|
SCO's Redacted Memo in Support of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings |
|
Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:14 PM EDT
|
Oh, yummy. Here is SCO's redaction of its Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief [PDF]. I have only had a moment to read it quickly, but I confess that I'm a little disappointed. I thought it would be better than this. I doubt any old timers will be surprised. In a sentence, SCO argues that if SCO had no right to enter into the SCOsource license agreements, and if Novell didn't approve SCOsource licensing, then Novell has no right to the money SCO got from SCOsource. Uh huh. SCO logic, whereby all brain synapses fire in only one direction all the time -- in service of the noble goal of making sure SCO keeps Novell from getting its money, while forcing Novell to spend buckets more on lawyers. So, who gets the money in SCOland? Guess. Microsoft and Sun, you silly wabbits. Who'd ya think?
At least that's what I get from the implications of footnote 3 on page 13. Why shouldn't those two enablers be rewarded for their lack of due diligence and for helping SCO hold up the marketplace in what Novell has called a scam? Bonus points for trying to destroy Linux. Certainly they deserve every penny back. Oh wait. SCO already told the court, it's pretty much all gone. All the dollars they have left are different dollars. Hmm. What a dilemma. I know. How's this? The new moneybags partners offering to save SCO could pay all the perps? Why wouldn't that be a SCO dream come true? Here's the docket: 507 -
Filed & Entered: 03/12/2008
Redacted Document
Docket Text: REDACTION to [506] Sealed Document, SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief by Counter Defendant SCO Group. (Normand, Edward)
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
Don't forget to use clickies.
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- David Boie on NewsHours - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 11:17 PM EDT
- Off Topic - MS Litigation page? - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Just finished watching NASA TV - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:57 AM EDT
- Phorm Adware Stuff Here - Petition at 3,621 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:09 AM EDT
- Oh sh.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:21 AM EDT
- Wizard of ID - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 06:30 AM EDT
- Linux Cartoons - Authored by: TiddlyPom on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 06:31 AM EDT
- Microsoft: Vista SP1 will break these programs - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- Cyber-attack launched from 10,000 web pages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- Carlyle Capital/Carlyle Group, not meet lenders' demands for money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- IE 8 Beta features - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 10:59 AM EDT
- Not signing The Beatles no longer record industry's greatest blunder - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- Current SCOXQ.PK stock price - Authored by: jheisey on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- Current SCOXQ.PK stock price - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:48 PM EDT
- WHY? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- WHY? - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- WHY? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:44 PM EDT
- WHY? - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:52 PM EDT
- I see now. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Turning a corner - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 08:04 PM EDT
- WHY? - Authored by: Yossarian on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Investment funds probably - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Asustek says two-thirds of Eee PCs will have Windows XP - Authored by: glimes on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- Will IE 8 break the Web? - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:51 PM EDT
- Carlyle Capital about to go into Default - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Bear Stearns in trouble - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Can Antitrust Rules Be Applied to Net Neutrality? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- Mike Gravel endorses Jesse Johnson - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Windows-based Eee PC to outsell Linux version - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Another Illegal Monopoly! - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:05 PM EDT
- Let The Cheap Shots Begin! - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:26 PM EDT |
Don't forget to use clickies.
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Ship of fools" misses the dock - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- "Ship of fools" misses the dock - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 03:38 AM EDT
- "Ship of fools" misses the dock - Authored by: Winter on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 03:55 AM EDT
- "Ship of fools" misses the dock - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:09 AM EDT
- There is an issue - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:40 AM EDT
- My head would fall off too - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:51 AM EDT
- Aren't all spreadsheets broken? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:58 AM EDT
- "Ship of fools" misses the dock - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 05:23 AM EDT
- Floating point numbers - Authored by: nitrogen on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 07:40 AM EDT
- "Ship of fools" misses the dock - Authored by: troll on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 08:24 AM EDT
- I stopped reading PC Pro some time ago.... - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:04 AM EDT
- Microsoft Excel Degrades User Data - Authored by: rcweir on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:31 AM EDT
- That problem is an issue for real-world numbers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- IEEE 754-1985 && Don't Feed the trolls - Authored by: artp on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 11:10 AM EDT
- Everyone misses this point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- Floating/fixed-point and Binary/Decimal Numbers - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Don't try this with Calc. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- OpenOffice does the same thing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Takeover Tactics - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:22 AM EDT
- SDK or OOXML - Authored by: dobbo on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Re: Navy to focus only on open systems - Authored by: dio gratia on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 10:23 PM EDT
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:28 PM EDT |
If you think PJ made a mistake - bet you're wrong <G>.
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
how will they fulfill their moral obligation to York?
Oh, the hardships and tough decisions that moral animals like Darl must make.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
It's been a long time since we've done this. We used to always invite the
management at The SCO Group to post here, and I think that it's time we extend
the invitation to them again.
So guys, please come and join us, and tell us why you are ding what you are
doing.
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
From page 11 of the PDF, "Legal Standard":
In applying Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the Court applies the standards under Rule
12(b)(6).
F.R.C.P. 12(c), "Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings"
After the pleadings are closed — but early enough not to
delay trial — a party may move for judgment on the
pleadings.
F.R.C.P. 12(b), "How to Present
Defenses":
Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must
be asserted in the responsive pleading if one is required. But a party may
assert the following defenses by motion:
[ ... ]
(6) failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
Color me stupid if
you wish, but I can't for the life of me see how 12(c) could be applied
"under Rule 12(b)(6)", nor do I see what either has to do with this
Motion. (I guess my IANAL is showing...)
--- "When I say something,
I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Stumbles on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
Lol PJ. Your ability to summarize things is some of the
best I have ever seen. Loved it.
---
You can tuna piano but you can't tune a fish.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 10:06 PM EDT |
SCOXQ.PK had a singe trade of 100 shares at 15 cets a shre today.
Dennis H[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
The motion puts the cart before the horse.
They ask for the monetary aspects of the case to be dismissed prior to trial due
to Novell stating that TSG had no authority to enter into the agreements. The
problem being the ruling on whether they did in fact have authority will not be
determined until the summary judgment motion is decided, the oral argument is I
understand it scheduled on the Tuesday on the week of the trial.
As such this motion cannot be decided until the trial starts and is thus moot.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
I wonder if there's a sneaky motive behind this. In footnote 8, TSG says that
"if necessary, the Court may treat this as a request for reconsideration of any
part of its Order dated August 10, 2007, which would be required to effectuate
such dismissal." Now let's take a look at the chronology here:
-
August
10 -- Judge Kimball rules against TSG on some significant
issues.
-
August 17 -- TSG and Novell issue a Joint Statement to the
Court, outlining each party's position on where things stand after the August 10
ruling.
-
August 24 -- Novell files its Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss
its Third Claim for Relief, and also its Motion to Strike SCO's Jury Demand.
Novell claims that, since claims for damages were dropped, everything they were
asking for was equitable in nature, and so TSG was not entitled to a jury
trial.
-
Today -- TSG casually mentions to Judge Kimball that he may
"consider" this Motion as a motion to reconsider the August 10 ruling, if
needed.
What happens if Kimball for some reason reconsiders the
August 10 ruling and perhaps (for the sake of argument) puts some stuff back
into play that had previously been decided? Does this count as an "enlargement"
or "relitigation" of the issues, as mentioned in Novell's statement to the
Court? If so, does that mean that Novell might re-institute their damages claim,
and thereby hand TSG their jury trial?
In short, could this possibly be
a last-ditch, back-door attempt by TSG to get Boies back in front of a
jury?
Or is that too far-fetched, even for The SCO
Group?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
that SCO owes SOME (to-be-determined) amount of money to Novell for the SUN/M$
ScoSource contracts. It seems to me that if the Judge already ruled on that
question, then trying to re-argue it here isn't going to change the upcoming
trial.
I think this is really for the sake of a future appeal; or perhaps more
importantly, add to all the other recent fluff pronouncements to hopefully
assure whoever might have 95 million dollars to lend, that lots of that money
won't go directly and immediately to Novell.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 12 2008 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
So in SCO's version the licences are invalid.
While Microsoft and Sun may not be liable for "being misled", Sun must
stop distribution of Open Solaris until a contract is renegotiated while
Microsoft would need to stop what?
Again this seems to target open source in any form.
On the other hand do the contracts stand and SCO owes Novell all the money,
minus five percent, plus sanctions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
Months ago, I suggested that Novell should give up
on the royalties, and now,
here we have SCOX basically
willing to concede the point that the SCO Source
licenses
were not authorized by Novell, *iff* Novell will lose
on their claim to
the royalties.
So, if the court buys into this argument at all,
and Novell's
counterclaim 4 is upheld, what is the
loss? SCOX has no money to pay royalties
anyway.
If Novell had made an offer to concede on the royalty
front for a
dollar, *without* losing on counterclaim 4,
then things could have become
unstuck.
But, that did not happen obviously, and now SCOX is
trying to
bargain at the last minute via the court.
I think SCOX is trying to angle
for a way to lose
on counterclaims 6,7, and 8, instead of losing on 4.
They have
no money anyway, and have filed for Chapter 11,
so I don't believe they care if
they lose on 6,7, and 8.
I really believe they are totally scared of losing
on 4.
Backlink - A Chart of Novell's Counterclaims and SCO's Reply
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 12:15 AM EDT |
No, BSF...It's not logic.
If SCOG sold scosource without Novells approval, it's called overstepping one's
authority, and one doesn't get to profit from it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
As I see it, if Novell cannot get any money then they can require the return of
all of Novell's information that the deal covered, and that Sun and MS desist
from using that info. This could include recalling any software that utilises
this info. (Withdrawal of vista anyone). If there was no information transferred
the corporate veil is well and truely pierced as it would at least suggest that
MS and Sun provided money only to keep the litigation going. This could be the
smoking gun that not only turns Caldera into a very smoky hole, but puts MS and
Sun well and truely in the firing line.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:51 AM EDT |
In the case of an invalid contract, a counterparty who made payments
under the purported agreement is entitled to the restitution of those payments.
In the context of a principal-agent relationship, if the principal "decides not
to ratify he must return the fruits of the unauthorized act."
(p.8)
Methinks this legal quibble may trouble Novell. Surely, if
SCO were without authority to enter into the Sun and Microsoft agreements, SCO
has to give them the money back, not hand any part of it over to Novell. Or has
not this already been decided by Kimball? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
Carlyle Capital just went bust, due to some really bad leveraged investments in
subprime mortgage-based securities. They've defaulted on $16 billion in debt
so far, with more to come.
Carlyle Capital is part of the Carlyle Group,
founded by Steven Norris. Yes, the Steven Norris of SNCP, which proposes to
back SCO financially.
SNCP's web site says that they "take advantage of the
business experience and relationships of its Investment Committee, including
Steve Norris' long-standing relationships and substantial private equity
experience as co-founder of The Carlyle Group".
This raises questions about
SNCP's financial strength. They're normally a "co-investor", alongside other
investors like the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group has other problems to deal
with right now. They just put $150 million into Carlyle Capital, and they're
probably not going to get it back. Novell, IBM, and other creditors can
reasonably ask whether the $95 million needed to cover SCO's potential
judgments is actually available.
So how does that work? Discovery against
SNCP, or what? Or will SNCP back out of the deal? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:21 AM EDT |
Relax, this is not going to fly. The fact that SCO had no authority to enter
into these licenses, doesn't mean that the license is no good. If Novel choses
to honor the licenses, these are going to transfer to Novel and Novel gets all
the money. Novel just wants a declaration that SCO cant do this again. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
And then Novell will sue them for copyright infringement for the cash they
want.
A figure is already on the table as to the valid worth of this intellectual
property: the value SCO got from them.
Boned![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
There seem to be two logical positions that could be taken here:
1) The licences are valid because SCO was acting as an agent for Novell when it
sold them. Not obtaining specific authorization from Novell first was a minor
procedural breach of contract.
2) The licences are not valid because SCO didn't have authorization to act as an
agent.
Now follow the money.
In the first case, the money is owned by Novell. Not owed to Novell such that
they just get a potion along with the other debtors, but already owned by
Novell, at the trough before enyone else.
In the second case, SCO owes MS and SUN a refund. Which means no money goes to
Novell, whch I imagne SCO would prefer. Here, the debt to Sun and MS is probably
just another business debt in the pot with the rest, with much more chance of
skimming it in SCOs preferred directions and to those friends that SCO decides
to pay quickly, before the axe falls. MS and Sun might not even knock on the
door to collect their slices.
Another thought that runs through my mind: If the money belongs to Novell, then
Novell probably owns - not is owed, but owns - all the contents of SCOs bank
account. If the loan that they are being offered gets poured into that bank
account, could that loan money end up going in Novells direction too, with the
debt on the loan just joining the rest of SCOs debt?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
I think this is a wizard wheeze. However, I am not sure that Judge Kimball will
not just cuff them behind the ear and sanction them for being frivolous in his
court.
SCOG refused Novell the opportunity to audit the SCOSource contracts saying to
Novell and Judge Kimball that they were nothing to do with SVRX. On August 10
the Judge said that SCOG were wrong. The contracts did include SVRX. The judge
was surprised that Novell did not ask him to find that SCOG lacked sufficient
authority under the APA to let the contracts.
So SCOG are maintaining that, because of their secrecy and deception and because
of the actions of the judge, Novell are not permitted to ask for the proceeds of
the contract. However, the lack of authority was no doing of Novell and the
court. It was because of SCOG's activities. They can be found to have acted
without authority and the judge can then say to Novell 'do you want to do the
audit of the contracts now and decide whether you agree to them being valid?'
without the question of SCOG not having authority being changed in any way.
The judge fixed his gaze on SCOG during the later court proceedings and warned
them, explicitly, that they must allow the financial and contract audits going
forward. He had assumed that the financial data obtained by Novell during
discovery was sufficient to make a financial audit moot for the MS and Sun
contracts, but Novell told him that this was not true.
What the judge did not comment on was SCOG freezing the court case by going
bankrupt when they had told him they had no intention of so doing. I'm sure the
judge will ask them if, as they promised to Judge Gross, they had continued to
allow the audits and pay Novell the royalties as required by the APA. He will
ask them whether they had raised the issue of the Sun and MS contracts as a
result of his findings of 10th August. If they had not gone out of their way to
allow a belated validation of the two contracts I am sure that he will hang the
pdf in the smallest room in his court and find in Novell's favour.
As Judge Judy would say, that's all!
---
Regards
Ian Al
When nothing else makes sense, use Linux.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 06:19 AM EDT |
Either the licenses were invalid because SCO never got permission nor paid
royalties or they are valid and SCO converted the money illegally or they were
valid and not UNIX licenses.
I think MS can't really afford to admit that it was funding SCO with anti-trust
cases breathing down its neck.
So if the licenses were invalid:
1) will MS and Sun want their money back? I think they would have to at least
pretend they want it back.
2) Do they really need the licenses. I think they would have to pretend to have
really needed the licenses. Will MS and Sun be forced to rebuy those licenses
from Novell direct and essentially repay all that money?
3) Was SCO acting in a criminal way? It's a lot of money it seems to me.
If the licenses are valid and not UNIX licenses, what were MS and Sun actually
paying for? Can they afford to be seen to be funding SCO?
What a mess. Looks like there's going to be some major butt covering in the
near future.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
This isn't the usual overlength SCO guff, so SCO think they're onto something.
But does what is written in the APA concerning the Novell/SCO principal/agent
relationship trump SCO's "matter of law" argument? Novell's reply
should be interesting.
---
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Requiring Office $tandard Only For
Themselves[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
I see many comments here which all seem to view this development as though it
were a huge surprise, yet it has been mentioned on Groklaw many times before.
And, with all repect, if it's been so obvious to so many here I cannot believe
that it has completely escaped the attention of Novell's lawyers (but IANAL).
So, if we operate on the assumption that Novell's lawyers are not dumb enough to
work for SCO, what might be their way out of the apparent box created for them ?
I suspect the answer lies in the tense of Novell's requested declaration, that
Novell "had" no authority to enter into those agreements. This is
simply asking for a recognition by the court that Novell did not approve the
agreements prior to their establishment.
If Novell had approved the agreements, Novell would then be faced with having to
explain why they waited so long to ask for their cut. They would also be facing
issues of precedent for any subsequent agreements SCO may have signed, such as
the EV1 license. With the declaration they have requested, Novell forecloses any
such argument and has precedent on their side if SCO (or its mutant offspring)
tries something similar.
If Novell obtains the declaration, they can focus argument over what should
happen to the money : the motion mentions that this is intended to narrow issues
in court. Novell can choose (I suppose) to approve the agreements post facto or
to withhold their approval possibly resulting in further activity regarding
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. In the latter case it would be
particularly interesting to see whether Microsoft or Sun choose to enter into
similar agreements with Novell's approval and to ask for their money back from
the earlier agreements.
The court has already decided that Novell is entitled to a portion of the money
received by SCO on the basis that these are SVRX licenses. The court may pick
through SCO's arguments and decide that, far from Novell not being entitled to
the money, SCO is not entitled to keep the money either way - it must return it
to Microsoft and Sun or, if not, remit it to Novell. In that case SCO becomes
bankrupt pending appeal. I also suspect EV1 might be very interested if there
was a finding by the court that their license was invalid and SCO should not
have demanded money for it.
Finally, we need to bear in mind that Novell was the defendant in this case and
the first goal is to end the litigation without being crippled. Novell's lawyers
have targeted the money which funded the litigation, because without it the
litigation dies. In that respect, it doesn't matter where the money goes so long
as SCO don't have it anymore (in fact they'll be deep in the red, or deep in
something anyway).
To summarize, despite SCO's caterwauling, Novell's requested declaration doesn't
decide what happens to the money - it merely makes a statement that Novell had
no authority to enter into the agreements which brought the money. And I don't
think Novell's lawyers are dumb at all.
-------------------
Nigel Whitley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
I don't agree with the SCO law suit, but I have always wondered if this argument
was valid. My thoughts were....
If the SCOsource was not approved by NOVELL, would it be NULL and VOID?
If it was NULL and VOID, who is obligated to tell MICROSOFT and SUN etc? Do
they get their money back?
I'm no lawer, but this seems like an ok argument. What am I missing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
If I remember correctly, money from sales of SVRX licenses should be paid 100%
to Novell and then Novell gives SCOG a 5% fee.
If SCOG enter into a license without authorisation, the money isn't their's it
is Novell's and I'm not sure that Novell has to give them the 5%.
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 09:56 AM EDT |
Sorry your honor, we are not guilty of stealing any money from Novell, we
couldn't have since as they claim we were not authorized to sell a license and
do not own the copyrights.
It was a fraud, and since we have not been charged with fraud this case must be
dismissed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tz on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
Which Novell had no part in, so Sun and Microsoft gave gobs of cash for the
title to nothing?
Possible - I've read classic con games where the customer is left with a bag of
cut-up newspaper instead of bills, or a mutt instead of a pedigreed dog.
Hey, Microsoft!, Sun!, FBI/DOJ/Spitz.. well the first few, charge SCO with
running a pigeon drop.
SCO = Scammy Congame Operator
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
I would love to see Microsoft or Sun now put in a claim against SCO for
falsifying the agreements and demanding their money back. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
Did Novell just succeed at forcing SCOG into a position where: if SCOG wins,
they loose.
Let's see...
If Novell wins, SCOG looses.
If
SCOG wins, but the court finds SCOG entered agreements they were not entitiled
to, SCOG looses.
I'm not sure how SCOG's alternative argument would
work as I can't see the court agreeing with SCOG that Novell authorized the
licenses. This one is an unknown.
So the only way SCOG can win is if the
Judge finds a fact in dispute and declines to rule as a PSJ.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 01:46 PM EDT |
Criminal charges should be filed!<br>
If we substitute a real asset such as water or electricity for 'svrx licenses',
the absurdity of their claims show criminality.<br>
Lets assume the agreement was for SCO to collect payments for water or
electricity, and to not sell to any new accounts without Novell's
approval.<br>
What SCO did then was to sell Novell's assets and keep the cash. However, SCO is
now claiming that if they aren't allowed to keep the money, it should be
returned to the buyer? Then where's Novell's compensation for these third
parties using it's assets?<br>
Granted, the assets in question are 'infinite' IP assets, as opposed to
something finite, like water or electricity, but that makes no
difference.<br>
How ironic is that? That SCO would accuse IBM, 'Linux', and others of stealing
UNIX assets, when this is exactly what they have done?<br> IMHO, SCO's
chief cook and bottle washer, Mr. McBride should leave the courtroom in
handcuffs .<br>
Of course, this post is my opinion and may or may not reflect the views of
Groklaw, it's owners, assignees, employees, lackeys or other posters to this
site. My opinion is what it is, and this post reflects that and nothing more -
my opinion.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 13 2008 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
According to the SCO interpretation, either SCO had the authority to enter into
the license agreements in which case monies are due Novell or SCO did not have
the authority and the monies are due the licensees. In other words either the
4th claim is valid or the 6, 7, and 8th claims are.
The reasoning goes that since Novell has not assented to the licenses then they
are invalid if SCO did not have the authority. In which case all the money
should go back to the licensees.
What we seem to be overlooking is the fact that until a court judgment regarding
SCO's authority is made, Novell has no standing to accept or decline the
licenses. Until that happens, we must operate under the assumption that SCO had
that authority. When the matter of authority is cleared up, Novell is then free
to make whatever decision suits them.
SCOs entire argument is based on Novell's repudiation of the licenses but no
such action has occurred since Novell does not yet have standing to do so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|