|
|
| Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Thompson & Chatlos |
 |
|
Wednesday, March 10 2010 @ 11:59 PM EST
|
Here's what the Salt Lake Tribune reports happened today at the SCO v. Novell trial, all of which it records as if it were all so. Let's see if it is, by comparing what is reported about the testimony with what we already know. Part of what Groklaw does is insist on checking facts. So, let's do that. And then I'll share with you what our reporter there today has to say.
I'll comment throughout, but feel free to add any links to further evidence in your comments. Starting with the opening paragraphs, today at the trial in Salt Lake City, the article tells us that there was testimony from Duff Thompson and Ed Chatlos:
The top two negotiators for Novell Inc. in its 1995 deal to sell the Unix computer operating system testified Wednesday their former employer believed it sold the copyrights to that software along with the entire Unix business.
Along with Tuesday's testimony from former Novell CEO and Chairman Robert Frankenberg, the Wednesday session bolstered The SCO Group's arguments that it, and not Novell, owns the Unix copyrights....
SCO's first three witnesses before a federal court jury were former Novell officers, including Wednesday's testimony from former Senior Vice President Robert "Duff" Thompson, who directed the negotiations to sell Unix, and Edward Chatlos, who represented Novell in the day-to-day talks. I'm not so sure about that. Let's dig a little deeper so we can evaluate the testimony and from whence it comes.
Here's Ed Chatlos's Declaration in which he tells his story and here's how I described his words at the time
back in 2004: Note the strange phrasing in paragraph 9:
It was always my understanding and intent, on behalf of Novell, that the UNIX source code and its copyrights were part of the assets SCO purchased. I do not recall anyone else ever suggesting that Novell would retain any copyright relating to UNIX, nor was I present for any discussions, general or specific, during the negotiations that contradicted my understanding of the transaction described herein. None of my superiors at Novell ever informed me that Novell was not transferring the UNIX copyrights to SCO. Likewise, I never communicated to SCO in any way that the UNIX copyrights were not being sold to SCO. Nor am I aware of any instance in which anyone from Novell ever informed SCO in any way that the UNIX copyrights were not being sold to SCO as part of this transaction.
Let me parody it:
"None of my bosses ever informed me that the moon was not made of blue cheese. Likewise, I never told my neighbour that the moon was not made of blue cheese."
"At dinner time, I did not observe anyone stating or acting as if the the moon was not made of blue cheese."
Can you conclude from that that neither I nor my bosses ever said the moon *was* made of blue cheese? No, you can't. It could equally well have been the case that nobody ever mentioned the composition of the moon. Or to put it another way: why does he not state in his declaration: "I told [old]SCO that the copyrights were being transferred"?
I don't see him say that. He says that it was his understanding and his intent and that he didn't say the copyrights weren't being transferred, but that's not quite the same thing. Surely, if the matter of the copyrights were being discussed and he was the chief negotiator, he would have talked to oldSCO about it. In which case he could honestly say "I told SCO they were getting the copyrights." Why can't he declare that?
Maybe because we discovered at Groklaw that by January of 1996 he was working at AT&T, having left Novell. Here's an interview with Ed Chatlos that AT&T used to have on its site, but it is still available on Wayback, and you'll see from what he says that he clearly had been there more than a day or two. SCO's own description [PDF] of Chatlos's activities surrounding the APA say, "During the Novell-SCO negotiations, Mr. Chatlos met regularly with SCO representatives, sometimes several times a week, from June to September 1995." Given the dates of the APA's Amendment 2 in October of 1996, how can he testify to that? Obviously, he can't. The TLA and Amendment 1 were dated December of 1995, and he wasn't there for that either. So he was there in the early part of the negotiations and maybe even up to the end of the majority of the business discussions leading up to the APA itself in September of 1995, but as Novell will no doubt be pointing out, the day before the APA was signed, Novell decided not to sell the copyrights, because Santa Cruz didn't have enough money. Here are the minutes of the meeting on September 18, 1995, and oddly enough, the two claimed to be the chief negotiators were not invited to that meeting, though others involved were. Judge Ted Stewart already ruled [PDF] on a Novell motion in limine [PDF] that Chatlos and several others could testify about the negotiators' intent behind the APA and Amendment 2, which seems odd, since he was long gone: Such testimony is admissible. These witnesses have personal knowledge of the negotiators’ intent concerning the transaction, because they participated in the negotiations. Their testimony constitutes relevant extrinsic evidence of the circumstances in which the APA and Amendment No. 2 were drafted; of the negotiations that occurred leading up to the execution of the APA and Amendment No. 2; of the object, nature, and subject matter of the APA and Amendment No. 2; and of circumstances helping to explain the execution and meaning of Amendment No. 2. SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1211, 1217 (10th Cir. 2009). Their testimony is integral to helping the factfinder place itself in the same situation in which the parties found themselves in negotiating and executing the documents. Consistent with well-established California law, the Tenth Circuit has necessarily rejected the argument that only the testimony of the individuals who negotiated the language of the APA or Amendment No. 2 is relevant. Novell’s arguments go to the weight of the testimony of these witnesses, not its relevance. I think he goofed with respect to Amendment 2, but in any case, the part where he talks about "weight" means how much credence to place in it. Given the above, I think you can weigh it yourself. Why did the judge rule this way? Because the appeals court, he wrote, specifically cited his testimony. That too was in error, I believe, since Chatlos was long gone before the story ended. But the most he can testify to is what he thought was going to happen. And that, in fact, is all of his testimony: It was always my understanding and intent, on behalf of Novell, that the UNIX source code and its copyrights were part of the assets SCO purchased. I do not recall anyone else ever suggesting that Novell would retain any copyright relating to UNIX, nor was I present for any discussion, general or specific, during the negotiations that contradicted my understanding of the transaction described herein. We're talking about copyrights transfers, where intentions and supposings don't legally count, but a clear writing does. Certainly, even if memories could top a writing, Chatlos wasn't there for any of the negotiating regarding Amendment 2. This judge didn't care about that, and his ruling seems to be that if someone was there for any part of the deal, they can testify about the intent of all of it, perhaps because of viewing the two documents as making up just one document in the end, but I do expect there will be an appeal eventually regarding his decision about that, and here's why, Novell's argument in its motion in limine no. 19:Under Rule 602, “[a] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.” Fed. R. Evid. 602; Zokari v. Gates, 561 F.3d 1076, 1089 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted) (affirming district court ruling excluding testimony of witness who lacked personal knowledge of matters relevant to trial). Under the personal knowledge standard, testimony is inadmissible if “the witness could not have actually perceived or observed that which he testifies to.” Argo v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 452 F.3d 1193, 1200 (10th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted) (“‘statements of mere belief’ in an affidavit must be disregarded”).
Moreover, a lay witness may not testify as to matters which call for a legal conclusion, such as the interpretation and effect of a contract or an amendment thereto. See, e.g., Evangelista v. Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pac., 777 F.2d 1390, 1398 n.3 (9th Cir. 1985) (opinion of union chairman as to correct construction of collective bargaining agreement was inadmissible because it was a legal conclusion).
Mr. Chatlos lacks personal knowledge to testify as a lay witness about the intent and meaning of Amendment 2. Mr. Chatlos left his employment at Novell in January of 1996 – ten months before Amendment 2 was negotiated. (Ex. 19A (Chatlos Dep.) at 29:24-30:2; Ex. 19B (Chatlos IBM Dep.) at 134: 10-16). He admits, as he must, that he played no role in negotiating or drafting the amendment. (Ex. 19A at 41:9-18 (stating “I wasn’t party of that,” and that he left Novell before it was negotiated), 42:15-18; Ex. 19B at 49:13-21 (he was not involved in the negotiation of Amendment 2).) Accordingly, any testimony by Mr. Chatlos about the meaning of Amendment 2 is improper opinion testimony based on speculation and hearsay. (E.g., Ex. 19A at 42:19-43:11.)
So whatever Chatlos thought was supposed to happen, he can't really tell us what actually did happen, because he was either not told about the decision at the board of directors' meeting, or later, because he was gone from Novell.
Duff Thompson: As you know, Thompson is on the SCO board, or was. He made some money, I believe, on the stock since 2003, and I would imagine he stands to gain yet more if SCO were to prevail on the copyright ownership issue, since he still owns stock and has options on more as a director and under the Omnibus Stock Option Plan. I only mention it because SCO keeps identifying him as an ex-Novell employee, but in truth he's hardly unbiased, in that he has a stake in the outcome. He's SCOfolk. Interesting tidbit from the 1996 Santa Cruz press release announcing he'd be sitting on its board soon after the APA acquisition: he used to be with the BSA: Mr. Thompson is a former chairman of the board of the Business
Software Alliance, the principal software industry association
dealing with software industry issues including copyright
protection and public policy. I really start to wonder how long this litigation lottery has been a gleam in someone's eye.
Let's get back to the Salt Lake City article, shall we? I'll skip a chunk where it provides background and we'll focus on the next part that drew my eye in particular:
But Novell did not claim ownership of the copyrights until 2003, after SCO sued IBM, asking for as much as $1 billion because IBM allegedly had used the copyrighted Unix to make the improvements to the competing Linux operating system. You don't need to claim copyrights until someone else, in this case SCO, publicly challenges you. But as we have shown on Groklaw, SCO continued to distribute UnixWare with Novell copyrights for the years covered by the APA for years thereafter. So SCO itself told the world, as I view the evidence, that Novell retained the copyrights. So why would Novell speak out? When Novell's turn comes, after SCO is done, they'll be addressing that claim when they begin to put their witnesses on the stand, for sure. As Novell's attorney Sterling Brennan told the jury in his opening statement on the second day of trial, wait to form an opinion until you hear the rest of the story. That's good advice for journalists too, not just juries. Because Novell has lawyers who actually wrote up the APA and Amendment 2. SCO does not.
Back to the article:
Novell's opening to make that claim is the 1995 sales agreement, part of which could be read to say that the copyrights to Unix were
not included in the sale. The part is the section called "Excluded Assets", which read: "all copyrights." The article makes it sound like it's not a significant piece of the story, but it's why the Appeals Court said it is clear that the APA as originally signed did not include the copyrights. And in case anyone imagines Amendment 2 magically changed the excluded assets to give them to Santa Cruz, here's how the excluded assets section was changed to read:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks.
Question for you: did Santa Cruz as a result get any more trademarks? No, it didn't. Extrapolate. And that's why Santa Cruz didn't run to the Copyright Office in 1996 and register any new copyrights.
The article:
But Thompson and Chatlos both said that section was meant to apply to Netware, a Novell networking program, and not to the Unix business.
"I assumed and I intended we were selling the copyrights, as well," said Thompson, who also testified that his orders from Frankenberg were to sell all of Unix, including the copyrights.
Except if it was supposed to mean that, they would have said in the excluded section, "all NetWare copyrights". But it didn't. It said all copyrights were excluded, and all means all. Back to the article:
One of Novell's arguments is that it retained the copyrights because Santa Cruz could not pay completely in cash for Unix, which it had bought from AT&T for more than $300 million a few years earlier.
Asked if that were true, Chatlos said "absolutely not. The deal I negotiated with SCO included the copyrights." The deal he negotiated doesn't match the deal as written in ink on paper. And that is the piece the jury has to try to sort through. Back to the article:
Part of the sparring between the legal teams -- led by Boies Schiller & Flexner of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for The SCO Group ,and Morrison & Foerster of San Francisco for Novell -- is over Amendment No. 2 to the original sales agreement.
The amendment was added in 1996 and appears to be intended to fix the copyright issue in Santa Cruz's favor, and by extension SCO's. Novell has introduced as evidence the original sales agreement without the amendment, while SCO's evidence includes the amendment.
That is simply untrue. Here's where you can find Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment it filed in 2006, with the APA and Amendment 2 attached as Exhibit 4. It's been there on Groklaw's page, as well as on our Contracts page all this time. Where do people come up with such stories? In my opinion, it's usually because they've been listening to SCOfolk tell things their way, without checking the facts carefully enough. But truth can't bend. Novell certainly did introduce Amendment 2 into evidence, so hopefully the Salt Lake Tribune will issue a correction so as not to mislead its readers.
The article:
Novell's trial strategy to this point has been to show -- time and again -- the actual wording of the original sales agreement with no mention of Amendment No. 2. That's not true either. In his opening argument, Sterling Brennan mentioned Amendment 2. I don't know why there are these inaccuracies, but they come across as subtle digs at Novell, and since they are not factually true, perhaps it would be appropriate for the paper to examine their coverage to make sure it is not biased or inaccurate. And Groklaw is always available to journalists who wish to use us to find foundational facts. It's what we do, and it's a free service we have provided to journalists since 2003. Please feel free to make use of it.
And now, here's what our observer at the trial today says happened:
I am definitely a Groklaw addict (and I happened to attend the trial). Just not
a good note taker.
Duff Thompson testified for most of the day and sang the same old SCO song that
while he was at Novell he was in charge of negotiating the deal with Santa Cruz.
He (and Novell) always intended to transfer the entire Unix business and no one
at Novell ever told him to hold back the copyrights. To do so would make
"no sense whatsoever." The cross-exam by Acker was great. Thompson has
110,000 shares of SCO stock and undescribed options. He headed up the
litigation committee that made the decision to sue Novell and IBM. His partner
(Dan Campbell) also sits on the board and was part of the deal to finance this
litigation. (I suspect this was in reference to the deal that was approved by
the bankruptcy court, but no specific reference to the bankruptcy was made).
Thompson claimed to "know nothing about his partner's personal
investments."
Thompson also told Frankenberg he would be leaving Novell in
spring 1995 (before he was tasked with negotiating the SCO deal). Acker asked
him if he had "checked out" after he decided to leave Novell and
Thompson kind of laughed and said something to the effect that "that is not
how I would characterize it."
The Judge admonished Thompson to answer the questions asked, even though Acker
never asked for the admonishment. I had to smile! It was clear to me and I think
the jury that Thompson was trying to be evasive. Especially when Acker showed
him an email that questioned the whole SCO source business concept. He began to
have doubts about ever having seen it, even though his name was referenced as
one of the recipients.
There was also some great cross about the fact that SCO's
SEC filings (that Thompson had approved as one of the Board members), expressly
called out the substantial risk to the SCOsource scheme, because of the outcry
from the Linux community -- not because Novell claimed ownership of the
copyrights, but because no one believed any Unix copyrighted code existed within
Linux. It seemed the jury was very much engaged during the cross examination.
And it became apparent that Thompson was SCO and a key to the entire SCO source
licensing plan.
Ed Chatlos then testified that he knew for certain the copyrights were included
as part of the deal. And the reference to Novell retaining "all
copyrights" was "clear in his mind" as referencing only the
Netware related copyrights -- his explanation -- because the schedule included
lots of Netware related references. Ted Normand did the direct examination and
tried to soften any bias issue by asking Chatlos about his wife who works for
SCO and
has a couple hundred shares and several thousand options.
The cross examination was quite short and I don't think really made any
significant hits on Chatlos.
Tomorrow will be deposition video of Messman and then SCO's expert Davis will
testify.
Sorry my recollection is not too detailed, but next time I will try to take some
notes. I was just having too much fun watching.
I thought we had no one at the court today, until after I had finished this article about the coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune. The two reporters we had assigned both had health issues, so I thought all we'd have was the mainstream media. But the best thing about doing a community project like Groklaw is that you never know who will be the one who steps up to the plate at just the right moment. And once again, the community came through.
Finally, Netcraft is reporting SCO.com is down. I don't know why, but it's a good time not to try to go there. Perhaps it has to do with the Ralph Yarro loan going through? Or moving around the subsidiaries? And we do have a volunteer for tomorrow. Thankfully. But if you can go too, please do!
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tce on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 12:26 AM EST |
| did you change the title? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 12:36 AM EST |
Off tropic as well
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 12:37 AM EST |
Latest pedition
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joe on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 01:14 AM EST |
"Netcraft is reporting SCO.com is down. I don't know why"
Maybe SCO didn't pay their ISP?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 01:51 AM EST
- Possibly C7 Data Centers? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 02:37 AM EST
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 03:12 AM EST
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 05:49 AM EST
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: ozbird on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 06:32 AM EST
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 08:56 AM EST
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: Tufty on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 11:47 AM EST
- Business Park Internet Down - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 02:19 PM EST
- Day 3 of the Trial, Through the Eyes of Groklaw and the SL Tribune - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 08:28 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jjock on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 01:30 AM EST |
Thank goodness that someone was there from Groklaw.
When I read the Tribune report, I was dismayed that Thompson
and Chatlos should have escaped the witness stand not having
had to answer some hard questions that I knew should have left
a very different impression.
Maybe the Tribune reporter is waiting at his newsdesk instead of
actually listening first hand to what is taking place.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 01:37 AM EST |
We have in evidence that Frankenberg did not read all of the APA
that he signed. What we need now is for the principal for Santa Cruz
to also testify what they read in the document they signed. I'm sorry
I'm not familiar with all the names involved, but AFAICT that (those?)
person(s) are not being called as witness.
It's all very well to float up towards your level of incompetence, but
how well placed is your trust, and is it earned, in the paralegals,
the secretaries and typists through whose hands these documents pass.
A genuine title page, 2 pages of definitions, a genuine final page where
the titled can sign full signature. Sandwiched in between we find
twelve pages of lorem ipsem and one paragraph entitling the signatories
to one Big Mac with Fries.
The signatories of course are in too much of a hurry to get away
for the photo op, and the drinks afterwards. Don't waste time reading.
That time might end up on somebody's billable hours.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: benw on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 02:21 AM EST |
One of the problems SCO has always faced is the fact that the APA has a list of
"EXCLUDED ASSETS" that starts with "ALL COPYRIGHTS".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The fix is in? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 02:28 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: GriffMG on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 03:00 AM EST |
From me at least, and I am sure all the other groklaw readers
---
Keep B-) ing[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 03:35 AM EST |
Could they be influenced by the slant in this article? I wonder if even the
article was written this way in the hope of influencing the jurors. Or is my
tin-foil hat too tight and cutting off the blood supply to my brain?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 03:54 AM EST |
sco.com looks up again to me. Says something about OpenServer 5.0.7 ... Doesn't
display properly in Konqueror (3.5.10)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 04:46 AM EST |
Novell certainly did introduce Amendment 2 into evidence, so hopefully the
Salt Lake Tribune will issue a correction so as not to mislead its
readers.
Most newspapers stopped caring about whether they mislead
their readers about 30 years ago. All that counts now is how many papers they
sell. And if sensational lies sell more papers than boring truth, they'll print
sensational lies.
There are a few exceptions. The NY Times is better than
average, so is the Financial Times; but neither covers this trial in detail. The
Salt Lake Trib? Forget it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 05:55 AM EST |
| Whatever happened to him? Ever since he stopped covering this mess for the
SLT
the coverage has gone way downhill. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Me Too - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 09:44 AM EST
- Me Too - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 10:08 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 06:16 AM EST |
I'm afraid I disagree with PJ on this statement.
In 717 Judge Stewart discusses Novell's objections to each witness individually
and considers testimony exclusion:
A. William Broderick (this will be done on a case by case basis depending on the
foundation of the evidence)
B. Lawrence Bouffard (where his evidence is based on his reading of the APA and
Amendment 2)
C. Jean Acheson (No Amendment 2 testimony)
D. Robert Frankenberg (No Amendment 2 testimony)
E. R. Duf Thompson (No Amendment 2 testimony)
F Ty Mattingly (No Amendment 2 testimony)
G. Douglas Michels (No Amendment 2 testimony)
H1. Edward Chatlos (No Amendment 2 testimony)
H2. Burt Levine (where his evidence is based on just his reading of Amendment
2)
H3. Kim Madsen (No APA evidence anyway, Amendment 2 evidence allowed)
So Judge Stewart denied Novell objections to evidence about the APA in 9 out 9
cases because the CoA said it would be relevant. He granted Novell's objections
to evidence about Amendment 2 in 9 out of 10 cases.
Of course there are other witnesses whose testimony was not objected to; see the
witness lists.
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Daddl on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 06:53 AM EST |
Many papers have a column like that - and the worse the paper the more fuzz they
make about it. Usually this is just a fig leave - the big lies (made up stories,
denunciations, etc.) usually will only be corrected in public if a court order
forces them. Admitting small errors is a good way to foster the image of being
honest and dedicated to the truth ('that can happen to anyone, you know, we're
not perfect, and honestly, we try...') - unfortunately often it's just that: an
image.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Uuups! - Authored by: Daddl on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 06:58 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 07:14 AM EST |
Yes, Groklaw presents materials of great potential use by
journalists, but I don't read those SLT articles as written
by a journalist. Their formatting, in addition to their
factual problems, tells me they are propaganda.
The question is also begged as to why a big-city paper
should provide a play-by-play account of what to its local
readership can only be a penny-ante, who-the-heck-cares,
arcange legal proceeding. (Yes, I know SCO has local-to-SLT
ties; and guys and gals, we care about this trial and we
know why--but really: Imagine such stuff being given space
day by day in any other big-city paper you know of.)
No, that trial "coverage" is there to act as input to an
echo chamber, to buffer, reshape, and misrepresent events at
the trial so it can be quoted, even further distorted and
even further out of context, elsewhere.
I think we need to be looking into the history/pedigree of
the bylinee and the ownership of the paper.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 07:28 AM EST |
One thing that jumped out at me, was the insistence by the SCO team (Singer)
that SCO needed to own the Unix/Unixware copyrights in order to do business.
Like so much else they've thrown out there, hoping not to be scrutinized, this
is one more thing that is obviously wrong.
If that were true, and one needed to own a copyright in order to do business,
then there would be no retailers. Does one need to own the Conde-Nast
copyrights, in order to sell Conde-Nast publications? Hardly. One only needs
permission from Conde-Nast, or one of their delegates.
Or, to bring it closer to home: One doesn't need to own the Microsoft
copyrights, in order to sell Microsoft Windows (rather, Windows licenses). It
happens all the time. HP, Dell, Acer, Asus, MSI... none of these own the Windows
copyrights.
Now, IANAL, and I've never been a juror. But if the reports from MSS2 and
Tilendor are giving me the correct impression, then Singer did himself and SCO
no favors by trying to build his argument around that line.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 08:09 AM EST |
That is simply untrue. Here's where you can find Novell's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment it filed in 2006, with the APA and Amendment
2 attached as Exhibit 4. It's been there on Groklaw's page, as well as on our
Contracts page all this time. Where do people come up with such stories? In my
opinion, it's usually because they've been listening to SCOfolk tell things
their way, without checking the facts carefully enough. But truth can't bend.
Novell certainly did introduce Amendment 2 into evidence, so hopefully the Salt
Lake Tribune will issue a correction so as not to mislead its readers.
The
article:
Novell's trial strategy to this point has been to show -- time and
again -- the actual wording of the original sales agreement with no mention of
Amendment No. 2.
That's not true either. In his opening argument, Sterling
Brennan mentioned Amendment 2. I don't know why there are these inaccuracies,
but they come across as subtle digs at Novell, and since they are not factually
true, perhaps it would be appropriate for the paper to examine their coverage to
make sure it is not biased or inaccurate. And Groklaw is always available to
journalists who wish to use us to find foundational facts. It's what we do, and
it's a free service we have provided to journalists since 2003. Please feel free
to make use of it.
Ah, yes. Tom Harvey comes across as a close
friend of Ralph Yarro. If you check any of his articles about SCO v. Novell they
are all inaccurate, and all have comments complaining about the
inaccuracies.
It happens that I know someone who works for the Trib,
so I complained. I was told that there was nothing that could be done about Tom.
The wording had me puzzled at the time, I've gone back and looked at the email
again, and I get the impression that as far as the Tribune is concerned, the fix
is in. This is really curious, as the Tribune was started up as an anti-Mormon
paper, and Ralph Yarro claims to be a devote Mormon.
The only
conclusion I can draw, is that someone high up at the Tribune has an investment
in SCO, and that they don't want it to go away. But that's just a
guess.
---
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Cornishman on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 09:44 AM EST |
Duff Thompson testified for most of the day and sang the same old
SCO song that while he was at Novell he was in charge of negotiating the deal
with Santa Cruz.
And in opposition, testimony yet to
come:
To my knowledge, Duff Thompson was not involved in negotiating
or drafting the APA contract language. 1
That's the
knowledge of the experienced and highly engaged external counsel retained by
Novell to draft the APA. He uses words like brain surgeons use lasers. So he
knows that Duff Thompson was not involved, because if he meant "I'm not
sure that he was involved", he would have said so.
As for Ed Chatlos,
Braham says2 Ed Chatlos was a business person for Novell
involved in the deal. I understand that he may have been involved in negotiating
the basic deal structure, before the drafting phase. However, to my knowledge,
Mr. Chatlos was not a Novell executive, nor was he the Novell business person
directing the drafting of the contract. To my knowledge, Mr. Chatlos did not
draft the APA. I reported to and received instructions from David Bradford, and
not from Mr. Chatlos.
Does that match up with the Salt
Lake Tribune saying that Chatlos "represented Novell in the day-to-day
talks"? No, it does not.
I wonder how long it will take the jurors to
see who has the documentary high ground here, and to consider how they would
feel if contracts they themselves were party to, (perhaps the lease of their
homes?) were subject years later to interpretation by people who didn't draft
them, but believe nonetheless that they know what they were meant to
mean.
1 Declaration of Tor Braham, para 24.1, see Groklaw
story for links to originals.
2 Id.para
24.3 ---
(c) assigned to PJ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 10:16 AM EST |
| Summary of The R16Cobal trolls as spreadsheet
(Caution some language is offensive).
The SL Trib article has brought out a
pro-SCO troll active since August 2008.
This troll shows a very close
posting history with the nyms Wavecruncher, zkd_zeroin and the similar. They are
active is the exact same period, same hour, and share language and concepts, and
the use of lexical peculirities.
Wavecruncher and some other trolls can be
trivially linked back to an account that uses a Darl McBride family name as its
base log-in.
Good reason to suppose that R16cobal is known to Darl McBride
if they are not actually the same person.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 10:59 AM EST |
It is also not true that Novell did not claim ownership prior to the IBM suit.
Novell claimed ownership, although privately, all the way back to Amendment 2.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 11:31 AM EST |
"Ed Chatlos then testified that he knew for certain the copyrights were
included as part of the deal. And the reference to Novell retaining "all
copyrights" was "clear in his mind" as referencing only the
Netware related copyrights -- his explanation -- because the schedule included
lots of Netware related references"
I am will be very disappointed if the jury does not go by what is in black and
white. you can go by he said/she said nonsense. all means all as pj says.
I am surprised this got put in front of a jury too.
black and white beats intent or thought. at least it used to but who knows in
the sco world.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 12:15 PM EST |
Something to consider, I understand why Novell would require Netware to be
excluded from the Unix copy right. That would be understanding since Netware
4.11 and above used Unixware code in the install and management of Netware.
Novell would need to have the exclusion to protect NetWare from any cliam to
Unix and make since for the addmentment. Not taking sides and that discussion
has not been brought up yet. NetWare has always utililized Unix in the kernal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 12:17 PM EST |
| Link Make of it what you
will. My expertise is not in understanding businesses like that. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 02:12 PM EST |
Living in Utah and working in high-tech, Novell is no darling here. They are
not high-profile and the only news they make is the number of layoffs coming.
Most news has been negative about Messman making a mess of Novell and flying
around in his corporate jet from Boston to Provo. Most of us wish Novell would
be successful to help the economy, but it's Boston calling the shots and they
seem to be more interested in reducing Novell's footprint in Utah.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 04:32 PM EST |
| Problems:
As the APA says 'no copyrights', Amendment 2 would surely have
contained words to say, "Scrub out that 'no copyrights' clause and
substitute...."
As Novell were only selling part of their business, they
would have to be very careful to make sure that only copyrights transferred that
were not required for any other part of its business. Likewise, Santa Cruz would
have to be careful that they were getting the copyright of every item that they
needed.
If Novell were selling only certain copyrights (as opposed to
say, 'All of the business including all the copyrights it happens to own') then
it would have to make sure that it really did own those copyrights. As it would
have had a copy of the ULS/UofC carve-up (sorry, 'Settlement Agreement') they
knew full well that they not only did not own all the copyrights, but they did
not know what they did own.
Just collecting together a heap of code and
registering the copyright would provide some protection against someone copying
the whole heap, but it would not establish ownership in the sense that they
could sell the code as their own.
All that Novell could have done would
have been to collect together the relevant heap of code and say, 'If you pay us
$x consider this document as transferring to you any copyrights on it that
Novell might happen to own and, BTW, if anyone disputes that we were the owners
then you must defend our claim at your expense and in any case you cannot have
your money back even if you get the USL/UofC deal unsealed and discover how
dodgy it is'.
In short, arguments about ambiguities in the APA and Amendment
2 are moot. This is the problem of the elephant in the room - in this case the
problem is the absence of the elephant. It takes very few words to say that no
copyrights are transferred, it would take volumes to transfer
them.
---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SLi on Thursday, March 11 2010 @ 08:03 PM EST |
Certainly, even if memories could top a writing, Chatlos wasn't
there for any of the negotiating regarding Amendment 2. This judge didn't care
about that, and his ruling seems to be that if someone was there for any part of
the deal, they can testify about the intent of all of it, perhaps because of
viewing the two documents as making up just one document in the end, but I
do expect there will be an appeal eventually regarding his decision about
that[.]
I wonder. Do you mean that you expect the jury to
hand out a decision Novell is not happy with? Or would this be one of the
preemptive out-of-caution appeals that it appears Novell should have done when
SCO appealed?
Now that I think, I have further questions on the process. If
Novell gets a favorable judgment and SCO appeals, is it enough for Novell to
raise this issue in its reply to SCO's appeal brief (or in some other way at
least a few days after it has read SCO's appeal brief), or does Novell need to
appeal on its own even if unsure whether SCO will, before the deadline for
appealing expires?
My understanding is that on appeal, if it is found out
that the instructions to jury were wrong or that the limine motions were decided
wrongly, there needs to be a new trial. Or do lesser remedies exist? Are they
common?
What if the appeals court rejects SCO's arguments but finds for
Novell on its appeal regarding limine motions? Can Novell then, if satisfied
with the judgment, just choose to accept it instead of taking a new trial? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 13 2010 @ 08:40 AM EST |
PJ, it's a small point, but I disagree with the statement about the copyright
exclusion language.
You wrote: "Except if it was supposed to mean that, they would have said in
the excluded section, "all NetWare copyrights". But it didn't. It said
all copyrights were excluded, [except those necessary for SCO's business] and
all means all."
Novell would have been foolish to list the excluded copyrights. Surely Novell
owned copyrights that related to neither Unix nor NetWare and were irrelevant to
this deal. Even if at the time they had never sold any other products but Unix
and NetWare, they had probably copyrighted some stuff that they never sold.
But, more likely, Novell had sold something else besides Netware and Unix -
maybe something long forgotten - that Novell still owned copyrights to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
