decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Exhibit A to SCO's Notice to Cure Continued
Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 03:43 PM EDT

Another 100 or so pages of lists of contracts and leases, quite a few from last century, SCO's Exhibit A continued, attached to SCO's Notice to Cure:
07/10/2009 - 833 - Exhibit A (Continued) to Notice of Cure Amounts in Connection with the Assumption and Assignment of Unexpired Leases and Executory Contracts (related document(s) 815 , 832 ) Filed by The SCO Group, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 2 # 2 Exhibit A Part 3) (Makowski, Kathleen) (Entered: 07/10/2009)

I see what looks like some duplication, but the final pages of the first PDF are interesting, where SCO lists contracts with money due various folks. This continuation of Exhibit A is in three parts, around a hundred pages in all. The first part of the second PDF is intriguing, in that they didn't just copy some old lists. There is a note, which to my mind doesn't seem to support SCO's trial theories about UNIX and Unixware.

Here's the relevant part of the note:
1) In all cases, (except for Open Source components) binary distribution rights are limited to UNIX or UnixWare products. Definitions vary somewhat, but the intent is often to limit binary sublicensing to products substantially based on UnixWare.
2) Veritas and Symbios source licenses are limited to support of UnixWare -- e.g., OEM reselling UnixWare and wanting to provide customer support. We cannot license this source for any other purposes.
3) Binary distribution of our license manager does not make sense -- it is of value only for our product and for use with licenses sold by SCO
4) Source code to the SGI NF8 graphics driver can only be delivered for use in creating a product that is compatible with an SCO UnixWare Operating System.
Isn't that weird? It's arguing a point on a list. And excuse me for remembering, but didn't SCO swear on a Bible at the trial in Utah in SCO v. Novell, that UNIX and UnixWare are the same thing and that the only way to get UNIX any more was to license UnixWare?
Darl McBride: SCO -- that is correct. SCO UnixWare is a little bit unique in this diagram in that it serves both as the trunk of the tree and also as a branch.

And so if somebody came to the company and said, we want to get the core intellectual property to UNIX, and we want to take a license for that, for example, IBM did that with us in 1998, we said, okay, if you want to get core access to the UNIX intellectual property or the trunk code, the way you do that is through a UnixWare license. So UnixWare is unique compared to any of these other branches in that the core trunk is where the UNIX intellectual property was held was inside of UnixWare.

Q. Well, isn't it true that when you arrived in Caldera in late 2002, you realized that the revenues from the branches UnixWare and OpenServer were, in your words, marching south and dying off; correct?

A. They were under severe competition from primarily Linux but also from others. But, yes, they had been going south for a number of years.

Q. And because the revenues from the branches UnixWare and OpenServer were marching south and dying off, your strategy was to focus on maximizing the value of the trunk; correct?

A. In part, that's correct.

Q. And the trunk of the tree is the core SVRX code; correct?

A. We call it different things along the way. Sometimes we call it SCO UNIX; sometimes we call it System V; and sometimes we call it SVRX; sometimes we call it UnixWare. But it's all basically the core IP UNIX.

Q. And that's the core IP that dates back at AT&T?

A. It started at AT&T, but it had evolved dramatically over the years.

Q. And it was the core UNIX IP that you and Mr. Sontag and others sought to mine with the SCO source program at SCO in 2002 through 2004; correct?

A. We sought to take the core UNIX ownership rights that we had that were primarily embodied in UnixWare and be able to get more value in the marketplace out of that core intellectual property.

Q. But you don't know, do you, whether all of the code from the core UNIX IP exists in UnixWare; correct?

A. The core -- no, that's not correct. The core code of UnixWare is where the older versions of UNIX have been embodied. It's been that way for years. I worked at Novell, and it was the case then and it's the case now 15 years later.

Q. But my question is, do you know if every line of code of the trunk here, do you know if every line of code in this trunk exists in UnixWare?

A. I know that if you want to license the trunk code, you'd have to do it through UnixWare.

Q. That wasn't my question. My question was, do you know if every line of code in the UnixWare, this core trunk exists in UnixWare?

A. That's my understanding.

I don't know, but I'm thinking perhaps they read Groklaw. If not, maybe they should. It would enhance consistency. And might a bystander like myself begin to wonder why unXis wants to buy assets that the CEO himself testified have been "going south" for years? If unXis isn't interested in the litigation, where's the business plan here?

And look at the first PDF, page 30, the last page. It's the end of Exhibit A-1, a list of 3rd party software licenses for UnixWare and OpenServer. It shows HP as 3rd party licensor of something listed as Open Desktop Secureware, and SCO lists it as "Obsolete - Special Order". Open Desktop is UNIX, not UnixWare. You can see that in this press release, which was sent out by SCO to announce the partnering with SecureWare:

The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) and SecureWare have launched the first commercial product to allow users to run UNIX and Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) MS DOS and MS Windows 3.1 applications at distinct security levels within separate windows on a single Intel desktop....A secure version of SCO UnixWare is also available.
It pays to go over this kind of filing with care to details. That's where you guys come in. Many eyeballs.

  


Exhibit A to SCO's Notice to Cure Continued | 141 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 04:00 PM EDT
Please post clue as to the nature of correction in subject line, e.g.

somethought --> some thought



---
"Mail-order schools lure fledgling code jockeys with promises of big bucks and
excitement. But a new survey finds hirings are rare." Computerworld, 12/11/95

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic thread
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 04:02 PM EDT

Best viewed with clickies...

---
"Mail-order schools lure fledgling code jockeys with promises of big bucks and excitement. But a new survey finds hirings are rare." Computerworld, 12/11/95

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspick discussions
Authored by: hardmath on Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 04:04 PM EDT
Please indicate the topic under discussion by using the newspick headline in the
subject line...


---
"Mail-order schools lure fledgling code jockeys with promises of big bucks and
excitement. But a new survey finds hirings are rare." Computerworld, 12/11/95

[ Reply to This | # ]

ref?
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 06:16 PM EDT
"And excuse me for remembering, but didn't SCO swear on a Bible that UNIX
and UnixWare are the same thing and that the only way to get UNIX any more was
to license UnixWare?"

While I don't disbelief that statement by SCO, it would be even more interesting
if it had direct quotes supporting it it, especially if made by SCO in US
Courts.

Can any of those be found in the myriad of docs submitted to courts by SCO?

.

---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit A to SCO's Notice to Cure Continued
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 07:25 PM EDT
It looks to me as if all of SCO's lies are coming back to take a bite out of
them. I am sure if they new then what they do now they would have been a lot
more careful of what was said

[ Reply to This | # ]

Exhibit A to SCO's Notice to Cure Continued
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, July 11 2009 @ 09:57 PM EDT
"And excuse me for remembering, but didn't SCO swear on a Bible at the
trial in Utah in SCO v. Novell, that UNIX and UnixWare are the same thing and
that the only way to get UNIX any more was to license UnixWare?"

What are the legal implications of this? Could Novell take this back to the
Utah court to show the Microsoft money is their's to? Could this be grounds for
perjury charges?

---
Self Assembling Möbius Strip - See other side for details.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting entries in the list ---
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 12 2009 @ 10:52 AM EDT
Page 28 in the second PDF --
ME, Inc Roll-Up Account, End User License, 11 instances

So SCO issued 11 "Packaged Product" licenses to it's
subsidiary ME, Inc. Why?

Every other End User seems to be one license per address.
Even McDonalds's has only 3 listings to cover thousands of
franchise locations POS terminals. Lucent has four entries,
probably to cover their embedded switches in every local
office, which translates into thousands of multiprocessor
machines.

SCO also lists itself as each subsidiary, with an "Internal
Order" but then we see SCO Benelux, SCO Internal Orders, SCO
India, SCO China ... which makes you wonder, which
subsidiaries were "internal" versus which were joint
ventures and which were owned by other parties but titled as
SCO entities?

SCO Benelux? Really? Never heard of them before.
Why were SCO UK and SCO Japan treated as separate entities?
Rather than internal subs?

And "White House Communications" is an "End User" license,
not a "Government Sales" as many others.

Then look closely at the columns labeled State and ZIP.
It turns out that sales outside the US may be recorded by
city name with no country. See Zonik and Xlink, Seoul for
examples.

Last, look at page 29 or 30 -- 833-2.pdf -- we have a
special class of customers under Packaged Products that
includes AT&T, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Novell, SGI,
Siemens, Sun Microsystems. But oddly, not IBM.

If you look closely, you'll see IBM has a single OEM
license, but otherwise nothing. Contrast that with how
Microsoft, Novell, Siemans AG, SCO and Sun are treated.
Apparently IBM is not considered a major licensee, even
though it has a perpetual, irrevocable source code license.

And if you look, Autozone and Daimler-Chysler are not
listed. Apparently once SCO revokes your license, you are
not listed, even if you are in litigation to resolve exactly
what your license rights are. Since this is a CURE list, it
seems odd that they are not listed with a Potential
Liability applied to them.

After all, if IBM has lost it's irrevocable license, should
it not get back it's $10M license fee? Wouldn't that be a
Cure amount?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO UnixWare/UNIX license
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 13 2009 @ 01:18 PM EDT
I have a problem with Darl's UnixWare license scheme. If every license is
UnixWare, then how do they account for UNIX licenses? How does Novell get paid,
since they are not paid for UnixWare license (as far as I know). I read in
several SEC filings where they keep it separate, so there has to be some
division. So what happens if Company A wants UNIX. SCO sells them a UnixWare
license, but they don't want or need anything from UnixWare. How does Novell get
paid then? To me, that is another scheme to avoid paying UNIX royalties to
Novell.

I know, I know. They probably won't get anything anyway. But let's pretend they
actually intend to pay what is owed.

[ 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 )