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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
A Mountain of Filings in SCO v. Novell and a Kind Word About Groklaw
Friday, August 31 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT

SCO and Novell have filed the most documents -- 16 filings, plus exhibits -- we've ever had in a single day. That only happens when I say I need to go to the beach.

But one of the nicest things happened. Novell has responded [PDF] to SCO's slur against Groklaw:

Novell does not share SCO's view of the commentary concerning the SCO v. IBM litigation. (Mot. at 4 (complaining of "anti-SCO bias").) To the contrary, the close scrutiny the Linux community -- Groklaw in particular -- has brought to bear on SCO's litigation is a testament to the power of open source ideals and their potential for application to spheres outside software.

That is something I really treasure. Thank you.

PACER:

416 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Order on Motion to Withdraw
Docket Text: ORDER granting [413] Motion to Withdraw as Counsel as to Matthew Kreeger, Johnathan Mansfield and Maame A.F. Ewusi-Mensah for Novell. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8/30/07. (blk)

417 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [387] MOTION to Dismiss Voluntarily Its Third Claim for Relief filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)

418 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [391] MOTION in Limine No. 1 to Preclude SCO from Challenging Questions Already Decided as a Matter of Law filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-B: Unpublished Cases)(Normand, Edward)

419 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURTS AUGUST 10, 2007 ORDER re [377] Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. Motions referred to Brooke C. Wells.(Normand, Edward)

420 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Support re [419] Plaintiff's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURTS AUGUST 10, 2007 ORDER re [377] Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURTS AUGUST 10, 2007 ORDER re [377] Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-B: Unpublished Cases)(Normand, Edward)

421 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [393] MOTION in Limine No. 2 to Preclude SCO from Contesting Licenses Conveying SVRX Rights are "SVRX Licenses" filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A: Unpublished Case)(Normand, Edward)

422 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [389] Plaintiff's MOTION in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Related to Other Litigation and Commentary Thereon filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)

423 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [390] Plaintiff's MOTION to Strike Exhibits on Novell's Revised Exhibit List Not Previously Disclosed filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit (Attachment A))(Sneddon, Heather)

424 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [395] MOTION in Limine No. 3 to Preclude SCO from Introducing New Evidence or Argument of SCOsource Revenue filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1 # (2) Exhibit A: Unpublished Case)(Normand, Edward)

425 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Opposition to SCO's Motion In Limine to Exclude Testimony of Terry L. Musika [REDACTED] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A - Valentino v. Proviso Township# (2) Exhibit B - Wrench v. Taco Bell)(Sneddon, Heather)

426 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Opposition to SCO's Motion in Limine Regarding Apportionment of Microsoft and Sun SCOsource Licenses [REDACTED] filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Sneddon, Heather)

427 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Declaration
Docket Text: DECLARATION of David E. Melaugh re [426] Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, [425] Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, [423] Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, [422] Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 5 # (2) Exhibit 6)(Sneddon, Heather)

428 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Notice of Conventional Filing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF CONVENTIONAL FILING of Novell's Oppositions to SCO's Motions in Limine Regarding Terry L. Musika and the Apportionment of Microsoft and Sun SCOsource Licenses, and the Declaration of David E. Melaugh filed by Defendant Novell, Inc. (Sneddon, Heather)

429 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Objections
Docket Text: OBJECTIONS to [381] Exhibit List(Proposed) (SCO's Second Amended Rule 26 Disclosure) filed by Defendant Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)(Sneddon, Heather)

430 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: Plaintiff's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [385] MOTION to Strike SCO's Jury Demand filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A-B: Unpublished Cases)(Normand, Edward)

431 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2007
Proposed Jury Instructions
Docket Text: Proposed Jury Instructions by Novell, Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, 2)(Sneddon, Heather)

That is it for today, I think. So now, since I didn't make it to the beach, instead please join me as I bask a bit in the sun of some commendation for our hard work.

Speaking of which, I have no hope of transcribing all these, without your help. So please everyone pick one and email the text to me. HTML gets you a beer. Nah. You wish.

Update: I have my robot generated HTML for about ten of these. If you can help clean up the HTML, please email me and I'll send you what I have.

Update 2: Erwan, our detail person, reminds me that there was one day worse than this one, back on September 26, 2006 when SCO and IBM began filing their summary judgment motions. But not all the 20+ filings that day were substantive, as most of today's are. And speaking as the person who has to explain them, that makes a difference. Still, for the sake of accuracy, I'm noting the correction.


  


A Mountain of Filings in SCO v. Novell and a Kind Word About Groklaw | 151 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 09:58 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

Remember clickies if you can make them.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here, Please
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:00 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspics commentary goes here, please
Authored by: rc on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:01 PM EDT
And please put the link in the message, as well as the subject of the newspick in the header.

---
rc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick Discussions Here
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:02 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

And don't forget to check the comments on the last few articles. So many new
reports, each about different concerns, don't forget the discussions there as
well.

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

Hat trick!

[ Reply to This | # ]

A Mountain of Filings in SCO v. Novell and a Kind Word About Groklaw
Authored by: Mark Nelson on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:04 PM EDT
GROKLAW deserves all the compliments it gets and if I was the Novell lawyers I
would introduce a motion that reads something like this"Groklaw will be
asked to provide analysis of all cases involving technology that a Magistrate
judge requests analysis of from now on. Furthermore, PJ shall be commended by
the court for her help in this case and the IBM case Signed Judge Kimball"
If I was the Novell lawyers which thankfully I am not.

---
http://www.getfirefox.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

    HTML gets you a beer. Nah. You wish.
    Authored by: rsi on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:06 PM EDT
    On the contrary, in place of PJ, I will be glad to buy a round for anyone in the
    NYC area who can help! Just let me know!

    PJ knows how to reach me.

    Rick Stanley

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Slicker than Riverdance in a Grease Pit
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:34 PM EDT
    You know I have only started to scratch the surface on some of these filings but
    it seems to me that these SCO folk are slicker than Riverdance in a grease pit.
    Thier entire set of documents basically boils down to we dont want Novell to
    dismiss a claim against us because without it we know we may not get a jury and
    we WANT a jury, novell should lose on everything else because even though we
    have never talked about apportionment before we want to now.

    About the only ting that seemed very solid to me beyond SCO making demands
    directly for things it wants, is that each of the motions in limine from novell
    does not specify what it is specifically asking to be excluded. IANAL but a
    motion in limine is to get rid of evidence which is improper or otherwise
    unneccesary, right? Otherwise is there some other kind of motion for Novell to
    ask for SCO to limit its scope or do these types of motions also do that?

    ---
    Clocks
    "Ita erat quando hic adveni."

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Holy Batcaves!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 11:13 PM EDT
    Novell gets it.



    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Questions for the legally sophisticated
    Authored by: elcorton on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 12:29 AM EDT

    In 430 (opposing Novell's motion for a bench trial,) SCO cites to the denial of certiorari in DePinto v. Provident, 323 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1963) cert. denied, 376 U.S. 950, 84 S. Ct. 965, 968, 969:

    Having in mind the necessity of scrutinizing, with utmost care, any seeming curtailment of the right to jury trial, we hold that where a claim of breach of fiduciary duty is predicated upon underlying conduct, such as negligence, which is actionable in a direct suit at common law, the issue of whether there has been such a breach is, subject to appropriate instructions, a jury question.

    Is Novell's claim for breach of fiduciary duty predicated on conduct actionable at law, in the sense the DePinto court envisioned?

    If so, what would be an example of a breach of fiduciary duty that was not so predicated?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A Kind Word About Groklaw
    Authored by: CraigV on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 01:08 AM EDT
    Recognition by the legal community can be prized even more
    than recognition by the open source community. The value
    of Groklaw is obvious to the latter, but I suspect the
    legal community is very tradition bound and slow to
    recognize new ideas.

    Could it be that the yet-to-be-revealed newest award to PJ
    comes from the broader legal community? Novell and IBM
    know about Groklaw, but recognition from the ABA or some
    such would be extra special.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A Mountain of Filings in SCO v. Novell and a Kind Word About Groklaw
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 03:12 AM EDT
    Note that it seems that Novel have been nice and submitted some of the documents
    electronically so "only" 422-423, 425-429 and 431 needs to be
    transcribed. In the rest the text can be copy/pasted.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    most documents we've ever had in a single day.
    Authored by: Erwan on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 03:27 AM EDT
    -- 16 filings, plus exhibits --

    Well, I remember 25-Sep-2006, PSJ day in SCO vs IBM, and the next few days. 45 filings in a single day if my count is right.

    Still, PJ, don't overwork yourself.

    ---
    Erwan

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO has a point in 419 and 420
    Authored by: elderlycynic on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 05:17 AM EDT
    The order did somewhat oversimplify the situation, and the plain
    language of the APA does imply that, IF SVRX is purely incidental
    to the sale of UnixWare, THEN the full ritual is not needed.

    However, I don't see either SCO getting this motion through in
    toto, or managing to prove that SVRX was purely incidental in the
    Sun and Microsoft cases.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    The bear trap snaps shut in 423
    Authored by: elderlycynic on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 05:21 AM EDT
    I didn't realise that Novell's extra exhibits were almost
    entirely ones produced by SCO in the first place! Oh, what a
    lovely trap.

    And SCO fell right into it.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO still doesn't understand
    Authored by: GLJason on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 05:31 AM EDT

    Look at #420, where they seek clarification on the August 10th order insofar as it relates to SCO's rights to license SVRX incidentally to licensing Unixware. How can SCO not grasp this? They tried to make it out like Novell should only get royalties from BINARY SVRX licenses. The actuality is the opposite. SCO may only license SVRX insofar as it is incidentally related to their licensing Unixware. For example, if they sell 1,000 copies of Unixware, they are in effect sublicensing portions of SVRX code that is included in Unixware. If they enter into licensing agreements with Microsoft and Sun that include expanded source code rights to SVRX, that is not incidental to licensing Unixware. PERIOD. They basically have only a binary license themselves, not the other way around.

    Unless the SUN and Microsoft agreements specifically license Unixware as a whole, SCO has overstepped its bounds. If they mention SVRX or existing licenses, SCO has overstepped its bounds. Let's say a singer licenses a song for inclusion in a movie, and ONLY for inclusion in the movie. do you think the movie studio should be able to sell a soundtrack without further licensing? What about sublicensing the song out for a car commercial on TV?

    Basically it comes down to this: Did SUN and Microsoft buy copies of Unixware or not? If not, SCO overstepped their bounds. SCO has no rights to enter into any new SVRX agreements, and if they licensed anything except binary copies of Unixware, they are SVRX agreements.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I hope that they realise.....
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 05:47 AM EDT
    "Novell does not share SCO's view of the commentary concerning the SCO v.
    IBM litigation. (Mot. at 4 (complaining of "anti-SCO bias").) To the
    contrary, the close scrutiny the Linux community -- Groklaw in particular -- has
    brought to bear on SCO's litigation is a testament to the power of open source
    ideals and their potential for application to spheres outside software."

    ....that since their deal with Microsoft, "the close scrutiny the Linux
    community" can muster is now upon them.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SVRX or not?
    Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 07:37 AM EDT

    From filing 429:

    Reconsideration of this issue is appropriate because the parties’ arguments and memoranda regarding SVRX Royalties centered on whether SVRX Licenses were limited to existing licenses at the time of the APA and licenses of binary code. SCO also argued that any license to SVRX products included in the Sun and Microsoft Agreements was incidental to the core UnixWare License, and that SCO was therefore entitled to the payments from those Agreements as UnixWare Royalties. (SCO Memorandum in Opposition Opp. to Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction and in Support of SCO’s Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment at 40-41.) In response, Novell principally argued that “SVRX is central, and not incidental, to the Sun and Microsoft Agreements,” and that Novell was therefore entitled to the payments from those Agreements as SVRX Royalties. (Novell Reply to SCO’s Opp. to Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction at 7.) Although Novell asserted that it should receive the royalties even if the licensing of SVRX was incidental, that was not the central argument. SCO nonetheless presented evidence not only that the Sun and Microsoft Agreements’ licensing of SVRX was only incidental to a UnixWare license, but also that the APA should not be construed as making such incidental licenses of SVRX subject to a separate royalty to Novell, apart from whatever royalty Novell was entitled to pursuant to the UnixWare royalty provisions.
    (emphasis added)

    From the SCO Group quarterly SEC report for the quarter ended April 30, 2003:

    We initiated the SCOsource effort to review the status of these licensing and sublicensing agreements and to identify others in the industry that may be currently using our intellectual property without obtaining the necessary licenses. This effort resulted in the execution of two license agreements during the April 30, 2003 quarter. The first of these licenses was with a long-time licensee of the UNIX source code which is a major participant in the UNIX industry and was a “clean-up” license to cover items that were outside the scope of the initial license. The second license was to Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and covers Microsoft’s UNIX compatibility products, subject to certain specified limitations. These license agreements will be typical of those we expect to enter into with developers, manufacturers, and distributors of operating systems in that they are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code.
    (emphasis added)

    Even given the vague description of the first SCOsource license in the SEC filing, we can conclude that The SCO Group told the court that the Microsoft SCOsource license was a UNIXware license, and yet told the SEC that it covered Microsoft's "UNIX compatibility products" (not UNIXware). They further told the SEC that "[t]hese license agreements [...] are non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, paid up licenses to utilize the UNIX source code, including the right to sublicense that code." IANAL, but this doesn't sound to me like UNIX rights that are "incidental" to a UNIXware license.

    So to which official did The SCO Group give an accurate account?

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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why Sun Bought a SCOsource License
    Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 11:38 AM EDT

    Novell's Opposition to SCO's Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence Related to Other Litigation and Commentary Thereon, Footnote 2:

    IBM and Sun both bought out their ongoing SVRX royalty obligations over a decade ago. In 2003, Sun bought a SCOsource license so that Sun could open source the SVRX source code in its "OpenSolaris" product without breaching confidentiality restrictions from the 1994 agreement. SCO accused IBM of doing essentially the same thing (releasing confidential code to the public by way of open source products), and sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. SCO's argument, and its expert analysis of its purported IBM damages, are therefore relevant impeachment evidence should SCO attempt to minimize the significance of the provisions lifting confidentiality restrictions in the Sun SCOsource license.
    From the same Novell Opposition Motion that sprinkles praise on Groklaw, comes an interesting snippet for Groklaw.

    :)

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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft salutes debate on Office Open XML
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 11:45 AM EDT
    AfricaNews article. Must be that one-finger salute I've heard so much about.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 11:48 AM EDT
      • Oops - Authored by: jmc on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT
    "the power of open source ideals" == PJ (NT)
    Authored by: bigbert on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 04:54 PM EDT
    $0.02

    ---
    --------------------------
    Surfo, ergo sum.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    A Mountain of Filings in SCO v. Novell and a Kind Word About Groklaw
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 07:38 PM EDT
    Novell, in it's motion in document 426 (which is Novell's opposition to SCO's
    Motion in Limine, wherein SCO tries to restrict Novell's apportionment analysis
    and argument solely to section 4 of the SCO-MS agreement) makes the point that
    we discussed a few days ago here on Groklaw, namely that:

    (a) Novell insisted in its contract with Santa Cruz (and by assignment, SCO),
    that Novell would retain the right to approve any new SVRX licenses.

    (b)SCO entered into the SCO-MS agreement in secret, failing to get Novell's
    approval. Therefore the existence of the license itself represents a breach of
    SCO's obligations to Novell, and therefore the terms and apportionment aren't
    endorsed by, or binding on, Novell, or dispositive of Novell's rights (as
    between Novell and SCO) to the license proceeds.

    (c) SCO's theory of apportionment, set forth in SCO Document 403 implicitly
    argues or assumes (falsely) that Novell and the Court are in fact obligated to
    "honor" the actual express allocation terms of the Microsoft (and
    SUN)
    licenses. In the MS license, SCO and Microsoft endeavored to allocate certain
    percentages of the license revenue to various purposes, and allocated only a
    small percent to SVRX licenses. SCO argues in 403 then the Novell should be
    limited to argue about only the section 4 revenue, therefore limiting the
    maximum that Novell could claim to the literal apportionment cooked up by SCO
    and MS.

    (d) Novell moves to rebut SCO (by a footnote on page 3 in its motion in document
    426) saying that the allocation in the agreement between SCO and MS should and
    must be ignored, because Novell didn't approve the license.

    I think that Novell should (if oral argument is permitted on these motions, or
    else at trial) strengthen and expand this argument beyond a mere footnoted
    reference, and emphasize that:

    - Novell was smart enough, in the original contract with Santa Cruz, to realize
    that since (then) Santa Cruz would have the power to act unilaterally as
    Novell's agent and to seek out and then draft and negotiate new SVRX licenses,
    then Novell, absent an approval rights, would have no way to stop Santa Cruz
    from conspiring with it's licensees to create new joint/mixed licenses where the
    terms wildly undervalued the SVRX portion in the allocation and inflated the
    non-SVRX considerations, thereby depriving Novell of its reasonably expected
    future consideration, and so

    -- Novell covered this exposure by retaining approval rights to the licenses, so
    that if Santa Cruz (SCO) undervalued the SVRX portion in a false allocation,
    Novell could withhold approval of the license and force Santa Cruz to negotiate
    with Novell to fairly apportion the revenue as a condition of obtaining Novell
    approval, and that

    -- in the licenses at issue, SCO cooked their own deal with MS, belittling the
    SVRX code in the allocation as much as they reasonably could and valuing it as
    nominal to non-existent, so therefore

    -- SCO's motion should, first, be denied, and moreover the SCO-MS allocation
    formulas should be wholly disregarded by the court with respect to binding and
    limiting Novell’s rights/allocation, as (i) Novell didn't approve the MS or SUN
    licenses, (ii) the agreements in those licenses as to the allocations were
    cooked up between MS and SCO, and between SUN and SCO, and therefore (iii) the
    allocations have absolutely no validity, and in fact they represent exactly the
    mischievous behavior that Novell expressly anticipated, and for which Novell
    built in a mechanism to protect against, by requiring Novell consent.

    LEXLAW

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    That is something I really treasure. Thank you.
    Authored by: philc on Saturday, September 01 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT
    That is throwing down the gauntlet infront of anyone that wants to go toe to toe
    with FOSS. Bring it on.

    Groklaw, under PJ's leadership, continues to show how the community comes
    together to defend itself. This "project" is up among the top half
    dozen FOSS projects.

    Thank you PJ for taking this up and shepherding it along to what it is today.
    Gorklaw is your accomplishment. You provide (and moderate) a forum that
    continues to promote civil discourse in the quest for truth.

    PS: When you put on the red dress could you post a photo of you in it?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Seven good men - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2007 @ 12:04 AM EDT
    Any filings in SCO vs Red Hat?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2007 @ 12:33 AM EDT
    I'm kind of surprised there wasn't an update filed in the SCO vs. Red Hat case
    since the judge wanted to be informed of any updates that happened in the case?

    I'm sure that SCO losing the majority of the case since they didn't own the
    Copyrights is a significant update for the case?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    a Kind Word About Groklaw - please be very cautious with Novell
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2007 @ 05:22 PM EDT
    Novell may be genuine in the apparent compliment but I have a different take on
    this. After the recent Microsoft deal I trust Novell about as far as I can throw
    them. They *know* how effective Groklaw is and if they are smart they would do
    anything they could to schmooze you over. If they are that smart then they would
    also know that schmoozing would probably not be that effective so they would be
    gambling. It wouldn't be much of a gamble however, they could only win and at
    worst push.

    Why do I have such a hard time forgiving Novell for the Microsoft deal? Can
    anyone quantify any sort of product that has come from the deal to this point?
    Show me the money. My experience is the Interoperability between Novell funded
    open source and Microsoft technologies has only gotten worse since the time of
    the deal. The exchange connector is yet to work with Exchange 2007 and it's been
    known to be broken back in 2006. There are other products that interfaced with
    Exchange mail that did not break when 2007 came out. I just don't understand it.
    I don't trust them. I do not accept sweet talk. Again, show me the money.

    Sorry, I just had to express my thoughts on this and I know some of you might
    call me a troll but please don't let your guard down.

    [ 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 )