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 Letter to Customers and Partners
Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 09:50 PM EDT

SCO CEO Darl McBride has sent a letter to partners and customers about the ruling in SCO v. Novell and its impact on SCO as a company, which it has also filed as an 8K with the SEC. We get the clearest hint yet of what SCO may be thinking for the future, and as I expected, there is no white flag flying yet.

SCO repeats the things it said in the public statement and the SEC filing, but here are the parts that relate to the legal issues that are unique to this message:
We continue to believe that when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars for the UNIX technology to Novell in 1995, we purchased everything. We believe that “All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all technical, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning Unix and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings…” means just what it says, but the court did not agree.

Second, the court ruling on Friday continues to assert that SCO owns all copyrights to the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare which includes substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64.... This ruling has no impact on SCO’s ability to continue to develop and support all versions of UnixWare and OpenServer as well as the recently announced OpenServer 6M and UnixWare 7M as well as our new mobility products....

Fifth, as many of you have noted by our recent SCO Tec Forum, SCO’s primary business is not to litigate or to solely rely on outcomes in the court, but to rapidly evolve SCO’s technology platforms to meet your needs in the marketplace. For more than three years SCO has continued to upgrade its UNIX operating systems (including releasing perhaps the single most significant upgrade in its history with OpenServer 6) as well as innovate in the areas of the fastest growing sector of IT, mobile computing.

That being said, we do feel a responsibility to you and our shareholders to defend our rights when we believe they have been violated and that is simply what we continue to do within the courts. In the end, our legal team will focus on the necessary actions needed to protect SCO, its customers and shareholders.

So there you have it. How does that sound to you? Like the lawyers haven't finished their analysis of the ruling, but that the management would like to soldier onward in whatever ways are possible? That's how it sounds to me too. The last sentence says "the legal team will focus on the necessary actions needed to protect SCO, its customers and shareholders". SCO is disappointed in the ruling, doesn't agree with it, is trying to stay afloat while it figures out what to do next, but it will do something.

I'm sure Novell's legal team are also carefully analyzing the ruling. So, while they research and think, we will have to wait and see what they come up with.

The full letter:

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

Dear SCO Customer and Partners,

Undoubtedly you have heard news about the recent adverse court ruling regarding the situation between SCO and Novell. The company is obviously disappointed with the ruling issued last Friday. We feel it important to outline for you the ruling and what impact, if any, this might have on you.

First, 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. We continue to believe that when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars for the UNIX technology to Novell in 1995, we purchased everything. We believe that “All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all technical, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning Unix and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings...” means just what it says, but the court did not agree.

Second, the court ruling on Friday continues to assert that SCO owns all copyrights to the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare which includes substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64. Also, SCO owns the exclusive, worldwide license to use the UnixWare trademark, which is owned by The Open Group.

Third, 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.

This ruling has no impact on SCO’s ability to continue to develop and support all versions of UnixWare and OpenServer as well as the recently announced OpenServer 6M and UnixWare 7M as well as our new mobility products. It has no impact on your ability to sell, service, support and develop to any of our UNIX operating systems.

Fourth, 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.

Fifth, as many of you have noted by our recent SCO Tec Forum, SCO’s primary business is not to litigate or to solely rely on outcomes in the court, but to rapidly evolve SCO’s technology platforms to meet your needs in the marketplace. For more than three years SCO has continued to upgrade its UNIX operating systems (including releasing perhaps the single most significant upgrade in its history with OpenServer 6) as well as innovate in the areas of the fastest growing sector of IT, mobile computing.

That being said, we do feel a responsibility to you and our shareholders to defend our rights when we believe they have been violated and that is simply what we continue to do within the courts. In the end, our legal team will focus on the necessary actions needed to protect SCO, its customers and shareholders. SCO’s management, development, service and sales teams will continue to focus on driving the business forward including releasing the upcoming OpenServer MP3 and new mobile technologies and provide you, our customers, with the best technology in the industry.

Sincerely,

Darl McBride
President and CEO


  


SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners | 597 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT
Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 09:55 PM EDT
(First)... Second... Fifth... (?)
(Or were third and fourth redacted? :) )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 09:56 PM EDT
And please see the examples for how to do HTML

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

He's clearly delusional
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 09:57 PM EDT

Or he just doesn't want to admit that he's messed up big time.


---
Wayne

http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Frist cackle!
Authored by: Carla Schroder on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:02 PM EDT
Yes, I'm being low-class and I'm not sorry :)

Anyway this whole sorry saga has already been done, and far
better, in the wonderful movie "Aguirre, the Wrath of God."
Klaus Kinski stars as the ruthless, demented Aguirre who
takes over an expedition of Spanish conquistadores to find
El Dorado, the Lost City of Gold. Naturally the entire
expedition perishes, and the final scene of Aguirre
floating down a river on a disintegrating raft, making
speeches to monkeys about how he is going to be a great
king and rule a wealthy empire, has to be the best final
scene of any movie ever.

Not that Darl and the SCO gang have anywhere near the
majesty or drama of this great movie, but you can see the
parallels.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Could we really expect anything else from Darl?
Authored by: tyche on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:07 PM EDT
He has placed himself in a position where he HAS to say things like this. I'm
sure that the sick feeling in the pit of his stomach as he sees his empire
crumble around him is unpleasant, but he still has to "trooper on".

Craig
Tyche

---
"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"
"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
Authored by: Stumbles on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:11 PM EDT
As the release says; "We continue to believe that when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars for the ....

It of course ignores the simple fact Novell has stated Caldera could not afford the cost of all rights to UNIX.

---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Things Darl did not say
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:37 PM EDT
The things that Darl were saying before, but chosen not to include in his
letter:
1) "We are looking forward to our day in court"
2) "We have enough liquid assets to see it through"
He is reduced to use irrelevant to SCO customer facts to put a positive message
out. It is all over!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Small Victories... NOT
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:45 PM EDT
I find it interesting that the SCO spinsters are mentioning
court ruling on Friday continues to assert that SCO owns all copyrights to the new development
as though this was some kind of victory. However, this was never in dispute, and the judge only mentioned it to draw the (obvious) distinction that though Novel has a license to use this code from the TLA, the non-compete clauses were about this exact code. The derivatives, new developments, etc. The real news is that the judge declined to toss the non-compete claims completely. Ownership of SCO's code was never at issue. Also, the preamble,
We continue to believe that ... we purchased everything.
is obviously an outright falsehood, they never believed any such thing. If they had purchased "everything" then they would not have been acting as Novel's agent. They would have had no ongoing relationship with Novel at all. No turning over royalties and collecting an administrative fee. If you were really buying a business in its entirety, you'd probably get the profits... The fact that they were just given an administrative fee to run the business is really revealing. They bought a broad license to use Novel's technology to create new technology and build their business. I'm sure initially it was at Novel's insistence that SCO take over the administration of the SVRX licensing etc. Novel probably didn't want the hassle and gave SCO 5% for their trouble. It's like a property owner who hires a landlord, or even hires a professional management company, because they don't want to trouble with it.

Imagine a prospector buying rights to whatever valuable resources happen to be found in the land, and the owner says, "Ok, but you have to manage the property while you're at it, because I don't want to deal with the workers, permits, construction, and so forth to make it happen. And you can't mess with the tenants who are there without asking us, just collect the rent and we'll give you 5%." And then the prospector comes along years later claiming to own the place and trying to evict people, saying, "Well, I payed 100 million, obviously I bought everything." Funny thing, though, he can't find the deed. This analogy can go on and on... Anyway, if he was the owner, he wouldn't have spent the last several years handing the rent monies over to the former owner and waiting for his 5% administrative fees check to come back.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Free information for Mr. McBride
Authored by: Atticus on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:49 PM EDT
Ehm- Darl,

The APA does mean what it says. But you can't take a subsection out of it, remove the context, and expect to win in a court of law. What kind of lawyers do you have, anyway? I hope you're not paying them too much.

You quote a small section of Schedule 1.1a, but Article 1, section 1.1 says, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Assets to be so purchased shall not include those assets (the "Excluded Assets") set forth on Schedule 1.1 (b)..."

Jumping down to 1.1(b), labelled "Excluded Assets", we see: "V. Intellectual Property: ... A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare..."

In other words, Darl, the APA DOES mean what it says. Read the whole thing, and get the whole picture. Quit tossing good money after bad already. It's unprofessional and unseemly.

(Well, I tried...)

---
--
-Atticus (who is not a lawyer :-) aka Mike Schwager)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lock, Stock, And Barrel
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:50 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

Keep in mind, I know zilch about the stock market.

Just out of curiosity--what does the stock price do to SCO? I mean, are stocks
just lottery tickets that pay off when the company does well, or does the price
and/or sales affect SCO's cash reserves in any way?

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

"My will! I'm the god! I'm the god!"
--Crow T. Robot

[ Reply to This | # ]

In typical Darl style
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 10:58 PM EDT
Only see the parts you like, ignore everything else. Thus we get:
"We believe that “All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including
but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and
UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all technical,
design, development, installation, operation and maintenance information
concerning Unix and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation,
source listings…” means just what it says..."

While "Excluded Assets: All copyrights, patents..." doesn't mean
anything.

Hilarious.

(And, like improvements SCO added to Unixware, no one questioned what it said.
Kimball didn't rule that the assets didn't mean what they said, he ruled that
SCO was ignoring the section concerning Excluded Assets.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does this remind me of a purported Betty Davis quote?
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 11:07 PM EDT
Queried on the death Joan Crawford Betty replied, "She's dead but she will
not lie down!"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Anyone here a Star Trek fan?
Authored by: wtansill on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 11:30 PM EDT
I keep replaying the scene in "Star Trek 6 - The Undiscovered Country" when the Enterprise and Excelsior, Captained by Mr. Sulu both open up on the cloaked Klingon Bird of Prey. It reels from side to side under the impact of multiple direct hits and finally explodes, flinging debris into the void.

Now there's a visual for you...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Good Deal if you can get it....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 11:34 PM EDT
in 1993 Novell paid over 300 Million for USL how does he figure they would let a
viable money making business go 2 years later to Caldera for a measly 100
million.....
(in 91 they paid 15 Million for minority stake, 321 in 93 and absorbed about 9
million in debt)

This wasn't a word perfect that went from being an industry leader to bonus
ware.... which they bought for 1.4 Billion in 94 and sold off to Corel for $170
Million a couple years later ... Yes they got some 500 million from Microsoft
but I'm not sure that was the plan...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The IBM case
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2007 @ 11:55 PM EDT
I bet that when SCO sends its findings to Judge Kimball at the end of the month
that they will try to claim it doesn't affect the case at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'll be buying one share of SCOX
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 12:09 AM EDT
Yes, really, I'm going to buy one share of SCOX

as soon as it hits $0.05

that's 5 cents btw.

Yep, as soon as the stock hits that, I'm buying one.

why? oh, just for a piece of history. tack it on the wall.

heck, at some point, I expect I could buy the whole company for a quarter
(that's 25 cents)

[ Reply to This | # ]

He sounds like he's getting ready to bleed on us
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 12:12 AM EDT
I feel sorry for him.

Not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 12:59 AM EDT
PJ,

I'm assuming the full text of the letter is coming soon to a theatre near me?
=)

I can't find this letter on SCO's website. What gives?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Would you do business with them?
Authored by: Peter Baker on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT
Ignoring the Court case, they have just admitted in writing that they screwed up
their due diligence on a purchase that is now probably worth more than the
company.

Doesn't inspire that much trust in management, no?

I'm leaving aside the fact that any supplier due diligence is going to throw up
continuity questions about a balance sheet with a large hole and a totally
tanked stock price ;-)


---
= P =

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time to attack PJ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:34 AM EDT
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/08/to_groklaws_pam.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Teasing a Judge?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:35 AM EDT
I think that people have been warned to not irritate a Judge. This might just do
that, if he ever reads that.

-
IMANAL - I'M Absolutely Not A Lawyer. (just didn't login)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oh where are the analysts ?
Authored by: tizan on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:52 AM EDT
Remember when there was press releases so long ago we had the famous analysts
(e.g our admirer in the Yankee group) saying that tSCOg must be having something
or ...that the comments in the linux code looks like copied out of System V
...or how tSCOg struck first because they registered the Unix name etc etc...

Lucky this is the information age...there are google and the wayback-machine to
see all the pearls that these so knowledgeable let out of their mouths...


---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meanings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 02:29 AM EDT
> means just what it says, but the court did not agree.

No Darl, it's not just the court. About 99.999% of people reading the APA
themselves didn't agree either.

I don't know, but to me, the words "excluding copyright" mean that
copyright was excluded. And what do you know, the judge agreed. WOW!

As for the $100 million - caveat emptor Darl - I'm sure you heard that one
before.

Finally, once your precious company pays all fees to Novell and then all
infringement fines to IBM (GPL + patents), you'll be broke anyway. Better give
it up while you still can...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Meanings - Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:34 AM EDT
  • Meanings - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 06:49 AM EDT
    • Meanings - Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:31 AM EDT
  • Meanings - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:51 AM EDT
    • Meanings - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 08:45 PM EDT
  • Yabbut - - Authored by: jbeadle on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:00 AM EDT
    • Yabbut - - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 09:02 PM EDT
SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
Authored by: MrCharon on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 02:51 AM EDT
Is there any connection between SCO UnixWare Gemini 64 and Project Montgomery?

---
MrCharon
~~~~

[ Reply to This | # ]

Seem like world war 2 general
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:00 AM EDT
It sound like a world war 2 general, trying to convince the soldiers not to take
one step back, anyone who retreat will be shot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Next Steps
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:05 AM EDT
    This would be a good time for SCO's owners to face reality and take the obvious steps. These would be:

    1) Fire Darl, and anyone close to him. Darl was in charge of SCO during its litigation phase. It's time to bring someone else in to take SCO in a new direction.

    2) Declare bankruptcy. Ask for creditor protection instead of waiting for the creditors to push for liquidation.

    3) Approach Novell, IBM, etc. and offer to settle. It won't cost SCO much money, as you can't get blood from a stone anyway.

    4) Change the name of the company to something that doesn't look even remotely like "SCO". Remind the salesmen and PR people that they are to just give blank looks to anyone who asks about "SCO".

    5) Sell the Unix product line back to Novell (this might happen as part of the settlement).

    6) ????

    7) Profit!

    Don't be surprised to see any or all of the above happening.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The need to remind us speaks volumes
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:10 AM EDT
    "SCO’s primary business is not to litigate or to solely rely on outcomes in
    the court, but to rapidly evolve SCO’s technology platforms to meet your needs
    in the marketplace."

    Hilarious. "No it's not like all of you think, let me
    explain..." And OF COURSE you solely rely on outcomes in
    the court, Darl. How long do you expect SCO to survive financially if your case
    is lost? Who of your partners is confident enough to believe in business
    continuity?

    I would rather touch a red-hot coal than consider using
    SCO-anything in a productive environment.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Question for the Insovency specialists..
    Authored by: grahamt on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:41 AM EDT
    In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with (i.e. not the US) it is illegal to
    "trade while insolvent". When you know ( or suspect ) that you wont be
    able to pay your bills as they come due, you are obligated to file for
    bankruptcy.

    Failure to file renders the directors personally liable for any debts of the
    company incurred after the date that the directors knew or should have known
    that they could not pay them.

    Does anyone whether any similar laws apply to SCO?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:42 AM EDT
    I'm probably going to get butchered by anti-SCO fanboys and -girls, but... $100
    million dollars is a LOT of money for what the court ruled SCO ended up buying.

    Just makes me think that either SCO did have reason to believe they bought what
    they're claiming or that they got royally screwed by Novell back when they made
    the deal.

    I doubt we've seen the last on this topic in Novell vs. SCO. I think we'll first
    see it tested again until SCO has no other way to do so, then SCO sueing Novell
    for the original deal.

    I just don't think anybody could believe back than, that $100 million dollars
    would be a realistic price for what they ended up getting.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO UnixWare Gemini 64
    Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 03:58 AM EDT
    Well, unless it has come up on filings I hadn't noticed before that's the the time I've seen it mentioned. A quick Google and it's mentioned in a 1996 press release as Unix for 64-Bit Merced CPU, so I assume it's Project Monterey by another name. So they own a 10 year old OS for a failed chipset, well done.

    Also Darl mentions the "recently announced OpenServer 6M and UnixWare 7M", well again that's the first I've heard of them and I doubt they're anything more than the old systems with Hipcheck support bundled with them.

    And in the email to SCO Partners, Darl mentions "SCO’s management, development, service and sales teams will continue to focus on driving the business forward including releasing the upcoming OpenServer MP3 and new mobile technologies and provide you, our customers, with the best technology in the industry."... OpenServer MP3... perhaps they have built an IPod killer. Maybe the shares will hit $20 again ;)

    Jonathan
    ~~~~~~~~
    My MySpace

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners - Baghdad Bob Style...
    Authored by: ghost on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 04:44 AM EDT
    well, maybe not... At least, Bob was funny while he stood his ground, but you
    could see in his face that even he knew that what he was saying, wasn't true, so
    that didn't make him a complete lier, more like a public morale officer...

    Darl on the other hand, still does not accept the "after the fact"
    situation, and in a way keeps reiterating that they own the rights and the
    world, with his "we must have gotten it all for the €100M"-talk...
    Just one tiny detail - he wasn't even there himself while the transfer was
    done... he wasn't even working for the company at that time, and perhaps, most
    important, it wasn't even the same company...

    So, Baghdad Bob style it is, but i think we should stop there, by saying it is
    along the same style, cus anything else would be an insult to the real Bob...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO Changes ownership claim on website
    Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 04:46 AM EDT

    Now reads link:

    SCO owns all rights and ownership of the core UNIX operating system source code originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs.. SCO’s ownership includes system source code, including all versions and copies, SCO OpenServer, and substantial copyrights and source code to UnixWare. SCO is the exclusive licensor to UNIX-based system software providers.

    What does it mean "to own ownership"? (Serious question)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    'How long can this go on?' - Lee Dorsey, 'Working in a Coalmine'
    Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 04:59 AM EDT
    This ruling has no impact on SCO’s ability to continue to develop and support all versions of UnixWare and OpenServer as well as the recently announced OpenServer 6M and UnixWare 7M as well as our new mobility products.
    OK, I'm guessing here but, where there is a considerable, wilful and egregious breach of a contract then, I would have thought that a company would normally take it to court and get a remedy or have the contract voided. In this case, the party in breach brought the action and the breach was declared in a court finding related to a counterclaim.

    The remedy for the conversion by SCOG is what they owe as the SysVRx component of the Microsoft and Sun payments. However, the judge also found other breaches including the refusal to allow audit by Novell of UNIX contracts. In addition, there was the agreement (in an amendment) that no new SysVRx contracts would be let without Novell's prior notification and agreement and this term has also been breached.

    I can see that the counterclaims that produced the court finding were compulsory. Should Novell have requested the remedy (perhaps by injunction) that SCOG be stopped from using the assets by continuing to market UnixWare and OpenServer?

    Otherwise we see SCOG continuing to benefit from a contract in which they are in considerable, wilful and material breach.

    ---
    Regards
    Ian Al

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO don't have the resources to mount an appeal
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 05:47 AM EDT

    I don't think that, in the end, SCO will do anything. They will have their work cut out just to salvage a significant portion of the Sun and Microsoft money from their fabulous "day in court". Read between the lines: amongst all the inevitable bravado SCO's management recognise that their goose is cooked, that this is a pretty sound ruling, and that their resources to oppose it are nearly exhausted. The pessimists at SCO are going to be strengthened enormously by this result. I doubt if Darl will last there too much longer. If he does it will be a miracle.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why there should be no room for optimisim in SCO towers.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT
    SCO revoked IBM's licence to AIX without authority and did not revoke the revoke
    when ordered to do so by Novell (again without authority.)

    It is unquestionable that this action would damage AIX sales. IBM relies on AIX
    to sell certain hardware, so it is fair to say that IBM will have been damaged
    for both hardware and software sales due to SCO's action. Even a 1% drop in
    sales is going to have lots of zeros on the claim.

    As I undertand it, SCO's copyright claims against IBM are now only for things
    that are in UnixWare and Linux but aren't in SVRX (ie wiped out.)

    SCO's contract claims against IBM can be waived by Novell. So if they don't
    have contract claims and they don't have copyright claims, what do they have?

    Also, does the fact that SCO breached its fiducary duty mean that unfavourable
    inferences (to SCO) should be drawn when apportioning the $25million? If I were
    BSF, I'd argue that the legal background to the apportionment should be witheld
    from the jury because if they get to hear why, then they'll be siding with
    Novell from the off.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    He's still doing it!!!
    Authored by: billyskank on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 06:42 AM EDT
    "We continue to believe that when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars
    for the UNIX technology to Novell in 1995, we purchased everything."

    Who's "we", Mr. McBride? Santa Cruz paid Novell for the Unix
    technology in 1995. YOU are Caldera, and you bought something off Santa Cruz,
    but you never bought Santa Cruz itself. So YOU did not buy ANYTHING off Novell
    in 1995.



    ---
    It's not the software that's free; it's you.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's 2nd Edition Dictionary.
    Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 06:46 AM EDT
    In all the excitement I missed the following changes in the SCO Dictionary, 2nd Ed. entries for the words 'we' and 'paid'. Unfortunately, I don't have the $699 licence to publish the original entries, so you will have to research those for yourself. Anyway, here we go.

    we pn 1 Us, ourselves, the company communicating with you. e.g. We paid money for goods.

    2 Not us, someone else, another company altogether. e.g. We paid money for goods.

    paid v, pp 1 The handing over of ones money in exchange for goods and/or services. e.g. We paid $100m for the assets.

    2 The handing over of money to the rightful owner. e.g. We paid money that was just 'resting' in our account to the company to which it belonged, in our capacity as its agent.

    If you would like, and can afford, a copy of the 2nd Edition I would ask you to wait for a while. The currently included addenda has only reached 'A' and the word 'all'.

    ---
    Regards
    Ian Al

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    User Friendly and Arstechnica
    Authored by: morven24 on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:35 AM EDT
    Todays entries for today make interesting and humourous reading. Arstecnica and user friendly
    Sorry if this is a duplicate post ...but I 2 finger type!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Just how much of UNIX does SCO own????
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:37 AM EDT
    Then tell this to the SCO shareholders.....

    If it's more than 30%, I'd be surprised.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    We vs. them
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:39 AM EDT
    ORIGINAL
    We continue to believe that
    when SCO paid more than $100
    million dollars for the UNIX
    technology to Novell in 1995,
    we purchased everything.

    TRANSLATION
    We continue to believe that when
    Santa Cruz paid more than 100
    million dollars for the UNIX
    technology to Novell in 1995,
    they purchased everything.

    OMISSION (clerical oversight)
    We refuse to take note of the
    exception list reducing the
    purchase of everything to the
    purchase of just some assets.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Adding - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 02:14 PM EDT
    • IMPLICATION - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 16 2007 @ 12:03 PM EDT
    IDENTITY CRISIS - SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:40 AM EDT
    "...when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars for the UNIX technology to
    Novell in 1995, we purchased everything..."

    I'm not sure who they think they are. Obviously they are not the company that
    actually paid Novell for the Unix business, but are the successors in interest
    as a result of their purchase from the Santa Cruz Operation. But here they are
    writing as if they were the ones that bought it from Novell, and that simply
    isn't so.

    Perhaps I'm jaded because I've been following this for so long in Groklaw. But
    it is clear they are still trying to change reality.

    The judge just knocked them on the head with an industrial strength clue stick
    and it seems to have just bounced off, making no impression whatsoever.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:41 AM EDT
    Darl the Snarl has not raised the white flag. That's OK, because right now, he
    is down on his knees. The mere fact that Darl the Snarl is on his knees and
    begging for mercy does not end the fight. Au contraire.

    As a business, SCOG is done, Litigious Darl has no resources left but his mouth,
    SCOG's shareholders are screwed in every way that hurts, Ralph Yarro and the
    gang are hunkering down somewhere out of sight, and Boies' law firm is exposed
    for the useless, ineffective shills they are. Boies' law firm would love to walk
    away from this fiasco, but nobody is going to let them.

    ---
    Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
    them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Part of Building Darl's Defense
    Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:56 AM EDT
    Could Darl's letter be in preparation for efforts to finally pierce that
    corporate veil? From what I have seen, we (as a society) tend to be more
    sympathetic to the incompetent than the liars; does this translate to the
    courtoom. 'Yes, I knew enough to ask about what we bought with the APA, to ask
    Novell for the copyrights that we didn't have, and to understand that I was
    going to trash the stock value when the extortion scheme collapsed, but I'm
    still just too friggin' stupid to understand it all.'

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    First - What is the meaning of derived?
    Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 08:32 AM EDT
    Darl's letter as quoted on Groklaw says;
    First, 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.
    As far as I can tell the Judges decision uses the word "derived" only twice, both times quoting the APA and the provisions concerning the conversion of existing customers to products derived from Unixware source code. The court refers to "copyrights SCO may have obtained in derivatives of the technology included in the Assets".

    This is a long way from what Darl says.

    I think Darl may still believe that if they can show anything was also in SCO released products, whether it was previously in Unix or not they still can make a claim.

    The phrase "derived by" is in itself is a little odd, it would usually be "derived from".

    Finally I think Novell agreed that any code developed by SCO was SCO's, and the court never actually ruled on what code SCO may actually hold copyright to.

    ---
    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 | # ]

    SCO asserts its own stupidity publicly
    Authored by: el cojo on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 08:36 AM EDT
    We continue to believe that when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars for the UNIX technology to Novell in 1995, we purchased everything. We believe that “All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all technical, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning Unix and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings…”

    As everybody knows, if I buy a used car for $10.000 which is actually only $500 worth, I own the used car salesman, his shop, his employees, his land and even his wife!
    What would I have paid $10.000 for otherwise.

    So SCO (or Darl, or whoever wrote this), you bought some rights (actually it was Santa Cruz buying from Novell, and you from them) for $100 million and it did not include all the rights you wanted?

    Thank you for confessing publicly that you were stupid enough to buy something for $100 million without checking what you really bought.

    This confirms your outstanding knowledge on contract law, industry leadership and common sense.
    (well maybe your shareholders think a bit differently about it)

    ---
    Ceterum censeo SCO esse delendam

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    IBM shouldn't be affected by this ruling anyway
    Authored by: Prototrm on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 09:06 AM EDT
    IANAL, but it seems to me that the main issue in SCO vs. IBM is a contractual
    one. That is, according to SCO, IBM was forbidden by their contract from adding
    any code to AIX and then subsequently releasing that same code to Linux (or
    anyone else for that matter), no matter who owns the copyright on that code. The
    whole Linux-copied-from-UNIX argument was a bit of grandstanding FUD for the
    media. Not that SCO will get far with that argument, IMHO, but that's the issue
    it will take to trial and not copyright infringement.

    ---
    "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the
    exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Can someone please explain
    Authored by: Alan(UK) on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 09:35 AM EDT
    One of those semi-rhetorical questions again.

    People have been acting as though Kimball's ruling comes as a surprise to the
    shareholders who then went rushing off to sell off their shares sending the
    value tumbling.

    Surely these shareholders, if they did not have all the information that was
    before the judge, at least had all the information that was available on
    Groklaw.

    It has been obvious for a very long time that NewSCO does not possess a document
    transfering the copyrights from Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation, it is also
    clear that NewSCO does not think that such a document ever existed, and finally
    it is clear that SCO can produce no evidence that Novell is compelled by its
    contract with OldSCO to supply such a document. Thus Judge Kimball merely stated
    the obvious.

    So why the rush to sell? Surely everyone knew that the SCO shares would
    eventually be worthless. Why have shareholders not been getting rid of them
    slowly while they still had a value? Why should anyone buy them even at $0.40 if
    they know that the only way they can go is down?

    As an engineer, I find this whole stockmarket thing alarming. It is clearly an
    unstable system and seems to have the transfer co-efficient of an RMBK reactor.

    What is the co-efficient of restitution of a deceased feline?

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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What has DoD against MS?
    Authored by: talldad on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:02 AM EDT
    I think it has something to do with a warship dead in the water during
    exercises...

    If it had occurred during live action, it would most certainly have been dead
    (along with a lot of its crew), in the water (probably below the surface, which
    is not a tenable position for a surface ship)



    ---
    John Angelico
    Down Under fan &
    OS/2 SIG Co-Ordinator

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Caldera's price for SCO bits
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:25 AM EDT



    What was Caldera's purchase price for the transaction with
    SCO?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO stock watch
    Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:34 AM EDT
    I think it would have been better not to have written this leter; SCOX is not down to 36 cents per share.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Where's Laura Didio? The Yankee Group?
    Authored by: talexb on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT
    I just searched Google News for Laura Didio, and she is strangely silent on this
    recent development in the case. Ditto for the Yankee Group.

    I just can't understand it. They must have some kind of explanation. ;)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Red Hat
    Authored by: Quila on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:40 AM EDT
    Anyone else wondering what the next Red Hat letters will look like? How will SCO
    downplay this? Will they even mention it? Now that ownership is established,
    shouldn't Red Hat go forward?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Gotta protect those shareholders
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 10:55 AM EDT
    all three of them

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Is it me, or is Darl being hypocritical here?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 11:22 AM EDT
    Greetings,

    Second, the court ruling on Friday continues to assert that SCO owns all copyrights to the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare which includes substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64.

    Now, I know that their case was not legally defensible, however, for the better part of the last three years, SCO has been trying to tell the world, and the court, that because AIX, Dynix, Linux, etc were based on Unix, they were derivative works, and as such, they (SCOX) actually own the IP in them.

    It seems to me, that if SCOX was really being honest in that belief, then Darl would have made the statement to indicate that they own development rights, but not the products themselves.

    On a side note, I recall someone posting on here a couple months ago talking about OpenServer 6, being mostly Open Source products on top of a proprietary kernel. If that is indeed the case, then SCOX does not even own OpenServer 6, and unless UnixWare has gone through a lot of changes since Caldera, then I know a very large portion of UnixWare is Open Source, which means, they do not own it either.

    Seems to me that Darl is being more than a little hypocritical here.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 11:28 AM EDT
    Darl is still trying to make people think that new SCO is old SCO! New SCO did
    not buy anything from Novel, Old SCO did.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    3rd and 4th?????
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 11:33 AM EDT
    Is it me or does he jump from second to fifth in this.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    And meanwhile, SCOX is at $0.39
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT
    And the volume appears to have tapered off after that huge burst on Monday.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: sidders on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 11:50 AM EDT
    "Idiocy of MacBridean Proportions" should be the real title. It's not
    unusual, history is littered with such folly, the rhetoric continues unabated
    while the situation becomes ever more perilous and hopeless, right up to the
    point where existence ceases they sing their song of VICTORY. In true historical
    fashion, I can see this latest statement giving hope to the SCO faithful who
    would believe the statement rather than examine the judgement for themselves,
    that's how true believers are, they render myopia into an exact science. They
    perish with the comfort of knowing they are right and everyone else, including
    the judges are wrong.

    ---
    They fight Linux under the trojan banner of Freedom and Enterprise, just like
    most countries with Democratic in the name are anything but.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Attempting to understand the logic of idiots ...
    Authored by: rsi on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 12:31 PM EDT
    is itself illogical! Why does the stock price RISE on bad news concerning SCO?
    At least in the past. I am truly amazed that at US $0.38, it is as high as as
    it is! I would have expected it to be less than US 10 cents.

    Until SCO goes under and the assets, including ALL company records, have been
    acquired by Novell/IBM/Red Hat/etc... we will never know what their thinking
    was, and even then, what was written on paper will probably never fully explain
    their illogic.

    It is best to just wipe SCO off the face of the earth, Open Source UNIX
    completely, and just concentrate on the future success of Linux, Open Source,
    and Free Software!

    Tux RULES!
    Darl drools,
    and Balmer throws chairs!!! ;^)

    Rick Stanley

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's primary business
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 12:37 PM EDT
    SCO’s primary business is not to litigate
    Isn't this a false and misleading statement? Look at how much money they sunk into the litigation versus how much they invested in actual product development. If you pay the lawyers more than the engineers, then your primary business is litigation.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What was Santa Cruz stock worth in 1995?
    Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:07 PM EDT
    Does anyone know? I can't find it online anywhere, but I'm probably not looking
    in the right place.

    Since Santa Cruz paid Novell 6.1 million shares. The value of the deal is

    6,100,000 x SCO on the date of the deal.

    That is easy enough to figure, if we had that price.

    ---
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:39 PM EDT
    I think the most important and helpful for (almost)
    everybody, would be now:

    NOVELL, YOU SHOULD a) PUBLISH and b) PUT UNDER GPL
    LICENSE, ALL RIGHTS YOU HAVE W.R.T. UNIX (OR AT LEAST WHAT
    YOU HAD SAYING 3 YEARS AGO), NO MATTER IF THIS ARE ALL
    RIGHTS OVER UNIX OR ONLY A PART

    With this: would stop these discusions forever; would get
    UNIX a certain stop-point in the history, Novell would
    show a clear and reliable position, would be excluded
    that Microsoft in the future (cases of bancrupcy of
    Novell, or not-fulfillment of Novell-Microsoft contracts)
    could aquire UNIX rights, and a lot of other important
    reasons.

    werner@copaya.yi.org

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Translation for the Groklaw impared
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 01:40 PM EDT

    We continue to believe that when SCO paid more than $100 million dollars for the UNIX technology to Novell in 1995, we purchased everything.

    We are utterly delusional, as is evidenced by the facts that we don't remember what company bought UNIX business from Novell, can't read the contracts, and ignore our own actions to the contrary.

    We believe that “All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all technical, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning Unix and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings…” means just what it says, but the court did not agree.

    We're still delusional, and we're in denial. Unfortunately, the judge wasn't as delusional as we were. All judges without our delusion are obviously wrong, and should be ignored.

    Second, the court ruling on Friday continues to assert that SCO owns all copyrights to the new development in all subsequent versions of UnixWare up through the most current release of UnixWare which includes substantial portions of SCO UnixWare Gemini 64....

    Despite the unfairly rational judge, we haven't lost everything. Just everything that matters.

    This ruling has no impact on SCO’s ability to continue to develop and support all versions of UnixWare and OpenServer as well as the recently announced OpenServer 6M and UnixWare 7M as well as our new mobility products....

    This ruling doesn't affect the location of Alpha Centauri, the orbit of Neptune, or a bunch of other things that have little importance to our continued existance. On the other hand, we're still delusional in believing that we'll be around to release any products for very long.

    Fifth, as many of you have noted by our recent SCO Tec Forum, SCO’s primary business is not to litigate or to solely rely on outcomes in the court, but to rapidly evolve SCO’s technology platforms to meet your needs in the marketplace.

    Yep, still delusional. Our priorities have nothing to do with where we spend our money.

    For more than three years SCO has continued to upgrade its UNIX operating systems (including releasing perhaps the single most significant upgrade in its history with OpenServer 6) as well as innovate in the areas of the fastest growing sector of IT, mobile computing.

    We entered a new market! Bully for us! And in our old market, we successfully got a release out which legal won't even let us crow about without qualifiers.

    That being said, we do feel a responsibility to you and our shareholders to defend our rights when we believe they have been violated and that is simply what we continue to do within the courts.

    We're loosing all our cases, but we're trying to delay our demise so that the people at the top get a few more paychecks before we go under. In other words, please keep our stock! You're as delusional as we are, aren't you? Pretty please?

    In the end, our legal team will focus on the necessary actions needed to protect SCO,

    More delays will keep us alive for longer, and keep are executives raking in paychecks

    its customers

    Please buy our products. If you increase your purchases of our products by 100,000% (and soon), we might be able to settle our way out of this mess.

    and shareholders.

    Hey! Look! Our stock's cheap! You won't be able to buy it soon, so you better buy them before they're gone! After all, if you own our stock, you must be as delusional as we are, aren't you?

    Aren't you?

    The above text is now public domain.

    -Zimbel

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    "[W]e might be able to settle our way out of this mess." WHAT???
    Authored by: rsi on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 02:26 PM EDT
    Why do people STILL talk about a "Settlement" even in jest???

    Guess what? It AIN'T gonna happen, EVER!!!

    The only "Settlement" that will happen is for SCO to hand over ALL,
    and I repeat, ALL SCO's assets, including, but not limited to ALL Stock,
    buildings, land, ALL contents of said building(s), ALL so-called IP, ALL
    business records, etc, etc, etc... to Novell, IBM, Red Hat, etc...

    Novell, IBM, Red Hat, etc... WILL NOT STOP until the company formerly known as
    The SCO Group, (formerly known as Caldera), along with Darl C. McBride, Chris
    Sontag, Bert Young, Ryan E. Tibbitts, Ralph J. Yarro III, and all the rest of
    the "Hole in the wall gang", are permanently sent far south to the
    eternal fires of hell (Can I say this just once, PJ?), to a Federal Prison, or
    preferably BOTH!!!

    Please show me ONE INSTANCE of any company or individual, other than SCO who
    have EVER discussed the possibility of a "Settlement" since the
    lawsuit against IBM was first filed in 2003!!!

    AFAIK, NO such statement exists.

    PLEASE, let's not use the word "Settle" ever again in reference to the
    SCO major annoyance.

    Microsoft, OTOH, should openly discuss a non-financial "settlement" to
    their alleged threats of patent lawsuits against Linux/Open Source Software/Free
    Software. I won't hold my breath for that to ever happen. They like SCO would
    rather see themselves put out of business than come to their senses!

    Thank you

    Rick Stanley

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Darl should have shut up a long time ago
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 02:26 PM EDT
    He even admits that SCO does not need the UNIX copyrights in order to conduct the business they actually bought. Novell was correct in not transferring the copyrights when they were requested. This will prevent SCO from now successfully arguing that while Novell still retains the copyrights to UNIX, they should now be transferred to SCO as being necessary to their UNIX business.
    This ruling has no impact on SCO’s ability to continue to develop and support all versions of UnixWare and OpenServer as well as the recently announced OpenServer 6M and UnixWare 7M as well as our new mobility products....

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Unixware Gemini 64
    Authored by: _Arthur on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 02:49 PM EDT
    the Gemini-64 project was part of SCO Complaint.

    57. SCO, on the other hand, had over 15 years of expertise in adapting UNIX
    to Intel based systems. Moreover, SCO had spent the previous 18 months
    working closely with Intel to adapt its existing UnixWare product to work on
    the new 64-bit Intel processor. That project, known as "Gemini-64,"
    was well
    underway when work on Project Monterey was started. In furtherance of, and
    in reliance on, IBM's commitment to Project Monterey, SCO ceased work on
    the Gemini-64 Project and expended substantial amounts of money and
    dedicated a significant portion of SCO's development team to Project
    Monterey. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff's predecessor provided IBM
    engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to
    architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX source code
    for both 32- and 64-bit Intel-based processors.

    ----
    Darl seems to indicate that his remaining developers have gone back to a
    codebase abandonned since 1996, to revive their zombie Unixware 64 for
    Itanium project, to be released Real Soon Now.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 15 2007 @ 07:18 PM EDT
    McBride, McPride, McDried, McFried, McCried, McSlide, McTried, McArrived, Mc ...
    See if you can add any more!

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Letter to Customers and Partners
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 16 2007 @ 02:32 AM EDT
    The way this is going to end will be something like this:

    The remaining SCO employees get taken into custody, bulldozers raze the
    corporate headquarters then salt is sown over the land it used to stand on.

    SCO has just lost their copyright claims - they haven't really LOST yet...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Intellectual Property
    Authored by: GLJason on Thursday, August 16 2007 @ 06:29 PM EDT

    Included:
      Trademarks UNIX and UnixWare as and to the extent held by Seller (excluding any compensation Seller receives with respect of the license granted to X/Open regarding the UNIX trademark).
    Excluded:
      A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.
      B. All Patents

    'nuff said... Copyrights were NOT included in the assets and were specifically excluded. They were not part of the transferred assets, period. If you buy source code from someone, that doesn't mean that you purchase the copyrights. Some companies that sell you software will sell you the source code for an extra fee, they aren't transferring the copyright. Section 2.10 makes a clear distinction between "the business" and the intellectual property.

    [ 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 )