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
Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:12 PM EDT

Today is our anniversary, guys. Unbelievably, Groklaw is five years old today. And we're still standing, still here, still working together. I know. Amazing. Who knew we'd still be together after five years?

We have the transcript of the summary judgment motions that were argued on April 30th, in the middle of the SCO v. Novell trial. But there's an odd notice on the Docket list. We actually have had the transcript for a couple of days, but there is this notice on the court's docket:

**RESTRICTED DOCUMENT** TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on April 30, 2008-Motion for Summary Judgment before Judge Dale A. Kimball. Court Reporter/Transcriber Laura W. Robinson, CSR, RPR, CP, [Telephone number].

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding. The policy and forms are located on the court's website at www.utd.uscourts.gov. Please read this policy carefully. If no Notice of Intent to Redact is filed within the allotted time, this transcript will be made electronically available on the date set forth below. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/4/2008. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/16/2008. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/12/2008. (jmr)

So that is the holdup. I'm trying to find out if we can publish the version we purchased. I think the notice is something Utah does for all transcripts now, and I see nothing in the transcript that would qualify as something secret. But out of respect, I'm waiting until I can make sure. However, while we wait, there is nothing stopping me from telling you what I read, and once the ban is lifted, I'll provide the PDF.

So here's what I gleaned from the transcript:

I enjoyed reading this transcript more than any of the other trial transcripts. If you only had time to read one transcript, this is the one, since it sums up the two sides' positions.

Something happened at this hearing that's a first in my experience. When the judge asked Novell how long it would need to argue its motion, Morrison & Foerster's Michael Jacobs said, "Five minutes." Even the judge, the Hon. Dale A. Kimball, seemed surprised. I've never heard a lawyer say he only needs five minutes if he has a hour available, should he want it. It made me smile.

SCO's lawyer, Stuart Singer, then was asked how much time he needed, and he says he was going to say ten minutes, but now he'll try to cut it down. So, it's all very friendly. The only reason the transcript isn't two paragraphs or so each is because SCO's Ted Normand says he needs 20 minutes for the second motion, SCO's motion. I think that might be because he has to argue the very opposite of Stuart Singer, who has just claimed that Novell shouldn't win because they didn't try to stop SCO from doing SCOsource and never complained to them about it at the time, so estoppel blocks Novell's requested relief. Poor Mr. Normand then has to stand up and argue that Novell definitely has repudiated the Sun and Microsoft SCOsource agreements. Definitely. No doubt about it. It's SCO in a nutshell. Alice in Wonderland to the end. Most of his minutes are spent on the pointless argument that Novell shouldn't get the money; it should be repaid to Sun and Microsoft. If I were the judge, I'd be very interested to know why SCO is so fixated on that point. What's the game here? And here's my favorite SCO argument:

We read the court's August 2007 order as leaving open for determination in this trial as to whether we owe Novell money.

Here. Read the order yourself:

Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement.

The issue is how much. Not whether or not. It's so SCO. Quintessential SCO, to read those words in the order and then stand before the judge who wrote them and claim the trial is about whether SCO owes Novell any money or not.

If you sat them down and threatened to torture them if they didn't tell the truth, they'd probably tell you that it is the truth, that they argue it's a de minimis amount owed, if anything, and hence they owe nothing. That's technically true, that statement, in that it matches their position, if you look at it like that. But it is misleading about what the order says. For real. So, why would they change their spots now? I just feel sorry for the Boies boys, having to stand up in public and say things like that. Actually, they don't *have* to.

Then SCO asks for reconsideration of the 2007 order! They already submitted a motion asking for that precise relief and were denied. Very bold. They base their request, in part, aside from just panache on the fact that they say Novell didn't turn over their letters to Sun and Microsoft until April 29th, the day the trial started. That's "crucial new evidence", you see. Like SCO didn't know about it already and couldn't have brought it to the court's attention in their motion for reconsideration. Normand argues:

And second, Novell's production yesterday of the September 2007 letters is crucial new evidence. I think that would have been very relevant for the court to know if at the time of the summary judgment ruling it had been made clear that Novell had rejected these agreements and at the same time was acknowledging the possibility of remittance.

They are a scream. But if I had to say something like that, I'd need a drink afterward. More seriously, it's not true that Novell never protested against SCOsource. SCO seems to have issues with short term memory, but as I recall they brought SCO v. Novell in the first place because Novell announced to the world that they owned the Unix copyrights and were nixing SCO's behavior. The letters Novell sent privately to SCO in addition were eventually made publicly available by Novell on its website, for crying out loud. We have their PDFs as text here. The very first letter Jack Messman, then CEO, sent to SCO on May 28, 2003, after he read SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers", ended like this:

SCO's actions are disrupting business relations that might otherwise form at a critical time among partners around Linux technologies, and are depriving these partners of important economic opportunities. We hope you understand the potential significant legal liability SCO faces for the possible harm it is causing to countless customers, developers and other Linux community members. SCO's actions, if carried forward, will lead to the loss of sales and jobs, delayed projects, cancelled financing, and a balkanized Linux community.

We, like others, are concerned about the direction of SCO's campaign. For now, we demand that SCO either promptly state its Linux infringement allegations with specificity or recant the accusation made in your letter. Further, we demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions of ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive information regarding SCO's ownership claims. In the future, we hope SCO will adhere to standards of strict accuracy when stating its rights in UNIX.

And as for demanding its share, Novell absolutely did so, contrary to SCO's argument at this hearing. For example, here's a portion of a letter from then General Counsel Joseph LaSala to Darl McBride back on June 24, 2003:

It has come to our attention that SCO may have violated these provisions. In particular, SCO reported in a recent securities filing that SCO has established a program to review existing licenses, and enter into new licenses, relating to UNIX and that this effort "resulted in the execution of two license agreements" during the quarter ended April 30, 2003. The securities filing states:
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.

SCO's actions regarding the licenses referenced in the securities filings and SCO's plans for future licenses cannot be reconciled with Novell's rights and SCO's obligations under the Asset Purchase Agreement provisions quoted above.

Therefore, we demand as follows:

1. Immediately provide to Novell copies of the two agreements in question, and any other agreements in which SCO purports to amend, modify or waive rights under any SVRX license (including any transaction that concerns a buy-out of licensee royalties) or to enter into any new SVRX license, together with any explanation you might offer as to why you believe these agreements are permissible under the Asset Purchase Agreement.

2. Effective immediately, do not enter into any further agreement in which SCO purports to amend (except for amendments permissible under the penultimate sentence of Section 4.16(b)), modify or waive rights under any SVRX license (including any transaction that concerns a buy-out of licensee royalties) or to enter into any new SVRX license.

3. Effective immediately, comply with SCO's obligations under Amendment No. 2 for management of any potential transaction with any SVRX licensee that concerns a buy-out of such licensee's royalty obligations, including immediately ceasing all negotiations and other communications with licensees concerning any such transaction without Novell's prior written consent and continued participation.

Once we have the relevant information, we can address the resolution of any violation of the Asset Purchase Agreement, including payment of SVRX royalties and other amounts owed to Novell based on the above-mentioned license agreements.

Sincerely,

Joseph A. LaSala, Jr.

And it's also not true that Novell hasn't been harmed by the Sun and Microsoft agreements. There is no way, Novell witnesses testified, that Novell would have agreed to Sun open sourcing Solaris, for example, because it placed it in direct competition with Linux. That is harm. You can verify that by reading the closing arguments by Novell at trial and in the testimony of Joseph LaSala on day one of the trial.

As for SCO's argument that Novell shouldn't get to "hold" the money, that it should be restored to the SCOsource licensees, Jacobs just points out the simple fact that none of them showed up asking for their money back. And then he says something that would make me very nervous if I were Sun:

Number one, the third parties aren't here. In the cases that SCO is advancing in the sections of restatement that SCO is talking about, we're talking about three way disputes. We should not be ourselves penalized for proceeding step wise to determine -- to be absolutely sure that SCO didn't have the authority to enter into these agreements before we go off and create our own imbroglio in the computer industry by filing lawsuits and creating uncertainty about whether code is infringing or isn't infringing.

So the fact that we have decided to proceed, if you will, between SCO and Novell first, means that our situation is different from the situations that SCO is citing in the case law....

Novell is ultimately going to have to work out with Sun and with Microsoft and the SCO source licensees exactly what happened here and exactly what should follow as a consequence.

In other words, Novell asks, why is SCO arguing their case? They are not here asking for restitution. If they are unhappy about Novell getting money from SCO, it's a matter for discussion or dispute between Novell and the third parties later, after the court clarifies whether SCO had the right to enter into SCOsource licenses, that it isn't an issue for SCO and Novell to sort out now. Novell would like a court ruling first, and then it can decide what to do next. After all, SCO doesn't stand in Sun's or Microsoft's shoes, Jacobs says.

Er.... That depends on how you define your terms and in what context you speak, eh? Heh heh. Anyway, I think you will love reading how Jacobs responds to SCO's cases, beginning on page 22. He also says this, so I don't think Sun needs to hyperventilate just yet:

There are all sorts of intermediate scenarios between Novell saying at the end of all of this oh yeah those agreements are fine, no problem. And by the way, whatever we said about SCO breaching, whatever we said about their breach of our fiduciary duties, whatever the court's findings that they breached, oh, this is all retroactive, a ratification back to 2003.

SCO then responds in a way that explains to me why they never offered any financial breakdown on what SCO thinks it owes Novell. I discern it's because it's SCO's position that they don't have to account to Novell unless or until Novell ratifies:

They're affected because if you ratify, you're in the principal agent box. It is at that point once the principal has ratified the agent's act, once the principal has ratified the agent's act, the agent is subject to a fiduciary duty to account to the principal.

If I've understood the argument, it's taking a very big chance. Novell's Jacobs has just explained to the judge that it isn't disputing that Novell and SCO are in a principal/agent relationship. On that fiduciary basis, SCO does need to account. Perhaps SCO is gambling that it will make sense to an appeals court.

One final note for history: SCO dropped its laughable claim of "unclean hands" against Novell. It should never, in my view, have made such a claim, but in any case SCO is "not pursuing that aspect of the defense" any more. That was for the peanut gallery.

If I were IBM, I'd be smiling, though. SCO has now said in open court that the older UNIX code has almost no value, and since SCO sued IBM for gazillions for allegedly misusing that older UNIX code, back when SCO was telling the world that it owned it, I'd call that home free for IBM. Like they are worried anyway.

And frankly no one much cares what happens with these two motions, because, as Jacobs puts it, events have overtaken the motions. They were already in the trial while arguing the motions, and there's no way the motions could be decided in advance of the trial, so they just had to soldier on.

Why did the judge schedule it this way? Just a guess, but remember all the motion prancing and dancing in SCO v. IBM and in this litigation too with the sur-sur-replies and the motions for reconsideration and/or clarification and requests for final orders so SCO could run to appeals court? That happened in SCO v. Novell too, although in a shorter time framework, so you have to look to the IBM case to see the Boies Schiller guys really show you how to dance The Motion. Whether or not it was the judge's intention to detour around all that, it is the effect. There is no point filing motions as a delay mechanism, when you know they won't be heard until the trial is already under way. Capice? Wink, wink. Just a guess, though. Of course, SCO managed to ask for reconsideration live and on their dancing feet at this hearing.

You can find all the links to the filings for the two motions here.

One final point. At the beginning of the hearing, Judge Kimball says, "... I see all the usual suspects here and present." Whatever do you suppose Judge Dale Kimball had on his mind that made him humorously open up like this? Or am I getting too Freudian in my dotage?


  


Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30 | 301 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: chriseyre2000 on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:28 PM EDT
Place your corrections here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here.
Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:29 PM EDT
Happy Birthday, Groklaw!

Oh, uh, and off topic goes here.

---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT
Congrats and happy anniversary!

Incredible that this stuff has been dragging on so long... but what an education
you've afforded us, PJ, along with all the contributors! A big thanks to you
all!


...D

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks discussion here.
Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:37 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:38 PM EDT
Congrats on the fifth Anniversary! Enjoyed it all the way.

Any ideas about when the verdict will come in? It seems odd that it takes this
long, espicially if it HAD been a jury, they would have been expected to rule by
now. Thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:54 PM EDT
Happy birthday Groklaw!

ejraka32

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: wholeflaffer on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:08 PM EDT
Congratulations, PJ and all of the folks that have made this place the fountain
of knowledge and clarity that it is!

A thousand thanks for finding a way to keep things civilized, yet stimulating,
for this long - a feat not to be even lightly sneezed upon.

Now, to celebrate Groklaw's Fifth, I plan to dedicate a fifth of my own for
Happy Hour (T.G.I.F.!)...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:18 PM EDT
"... I see all the usual suspects here and present." Whatever do you suppose Judge Dale Kimball had on his mind that made him humorously open up like this?


Maybe he had been watching Casablanca?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"... dance The Motion. " ???
Authored by: jbeadle on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:18 PM EDT
Heh. Seems to me they've been dancing The Loco Motion...

-jb

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everyone in Utah is doing a brand new dance, yeah
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:21 PM EDT
C'mon, baby. Do the loco motion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Happy birthday Groklaw, and congratulations PJ.
Authored by: billyskank on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT
Groklaw has made a difference, and I don't think there's any more meaningful
praise than that.

Here's to you.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

From Lyer Lyer:
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:46 PM EDT
Objection your Honor!

On what Grounds?

That its devestating to my case!?!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:48 PM EDT
"and I see nothing in the transcript that would qualify as something
secret"

So, I guess we can rule out it containing any of SCO's "evidence".
;-)

---
If it's green and in my fridge, it's been there too long.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:49 PM EDT
<blockquote>PJ said: "But if I had to say something like that, I'd
need a drink afterward."</blockquote>
<p>I think I would have had to be pretty well snockered
<i>before</i> I could get up in front of a judge and say silly
things like that.</p>

[ Reply to This | # ]

and the middle eastern connection is...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:51 PM EDT
I gather from this statement, "... I see all the usual suspects here and
present."

the middle east investor connection is Kaiser Soze..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:56 PM EDT
Maybe they should put SCO's lawyers under oath. Of course for fairness they'd
have to put Novell's under oath too, but I don't think Novell would have a
problem with that.

Wouldn't it be fun to watch SCO's counsel dance around that? ;-)

Shades of "Liar, Liar!"

---
Trusted computing:
It's not about, "Can you trust your computer?"
It's all about, "Can your computer trust you?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:05 PM EDT
Such a lot has changed since the start of this , technology wise. Ah, the joys
of a dial-up internet connection.
Still, the old dial-up prevented your account from being blocked, as happens now
with a static IP address.
I suppose we should be looking forward to the next five years;>)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: brooker on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:17 PM EDT
Over the years whenever I'd read about various historical events, I wondered how
it must have felt to have lived during those times, to see great events unfold
in person.

For instance, I think how amazing would it have been to be in the cafe where the
early Impressionist artists regularly met! To listen and learn and be inspired
by their passion for their art.

Groklaw gives me the same feeling of amazement, only this time I can be a part
of it, even if only a very tiny, unimportant part. Even more amazingly it's a
place that's open to the world, so anyone can come in to listen and learn and be
inspired too.

Congratulations to Groklaw for an incredible 5 years! Thank You PJ for all your
hard work and dedication, and also for your amazing patience and good humour.

And Thank You to the members of Groklaw that regularly make comments and share
ideas and information and humour. Fortunately I've never ruined a keyboard from
laughing out loud, but I've definitely laughed out loud many times.

Groklaw is a fascinating place to watch history in the making...and always
bright spot in my day.

brooker

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you PJ
Authored by: DannyB on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:28 PM EDT
PJ, thank you for the tremendous effort you put into this site. It is a
resource for the entire open source community and others as well. Apparently,
even for SCO.

You get a lot of criticism. Much of it undeserved. Nobody is perfect. Nobody.
Just keep doing what you believe is right. Sometimes it will be a mistake.
Most of the time it will be the right thing to do.

You must be doing something right considering who the worst of your critics are.
An IBM agent, indeed. :-)

You may never know how much you are accomplishing. Your work speaks well of you
and may outlive you by a very long time. It is possible that something you
write could stay online for a very long time.

You may affect the course of the industry, for the better, and not even know it.
(It's A Wonderful Life)

Oh, and I sure hope you write a book.

Thank you again for your award winning site.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO need Bob Barker on their team
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:45 PM EDT
Their theory of ratify first then we'll tell you seems like a game on "The
Price Is Right".

Pick Door number 1 for Ratify and Door Number 2 for repudiate.

What's behind Door Number 1? A deminimus payment.
What's behind Door Number 2? SCO keeps all the money.

---
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 | # ]

"It's so SCO." Why Is SCO Now Saying What It Is Saying?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 03:23 PM EDT
Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion. The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement.
But that begs the question. Since a judge has concluded the above; is the above what SCO put in it's Prospectus? Or did SCO put some of the following:
Poor Mr. Normand then has to stand up and argue that Novell definitely has repudiated the Sun and Microsoft SCOsource agreements. Definitely. No doubt about it. It's SCO in a nutshell. Alice in Wonderland to the end. Most of his minutes are spent on the pointless argument that Novell shouldn't get the money; it should be repaid to Sun and Microsoft. If I were the judge, I'd be very interested to know why SCO is so fixated on that point. What's the game here? And here's my favorite SCO argument:
We read the court's August 2007 order as leaving open for determination in this trial as to whether we owe Novell money.

Either the judge is wrong or SCO is wrong. And if SCO is wrong; then some of the statements in the Prospectus are wrong. If that's the case. what should happen with respect to the justice system?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: vruz on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM EDT
About five years ago, my niece was just about to be born. In these last five years, she has learnt to walk, feed herself, pee and poo in the right places at the right time.
She has learnt to speak, paint, and write.
It has been an incredible trip to experience it all first-hand, all the while I was balancing a career, study and hard work.

And then there was room to do this and stand up for the right thing.

It's unbelievable and a real sad thing how this people, SCO and associated mobsters-- have achieved absolutely nothing, and have been trying to constantly drag everybody else involved.

They didn't succeed, at whatever they were trying to do-- and here we are today.
All the time getting one inch closer to this particular goalpost.

There's other bigger challenges ahead, and it may take our lives, and the lives of the next generation, for freedom is never granted with flair.

Here's us now, alive and kicking, and the satisfying feeling of having done our little work and our little part in the bigger contribution to history.

Chapeau PJ, Mathfox and gang, I salute you.


---
--- the vruz

[ Reply to This | # ]

Say What?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 03:45 PM EDT
Are you telling us the court has monetized proprietary name and address
information and now seeks to reinterpret the purchase agreement? Clearly
they've been hanging around SCO too long! ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Er ....? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 04:58 PM EDT
    • Er ....? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 06:54 PM EDT
      • Er ....? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 08:12 AM EDT
        • Er ....? - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 02:36 PM EDT
          • Er ....? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 03:00 PM EDT
Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: Rollyk on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:22 PM EDT
Five !! gol-lee where did the time go ?
Next five will be used to pursue FOSS, software patents and what-all. Don't
worry about Microsoft, Steve Ballmer will take care of it !

Much congrats to PJ, she is our leader! What a gal !

---
pay now, or pay later, there's no free lunch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Happy Anniversary Everyone!
Authored by: sumzero on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:26 PM EDT
I would like to thank PJ and all the regular contributors, both to the work and
to the forums. It's been an exciting ride!

sum.zero

---
48. The best book on programming for the layman is "alice in wonderland"; but
that's because it's the best book on anything for the layman.

alan j perlis

[ Reply to This | # ]

balkanized Linux community - Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing..
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 07:41 PM EDT
"...balkanized Linux community..."

I find it ironic that in this letter, Novell is concerned about a balkanized
Linux
Community, when only a few years later Novell signs a pact with Microsoft
which has much more divided the Linux community.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I was going to send you "Happy Birthday".....
Authored by: bigbert on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 08:41 PM EDT
.... but of course it's copyrighted and the RIAA will probably sue.

So I'll just hum it then.....

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five... WOW, what a ride its been,
Authored by: gfolkert on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 08:53 PM EDT
I remember about 5 years ago, I was being contacted to host a website. It was on
behalf of someone I didn't know but had a similar problem with Caldera/SCO at
the time. We had a mutual friend initialed KMS.

All I can say is; I am glad, very glad a certain person decided to use Ibiblio
hosting.

I could not have carried as much traffic. I could not have given best of class
service. Though the pricing would have been right. That was least of the worries
though.

Good job PJ, for not choosing my hosting company. Though I could probably have
built an entire corporation around this website it would have had a lot of
pains... more than we have had.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 09:03 PM EDT
Five long years!

Good Lord.

Still remember radiouserland with the little pop-up comments box...

Cheers




---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thought tax and the Music Biz
Authored by: Rollyk on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 09:46 PM EDT
Remember recently a mid-profile suspect announced to the world that we ALL
should be paying a $5 per month fee, payable to the Music Biz for using the
'net. That, is not yet dead.
Will explain privately, only.

---
pay now, or pay later, there's no free lunch.

[ Reply to This | # ]

V
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 16 2008 @ 11:32 PM EDT
Apologies to the movie

Voluptuous vixen vanquishes veterate vermin verily.

Vainglorious varmints vastly viewed a variety of veiled schemas as a rich valley
of wealth.

Voting valuable code to voucher volition eventually invented vacuum.

Validate verity prevails over vamping.

X vill be more difficult.

Happy Vth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So when will Harvard biz/law do the course(s)?
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 12:11 AM EDT
so using the Body Of Work generated by this site how many and which
schools/subjects could a Uni do courses?

off hand i would say a few basic and not so basic business courses and a few
courses over in the Law School

Somebody needs to Carve in Stone the message

DO NOT TRY THIS STUNT AGAIN YOU WILL FAIL

The Eye Of Pamela Jones can not be avoided but anyway
who thought that going up against a firm like Morrison and Forrester AND NOT
HAVE THE TRUTH ON YOUR SIDE would be a good idea??

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Birthday Dirge
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 01:39 AM EDT

THE BARBARIAN BIRTHDAY DIRGE

Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]
Doom, destruction and despair,
Grief and sorrow fill the air,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

Birthdays come but once a year,
Marking time as Death draws near,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

May the cities in your wake
Burn like candles on your cake,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

You must marry very soon,
Baby's due the next full moon,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

Your servants steal, your wife's untrue,
Your children plot to murder you,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

They stole your sword, your gold, your house,
Took your sheep but not your spouse,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

When you've reached this age you know
That the mind is first to go,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]


While you eat your birthday stew
We will loot the town for you,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

Indigestion's what you get
From the enemies you 'et,
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

So far Death you have bypassed
Don't look back, she's gaining fast
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

We brought linen, white as cloud,
Now we'll sit and sew your shroud,


Just be glad the friends you've got
Haven't found out you-know-what!
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [Hunh!]

This one lesson you must learn,
_First_ you plunder, _then_ you burn!
Happy Birthday. [Hunh!] Happy Birthday. [ARRrr!!]

May the children in the Street
Be your barbecueing Meat

May the Candles for your Cake
Leave a fire in their Wake

---
Wayne

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: AH1 on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 03:33 AM EDT
PJ, I am sorry to say this but I am not certain that I am happy that Groklaw
turned 5. If the courts would have curtailed the nonsense that has been the
plethora of TSG nonsense motions earlier then this case would have gone away
much earlier. Then again, if the courts would have done this Groklaw would
probably have not been given the opportunity expand its focus to include the
broader legal issues facing the Open Source community. This case has been both
a benefit and a bane to the community. It has hurt the acceptance of Linux by
the IT community. It has also given Groklaw the audience to allow it focus the
microscope on certain software developers with "ethical" issues. I do
not doubt that the ISO certification of OOXML would have sailed through if it
weren't for Groklaw focusing the attention of the Open Source community on the
issue. I guess that makes the last five years of TSG lawsuit nonsense
worthwhile. Happy Birthday and keep up the good work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO on the Side of the Angels - Shock! Horror!
Authored by: elderlycynic on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 03:49 AM EDT
PJ writes:

And it's also not true that Novell hasn't been harmed by the Sun and
Microsoft agreements. There is no way, Novell witnesses testified, that
Novell would have agreed to Sun open sourcing Solaris, for example,
because it placed it in direct competition with Linux. That is harm. ...

Well, Novell blocking Sun from open-sourcing Solaris would have
been the antithesis of what the "open source movement" is all
about so, in this respect, SCO has been acting as a force for good.
I am sure that wasn't intentional, and they will pay for that when
facing their masters after judgement day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

No, We are hundreds!!!
Authored by: crs17 on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 05:28 AM EDT
Hi and congratulations PJ and everyone.

I first read this headline to read "We are five [people, or something like
that doing I knew not what]." It felt pretty silly like that because, of
course, we are a large group of extraordinary people who have come together in a
fantastic way.

So happy fifth birthday. I've been around here since just after SCO originally
threatened linux users in late 2003 or early 2004. During that time I also
started travelling for a period of two years and now I've been living in Uganda
for the last year. So unless anyone objects, I'll claim the prize for reading
Groklaw from the most countries (37 although I never visited internet cafes as I
passed through Monaco and Luxembourg) and also the prize for the most internet
cafes used for Groklaw.

Craig

[ Reply to This | # ]

Five Years Ago
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 08:10 AM EDT

A quick look back:

  • On February 1, the space shuttle Columbia broke up and disintegrated on reentry, killing all aboard.

  • On August 15, much of the United States was engulfed in a massive blackout that left millions of Americans with no electrical power.

  • On October 7, California voters went to the polls for the first recall election in the state's history. Governor Davis was removed from office, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected as his replacement.

  • And, oh yeah, I almost forgot... on March 6, Caldera (d.b.a. The SCO Group) filed a lawsuit against IBM claiming misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, tortious interference, among other claims.

Happy Birthday, Groklaw. Onward and upward.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's crucial new evidence
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 09:54 AM EDT
Just echoing one of PJ's points here...

In August 2007 the US District Court in Utah rules for Novell that the Sun and
Microsoft agreements are, at least in part, SVRX licenses, and thus SCO is
obligated (in a measure to be determined at trial) to account to Novell for
monies received.

In September 2007 Novell writes letters to Sun and Microsoft calling into
question the status of those agreements as they may have exceeded SCO's
authority.

Now SCO touts Novell's letters, which reflect and do not contradict the court's
ruling of the prior month, as "new evidence" that justifies
reconsideration of that ruling.

Yes, they argue how unfair to SCO it was that Novell didn't produce those
September 2007 letters in advance of the August 2007 ruling. No doubt that
would have shed considerable light on the secret time travel technology used to
"wipe off the fingerprints" of contributions from Unix to Linux that
until recently occupied so much of SCO's thinking.

regards, hm


---
The time has come, The Darlus said, to squawk of many things.
Of Unixware and System V, and bankruptcy stock delistings.
(to be continued...)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Poor Mr. Normand
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 11:08 AM EDT
<<Poor Mr. Normand then has to stand up and argue that Novell definitely
has repudiated the Sun and Microsoft SCOsource agreements. Definitely. No doubt
about it.>>

Assuming that Mr. Normand demonstrated his usual eloquence, I imagine that one
should utilize a sneeze guard while reading the transcript.

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Pig-In-A-Poke Argument:
Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 06:35 PM EDT
As I see SCO's argument, Novell has to agree to what SCO did, before Novell has a right to find out precisely what they're agreeing to.

I do hope that the court finds that argument obscene.

(( When I read that argument, I was in a coffee shop, and my reaction was strong enough that 3 young women who were in an animated conversation (in german), stopped to stare at me. I have no idea as to what they were talking about when I blurted out my response, but they seem to think that I was responding to them ))

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Today We Are Five & What Happened at the Summary Judgment Hearing April 30
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 18 2008 @ 01:19 AM EDT
Within 7 calendar days of this filing, each party shall inform the Court, by filing a Notice of Intent to Redact, of the parties intent to redact personal data identifiers from the electronic transcript of the court proceeding.

Groklaw is not a party to the case, so under what obligation does it have to redact transcripts which were legally purchased from the court ?

[ 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 )