decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages
Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 12:18 AM EDT

This is SCO's side of the lack-of-special-damages-from-slander-of-title story, argued on May 31st, in which it tells the court that it sustained special damages from Novell claiming to be the rightful owner of the UNIX copyrights, SCO's redacted Response in Opposition to Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title Based on Failure to Establish Special Damages [PDF].

Novell's motion is based on the premise that SCO has failed to show evidence of any special damages from any slander of title -- here's the Memorandum in Support if you want to refresh your memory on how it all began and what special damages are -- and this is SCO's reply. It's dated May 18, but we are just getting to see it now, and it gives us a more detailed picture of what SCO's arguments were at oral argument.

Rereading Chris Brown's account again after reading this document, it's easier to grasp what each side is arguing. It's hard to follow when so much is sealed.

Novell's answer to the points SCO raises is here. Novell has also filed evidentiary objections.

The essence of the dispute is that Novell says SCO hasn't shown any specific special damages. And in fact, it says what it does claim as such aren't special damages, so even if SCO could establish every other element it has to establish to win on a slander of title claim, it still can't win on its slander of title claim, because special damages are a required element. Here's the single issue Novell raised in its motion:

Is Novell entitled to summary judgment of SCO's slander of title claim on the grounds that SCO has failed to establish special damages resulting from the alleged slander?

SCO says it has suffered special damages, mainly arguing case law on what constitute special damages in a slander of title matter (do legal fees count?), and it says that it's for a jury to decide certain matters anyhow. There aren't many cases on point for either side, because who sues for slander of title on a copyright? It's usually about houses, so both sides are struggling to make their arguments fit a type of lawsuit that normally is about real property, and it isn't such a good fit.

Indeed reading SCO's filing gives me that Alice in Wonderland feeling again. Nothing they say makes any sense to me unless I accept that it already owns the copyrights, that Linux has infringed them and should never have an opportunity to remove the infringing code, and that the whole world of Linux users would probably have paid SCO had Novell kept its mouth shut. But if you read this pretending that all of that has all been established already, you will give yourself the best opportunity to understand their position on the damages part of the issue, which is what this is about. The other parts will be decided, but not directly in this motion. Novell has carved out one section of the slander of title dispute, but it's got another motion disputing all the rest, and if it prevails on either, it defeats SCO's slander of title claim.

As I was reading this filing, trying to follow the arguments being presented both in this document and from what I read about the May hearing, something struck me. SCO says its losses are irrevocable, and that seems to conflict with something SCO wrote in a March 15 letter to the SEC about SCOsource. The SEC had asked SCO to explain an accounting matter it noticed in SCO's 10K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006:

Please clarify why you believe that it is appropriate to record legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with litigation as cost of revenue as opposed to operating expense.

I gather the SEC is noticing more things than I thought. Anyway, here's part of SCO's reply:

Additionally, as a result of Novell, Inc.’s (“Novell”) assertion of UNIX copyright ownership and other claims, we believe that many of our potential SCOsource customers have either delayed licensing with us until an outcome in these matters has been reached or foregone the opportunity altogether. As a result, our revenue for the last three fiscal years has decreased dramatically.

Doesn't that sound to you like they think that many will still sign up if SCO wins? That it was a matter of delay? At the court hearing, in contrast, SCO reportedly said that even if it won, it lacks the resources to pick up with SCOsource again -- that's one issue it says only a jury can decide -- and on pages 8 and 9 of this PDF, SCO tells the court its losses are irrevocable:

Novell's slander impaired the vendability of the SCOsource licenses, directly and immediately costing SCO millions of dollars of lost profits. Numerous potential customers identified Novell's claims as a substantial reason for not purchasing a SCOsource license, and actual customers used Novell's claims as leverage to bargain lower prices. In addition to these customers, many potential licensees never contacted SCO at all because of Novell false claims, or did not identify Novell even though they were deterred by Novell's false claims. These SCOsource profits have been irrevocably lost, not deferred temporarily, as a result of Novell's longstanding campaign to undermine SCO's title to the copyrights.

Then on page 42, it elaborates on that same theme:

Novell wrongly places the burden of mitigation, as well as the risk that mitigation would not succeed, on SCO's shoulders by assuming that former potential customers may yet buy a license from SCO. Essentially, Novell would have disputed the facts construed in its favor. This is like a tortfeasor who intentionally injured someone saying that he does not have to pay damages because the paralyzed victim might walk again someday. It is for a jury to decide whether the SCOsource program will "walk again." Moreover, Novell steadfastly ignores the residual impact of Novell's four-year slander campaign against SCO; disregards the fundamentally changed market conditions between 2003 and the present; and simply assumes that a customer who said in 2003 that it would "revisit" taking a SCOsource license when the Novell copyright issue was resolved, would necessarily take a license in 2008. In fact, it is doubtful that customers who suggested SCO should get back to them when the issue was settled anticipated what a long process it would be, or expected SCO to return not in a few months, but many years after the initial contact.

SCO's evidence that Novell's slander will have a residual impact on the SCOsource program even after SCO's title is cleared, must be construed in SCO's favor for the purposes of summary judgment.

They seem to be arguing in opposition to their words to the SEC, unless I'm missing something, which is always possible.

Another thing: in that 10K the SEC was asking about, SCO described its core business like this:

We own the base UNIX operating system technology and are a provider of UNIX-based products and services. Our core business is to sell and service our UNIX software products to small-to-medium sized businesses and franchisees or branch offices of Fortune 1000 businesses. The products that drive the majority of our UNIX revenue are OpenServer and UnixWare. We intend to continue to develop, market and service our UNIX products and services during the year ending October 31, 2007 while at the same time further developing and marketing our mobility products and services for personal and professional productivity.

We developed our SCOsource business as part of our ongoing efforts to establish and protect our intellectual property rights, particularly relating to our ownership of the original UNIX source code. This business’ primary objective is to protect and defend our UNIX intellectual property rights. In reviewing our intellectual property rights during the year ended October 31, 2003, we became aware that parts of, or modifications made or relating to, our UNIX source code and derivative works have been included in the Linux operating system without our authorization or appropriate copyright attribution.

I can't help but notice they say they own the technology, but don't say the copyrights. But in this filing, on page 42 of the PDF, SCO argues that the title to the UNIX copyrights is the "very heart" of its business, which seemed to me to be saying that SCOsource was the heart of its hopes and dreams, not providing "UNIX-based products and services". So what is SCO's core business, anyway?

For that matter, didn't SCO tell the court that the Sun and Microsoft licenses were *not* SCOsource license? It really detracts from SCO's arguments when it seems to say one thing here and another thing there. Here is the entire letter to the SEC, minus redacted contact information, because it's part of the historical record:

*************************

CORRESP 1 filename1.htm

NOLAN S. TAYLOR
[phone, fax, email]
March 15, 2007
VIA EDGAR AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
100 F Street, N.E.
Mail Stop 4561
Washington, D.C. 20549
Attention: Mr. Stephen Krikorian, Accounting Branch Chief
Re:
The SCO Group, Inc.
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2006
Filed on January 27, 2006
File No. 000-29911
Dear Mr. Krikorian:
This letter is written in response to the Staff’s review of the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 2006 as outlined in the Commission’s letter dated March 2, 2007. As requested, the Company is providing the following information and response regarding its financial statements and disclosures contained in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006.
The numbered response set forth below reproduces the Staff’s comments, followed by the Company’s response.
Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2006
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss, page 43
Comment 1:
We note your “SCOsource licensing” revenue and cost of revenue financial statement captions. We further note based on your disclosures throughout the filing (e.g., page 21) that the SCOsource business was initiated to protect and defend your UNIX intellectual property and that cost of revenues are primarily attributable to legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the SCO litigation. Please address the following comments with respect to your classification and presentation.
Please clarify why you believe that it is appropriate to record legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with litigation as cost of revenue as opposed to operating expense. Explain the revenue that these costs are applicable to and how your classification complies with Rule 5-03(b)2 of


Regulation S-X. As part of your response, please clarify how these expenses relate to the sale of IP agreements.
Please clarify how you plan to classify any recovery amounts received from a favorable settlement of your litigation in your statement of operations (i.e., revenue, operating income or non-operating income).
Response:
During the year ended October 31, 2003, we first became aware that our UNIX code, derivative works and related material (collectively, the UNIX intellectual property rights) had been inappropriately included by others in the Linux operating system. In an effort to protect and defend our UNIX intellectual property rights, we initiated our SCOsource business. Our SCOsource business has been reported as a separate business segment for reporting purposes under SFAS No. 131 since our fiscal year ended October 31, 2003. We believe it is appropriate to classify the legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with litigation that we initiate to defend our UNIX intellectual property rights and enhance our licensing revenue streams as costs of revenue as opposed to operating expenses for the following reasons. Upon its establishment, our SCOsource business focused on (1) generating revenue from pursuing vendor contracts to ensure other companies were in compliance with existing UNIX license agreements and (2) generating revenue from entering into intellectual property (IP) license agreements with those who may be using UNIX without an appropriate license (which included enforcing our intellectual property rights through the legal system, as appropriate). The costs of the activities to generate these revenue streams are very closely related and dependent upon each other and, in general, are comprised of legal fees and costs to outside attorneys and consultants and related internal costs and expenses of litigation. Therefore, these costs have been classified as costs of SCOsource revenue since 2003 consistent with the requirements of Rule 5-03(b)2 of Regulation S-X. Our SCOsource business and related litigation were initiated to encourage companies using our UNIX intellectual property rights without permission to enter into IP license agreements with us.
Based on initial results and inquiries about licensing options from potential customers, we expected that the licensing initiatives described in (1) and (2) above would generate significant ongoing revenue that would exceed the related costs of licensing as well as the costs of the litigation with IBM Corporation (“IBM”). During the year ended October 31, 2003, our expectations proved to be correct in that we successfully executed two significant license agreements and generated $25,846,000 in revenue. Protecting our intellectual property rights through the legal system was expected to increase the strength of our intellectual property ownership and provide additional licensing or partnering opportunities for the Company. As the litigation with IBM has continued and increased in scope and complexity, the costs of that litigation have increased significantly. Additionally, as a result of Novell, Inc.’s (“Novell”) assertion of UNIX copyright ownership and other claims, we believe that many of our potential SCOsource customers have either delayed licensing with us until an outcome in these matters has been reached or foregone the opportunity altogether. As a result, our revenue for the last three fiscal years has decreased dramatically. We have continued to categorize these costs as cost of SCOsource licensing revenue in a consistent manner from period to period since 2003, even though we have generated negative gross margins for the years ended October 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
In the event that the Company is successful in obtaining a one-time payment recovery from adjudication or settlement in favor of the Company, we believe those cash inflows should

2


be reported as a component of other income (non-operating income) as a separate caption, with significant footnote disclosure and explanation. We believe this to be the appropriate treatment because of the unusual nature and projected significant size of those amounts compared to the Company’s operations.
In addition to responding to the comment referenced above, the Company acknowledges that:
the company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the filing;
staff comments or changes to disclosure in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the filing; and
the company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceeding initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.
The Company and we are available to discuss any issues presented by the comments and the response contained in this letter or to respond to further comments.
Sincerely,


DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
/s/ Nolan S. Taylor
Nolan S. Taylor

3


  


SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages | 143 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 12:32 AM EDT
Please make any links clickable.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 12:35 AM EDT
If you find any.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tortfeasors 'R' us
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 12:50 AM EDT
This is like a tortfeasor who intentionally injured someone saying that he does not have to pay damages because the paralyzed victim might walk again someday. It is for a jury to decide whether the SCOsource program will "walk again."

SCOX: We shot are ourselves in the foot, multiple times, with both barrels. But, hey, it's not our fault.

And they *still* want to confuse a jury.

What about the fact that SCOX is a tortfeasor?
What about the civil damages that *they* have inflicted on the GPL world?

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You missed an 'or'
Authored by: Dark on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 02:17 AM EDT
Additionally, as a result of Novell, Inc.’s (“Novell”) assertion of UNIX copyright ownership and other claims, we believe that many of our potential SCOsource customers have either delayed licensing with us until an outcome in these matters has been reached or foregone the opportunity altogether. As a result, our revenue for the last three fiscal years has decreased dramatically.
The 'or' in their statement to the SEC means that it can be read either way, that potential customers will come back or that they won't. Of course, making nonstatements like this is part of SCO's unique charm, but it's not a contradiction with what they told the court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Letter to the SEC of March 15, 2007
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 02:20 AM EDT
Anyone else feel this may be stretching the definition of cost of revenue. If
Novell wins then these may not be legitimate costs of revenue. If I were with
the SEC or the IRS, I would look very closely at this.

It certainly makes me wonder if the decision to classify expenses this way
influenced prior independent auditors to agree not to continue their formal
relationship with SCO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ponzi
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 02:41 AM EDT
"Protecting our intellectual property rights through the legal system was
expected to increase the strength of our intellectual property ownership and
provide additional licensing or partnering opportunities for the Company."

nuff said!

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ponzi - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 02:50 AM EDT
SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages
Authored by: tknarr on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 03:36 AM EDT

SCO seems, as usual, to be putting the cart before the horse. They're arguing that if we assume the claimed damages are special damages, it's for a jury to decide whether they occured or not and what the amount is. Novell, by contrast, is noting that at the SJ stage the damages as claimed are assumed to have occured, the question is whether or not they meet the legal standard to be special damages. And IMO SCO will lose the argument because the question of whether damages qualify as special or not is a question of law, not fact, and juries get to stand in line behind the judge on those.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do you spell S_C_A_M
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 03:36 AM EDT
I believe it's spelled S_C_A_M

[ Reply to This | # ]

It didn't start this way
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 03:58 AM EDT
I could swear the 699 dollar Linux License was because SCO was responding to
consumer demand.

Didn't they say (publish) that?


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages
Authored by: raya on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 04:25 AM EDT
Please clarify why you believe that it is appropriate to record legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with litigation as cost of revenue as opposed to operating expense.
Surely you are allowed to do that when your business model is soley based on litigation ?

Oh, wait, they are still claiming to be a product company... but does _anyone_ believe that anymore ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A little logic problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 04:29 AM EDT
Problems for SCO:
  1. SCO says: We started a new business unit and Novell ruined it, therefore our revenue has decreased.
  2. SCO contends that all their loss of revenue is due to Novell's actions.

The first issue: Nobody has bought their bogus licenses. All other things being equal, their revenue should have increased if people had bought those licenses. All other things aren't equal though. Their Unix business is going down the tubes. That's why their revenue has decreased. At worst, Novell kept them from getting an offsetting new revenue stream. They can't claim that Novell is responsible for a decrease in revenue.

The second issue: Surely IBM's vigorous defense and Red Hat's case had some effect on people's refusal to believe that they owed SCO anything. SCO treats Novell as though it is the entire cause of their problems. I'm a little surprised that Novell hasn't argued something like: Even if we didn't assert our claim that SCO doesn't own the copyrights, SCO would still have had trouble convincing people to buy their licenses because of the actions of IBM and Red Hat.

Am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

They had a future?
Authored by: RPN on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 04:38 AM EDT
SCO was a slowly sinking ship before this whole charade began as the weakest
link in the fading UNIX market. That was one of the reasons I got interested in
this case in the first place. Right from the very start this was to me the old
old story of a company dying on its feet flailing around for a way out without
recognising why it was dying to generate a coherent busness plan to move forward
with or shutdown the company while it still had some value to return to its
shareholders and pay its staff proper redundancy money etc.

To me even if it had some copyrights that would only encourage remaining UNIX
users to move on and Linux would write round them in double quick time so the
chances of SCO ever getting real value out of the court case was very small and
would only be a temporary respite. Classic in a hole, stop digging. But no they
had to go and get a gun and shoot off both feet, both hands and now look close
to shooting off their own head too as it becomes obvious they not only don't
have a case but are so inept they seriously risk personal sanctions of the
companies officers and its lawyers. The longer it all drags on the sillier it
gets.

SCO didn't have a future in 2003 however you cut the market and figures.
Claiming it lost special damages as a result of Novells actions is frankly plain
dumb if you look at the companies history, the UNIX market and SCO's place in
that market. And I'm no expert in any of those. I'm sure Novell will have no
trouble proving all that though.

Richard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's 4 year campaign of slander
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 05:01 AM EDT
SCO has been slandering Linux all this time. If anyone should be paid special
damages, it's Linus.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 05:27 AM EDT
Nothing they say makes any sense to me unless I accept that it already owns the copyrights, that Linux has infringed them and should never have an opportunity to remove the infringing code, and that the whole world of Linux users would probably have paid SCO had Novell kept its mouth shut. But if you read this pretending that all of that has all been established already, you will give yourself the best opportunity to understand their position on the damages part of the issue, which is what this is about.
I don't quite agree with this. If SCO owned the copyrights and Linux infringed them then once title was cleared SCOsource would in fact "walk again".[1]

SCO's argument here only makes sense if they own the copyrights but Linux doesn't infringe them. In that case, the delay due to the [alleged] slander of title is fatal, because while back in 2003/4 some SCOsource targets might have been willing to hedge, paying up just in case infringement was proven, now, with the (even being generous in our assessment of still-sealed items) almost complete lack of evidence of infringement in SCO vs IBM, very few are likely to do so.

So they can only demonstrate special damages (and thus, perhaps, prevail against Novell on slander of title) if they can show that it was all a scam in the first place that would fall apart as soon as a court dealt with the infringement issue...

[1] OK, there's also the issues of targetting end-users vs distributors, and of failure to mitigate damages by specifying the alleged infringement and allowing Linux to be re-written to remove it. But those are SCO's decisions, not Novell's (or anyone else's) fault.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Can't See the Point in This
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 06:25 AM EDT
When SCO vs IBM was in full swing, I couldn't see the point in that speculative
litigation thread proceeding prior to quelling the copyright ownership dispute.
For years, we watched SCO tap-dancing. Speculative motions were exchanged with
gay abandon until finally, and sensibly, SCO vs IBM was stayed in favour of SCO
vs Novell. We drew a collective sigh of relief.

Now we're at it again. Speculative litigation. What is the point?

First things first.

A very simple way to quash this absurd conjecture would be to stay *everything*
not directly connected with copyright ownership. Then decide once and for all,
does SCO or does SCO not own the copyrights upon which these cases are based?
(The evidence, lack of evidence and defective evidence needed to decide that is
already before the Court.) From that point onward, very little of the rumpus we
have seen throughout this saga would be necessary. The outstanding claims and
counterclaims, I believe, could be resolved in rather short order.

(As if that would happen...)

---
Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity – and I'm not
sure about the former. -- Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 06:31 AM EDT
In a trial about "slander of title", SCO has to prove several things: 1. That they own the copyrights (tough chance of proving that). 2. That Novell acted maliciously, which means Novell didn't have any good reason to believe SCO didn't own the copyrights (this is even harder to prove, since the APA without any doubt gives Novell reason to believe no copyrights were transferred). 3. I forgot that one. And 4. Special damages.

It happens quite often that for something to be illegal, several things have to match. Like theft is: 1. Taking away someone elses belongings. 2. Doing it illegally. 3. Doing it to deprive the other. Bailiffs regularly go to people's houses and do (1) and (3). It is not theft as long as (2) isn't fulfilled. If you sued a bailiff for theft, normally he wouldn't have any defence against (1) and (3) at all. It is his job taking people's things away, and he does it with the intention to deprive them of these things. His defence would be to point for example to a court order giving him the right to do this.

Same in this case. Did Novell cause damage to SCO? Yes, absolutely. That was the idea. The point was that Novell absolutely had the right to cause that damage. If company A makes a better product than company B, clearly they are damaging B, but they have the right to do so. If I recover my car from a thief, that is clearly damaging to the thief, but I have the right to do so.

Now if SCO cannot make their special damages claim stick, _that_ would mean to me that their lawyers are incompetent. On the other points, SCO can't complain; there is not much a lawyer can do if the facts are against you. But they really should have been able to show special damages. As far as I understand, if they had got just one statement from 1500 blackmail victims who said "I didn't buy a license because of Novell's statement, without that statement I would have paid for a license", that would have been enough. And they haven't even got that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Phishing?
Authored by: LocoYokel on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 08:38 AM EDT
Just think of the opportunities here. If this works any phisher has grounds to
sue any legitimate company who attempts to warn their customers that the emails
asking them to go to some website and enter their personal information and
passwords is not legit.

"Their improper notification that the emails were false caused the people
to not give us the information we needed to commit identity fraud. They should
pay us bajillions of dollars in compensation".



---
Waiting for the games I play to be released in Linux, or a decent Windows
emulator, to switch entirely.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Reply to Novell's Motion Re Failure to Establish Special Damages
Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT
"They seem to be arguing in opposition to their words to the SEC"

Doesn't the SEC take a dim view of this sort of thing? It sounds to me like
some jail time is due.


---
Let me know if you don't receive this message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Loss of POTENTIAL income
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 10:53 AM EDT
Is loss of potential income a real loss? I noticed that SCO left out the
'potential' word when they were describing the loss, but there was no guarantee
that their scam would convince anybody to acually pay them was there? Novell
may have been a contributing factor in the victim's decision not to pay, but how
do you prove that it was the deciding one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great news! Their back!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 02:13 PM EDT
Nasdaq has reprieved SCOX and has let them back in.
Will this be the start of their epic journey "to teh moon" ??????????????
clicky RTT News or if I got that wrong try this
http://www.rttnews.com/sp/breakingnews.asp?date=06/12/2007&item=75

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two ODD points about Special Damages
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 04:54 PM EDT
First if attorneys fees for litigating a Slander of Title claim are Special
Damages, then no Slander of Title can ever be dismissed for lack of Special
Damages and that requirement is moot.

Second, Novell is not arguing that SCO didn't lose income in the short term,
only that the income isn't permanently lost. In fact as a result of the
litigation should SCO win they will be in a better position to collect fees for
potential licensees.

As usual SCO is simply talking past Novell. I can't detect that that they even
addressed Novell's contention that the licensing income is merely deferred.


---
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 | # ]

Several years ago
Authored by: mattflaschen on Tuesday, June 12 2007 @ 05:43 PM EDT
I just found "

MR. JACOBS: We were here several years ago on the
question of damages for slander of title.

THE COURT: Several years ago."

funny. There's no way for me to know, but "The Court" seems to be
losing patience.

[ 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 )