|
Declaration of David Bradford, as text (Novell) |
|
Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 04:15 AM EDT
|
Here is the Declaration of David Bradford [PDF], as text, thanks to Groklaw's caecer. Bradford is an attorney and at the time of the asset purchase agreement with Santa Cruz, he was the Novell executive in charge of the deal, the guy who hired Tor Braham, whose extraordinary declaration you have already read and which mentioned Bradford. Bradford confirms everything Braham told the court, and more. In a nutshell: From 1987 to 2000, I was Senior Vice-president, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary....12. The Asset Purchase Agreement means what it says: copyrights were
not included
as an asset; copyrights were specifically excluded from the asset
transfer. The exclusion was
intentional. Should any persons suggest otherwise, they are mistaken. I think he's being polite. This is yet another killer declaration from Novell in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's 1st Claim for Slander of Title and 3rd Claim for Specific Performance, one of the four new summary judgment motions Novell has just filed. Friday was the deadline for filing such motions in SCO v. Novell, and I checked just now to see if SCO had added any new ones, and there is nothing on Pacer showing any further summary judgment motions from SCO. So this is it. Maybe in more ways than one.
Bradford was at the board meeting the day before the APA was signed, the meeting that resolved that Novell would retain the copyrights:
13. I attended the Novell Board of Directors meeting held on
September 18, 1995, or
the day immediately prior to the execution of the Asset Purchase
Agreement. The Novell-Santa
Cruz transaction was the subject of that Board meeting. As Senior
Vice-president and General
Counsel of Novell and as the Novell executive responsible for
implementing the Novell-Santa
Cruz transaction into a binding, legal contract, I participated in the
discussion. I even reviewed
the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement with the Board. As Secretary
to the Board of
Directors, I memorialized the meeting in Board Minutes, a true and
correct copy of which I
attach to this Declaration as Exhibit 1. As I recorded in those Minutes
that I sent to the Board of
Directors, in the meeting the Board:
RESOLVED:
...
Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights and trademarks
(except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare) ...
Like Braham, he not only remembers, he kept some paperwork, specifically a memo he send to the board confirming that Novell would be retaining the licensing revenue from SVRX licenses, and he states plainly that it did not mean binary licenses only. And Novell retained control rights, specifically because of a deal in the works regarding HP, which is also mentioned in the board minutes. Not only that, but he tells the court that Novell has done other deals where it sold assets but retained the copyrights. Novell sold TUXEDO to BEA in 1996, the same time frame as the Santa Cruz deal, and Novell did not transfer copyrights to BEA. So much for SCO's assertion that it never happens that way.
*******************************
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Michael A. Jacobs (pro hac vice)
Kenneth W. Brakebill (pro hac vice)
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
Thomas R. Karrenberg, #3726
John P. Mullen, #4097
Heather M. Sneddon, #9520
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
Attorneys for Defendant Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION |
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant. |
DECLARATION OF DAVID
BRADFORD
Case No. 2:04CV00139
Judge Dale A. Kimball
|
I, David Bradford, declare as follows:
1. The statements made in this Declaration are based on my personal
knowledge. In
connection with this Declaration, I have also reviewed documents I
authored or received
contemporaneous to the transaction discussed herein. I have attached
several of these documents
as Exhibits to this Declaration.
2. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the state of
California. I have an
undergraduate degree and JD degree from Brigham Young University. I also
have an MBA from
Pepperdine University.
3. I was employed by Novell, Inc. from 1985 to 2000 in various legal
and business
capacities. From 1987 to 2000, I was Senior Vice-president, General
Counsel and Corporate
Secretary. My responsibilities included overseeing legal, security,
government relations and,
from time to time, corporate development functions at Novell. During
this period of time, I also
was part of a group of executives that comprised the Executive Staff,
which advised Novell's
President and Chief Executive Officer regarding business decisions for
the company. In
addition, I was a Secretary to the Novell Board of Directors. I
participated in strategic
management decisions. I led Novell through a number of complex
transactions, including
acquisitions, asset sales and public offerings.
4. In 1995, Novell decided to sell certain UNIX-related assets that
it had acquired in
1993 from AT&T's UNIX System Laboratories subsidiary. A company called
Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc. ("Santa Cruz") surfaced as a prospective buyer. After a
series of executive-level
discussions during the summer of 1995, I was tasked, in my role as
Senior Vice-president and
General Counsel, with overseeing the negotiation and drafting of a
contract between Novell and
Santa Cruz that would protect Novell's interests.
5. I retained the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati,
then Novell's regular
outside counsel, to negotiate and draft the agreement between Novell and
Santa Cruz. The
Wilson team was led by Tor Braham, an experienced partner in that firm
who was already
1
familiar with Novell's business. In fact, Tor had negotiated Novell's
purchase of UNIX assets
from USL in 1993.
6. I charged Tor Braham with the responsibility of putting together
the necessary
agreements to protect Novell's interests. He was the principal drafter
of what became the Asset
Purchase Agreement executed on September 19,1995. Tor Braham
communicated directly with
me during the drafting and negotiation process, including sending me
drafts of the Asset
Purchase Agreement.
7. The Novell-Santa Cruz transaction took on a more complex form due
to various
concerns that arose during the course of the negotiations. For example,
at the outset, Novell had
been hopeful that the transaction would be a cash deal. It became
apparent, however, that Santa
Cruz would not be able to come up with the requisite cash to buy all of
the UNIX assets that
Novell had purchased from USL in 1993, as well as Novell's UnixWare
business. Among other
things, this resulted in an agency relationship, under which Santa Cruz
would collect and pass
through a revenue stream for SVRX contracts and Novell would retain
control over the SVRX
licensing arrangements.
8. There also arose serious concerns about Santa Cruz's viability as
a company. Santa
Cruz was not the most financially stable company. We thus became focused
on building in
protections for Novell in the event that Santa Cruz went bankrupt.
9. Because of these concerns, during the negotiations I discussed
with Tor Braham the
need to increase Novell's protections in the transaction, including but
not limited to the need to
retain Novell's intellectua1 property rights in UNIX and UnixWare. This
retention of intellectual
property rights was implemented with an eye to protecting Novell's
interest in the significant
revenue stream that Novell would be retaining from SVRX source code.
Novell's copyright
ownership would permit Novell to continue to have rights to this
revenue, should Santa Cruz go
bankrupt.
2
10. The Wilson team drafted a schedule of assets to be included in
the asset transfer
and a schedule of assets to be excluded from the transfer. These
schedules specifically addressed
how intellectual property rights in UNIX and UnixWare would be treated
in the deal. Copyrights
were not included as an asset; instead copyrights were specifically
excluded. It is my
understanding that the Wilson team exchanged these schedules with
representatives of Santa
Cruz prior to the execution of the Asset Purchase Agreement.
11. In its final form, the Asset Purchase Agreement executed on
September 19, 1995
included a Schedule 1.1(a). Schedule 1.1(a) specifically identified the
"Intellectual Property"
included in the assets to be transferred; it only identified certain
UNIX and UnixWare
trademarks. The Asset Purchase Agreement also contained an "Excluded
Assets" list in
Schedule 1.1(b); this list provided that certain "Intellectual Property"
was excluded from the
asset transfer, including "[a]ll copyrights and trademarks, except for
the trademarks UNIX and
UnixWare." It also excluded "[a]ll patents."
12. The Asset Purchase Agreement means what it says: copyrights were
not included
as an asset; copyrights were specifically excluded from the asset
transfer. The exclusion was
intentional. Should any persons suggest otherwise, they are mistaken.
13. I attended the Novell Board of Directors meeting held on
September 18,1995, or
the day immediately prior to the execution of the Asset Purchase
Agreement. The Novell-Santa
Cruz transaction was the subject of that Board meeting. As Senior
Vice-president and General
Counsel of Novell and as the Novell executive responsible for
implementing the Novell-Santa
Cruz transaction into a binding, legal contract, I participated in the
discussion. I even reviewed
the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement with the Board. As Secretary
to the Board of
Directors, I memorialized the meeting in Board Minutes, a true and
correct copy of which I
attach to this Declaration as Exhibit 1. As I recorded in those Minutes
that I sent to the Board of
Directors, in the meeting the Board:
RESOLVED:
3
...
Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights and trademarks
(except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare) ...
(See Exhibit 1 at 2.)
14. The Board meeting minutes are accurate in their description of
the intellectual
property assets Novell retained.
15. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retained the right to
receive 95% of
the revenue from licenses of SVRX software. I confirmed our retention of
SVRX licensing
revenue to the Board of Directors in a memorandum on September 15,1995,
a true and correct
copy of which I attach as Exhibit 2. I told the Board: "For example, we
will be retaining our
traditional royalty stream from UNIX SVRX source code which was
approximately $50 million
for FY 1995." (Exhibit 2 at 1. I underscored "retaining" in my original
memo.) Again, at the
September 18, 1995 Board of Directors meeting, I informed the Board of
this retained revenue
stream, which was referred to as SVRX Royalties in the contract.
(Exhibit 1 at 2.) The term
SVRX Royalties was drafted so as to be broadly applicable to "all
royalties, fees and other
amounts" from SVRX agreements, and was not limited to monies paid under
binary licenses;
Novell retained 95% of all monies from SVRX agreements, source and
binary included.
16. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell also retained control
over the
licensing arrangements with SVRX customers. As indicated in the Asset
Purchase Agreement,
this right applies to all SVRX Licenses; it was not restricted to binary
licenses of SVRX. In
particular, Novell intended to use its control over the SVRX license
agreements to do "buyouts"
of SVRX agreements or, if necessary, to provide source rights to Hewlett
Packard in its
development of a 64-bit UNIX technology -- a development effort that I
memorialized in the
September 18, 1995 Board Minutes. (Exhibit 1 at 1, 3.)
17. I was presented the final Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell
and Santa
Cruz on the day it was to be executed. I was to review it and approve it
for final signature by
Bob Frankenberg, Novell's CEO at the time. I reviewed the contract and
considered it to reflect
4
the intent that I have described above in this Declaration. Indeed, I
wrote a memorandum (a true
and correct copy of which I have attached as Exhibit 3), reflecting my
approval of the Asset
Purchase Agreement for signature by Mr. Frankenberg. I still agree with
what 1 said nearly
twelve years ago:
The purpose of this memorandum is to let you know that I have
reviewed the final document and find the same to be an accurate
reflection of the business and legal terms and conditions negotiated
between the parties ...
18. Novel has retained intellectual property rights in other
transactions involving the
sale of part of its business. In late 1995 and early 1996 I was part of
a Novell business team
evaluating the future ownership direction of Novell's TUXEDO software
business, which we
also had acquired from AT&T. On January 24, 1996, Novell entered into
an agreement with
BEA Systems, Inc., in which Novell transferred certain assets relating
to its TUXEDO software
product. In that transaction, Novell specifically retained the
copyrights in the TUXEDO
software.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States
that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on this 19th day of April, 2007 in Newport Beach
California
[signed]
David Bradford
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 20th day of April, 2007, I caused a
true and correct
copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF DAVID BRADFORD to be served to the
following:
Via CM/ECF:
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
[address]
Stuart H. Singer
William T. Dzurilla
Sashi Bach Boruchow
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
David Boies
Edward J. Normand
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
Devan V. Padmanabhan
John J. Brogan
DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
[address]
Via U.S. Mail, postage prepaid:
Stephen Neal Zack
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
/s/ Heather M. Sneddon
6
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 04:36 AM EDT |
Brigham Young University. Hmmm, that might go down well with a Utah jury if
things come to that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 04:55 AM EDT |
If Any
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 04:57 AM EDT |
Please make links clickable. Read the important stuff at the bottom of the Post
A Comment page.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
A bunch of people who weren't directly involved saying that they think
the APA, which doesn't say that it transfers copyrights, actually transfers the
copyrights.
I think that SCO's net value is now the sum total of its office
furniture, less several tens of millions that they owe Novell and IBM in legal
fees. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:11 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:22 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:30 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Mark Levitt on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:42 AM EDT
- In addition to the others points... - Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:51 AM EDT
- Not At All - Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:56 AM EDT
- More like "he said", "she wrote" - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 07:57 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:40 AM EDT
- The only document needed: The APA - Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- At Least is clear that SCO owns UNIX - Authored by: tuqui on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- Don't forget Darl's hat! - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:05 AM EDT
- Owing legal fees - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:11 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: Cyberdog on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:22 AM EDT
- And what does SCO have in response? - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:15 AM EDT
|
Authored by: chiark on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:08 AM EDT |
So, we've got:
- the contract that says copyrights are specifically excluded
- versions of contract that clearly show this was worked in and agreed, along
with supporting testimony from the author
- minutes from board briefings stating that copyrights are now excluded
supported by testimony from Novell's exec in charge of the deal
Where on earth can SCO take this? The contract says copyrights are excluded,
Novell clearly worked this exclusion into the agreement that SCO signed and can
back it up with hard evidence...
All SCO can do is hand waving and have their witnesses torn apart under
questioning.
Even with a SCO-coloured glasses on, I can't see how SCO will survive SJ. I
don't think SCO have nearly done enough to prove a disputed fact (or whatever
they need to prove - sorry, I'm not American and definitely not a lawyer)
And it rather appears that people have perjured themselves here; what could
happen?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Positive SCO spin - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 06:06 AM EDT
- Where next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 07:30 AM EDT
- Where next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- Where next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 09:33 AM EDT
- Where next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT
- Where next? Nowhere. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Where next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2007 @ 04:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT |
Hah this is just too much fun!
:)
---
Ubuntu is like a breath of fresh air.
Free yourself
Year1 Use foss apps as replacements ff tb ooo
Year2 Ubuntu dual boot
Ubuntu user as of 181206
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Harry Nicholls on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 06:11 AM EDT |
I take back everything bad ever thought about Ed Chatlos and all the others put
forth by SCO who said it was the intent that copyrights transfer in the APA.
They were right, up to the point that the deal had to be finalized and the
lawyers drew up the final contract. The first draft showed that copyrights were
included. Santa Cruz couldn't afford asking price. To do the deal and because of
concerns of Santa Cruz's viability the copyrights and royalties to SVRx were
removed and put onto schedule 1.1(b) excluded assets with full knowledge and
consent of Santa Cruz. Looks like the SCO witnesses are not being untruthful.
They just weren't involved in the deal's conclusion.
Harry Nicholls[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 07:16 AM EDT |
Not making any specific accusations but if, just for the sake of argument, it
appeared that one or more of SCO's witnesses had been less than honest:
Who would/could initiate action against them? The Court, Novell/IBM, or
either?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 07:40 AM EDT |
For your convenience, here are lickable clinks for
Exhibit 1,
Exhibit 2
and
Exhibit
3.
Enjoy.
--- Only two things are infinite: the universe and
human stupidity – and I'm not sure about the former. -- Einstein [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 07:55 AM EDT |
I'm having trouble understanding (nothing new there) how a declaration can
support a summary judgement. What I think I know is that a judge can issue a
summary judgement on a matter of law. For example, if a contract is clear a
judge can rule on the basis of the contract without having to decide the truth
of any facts. On the other hand, if there are facts in dispute, then a jury
would be required. It seems to me that a jury is required to decide who is
telling the truth or not.
A declaration is somebody's testimony. Wouldn't a jury be required to assess
the truth of that testimony? (Obviously not; but I don't understand why.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Facts in dispute? What facts? - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:10 AM EDT
- Declaration in support of a motion for summary judgement? - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- Nitpick - Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:30 AM EDT
- Never ever ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Nitpick - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Nitpick - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- Complaint is Slander of Title + + + Motion is for Summary Dismissal - Authored by: briaman on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- Declaration in support of a motion for summary judgement? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 09:18 AM EDT
- She says, he says - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- She says, he says - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- She says, he says - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 11:38 AM EDT
|
Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
PJ: Friday was the deadline for filing such motions in SCO v. Novell, and I
checked just now to see if SCO had added any new ones, and there is nothing on
Pacer showing any further summary judgment motions from SCO. So this is it.
Maybe in more ways than one.
So dare we hope that if Novell wins this
motion, this case,
or even both cases are effectively over?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
I must say, if the contract says "you're not getting this or that",
then its pretty cheeky to come and say, we did get "this and that".
So I ask myself why couldn't Novell convince the judge ages ago about this
rather simple looking contract dispute about copyright transfers. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PTrenholme on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT |
From the other side of the table, Mr. Sabbath seems to agree. (From
IBM_Ex_254):
I, Steven M. Sabbath, declare as
follows:
l. I joined The Santa Cruz Operations, inc. as Vice President,
Legal Affairs, in 1991. the Santa Cruz Operations, Inc. changed its name to
Tarantella, Inc. in correction with the sale of its Server Software and
Professional Services Divisions to Caldera International, Inc., which is now
known as the SCO Group, Inc. ("Plaintiff'} On May 7, 2001. I refer to
Tarantella, Inc. as "Santa Cruz" at times on or prior to May 7, 2001 and as
"Tarantella" at times after May 7, 2001. I served as Senior Vice President of
Law and Corporate Affairs & Secretary of Tarantella until November
2003.
...
11. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell
retained significant UNIX related assets following the sale. For example,
Schedule 1.1(b) of the asset Purchase Agreement provided that much of the UNIX
System V intellectual property would not be transferred to Santa Cruz by listing
the following items as "Excluded Assets":
V.
Intellectual Property
a. All copyrights and trademarks,
except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.
b. All
Patents.
12. In addition Section 4.l6(b)
of the Asset Purchase Agreement included the following language providing that
Novell would have the right, at its sole discretion, to amend, modify,
supplement or waive any rights under, or assign any rights to, the UNIX System V
license agreements, including the Related agreements, in any manner or
respect:
[Santa Cruz] shall not, and shall not have the
authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License
without the prior written consent of Novell. In addition, at [Novell's] sole
discretion and direction [Santa Cruz] shall amend, supplement, modify or waive
any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX Licensee to the extent
so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. In the event that [Santa Cruz]
shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required
herein, [Novell] shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take
any action on [Santa Cruz's] own behalf.
Since Novell
would be retaining the right to receive the royalties under the UNIX System V
licenses, it was agreed that Novell also would retain certain rights to control
the contractual relationships with the licensees. One of the reasons for this
was to ensure
that actions by Santa Cruz (or its successors) could not adversely
affect Novell's ability to realize the economic benefits flowing from these
license agreements.
13. Amendment No. 1, executed in connection with the
closing of the transaction, made changes to many sections of the Asset Purchase
Agreement and to the schedules attached to the Asset Purchase Agreement.
Although Amendment No. 1 made several changes to Section 4.18, it did not impose
any new limits on Novell's ability, at its sole discretion, to amend, modify,
supplement or waive any rights under, or assign any rights to, the legacy UNIX
System V license agreements in any manner or respect.
Furthermore, I
am not aware of any provision in the Asset Purchase Agreement, or any amendment
thereto, that imposed on Novell any obligation to preserve the confidentiality
of the UNIX System V source code for the benefit of Santa
Cruz.
(Emphasis added.)
So, from his side of the
table, no only did Novell retain the copyrights, Novell did not even have any
restrictions on what they could make public. --- IANAL, just a retired
statistician [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wardo on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:42 AM EDT |
Friday was the deadline for filing such motions in SCO v. Novell,
and I checked just now to see if SCO had added any new ones, and there is
nothing on Pacer showing any further summary judgment motions from SCO. So this
is it. Maybe in more ways than one.
What makes you think SCO
will pay attention to that deadline? They have misunderstood deadlines and
scheduling dates from the get-go; whenever it has been convenient for them to do
so.
I expect that SCO will ignore that deadline with some sort of late
breaking motion with tons of barely on-topic case citations and shaky legal
theories... Sometime in July or August, just before trial gets really warmed
up, they will come out with some "new previously unavailable evidence" (AKA
sandbags) or Blepp's long-lost briefcase; that will convince (in their
opinion/hope) the judge to summary judgement the whole thing in their favor. I
look forward to the humorous filings to come.
Wardo --- caveat
lector...
Wardo = new user(lawyer = FALSE,badTypist = TRUE,badSpeller = TRUE); [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
SCO is going to lose big from what I've seen. Imagine they do. In the kind of
loss where you told a nice little fib over and over and over, like I want you to
turn over this and that and this, and never use it. Or where you claim up is
down and down is up and can't back that up ... In those cases the judge is going
to carve up their almost worthless company and give chunks to the parties
wronged in baseless endless discovery and litigation.
SCO doesn't want to give them a single dime. So they need to draw this out long
enough to use up all funds. Even if the surrendered the only terms that would be
exceptable would be more than SCO could bare. They might have to publicly
apologize for their campaign of terror against their own customers. Let's face
it nobody wants to do that! :)
I'm guessing that SCO wants to, and wants everyone to know, that they will drain
their company of over single cent and well into debt that would make a college
kid with his first credit card blush. Sure they can't win, but that can make a
tiny dent into the budget of a few super large companies.
Is anyone taking bets on where Darl will get hired next? I'm thinking GOP or MS.
Ideas?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AceBtibucket on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
Is it reasonable to hope that there is a very large house about to fall on the
witch's head???
Tenors, lead off; everyone join in on the chorus in four-part harmony.
"Ding, Dong, the witch is dead..."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 12:34 PM EDT |
5. I retained the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich &
Rosati, then Novell's regular outside counsel, to negotiate and draft the
agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz. The Wilson team was led by Tor Braham,
an experienced partner in that firm who was already familiar with Novell's
business. In fact, Tor had negotiated Novell's purchase of UNIX assets from USL
in 1993.
Ok, I had not noticed this before. This sort looks
like an extra nail in SCO's heart (why bother with their coffin, they are like a
vampire, you need to stake them through the heart with as much as
possible).
This sort of adds weight to Braham, not only did he negotiate
the Santa Cruz (I won't dignify them by calling them SCO at the time) purchase,
but also the original purchase from AT&T Unixlabs. Which means he would
have been intimately aware of what IP was obtained by Novell, and thus was more
than aware of what Santa Cruz actually bought.
--- MDT [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
In none of the recent Novell declaration does Novell identify who was sitting
directly across the table from them. I find that a little curious.
In my experience with negotiations much less complex than this one it is often
necessary to escalate issues to resolve them. This often leads to direct
contacts further up the chain, especially if there is a deadline or a
misunderstanding.
I'd wonder who Tor was talking directly to. Bradford should have been talking to
Sabbath, when necessary. If any of those people didn't submit declarations I'd
wonder why, and I bet the judge would too.
---
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
I believe that finally, maybe, Judge Kimball -- once he reads these various
Novell declarations -- will bring this charade to a close.
I only hope that when Kimball does shut down this charade he does so in a way
that it will withstand the appeals process and, equally important as well,
punish both SCOG executives and BSF lawyers/firm in such a way as to not be
recoverable for any of them.
Since the beginning of this malicious and frivolous suit both SCOG management
and BSF have acted like a pack of rabid dogs.
It is time, indeed past time, to put them down.
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2007 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
or will Judge Kimball simply issue a ruling?
I must say that the thought of waking up to news of a ruling on these issues is
making me salivate. I don't see how it can possibly go other than for
Novell--based on a clear contract, and a such a judgement is certain to turn all
the other zombie claims to dust like the first searing rays of the morning sun.
Sorry, I got a little carried away there.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|