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
Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 6Xs
Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:28 PM EDT

It's over. The jury has found that the copyrights did not go to SCO under the APA or anything else. The verdict is in. Novell has the news up on their website already, but I heard it from Chris Brown also. Here's the brief Novell statement:
Today, the jury in the District Court of Utah trial between SCO Group and Novell issued a verdict.

Novell is very pleased with the jury’s decision confirming Novell’s ownership of the Unix copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux. Novell remains committed to promoting Linux, including by defending Linux on the intellectual property front.

This decision is good news for Novell, for Linux, and for the open source community.

: D

Thank you, Novell, for never giving up, and never giving in. Those of us who love to use Linux will forever be thankful to you.

The next question will be: what will Edward Cahn do now that his theory that SCO had valid claims has bitten the dust? Will he pay back the loan from Ralph Yarro so as not to default on the loan? That's what they indicated they'd do, but I would like to see it in black and white, a done deal.

What a waste of money this all has been, and if the only folks who get paid in the end are Cahn's lawyers and SCO's lawyers, something is seriously rotten in this picture.

Here's a quick report from Chris:

I camped out across the street at the Royal Eatery diner with a clear view of the courthouse entrance from my table.

Around 11:45am I saw the jury's lunch being delivered from the diner I was in. When he'd returned at around 12:00, I asked him if the jury was in a good mood. He said they were, but that they always are since he's got the food.

I had a business call that a server of ours was down about 5 blocks from the courthouse, so I started walking back to the parking garage. I'd figured that if they were just having lunch there wouldn't be any news for an hour or so.

As I got just North of the courthouse, I saw SCO's counsel walking south toward the court. The group included Mr. Singer, Mr. Normand, Mr. Tibbitts, Darl McBride, and others.

Mr. Edward Normand pointed back toward the courthouse and told me they jury had returned a verdict. I turned around and headed back, remarking to Mr. Normand that I was almost afraid to hear the verdict. He said to join the club.

I called MSS2 and let him know, then sent off the quick email to you that they'd reached a verdict.

I also received a phone call from both individuals who had promised to call me letting me know a verdict had been reached.

On arriving in courtroom we waited about ten more minutes for Novell's counsel to arrive. Mr. Brennan and Mr. Acker were present, but not Mr. Jacobs.

I overheard Mr. Singer saying he'd only just arrived back in town this morning around 10:30am to await the verdict.

At 12:17pm Judge Stewart entered the courtroom and announced that he's been told the jury has reached a verdict. He asked that they be brought in.

The jury entered and Judge Stewart asked the marshall if it's true that the jury has reached a unanimous verdict? He answered, Yes it is.

Judge Stewart asked the jury to hand in the book containing the verdict to the "CSO" (the marshall). Juror 11 handed him the book and he then passed it to the Sandy Malley.

When asked, Ms. Malley read the verdict:

Did the the Amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the copyrights?

And the jury had entered, No.

Judge Stewart asked counsel if they desired the jury to be polled. Mr. Singer said yes.

Judge Stewart then asked the jury if they had unanimously found that the Amended Asset Purchase Agreement had not transferred copyrights?

Each juror was polled by number, Juror 1? Yes. Juror 2? Yes and so forth down the line until all 12 had answered yes.

Judge Stewart announced that the jury had been polled and that the decision was unanimous. He then thanked the jury saying he knows that three weeks is a long time, that he's pleased they have followed the Court's admonitions. He told them that they had performed an important task and that it was greatly appreciated.

Judge Stewart told the jury that lawyers on the case have worked a long time and that they would probably appreciate their taking a few moments and talking with them, but that they are not required to do so. He then released the jury.

After the jury left, Judge Stewart thanked the lawyers again.

As the jury left the courthouse I asked each if they would answer a few questions about the case but none did, though a few continued to chat for a few minutes with the lawyers.

MSS2 ran to the courthouse and joined Chris Brown there:
I got a phone call from Chris, saying that the verdict was in. I dropped everything and raced up to the courthouse. I missed the verdict by three or four minutes. (Chris said it was really short.)

I got there just as a couple of Darl McBride's crew were leaving, heads down. They didn't want to talk to me.

I saw Stuart Singer as he was leaving. I told him that I thought it was a very impressive display of lawyering, or words to that effect. He said, "Thank you. Obviously, we're very disappointed." He seemed subdued.

And, I raced out so fast that I left my pen behind in my cube. I don't know what it is about me winding up at the Federal courthouse without a pen. That's the second time this trial...

Mr. Singer is, indeed, impressively skillful. There can be no doubt about that. SCO didn't lose because they didn't have resourceful lawyers. They did. They lost because they didn't get the copyrights. Not that SCOfolk ever take my advice, but I think they made a mistake bringing that icky slander of title claim. It was too far-fetched, too obviously mean and weird. I told them that by writing about it here on Groklaw back when it might have helped them, but they persisted. Who would think it might work? I find that part of the story hard to figure out. I continue to believe it was a tactical error.

So, they took in millions from Sun and Microsoft and threatened the Linux world for copyrights they don't own? Why, yes. Yes, they did. That's where it stands for now.

Of course, it's possible they might appeal. I've learned when it comes to SCO never to assume it's over, just because it should be over. But I think this verdict also means that Boies Schiller doesn't get out of the red on this case. I wonder if they will ever again take on a case with an agreement that they'll get paid up front and be responsible to take it all the way to the US Supreme Court on that dime, regardless of the actual time spent? I'm guessing no.

I also want to thank our volunteers at the courthouse and all the geeks who explained the tech over and over and over to make sure everyone understood it. And the Groklaw community for sticking with this project through thick and thin. Anyone thinking of suing over Linux now knows that the community will stand up for Linux no matter what. And we don't get tired and we don't quit.

And don't you want to thank the jury? I know I do. Did I not tell you that juries can be trusted? I hope this helps some of you cynics.

Ars technica has a bit more:

Novell expressed satisfaction with the verdict in a statement today. SCO has not responded to our request for comment.

"Novell is very pleased with the jury's decision confirming Novell's ownership of the Unix copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux," a Novell spokesperson said. "Novell remains committed to promoting Linux, including by defending Linux on the intellectual property front."

SCO cannot continue pursuing its infringement litigation against IBM or assorted Linux users because it doesn't own the copyrights that it claims are infringed by Linux. Even if the jury had ruled in SCO's favor, the overwhelming lack of evidence of infringement would still likely make it impossible for SCO to achieve victory in its litigation campaign. It's unclear if the company will be able to evade liquidation following this latest failure in court.

SCOsource is dead in the water now from this verdict. But don't forget, IBM has counterclaims. So does Red Hat have claims, if they are interested in pursuing them any more. Even in this Novell trial, there are some issues the judge has yet to decide. This saga is not finished.

Now begins the rest of the story.

Update: And we hear what the plans are from Edward Cahn, via Tom Harvey's report in the Salt Lake Tribune. Guess what they plan to do? Sue some more, of course, you silly wabbits:

Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is widely used in business computing.

But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.

"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on contracts," Cahn said.

See? They never quit, and they never learn. So onward! Mush! Here we go some more. I think SCO will regret this too, but as I say, they never listen to me. If they had, I could have saved them a lot of money, and their business too, I think. Sad, really. But whatever, y'all. They are addicted to litigation. They remind me of a gambler who just can't step back from the table, even though he just lost his watch, his money clip, his cuff links, and his entire money stash. So he bets his wife's diamond engagement ring so he can continue to bet some more.

The copyright claim was stronger, in my view, than the contract claims. If they couldn't prevail here, with this judge, and with the wind at their back from the strange Court of Appeals remand, where can they? Honestly, you'd need the fix to be in, I think, and even with almost everything tilted pro-SCO in Utah, it still lost. Maybe there's a lesson in this picture?

One lesson is that Morrison & Foerster live up to their nickname. What a remarkable job they have done, and Sterling Brennan with Workman. Just amazing to watch. Was it not a pleasure?

Does it ever occur to SCOfolk, though, to consider that they keep losing because they're simply wrong about the contracts, wrong about the tech, wrong about the copyrights, wrong about the history, and wrong about Linux? Doesn't the legal team have an obligation to sit the client down at some point and explain the facts of life? The contract claims depend on there being infringement. Where is it? Seven years later, could SCO step up to the plate and show some infringing code worthy of seven years of litigation? Otherwise, some of us might get the idea that this isn't actually about copyrights or contracts or infringing code.

Update 2: A reaction from Novell attorney Sterling Brennan, and what a fabulous lawyer he turned out to be! He's quoted in the Deseret News:

"This is a significant victory for Novell and, I think, a tremendous victory for the open-source community," said Novell attorney Sterling Brennan. He added that while there are still a few issues to be decided in the case and SCO has a right to appeal, "This verdict largely brings an end to this."
And Dana Blankenhorn analyzes it like this:
I think the more important point in all this is that Linux is out of court, and that whatever the merits of Microsoft’s patent claims on Linux technology it’s not dragging Linux back into court.

Any cloud overhanging use of Linux should now be clearly gone. Novell owns the copyrights.

He's right. The cloud is gone now. Even if, in an alternate universe, IBM could lose to SCO on contract claims, which I doubt could happen even in any alternate universe, any damages would be between SCO and IBM. Linux didn't sign contracts with SCO.

Oh, wait. SCO signed one, so to speak, with Linux. They call it the GPL, and if SCO goes forward, it will be a significant factor in SCO's troubles. The GPL stands in SCO's way. I told them that in 2003 and ever since.

There is no way to alter history after the fact. Truth is like a weed. It just keeps on growing, through cracks in the sidewalk if necessary.

And the truth is, thanks to a jury in Salt Lake City, Utah, and some fabulous lawyers it was a privilege to write about, Linux is now clean from SCO's claims.

Update 3: What would today be without Ms. O'Gara? So in the Huh? Department, here's what she got out of all this:

The trial saw Novell's former business executives beginning with ex-CEO Robert Frankenberg take the stand to testify that the copyrights were meant to pass to SCO. A few former Novell attorneys claimed they had reserved the copyrights without telling anybody. One of Novell's witnesses, one of its former lawyers Allison Amadia, who negotiated the amendment, even admitted under cross-examination that the amendment transferred the copyrights.
Nah. That isn't what happened, not that I heard. I guess you hadda be there. Here's one more taste:
Without the copyrights SCO has no standing to go after IBM.

SCO was also hoping to collect perhaps at much $215 million in lost business from Novell and an uncalculated amount of punitive damages, enough to put itself back on its feet.

heh heh

At least this proves one thing: she and Cahn aren't on the phone together. He just announced they will go after IBM on contract claims. So. Pretty much a wonderful day. I'm told you don't want to visit her link, unless you have anti-flash, anti-Javascript, anti-all-annoyances armor on. Turn on your SELinux firewall too. But here it is if you insist: http://java.sys-con.com/node/1338835

Update 4: Guys, docket 846 is the official jury verdict form. It has one checkbox checked on it (*Suitable for framing*). Docket 847 is fifty pages of official jury instructions:

03/30/2010 - 844 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ted Stewart: Jury Trial completed on 3/30/2010. Jury returns a verdict for Defendant Novell, Inc. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Edward Normand, Brent Hatch, Attorney for Defendant Sterling Brennan, Eric Acker, Michael Jacobs. Court Reporter: Karen Murakami. (slm) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

03/30/2010 - 845 - Witness and Exhibit List, filed by Plaintiff SCO Group, Defendant Novell, Inc.. (slm) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

03/30/2010 - 846 - JURY VERDICT for Defendant Novell. (slm) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

03/30/2010 - 847 - Jury Instructions. (slm) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

03/30/2010 - 848 - **SEALED DOCUMENT** Jury Notes. (slm) Modified on 3/30/2010: corrected to read "Jury Notes" (alt) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

Is this fun or what?

Here is what the verdict is, word for word:

1. Did the amended Asset Purchase Agreement transfer the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights from Novell to SCO?

____________
Yes

___[X]_____
No

And now I see that SCOTUSblog has chosen Novell's appeal for its list of notable petitions:
Two noteworthy petitions filed last month are Wong v. Smith, which challenges jury instructions as “coercive,” and Novell v. SCO Group, which concerns the terms of transfer of copyright ownership.
Update 5: And now we hear from SCO's attorney, Stuart Singer, that SCO will ask the judge to give them the copyrights, despite the jury's verdict:
"Obviously, we're disappointed in the jury's decision," said SCO trial lawyer Stuart H. Singer. "We were confident in the case, but there's some important claims remaining to be decided by a judge."

SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but it's not over."

Here's what he's referring to, the issues the parties agreed would be decided by the judge, not the jury. It's the next step. One of the issues is specific performance, meaning that SCO wants to argue that even if they didn't get the copyrights before, they were entitled under the APA and Amendment 2 to ask for the copyrights if they ever needed them. Like now, I gather. Here's the judge's order [PDF] on their various requests.

But here's a question. If it's true, as Singer reportedly told the jury in his closing argument, that SCOsource is dead and can't be revived now, why do they need the copyrights? For what use?

And speaking of specifics, if SCO is going to argue they need the copyrights now, I'd like them to have to be specific about which copyrights they are asking for and why they need them. I have serious doubts that anyone owns the copyrights that I think they'd list, so I'd like to see them demonstrate that anyone owns the copyrights currently, let alone that they should transfer.

And since the jury says the copyrights didn't transfer by the APA, if SCO wants them now, wouldn't they need to pay for them? With what?

And here is Michael Jacobs, on Law.com:

Michael Jacobs, a Morrison & Foerster partner who represented Novell, said it was a win for the company -- and supporters of open-source software.

"If this verdict continues to be sustained, they will not be able to go after the Linux community," said Jacobs. Even though the case incited a religious fervor, the final verdict turned on mundane issues of contract law: whether or not Novell had transferred certain rights to SCO during an asset sale more than a decade ago. The 12-person jury answered "no" unanimously.

And believe it or not, even IBM has a comment today, and that almost never happens, found in the Ashby Jones' Wall Street Journal coverage:
"This decision demonstrates the failure of SCO's litigation strategy," said an IBM spokeswoman.
Terse, but clear. And a bit more from Jacobs and Singer:
"We are disappointed by the verdict," said Stuart Singer, a lawyer for SCO. But "there remain important issues that will be decided non-jury by the court."

"We're very pleased," said Michael Jacobs, a lawyer for Novell. "While we're not quite done, we're almost there."

BusinessWeek's Susan Decker has another quote from Jacobs:
“This is an important milestone in this long-running dispute,” said Novell lawyer Michael Jacobs of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. “We’re very pleased for Novell and for the Linux community.”

Still pending before U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart in Salt Lake City is whether the copyrights should be transferred to SCO for the future and whether Waltham, Massachusetts-based Novell breached the contract with SCO by not allowing SCO to go after IBM, Jacobs said.

And someday the stupidest litigation in the history of the world will be over.

Tom Harvey at the Salt Lake Tribune got a gracious reaction from Edward Cahn:

Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee who is running SCO as part of its bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said he thought SCO had a strong case, adding its team was "deeply disappointed" by the outcome.

"Juries are unpredictable and that's why cases get settled," said Cahn, who attended several days of the trial. "I was quite confident we were going to prevail."

The case might have turned on the question of an amendment intended to clear up the confusing language of the original 1995 sales agreement. SCO argued it showed the parties' intention to transfer the copyrights in the sale. But Novell's attorneys presented a witness who had drawn up the amendment and said it was not intended to transfer copyrights, though she appeared to contradict that line under cross examination.

"We're very pleased for Novell, and I think this also is a big day for the open source community," said Sterling Brennan, a Salt Lake City attorney who represented Novell, along with the San Francisco firm of Morrison & Foerster.

Cahn praised Novell's legal team: "Morrison and Foerster are the best lawyers west of the Mississippi and they proved that today."

Well, they are east of the Mississippi too, actually. The firm has a global reach, which means that MoFo's are everywhere.

Update 6: An order regarding supplemental jury fees, which jurors there get if they serve more than a few days:

03/29/2010 - 843 - ORDER for Supplemental Jury Fees. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/29/2010. (asp) (Entered: 03/30/2010)


  


Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 6Xs | 2183 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT
:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Wahoooo


Tony

[ Reply to This | # ]

The HIGH FIVES thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Congratulation PJ and all Groklawers!!
Congrats also and a big THANK YOU to Brennan and Novell
:-)

bjd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Let's all join in the "ding dong" song... :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, yes, yes! [n/t]
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Make links clickable.

Read the Important stuff at the bottom of the Post A Comment page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Faith in the jury system is not completely misplaced!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official cork popping thread
Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Time to go whoosh...let that feeling of vindication wash over you....

---
Scott
-------------------------
LINUX - VISIBLY superior!
--------------------------------------

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT
YES! Woo hoo!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT

Finally, something to restore a bit of faith in the US legal system!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newpicks Here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT
Please include the title of the Newpick on the subject line of your comment

[ Reply to This | # ]

Surprised
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Excellent news!

Still I'm surprised; I couldn't follow the court reports too well, but to me it
didn't look that good for Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT
If any.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT
Finally, SCO had its days in court, in front of a jury here in Utah.

:o)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is there anything Stewart *still* needs to decide?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Not wanting to rain on any parades, but I'm trying to remember what Judge
Stewart was deciding and whether it is mooted by the verdict.

One was the "bad faith" and specific performance. This has been
mooted by the jury verdict I assume. What were the rest?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Can I stop refreshing every four seconds now?

Thank you very much to the jury, to MoFo and Brennan, to Chris Brown and all the
reporters, and to PJ, without whom none of this would have been possible.

I have put the champagne into the freezer to chill extra fast, and I will drink
to all Groklawians everywhere.

---
IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: AndyC on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT
Woo hoo!!!!

Not that we doubted it for a second...

Now, what'll that do the other court cases?

AndyC

[ Reply to This | # ]

A word of caution
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT
Specific performance is still not yet decided. Proposed decisions on that are
due, if I recall correctly, on April 16th.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT
Boy, that's sure going to hurt their stock... ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Twelve jurors doen, one jurist to go
Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
Great news on the Jury Verdict! Now, when does Judge Stewart rule on specific
performance? Will Novell get to bill SCOG for attorney's fees and expenses? What
happens next?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl, O'Gara et al
Authored by: Tinstaafl on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
I wish people with cameras could be near some of SCO's protagonists when they
receive the news. The looks on their faces would be priceless. Can't wait to
hear their version of reality.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
Doesn't the issue of what copyrights are "required" as a matter of
contract, and specific performance, now go to the court though ie Judge
Stewart?

Or did the jury also decide that no copyrights were "required" as a
matter of contract - specific performance was definitely for the court. The
copyrights may not be worth very much of course if Novell have in the meantime
open-sourced them. SCO also have the problem that specific performance would
probably be denied as they have failed on their side of the contract, namely
handing over the Sun money.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ralph's Dream of "Utter Destruction" Within Sight!
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
The Bowlegged IP Posse appears to have "bridged the gap" toward "utter destruction"!

Yay team!



---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Official "I WAS THERE" thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
Anyone who's ever joined, posted or just read Groklaw should
memorialize this moment with a short, but sweet reply here
(log in or include nickname and / or sig).

NealyWilly

[ Reply to This | # ]

The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread
Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT
Thanks, PJ for all your hard work, and not just in the last 3 weeks, either.

Now - please get some rest.

Thanks,
-jb

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT
I've placed Beethoven's Ode to Joy on the stereo, and am hoisting a glass of
wine to all concerned. Justice! Justice! Justice!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it really over?
Authored by: nb on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT
Ok, the jury has reached the decision which we know to be the correct one. And I must admit, now I'm a bit glad that Judge Stewart was so (IMO unfairly) kind to SCO in several of his decisions, because that obviously make it harder for SCO to win any appeal, or even to convince their chapter 11 Trustee that an appeal would be worthwhile to attempt.

But still, it isn't really over before the deadline for filing an appeal has passed, is it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's next move?
Authored by: stevec on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT
Can they afford to appeal or can they afford not to appeal, that is the
question, they are washed up no matter which way they go now.
Well done All.

---
Registered Linux user #375134 http://counter.li.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Premature Celebrations
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT
I really hate to rain on everyone's parade. I'm happy to see the news, as
everyone should be. However, don't get too optimistic, as there will most
likely be an appeal filed by SCO.

I don't think this is done, by a long shot. In a perverse sort of way, I look
forward to seeing what tricks SCO pulls.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appeal and Judges Ruling Aside
Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT
This is good news, but I still don't think we can get too excited until someone
cuts the head off the zombie (ie, Judge Stewart rules on the stuff he still can
rule on and the appeals court rejects SCO's appeal - we all know they are going
to appeal, right?).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
What's to stop the Chapter 7 now?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
Is that all? What about the other questions the jury were
voting on?

It seems fairly logical that they would also vote "not
guilty" on those, but how did it actually play out?

Is it correct that SCO now got 20 days to come up with a
story to the judge? So final judgement can at earliest be in
a month or so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw gets slashdotted in 3...2..1...
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
It'll be up on Slashdot soon - I haven't posted a story but I'm sure some of you
have....

Have the Groklaw tech folks talked to the server people to give them a heads up?

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's next?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
Just curious. Obviously this affects SCO v IBM, and probably a couple others.
How long will it take for the lawyers on either side to file for appeals? How
long will it take for the District Court to respond, etc., etc.?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Won't SCO Appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
Been watching this almost since day one and this took my breath away. What a
wonderful day! But won't SCO just appeal? And appeal? And appeal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT
So with this case, came a lot of FUD about the use of Linux within the
enterprise. Though I've seen a small migration to the platform the last year or
two, I wonder if this decision won't open up the floodgates.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: bruzie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT
I can't believe that after all this time, it's done. How long
before the IBM case is thrown out (with extreme prejudice)?

---
Chris Brewer
"Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilisation?"
"I think it would be a good idea."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT
WHOOOHOOOO! Thank goodness. I really didn't expect this news
so soon.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT
Result! I've been concerned, as I have to say that Brent Hatch seems to have
played a masterclass game considering the bad hand he was dealt with.

I can get some sleep now :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT
Got to say I'm proud of the Jury for seeing through to the bottom line of this
case. Well done.

Now - how does this help IBM nail Darl and his cronies to the wall?

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's NOT over
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:47 PM EDT
As PJ says, justice is not served if SCOfolk and their lawyers take their cash
and walk away. I have been predicting for years that IBM will pierce the
corporate veil after SCO's farcical case-in-chief is exposed on the record for
the utter fraud we've always known it to be. There are still some loose ends to
wrap up (like the arbitration) but it won't be long now (relatively speaking).
IBM will want to teach SCO a lesson that will reverberate all the way to
Redmond.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: amster69 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:48 PM EDT
I've just poured myself a large one!

Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ - How close are we to Groklaw Red Dress Day?
Authored by: deck2 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
Woooo Hoooo!!!

That is the question of the moment for me. I might not wear a red dress;
however, I will put on a red shirt for that day. I will also wear my hat and go
out and admire my cattle as I have both!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - What's next?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
woot!

So, does this moot SCO v IBM?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stockholder revenge
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT
If I were a SCO stockholder, I'd be looking to make somebody pay for the way all
of the value had been stripped out of this company by the way that the
executives have pursued this particular folly -- particularly in light of some
of the things that they knew when they began taking this course.

For example, the lack of any real evidence of copied code, the lack of any
transferred copyrights, etc. etc.

SCO executives all seem to have personally done quite nicely thank you out of
this little scam. Now it's time for the stockholders to start consulting their
own lawyers and see if they can't get their day in court -- and their pound of
flesh out of McBride et. al.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM EDT
I am so glad Novell won the case. I have been on a Grand Jury before and still
am. Reading the court reports, I had the impression that Novell should win, they
have more evidence(witnesses that were part of the APA) . Linux can now expand
and continue to be used without lawsuits.

- ndowens

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT
Awesome!

Now let's hope the second shoe will also drop and Judge Stewart will rule for
Novell on the remaining issues before the court!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT
Yes, Stewart has to make that ruling however I would be shocked if he found for
SCOX on specific performance. He heard all the testimony, specifically from the
lawyers who were actually involved in writing & negotiating the APA and
Amendment 2 - those were Novell's lawyers, SCOX apparently couldn't 'find' or
decided not to bring the action Santa Cruz lawyers. Major hole to fill there,
one a Judge can't miss.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Finally
Authored by: nyarlathotep on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT
The end is a bit closer and clearer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Made my Day!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT
This is what I have been waiting for since the beginning, finally and ending to
this lawsuit!

Thank you Novell!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you Groklaw
Authored by: furkoolitter on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT
Thank you PJ and Groklaw Hall of Fame.
Great work!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Champagne all round! But wait. This is SCO. Is it really over??
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT
I'd like to think this seemingly never-ending campaign has
really come to an end. But I'm not so sure with SCO being SCO,
they will probably try anything to soldier on.

What are the rules for appeals in federal cases? From the
apparent pro-SCO bias of the judge's rulings and the jury
ruling 100% against SCO in spite of that it seems their
prospects of having anything overturned are slim or
nonexisting, but can they actually do it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you Novell for staying the course against SCO’s shameful litigations.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT
Thank you Novell for staying the course against SCO’s shameful litigations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Critically important...
Authored by: nyarlathotep on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT
...is what now happens to the Oracle (nee Sun) contract and the Microsoft
contract.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time to release the Nazgul
Authored by: AH1 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT
So now does IBM get its chance to pick over what is left of SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Welcome to any jurors...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT
... wondering who PJ is and what the website they weren't allowed to visit is
all about. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

A big congratulations to the lawyers
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT
Can we just say a big congratulations to all the lawyers who've worked for
Novell on this case. Their work in this respect has been absolutely stellar, and
has been a total pleasure to watch. It's wonderful to see them finally triumph,
when so many of us had our doubts at times.

Well done, folks. Hope you get a well earned bonus for this one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO share price plummet
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT
A mysterious drop of almost 80% in the last few minutes. Has something happened? ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM EDT
This is going to make SCO v's IBM interesting.

As Novell owned the copyrights when SCO sued IBM, the APA kicks back in and
Novell's instruction that SCO can not pursue IBM as well.

So I guess all that's left is IBM's ICBM's of a counter-claim. :-)

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I am speechless!
Authored by: Gringo on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:06 PM EDT
Hard to believe it is all over but for the fat lady to sing...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lamb Chop's take
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT
http://linux.sys-con.com/node/1338835 (not clicky, for reasons I think should be obvious)

Without the copyrights SCO has no standing to go after IBM.

Couldn't agree more.

This one is killer:

A few former Novell attorneys claimed they had reserved the copyrights without telling anybody.

There's a few other gems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn and the Loan from Ralph.
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Suppose this stands and Cahn defaults on the loan, what does Ralph get?

He gets the license to Unix, he gets the copyright that SCO sold Caldera and the
ones Caldera/SCO developed on their own.

There might be a viable legitimate business in there but it's hard to see how he
can start another litigation terror campaign.

Essentially he loaned SCO some of the money he took out of the company and it
might be viewed as a sort of recovery.

I'd love to see the verdict form, with what the jury actually decided.

---
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 | # ]

Jury Can Read - SCO in SHOCK!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT
I guess SCO must be in SHOCK now that they have discovered that a jury can
read....

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ please keep Groklaw going.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT
The frantic pace is almost over. Chapter 7, maybe an appeal , the supreme court
??
The war is won.
Now Mickeysoft and what.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO
Authored by: chris_bloke on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT
Well done and a very big thank you to Novell, their legal
team, Groklaw and above all PJ. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who got paid...
Authored by: Zenock on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:15 PM EDT
"What a waste of money this all has been, and if the only folks who get
paid in the end are Cahn's lawyers and SCO's lawyers, something is seriously
rotten in this picture."

Darl McBride got paid. Oh he might not have gotten the MILLIONS he dreamed of.
But he got his 6 digit salary plus bonuses.

Ralph Yarro got paid.
He sold stock when the stock price peaked. He made millions.

Many of the other executives got paid who worked at SCO and Canopy group.

So, ok they didn't rake in what they were looking for. But there were many many
involved that got paid more than I will make in my lifetime.

And most of them will move on to some other scam er job making even more money.

If everything ended today, this would in no way be justice. It will not be
justice unless those that propigated this scam are made personally responsible
and restitution is required.

It won't happen, corporate protection and all that. But although legally a
coporation is a "person", it is an abstract entity. It can die and go
away and the people who made the actual real decisions in the corporation simply
move on while real people get hurt.

So did justice prevail. No. But a large part of the injustice was finally
stopped.

What a bitter sweet victory.
Z.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Breathe a collective sigh of relief thread!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT

Now to see just if SCOG is going to continue down the utter path of destruction.

Personally, I'm glad the Jury reached a verdict so quick as to be in 1.5 days of deliberation.

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Celebration?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT
Will we now also be treated with a photo of PJ in her red dress, surrounded by
Groklaw reporters and web masters in tuxedos and red bow ties?

:-)

We thank you all for your tremendous efforts!

Rolven

[ Reply to This | # ]

What happens if Novell changes hands?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT
This allows Novell to demand a higher price if anyone wants to buy them, I would
think.

Still, we saw what happened when Novell only got a new CEO a few years ago --
after the SCO litigation began. What will happen if they get a new owner --
Microsoft or a Microsoft proxy, for example?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank the Jury Thread
Authored by: argel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT
A warm thanks to the jury for working through the evidence to arrive at the
correct verdict!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT
Now that we know it was all a scam. to answer the question:
they took in millions from Sun and Microsoft and threatened the Linux world for
copyrights they don't own? Why, yes. Yes, they did.

Does Novell now have a case to go after SCO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pretty nice of Normand to flag Chris!
Authored by: argel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:20 PM EDT
That was pretty nice of Normand to flag Chris about the verdict.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is that all you've got?
Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM EDT
Well, actually Magistrate Wells, we don't even have that!

---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime -
Floyd, Pink

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO claims of copyrights in Unix to this very day
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ipprotectionfaq.html

"#6 Who owns the copyrights for UNIX?
SCO does not believe there should be any confusion as to ownership of the UNIX
copyrights. It clearly purchased these from Novell in 1995 as is evidenced in
the Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment 2 with Novell (see
www.sco.com/scosource/novell). Novell also further clarified this in its own
press release of June 6, 2003."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ha! Jury held out for a free lunch before returning verdict
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT
That's what it looks like. Smart folks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO vs IBM to continue!!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT
Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed
in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's
verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is
widely used in business computing.

But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the
computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system
a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.

"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on
contracts," Cahn said.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Supreme Court appeal
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT
Does this verdict impact the chances that the Supreme Court will review the
Appeals court ruling that a vague document can transfer copyrights?

Will the SCOTUS now look at it and say "Well, the Jury said no transfer
anyway, so no point in making precedent"

Will Novell continue their appeal?

--Joe

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's right to waive tSCOG's claims against IBM / AIX ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:31 PM EDT
upheld by this jury?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: Leg on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:32 PM EDT
I returned from my lunch hour and walked past the server room on the way to my
desk. IT was serving cake -- sitting around the floor of the server room making
loud noises eating cake from napkins without paper plates or plastic forks. I
understood at first glance what had happened...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Virtual Party, Anyone?
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:35 PM EDT

Anyone feel up for a virtual party? Pick a time, and we'll all raise a glass and celebrate this milestone.

PJ, you get to bring the chocolates. (For those that don't remember the reference, see this article.)

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

time to pay for some celebration
Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
PJ,

Thanks for working so hard for what seems like decades.

It is time to paypal a donation to celebrate a little......

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:37 PM EDT
Soooo.... Do we get to see PJ at long last? What's O'Gara gonna do now? It's
over. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Vindication for Judge Kimball
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:38 PM EDT
I hope he feels better now, especially that it took only a day and a half for
the jury to agree with him.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO stock price reaction
Authored by: jheisey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT
SCO's stock price is currently down 36 cents or 78% on the day to 10 cents a
share, with a day's low of 8 cents a share.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Goodbye SCO I will always loathe and detest you and what you represented.
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:39 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 | # ]

Does Sco now sue Utah for a defective jury ???
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT
Come on you know BSF will try to .

[ Reply to This | # ]

A HUGE hurdle cleared; thanks to all
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:44 PM EDT
This is indeed a good day.

I'm sure SCOG is still inclined to make mischief, but I think their wound truly
is mortal this time.

PJ, I can't describe how much I've enjoyed hearing this story from you over the
last seven years. I'm looking forward to more as the story winds down.

To all who've contributed, I've learned so much reading your comments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: Jeff on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:47 PM EDT
Awesome!!! It's red dress time!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wait! There's something missing!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Where are all those troll gloating about the decision they've been warning
about? You mean this wasn't what they expected?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The obligatory Monty Python
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT
'E's not litigatin'! 'E's passed on! This SCO is no more! He has ceased to be!
'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests
in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the corporation 'e'd be pushing up the
daisies! 'Is corporate processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked
the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined
the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SCO!!

:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Next up? A motion by debtors?
Authored by: zdvflyer on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM EDT
Would debtors have a good chance with requesting conversion to CH 7?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What of the rulings from the bench?
Authored by: Leg on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Will there be opportunities for the parties to question witnesses or argue their
case before Judge Stewart, or will Judge Stewart issue rulings with no further
proceedings?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell never giving in? PJ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT
"Thank you, Novell, for never giving up, and never giving in. Those of us
who love to use Linux will forever be thankful to you."

I am a little shocked you worded it this way PJ, after your Novell, Microsoft
reaction.

Although I have had three major event happen in the last week (this one of
them), I reserve judgement, until I see that SCO verses the world, is FINALLY
resolved.

So, in this instance, TODAY, can you consider this a partial victory, and just
wear the Red Skirt? :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Deseret News quote from Brennan
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:53 PM EDT
"This is a significant victory for Novell and, I think, a tremendous
victory for the open-source community," said Novell attorney Sterling
Brennan. He added that while there are still a few issues to be decided in the
case and SCO has a right to appeal, "This verdict largely brings an end to
this."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:57 PM EDT

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

Winston Churchill, 1942

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT
District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware,
said the company is "deeply disappointed"

Now Cahn has to go back and explain how he bet the farm and lost to the Judge in
Deleware. I'd be dissapointed too if I had the undaunted task of facing the
judge and explain losing everything on such a bet. Cahn fell for SCO's shady
business practices. Good luck Cahn, you're going to need it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

And our song of the day is
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw


[ Reply to This | # ]

United Linux
Authored by: iksrazal on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:01 PM EDT
What effect would that arbitration have on the IBM case, now that copyrights are
out of the picture? Will the arbitration continue after the Novell case judge
hit the gavel for the last time? If so, to what effect?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OpenSuSE scadenfreude
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:07 PM EDT
After 7 years. Thank you Novell. I'm typing this from my OpenSuse box.

---
-inode_buddha

"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn must be an idiot...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT
There. I said it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!
Authored by: NZheretic on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT
In Reply To Novell
Decision in the SCO Group vs. Novell Jury trial Thank you Novell

David Mohring (NZHeretic) Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Thank you for your long persistence in this matter.
I hope you will continue to abide by the terms of the Gnu Public Licence (GPL) upon which so much of your legal defense relied upon. I wish you could continue to show such great fortitude in confronting current threats to the Linux/Open source/Free Software ecosystem ( see website ).

Quote from website
< blockquote>The SCO Group has entered into a series of essentially inherently flawed lawsuits and fraudulent license claims against users of the Linux operating system. Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa Cruz Operation have been accepting, profiting from and distributing software developed by hundreds of independent developers under the terms of the GPL and LGPL license. The SCO Group has failed to put forward any sustainable legal theory why it should not abide by the terms of the GPL license. Detailed investigation into other facts and evidence which regularly conflict with the SCO Group's various legal claims, filing, press and public statements, raises serous questions which can no longer be explained away by a lack of competence in either the SCO Group's CEOs or the SCO Group's legal representation.

There is now increasing evidence that Microsoft has been indirectly financing -- to the point of sustaining -- the SCO Group's campaign against Linux. Disclosed internal email memos back up by recent filings to the US Securities and Exchange Commission indicate that at least a third of SCO's entire market capitalization, and their entire current cash reserve, is payoffs funnelled from Microsoft.

The relationship between Microsoft, the SCO Group and the SCO Group's recent financial backers requires immediate investigation by all agencies entrusted with providing the consumer with protection from abusive business practices and monopolies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl's rep on the line? 10 cent stock
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT
The SCO Group, Inc.
(Public, OTC:SCOXQ)
0.100 -0.360 (-78.26%)

Ha ha, this puts these dirty rat's options under water!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can the SUSE arbitration now finally begin?
Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:30 PM EDT
This trial is now over and the SUSE arbitration should begin - tSCOg needs more
nails in its coffin!

.

---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

See? They never quit, and they never learn.
Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT
"See? They never quit, and they never learn."

Why should Cahn quit? It's not his money that's getting
spent. The professionals (including Blank Rome) are getting
paid.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where did all the settlements go?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:35 PM EDT
Dear Mr. Cahn and Judge Gross:

It's been seven years. After the Novell verdict, do you really think IBM is
going to settle now?

Problem is, I suspect Gross will go ahead, anyway. It's not if, but when, he
will lift the stay on IBM. If it were any other judge and any other case, this
would be a slam dunk Chapter 7.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now for arbitration
Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM EDT
How does this affect the arbitration in Switzerland?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated
Authored by: comms-warrior on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
YAAAAHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's taken *SEVEN* years to kick their butts out of the door. SEVEN!

I'm so proud of the work that Groklaw has done with this whole situation - The
SCO scum really needs to have a good, hard look at themselves - and to look at
the values Groklaw have held throughout this whole sorded affair.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should Linux authors now sue SCO for violating their license?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
Since they violated the GPL, can they not now be sued by any of the various
authors of Linux code?

If 100 entities each filed a law suit against SCO surely they would not be able
to answer all 100 suits..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tee shirt ideas?
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
Maybe we can come up with a tee shirt design (to be sold on the Groklaw store) to commemorate the occasion. Here is one idea:
Seven years ago, Microsoft funnelled $50 million to dummy corporation that sued Free and Open Source Software (that I helped make) for copyright infringement.

On March 30, 2010, a jury said they didn't even own the copyrights they were suing us over.

All I got was this wonderful tee shirt.


---
You just can't win with DRM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What about IBM?
Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT
This was the question on my mind when I first heard the news though this article
sheds some light. It seems to me continuing the IBM litigation is very much a
suicide march. If SCO has no demonstratable copyright "standing", any
and all contract issues already fully goto Novell control per the existing
contracts, simple as that. At most, all that SCO can accomplish is seeing how
many of IBM's counterclaims get validated in court.

In a way it is a shame that Novell's Slander of title claim died before the jury
got to decide, although clearly, given the limited time and the immensely tilted
field they were on, Novell choose the right things to focus on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I guess Saddleback now becomes Saddlesore
Authored by: jjock on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT
I guess Darl had better round up his hat and waddle off into the
sunset. I am sure that this isn't the end of SCOs attempt to
survive as a litigation company, and I can handle it as long as
they remain a litigate and lose company.
The cost to the people who have to defend themselves from
these extortionists is high, but there just isn't another option.
I hope this doesn't moot the appeal to SCOTUS.
I am so happy,
Bob

[ Reply to This | # ]

What SCO requested as specific performance
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:50 PM EDT
V.
SCO’S ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
If the APA, as amended, somehow failed to transfer the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights, SCO clearly would be entitled to compel the transfer of copyrights
“required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX
and UnixWare technologies.” If SCO only received an implied license to the
copyrights, SCO would not be able to exercise the rights it indisputably
acquired under Items II and III of the Assets Schedule to bring claims under the
UNIX and UnixWare Software and Sublicensing Agreements. SCO needed ownership of
the copyrights to bring such claims, as Novell itself acknowledged by asserting
ownership of the copyrights precisely to foreclose SCO’s contract claims against
IBM.

The evidence will show that (1) SCO’s capacity to bring claims to enforce the
UNIX and UnixWare copyrights is an integral and necessary component of operating
the UNIX and UnixWare licensing businesses, (2) SCO’s copyright claims against
IBM were premised on UNIX and UnixWare copyrights existing as of the execution
of the APA, and (3) such copyrights covered all of the technology in UNIX and
the majority of the technology in UnixWare.

Contrary to Novell’s prior argument, moreover, Amendment No. 2 does not compel
SCO to show that it was unable to operate its business without suing IBM in
particular, but even if it did, SCO easily meets the standard. If SCO were
unable to pursue or recover on those claims against IBM, SCO would be unable to
exercise the rights in the entire UNIX business, which includes the right to
pursue claims to protect misuse of the UNIX and UnixWare source code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! Great News! And record numbers of comments?
Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:59 PM EDT
I got on the web a bit ago, not yet expecting to hear anything, and I was
wonderfully surprised by the news! And, there were already a bit over 400
comments. I just looked again, less than a minute ago, and there were just about
600 comments. Wow! I bet that's a record (for Groklaw) of comments in a short
time period.

Not Red Dress Time yet, perhaps, but it's (figuratively) around the corner.

And ever so many thanks to all the reporters we've had at the various
trials/briefings/etc. over the years. And even greater thanks to PJ who has done
an almost unbelievable job keeping us all informed and explaining to us about
the various legal procedures/rules/etc.

SUPER!

---
Larry N.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I hope this helps some of you cynics. "
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:02 PM EDT
That is of course unfair; it took seven years!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contract with Linux
Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:16 PM EDT
Dixit PJ:
Linux didn't sign contracts with SCO.
There is the UnitedLinux contract. The arbitration has not been resolved yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is It All A Giant Smoke Screen
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:17 PM EDT
On the surface SCO seems to be plain crazy pursuing this litigation against
obvious odds. But what if that isnt the objective. What if microsoft is using
this to divert attention while it quietly pursues its more sinister plans:
bashing open source in europe. hedging open source projects in with patents to
block their development options (see sudo patent as an example), bullying
companies to sign patent protection agreements etc. If that is microsofts plan
then they will want this litigation to go on and on until the last possible
moment. Someone very big is underwriting this litigation. For example, even the
way that the trustee has swung in line with the litigation speaks of big
personal rewards. SCO isnt in a position to offer those rewards. the elephant in
the drawing room is. I think whether SCO loses is almost inconsequential to the
objectives behind the litigation (an unexpected bonus if they did win). i'm sure
the boies boys are being well remunerated by somebody for all their effort.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:18 PM EDT
Edward Cahn directed Zombie movies! Check it out: The Zombies of Mora Tau

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated
Authored by: eschasi on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT
This inspired me to go back and look at a few items from Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive! I'm savoring such gems from Judge Kimballs decision as
... the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on Novell's slander of title claim.
And
...Novell is entitled to a declaration of rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent...
And who could forget PJ's pithy comment:
That's Aaaaall, Folks! The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". That's the ball game. There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses.
It does my heart good to have all that stuff re-affirmed. Break out the chocolate and scotch, honey, I'm comin' home to celebrate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT
Congratulations Novell

And thank you, everyone, at Groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

Time for the UST to stand up
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT
The UST needs to wake up from his stupor and recommend an end be put to this.
All of the converter Novell funds were used to fight Novell, and SCOX lost. Now
more money is going to be wasted fighting IBM? The same IBM which held off the
US Government?

Move to convert to Chapter 7 and shut this abomination down.

hpn
(yeah, I forgot my password, what are you going to do, take me out back and
shoot me? :) )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT
PJ... A sincere thank you. I took some offense to the tone of the site and
stopped posting here during it's first few months. I have continued to be an
avid reader and as long as your site exists I will remain so. Your service in
providing factual data to the community and the world at large has been
invaluable. You cannot be thanked enough. If I wore one then my hat would be off
to you. This is a sweet victory. It's not over as appeals will loom but it is
vindication of your efforts and the smear put on the open source community by
those at SCO who attempted to blackmail (in the vernacular if not the legal
sense) the world at large.

Again I thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Short, close. n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell won but look at this...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:26 PM EDT
From Businessweek...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-30/novell-owns-unix-copyrights-jury-say
s-in-defeat-for-sco-group.html

"Still pending before U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart in Salt Lake City is
whether the copyrights should be transferred to SCO for the future and whether
Waltham, Massachusetts-based Novell breached the contract with SCO by not
allowing SCO to go after IBM, Jacobs said."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn's dream and what remains to be judged
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:34 PM EDT
Here's one thing that remains, that will absolutely kill Cahn's dreams of continuing the IBM case.
2. The judge should decide SCO's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Novell's claim for declaratory judgment regarding the waiver, and SCO's claim for specific performance. Footnote 1 indicates the parties dispute what is left to be tried by anybody on the good faith claim.

Remember, these issues are still before the judge. When he rules that Novell has the rights as listed in the contract, regarding the waiver, SCO can no longer pursue the IBM case. Novell is going to get the court to say so. I don't know why Cahn thinks he can, has he not followed this litigation? He's an ex-judge. How can he be so blind? The IBM case is going nowhere.

It's like he's been hit with an "Imperious Curse", and everything Yarro says he does.

--Celtic_hackr

[ Reply to This | # ]

A humble request for Novell....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:39 PM EDT

If you haven't actually taken the time to compare the Linux code base and Unix Sys V. Please be willing to consider spending the resources to do that.

With those results in hand, you can put forth an official press release as an owner of the copyrights clearing stating whether or not Linux infringes.

This would be a serious step in the direction of preventing a future would-be SCOG from ever attempting to use Unix in the same fashion again. It would also be a significant step in clearing the FUD about Linux.

After all... the copyright owner is in the most official position to be able to Legally analyze and clear someone else of copyright infringement :)

RAS

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:40 PM EDT
Question: How can SCO go after IBM? I mean sure they can plan to, or say a lot
of things but the fact is Novell has already told them to back off. Novell has
now confirmed their right to tell SCO to back off IBM or anyone else over Unix.

Thank PJ,
Brotherred

[ Reply to This | # ]

Truth is like a weed
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:46 PM EDT
Truth is as the Tide, as the Sea, as the great Oceans of this Earth. Every
child, woman and man can escape the ebb and flow for some while, this is facile.
None can command the ebb and flow, this is impossible.

SCOG and the mysterious backers are as Canute. They have averted the ebb and
flow, and so they delude themselves that they may command the ebb and flow, they
cannot. SCOG will drown soon, before I suffer from most of the pains of old
age. The mysterious backers will drown later, perhaps before my children will
suffer from most the pains of old age, I hope.

The struggle will be life long, it will have to pass through the generations, it
is worthwhile beyond mesaurement, it is the duty of all us who aspire to be free
women and men, who begin to understand what it means to be free, it is our duty
for our children, and our childrens' children, ...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Syncronicity?
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:51 PM EDT
Just went over to Yahoo for a quick look at the news and the headline is

"Tyra Banks stuns in simple red dress"

Timing!


---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cartoon about verdict
Authored by: MacUser on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:53 PM EDT
Here is a cartoon to mark today's verdict. It's public domain; following the jury's lead, I have ruled that the copyrights do not go to me;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kumbaya anybody?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT
I feel like singing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Kumbaya anybody? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:11 PM EDT
black knight of SCO
Authored by: kh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT
Look you honour, TSCG have persevered with this case for years, even until they
drove the company into bankruptcy. They must know something. That proves they
must be right. This verdict is only a flesh wound. Come back here and I'll
bite your knee.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Incompetence of trustee Edward N. Cahn
Authored by: ak on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:04 PM EDT
It is now obvious (if it was not obvious before) that Edward N. Cahn is not
competent to act as a trustee in this case. It is time to replace him before he
creates even more damage.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Once upon a time...
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:10 PM EDT
A wicked witch was brought in to run an ailing company that distributed a
version of GNU/Linux.

The company also had a UNIX business that it had purchased.

The wicked witch saw some similarities between Linux and UNIX and said that much
of Linux was copied from UNIX.

The wicked witch ignored everyone that tried to say that Linux code was either
original or copied legally from UNIX.

Despite being the head of a company specialising in both Linux and UNIX, the
wicked witch never revealed any significant details of the alleged infringment.

On the basis of the UNIX purchase agreement that said that all copyrights were
excluded from the sale, he demanded payment for the right to use Linux.

When told that the copyrights had not been transferred the wicked witch sued for
slander of title and lost.

Meanwhile the wicked witch had started lots of other court cases and bankrupted
the company.

The wicked witch lost the job of running the company...

...and the penguin and the GNU lived happily ever after.

---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Uh-oh!!
Authored by: charlie Turner on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:14 PM EDT
Now what am I going to do with myself and my time after work each evening??????

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Uh-oh!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:21 AM EDT
    • Uh-oh!! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Specific performance? Not until you pay Novell what you owe?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM EDT
Stupid layman's questions:

SCO stole Novell's share of the MS and Sun licenses. Given that ruling, which
the 10th Circuit upheld, why wouldn't Novell be entitled to withhold its end of
the bargain (the copyrights) until SCO upholds its end of the bargain (the
license fees)?

Isn't the conversion a breach of contract?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Of course, it's possible they might appeal"
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM EDT
On what grounds?

Either they can prove a jury misconduct (e.g. a jury
discussion the issues with family over the weekend) or serious
error by the judge (e.g. refusing to let them bring some
evidence/testimony). I don't think that either one will be
easy to prove.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:19 PM EDT
We are just dancing over here. I can't wait to get home from a friend's house so
I can hoist an absinthe to celebrate.

Cheers, all!

Linux Uber Alles!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's Supreme Court Appeal
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:25 PM EDT
Does the jury verdict effectively moot the Court of Appeals opinion as a
practical matter, or does it still stand as binding precedent in the 10th
Circuit.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Another thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:42 PM EDT
  • Novell to proceed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:50 PM EDT
Suitable for framing? Why stop there?
Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:40 PM EDT

I think you should put the jury verdict form on some t-shirts too. =)

---
---
“'Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business' are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc."

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO now wants copyrights ASSIGNED to them !
Authored by: dkpatrick on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:08 PM EDT
SCO wants 'em assigned! '"Obviously, we're disappointed in the jury's decision," said SCO trial lawyer Stuart H. Singer. "We were confident in the case, but there's some important claims remaining to be decided by a judge. 'SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but it's not over." ' Huh? How does this work?

---
"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Cahn be sued?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:10 PM EDT
Since Cahn rolled the dice and lost, can he be sued by the creditors for
draining the estate by continuing on an obvious path of self destruction? One
would hope that a trustee that enjoys gambling with other people's money would
be fired by the bankruptcy court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

without money
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:13 PM EDT
then SCO tried with threats to sell something that is not theirs, that according
to them can be infringing.

how you defend yourself without money?, already know how good they are their
lawyers

in a "but for" without Novell, RedHat, IBM, etc., what would happen?

I was just imagining the plot of the new movie :)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury instructions
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:29 PM EDT
Is it common for the jury not to have a transcript?

I have followed this case for years and read all the reports, but I would still
have a hard time remembering who said what on the stand.

Greg H

[ Reply to This | # ]

Story up on Wall Street Journal.... "Norwegan Blues stun easily"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:30 PM EDT
Not bothering with a clicky since it's a teaser for paid "content"
(what else did you long haired smellies expect).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304739104575154253257189786.html?K
EYWORDS=+novell++sco

"Novell Wins Unix Case"

(We'll send them the AT&T "bible of the UNIX* trademark").

OneSpot was generating hits here from the deep pocket wannabees: Goog:
"wall street journal +sco +novell".





*UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do not write on the Jury Instructions
Authored by: UncleJosh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:43 PM EDT
we wash them off and use them in the next trial :-) :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I believe IBM has Cahns head on a pike!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:44 PM EDT
IBM will win.
They want their quota of blood from SCO.
Cahn has NO choice.

MaUrEeN O GARaH's column is mindless trash.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is a HUGE victory for SCO.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:49 PM EDT
At long last, SCO has had its day in court - and SCO has had a huge victory.

The court confirmed SCO's long held position that Novell did not transfer the
copyRIGHTS. So therefore it is clear that they transferred the copyLEFTS.

Everyone knows that linux is all copyLEFT.

Therefore SCO owns all of linux.

What a glorious day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question about the Sun and Microsoft licenses
Authored by: kh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:56 PM EDT
I seem to remember that the Sun and MS licenses were ruled by Kimball to be
Unixware licenses not Unix licenses.

Since SCOXQ.BK now doesn't have the copyrights to Sys V does that mean that Sun
and MS only have rights to whatever SCO added to unixware not to basic Unix Sys
V code?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I vote for another round of applause ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:01 PM EDT
... for Chris Brown and MSS2 and everyone who did such a wonderful job of giving
us reports from the courtroom.

Absolutely fabulous, IMO.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Specific performance.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:12 PM EDT
The SCO Group argues their demand for the alleged "UNIX copyrights"
under schedule 1.1(g) of the amended APA:

"II. All of Seller's claims arising after the Closing Date against any
parties relating to any right, property or asset included in the
Business."

This is a lost cause under the jury's verdict, which has clearly stated that the
amended APA did not convey the alleged "UNIX copyrights" as a property
or asset in the Business acquired by the Santa Cruz Operation.


"III All of Seller's rights pertaining to UNIX and UnixWare under any
software development contracts, licenses and any other contracts to which Seller
is a party or by which it is bound and which pertain to the Business (to the
extent that such contracts are assignable), including without limitation:

A. Joint Development with third parties:

1. In-process development agreements
2. Past development agreements with on-going pricing discounts
3. Past development agreements without ongoing pricing discounts
4. Joint development agreements in which Seller didn't get full rights to
the code developed.

B. Third Party Software license agreements -- Those agreements in which Seller
pays per copy fees for technology/products which are shipped with or to be used
with UNIX System and/or UnixWare.

C. Joint marketing agreements -- Marketing programs with customers.

D. End user MLA agreements -- Agreements to allow end users to copy binary
products for internal use only. Associated with these agreements are support
requirements.

E. UNIX-only VAR agreements -- UNIX Master VARs

F. Support agreements - End user support agreements (i.e. TMAC, NALCOMIS)

G. Microsoft agreement (Xenix Agreement) - Xenix compatibility and per copy fee
agreement. Seller will agree to discuss with SCO Seller's interpretation of this
agreement.

H. Microsoft Agreement (Extra-Ordinary Discount) - Microsoft's additional
discount beyond 50%

I. Strategic Relationship Agreements (i.e. MTA, ECPA, MBA, etc.)

J. Out-sourced development (i.e. India) - Development agreements with third
parties Wipro and HCL) and Infix Development Center. IDC is a Seller
subsidiary.

K. Out-sourced Support Agreements

L. Software and Sublicensing Agreements - This includes the source codes and
sublicensing agreements that Seller has with its OEM, End User and Educational
customers. The total number of these agreements is approximately 30,000.

M. OEM Binary Licensing Agreements - OEM distribution of UnixWare with Seller's
agreement to include some OEM added value into future releases of
UnixWare."

The software and sublicensing agreements are included under this clause, but the
seller's "rights" are assigned, and not any "claims" that
might arise under the the agreements. The Santa Cruz Operation would be
empowered to rightfully receive payment of royalties and to audit the
performance of the licensee as would be expected of an agent, but the equitable
interest in the proceeds and any claims that might arise are not assigned to
S.C.O.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:21 PM EDT
Appropriate video....
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:15 PM EDT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPzG7q3IW9I (Goodies pirate radio station, part
16)

Watch to the end - there's some good lessons in here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:18 PM EDT
Hurray!Hurray!
SCO is dead!
I hope every Linux Company sues them for defamation and slander.

<a href="http://mylinuxpage.com/">My Linux Page</a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Full on loving 46
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:20 PM EDT
Something about that reads like the hammer shutting this case closed.

The way it's the first question is answered, and all of the rest of the BS is skipped. Beautiful. Sums it up perfectly.

And, I hesitate to put this part here, because I really want SCO to pursue this pipe dream to it's inevitable conclusion, but I feel like I need to say this to Judge Cahn.

Please. Go ahead. Pursue the IBM litigation, please. Look at the comments, look into our (metaphorical) eyes, from the day this fiaSCO began seven long years ago until today -- have you ever seen any trace of fear? Please pursue the big question of Linux infringing on anything.

My big concern has been that SCO will drive themselves out of business before the conclusion of the IBM case and then get to claim "We had valid claims, but the big money ran us out of business before we could have our day in court".

Have your day in court. Present your "evidence". Put your experts up for cross examination. It's the day we've been waiting for. Keep listening to the SCO principals. Don't look at the history. Keep pushing to the end. We say "bring it on".

I only hope that, at the end of it all, the veil is pierced (because somebody should pay for the seven plus years of needless litigation) and I hope, when that day of reckoning comes, the name of Cahn is not forgotten.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Full on loving 46 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 12:10 PM EDT
Docket 846
Authored by: kenryan on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:29 PM EDT
It amazes me that everything that's been going on, all that fuss and bother,
comes down to one little pen mark on a piece of paper, written by somebody who
has never heard of SCO, likely never heard of Linux, and likely could not
possibly care less other than to do his civic duty.

Power to the People!

:-)

---
ken
(speaking only for myself, IANAL)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Suitable for framing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:32 PM EDT
Guys, docket 846 is the official jury verdict form. It has one checkbox checked on it (*Suitable for framing*). Docket 847 is fifty pages of official jury instructions:

I believe I'm going to fire up the printer and do just exactly that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Idle speculation
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:32 PM EDT
1. Cahn keeps going because he fears a legal harassment from the "SCO"
side more than IBM, Novell, Red Hat, remaining SCO shareholders and creditors
side. He also knows that the "SCO" side is so afraid that someone will
come up with more money.

2. Judge Stewart considers awarding specific performance just to return the
favor the CoA provided him, maybe even have them overturned in the Supreme
Court.

3. If SCO can't win in Utah, with a jury, with fine lawyering, and with Stewart
giving them pert'near anything that had a ghost's chance of grounds for appeal,
where are
they to draw inspiration for slogging on?

4. Jurors that don't have to worry about being sued by SCO, they can be a little
more decisive. Yay juries!

5. SCO's best chance was jury tampering. It's nice to see that our community
made this bug dangerously shallow. Three cheers for our reporters and the way
they comport themselves! Hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray!
And to my fellow Groklawers thanks for being awesome.

6. SCO finds a way to spin this as vindication.

7. I hope PJ gets some hugs out of this. I'd be hard pressed not to hug her if I
ever met her.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dear Judges Cahn and Goss
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:36 PM EDT
Re: Settlements

Executive summary: Ain't happening.

Fuller explanation:

The marketing and strategic value of seeing these suits through to the end and a
final vindication on the undoubted merits vastly outweighs the cost of
litigation to both IBM and Novell, not to mention Red Hat.

You will not get a dime in nuisance money from anyone.

The only settlement terms likely available to you amount to abject surrender on
your part and participation in the pursuit of the people who sponsored this
attempted extortion racket in the first place.

Time to quit while you're behind.



---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what
it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con
so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Singer asking Judge Stewart for a Hail Mary, (the Copyrights)...
Authored by: Zarkov on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:41 PM EDT
SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but it's not over." Here's what he's referring to, the issues the parties agreed would be decided by the judge, not the jury. It's the next step. One of the issues is specific performance, meaning that SCO wants to argue that even if they didn't get the copyrights, they were entitled under the APA and Amendment 2 to ask for the copyrights if they needed. Like now, I gather. Here's the judge's order [PDF] on their various requests. But here's a question. If it's true, as Singer reportedly told the jury in his closing argument, that SCOsource is dead and can't be revived now, why do they need the copyrights? For what use?

This has to be a last desperate plea to stay in the game surely? SCO need the copyrights to maintain its status to the IBM litigation. Without the copyrights all SCO can hope for is not to be eaten too quickly by IBM's counter-claims...

Also, if Judge Stewart hands the copyrights over to SCO, they win on two fronts: They keep the litigation lottery alive, and at worst they have something to sell to some other troll who might have better luck than them...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jury Instructions (847) are fascinating
Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT
I wish we had had 847 (the jury instructions) before the trial started. (I know,
I know, they weren't done yet, and we wouldn't get them anyway.) They provide a
clear roadmap of what SCO had to prove -- as I read them, there were a lot of
"aha, so that's why they had <foo> testify about <bar>"
moments.

Long, but well worth reading. I'm still learning about the law after all these
years -- the main reason I've enjoyed Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think that the only thing left to say is....
Authored by: Lazarus on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM EDT
Play them off, keyboard cat!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGQ5VFt7P4&feature=related


(I may try to make an SCO specific Keyboard Cat.)

---
I have no opinion on things I know nothing about.

This separates me from 90% of the human race, and 100% of politicians.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I hope the Bankruptcy Judge wakes up...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:59 PM EDT
I hope the Bankruptcy Judge wakes up after hearing this bit of news.

I hope he realizes that the game is OVER. The litigation game is DONE.

I hope he moves SCO into Chapter 7.

Otherwise, the bankruptcy courts are a farce.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"This saga is not finished"
Authored by: Nice Kitty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:00 PM EDT
As I wrote, perhaps a half-hour or so ago in some slightly-obscure NNTP
newsgroup:

*FINALLY*.

Oh wait... when/where SCO is concerned, "finally" is *never*
"finally" (as in "How long will SCO drag this
s#it out on appeal?").

Pamela Jones is probably doing backwards
somersaults ; - )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:04 PM EDT
Comments here and even lawyers for both sides talked about Amendment 2 excluding
all copyrights except what SCO needed for their business. That's not what it
says. It excludes all copyrights except those that are required for SCO to
exercise their rights with respect to the acquisition.

This gives Singer a powerful argument to use. The jury decided that the APA plus
Amendment 2 did not transfer any copyrights. Naive logic would conclude that the
jury interpreted Amendment 2 as saying that copyrights would have transferred if
any of them were necessary for anything that was being acquired by SCO via that
APA, but in their opinion there were no such copyrights so none were excluded
from the exclusion.

But that would not be SCO logic. If Judge Stewart would only rule that Novell is
required to hand over all the copyrights, then that would make copyrights part
of the Acquisition. Naturally in order to exercise their rights with respect to
the acquisition of the copyrights, SCO would require the copyrights. Therefore
all the copyrights would be included in the set of copyrights included in the
exclusion phrase in the exclusion clause 1.1b.

This would not contradict the finding of the jury, because at the time the jury
found that copyrights were not transferred by the APA plus Amendment 2, they
really had not transferred. That will all change when Judge Stewart grants SCO's
request regarding specific performance, as that will change what is included in
"with respect to the acquisition". Since the APA and Amendment 2 were
written before the trial even began, Judge Stewart's decision by changing the
meaning of the word Acquisition as defined in the APA will have a retroactive
effect, erasing the jury decision as if it never happened. Slam dunk for SCO.

Don't worry, though. By making the jury decision as if it never happened, that
will open the door for Novell to take it back to the 10th Circuit on the grounds
that the appeals decision required the issue to be remanded to the District
Court to be decided by a jury. The 10th Circuit will have to send everything
back to Judge Stewart for a jury trial. Because everything will have been reset,
they will have to repeat the same trial with the same arguments with the same
results.

As everyone knows, changing the past like this is liable to create a time loop.
Luckily before the start of the loop Novell was able to get their petition for
cert to the Supreme Court. If it is granted, the Supreme Court will have the
power to break the loop. Otherwise we are doomed to read Groklaw articles about
the trial over and over and over and...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again and so did we !
Authored by: Rollyk on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:47 PM EDT
Thank you Pamela Jones ! PJ ! Rules !
Your persistence has paid off, for us, the faithful silent crowd that has
followed you through the slights and slanders.
You have helped the "Open Source" community towards an even greater
victory.
Getting rid of abused "patent protection" .

Wish there was a victory party !

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell lawsuit against Microsoft dismissed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:43 AM EDT
It seems like for every step forward for Novell there is a
step back.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/20114
83078_msftnovell31.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Three Hurrah for Judge Kimball
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:51 AM EDT
I'm sure he had a pleasant day. He deserved it and the hurrah

[ Reply to This | # ]

Appeal to SCotUS moot?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:54 AM EDT
Doesn't the verdict make the appeal to the SC moot?
What happens to that now?

I know not really relevant but I am curious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:05 AM EDT
So SCO gets double dibbs. If they don't get the copyrights, they get a second
chance to ask the judge just to give it to them. Nice strategy. I hope it
fails. SCO shouldn't get 2 shots at the copyrights, acutally 3 because the lost
the first time, then lost to a jury and now are trying to get a 3rd shot by
willy nilly asking the judge to make Novell hand them over and void the very
powerful language in the contract. Novell can Waive. SCO will beg Judge Stewart
to condone their extortion racket.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: hsjones on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:06 AM EDT

Wow... It's been so long since I've logged in to Groklaw! It was once my favorite recreational activity! I can't believe it's been so long, and yet the facts remain exactly as we all understood them to be five years ago... but now with a jury verdict. Amazing.

I summarized my thoughts on today's news on my blog. I invite you all to please go there and read what I said: http://s jones.prblogs.org/2010/03/30/novell-still-owns-unix-duh/

Thanks and... Peace!

Scott Jones

Former Product Line Manager, Novell, Inc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:34 AM EDT

WOOT!

[ Reply to This | # ]

My beauty sleep
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:48 AM EDT
The news came when I had my beauty sleep, and was updated four times.

Great news!!!

Excellent!

Brilliant morning!

Congrats to each and everyone involved!



.

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ Book thread
Authored by: symbolset on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:57 AM EDT

I want a Groklaw book. A story, from the PJ POV, that documents this disaster from beginning to end.

PJ, give us a book!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Give Credit Where It Is Due
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:19 AM EDT
I was one of those people who was critical of the way Judge Stewart was
conducting the trial. It appears that he was smarter than all of us. In
hindsight it would be surprising if he hadn't read through all the previous
court deliberation. He knew what he had to do. Don't give SCO the slightest hint
of an appeal-able decision on his part. He had full confidence in the jury and
didn't mind if he appeared to be biased against Novell. He wasn't concerned
about a Novell appeal.

Of course, his follow-up decisions will be the yardstick but I fully expect that
they will now go Novell's way. Let's see.

Other posters are talking about the IBM case. It won't happen. SCO are out of
money. They're dead in the water. The trustee is merely going through the
motions. He is saying what he has to say in his position. He can't be seen to be
throwing in the towel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well this tells a story :-)
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:41 AM EDT
SCO Group Inc. (SCOXQ.PK) 30 Mar: 0.10 $
Volume: Mar 30 2010 3,963,700

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SCOXQ.PK#chart1:symbol=scoxq.pk;range=6m;i
ndicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=unde
fined

---
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 | # ]

Do Kimball's ruling now stand?
Authored by: thorpie on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:43 AM EDT
There are many previous comments that Stewart now has to decide a number of
issues.
But hasn't Kimball already decided them?
If the appellate court passed back only the items that needed a jury, and these
has now been decided as per how Kimball initially ruled, why does SCO have a
second pick at anything else?
Surely Kimball's rulings on all other matters should now simply be affirmed.
And there wasn't anything else left, was there?

---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime -
Floyd, Pink

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is not over until I say it is!
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:01 AM EDT
Anyway, some time in February or March, 2004 I forecast that Novell would win the jury trial. Unfortunately, I cannot find the text using the Groklaw search engine, but my next door neighbour says that's what he remembers happening and the girl at the checkout says she can't believe it could be any other way. So, just give me my props.

This has never been about the money. It is about the principle. BS&F owe it to the US court system to take this to appeal and to oppose the Supreme Court review. SCOG have $2MM which is more than enough to cover the expenses as long as they get rid of the staff not essential to the litigation and the financial reports. BS&F must pay for the actual legal costs under the capped fee agreement with SCOG. Of course, SCOG must stay in Chapter 11 until this is done. It may be wise to sell off all their assets other than the litigation in order to make this possible.

The judge stayed certain issues for judicial efficiency while they were heard in the arbitration. I think they all stem from this part of SCOG's second amended claims; the ones that triggered the arbitration in the first place.
45. The "core products" and "core application server offerings" referenced in the APA and TLA, respectively, refer to the UNIX and UnixWare operating systems owned by Santa Cruz upon the closing date. Even before acquiring the UNIX source code, Santa Cruz had been primarily involved in the business of distributing UNIX in binary form, so that with the acquisition of the UNIX and UnixWare source code and copyrights, the UNIX and UnixWare operating systems undoubtedly represented Santa Cruz's "core products."

In addition, as of the closing date, Santa Cruz had no "application server offering" other than UNIX and UnixWare operating systems.

46. On November 4, 2003, Novell announced its acquisition of SuSE Linux, one of the world's leading distributors of Linux. Since that time, Novell began distributing Linux worldwide.

47. On December 22, 2005, SCO filed with the Court in the SCO v. IBM case a compilation of 293 disclosures of technology which IBM has made to enhance Linux (in violation of its agreements with SCO) with the stated objective of making Linux a more enterprise-hardened operating system.

48. Linux contains SCO's UNIX technology, including unauthorized UNIX System V source code, derivatives and modifications, methods and concepts contributed to Linux by IBM in violation of its license agreements with SCO. Thus, Linux contains the Licensed Technology which, pursuant to Section 1.6 of the APA and Section II.A.(2) of the TLA, Novell covenanted not to distribute in an operating system.

49. As a general-purpose operating system, Linux is "directly competitive" with SCO's core application server offerings.

50. Furthermore, the measure of UNIX technology in Linux far exceeds the trivial portions that the parties intended Novell was authorized to use, in Netware, pursuant to the TLA. Whereas UNIX became enterprise-ready after decades of development, Linux matured into a powerful enterprise-ready operating system in a few years, due primarily to the UNIX technology wrongly contributed by IBM into Linux.

50. Novell therefore breached Section 1.6 of the APA and Section II.A.(2) of the TLA.

52. Novell has also infringed and continues to infringe SCO's copyrights in UNIX by copying, reproducing, modifying, sublicensing, and/or distributing UNIX intellectual property as part of its Linux business.
This all revolves around the copyrights and technologies held by Novell before the closing date. It is in two parts; the non-compete provisions allegedly violated by Novell distributing SVrX technology in Linux and the copyright violation for the same reason. The jury trial finds that the copyrights are still held by Novell. Thus, the copyright violation claim in para. 52 fails. Judge Stewart can settle that now which leaves just the rest, which I think is part of the specific performance issue that will be heard by the judge. If not, it has fallen through the cracks.

If it remains, it might have to be stayed until after the IBM trial. On the other hand, if Judge Stewart decides that Novell is entitled to its waiver SCOG's claims about IBM putting SVrX into Linux in contravention of their contract cannot be proven in court and the claim fails. If IBM proceeds, as Cahn is saying it will, then the Novell case remains stayed by this issue. In their amended claims against IBM, SCOG withdrew claims that IBM put SVrX copyrighted code into Linux. The issue left in IBM is whether they are prohibited by the contract from putting code that IBM own into Linux. Whatever the outcome, the IBM owned code is not part of the technologies owned by Santa Cruz at the APA closing date and is not subject to the non-compete clauses.

Please note that Novell is not liable for distributing Linux with 'derivatives and modifications, methods and concepts' contributed by IBM since that is a contractual issue between IBM and SCOG. They might, however, still be liable under the non-compete claim.

Just in passing, I note that SCOG lied in para. 45. At the time of closing Santa Cruz had the Open Server "application server offering" based, I think, on Microsoft's Xenix. I happen to know they were still paying royalties to Microsoft to use the technology. If they did not have at least one "application server offering" then they would have breached the merged product part of the APA agreement.

I do hope that the expenses money holds out until all this is done!

---
Regards
Ian Al

I sentence you to seven years, or more with good behaviour.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:05 AM EDT
Finally, a stake in the heart of Darlcula McBride.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you, thank you.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:17 AM EDT
You've taken a heck of a lot of abuse over the years for
keeping us informed on the SCO saga. And the amount of time
and money you've put in is heroic. Thank you from the bottom
of my heart for fighting the good fight.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cahn: "I was quite confident we were going to prevail"
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:39 AM EDT
This shows Cahn hasn't been doing his homework. Everything he needed to know
was in Kimball's August 10, 2007 ruling. I thought the primary duty of his
appointment was to get to grips with the SCO litigation and offer top-quality
advice and guidance on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Cumulative Thanks to the Reporters and PJ Thread
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:01 AM EDT
I think I have managed to get in first. If not, I apologise.
What a remarkable job they have done, and Sterling Brennan with Workman. Just amazing to watch. Was it not a pleasure?
Yes, PJ, it was just like being there, with additional commentary by our studio expert.

It's not over yet, but this seems a good time to celebrate the wonderful job our reporters and PJ have done throughout the trial, so far.

---
Regards
Ian Al

I sentence you to seven years, or more with good behaviour.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Killer argument against transfer.
Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:11 AM EDT
SGOG wants Judge Stewart to transfer the copyrights now, based on APA+2. But the
copyrights at issue are "copyrights needed for the acquisition of the
business."

*Did APA+2 transfer any copyrights? No (per the Jury.)
*Did oldSCO acquire the business? Yes.
*Was this acquisition completed before oldSCO sold the business to Caldera?
Yes.

Conclusion: oldSCO did not need any of these copyrights to acquire the business.
But this is the acquisition that was referred to in APA+2. Therefore, There are
no copyrights that transfer at any later time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:52 AM EDT
As a Linux user and advocate since 2000, I remember the chill that developed
when SCO first announced the infringement of "millions of lines of
code". Once it became clear that no such examples could be shown I was
sure
the lawsuit would quickly fade away. Well, this is why I don't gamble much.But
It as been a frustrating seven years, but that only make this decision even
more
delicious.

And yet, they still want to sue some more.... though at this point this is more
entertainment value than anything else.

Anyway, thank you PJ for being the lone voice of reason in an otherwise murky
world of law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: iraskygazer on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:05 AM EDT
It seems that the SCO lawyers are following this saying:
The bigger the lie the more believable. Or, keep telling a lie long enough and
people will begin to believe it as though it were the truth; only because it has
been so long that nobody can remember what the truth was.

If SCO is issued the copyrights now it proves the judge is not on the side of
justice and truth. You don't simply take something from one entity and give it
to another, this is considered theft in most jurisdictions. But then again, the
federal government started doing that, out in the open, over the passed 2 weeks.
Can't expect the judge to act any different than the federal lawmakers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOsource, specific performance and previous rulings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:06 AM EDT
Kimball said that SVRX copyrights were not needed for SCOsource therefore Novell
couldn't claim any SCOsource revenue.

If SCO argue that specific performance should be made with regard to these
copyrights could that open the door for Kimball's decision that the SVRX
copyrights are not a part of a SCOsource licence (and therefore Novell's claim
on SCOsource revenue) to be overturned?

j

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where are Novell's costs in the bankrupcy pecking order?
Authored by: BobDowling on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:52 AM EDT

If Novell wins in the non-jury component of this case it will presumably claim legal costs against SCO. If they are granted where are they in the pecking order?

We currently have Novell's converted [=stolen] money, Yarro's privileged repayments, ordinary creditors, SCO's legal fees, and also Novell's. What order do they come in?

Does the amount of money owed to Novell in relation to other creditors change the influence they have on the bankrupcy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:58 AM EDT
So, when is SCO obligated to remove the information from their website stating
that they believe they own the copyrights?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Juries are unpredictable and that's why cases get settled," said Cahn....
Authored by: kinrite on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:29 AM EDT
Whilst juries may be unpredictable if you desire to manipulate them, they seem
to be the best method we have at getting to a fair decision in disputes.
I am less than impressed with Cahn. What must he have been like as a Judge? In
the real world he seems to be clueless.

---
"Truth is like energy...it can not be created, nor destroyed"

[ Reply to This | # ]

No real business plan, just sell (what's left) and sue
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:39 AM EDT
Judge Gross has agreed with everything SCO has wanted. Why would now be any
different?.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Juror's name
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT
The verdict is signed by a member of the jury. It was
my impression that the identity of jurors was supposed
to be protected.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linux/Unix Copyrights Are Not Important
Authored by: dobbo on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:08 AM EDT

Okay, I've donned my asbestos underwear; I'm ready for the flame war that this post may provoke.

First I will say that am glad, very glad, that Novell won. I use Linux a lot and I do not want to see it's development and use harmed in any way.

But this isn't the important case because there is more to the FLOSS software stack than just Linux! This case has been about kernel code, and we have a drop in replacement for Linux. Anyone of the BSDs could be used. Most of the software that works on Linux already does run on, or could be easily ported to, a BSD API. And let's not to forget OpenSolaris, although I don't like it's T&Cs nearly as much.

So the important case is the IBM one. In it's counterclaims IBM site the GPL about six times; it's almost as if they wanted to prove the GPL a strong license in a court of law! In fact that is what I think they do want. At the beginning of all this I read on Eblen Moglen's site that a license is stronger once it has been ratified in a court of law. Given that IBM's decision to fight make a lot of sense.

And a proven GPL is far more important because so much free software is licensed under it. And if the GPL is ratified I think this will help the other FLOSS licenses as well as they all aim to do pretty much the same thing.

So lets not call this whole think over just yet. If Judge Stewart awards the copyrights to SCO then won't that allow SCO to continue it's fight against IBM? And as PJ has pointed out in the past, the IBM counterclaims are far more damaging to SCO than SCO's claims against IBM.

So I for one hope that SCO do continue, as long as this means that IBM gets its day in court. Because that, for me, is where the important stuff as far as the free software community is to be done.

Dobbo

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is no infringement in GNU/Linux anyways
Authored by: peope on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:15 AM EDT
I am really happy about the verdict.
And the limitations of frivolous lawsuits when SCOX no longer (reasonably) no
longer can claim copyrights to GNU/Linux.

However. There was never any infringements on GNU/Linux shown.

Even if SCOX would have had the copyrights and sold it to another litigation
party they still would have no claims in GNU/Linux. And if they by some fault
would have. It could be removed.

The law need to be such that really unknowing copyright infringement does not
exist.

Somebody should show that there is a copyright infringement and/or the infringer
should be aware of some specific copyright being infringed. Not just say (There
is some code in there that is ours).

This whole circus is an abuse of resources better spent on doing something
productive for the society or for people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Confused - Please help
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:33 AM EDT
I haven't been following the court case very closely but have been following the
story since the verdict but am confused by the request by SCO still in front of
the judge to award them the copyrights. How, why, could, the judge award the
copyrights to SCO? I'm not going to say that if the judge did this it would
overturn the jury verdict but I am left wondering that if that were to happen
then what was the purpose of having a jury rule? I am probably missing
something basic here so... I am just trying to understand why or how there is
still something undecided.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Edward Cahn mis-speaks and 1440 comments and counting - Novell Wins Again - Jury...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:54 AM EDT
I think this is a Groklaw record.

I strongly suspect Edward Cahn mis-spoke when he said SCO was going to continue
the suit against IBM.

Novell had the right, and did waive the contract dispute against IBM. That was
Judge Kimball's decision, and was only in question if Copyrights transfered to
SCO. The appeals court only said that the issue of copyrights transferring was
something for a jury to decide. They did not reverse anything.

Edward Cahn has no basis for continuing the suit against IBM, unless he is
claiming IBM transfered Unixware code developed after SCO bought the Unix
business, and discovery was all about Unix code, not Unixware code, so the
evidence he has has got to be non-existant. I suspect the smartest thing he can
do is to see if he can get the IBM case dropped without facing all those
counterclaims and legal fees. He is woefully mis-informed.

Maybe he can sell the business to Darl for another thirty five thousand.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where were we again? Last IBM status
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:56 AM EDT

Here's the link to the status reports from IBM and SCO filed regarding the state of their case after Judge Kimball's rulings in SCO v Novell which triggered SCO's bankruptcy filing.

IBM and SCO File Reports on What They Think Remains in That Case Now of course the ground has shifted back and forth a little since then, but probably not as much as SCO would hope. We'll have to review and factor in those changes to see where we are, but Judge Cahn, if you're reading, you're not goinjg to like what you see.

---
If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con so

[ Reply to This | # ]

Skyline Cowboy Site Now Redirected as McBride Bros Run Away Making Involuntary Jazz Hands
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:06 AM EDT
With the sudden surge of attention in the wake of SCO losing in court, it looks
like the Skyline Cowboy lost his nerve.

The site now redirects here:

http://www.gtrnissanskyline.com/

Aw!

If you boys kick your legs up behind you any higher, you're likely to get spurs
stuck in your voluminous posteriors!

Thanks for the laffs.

---
Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:12 AM EDT
Congratulations Novell.

Thank you, everyone, at Groklaw

[ Reply to This | # ]

NZ no software patents bill
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT
Thumbs down for software patents in NZ

[ Reply to This | # ]

So *when* does the specific performance thing get decided?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:27 AM EDT
I understood this was something the judge was to decide himself (ie; no jury).
Does anyone know how long it might be before a ruling is given or is this going
to turn into another long fiasco involving dozens of lawyers, another jury trial
and years of litigation?.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's legal fees?
Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:29 AM EDT
Novell has spent millions of dollars to defend against SCOG.
Questions:
*Will Novell ask the judge to make SCOG pay these fees?
*Will the judge agree?
*Are these considered pre-petition or post-petition debts to SCOG, or are
they allocated based on when Novell spent the money?
* Where in the priority order of the creditor list do they go?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Help! I'm soooooo confused!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:32 AM EDT
I had thought that a jury verdict in favor of Novell would pretty much end this
fiasco.

However, now I'm more confused than ever! What happens next? This is madness!

[ Reply to This | # ]

In regard to specific performance and need for copyrights...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:46 AM EDT
In regard to the specific performance issues and SCO's need for the copyright
transfers: Santa Cruz could not afford the copyrights in the first place. This

is why the copyrights were never transferred.

Thus, if SCO wants the copyrights now they have to:

1. Prove there is a UNIX Business need for them. But Darl said in court that
there was no need for copyrights for running the UNIX Business - thus
stubbing SCO right in the foot.

2. SCO will have to pay Novell's current PRICE for the copyrights if it can
afford them. Since SCO wanted the copyrights thinking they were worth
billions, then obviouslly, Novell should charge SCO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for
the copyrights - PAYABLE UP FRONT. This is only fair. SCO PAYS NOVELL UP
FRONT FOR THE WORTH OF THE COPYRIGHTS - which are worth billions since
SCO wants other companies to pay it billions of dollars after suing them.
Tough luck for SCO's lawyers on the cost issue. Obviously, the copyrights
won't be given to them for free if they are worth billions.

These two conditions SCO can never meet. Case closed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wear a Red Shirt, Pants, or Dress Today
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:49 AM EDT
I wore a red shirt to work today.

Anybody else?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Jeffrey on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:16 AM EDT
Thank you to everyone who works so hard to make Groklaw what it is. I read it everyday that I can, often several times each day.

I HOPE that this is the beginning of the end of this chapter on Groklaw. Still, there are so many new chapters to follow.

PJ - You will be remembered as one of the first, if not THE first, to apply FOSS principles to news/information management. The truth has a chance here, because it the truth that is under the light, not opinion.

Huge kudos!!! Huge thanks!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:28 AM EDT
So, if sco asks the judge to transfer the copyrights under specific
performance,(to enable scosource) isn't Novells monkey wrench 95% belongs to us

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Also Loses on the Same Day
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:34 AM EDT
A friend at Novell just informed me that although the verdict against SCO was
great, they also had their case against Microsoft (re: WordPerfect) tossed out
of court on summary judgement on the same day. Ironically, the judge ruled that
Novell no longer owns the claims and cannot pursue them. Even more ironic, the
court ruled that Novell had assigned their antitrust claims years ago via APA to
none other than Caldera!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Scorecard - revisited
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT
  • 1. Plaintiff’s slander of title claim against Defendant should be tried to the jury;
  • 2. Defendant’s slander of title claim against Plaintiff should be tried to the jury;
  • 3. Plaintiff’s remaining claim that Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be tried to the Court;
  • 4. The Court should declare Defendant’s rights under § 4.16 of the APA;
  • 5. Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance should be tried to the Court; and
  • 6. If Defendant’s unclean hands defense is tried, it should be tried to the Court.

1 and 2 are gone.

3 - ? don't know what is involved with this one ?

4 - I believe this is whether Novell can interfere between SCO and IBM

5 - Whether SCO should now get some copyrights

6 - Whether SCO broke the agreement first (is this still in play?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT
And the last stage of the trial is Stewart's call.

I think he should maybe give the Unixware copyrights on their modified source
code (back) to SCO. Novell really did not want those anyway, I think.

[ Reply to This | # ]

McBride at the Bar
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:04 PM EDT
The outlook wasn't brilliant for Caldera and its crew,
A Lindon, Utah, software firm that hadn't got a clue.
A Unix on the Intel chip could generate some dough
But no one there could figure out a way to make it go.

Since Unix was historical and Linux was brand-new
To link them to each other was the best that they could do.
To build an honest business was not something they could master
And every shortcut to success led only to disaster.

Now which of those two said it first they never will reveal,
But Yarrow and McBride together came up with this deal,
Where a certain friendly party would supply the needed loot
For a lawsuit to kill Linux, and a pump-and-dump, to boot.

So they studied all their contracts, and they combed through all the laws,
And they picked and chose the paragraphs that seemed to suit their cause.
They found an ambiguity on which their case could hinge
And announced that they were suing Linux users who infringe.

Then Yarrow said to Darl McBride, "Go sue a Linux user
"For you are a famous and mendacious civil law abuser.
"Whatever copyrights and patents that you think you'll need,
"Purchase them and file the registrations with all speed."

So Darl attacked the problem with his customary zeal.
He sent out fifteen hundred letters (printed, to look real),
And most of those who got them tried to find out what they meant,
And why the content was so vague, and why they had been sent.

That same friend who financed the case provided something more:
The threat of war is always more effective than a war.
Instead of telling people why he wanted cash from them,
Darl publicly announced that he was suing IBM.

"Millions of lines in Linux are our property!" Darl crowed,
And "Talk is cheap," said Linus in reply, "Show me the
code."
But though the court-- and IBM-- demanded, asked, and begged,
Darl McBride would not disclose on what his claims were pegged.

"My daddy gave me good advice I never will forget:
"You don't reveal your cards until the suckers have all bet."
Judge Kimball issued deadlines with the patience of a saint,
While Darl McBride reset the clock by changing his complaint.

The court remarked that it was like denouncing as a crook
A random bystander, without describing what he took.
Then Darl said, "Well, our case may be an unsupported mess,
"But you don't need evidence to sell your story to the press."

Just then the chiefs of Novell noticed something smelling bad:
Their company was threatened, too, for Novell also had
Their own -- well, purchased -- distro, and a plan to make it pay.
This parasite was scaring all their customers away!

Ironically, McBride was pinning all his hopes for the big kill
On copyrights that Novell once had sold for fifty mill.
Except-- on close inspection of the contract, second pass,
Apparently, they hadn't. Well, now, wasn't that a gas.

Thus Novell wrote a letter to their rival, SCO,
Instructing them, in re infringement lawsuit: let it go.
But Darl, instead of backing off, rose up in perfect dander
In public and the trade press, and then sued Novell for slander.

The first court ruled that witnesses do not need to be polled;
The sales agreement clearly states no copyrights were sold.
Now, anyone would know, who has a lawyer for a brother,
If one court rules against you, you can always find another.

And so a jury had to hear Novell being maligned
As they defended once again the contract that they signed,
While SCO described their absurd view of the affair
With witness after witness, not a one of whom was there.

Today will see the ruling on Novell's nefarious deeds,
And how they tried to denigrate the evidence Darl needs.
Our pens are poised-- our breath is halt-- we've camped out here for weeks--
And now the jury has returned; and now, the Foreman speaks!

Oh somewhere in this glorious land inventors ply their trade,
And somewhere men enjoy the fruits of what their minds have made,
And golden are the shining days and joyous are the nights--
But there is no joy in Lindon: McBride never bought the rights.

-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Extrinsic evidence, specific performance, ....
Authored by: rfrazier on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:19 PM EDT
1. According to the CoA, extrinsic evidence can be taken into account in
deciding whether copyright has transferred. Surely then it can be taken into
account in deciding under what conditions it was envisaged that the copyrights
might be needed for the Unix business, perhaps by considering what folks then
thought might be the nature of the Unix business. I take it that it would be
pretty easy to show that serial litigation isn't one of the conditions.

2. Since the copyrights haven't transferred, couldn't Novell, if it sees it as
in its shareholders' best interests, and acts quickly, defend itself by making
the copyrights less valuable. For instance, by giving everyone a perpetual,
non-revocable license to use the copyrighted material? (Or even, give one
group, such as the FSF, such a license, with the additional condition that they
can give sub-licenses with the same conditions?)

Best wishes,
Bob


[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: UnixGuy on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:47 PM EDT
What a huge relief! I was really coming to expect the worst, no matter how
strong Novell's case was. A great shadow has lifted. (No matter what hijinks
SCO continues to get up to.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Juries are unpredictable and that's why cases get settled," said Cahn
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:26 PM EDT
As I said before, Cahn tries to bluff IBM by telling it that
"Juries are unpredictable", so you better settle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Probabilities
Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:30 PM EDT
PJ wrote:

One of the issues is specific performance, meaning that SCO wants to argue that even if they didn't get the copyrights before, they were entitled under the APA and Amendment 2 to ask for the copyrights if they ever needed them. Like now, I gather.

We often remember things the way we want to, rather than the way they were. A statement perhaps well illustrated by some of SCO's witnesses in this trial.

However, thinking back to our discussions around and exploration of the point Singer raises here, I am a little vague as to what set of circumstances would appear that would require Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO.

It's clear to my way of thinking that, "Because we want them to litigate against IBM." is probably not a valid reason. But what is? I'm not convinced that the APA, it's amendments, even the term sheet covers this in sufficient detail for a reasonable person to understand the 'trigger event[s]' required.

Can anyone offer a view as to how this appeal by SCO is likely to sit with the Court? SCO have very ably demonstrated a desire to have the copyrights, but is this the same as need of them? Does the argument, "Well, we thought we got them, but now that a jury has found that we didn't, we'd like you to force Novell to hand them over anyway." count as a valid justification?

On the claim of "specific performance", how valid is SCO's argument? The contract says that Novell would transfer the copyrights (I paraphrase) should it be necessary to do so but without stipulating a definition of necessity.

Were SCO to argue this, I think the most reasonable defense that Novell could offer may be one looking at the contract and terms in their entirety. Specifically, Novell purchased Unix in toto from AT&T for $300 Million, but sold essentially a Right To Use License to SCO for $50 Million. So could Novell go back to the court and say that they would be willing to transfer, providing SCO could find the necessary capital, or would that open the door to a Pipe Fairy purchasing the copyrights?

More... the contract explicitly does not say that Novell is precluded from taking any other steps with those copyrights and that IP before any such theoretical future transfer happened. So what if Novell were to release all the copyrights into the Public Domain (just as SCO essentially did by "selling" that license to Sun for OpenSolaris) and then dutifully do as ordered by the Supreme Court. (Hey, ain't no way that Novell would merely roll over and cough up the same copyrights they spent all this time and money guarding).

I'm curious. How is this likely to play out, and, based on those chances, which way is Novell likely to jump. [ And for what it's worth, I'm hoping that the Court finds that SCO has no standing in fact or law to demand copyright transfer because they have failed to demonstrate a need for them - witness Darl's testimony!].

[ Reply to This | # ]

How are 3 remaining issues resolved? bench trial? hearing? what?
Authored by: UncleJosh on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:40 PM EDT
The issues left to be resolved (Groklaw article here) are:

SCO's claim seeking specific performance

the scope of Novell's rights under section 4.16 of the APA

the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to Novell's rights under section 4.16 of the APA

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Stock zooming
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:50 PM EDT
Well, it now looks like not a dumb idea I'd bought a bunch of NOVL the other day:

google finance

Not a bad one day gain.... DougC -- stealing our tax money back from Goldman...

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOTUS case
Authored by: Placid on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:54 PM EDT
What about the SCOTUS case now? It is selected as important, but isn't it
already moot by the jury verdict? Will it go ahead?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not writing on Jury Instructions, explained
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:24 PM EDT

From Friday's reports from the trial:

And then came an instruction that I thought was rather odd: The jury is not to write on the copy of the instructions in the jury room

I think I've figured this out now. I reckon that the officially filed jury instructions (document 847) are the actual papers that were in the jury room. That would explain why the jury wasn't allowed to write on them. It would explain why they weren't filed when they were decided, but instead were filed immediately after the verdict. And it would explain why the PDF shows the same 3-hole bindings as the jury's verdict form - I reckon they were in the same binder.

It would also make sense for the actual papers that were in the jury room to be filed with the clerk - they're the best evidence for what the jury saw, it avoids any arguments about accuracy of copies.

Disclaimer: I have no inside knowledge, just what I've read on Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"order regarding supplemental jury fees"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:31 PM EDT
ORDER for Supplemental Jury Fees. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 03/29/2010.
(asp) (Entered: 03/30/2010)

Sounds almost like "judge likes verdict -> jurors get more money"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:44 PM EDT
I'm sure this has already come up, but I just couldn't make
it through reading the 1694 previous comments. If the court
has affirmed that Novell does indeed owns the Unix copyrights,
can Novell now license the code under GPL, since SCO has
already stated that they don't need the copyrights to run
their Unix business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Revisiting Kimball's SJ Ruling on Specific Performance
Authored by: WWWombat on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:44 PM EDT
Kimball's SJ ruling [377] started by ruling that the copyrights didn't transfer under the original APA (ruling A on page 57). He then ruled that they didn't transfer under amendment 2 (initial part of ruling B, on pages 61-62).

These are the parts that the CoA's ruling reverses (page 34 of the appeal ruling) with the argument that it was inappropriate for SJ.

However, the CoA follows up that ruling by also reversing the specific-performance claim, purely because of the first reversal (pages34-35). They do not actually argue anything at all about this claim at all.

The interesting question for Stewart now is that the jury has handed him the same result that Kimball had got to, and that the CoA argued during the reversal. He's now, effectively, part way through that ruling B of Kimball's.

Kimball, matching the CoA, didn't argue anything about the specific-performance claim (nothing about the "required" text as having any future transaction meaning). Instead, the rest of ruling B (page 62) concludes that the specific performance claim should be denied with this wording:

In addition, Novell is entitled to summary judgment in its favor on SCO’s Third Claim for Relief seeking an order directing Novell to specifically perform its alleged obligations under the APA by executing all documents needed to transfer ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights to SCO. Neither the original APA nor Amendment No. 2 entitle SCO to obtain ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
As the jury in this trial has reached the same conclusions as Kimball, I'm beginning to wonder why we need Stewart to even consider the remaining issue - surely that parts of Kimball's ruling ought to stand again.

Still, even if Stewart has to rule again, it is hard to see him coming to a different conclusion on an issue that Kimball expended 1 explanatory sentence on, and the CoA nothing. It will take a lot more work to agree with the jury that the copyrights did not transfer, but that the amended APA does entitle SCO to future ownership.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IF the judge assigns copyrights to SCO....
Authored by: Eeyore on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:00 PM EDT
(which I don't think he will - but I didn't believe the CoA was going to drink
the SCO Cool Aid before ruling on the appeal either).

Wouldn't that mean the assignment would be from this point forward (since the
jury said they didn't transfer with the purchase) or COULD he do it
retroactively?

If it's from this date, wouldn't anything SCO has said (or started litigating)
based on copyright ownership be null and void and only NEW litigation would be
eligible for copyright infringement?

[ Reply to This | # ]

In My Dreams
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT
Judge Stewart spanks SCO and BSF for wasting the courts time. Saying in part;

"Judge Kimball saw through your game and on a slim technicality you got a
mulligan. I gave you every chance to make your case and you failed. You've
wasted my time and 3 weeks out of the lives of 13 random victims. I'm not going
to reward you for your scheme. As for Judge Cahn, I would have hoped a
distinguished former Judge could see through all the conjecture, supposition and
wishful thinking that there was no case here."

But it's just a dream

---
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 | # ]

What about Unix open sourced by Caldera International?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:36 PM EDT
What does mean for the Unix code that was made "open source" in the
early 2000's by Caldera International?

As referenced here: http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/

Is this ancient Unix part of the same issue?

Note that lots of this old code has been update, maintained and in use today,
such as pcc, ching, documentation, spell, deroff, etc.

If this was already discussed, please point me to URL and specific
thread/comment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Praise for PJ & Groklaw on LinuxToday
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:10 PM EDT
Linux Today

"The endless SCO saga is finally at an end, and justice has prevailed. But without Groklaw, would it have ended differently?
...
"Those of us who followed this loony saga from the beginning are wondering: What would have happened if Pamela Jones and Groklaw had not taken an interest in this case? Would there have been any semblance of truth anywhere? I think not."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 5Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT
SCO's attempt to say they deserve the copyrights because they need them now for
their new "sue-their-prior-customers" business.

But the deal was that Novell transferred only the copyrights that were needed to
carry on "the business". The hole is SCO's logic is that "the
business" was the business sold over a decade ago. When sold "the
business" was supporting/licensing Unix. The
"sue-their-prior-customers" business was not the business that Novell
sold.

Using SCO's logic, they could start selling SUSE support contracts. Then they
could say that all SUSE IP is required to have to make "the business"
successful.Logically, Novell must be forcibly required to transfer all of their
IP for any future business that SCO dream up.

Unfortunately for SCO, "the business" is THE business. "THE"
is singular and specific, implying an existing occurrance. There is no way to
stretch "the business" sold to fit SCO's desired business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Innovate v. Litigate
Authored by: tz on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:35 PM EDT
SCO lost when it stopped innovating and started threatening to sue.

The IP system is a mess, so it is best not to venture into that swamp - you may
be the one eaten not the one you drag in.

Apple is suing HTC, but now Elan (whom I remember from the 1980s) is suing
Apple. Then there's Nokia.

Everyone has title to a small fragment of the whole, and instead of all
cooperating like they did for a while, and it was a I'll not look under your
kimono if you don't look under mine, (I don't remember when the automotive
manufacturers did this) they are now starting to sue. And be sued. In most
cases the strategies are backfiring - the big guys are getting hit AND having to
waste a lot of time defending themselves, and have their dirty linen aired.

It would be better if we all learned to get along.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where's the Story?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT
PJ, can you confirm this Novell vs. Microsoft loss and point to any ruling?

[ Reply to This | # ]

confirmation of what Groklaw already proved
Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:12 PM EDT

Years ago we Groklaw Readers dug up some of the people who were involved in the transaction between Santa Cruz and Novell(USL) and they remembered that it happened the way the Jury just decided.

Go to this Groklaw post and search for the name Michael Dortch.

Michael Dortch was not on the legal team, but he remembered that Santa Cruz was buying the Unix and Unixware business, just as the contracts said and the lawyers for Novell recalled.

This should not surprise anyone. Everyone involved remembers the same thing. The SCO Group characters are the only ones who seem to disagree with reality.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There are two sections titled "Update 5" in the doc
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:47 PM EDT
There are two sections titled "Update 5" in the doc, should one be
update 6 ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: ndowens04 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:55 PM EDT
What is the chance that the judge would order Novell to transfer copyrights
since Darl under oath stated they didn't need the copyrights to run the
buisness. I emailed the judge last night and told him my opinion and asked him
to concider the reason that SCO would want the copyrights is to go after the
Linux community.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An epiphany....
Authored by: Lazarus on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:12 PM EDT
Darl McBride is the Uwe Boll of corporate executives.

---
I have no opinion on things I know nothing about.

This separates me from 90% of the human race, and 100% of politicians.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 4Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:49 PM EDT
I am so very entertained tonight by the prospect of talking about Novell's
defense against SCO's demand for specific performance yet to be decided by Judge
Stewart.

One of the other Groklaw visitors posted the link to Wikipedia's discussion of
specific performance.

So here comes the disclaimer. I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not a legal
reference book.

Here is what Wikipedia says about defenses against specific performance claims:

There are certain circumstances where an order of specific performance would not
be granted. Such circumstances include:

1.specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant
2.the contract was unconscionable
3.the claimant has misbehaved (no clean hands)
4.specific performance is impossible
5.performance consists of a personal service
6.the contract is too vague
7.contracts terminable at will
8.contracts requiring constant supervision
9.contract lacking mutuality.
10.contract made for no consideration.

Of course, the most important defense that Novell has is the contract itself.
It does not say that the copyrights shall transfer. The Wikipedia discussion
assumes that the contract says that the copyrights shall transfer. If there's
any question, then see #6.

So, let's look at the list.

#1 Yes, if the copyrights were to transfer to SCO, then SCO would use them to
further their SCOSource plans. If successful (please don't assume I believe
this), the effect of SCOSource would be to place a severe hardship on all
distributors of Linux -- Novell included. Conversely, if SCOSource is
unsuccessful, then it will not further SCO's business interests. Therefore, the
assumption that SCO makes in stating that the copyrights are required for their
business assumes that they will place a severe hardship on Novell. There are
further valid points to be made here: Novell retains the copyrights to protect
its revenue stream for SVRX; to transfer would imperil its revenue stream
creating an extreme hardship.

#2 SCOSource is an illegal restraint of trade in violation of the Lanham Act.
It damages innocent businesses and individuals. To deliver the copyrights to
SCO in furtherance of their efforts to advance the SCOSource project is
unconscionable.

#3 SCO is in default on court-ordered payments of approximately 2.5 million
dollars due to Novell under the terms of the APA. SCO failed to heed
instructions from Novell under section 4.16b of the APA which they were required
by the contract to adhere to. They have famously slandered Novell and its
business practices over a period of over 7 years, seriously damaging Novell’s
business. SCO cannot be held to have clean hands with regard to the terms of
the APA.

#4 It is impossible for Novell to transfer copyrights to SCO to further
SCOSource plans. Novell is a distributor of Linux under the General Public
License. Any rights Novell owns to intellectual property contained in Linux
have been licensed under the General Public License for copying at no charge
under the license terms. If there were at one time copyrighted UNIX SVRX code
contained in Linux, then it is now licensed under the GPL, and therefore useless
in the furtherance of SCOSource.

SCO has made public statements to the effect that the loss of the dispute over
copyright ownership with Novell damages their prospects in lawsuits against
other companies such as IBM and Red Hat. In fact, the transfer of the
copyrights to SCO at this time cannot remedy their legal prospects. SCO has
already knowingly made the misrepresentations regarding ownership of copyrights
to the press, to customers and partners of these companies, and to the courts.
Ownership of the copyrights now will not improve their prospects in other
courts, as the lies cannot be unmade.

SCO cannot rehabilitate their business prospects as a vendor of UNIX. They are
known publicly the most hated company in the history of computers – a title to
which there is, nonetheless, great competition. No one will now do business
with them for fear of litigation. SCO is probably the single company in the
world for which ownership of the UNIX copyrights would have the smallest value.
As evidenced by the actions of SCO and their court-appointed overseer Judge
Cahn, SCO is only capable of recovering pennies on the dollar for the value of
the technology they have sold. Any tiny amount of money that SCO may be capable
to resell the copyrights for is already owed – to Novell by court order.

OK, Groklaw! Have I got the details about right?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 6Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 01:35 AM EDT
If SCO wants Novell to 'perform' according to the contract, then they had better
do so themselves. They converted over two million dollars of Novell's cash and
have not yet paid them. I think it's going to be a hard sell for the judge on
this one (unless he's crooked).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 6Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 01:52 AM EDT
It seems to not actually sent to the judge himself, but the case manager for the
judge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Haiku thread
Authored by: nutmeg on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 03:03 AM EDT
I think this story warrants one.

Jury decided
SCO did not get copyrights
Truth beats FUD once more

---
perl < /dev/random # Try something new today

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO! - Updated 6Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 03:42 AM EDT

I think it must be impossible to appeal that one - Judge Stewart gave Sco all
the leeway possible. Perhaps, knowing Sco didn't have a chance, he did
everything he could to prevent grounds for appeal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thank you, Groklaw!
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 03:51 AM EDT
I guess Groklaw has really important role. All this attention, fresh
information, etc. - Groklaw was communitys magnifying glass.
And of course, thank you, Novell!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The implications of Amendment 2
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 05:57 AM EDT
What are the implications of requirements in Amendment 2
with regard