Are we
looking at months or years for it to occur, if granted? Would it prevent tSCOg
from making its payments to Boies?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Questions for the jury
Authored by: Christian on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT
People have said that juries can be misled by the complexities of a case and that an effective lawyer can reduce the case to simpler issues. In this instance, Novell's lawyers can ask the jurors two good questions. Why did SCO ask for the copyrights to be transferred? Why did Darl say that Novell agreed that SCO owned the copyrights when he knew that Novell was contesting SCO's claims?

The only possible answers are because SCO does not own the copyrights and because Darl lies to hurt Novell. These set the narrative for the jurors. These two answers provide a framework which can be used to understand everything else in the case.

I am talking about the psychology of the jurors, not the legal arguments; something which is not important legally can have a huge impact on how a juror perceives the case. Kimball can narrowly tailor questions for the jury and the jury instructions to focus them on the law, but if Novell can establish in the jurors' minds that SCO does not own the copyrights and Darl lies, whatever the jury says will reflect this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The executive summary of SCO's cases
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 09:57 PM EDT
For the purposes of this post, I assume all Novell's and IBM's counterclaims are true. Of course that is yet to be established.

But if true, the summary of SCO's case would be this:

- They sued IBM for breaches of System V trade secrets, and revoked IBM's license, even though there are no trade secrets in System V. Kevin McBride explicitly said there are no trade secrets during the December 2003 hearing.

- They "revoked" an explicitly irrevocable license (IBM's)

- They ignored the fact that they didn't have the rights to take actions under IBM's and others' licenses, without Novell's consent, and even though Novell had explicitly told them not to.

- They ignored the fact that they didn't have the rights to enter into new licenses (with Sun, Microsoft and others), but did it anyway.

- They didn't pay monies they owed to Novell

- They didn't comply with their contractual obligiations with Novell

- They sued IBM and others for infringing copyrights that the knew they didn't own

- They sued IBM and others for infringing copyrights that they also knew were not infringed (Davidson Email)

- They sued Novell for claiming copyright ownershipss, that SCO previously agreed that belonged to Novell

- They registered copyrights ownership as belong to them, even though they previously agreed that they belonged to Novell.

- They distributed IBM's copyright materials in Linux (the 16 GPL programs), in breach of their license from IBM (the GPL), and for profit.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: digger53 on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:06 PM EDT
Snicker, chortle, ... ROFL! Great. Take that, SCO-jackals.

Happy Friday, all!

When all else fails, follow directions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Hires Another Lawyer for the Team -- Guess What He's Good At?
Authored by: montana on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:08 PM EDT
This was a story from June 9th. Looks like he's earning his keep.

Oro Y Plata

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Novell Goes for SCO's Throat" - Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:18 PM EDT

Novell is making no bones about it; the company is attacking SCO in court with everything it has in an attempt to land a knock-out punch..... Eweek

Novell hits back at SCO in Unix dispute

SCO has had difficulties of late. In a 2002 memo that came to light in July, a SCO engineer said he had not found a "smoking gun" that showed evidence of Linux copyright infringement. In June, the company reported the latest in a series of difficult financial quarters, as its Unix product sales continued to decline. And in February, a judge criticized SCO's inability to produce evidence to support its legal claims..... Cnet


A good end to the week.

SCO spinners have the weekend to come up with ?????

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: rm6990 on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:23 PM EDT
I was waiting for the Novell counterclaim about SCO not submitting Sun's and
Microsoft's License Payments to Novell. It is in the countersuit now.

Also, I can't remember where in the document, but there was a quote of McBride
stating that Novell agreed that SCO holds the Unix Copyrights. Is this a
violation of some law, since Novell never made any such statement.

To me, this seems like a smart move by Novell. Like they said in the complaint,
SCO owes Novell money from the Microsoft and Sun deals. This money is more than
the amount of cash SCO will have on hand. Novell may end up causing SCO to go
bankrupt if (when) they prevail on this part of their complaint.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this mean fraud?
Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:26 PM EDT
We always thought it was but does this make jail time a real possibility?
Do lawyers who participate in actions like this have an ethics board to answer
And finally, what took Novell so long?

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So many thoughts ...
Authored by: m_si_M on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:28 PM EDT

Oh my, that's more than I ever expected to see.

When all this started, I thought Novell was simply trying to get rid of this pesky little gnat called SCOG by asking for a dismissal, which is what they obviously did. But the gnat decided not to give up, and now we see a real company with real products giving the gnat what it deserves, which is being sucked dry to death. Instead of living its life as a parasite, kept alive by other people's blood (read: brainpower, creativity), the gnat faces sudden death.

Now that Novell finally applies its firepower (sorry for the term), I think we can expect to have another big lake in Utah soon, which will no doubt attract more tourists and therefore be more of an advantage for the local economy than SCG's tax payments.

As a sidenote, we now can understand the hiring of a new lawyer by Novell. Well done ...

The downside is, of course, the situation of the Honorable Dale R. Kimball. The man has done an excellent job so far, and I don't think he deserves being occupied with an extension of the madness caused by SCOG and its lawyers. Dear Judge Kimball, if you're on vacation, I hope you don't read Groklaw or have contact to your office.

And with respect to PJ's thoughts on buying SuSE: I have already bought it, but after reading the article, I decided to buy the next one as well (unless it's totally messed up, but that's not what I expect from SuSE)

Many more thoughts, but the most important is: This is great news!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Malloc ( ) aforethought
Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:32 PM EDT
A unnamed particular "industry reporter" is absolutely central to the SCO claims of slander against Novell.

Judge Kimball largely restated the undocumented SCO complaint that Chris Stone of Novell had orchestrated a skeptical May 28th, 2003 press release to coincide with SCO quarterly earning report. SCO alledges the uncertainty engendered by this claim damaged SCO market capitalization. This damage was used in the SCOX opposing memorandum as the sole supporting allegation for the charge of "malice".

Let us leave aside the observation that SCO started May trading at $3.15 and ended at $6.70.

Darl McBride first made the charge the Novell was punishing SCOX in the May 30, 2003 conference call when about 15:32 into the call he said:

"The other part that was a littlebit dissapointing was the feedback that I had received later that Novellhad in fact timed the, their announcement to coincide with our earnings release on Wednesday morning to try and screw that up. "

The charge was amplified in the June 6, 2003 McBride to Messman letter. McBride states:

"As to the question of whether your conduct was malicious or reckless, we have a direct statement that Chris Stone, an executive employee working closely with you on this matter, stated that the timing of your May 28, 2003 press release was intended to coincide with our earnings announcement that occurred later that day,..."
AND provides this indication of the source of this statement: (MY EMPHASIS)
2. An **industry reporter ** was informed by a senior Novell executive that your May 28 press release was timed to coincide with SCO's May 28 earnings announcement. In fact, 443 investors, media and analysts called into the SCO May 28 earnings announcement. We were forced to deal with the false and misleading press release issued by Novell earlier that morning in an apparent attempt to undermine investor confidence in SCO. As stated above, SCO suffered a 30% decrease in market capitalization as a result of your press release, and the timing thereof.
Searching for *industry reporter* on the Novell May 28,2003 Press release, I find a certain Ms Maureen O'Gara filed two dispatches that day.

She says in :

"- Practically at the crack of dawn this morning Novell was supposed to have what is basically a "cease and desist" letter hand-delivered to the SCO Group telling SCO that SCO does not own the Unix intellectual property that lies beneath the billion-dollar lawsuit that SCO has filed against IBM and the claims of possible infringement that SCO recently made to the biggest public companies in the world if they run Linux on their systems. .... The letter, which Novell is supposed to post to its Web site today *** right before SCO reports its quarterly results ***, says that Novell owns the IP and that SCO merely shares in certain rights that it acquired from Novell by way of the original SCO, the old Santa Cruz Operation."
On June 18,2003 Novell responded to SCOX's allegation:
"We also have spoken with Chris Stone, who you said had given contrary indications to a reporter. Chris has made absolutely clear that he never suggested such a linkage to the reporter. On this issue, it seems as if the best explanation is that the reporter linked the two events without prompting from Novell."
Neither side has identified the industry reporter, though both agree one exists. Since this incident seems absolutely central to SCOX's complaint discovery and depositions will reveal in time the "industry reporter" identity.

I would like to speculate that a good circumstantial case can be made that Maureen O'Gara is the source of the "feedback" on which Darl based his claim of Novellian malice. This implies that MO'G had become tangled as a protanganist, rather than a reporter, in the SCOX cases as early as May 2003.

I do not know what motivated the "reporter" to speak to Darl, or what prior and what subsequent arrangements they had.

That information lies solely within the memory of the Darl and the reporter. Darl sometimes distorts matters. The reporter while behaving as an agent provacateur, may offer a tale, but not an honest one.

What is certain: SCOX response on Wednesday, May 28, 2003, only claimed to have a contract with Novell. Practically conceeding ownership to Novell, it explicitly denied that this ownership of copywrites or patents were necessary to its SCOScource license.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: rm6990 on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:47 PM EDT
I'm surprised....SCO's share price is remaining steady with this news. It did
drop almost 6 hours ago, but only by a few cents, and went right back up. I
figured Novell would bottom out their share price like they did when this first
started :-P.

PS. Story is on OSNews (your article) and C|Net has an article up about this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Look at the trade volumes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:26 AM EDT
  • excatly - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 05:23 AM EDT
This is cute
Authored by: Jude on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:49 PM EDT
SCO threatens the world's Linux users with lawsuits for copyright infringment.
So far, SCO has shown neither copyrights nor infringement. About two weeks ago,
we saw the Davidson email that suggests SCO knew all along there was no
infringment. Now, Novell says SCO also knew all along they had no copyrights.

About the only real evidence anyone seems to have is the mountian of stuff
Groklaw has collected of Darl badmouthing Linux. Methinks Darl & Co. are
going to be working pretty hard just to stay out of jail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: tredman on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:51 PM EDT
All hail the giant sucking sound...

Anyway, I might be dense, but could somebody explain to me what the First
Amendment of the Constituion has to do with this? I don't recall seeing any
kind of elaboration on that in the document.

And for all those who thought Novell took their sweet time on this, consider
that they include a LOT of information here, plus the relevancy of this document
changes depending on the outcome of their dismissal request.

I guess now we get to see how a slander of title case is supposed to be done.
All things considered, it's a pretty good start to my weekend. I can't wait to
see what the SCO Information Minister has to say about this one.

"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE

[ Reply to This | # ]

[Whisteling sound]
Authored by: jacks4u on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:58 PM EDT
Read the .pdf.

My first impression:
SCO up a creek, no paddle in sight

My questions:
Is Novel trying to take over on licensing fees paid to SCO by Linux users? Is
this right and proper? Or should Novel be demanding those licensing fees be
returned to whomever paid them in the first place?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 10:59 PM EDT

All I can say.

This sounds like Novell is really going for SCO's jugular.

I hope they win on every claim and requested outcome. This case alone will bury
SCO so deep they won't be found until archaeologists unearth Utah ten thousand
years from now after some asteroid strike wipes us all out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It puts a whole new light on the Canopy/Yarro settlement
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 11:17 PM EDT
You can imagine something like this line of thought by the participants:

Yarro: Give me money! I'll put you guys thru lawsuit hell

Mustard: You're not entitled to money, including some of the money you've
already got

Yarro (files lawsuit): Give me money!

Mustard: You're not entitled to money, including some of the money you've
already got. You don't have much of a case.

Yarro: All I want is SCOX, they're worth billions

Mustard (try to hold back laughter and not sound too sarcastic): Sure they're
worth billions. You have SCOX. And we'll keep everything else.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today's phrase is
Authored by: overshoot on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 11:41 PM EDT
"Conversion of Assets." Novell's request for a constructive trust immediately takes this whole charade into the end-game. They've made a killer case for fast-tracking the Court's decision on that as a preventative against their own money being spent on a frivolous suit against themselves.

IANAL, all that -- but ...

Seems to me that the Court is being pushed hard to conserve what little is left of Novell's licensing fees, and the moment that it does it's all over because SCOX goes Tango Uniform to the tune of 15 million or so.

Next act: Bankruptcy Court. Novell asks the trustee to inquire into BSF's billing records on the grounds that,

  • Payment in advance amounts to either conversion or preferential treatment of an unsecured creditor,
  • Novell is senior
  • There is something fishy about the lawyering that has been in evidence compared to the amounts charged.

At which point things could go from wierd to surreal really fast.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO lawyers hopelessly underweight.
Authored by: BlueSmurf on Friday, July 29 2005 @ 11:47 PM EDT
Reading this, I feel like SCO, the 90 pound legal weakling, has picked fights
A 90 pound legal weakling with a brain (DC - Chrysler).
Picture this as – the two get into the ring, and DC does a quick fade and lands
a powerful 1-2 punch on SCO's kisser. The referee (judge) calls the match over.
Yeah, they talk about a rematch, but they have already picked a fight with:

A 900 pound legal gorilla (IBM).
Picture this as – the two never get into the ring (endless discovery), and the
900 pound gorilla just roars loudly over at the opposition in a kind of press
meeting, and all of SCO’s clothes come off, like in a Looney Tune. Eventually
if they get into the ring, the gorilla will pound SCO into the mat, and the
referee (judge) will call the match. But while SCO was trash talking IBM at the
press meeting, they also picked a fight with:

The heavyweight champion (Novell).
Picture this as – the two make it into the ring, but weakened by the earlier
encounters, Novell does a float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, and when its
over the dazed 90 pound legal weakling, is left for dead. In addition to taking
home the belt, the champ takes home all the money, because the legal weaklings
sign a contract stating that if they don’t win, they have to give the champ all
their monies, and the champ will give 5% back to their manager.

And what about AutoZone?
There simply won't be anything left for their lawyers to do.

I realize SCO may still have a few tricks up its sleeves, but I can’t help
wondering that if the IBM case has gone on for as long as it has with just rumor
and innuendo, the Novell/SCO case may take eons. If SCO had just taken on one
case at a time, they might have been able to pull something off (i.e., get
someone to buy them). With this latest Novell slap (pow-pow), who in their
right mind would want to even go into business with SCO, let alone buy them? Its
one thing to buy a business, its another to buy a shrinking business, with a
multi-million dollar liability over its head (with interest), and three ongoing
legal cases, that even if you dropped your claims, wouldn’t stop the counter

I also agree with a prior poster, that these revelations were probably not
revealed earlier due to the close link between the Noorda’s and Novell. Now
that they are out of the picture, the gloves are off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What would make this even more beautiful...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:17 AM EDT
Would be a pending announcement by SCO that they had received additional capital
investment, and perhaps Novell saw this coming and timed their response
accordingly. This way SCO would actually have the assets on-hand to be put into
escrow for Novell. I see that as a better outcome than SCO going BK right away.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:40 AM EDT
I am keen on latest opinions from Enderle, Didio, O'Gara and Deutshe bank on
SCO's chances.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens now to the SUN and M$ contracts?
Authored by: heretic on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:44 AM EDT

If Novell wins on this, what are the effects on Sun and M$ SVRX contracts? SCOG did not, AFAICS, have the right to sign these contracts.

Will this actually mean that the opensourced Solaris will face some very serious legal issues in the future?

And, what product, or what code, from M$, if any, will be affected?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Paragraph 109 and Sarbanes-Oxley
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 01:05 AM EDT
..."just a fraction of the revenue it purportedly generated as a result of its new SVRX Licenses with Sun and Microsoft".

In other words, if Novell prevails, then SCO's revenue numbers, reported in SEC filings ever since 2003 are all wrong, because money of that money (from Sun, Microsoft, SCOsource) never belonged to SCO in the first place.


[ Reply to This | # ]

No one will buy SCO now
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 01:08 AM EDT
I think Novell's action will stop any company from attempring to buy SCO .. Sun
comes to mind. Whoever buys SCO will become sucessor in interest of this
litgation too and if Novell wins, will have to pay quite some money back to
Novell. I think this action from Novell was also calculated in that manner

I was thinking the other day that Sun, who already owns some shares in SCO could
have ended up buying SCO and continue creating or fabricating more trouble for
Linux. With Novell's action, any thought from Sun to purchase SCO gets squashed.
Sun would have to remit Novell 100% of all the SCO source and that is more money
than what SCO has in the bank right now.

I speculate that Novell will eventually get back Unix SVR5 code and GPL whatever
files they can legally do

[ Reply to This | # ]

Expect to see
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 01:20 AM EDT
Expect to see a flurry of "strong buy" SCOX sentiments from
"analysts", etc. along with a fresh round of astroturfers and

Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: zman58 on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 01:24 AM EDT
Thank you P.J. ! What great news! A perfect ending for
this day. I have read every top level entry since you
started Groklaw and this is truly one of the best. It
has been a multi-year chess game and it would appear that
the SCOG just lost their queen at the hands of Novell. All
they have left now is their king and a few pawns. I sense
that their antagonitsic game plan will shift heavily
towards a defensive posture.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 02:03 AM EDT
Where does this leave Sun & Microsoft regarding their ability to actually
USE the licences they bought from SCO? Will they now have to renegotiate those
licences with Novell? Seems like that might be very costly. :)

And if the licences are ruled bogus, wont that leave them in violation of
Novell's copyrights? Forget Suse, maybe it's time to buy some Novell stock!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, this seems like yet another victory for SCO ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 02:19 AM EDT

... or something like that. Can't wait to see how Enderle and Lyons spin this into some headline similar to the above.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is SUN liable? Is M$ liable?
Authored by: dodger on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 02:41 AM EDT
If SUN received something they were NOT entitled to get from SCOG, can NOVELL go
after SUN and M$ and demand payment for IP? Can they negate the license sale and
sue for damages?

After all, SUN and M$ did receive something that they were/are not entitled to

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! A nuclear bomb being dropped on SCO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 03:05 AM EDT
Novell's counterclaims take my breath away! WOW!

If Judge Kimball simply acknowledges Novell's true right by contract to
receive 95% of the revenue from Microsoft and Sun's Unix licenses, SCO
immediately goes bankrupt since it does not have the money to pay Novell
what Novell is due! This is a matter of law as opposed to a question of fact -

thus no jury trial is necessary. All Judge Kimball has to do is read the
contract and state what is right.

If Judge Kimball simply acknowledges Novell's true right by contract to
dismiss SCO's litigation, the SCO vs. IBM litigation immediately ends!

There would be nothing left of SCO for Red Hat and Autozone to pick on!

In fact, SCO's lawyers won't be paid any more for their work since all SCO's
money and assetts will need to go to paying Novell what Novell is due by
contract! Nothing would be left for the lawyers! Yeah! WOW!

Talk about a thermonuclear legal explosion! WOW! SCO is going to be
pancake-thin roadkill - if anything is left! WOW!

SCO is going to be killed by not following the contract between Novell and
the Santa Cruz Operation (now Tarantella, which was subsequently bought by

By not dismissing SCO's slander of title, by knowing the contract between
Novell and the Santa Cruz Operation, Judge Kimball may knowingly have
allowed Novell to make its counterclaims. He may be smirking inside! WOW!

To me, this is the clearest and quickest way to end all the litigation.

I laugh, now, at how SCO picked on Novell. Novell, which just won $500
million from suing Microsoft and which now has even more litigation against
Microsoft, is a very experienced and aggressive litigious company. To think
that SCO's fly is now going to be swatted with a sledge hammer. WOW!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Priority Blues
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 03:29 AM EDT
So now the SCO legal team's biggest priority will be keeping the SCO money from
Novell, and not on IBM discovery & litigation. Otherwise, they don't get

So now they're going to have to sing for their supper, and I'm curious if their
delay tactics & other tricks are going to work this time around, or are they
finally going to get down to some serious lawyering now?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: grash on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 03:56 AM EDT
I've read where SCOX defaulted in Novell's audits and payments from Sun and MS
but does anyone know if SCOX EVER paid Novell? It seems to me if SCOX was
making the royalty payments or whatever for so many years then recently stopped
that it would be proof in itself that they knew they had a contract they had to
abide by. I mean why would they pay Novell for 10 years say then just stop (as
they did)? Isn't paying Novell pretty much an admission of guilt or at least
saying they indeed had a valid contract?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Grateful for Judge Kimball's decision...
Authored by: jbb on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 04:57 AM EDT
I feel grateful for Judge Kimball's earlier decision to deny Novell's request to dismiss this slander of title case.

At that time I was guessing that Novell would turn around and ask Judge Kimball to rule on the APA and declare that the Unix copyrights never got transferred to tSCOg. But this bombshell by Novell is much, much better than just asking for a ruling on the copyrights. Judge Kimball left the door open for Novell to trounce tSCOg and Novell did not disappoint.

It seems clear now that the quickest route to end this entire fiaSCO is via the Novell case. In fact we may be on the verge of "Game Over" for tSCOg.

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell asks for money too?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 05:00 AM EDT
I might be utterly ignorant, but does this mean that Novell wants 95% of the
money Sun/M$ gave to SCO in their funding of the litigation?
OMG, if they get half of it, SCO is toast, utterly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No, no! That can't be right!
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 05:30 AM EDT
SCOG have got $14,192,000 plus a further $3,967,000 cash in the piggybank making
$18,159,000 in total. They got $25,846,000 from Sun and Microsoft and would have
to give Novell their dues of $24,553,700.

If they paid what they owed, they would be bankrupt before they got the chance
to pay damages and their lawyers.

Oh, dear! What a shame! Too bad!

Hee, hee.

Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell vs Microsoft
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 05:42 AM EDT
IANAL etc...

In order for SCO to prevent their assets being held in trust until after their
Novell case is resolved (or part resolved) they may have to demonstrate to
Novell that the money received from M$ (and Sun) is NOT for SVRX licenses. If
that happens then Novell would have documentary evidence why M$ provided the
money (eg. anti competitive practices against Linux). Novell would then have
evidence of M$ attempting to destroy one of their products (SuSE) when they are
suing M$ for destroying another (WordPerfect). This may encourage M$ to settle
the WordPerfect action.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My biggest worry is SCOG going "black hole"
Authored by: cybervegan on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 06:24 AM EDT
I think there's a real danger that SCOG could implode, taking IBM and RedHat's
cases with them; thus preventing any legal ruling on the merits, unless there's
some kind of doctrine to prevent that (IANAL, IANAA).

If this motion is granted, what implications does this have for the IBM and
RedHat cases? It's obvious (and seems positive for the defendants too, to me)
that the DC and AZ cases will fizzle out with victory to them.

But the most important issue to me is that Linux (and by extension F/OSS) get
vindicated, and I suspect that can only happen if the IBM and RedHat cases are
litigated to conclusion. Novell now has a very strong reason (SUSE) to desire
the same outcome; clearing Linux's name. I hope they make provisions for that.

I posted my opinion very early on that the IBM case needs to be resolved, once
and for all, due to similar fears over SCOG's solvency at the time. That was
before the MS and Sun "licenses" were bought, lining SCOG's pockets
with 25+ megabucks.

Now that SCOG again face apparent bankruptcy, the fear has returned. I would
hope that Novell will work with RedHat and IBM to get those cases resolved

What if Novell now offers to "buy" SCOG (i.e. take the company as part
payment), including it's liabilities, just so they can allow the litigation to
run its course? Pie in the sky, I know, but has anyone got a more logical idea?
Maybe criminal charges against Darl and Ralph?

The cloud over Linux has to be cleared.

In my opinion, SCOG just *has* to live long enough to get this case RULED ON,
not settled. Are there any special rules of procedure for this eventuality? It
can't be the first time a company has picked a fight it couldn't win and ended
up in a position where it couldn't even keep up the fight to a legal conclusion.

Would a Summary Judgement be possible in IBM and RedHat if unopposed by SCOG due
to insolvency? This all relies on IBM and RedHat wanting the same as us (me?).
RedHat is probably already in line, but IBM - they have to prove their mettle
one last time, I think.

Sad thing is, if the Corporates hadn't got involved in GNU/Linux in the first
place, this would never have happened, but it probably wouldn't be as good or
popular as it is today either. Cuts both ways.

Finally, this isn't really "NEWS" - we knew it in our hearts long ago.
It's just more proof.


Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: MacUser on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 06:39 AM EDT
An interesting aspect of the latest filing is how Novell gets around the
"Old SCO/ New SCO" confusion. It simply refers to old SCO as
"Santa Cruz" and and calls the other as "SCO." Helpful to a

[ Reply to This | # ]

What exactly did old SCO have?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 07:02 AM EDT
Reading all whats going on, I am still unclear as to what old SCO had in
reguards to unix.

It does sound like caldera got duped, as reading Novells statements about the
APA, all old SCO had in reguard to unix was the right to use the unix trademark,
and were the administrators of current unix licences overseen by Novell.

By the looks old SCO had no power or obligation in maintaining unix, generating
new interests in unix, or "policing" the licences.

Novell appears to be saying "You only bought administration rights under
caviet to us. Just because you thought you were getting more isn't our

So the questions I am left asking,

When old SCO were SCO,
a) Who had the task of maintaining the unix "distributions" that the
licences SCO administered covered?
b) What role did SCO play in UNIX at the time?
c) Apart from administering Unix licences, what else did SCO do?
d) Could it be that Caldera brought the rights to SCO's unix variant, and
miss-understood their extent of ownership and control?
e) Did SCO represent its UNIX interests to Caldera correctly?
f) Did Caldera mis-understand SCO's UNIX interests?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Speed Of The "SCO Litigation"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 07:46 AM EDT
Excuse me for being thick ...

What I don't get about the "SCO Litigation" is why SCO v IBM, SCO V
Novell, and especially SCO v Autozone have dragged on and on when Judge Chabot
took one look at the claims in the SCO v DaimlerCrysler case, said "I'm not
having any of this malarky" and promptly gutted pretty much of SCO case in
one hearing.

If it was related to the contract (and presumably Autozone has pretty much the
same contract) why couldn't the judge in the Autozone case do the same?


[ Reply to This | # ]

I remember predicting this..
Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 09:17 AM EDT
Although I expected it to be a separate suit, but given the compulsory counterclaim issue, it makes sense for Novell to do it now (apart from the advantage of not having to file a separate suit).

Of course, others here predicted the same. Just for those who may not have read the much earlier threads, though, this might serve as a starting point to articles and discussions where we collectively saw this coming a long time ago.

I always had the feeling Novell would wait for the time to be ripe for their claims (especially the $35M from Sun and M$) - here it is, at last.

It's not over of course, but I feel a motion from Novell coming on for expedited hearings on the effective freezing of SCOg finances.

For historical reference, here's some comments of mine from the past on this subject - other people's which are at least as good can be found in the links at each of those comments:

Here's a comment from January last year on the subject of the licenses:

Limited authority on SVRX licenses

Then this on

Here was my take on why SCOg might be silly to continue the case rather than let the dismissal stand

Then this one, where I reiterated that

SCOg had no right to enter into SVRx licenses


Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ Reply to This | # ]

Way OT: Linux Installation
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 10:19 AM EDT
As I write this I am reinstalling Linux on a laptop. Whu
reinstall? Well it seem I had a few basic installation
issues that I did not know about when I did the initial
set up that I am correcting but that is not the reason. It
started in that I wanted for some stupid reason or the
other to adda program to the laptop. What then transpired
was that since the computer is conneected to the net the
latest version was installed. Normally a good idea except
in the case of KDE which is so linkage dependent that
doing this in the laptop always breaks something while do
the same action in my desktop does not. Your the teckie
you explain it. I can not. Anyway that lead to the issue
of sections of KDE not working. Then a few days ago I
managed to break more linkages by another very simple
action something that would never occur in MS Windows
because of structure. To solve this I decided to upgrade.
I had the upgrade for some time but know the ease with
which I always break Linux I did not put it to use. Now
that produced a very interesting situation where since I
have OO 1.1 and OO1.9m72 both installed there was a
conflict in installation which for some reason caused
other programs to trash. Then last night I attempted to
reinstall by selecting all the packages I wanted to
install and going to slppep on the couch. Two hours the
installation was broken by incompatable linkages. That and
the experience this morning ot reinstalling has lead to
this posting.

Based on the above slob story I have some recommendations
for the teckies who produce distributions like SuSE,
Fedora, Mandrake, and Redhat if they expect Joe Six Pack
to be able to install Linux.

1. Do not include more than one version of a program in a
home foused distribution.
2. Revise the explanations so that a non teckie may
understand them. I am a half teckie and there are a number
of packages that after reading the explanation I do not
have a clue as to what they do.


3 Above all reduce the number of dependencies even at the
expence of proficiency and speed to the point that if an
additional program is added one does not need to recompile
or upgrade the entire system inorder to strighten out
dependencies issues that sometimes occur.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: LarryVance on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:12 AM EDT
I feel somewhat vindicated in the prediction I made of a "Slander of
Title" counterclaim where the idea was pooh-poohed by some of the great
legal minds here as being a dangerous and scary thing to do.

I am glad to see what Novell is doing to combat this great injustice. I would
like to see the FTC come down on tSCOg and their executives with criminal
charges. The courts should also recover some of their expenses from tSCOg
instead of us hard working taxpayers.

ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct
and bad manners. -- Chief Justice Warren Burger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl gets to give his bonus back
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:17 AM EDT
One thing strikes me about Novell's filing: it's nice and easy to read and
understand. There is some legalese in there, but only where absolutely
necessary - which is pretty good for a court filing. This is the sign of adept,
clear thinking on behalf of Novell's lawyers. It is a nicely constructed piece
of work and was worth the wait. I don't think Novell will regret taking on Mr

So now a very clear picture of SCO emerges:

The Sun/Microsoft licensing deal made SCO profitable, except that the profit
should rightly have gone to Novell. Had it done so, SCO wouldn't have been
profitable at all. That means Darl McBride recieved his "Make SCO
Profitable" performance bonus under false pretences. SCO should force him
to repay his ill-gotten gains!!!

In comments on the previous article (SCO Files Recission Offer), we were
gleefully discussing which cuts to make in the dissection of deadSCO, and who
would get to do what with which bits of the ragged, tattered carcass. This
filing goes one better. It gets the carving knives out in advance, ready to
slice hunks of fresh meat off the living animal.

It's going to get bloody. It's going to get good.

Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Images - Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT
Interesting Timing
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:43 AM EDT

The Davidson email (the one that told TSG that there was no infringing code in Linux) was dated August 13, 2002. McBride made his famous "Linux owes its heritage to UNIX but not its code" statement on August 28, 2002. Then, in "late 2002" (whatever the exact date was), according to Novell, TSG approached Novell about their "Linux License" extortion program:

38. In late 2002, SCO repeatedly contacted Novell in connection with SCO's soon-to-be-announced SCOsource campaign. SCO requested copies of certain documentation concerning rights to UNIX, including the agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz. SCO also expressed its interest in a campaign to assert UNIX infringement claims against users of Linux.

SCO asked Novell to assist SCO in a Linux licensing program, under which SCO contemplated extracting a license fee from Linux end users to use the UNIX intellectual property purportedly contained in Linux. Novell refused to participate.

What does this say about the veracity of TSG's litigation? For that matter, what does it say about McBride's honesty?

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Might Brakebill be the one to break Bill?
Authored by: NemesisNL on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:48 AM EDT
Who knows what might turn up in discovery if the whole story is told about MS.
Might land MS in court again for abusing their monopoly. Maybe Vista is a good
name although not in the meaning Bill had in mind.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Litigation as Boxing
Authored by: lightsail on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:54 AM EDT

TSG challenges IBM to a boxing match: TSG is a middle weight wannabe challenging
a heavy weight champion.

Before the match begins, Red Hat issues a challenge to TSG, middle weight to
middle weight.

Then TSG challenges Novell, middle weight to light heavy weight.

Then TSG challenges Daimler-Chrysler, middle weight to heavy weight.

Then TSG challenges AutoZone, middle weight to light weight.

The various boxing commissions decide that TSG will simultaneously box IBM,
Novell, Daimler-Chrysler and AutoZone. Four boxing rings are set up.

TSG and IBM go two round with IBM blocking all but a few of TSG punches and IBM
lands some punishing body blows. IBM wins all two rounds.

TSG then fights a round with Daimler-Chrysler and loses badly. The fight is
stopped. Daimler-Chrysler has won.

TSG and AutoZone then fight to a draw.

TSG and Novell fight one round to a draw.

TSG and IBM then fight another round. IBM inflicts heavy damage and wins the

TSG and Novell fight another round. Novell beats TSG to the point that TSG is
barely able to stand.

Who will enter the ring next? Will they end the entire fiasco? Time will tell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sun's Actual Involvement?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:59 AM EDT
Sun's actual legal position in this case has just gotten a lot bigger. It is
still far form clear to me exactly what their real position is. I suspect like
most things they don't really have a clear position.

As the new Owner of Tarantella they are both a licensee of SCOG and their
predecessor-in-interest (if there is such a term). As a result Sun now has come
into possession of The Santa Cruz Operation's records and is holder of any
rights they retained, including their licenses for the technology SCO sold

In a another post a while ago someone suggested that the sale of SCO to Caldera
was in fact technically a merger and a spin off or Tarantella. Such a legal
arrangement might side step a lot of issues with change of ownership, transfer
of license and the need to actually describe what was being sold. The the only
assets which would need to be described are the assets placed in Tarantella.

Whether this has any actual effect is not clear but it would mean that
Tarantella is not the remainder of the Santa Cruz Operation but a new company
made up of some of the pieces of the Santa Cruz Operation and that Caldera is
the actual successor by reason of a merger. The ultimate effect would be much
the same in any event. This however does not match the SEC filings. I have long
suspected that the purchase of SCO's Unix business was an afterthought and
little attention was paid to it at the time.

I also would point out that unlike Microsoft, who helped steer SCOG to Baystar
and possibly others, Sun's only contribution to SCOG is a single licensing
agreement. I suggest to everyone here that we wait and see what comes out.

I'm now fairly confident that the Sun and Microsoft licenses will be submitted
as a part of this case, if only because of the way Novell characterizes them in
their filing. I hope they become public. If Novell is right they are owed most
of the money paid to SCOG. I expect to see motions for summary judgment
requiring SCOG to remit the proceeds to Novell on the basis of those licenses.
If such a motion is granted, SCOG will be instantly out of money. If Novell
disagrees with the licenses they could cancel them and refund the money, but
most likely they would simply keep the cash.

Finally I wonder why, now that Novell has acquired SuSE, they didn't include
Lanham Act claims about SCOG false public statements concerning Linux. I
suppose that Novell might feel itself immune to any actual infringement, by
means of its existing Unix license rights.

Sorry for the ramble.

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

More trouble for SCO on the horizon
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT
Novell says that SCO had no authority to enter into new SVRX licenses with Sun, Microsoft, or anybody else and they noted that the IP License for Linux SCO was offering appeared to be SVRX licenses, because they purported to grant rights related to UNIX System V or UnixWare.

If this is determined to be correct by the courts, then both Microsoft and Sun would also have a case against SCO for selling them something they didn't have permission to sell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Tells Rest: Three Birds (Ravens), One Stone; MF (Monopoly Forevermore); Boise Gets Paid
Authored by: webster on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT
The FUD campaign has three targets: Linux, IBM, and Boise. Clearly Novell and
IBM have been fighting this thing in cahoots since Darl brought it up. If SCO
were truly concerned about IP, they would have determined the issues with Novell
first. That would be prudent and reasonable. SCO realized that they better not
decide the IP issue first or there would be no FUD campaign. So they skipped
this treacherous step and mounted the FUD campaign anyway.

The FUD campaign was supposed to take a few billion out of IBM's Linux related
revenue. It was also supposed to take out Linux. Who was ever going to see
beyond lawsuit-backed claims? After all, if it is in litigation, the claims
must be dangerous,true and expensive! Bluff campaigns have worked before.
People settle all the time rather than fight.

What one person is in the best position to make M$ pay for their antitrust
transgressions? Yes, that same cowboy that convicted them in the Federal
Antitrust case. He did that for chump change billing hours. He had to actually
do some of the grunt work himself since he had to go to court. With SCO he got
a retainer up front, hourly fees, plus wide ranging contingency fees, plus he
didn't necessarily have to do any work! Imagine Boise leading a class action of
all who were harmed by M$, or even just a few major corporations. So Boise
gets millions from M$ as he is put in a position against those dratted
Linusians, the very people who have a big beef with M$. So M$ doesn't have to
worry about Boise anymore and can use his clout to monopoly benefit.**

So the FUD campaign would have killed Linux, IBM and the prospect of being
brought to account by Boise. I think IBM has the details.

**Caveat: If for some conflict or ethical reason, Boise can't go against M$,
then this analysis is wrong. This would then just be an opportunity for Boise
to get a contingency cash-in for of his M$ work, ironically from M$ and its
opponents. I wonder who decided to go after Boise? Yarro, Anderer, Allen,
Baystar, RBC, Darl? Will we ever know?


[ Reply to This | # ]

What more evidence would guarantee a criminal trial for TSG evil doers?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT
Does anyone believe that these people broke the law many times?

Does anyone believe that these people had a plan since 2002 to break
many laws on all the populated continents?

Does anyone believe that McBride has been doing this solo?

What about the secret foreign investor? What about Anderer, Enderle,
DiDio, O'Gara, and other participants? What about Young? What about
BSF? What about the Microsoft and Sun confidential license terms?

What will the SEC and Wall Street do? What will Attorney Generals do?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Please help, I am feeling lost
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 01:35 PM EDT
NewSCO is claiming to own copyrights that were once owned by Novell?

This would involve a written transfer from Novell to OldSCO followed by the same
from OldSCO to Caldera?

As Novell must own lots of copyrights and the Unix ones must consist of those
transferred to Novell plus copyrights on anything Novell added themselves, there
must have been quite a lot of work sorting it all out, particularly for those
items that were common to Unix and non-Unix products. Someone must have done
this, someone must have typed it, someone must have checked it, someone must
have signed it, someone must have filed the copy. If anyone remembered it,
Novell would not have claimed to still own the copyrights as it has nothing to

Rather less needed to be done at OldSCO to receive the transfer. But nobody

OldSCO needs to go through the same procedure to transfer the copyrights to
Caldera. Most of the work had been done by Novell but there would still be some
OldSCO additions, again it would need to be checked to make sure they are not
signing away something that they need. But nobody remembers? Old SCO has lost
the transfer from Novell and the transfer to Caldera?

Finally, the only one who actually cares, NewSCO, has lost the copyright to
millions of dollars worth of code and did not notice until it was thought to be
worth billions?

If OldSCO bought the copyrights from Novell surely they would have sent out any
copies with a (c)SCO notice on it. Did they? (Caldera might not have bothered,
being a Linux company.)

Have I missed something here?


[ Reply to This | # ]

How could SCO have been so delusional?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT
After seeing Novell's answer and countersuit, after having seen the SCO vs
IBM litigation play itself out over the past few years, what comes to mind is:

How could SCO have been so delusional to have believed it owns the
copyrights to Unix?

1. Unix, itself, has so many contributors that the copyrights to any single
component is not clear.
2. Many components of Unix are in the public domain.
3. Many components of Unix are from BSD Unix - thus the copyrights are
owned by the University of California - but are freely used via the BSD
4. Clearly, Novell got some copyrights to Unix since AT&T sold USL (which
owned some copyrights to Unix) to Novell.
5. There was no clear copyright transfer document of Unix copyrights from
Novell to the Santa Cruz Organization.
6. There was no clear copyright transfer document of Unix copyrights from
the Santa Cruz Organization to Caldera (which subsequently called itself
Caldera International, then the SCO Group).

How could Darl or his lawyers not know this? How could they have not done
due diligence on this?

1. Darl was use to suing others to make lots of money and began looking for
a way to sue others as soon as he became CEO of SCO.
2. Darl and others at SCO completely and utterly misunderstood what they
obtained from the Santa Cruz Organization (now called Tarantella, which
subsequently was bought by Sun). They thought having Novell's Unixware
business was the equivalent of getting Novell's copyrights for Unix.
3. While looking for a lawsuit to happen, Darl and company believed (contrary
to their internal findings) that Linux and Unix were similar enough that there
must have been Linux code that copied Unix code.

Ta dah! Darl and company start on this lawsuit rampage while ignoring
findings to the contrary and while not doing enough research.

Darl and company clearly start creating long pieces of rope to hang
themselves by
1. starting a Unix licensing business - while ignoring their contract to Novell

(which deemed SCO's role as only selling Unixware as a product).
2. making false statements in the press and to Congress about Linux and of
people involved with Linux (such as IBM and Red Hat).
3. ignoring their obligations to Novell under contract - such as in giving
Novell 100% of the revenues generated by Unix licenses (with Novell later
returning 5% as an administrative fee).

How could Darl and company have been SO delusional?
How could Darl and company's lawyers have proceeded with the litigation
since they should have known the facts?

1. Greed, greed, greed.

That was all Darl, company, and lawyers must have felt as they proceeded
with the litigation.

For Darl - it was the billions he thought he could make from winning over
IBM, or the millions he could make by making IBM settle or buy SCO.

For SCO's lawyers - it was the millions they thought they could make -
guaranteeing themselves 20% of the proceeds of a sale of SCO to IBM (which
may have amounted to $20 million) and guaranteeing themselves $31 million
in legal fees. Seeing that they would spend little in research or expert
witnesses, most of their fees were fat profit.

To think that Novell is going to take their money away.

Hoisted by their own petard. What fitting words.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: pooky on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 03:30 PM EDT
I wonder if this will send SCOs stock tumbling a bit. Besides the counter claims
outright saying that SCO was asking Novell for the copyrights (indicating that
SCO knew they didn't have them already), this now brings an important financial
question up.

Since SCO just kept the money from the Microsoft and SUN licenses, and Novell is
clearly entitled to that money, lets assume for a second that Novell will get
the court to order SCO to put all proceeds from these sales into a trust (or
escrow if you like). Is that not going to bankrupt SCO on the spot? We're
talking many millions more than SCO currently has available in cash and I assume
the Microsoft and SUN payments are spent already on BSF. An argument can be made
by Novell that as litigation churns on and on that SCO is simply spending
Novell's money to litigate against Novell!


Many Bothans died to bring us this information.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 03:55 PM EDT

If it is not Sys V then why isn't SCO telling the rest of world what it is that
they sold to Sun and Microsoft? They usually dont have problem talking to the

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: rm6990 on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 04:23 PM EDT

Is this normal? Click on graph in link and then change to linear mode for easier viewing.

SCO's share price keeps dropping by $0.10 or so when there is a high volume (if my link doesn't work, type stocks:SCOX into Google) Then it happily jumps back up. But, at one instance, shortly after 11AM (judging from the graph, maybe 5 minutes or so) the share price jumps almost ten cents and right at that exact moment there is a lot of trading (the most on the graph). Then, another 10 minutes or so later, another high trading period starts, and the price drops again.

What is going on? Are people dumping stock after this and SCO management is propping it right back up? This doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know much about the stock market, so am I just imagining things?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Free, as in Beer !!! with the link corrected
Authored by: KarlJorgensen on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
Sorry, but you need to go straight to the source. Otherwise you end up with the
information equivalent of 2ndhand beer:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Die SCO, Die! Finally a sledgehammer to SCO's head.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 05:08 PM EDT
What I've been waiting for.

The primary reason the SCO vs IBM litigation has taken so long is that SCO
has been fighting for more and more discovery in order to defend itself
against IBM's countersuits against them.

Novell's new countersuits, however, are a sledgehammer to all of SCO's

Novell's countersuits are clear, to-the-point, and a explicitely supported by
Novell's APA contract with the Santa Cruz Organization - which SCO claims
itself to be a successor in interest.

By contract,
1. SCO has to give 100% of Unix License fees to Novell - which SCO did not.
2. SCO has to allow Novell to audit it's Unix business - which SCO did not.
3. SCO has to give Novell the right to waive litigation to IBM - which SCO did

Now Judge Kimball can simply and clearly adjudicate Novell's countersuits by
just reading the contract. There are few facts to resolve. Discovery involves

little - there are no disputes about billions of lines of code. The contract is

out in the open. SCO has no copyright transfer documents.

All Judge Kimball has to say is for SCO to do what it is bound to do by

Viola! SCO falls like a house of cards.
1. It does not have enough money to cover what it owes Novell
2. SCO immediately becomes bankrupt.

Viola! SCO's lawyers have no further income from this litigation.
1. Defense of all the lawsuits against SCO ends.
2. SCO automatically loses the lawsuits against it since it cannot defend

This should be over real quick (i.e. in less than a year).

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Come at once. We have struck a berg. It's a CQD OM (come quick distress old man) Position Utah"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 06:49 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Isn't the money (mostly) gone?
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 07:21 PM EDT
You know, I was acually wondering for a very long time why Novell didn't demand
the licencing fees from MS and SUN. After all, the deal with OldSCO was pretty
clear about SysV licences: OldSCO was just an agent for Novell with respect to
SysV licences.

However, haven't Darl and Co. spent most of the money on their ridiculous

If so, then if the judge awards all the money that Novell is entitled to, NewSCO
is a smouldering, bankrupt crater?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fingers crossed...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 08:23 PM EDT
If Novell keeps pushing on this stuff, is there a reasonable chance that Judge
Kimball will untangle the Unix copyright ownership (or at least enough to say
that SCO doesn't own any of it)? Methinks that would have interesting
repercussions for the IBM case..

[ Reply to This | # ]

My 2 cents...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 08:40 PM EDT

My mind boggles. And the biggest boggle is: not only did SCO start this case,
but they also could simply have allowed it to be dismissed! But NO..... they
had to fight it to the end. Well, the end looks like exactly what this is going
to be.

And I, for one, am very glad to see it.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Forewarned is Forearmed
Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 09:22 PM EDT
Forewarned is forearmed, the story with direct links is on slashdot now. As
usual, the slashdotters can't RTFA, short attention spans.

Copyright info in bio

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG sued
Authored by: phrostie on Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 11:02 PM EDT
for non payment and breach of contracts by it's own lawyers.
LOL, wouldn't that be a kick

you can fool some of the people all of the time.
you can fool all of the people some of the time.
it's setting them straight that is %&#$@

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can some explain SCO's interpretation of the amendment?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 12:25 AM EDT
Here is what they say on their web site:
"All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited
to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare
(including revisions and updates in process), and all technical, design,
development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning Unix
and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings and
annotations, appropriate engineering notebooks, test data and test results, as
well as all reference manuals and support materials normally distributed by
Seller to end-users and potential end-users in connection with the distribution
of UNIX and UnixWare,..."
(Schedule 1.1(a), Assets, Page 1 of 4, section I)

To me this sounds legit that they do have copy rights. But when I read Novell's
answer I don't see any rebuttel to this. Why didn't Novell address this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Files Answer and Counterclaims, and Tells Us the Rest of the SCO Story
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 12:44 AM EDT
Novell's litigator is called Kenneth Brakebill?

I guess that makes SCO a sitting duck.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Boies Schiller practice areas
Authored by: JScarry on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 12:48 AM EDT
Practice Areas
Boies, Schiller & Flexner has developed a significant practice in the area of insolvency and insolvency-related proceedings. The firm has been retained as special US litigation counsel ....seeking to recover on defaulted public debt issued...regarding the subordination provisions of the Indentures, priority rights and related doctrines....
Looks like they'll get to use some of their expertise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does SCO now need to file with the SEC saying new problems exist?
Authored by: jdg on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 01:05 AM EDT
Does SCO now need to file with the SEC saying new problems exist? Is this an
8-K filing? It seems that this is a new "business risk" that they
need to divulge on the record. In fact, beyond stating that they will have
trouble if Novell pervails, will they need to state that if Novell succeeds in
obtain the order to deposit funds that SCO will have to file for bankruptcy? I
am sure that this would give SCOX a boost in share price [not!, and IANAL, etc.]

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has Microsoft Vista legal problems ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 02:13 AM EDT
Microsoft payed new SCO for Unix rights. Why would Microsofoft need a license to
these rights ? If they need technology as used in Unix/linux, they simply could
have used code under a for them friendly license, such as BSD. So a possible
answer is that they used Unix code illigaly in their previous, current and
possible future products. However if Novell has the rights to Unix then possibly
the contract between New SCO and Microsoft is illegal and could be overturned by
a judge.
When You bought Microsoft products in the past you could not have known and
would probably not be liable for using products which contain illegaly coppied
code. However with Novell claiming the Unix rigths, I now can possibly know. So
if there is Unix code in Vista, will I, since I now could have known, be liable
for using illegaly obtained copyright protected material when bying their new
products ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Buy SuSE Linux? Why not a SCOSource license?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 02:38 AM EDT
PJ wrote: I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute

Seems more fun to just go buy a SCO Source license - Assuming Novell's in the right here, and assuming the courts rule correctly, it looks like the money'll end up in the same place anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who waits for who?
Authored by: Jaywalk on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 09:41 AM EDT
It seems to me the court has it backward. It seems like they're making everyone wait for IBM, but it sounds like they should put the Novell case first. IBM has a large contractual component that needs to be decided even after the copyright issue is resolved, but Novell is only about the copyrights. If the copyrights have not been transferred in the first place, most of this mess evaporates. What's left is a few contract quibbles.

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why Novell did this now
Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 03:25 PM EDT
In the earlier story about Novell getting a dismissal (although SCOg had leave
to amend their complaint), Judge Kimball all but invited Novell to assert their

Novell obviously took that to heart, hired an experienced litigator, and has
made all claims that might possibly be compulsory.

As noted in my other posts on this subject, we have collectively concluded here
over 17 months ago that this is what Novell would ultimately do; it just
happened that the experienced litigator saw an opportunity to create a new
smoking hulk in Lindon, Utah.

My personal belief was that Novell wanted the dust to settle, but when SCOg
refused to drop the slander of title suit, decided that it was time to bring out
the big guns.


Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity

[ 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 )