|
SCO Wants to Sell Java Patent and (Mostly) Pay the Professionals |
|
Monday, March 29 2010 @ 11:06 PM EDT
|
SCO Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn has now reported to the bankruptcy court that he's closed on the loan from Ralph Yarro and his friends, and now Cahn wants to pay most of the bills in the bankruptcy from SCO's numerous professionals. And he wants to sell the Java patent, since SCO's never used it and has no use for it going forward. He has a buyer, Liberty Lane, LLC, and so he asks the court to approve the sale to Liberty Lane "or another higher and better bidder." That seems unlikely, in that they claim to have shopped the patent to around 40 potential purchasers. Liberty Lane is offering $100,000. Cahn says he "will pay 80% of fees and 100% of expenses to all of the estates' professionals who have filed (i) monthly and/or interim fee applications for such fees and expenses and (ii) certifications of no objections with respect thereto pursuant to the Interim Compensation Order", but doesn't yet want to pay the last 20% of PSZ&J's bill "until such time as the Trustee has reviewed and evaluated the reasonableness of all fees and expenses generated by the Debtors’ and these estates’ professionals". So that's where the loan goes, for starters. He's not singling them out, by the way, except for the fact that he wants to wait until all the final bills are in, so he can evaluate reasonableness in a context, and so far they are the only ones that have filed a final bill.
Here are the filings:
03/23/2010 - 1095 - Limited Objection to and Reservation of Rights With Respect to Final Application for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors, for the Period from September 14, 2007 through November 16, 2009 (related document(s) 1076 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/23/2010 - 1096 - Application for Compensation (Twenty-Second Interim) of Tanner LC for the Period From October 1, 2009 Through October 31, 2009 Filed by Tanner LC. Objections due by 4/12/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 03/23/2010)
03/26/2010 - 1097 - Certificate of No Objection Re: Fourth Monthly Fee Application of Ocean Park Advisors, LLC, Financial Advisor to the Chapter 11 Trustee of the SCO Group, Inc., et al., for Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses for the Period of January 1, 2010 through January 31, 2010 (related document(s) 1071 ) Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
03/26/2010 - 1098 - Monthly Application for Compensation (Fifth) for the Period of February 1, 2010 Through February 28, 2010 Filed by Ocean Park Advisors, LLC. Objections due by 4/16/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
03/29/2010 - 1099 - Motion to Approve Sale // Motion of the Chapter 11 Trustee for Order Under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(a) and 363 and Fed. R. Bankr. 2002 and 6004 (A) Approving the Sale of the IP Asset Free and Clear of All Liens, Claims Interests, and Encumbrances Pursuant to 11 U.S.C Section 363 and (B) Granting Related Relief Filed by Edward N. Cahn, Chapter 11 Trustee for The SCO Group, Inc., et al.. Hearing scheduled for 4/20/2010 at 04:00 PM at US Bankruptcy Court, 824 Market St., 6th Fl., Courtroom #3, Wilmington, Delaware. Objections due by 4/13/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Exhibit B # 4 Exhibit C # 5 Exhibit D # 6 Exhibit E # 7 Certificate of Service) (Fatell, Bonnie) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
Cahn says he doesn't think a public auction is necessary. They'll put an ad in a Salt Lake City newspaper, and he asks that the private sale be stamped OK by the court to go forward. If anyone bids, and is demonstrated to be a good faith buyer, then they'll have an auction on April 19, the day before the hearing on this motion. Oh, and normally after an order to sell issues, you wait 14 days, but Cahn asks the court to waive that requirement.
And who is Liberty Lane LLC? According to Exhibit B [PDF], they have an office in San Diego, CA but are a Delaware LLC. Exhibit D says Liberty Lane is a company affiliated with Allied Security Trust I, and if that is this patent-protection (from trolls) company, that might not be half bad. Google and HP are members of Allied. At least they'd keep it out of the hands of the litigation lizards. That's Allied's purpose, to dry up patent trolling as a "business" by buying up patents that might be used that way. And Exhibit E [PDF] indicates they are one and the same, in that the letter of intent shows the same name as CFO, Kerry Hopkin. I don't care how much Microsoft wants us to hate Google. I love those guys.
Update: I had never heard of Perk-Up, so I did some research. Here's what it was, a technology announced at SCOForum 1999. Are they selling it as an IP asset, a technology that happens to have a patent in it, instead of just a stand-alone patent? The buyer isn't in the software business and just wants the patent, presumably. Might it be because Ocean Park gets more money if they sell an IP asset instead of a stand-alone patent? I hope they clarify this at the hearing, because we don't know the answer. We're puzzling over the various references to the proposed sale, as being in one place called a sale of a stand-alone patent and in others as an IP Asset, Perk-Up, in others.
Update 2: Allied describes itself in a press release regarding settling litigation with Limelight like this:
About Allied Security Trust
AST ( www.alliedsecuritytrust.com : www.alliedsecuritytrust.com ) is a member-owned Delaware Statutory Trust that identifies and analyzes high-technology patents being sold on the market, circulates those to its 16 member companies (each with annual revenues US $1 billion), and combines funds of interested member companies to purchase patents. It then sells the patents subject to licenses granted to those members, with proceeds returned to the members that funded the purchase. To date, it has invested US $40M to purchase 400 patents. For patent portfolios that have been sold by the Trust or are currently on the market, 82% of the money originally invested by Trust members to obtain their patent license has been returned to them at the time the patents are sold, making the Trust by far the most economical collaborative mechanism in the world for members to obtain licenses to patents that may otherwise fall into the hands of an adversarial party. Note this from the body of the release:
As a result of the agreement, Limelight Networks, Twister Investments, and Allied Software Trust (AST) have agreed to execute a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice for the purpose of dismissing with prejudice the declaratory judgment action Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Allied Security Trust and Twister Investments, LLC, United States District Court, District of Arizona, Case No. 2:10-cv-00585-NVW.
"Limelight respects AST's goals and its charter, and we are pleased to bring this matter to a rapid and mutually agreeable resolution," said Philip Maynard, chief legal officer, Limelight Networks, Inc.
"As a purely defensive organization helping to minimize the exposure of operating companies to adversarial patent holders, we are appreciative of Limelight's efforts to find a quick and mutually agreeable resolution," responded Dan McCurdy, chief executive officer, Allied Security Trust.
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 11:27 PM EDT |
Please place any needed corrections in this
corrections thread. It would be helpful
if the title could be a quick summary ...
perhaps something like
wrong->right[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
So they'll sell it prior to the hearing? Um. Did I miss an
intermediate step, or something?
That seems to be the way it's
done in bankrupcy court - you agree the deal then ask the court for approval.
If the court says no, then the deal doesn't happen.
Disclaimer:
Everything I know about bankruptcy law I learned on Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 11:43 PM EDT |
Do I remember correctly that Ralph gets this $100K since it's a piece of his
assets that are
being sold? Nice deal! -wjarvis
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
Please follow posting guidelines.
Try to be off-topic for this story,
while being generally on-topic for Groklaw.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What a strange day today has been... - Authored by: nyarlathotep on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- Gene patent ruled invalid - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:36 AM EDT
- MS Hotmail spamming - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:39 AM EDT
- Profile of a forum troll (from GU Comics) - Authored by: swmech on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 01:09 AM EDT
- The Alexandria Project game question - Authored by: Winter on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:45 AM EDT
- Google Chrome Proves Un-Hackable in Pwn2Own Competition - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:22 AM EDT
- What are the odds SCO "blew it" in their final closing arguments? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:22 AM EDT
- Large Hadron Collider sets atom-smashing record - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:31 AM EDT
- Linux and LHC - Authored by: ile on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:35 AM EDT
- Separation of concerns is one of the most fundamental of all the principles of system design - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- Ping PJ - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- Deputy uses Google Earth to find illegal dumper - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- Microsoft: Emergency IE patch due today - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- Verdict in - copyrights did NOT transfer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:11 PM EDT
|
Authored by: nsomos on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 11:49 PM EDT |
Place posts related to news picks here please.
Don't make us guess which bit of news you are posting about,
but instead at least give us the title of that News Pick.
Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- rethinking the adverserial approach - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:36 AM EDT
- SONY removing features from PS3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:10 AM EDT
- Open Standards Under Attack In Europe - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:08 AM EDT
- Usenet indexer found guilty - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:04 AM EDT
- Non-litigating patent holding company? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT
- The end of the cosmos will be powered by GNU/Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- google chrome - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:03 PM EDT
- News Picks comments thread - Authored by: jja on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:07 PM EDT
- Victory - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:14 PM EDT
- Victory - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:23 PM EDT
- *** REJOICE! *** - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:13 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:15 AM EDT |
Since SCO converted millions of dollars that belonged to Novell, how is it ever
going to pay that back? Doesn't it have to be paid before any of the other
creditors in the bankruptcy?
How can law firms, etc. continue to get their pound of flesh while Novell gets
next to nothing (the small fraction of what they are owed, which is already in
escrow)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:25 AM EDT |
Bankruptcy = the process whereby a company is wound up and its assets are
distributed to lawyers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:30 AM EDT |
I'll bet they had more than that.
All they had to do was ask everyone in
their
office NCAA bracket pool.
Legitimate purchasers?
That's another
story.
I have my doubts about the
patent.
Don't read it if you think you will get tainted.
Not likely. It is Gobbledygook.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 01:08 AM EDT |
I mean, lets be sensible here. Why would you diverge from a tried and true
method? If SCO (or whatever they call themselves in 10 years time) word it
correctly, someone who is the aunt of a completely uninvolved family member who
overheard one side of an unrelated conversation, will be able to launch a
lawsuit against the estate of Judge Cahn, based on the use of an allegedly
ambiguous font, which when held at certain angles, fails the Pauli Exclusion
Principle for Schrodinger-divergent meta-intent, rendering a perpetually
differing, non-binding interpretation mechanism upon the semantic framework.
Now that's worth patenting![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 01:27 AM EDT |
From
EETimes in 2008:
""We are fundamentally a defensive agency
procuring patents on behalf of our members," said Brian Hinman, chief executive
of Allied. "We are not an investment vehicle, and our objective is not to make
money," he added." [...]
Allied's members include Cisco Systems,
Ericsson, Google, Hewlett-Packard and Verizon and six other companies who do not
want to be named. As many as three other companies are expected to become
members in the next 30 days, said Hinman.
"I am interested in only the
patents that are strategic or potentially problematic for a subset of our
members," said Hinman, who refused to disclose the number of patents he has
bought or sold since the group was formed with four members in March
2007.
Each company puts $5 million into an escrow account used as
working capital to buy patents that members can then license.
Doesn't sound all that bad.
I am not sure
what their list of patents may have been worth at each stage, but the Allied
Security Trust I list of patents owned by them at least once is fairly long - http://www.alliedsecurity
trust.com/index-7.html and http://www.alliedsecurit
ytrust.com/index-7b.html.
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:44 AM EDT |
Why would Judge Cahn make such a move a week before SCO
will be making millions
of dollars on their Slander of Title
claim and right before investors come
flocking back to them
because they've established once and for all that they
own the
Unix copyrights fair and square?
Why on earth would anyone accept
80 cents on the dollar when
they can just wait a week and get the full payment
after SCO
is rolling in dough from their big win? Isn't it rather
underhanded
of Cahn to offer to underpay the professionals like
this just days before SCO's
big windfall? Why on earth would he
try to rip these people off like that? It
doesn't seem very
honorable.
I'm afraid I might just have to change my sig
to:
Crazy means never having to say you're
sorry.
--- You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:39 AM EDT |
No more money, little income. Chance of rehabilitation? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:39 AM EDT |
I only hope this is true.
Google, Cisco, and others band together against patent
trolls[cnet.com]
The group, called the Allied Security
Trust, is a bit like the open-source friendly Open Invention Network, but
appears to have more cash at its disposal.
"Coalition for
Patent Fairness" morphs into
Allied Security Trust? [ipbiz.blogspot.com]
Tech
companies have tried various ways to protect themselves, including investing in
Intellectual Ventures LLC, a patent-holding firm founded by former Microsoft
Corp. executive Nathan Myhrvold. The companies provide money to help Mr.
Myhrvold buy patents, and he in turn grants them a license to his portfolio. But
some in the tech industry fear Mr. Myhrvold's venture, which has collected
thousands of patents in areas such as networking and software, may itself become
an aggressive patent enforcer down the road. Mr. Myhrvold has said litigation
isn't part of IV's strategy, but hasn't ruled it out.
Maybe
Cahn is not as evil, or cool-aid-drinking, as we might tend to believe, or at
least he is an equal opportunity seller or assets. Frankly I would think that
some more evil organization might have tried a grab of this IP just to see what
mayhem they could produce from it, but here it seems to be a little less
threatening to people that care about this kind of patent. It doesn't affect
Linux, but hey, its a step in the right direction I would think. The fewer
patents available for lawsuits the better.
--- DRM - As a "solution",
it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: _Arthur on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:32 AM EDT |
Judge Cahn, SCO trustee and acting CEO, sent 2 of OPA professionals to
Germany and UK, to discuss various matters with the heads of SCO
subsidiaries.
The trip cost:
$17.4K in direct costs (plane tickets, hotels, restaurant, taxis)
$16.6K in paid travel time
$25K in meetings[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
... that Mr. Cahn is liquidating the business while it's still in Chapter 11.
Just saying...
Thanks,
-jb
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:47 AM EDT |
Please don't copy and paste entire articles.
It's a copyright issue, so I had to remove it. Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:00 AM EDT |
Allied Security Trust was also the buyer of the "Cattleback" remote
administration patent. It was directed through "Black Maple", but the USPTO
Assignments database records a simultaneous Assignment to AST 1.
My
years old Groklaw comments provides the source links for the ultimate assignment
to AST
Clicky
for USPTO assignments of patent number for AST purchase of the SCO patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
If they sell an asset at a loss would it not be better to retain the asset as it
may make the company a better sales prospect by actually having something
worthwhile in it?
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
Does anybody know exactly what this patent is about? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
Waitng and clock watching!
I know it could take days if the jury so wishes but even so ...
phantomjinx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:02 PM EDT
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:08 PM EDT
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:26 PM EDT
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: odysseus on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:40 PM EDT
- I wonder how the jurors trip to Las Vagas went? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:51 PM EDT
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: mpellatt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- The waiting impatiently for the verdict thread - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- I doubt anyone on the jury wishes it to take days...(n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- The verdict must be out - Authored by: janolder on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:58 PM EDT
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
I don't care how much Microsoft wants us to hate Google. I
love those guys.
Generally if Microsoft is trying to convince me to
hate someone or something, I support that someone or something.The
Enemy of my enemy...
--- Wayne
http://madhatter.ca/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
Does it seem odd to only advertise the sale of a Java
patent in a local city
paper? It's not like Salt Lake City is
the crossroads of the world's computer
industry.
Or is it some sort of technical bankruptcy requirement that
sales of assets have to be "advertised", and this is just
being done to meet
that requirement? --- ---
“'Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business' are trademarks or registered trademarks
of Caldera International, Inc." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:55 PM EDT |
http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=2153 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- HOT NEWS - VERDICT IN! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- HOT NEWS - VERDICT IN! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- SLTrib story from Tom Harvey - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Related news. SCO share price down to $0.10 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- It's real - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- It's real - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- It's real - Authored by: argel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:09 PM EDT
- It's real - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- It's real - Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- It's real - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- HOT NEWS - VERDICT IN! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Congratulations to Novell and the Whole UNIX and Linux Communities - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT
- Ding, Dong!! - Authored by: Cassandra on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- HOT NEWS - VERDICT IN! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:26 PM EDT
- In the On Deck Circle - IBM - Authored by: jcjodoin on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- Management Destroyed Caldera / SCO and Gets Off Free - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM EDT
- HOT NEWS - VERDICT IN! Clickies for Novell and slt site - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT
|
Authored by: gfreeves on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Hallelujah!! It's long past time. Get out that red dress, PJ!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Great news on the jury verdict! Now when will Judge Stweart rule on the
"specific performance" alternative?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MrCharon on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOXQ.PK&t=1d
Open at 0.46
Current (as of posting) 0.09
Down 80.43%
Oh just went down another cent before I could even hit Submit...
---
MrCharon
~~~~
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gfreeves on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
PJ, it's been a long time coming...too long...but THANK YOU for hanging in there
and keeping us informed. And to the reporters who came back with the details of
the court proceedings...THANK YOU TOO. We would have loved to have been there
ourselves, but your attention to detail was the second best thing.
I'm glad the court has spoken...and TSOG has had their day in court...and
finally justice has prevailed. Maybe the court can get some of the
"clawback" money from the miscreants.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
The Jury is out! Novell owns the copyrights!
The SLT article is here.
Can't wait
to see the orders. Pretty much kills the rest of the SCO case. IBM case is over.
Judge Cahn can no longer say SCO has a good chance of prevailing. SCO will
appeal, but what have they left to appeal? They got their day in court. They
lost the bench trial and the jury trial. It's over, except for the
whining.
--Celtic_hackr[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I think that Apache Tomcat contains
everything that is specifically claimed in the patent. You can confirm by
looking at the patent, which is linked in this article as exhibit C of #1099,
and the Apache Tomcat 3.3 User Guide (or any newer one, the relevant text is
almost identical), in the section Configuring Classes. I don't have a reference
that predates version 3.3 which is as clearly stated, but I believe that the
aspects of the design that cover the patent claims are fundamental and could be
found in 1997 and 1998 in Sun Web Server whose code was used to make the first
Tomcat, version 3.0 in 1999. The SCO patent has a filing date of December 15,
1999.
The poison pill for this patent, if I am correct, is that Tomcat, and its
offspring JBOSS and Glassfish, are what companies most use as the basis for
enterprise level Java application servers, and they are all free software. The
owner of this patent is not going to get a penny in settlement from the Apache
Software Foundation. If they tried to make money from users of Tomcat, etc. they
will get pushback from companies that have huge businesses built on the
technology, including IBM and Oracle. Since the underlying technology was
released in 1997-1999 as open source and directly became Tomcat, any proof that
Tomcat infringes is likely itself to be a demonstration of prior art, since the
allegedly infringing technology was probably put in there well before the patent
was filed.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Truth will Out.
Well done to to every one who kept the faith.
SCO are a former Litigation company, that is they are now a deceased Litigation
company.
Goodbye SCO I will always loathe and detest you and what you represented. You
deserve to be treated with contempt and you have reaped the furious righteous
wrath you so deserve.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
Given Novell's win on the copyrights, perhaps the trustee should be looking at
conversion to Chapter 7 and a complete liquidation. Without the copyrights, the
"SCOsource" litigation plan is as good as dead. No hope of recovery
and becoming a going concern, only an eternal loss of whatever capital they can
lay their hands on. Stop the bleeding, this game is all over.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
Has anybody else read over that Java patent? I don't understand what's being
patented; the claims read like a summary of what the Java runtime system is
simply capable of straight out of the box. It has *always* just worked like
that, for the most part, and anything else is just stuff you'd do if you wanted
to implement something like a web server. It should be noted that the Java
servlet spec was completed by Sun back in 1997.
What am I missing?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2010 @ 11:07 AM EDT |
Remember that SCOx is using all parts of its UNIX business, not just the
patents and (Novell) copyrights to sue IBM.
So getting all the bits and
pieces included ensures that the buyer cannot be sued by SCOx or its successor
based on any other little piece of paper related to it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|