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 speaks
Sunday, August 12 2007 @ 11:53 PM EDT

Here they are, at last, with a statement.

With the loopy bravado of Monty Python's Black Knight, they list all the things they didn't lose. And they are exploring their options. "To be or not to be.... That is the question." Oh, wait. They didn't say that. Here's what they did say:

Statement from SCO Regarding Recent Court Ruling

The SCO Group said in a statement, "The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms were not challenged and remain intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace.

What's more, the court did not dismiss our claims against Novell regarding the non compete provisions of the 1995 Technology License Agreement relating to Novell's distribution of Linux to the extent implicated by the technology developed by SCO after 1995. Those issues remain to be litigated.

Although the district judge ruled in Novell's favor on important issues, the case has not yet been fully vetted by the legal system and we will continue to explore our options with respect to how we move forward from here."

"It's just a flesh wound." Here's what I think they should say: "Sorry, everybody, that we caused so much trouble by claiming we owned copyrights we had every reason to know we didn't own. Our bad. And sorry about all the shills. And sorry about that slander thing. And if your company lost business or your reputation was damaged, we are truly sorry. And I guess what SCO wants, it doesn't get after all." Oh, and check the ruling to note where SCO's version diverges from what the judge wrote.


  


SCO speaks | 672 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Just a flesh wound LOL
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:10 AM EDT
Missing a brain as well as a case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:12 AM EDT
[...] SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms were not challenged and remain intact. [...]
When was SCO ever challenged on its ownership of OpenServer and/or Mobile Server?

Is this more of delusion Darl's musings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allright then, we'll call it a draw!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:14 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic thread
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:18 AM EDT
I hereby fiat this thread for all your off-topic needs.

---
"You interact with a computer differently when you can trust it to be reliable." --from a blog comment, 2007-07

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Newsome on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:18 AM EDT
Well, I suppose you can't claim that they're letting it get them down.

"Always look on the bright side of life", I guess...

Frank

---
Frank Sorenson

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread version Non.Anon
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:20 AM EDT
You can place corrections to the article here.

Even if you have anon posts blocked.

---
"You interact with a computer differently when you can trust it to be reliable." --from a blog comment, 2007-07

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: producer on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:24 AM EDT
Check out this little ditty. It's now an "often farcical legal crusade" Tail between the legs, anyone? Lying Lyons

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a permanent link I take it.
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:28 AM EDT
SCO's statement is at http://sco.com/company/news/statement.html which, to me, is way too vague to not be moved later to a more permanent place (or deleted).

I checked for it at http://www.sco.com/company/newsroom/ which contains 5 links to their various PR/IR/News. It was an interesting exploration in that some of those areas have not been updated in months or years.

Now known as the World Wide Cob Web at sco.com.

---
"You interact with a computer differently when you can trust it to be reliable." --from a blog comment, 2007-07

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO: "how we move forward from here."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:40 AM EDT
May I suggest dropping your shovels and start looking for a ladder? :-)
Possibly flapping your arms will do more good than flapping your mouths - but I
don't really think so. ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks "Look up in the sky"...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:49 AM EDT
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's the nazgul's size 13-D counterclaims
coming down to squash what's left of you!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: mattflaschen on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:55 AM EDT
So basically they're saying, the judge "ruled" (i.e mentioned in
passing) in their favor on every issue the parties agreed to (copyrights for
UNIX code developed by SCO after the agreements, trademark, copyright for
totally independent works like the mobile initiatives, etc.).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane...no...it's the SEC
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:06 AM EDT
Darl, Martha can give you some pointers on sprucing up your cell to give it that
real homey feeling.

"Knew or should have known." Well which is it Darl? Are you a liar
or an idiot?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:08 AM EDT
"But the Black Knight always triumphs!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks (saying little)
Authored by: MacUser on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:22 AM EDT

Clearly written by the lawyers, saying as little as possible but leaving
as much FUD as they can get away with hanging in the air.

So it's a big deal the judge said they owned whatever code they wrote? If I
sued J. K. Rowling for slander of title on Harry Potter, and lost inevitably, the
harshest court would still allow me ownership of whatever musings I'd written myself.

SCO seem reluctant to come straight out and claim that Linus Torvald or others
illegally appropriated non-GPL code written by SCO.

Could it be they have no appetite for another slander battle, but would
like to let the innuendo linger?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Psychopathy
Authored by: Simon G Best on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:37 AM EDT

I've long had the impression that The SCO Group is somewhat psychopathic, as if run by someone psychopathic. I somewhat suspect that it is run by someone - Darl McBride - somewhat psychopathic. This latest statement from The SCO Group fits nicely.

I predict that Darl McBride will never, ever, admit to having got things wrong. Unless, that is, he does so in a devious and psychopathically twisted way. (An example might be if he was to "admit" to having overestimated the competence of the federal judiciary, other people's abilities to understand the complexities of the case, other people's steadfast willingness to see justice done instead of allowing themselves to be swayed by Groklaw's emotional hyperbole, etc.) If he ever does admit to having got things wrong, it'll be in a psychopathic, "I was even more right than even I realised!" kind of way.

But what now? There must be severe confidence problems within The SCO Group. McBride, of course, will ultimately be looking out for himself, and, I predict, will be identifying scapegoats. And, at this point, I find myself thinking of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and others, blaming their own nations for their downfalls. I predict that McBride will eventually take the view that others involved in this shambles were undeserving of his leadership, and instead deserve the defeats they are increasingly facing.

What goes on internally within The SCO Group will, I think, be increasingly important in determining and understanding its external behaviour. There really is no doubt now that The SCO Group is going down in flames.

---
"Public relations" is a public relations term for propaganda.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Had every reason to know?
Authored by: Placid on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:45 AM EDT
<<Sorry, everybody, that we caused so much trouble by claiming we owned
copyrights we had every reason to know we didn't own.>>

If I've read Judge Kimball's ruling correctly, they not only had the reason to
know, they *knew*. Or am I missing something here? I guess what is below is no
longer just Novell's words, it's the Judge's ruling:

On January 4, 2003, McBride received an email from Michael Anderer, a consultant
for SCO retained to examine its intellectual property. Supp. Brakebill Decl. Ex.
12. Anderer stated that the APA "transferred substantially less" of
Novell's intellectual property than Novell owned. Anderer noted that Santa
Cruz's "asset purchase" from Novell "excludes all patents,
copyrights, and just about everything else." Id. Anderer cautioned that
"[w]e really need to be clear on what we can license. It may be a lot less
than we think."

On February 4, 2003, McBride contacted Christopher Stone, Vice Chairman of
Novell, and stated that he wanted Novell to "amend" the APA to give
SCO "the copyrights to UNIX." Supp. Brakebill Decl. Ex. 17; id. Ex. 18
("Stone Dep." at 108-09). Then, on February 25, 2003, McBride twice
called a Novell employee in business development, David Wright, and said,
"SCO needs the copyrights." Wright passed on McBride's request to
Novell's in-house legal department. Supp. Brakebill Decl. Ex. 13. McBride's
request was memorialized in an email written that day by a Novell in-house
attorney, Greg Jones. Id.

Also early in 2003, McBride and Chris Sontag of SCO contacted Greg Jones
regarding the UNIX copyrights. Id. Ex. 8 ("Decl. Greg Jones") at 13,
14; Decl. Christopher S. Sontag 6. McBride stated that "the asset purchase
agreement excluded copyrights from being transferred" and that it was a
"clerical error." Jones Dep. at 182. On February 20, 2003, Chris
Sontag also sent a draft letter to Novell that sought to clarify the parties'
rights under the APA. Decl. Christopher S. Sontag Ex.

Again in March 2003, McBride called Stone to ask him if Novell would "give
him some changes so he could have the copyrights." Christopher Stone Dep.
at 248-49. Ralph Yarro, Chairman of SCO, requested an in-person meeting with
Stone. In that meeting, on May 14, 2003, Yarro told Stone that he wanted Novell
to amend the APA to give SCO the copyrights. Supp. Brakebill Decl. Ex. 17 at 4;
Stone Dep. at 137-8. Stone refused. Id. On May 19, 2003, McBride called Stone
and Joe LaSala, Novell's General Counsel, and again requested that Novell convey
the copyrights to SCO. McBride said, "we only need you to amend the
contract so that we can have the copyrights." Stone Dep. 249-250. Stone
made notes in June 2003 memorializing both conversations. Supp. Brakebill Decl.
Ex. 17. E. SCOsource Initiative

In approximately this same time frame, in January 2003, SCO launched its
SCOsource initiative, which was an effort to obtain license fees from Linux
users based on claims to Unix System V intellectual property. McBride commented
that "SCO owns much of the core UNIX intellectual property, and has full
rights to license this technology and enforce the associated patents and
copyrights."

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the brighter side...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:49 AM EDT
SCO: On the brighter side, we just saved a ton of money on our insurance by
switching to GEICO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appeals cost money ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:00 AM EDT
I cannot remember, but I don't think appeals are included in the lawyer's
commitments? If this is the case, can appeals be expensive processes (in civil

cases)?

I expect that the stock price will open up down around 30 - 40% (only).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Refreshingly honest
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:14 AM EDT
Compared with Darl's spoutings early in the case, this announcement is very honest. SCO could have been more creative. Consider, for instance, the example set by Iraq's minister of information as the Americans were invading:

On April 7, 2003, Al-Sahaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates. At that time, American tanks were patrolling the streets only a few hundred yards from the location where the press conference was held. His last public appearance as Information Minister was on April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".
Iraq's former information minister

In light of the standard set by Mohammed_Saeed_al-Sahaf, I am disappointed by SCO's lack of creativity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clutching at straws
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:15 AM EDT
I am surprised how negative their assessment is. "We are considering our
options" sounds like an admission of defeat to me. That's more or less
what they said after the Daimler Chrysler decision, and in the end they did
nothing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

how much GPL code ended up in openserver via LKP?
Authored by: skidrash on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:43 AM EDT
Don't look now Darl, you may own UnixWare (or maybe not),

but depending on how much GPL code was put in there you won't be able to use it
as a stick to beat anyone with.

Even in that short of a blurb you manage to put in questionable stuff. Way to
go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOsource LIVES! Long live SCOsource!
Authored by: AcousticZen on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:49 AM EDT
Interestingly, SCOsource information remains completely intact on the SCO
website. Reading some of their "authoritative" answers, after this
ruling, brings a couple of good chuckles.

AZ

---
"I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done
enough education of policy makers to understand the threat." - Jim Allchin, M$

[ Reply to This | # ]

NASA to launch a new exploration vehicle...
Authored by: GriffMG on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:21 AM EDT
After the recent discovery, by scientists working for the space agency NASA, of
an entirely new planet in our solar system - which they have named SCO - NASA
has today announced that it plans to launch an exploratory vehicle with a view
to discovering what kind, if any, of life exists on this very strange world.

The planet SCO has thrown the astronomical science into disarray by appearing to
exhibit entirely contradictory properties - it would seem that unlike other
celestial bodies in our solar system, from the surface of planet SCO the
universe would revolve around you - even though from every other viewpoint
available planet SCO orbits the sun in an entirely normal manner.

NASA said today that they needed to be quick, however, as the existence of such
a contrary body was likely to be short lived, a spokesperson for NASA iterated
that when it did expire 'it would be not unlike removing your hand from a cold
bucket of water - in that, very quickly, there would be no evidence your hand
was there, in the bucket, at all'. One of his colleagues put it more succinctly
'no evidence, no evidence at all.'

B-)

---
Keep B-) ing

[ Reply to This | # ]

"The District Judge"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:53 AM EDT
What odd wording. Technically correct I suppose, although that is a pretty big
'district' they are talking about. But it sure manages to make Judge Kimball
sound like just some local yokel doesn't it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: stephen_A on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:26 AM EDT
Solvent/topping up the war chest......

[ Reply to This | # ]

So what is covered by SCO's copyrights?
Authored by: Karellen on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:30 AM EDT
"However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the
copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO
[and] includes the new development in all subsequent
versions of UnixWare up through the most current release
of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare
Gemini 64."

So ... does anyone know what new code they wrote and still
have protection for?

Weren't their main claims over RCU and JFS? If these were
developed by SCO after the sale/APA, then wouldn't these
main claims still be active?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Pogue Mahone on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 05:39 AM EDT
An interesting result of this is that SCO is left to defend against one of IBM's
claims (the one for a declaratory judgement that their Linux activites don't
infringe any Unix copyrights) without any prospect of gain, even in the unlikely
event that SCO won.

---
(c) 2007 Typo, Inc. All rights reversed.

I'm not afraid of receiving e-mail from strangers - see bio

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's see what the market says ...
Authored by: elderlycynic on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 05:40 AM EDT
Let's see what happens to SCO's share price when the market
opens. My prediction is delisting in short order, but the
lunacies of high finance (which has nothing to do with its
often low morality) never cease to amaze me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wiki-formatable version of the decision
Authored by: JesseW on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 05:43 AM EDT
I've put the decision up on Wikisource, here: http: //en.wikisource.org/wiki/SCO_v._Novell_Summary_Judgment_Ruling. (Thanks to the person who made the text available on Groklaw). I think I've got it well divided, and the footnotes integrated, but there's lots of things still to do, ranging from the trivial (italicizing all the mentions of "Id"), to the profound (linking to the relevant portions of the APA, the TLA, the California legal code and all the other things Judge Kimball cited). It would also be nice to pull out the "court ruled" sentences, as a quick summary of what motions were which. We may also want to copy/move it to Groklaw's wiki. (we do have one, don't we?) In any case, get crackin' folks!

---
(Contact me for comment licensing, e.g. GPL, CC, PD, etc.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ryan E. Tibbitts is still threatening me
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 05:49 AM EDT
I put this link up from time to time to remind readers that I am personally under attack from SCO: Dear Linux User

It would seem that the contents of this letter forms the basis of NewSCO's demands for payment for a licence, presumably including those already paid for or bundled as part of some other settlement.

The judge has demolished most of the claims in the letter but there still remains the possibility that NewSCO may still claim that Linux contains some NewSCO copyrighted code which has been included without their permission.

Of course Caldera/NewSCO releasing said code under the GPL may weaken their argument ;-)

I wonder if NewSCO will take down this letter. I expect it will still be there when they are gone.

---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

User Friendly :-)
Authored by: Jadeclaw on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 06:00 AM EDT
Illiad has his own ideas:
User Friendly
Have fun!

---

Best regards
Jadeclaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOspeak Explained
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 06:22 AM EDT
However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995.
Imagine for a moment you are a busy investor. The kind of investor that needs to act quickly and certainly doesn't have time to do detailed research before making decisions (yes, they exist). Try reading the above quickly, without thinking about it too hard:
...SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by...
Huh? What was that? SCO owns the copyrights to the technology? What technology? This is about Linux infringing Unix copyrights, yes? Must be it!
...Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995...
Novell did transfer them to SCO!
...SCO owns the copyrights...
so SCO does own them!
...the court clearly determined...
The Court has ruled! SCO owns the Unix copyrights! Hurrah! To teh moooooon!!!

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trademark
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 06:56 AM EDT
"Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to the UnixWare trademark,
now owned by The Open Group"

How can you own exclusive rights to something you don't own?

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can it be true...
Authored by: lego_boy on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 07:33 AM EDT
It looks like it may be possible to teach an old dog new tricks. (Or is it a case of the rats deserting a sinking ship?)

From the ever popular Daniel Lyons:
"At long last, the SCO Group's ugly, often farcical legal crusade against Linux appears to be over."

[ Reply to This | # ]

So looks like the IBM case now hinges on wether the few lines of code ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 07:34 AM EDT
... still left in contention are inarguably from SVRx and so no need to argue
similarity with Linux:
Case dead and buried; or

Will SCO argue that they're part of their own "derivations"?:
Case dead but still twitching, waiting for the stake!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correct me if I am wrong...
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 07:45 AM EDT
But did SCOG, in the same sentence that it claims ownership of a trademark,
state that the trademark belongs to the Open Group?

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: comms-warrior on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 07:50 AM EDT
In SCO-speak - If it walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck, looks like a duck,
it is in fact the third fleet on maneuvers in the Pacific.

You may be questioning that logical disconnect - but you have to realise there
is such as vast distance between reality and their mindset it is almost
unfathomable to consider this lawsuit making any sense now, except for SCO and
BS&F.

The old adage of "Fighting the good fight" has long-since left this
cause. I hope Darl is getting ready to wear the orange jump suit thing they
get prisoners in the US.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: comms-warrior on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:09 AM EDT
an hour prior to the daq ringing the bell..

I predict the SCO share price to sound the terrain alert moments to plunging
nose-first into terrafirma with engines spinning as hard as possible.

Maybe the Canopy group have clipped SCO's wings? We will find out this week
maybe?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX
Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:18 AM EDT
The market is not open yet, but pre-market is listed as $1.18, so already going down!

Not a good day for investors, I suspect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

T minus 49 and counting.......
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:41 AM EDT
"Lindon, we have a problem."

Lindon to Case Scuttled, over.

Case Scuttled to Lindon. We are losing hot air propellant at an alarming rate.
Not sure we'll survive market opening. Do you have a backup plan?

Lindon to Case Scuttled. We're not sure if anything can be done to secure a new
PIPE. Our single remaining technician was busy trying to find a market impact
absorption module, but he is busy polishing his CV. Suggest you pray real hard.

Case Scuttled to Lindon. We seem to be having problems with our servos and we've
lost total control of our Kimballs. Despite putting most of our motions under
seal, we're still outgassing at a near fatal rate.........

Lindon,...................................
Lindon......................................
Lindon.......................................

Lindon, do you copy?







Lindon, do you copy ?

Case Scuttled to Lindon. We are losing all systems. Do you have our copy??

You have our copy right????

Lindon...???
Lindon???


[ Reply to This | # ]

360 degree U turn on SCO's claim put forward the lawsuit.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:51 AM EDT
"The SCO Group said in a statement, "The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to the UnixWare trademark, now owned by The Open Group. SCO's ownership of OpenServer and its Mobile Server platforms were not challenged and remain intact. These SCO platforms continue to drive enterprises large and small and our rapidly developing mobile business is being well received in the marketplace."

What! According to SCO's "What's put into Unix belongs to Unix" unique theory of copyright law, all their Unix stuff would belong to Novell now. Wow! I wonder why the sudden turnaround.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:02 AM EDT
And, unlike the arms dealer in MIB and MIBII, THEIR head WON'T grow back!

[ Reply to This | # ]

New Improved: Double Reverse Ladder Theory!
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:08 AM EDT
SCO respectfully requests leave to file a new and improved, newly renewed
overlength motion with an overlength title.

Because the damage to SCO, Darl's ego, and Yarro's brain has been irreperable,
we demand the court make IBM pay us five billion dollars. Furthermore we demand
to receive $699 per cpu for every copy of Linux that ever has, is, or is to
come. From wristwatches, cellphones and TiVo's to supercomputers, and
everything in between.

SCO's new Double Reverse Ladder theory works like this.

If SCO owns copyrights in UnixWare, because of SCO's original code in UnixWare,
then SCO's ownership leeches back into original Unix code, from which AIX was
derrived many years prior to UnixWare. Then SCO's ownership further leeches
from AIX into JFS, which was derrived from the OS/2 JFS. Then SCO's ownership
from OS/2 JFS leeches into Linux when IBM contributed OS/2 JFS into Linux.



---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:08 AM EDT
PJ Please correct:

Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to
waive!,

The judge did NOT rule that Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.

The judge ruled that Novel did not transfer the copyrights to Unix to Santa
Cruze Operations and as such Santa Cruze Operations did not transfer the
copyrights to Caldaria who did not transfer them to The SCO Group.

If one recalls the BSDi case the judge ruled that AT&T did not own the
copyrights and that the owners were the Universities and businesses who wrote
the code with the biggest code writer being University of California. Thus for
AT&T to continue AT&T had to license that portion of the code from the
University of California. Other license agreements with the likes of Silicon
Graphics, HP, and IBM were also interred into.

The universities and companies still own their code and the judge did NOT rule
otherwise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:09 AM EDT
"we absolutely want to defeat Linux, just as we want to defeat any other
competitor. We work and live in a competitive environment, as do most companies.
The competitive battle between Pepsi and Coke is legendary, as is the battle
between GM and Ford, Boeing and Airbus, and the Red Sox and Yankees."
-- Darl McBride at darlmcbride.com

Darl sure was keen to be part of a "legendary battle". Picked the
wrong side, but got his wish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCO speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:39 AM EDT
So what about SCO's missing risk factor?
Authored by: DannyB on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:26 AM EDT
What about SCO's Missing Risk Factor?

Will this come back to bite them in the, um, posterior region? (That is the region where the owner's dog usually bites when you're trying to make off with the color tv and having difficulty getting it over the backyard fence.)

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"We're not stealing our own code from ourselves."
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:33 AM EDT

The lead comment in the SCO news article is "However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995."

Interesting that this is at the front of the statement, and is thus presumed to be the most important issue to bring up.

If I understand this correctly, they are saying that they own all of the derivative works that they have built on top of Unix. I bet Darl is glad to discover that SCO won't have to sue themselves over yet another "derivative works" issue, though I am sure BSF is disappointed that they won't collect another few million dollars for another bizarrely ill-aimed lawsuit.

Extending PJ's Monty Python image, comparing SCO Group to the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," the image of Darl suing himself over derivative works is like the Monty Python sketch where Graham Chapman wrestles himself, per the YouTube video here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks: "clerical error"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:43 AM EDT
McBride stated (early in 2003) that "the asset purchase agreement excluded
copyrights from being transferred" and that it was a "clerical
error." [page 28 of decision]

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's a gaping flesh wound
Authored by: ITReporter on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:47 AM EDT
Well, I just saw on Google finance that in pre-market trading, they're being
wiped off the board, last time I looked they were already -72.44% (15:30 GMT+1)

Suck it up Darl...

---
Only two things in life are infinite, the stupidity of mankind and the universe.
And I'm not certain about the latter.
Albert Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks - sorry - My tin hat is firmly in place.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT
"...if your company lost business or your reputation was damaged, we are
truly sorry"

Pardon me if I feel a bit skeptical this morning. After all is said and done,
it seems to me this was simply an attack on Linux.

Now I suppose you could claim that Linux was directly competing against SCO
Unix. But the timing on this is oh, so strange, that it generated FUD to slow
down Linux adoption until Longhorn could be brought out. MS clearly used the
SCO suit in their marketing campaign. And when it turned out that SCO might not
have a leg to stand on, it wasn't long before MS changed the marketing campaign
from you aren't safe from SCO lawsuit to you aren't safe from using our patents,
and the FUD machine just keeps churning on.

While I should be dancing in the street, I find I am depressed by the
unrelenting attempts to hijack my computer through means most foul.

I should be able to buy my computer, install the software I want on it, then be
free to use it as I see fit. Linux promised me I would be able to do that, and
the attacks on Linux are un-relenting. Open Office promised me I could write my
documents and be in full control. MS is trying to steal that as well.

gloom gloom gloom

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:02 AM EDT
"Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to the UnixWare trademark,
now owned by The Open Group."

WOW!!! They really hit the jackpot!!! ;-)


---
OOXML - WYSIWTF

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about the future and SCO customers?
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:03 AM EDT
Obviously one has to be careful because the court cases have not yet run their course and so much of this is speculation - but - what about current SCO customers?

I presume that SCO is probably doomed (in terms of their financial liabilities) and but it would be a sad end to what was a reasonable development platform for many years. I realise that there has not been perhaps enough investment in the SCO UNIX product in recent years but that is due to the attitude of the current management team which we all know about.

What SCO have been doing in recent months about diversifying into mobile telecommunications is exactly the sort of thing that could have saved them <opinion>if they had not gone down the suicidal path of trying to destroy Linux in order to shore up their own profit margins in a contracting market</opinion>.

It just seems so pointless. The UNIX world needs to support each other a bit more (rather like Sun and Solaris have been doing recently) and SCO (along with OpenServer) could have been part of that rather than the pariah that they now seemed to have become.

---
Open Source Software - Unpicking the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece.

[ Reply to This | # ]

hovering at $0.50
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:27 AM EDT
Reminds me of an old song Louis Jordan used to sing - one line was
And thats 50 cents more than I'm gonna keep

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: AceBtibucket on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:31 AM EDT
And it has helped!

In response, the market has dumped more than 1,000,000 shares of stock at a new
52-week low. That certainly shows faith in the SCOboys.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's all about the stock price
Authored by: Jose on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT
The people handling the puppet need time to "manage" the drop. Watch
the price bob and weave. As long as there is conflicting news, the
"right" fortunes will be saved and the "right" fortunes will
be lost [ma and pa lose, Billy Gates wins].

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unixware trademark, a question.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 11:10 AM EDT
Do I have this right?
The Open Group owns the Unixware Trademark.
The only ones who want to license that trademark from The Open Group is The SCO
Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks and Forbes comments
Authored by: TedSwart on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 11:32 AM EDT
David Lyons in his article in Forbes, in his closing sentences, says:

"Linux is arguably the biggest thing to happen in computing in the past 20
years. Its fans are celebrating now."

Sounds rather good coming from Forbes say I -- somewhat cynically I must admit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers willing to continue?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 11:36 AM EDT
So I guess the question is, are BSF willing to continue this litigation into appeal, or rather, do they think SCO has enough remaining potential assets for them to be able to afford to pay for it? If I recall, they had their fees capped and there was no agreement about being paid more for an appeal. Personally if I were them I'd cut and run on this unless a further pile of money appears up front.

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fun With Darl and Ralph
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT
Anybody see that movie Fun With Dick And Jane? That scene with Jim Carey, newly VP of Communications for Globodyne Corp. giving the TV interview while the stock crashes and burns on the monitor behind him?

Here's SCO's version!

You might want to print out and frame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

paranoid delusion
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 11:50 AM EDT
The funniest bit of the SCO statement is where they pretend that somebody was
trying to take away *their* copyrights.

"The court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyright to the technology
developed after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995."

Delusional to the last, SCO declares victory over the stealers and haters by
pointing out that nobody took their part of the precious IP.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • who would - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:20 PM EDT
From the article
The SCO Group said in a statement, "The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995."

So Novell transferred assets to SCO ??

I thought thats what the ruling settled ... Novell did not transfer assets.

Even now, SCO cant tell the truth

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 12:59 PM EDT
It's fun to finally watch SCOX's stock price and equity hemorrhage by the
minute:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=scox

Too bad it's not McBride hemorrhaging though, for the abject nonsense he's
propagated for five years now in this farce.

Perhaps the real lawsuits can start unabated: i.e. against McBride, BayStar,
Microsoft etc.

P.S., Does anyone have the goods on this loser?
Glenn J. Krevlin

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCO speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:28 PM EDT
  • SCO speaks - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Words of wisdom from the Bible
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:01 PM EDT
The recent ruling from Kimball declaring that Novell owns Unix reminds me a bit
of a verse from the Bible.

-----
Luke 12:58
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

58 As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be
reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge
turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison.
-----

My take on that verse is that one never knows, when going to court, what the
outcome may be. It may not be nearly as beneficial as you had hoped, and may be
downright destructive to your interests.

I suspect that this is the beginning of a *lot* of pain for SCO that will
ultimately result in the complete destruction of the company. I doubt anyone
will probably go to jail for this, though it sure seems to me like some people
very much deserve it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM soon?
Authored by: GLJason on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:16 PM EDT
Hopefully the judge will issue rulings on the pending IBM summary judgment
motions soon. Several of them can now be ruled on based solely on the waiver
that the judge has now ruled that Novell had the right to give.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Defying gravity? Maybe they should patent it...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:27 PM EDT
the stock continues to amaze with it's gravity defying power so far today after
the market opened... perhaps, SCO should patent this amazing gravity defying
device

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slightly Off Topic - Didio Blast from the Past
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:29 PM EDT
Love this one:

From ZDNet, July 28th, 2003 (Didio Speaks!!)

The quote that keeps on giving:

Novell. The fact that SCO registered its UNIX System V copyright lays to rest an earlier, erroneous contention by Novell president, Jack Messman, claiming that SCO did not own the copyrights. There’s no excuse for the head of a $1.1 billion corporation to make such a public faux pas. It is a simple matter for Messman to exercise due diligence and phone Novell’s lawyers to review the terms and conditions of Novell’s 1995 sale of the UNIX System V contracts to SCO. At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to malign SCO. At best, it was a stupid mistake that indicates Messman was more concerned with speaking out before first being sure of the facts. Ultimately, this embarrassment will cause Novell customers to further question the company’s viability.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stock
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT
As of 1:25 pm EDT, the stock was trading at $0.45, down $1.11 from the previous
day's close, a loss of 71.1%

There is justice after all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers distorting the judge's ruling
Authored by: jjock on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:46 PM EDT
My group was involved in a long involved seniority dispute that
eventually worked its way up to the Supreme Court before it was
finally thrown out. We felt that the biggest problems we had,
were the blatant distortions, by the lawyers of the other side, of
evidence and previous rulings in our favour. ( Our side won
every ruling, but the other side would carry on as if they had
won ). Had those lawyers been called to account for these
intentional misstatements, the case would have been a slam
dunk in less than six months and not have cost millions of
dollars lost in time and money. We were awarded costs for the
appeals, but not for the whole process.
My point here is, why can't the lawyers be called to account
by some higher body for distortions of obvious fact during the
hearing process? In our case, these distortions prolonged the
process by over four years.
It seems that these firms that develop this pit bull, take no
prisoners strategy are able to function right beside the
legitimate firms without any moral stigma attached to them.
It's disgusting.
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fraud, SEC reporting, web pages, and more
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 01:53 PM EDT
SCO is the owner of the UNIX Operating System Intellectual Property that dates back to 1969, when the UNIX System was created at AT&T's Bell Laboratories.

Now that there is a ruling which says otherwise, how long do SCO have to change all of this set of lies off of the SEC reports, news releases, and web pages?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is SCO UnixWare Gemini 64 ?
Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:18 PM EDT
Is it the unreleased 64-bit version of UNIXware SCO has been working on for 8
years now ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A lighter moment ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Since this is good news, and since we can all use a few lighter moments, perhaps it is appropriate to link to The Register's BOFH story from a 2004.


-srr

[ Reply to This | # ]

Easier task
Authored by: Bojan Sudarevic on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 02:46 PM EDT
Of course they have listed only the things they didn't lose -- it's *much*
easier to write down *that* list.

---
Bojan Sudarevic

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:00 PM EDT
"However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995. This includes the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare and substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64."

But under SCO's theory of derivative rights, if SCO had access to Novell's source code, there's a strong possibility that SCO relied upon that source code to create this new technology -- in which case, SCO are obviously infringing on Novell's intellectual property rights and have had no right to contribute stuff based upon this work to Linux.

What's that you say? SCO had a license that allowed them to do this?

Like IBM, perhaps? Off with their heads!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks.
Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:36 PM EDT
When do they roll over and play dead?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCO speaks. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:48 PM EDT
  • Zombies don't die - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:25 PM EDT
    • Zombies don't die - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 08:26 AM EDT
  • SCO speaks. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 10:43 PM EDT
SCO Hypocrisy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:39 PM EDT
SCO Hypocrisy:
Yesterday:
IBM: We own the rights to our own code that we created.
SCO: No, if it touched our UNIX in anyway, we own the rights.
Judge: Novell owns the UNIX Copyrights.

Today:
SCO: However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the
technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to
SCO in 1995.

How amusing that the straw SCO clutches today is the argument they dismissed
yesterday.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Noting how SCO's shares are nosediving ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:42 PM EDT
Anyone here in a position to buy a single share, showing the value at something
below 50 cents - to frame and send to PJ to hang on her wall?

Or maybe buy a couple of hundred and put them up on eBay for those of us who
wouldn't have a clue how to get them through normal channels?

Just a thought.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The market speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 03:44 PM EDT
Their stock price plummeted 70% today (as of 3:40PM EST). Smack!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:10 PM EDT
Hmm it's strange SCO didn't write something like this.

'We strongly believe that we (SCO) owns the copyright and..'

Witch would be appropriate when the really believed they own the copyrights;

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wallpaper
Authored by: argee on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:17 PM EDT
My remodeling contractor informs me that at the
rate SCOX stock is tanking, the stock certificates will be
cheaper than wallpaper.

Decisions, decisions. Should I use the green with the
little pink fairies, the velveteen with the blue and red,
or the SCOX certificates.

Oh. Wait! Breaking news: ScottTissue wants to buy the whole
caboodle!


---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl, Sontag, Ralph criminally liable for fraud?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:33 PM EDT
link

“On January 4, 2003, [SCO CEO Darl] McBride received an email from Michael Anderer, a consultant for SCO retained to examine its intellectual property. Anderer stated that the [agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz] ‘transferred substantially less’ of Novell’s intellectual property than Novell owned. Anderer noted that Santa Cruz’s ‘asset purchase’ from Novell ‘excludes all patents, copyrights, and just about everything else’. Anderer cautioned that ‘[w]e really need to be clear on what we can license. It may be a lot less than we think’,”.

Just days after Anderer’s email the company launched its SCOsource intellectual property business with McBride stating: “SCO owns much of the core Unix intellectual property, and has full rights to license this technology and enforce the associated patents and copyrights.”

Judge Kimball notes repeated attempts by McBride to encourage Novell to hand over the Unix copyrights in February, March and May, while SCO chairman, Ralph Yarro, met with Novell’s then vice chairman of the office of the chief executive, Chris Stone, in May, asking the company to give SCO the copyrights. Stone declined.

After this SCO attempted to sell Linux licenses based on the fraudulent pretext that SCO owned copyrights for Unix which were illegally incorporated into Linux. Add to this malicious lawsuits, slander/libel, fraudulent SEC declarations, and stock price manipulation. SCO makes Enron look good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO speaks
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:45 PM EDT
"rocketing down all the way - SCO just made my day!"

good night and pleasant dreams from germany ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

"The Black Knight always triumphs!" NOT... heh
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 06:16 PM EDT
Delusional :)


---
The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver ...”

\o/

Goodbye To Bad Rubbish
Oh... and Darl... you wont be missed :P

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's pants
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:19 PM EDT
I propose a SCO and Darl McBride "pants" game...!

"I am committed to providing technology leadership and delivering on the
promise of unix-based pants for many years to come."

"Are you just hoping to win a lawsuit against IBM and then ride off into
the pants?"

"Older applications written on this operating system work seamlessly with
the new features and capabilities built into the pants."

"The problem is compounded when software and hardware partners are forced
to certify to multiple Linux pants."

"These improvements, along with a set of new and updated open-source pants,
make OpenServer 6 a compelling upgrade for pants already running this venerable
operating system."

"The charter of [SCOsource] is to create new and innovative licensing
programs to meet the changing pants of today's market and to protect its
intellectual property-related pants.

"While some companies have offered their customers legal assistance in the
event they are sued, only SCO is in a position to license the use of these
infringing intellectual pants."

"End users who purchase this license are granted the right to use the SCO
IP in Linux in binary pants only."

"If your company is a commercial user of Linux interested in a SCO IP
license, please respond with your company name, contact, and the number of Linux
servers in your pants."

"The court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the pants
developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets(!) to SCO in
1995."

"We will continue to explore our pants with respect to how we move forward
from here."

q.v. SCO vs Dan Brown:
http://www.vi411.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/darl-1.gif

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCO's pants - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 08:25 PM EDT
With apologies to the Pythons
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 09:15 PM EDT
Then did the Nazgul raise on high the Judgement of Kimball, saying,
"Blessed be this Judgement, that with it we may blowest our enemy to tiny
bits, in thy mercy."

And the people did rejoice and did feast upon many things, even unto breakfast
cereals.

Now did Kimball say, "There are but three causes of action left that must
be counted and three shall be their number. They shall not number four, nor
shall they number two (though that beist the number of allegedly infringing
lines of code left in the case). And any hope of winning in SCO v IBM is right
out. Now takest this judgement and lobbest it in the direction of thine foe,
who, being naughty in my sight, shall nuff it."

Amen

[ 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 )