|
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)
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
:) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Three Cheers for Novell! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Present SCO Management Needs to Sue Former Management - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- Too Bad Darl Can't Call the Press Conference for This One! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: awildenberg on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT
- Dumb Question - how long? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:01 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- It can't be true. No mention on the SCO website - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- What Now for The Skyline Cowboy? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Awesome! - Authored by: Barbie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT
- Dust Off The Red Dress PJ - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- Where will Microsoft bear its teeth next? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:31 PM EDT
- Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? Who cares? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? - Authored by: comms-warrior on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- Wouldn't matter - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:33 PM EDT
- Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? Bilski nullifies? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:14 PM EDT
- RE: Now, what if Microsoft buys Novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:59 PM EDT
- What if Novell buys Microsoft ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:08 AM EDT
- MS would have to extend promise to all - Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Thank you Novell! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Where is The Fat Lady? - Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- Fan-b*****tastic :) :) :) - Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- A moment of redress? - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Novell doesn't own Unix either (remember USL vs BSDI settlment)... and the GPL now rules too! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Which copyrights? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- I've just bought an OpenSUSE DVD - Authored by: Placid on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:00 PM EDT
- Wow! - Authored by: rodmcjr on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Woo-hoo!!! - Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:55 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: dbmuse on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:20 PM EDT
- Should copyrights be transferred though? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:41 AM EDT
- SCO Now Wants to Take On IBM?!?!? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:04 AM EDT
- What will Novell do with the copyrights? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:49 AM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:22 AM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- Your answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- Why would the judge be able to override the jury decision ? - Authored by: Witness on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: drichards1953 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:04 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Wahoooo
Tony[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT
- Thanks to the reporters as well - Authored by: roboteye on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU... - Authored by: gfreeves on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Haha, SwEEEET! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- Haha, SwEEEET! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: mpg on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- Red Dress Time! - Authored by: ankylosaurus on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Pop69 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:51 PM EDT
- Yabba-Dabba-Doo!!!! - Authored by: ile on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- WooHoo!!! Red Dress time, or wait for IBM? - Authored by: PSaltyDS on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Here Here! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: turambar386 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! - Authored by: skyisland on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT
- WHEEEEEEE! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: Kevin on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:10 PM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:18 PM EDT
- Stupid question... - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:43 PM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: Balance on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:45 PM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: Pop69 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- Cheers - Authored by: David on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- Yes! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:49 PM EDT
- Yes. Thank you PJ - Authored by: cc0028 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:34 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Igrepdou on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:37 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: emk on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread-SUPER HI-5, THUMBS UP, ETC!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Congratulations everyone !! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:08 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: number11 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- The HIGH TENS thread--ADTI? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:35 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: eschasi on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:53 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: jjock on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- Thanks PJ, Thanks everyone who helped - Authored by: atheist on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:23 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:29 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:45 AM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: gaston on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:36 AM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Davo.Sydney on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:30 AM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:27 AM EDT
- What wonderful news. - Authored by: kinrite on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:22 AM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: snakebitehurts on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - more thanks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- grats for pj - Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:52 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- Welders appreciate too - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:36 PM EDT
- "This is a big blepping deal!" (pun intended) and apologies to Biden) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- The HIGH FIVES thread - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- Yahoo!! - Authored by: dwheeler on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Let's all join in the "ding dong" song... :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Off Topic Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- Red Hat - Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT
- Champaine Recommendations? - Authored by: lcreech on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- All the above comments are On Topic. Knock it Off. - Authored by: FreeChief on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Magnetism Can Sway Man's Moral Compass - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- T-shirt for SCO employees... - Authored by: gumnos on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:37 PM EDT
- NVIDIA Drops Xf86-video-nv Support: No Open Source for New Cards - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:20 AM EDT
- Novell's last antitrust claims against MS dropped - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- A parody -- I din't know where else to put it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:42 PM EDT
- Comes v Microsoft PLEX 02458 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:59 PM EDT
- Record industry: ignore that French piracy study! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- Jury Instruction #9 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- Slightly off topic -- story of "...addicted to litigation." - Authored by: msfisher on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Decision in SCO-Novell case ripples beyond Utah - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT
- Judge Walker rules on wiretapping case - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Off Topic: Joke of the Day - Authored by: Peter H. Salus on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT
- SCO News: The Heinz company sued over SCOsauce - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT
- New accounts are back! - Authored by: grnbrg on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:09 PM EDT
- Problematic Document Format - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:17 PM EDT
- Federal Judge Finds N.S.A. Wiretapping Program Illegal - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 02:26 AM EDT
- Ordnance Survey offers free data access - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- Interesting Article - The Taxes of the Tech World - Linux, Microsoft, and More! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- Alex Brown says OOXML is heading for failure - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
Faith in the jury system is not completely misplaced! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
YES! Woo hoo! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Maureen O'Gara has A version of the story up. - Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- No clickies to the Mogster, please - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- The judge said the number of witnesses saying one thing didn't matter... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Maureen O'Gara has A version of the story up. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- Maureen O'Gara has A version of the story up. - Authored by: WWWombat on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Maureen O'Gara has never been credible - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- Was she even at the trial? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Come now... - Authored by: Bernard on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:10 AM EDT
- Come now... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:04 AM EDT
- Come now... - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Ars Technica: SCO loses again: jury says Novell owns UNIX SVRX copyrights - Authored by: ggiedke on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:13 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:26 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: ore on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- IBM about contracts, not copyright... Sure.... - Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:29 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Or - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:01 PM EDT
- Or - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:16 AM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:17 AM EDT
- What choice does Cahn have? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: iksrazal on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- This doesn't surprise me.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- He may think there is some money in it. - Authored by: baomike on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- "Bring out your dead!" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: MikeA on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Cahn == Lambchop ? n/t - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Paging Steve Jobs - Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:56 PM EDT
- Ok, to be fair... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:27 PM EDT
- Ok, to be fair... - Authored by: Zak3056 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:42 PM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: s65_sean on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:35 AM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:15 AM EDT
- To quote from SpongeBob Square Pants - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:47 PM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:06 PM EDT
- Why are people surprised? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Does Jusdge Stewart have something to say about it? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:23 PM EDT
- The nostalgia of the IBM case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:02 PM EDT
- Save time (and deny them clicks) - Authored by: proceng on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:58 AM EDT
- Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- But - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 04:18 AM EDT
- Servicing your woodchipper from the inside. ...NT - Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 02:48 AM EDT
- Deseret news: Jury sides with Novell - Authored by: ggiedke on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Pro-SCO news items - Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:46 PM EDT
- Todd Bishop: Novell loses Microsoft suit, wins verdict in Unix copyright case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- "The next thing that ruined SCO's plans? Groklaw." - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:19 AM EDT
- Good find. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:03 AM EDT
- It is good. - Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:57 AM EDT
- Link to Der Spiegel article - Authored by: EsTurn on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:16 AM EDT
- Wired: Copyright Troll Loses High-Stakes Unix Battle - Authored by: ggiedke on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Scrivener's Error: On the relevance of the ruling for writers - Authored by: ggiedke on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Tom Harvey"s Account in Salt Lake Tribune - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- linux today/Carla Schroder: "How One Person Can Do Big Deeds. Thanks PJ" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT
- Der Spiegel - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:26 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
If any. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
Boy, that's sure going to hurt their stock... ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- I was reading Groklaw at the time!! ;-) n/t - Authored by: argel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: llanitedave on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:06 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:08 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: CraigV on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: zdvflyer on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: lwoggardner on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM EDT
- One down... Four to go - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:57 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Viv on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:17 PM EDT
- Shouts of joy from an indie game developer - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: dlapine on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:58 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:31 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: PR3J on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:39 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Jimbob0i0 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Dave Lozier on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- 10,000 geeks were there! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:58 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:59 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: imperial on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:39 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: mipmip on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:06 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: grash on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Gringo on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:02 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: vonbrand on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:25 PM EDT
- One of 10,000 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- red floyd standing by - Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:36 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:44 PM EDT
- Thanks for the education - Authored by: Tom Johnson on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:58 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:07 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - been a long time - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:48 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: ChrisP on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- "I WAS THERE" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:50 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: ailuromancy on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:47 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:59 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:02 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: stovring on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:41 AM EDT
- Does this mean... - Authored by: Bernard on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:28 AM EDT
- Ian Al woz here. ...NT - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:13 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:43 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Gray on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:46 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: TAZ6416 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:43 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:09 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: ka1axy on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:10 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: RPN on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:14 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: skuggi on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Software is data! - Authored by: halfhuman on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:23 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Leg on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:57 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: MT on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: ian.waring on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: The_Pirate on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: eisi on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: cschoell on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:38 PM EDT
- How about an official "I'M STILL HERE" thread - Authored by: archanoid on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:50 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Solaufein on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- And reading loads of legal documents after PJ explained them (n/t) - Authored by: vb on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:49 PM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: cassini2006 on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 11:55 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: joel on Wednesday, April 07 2010 @ 10:46 AM EDT
- Official "I WAS THERE" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 09 2010 @ 01:15 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
- From a "lowly" Ubuntu user - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:47 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: zdvflyer on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Steve on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: cbc on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:50 PM EDT
- PJ, You Rock! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:55 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: webster on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:01 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Waterman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:43 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: joel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: fredex on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:31 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: WWWombat on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- well said - Authored by: maco on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:33 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: tce on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:30 AM EDT
- civility - Authored by: grouch on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 08:51 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: bbmaniac on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:30 AM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: jac41 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:54 AM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:24 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Yes, thanks for so much hard work, PJ! - Authored by: Cassandra on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: ine on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:29 PM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:03 PM EDT
- Thanks, PJ. - Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Many many thanks - Authored by: attila_the_pun on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:37 AM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Hollinch on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:35 AM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: Leg on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:58 AM EDT
- The canonical "Thank you, PJ" thread - Authored by: nutmeg on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 02:55 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT |
What's to stop the Chapter 7 now? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: amster69 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
I've just poured myself a large one!
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
woot!
So, does this moot SCO v IBM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nyarlathotep on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
The end is a bit closer and clearer. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- SCO share price plummet - What did you ask??? - Authored by: Igrepdou on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- SCO share price plummet - Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- SCO share price plummet - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- And carefully timed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- And carefully timed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- Right - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- SCO share price plummet - Authored by: Daddl on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- SCO share price plummet - Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- SCO share price plummet - Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- It only plummets on good news. - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:29 AM EDT
- How unfortunate for this guy! - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:18 AM EDT
- SCO share price plummet - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- "The last time I checked the CEO was in charge of shareholder value..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Where can I buy a SCO stock certificate? - Authored by: nb on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 08:22 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- Allison Amadiaeven admitted that the amendment transferred the copyrights. - Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:19 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: mpellatt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:20 PM EDT
- Maureen O'Gara - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - The Blather File ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- This is the song that never ends.... - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- Lamb Chop's take - Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:30 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
That's what it looks like. Smart folks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Tilting at Windmills - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:28 PM EDT
- SCO vs IBM to continue!!! - Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:29 PM EDT
- Sweet! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:35 PM EDT
- What claims against IBM? - Authored by: TerryC on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - Authored by: jheisey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:44 PM EDT
- SCO vs IBM to continue!!! - Authored by: bastiaan on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Who's side is Cahn on? - Authored by: yorkshireman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:02 PM EDT
- Judge Cahn you might to re-read those last couple rulings - Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:09 PM EDT
- two words: nuisance value n/t - Authored by: UncleJosh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- SCO vs IBM to continue!!! - Authored by: mikeca on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- Cahn's litigation lottery hurdles - Authored by: jheisey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:26 PM EDT
- Doesn't Kimball still have the IBM case? - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- Just so long as Novell is paid in full first - Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- Cahn intends to continue the IBM lawsuit ... - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:21 PM EDT
- SCO vs IBM to continue!!! - Authored by: bastiaan on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:48 AM EDT
- IBM Will Make Them a Caldera Again! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:26 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:31 PM EDT |
upheld by this jury?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
Come on you know BSF will try to . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jeff on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:47 PM EDT |
Awesome!!! It's red dress time! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: LaurenceTux on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- United Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- United Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:11 PM EDT
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- United Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:47 PM EDT
- does it really matter? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:37 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
There. I said it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM EDT |
How does this affect the arbitration in Switzerland? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:02 PM EDT |
That is of course unfair; it took seven years! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Congratulations Novell
And thank you, everyone, at Groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
. [ Reply to 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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Idle speculation - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:58 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- sobering thought - if it's true - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- You ignore a lot, and focus in on maybe''s. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:36 PM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:41 PM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:43 PM EDT
- "We bought the Unix Business, Lock, Stock and Barrel" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:48 PM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: mikeca on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:58 PM EDT
- Interesting mental exercise: how would the UnitedLinux IP pact play in this? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: kbwojo on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:04 AM EDT
- I agree - anything is possible :( - Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:48 AM EDT
- 'The acquistion' ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:22 AM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:21 AM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:08 AM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:38 AM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- The exact text may trump SCOg - Authored by: msfisher on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:42 PM EDT
- Re: Update 5: Singer's strong case for Stewart giving SCO the copyrights - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:16 AM EDT
- Appeal to SCotUS moot? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:29 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:34 AM EDT |
WOOT!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:05 AM EDT |
Finally, a stake in the heart of Darlcula McBride.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Start of: "I agree with you" thread. - n/t - Authored by: Gringo on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:22 AM EDT
- It's a question of money - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:33 AM EDT
- Money - Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:16 AM EDT
- Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:22 AM EDT
- Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:32 AM EDT
- Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 08:38 AM EDT
- Money - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:08 AM EDT
- It's a question of money - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT
- Killer argument against transfer - Darl McBride's testimony - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:43 AM EDT
- Killer argument against transfer. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- As I was reminded -- get the text right - Authored by: msfisher on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:02 AM EDT
- i agree with you. ...NT - Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
Congratulations Novell.
Thank you, everyone, at Groklaw[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT |
Thumbs down for software patents in NZ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 05:57 AM EDT |
What are the implications of requirements in Amendment 2
with regard to transfer of copyrights to Santa Cruz?
Amendment 2 makes perfect sense in the context of Santa
Cruz not having enough money to buy the copyrights, buying
something less than they initially intended, and scrambling
around afterwards to find the money.
Would the effect of the requirement to transfer to Santa
Cruz if copyrights were required be that Novell could not
sell the copyrights outright to anyone else at least
without conditions attached if that were to happen because
of Novell's commitment to transfer?
Was there a time limit or an implied time limit for Santa
Cruz's to ask for the transfer of copyrights, and would the
onward sale of assets to SCO invalidate the obligations to
transfer copyrights if required as stated in the Amendment
2 since the contract is with Santa Cruz?
Is the original price for the full sale stated in the
contract along with the reduced price for the limited
transfer and there an implication to amount of money
required for the transfer - in other words, does the
contract imply that the contract reverts to the original
full sale if and when Santa Cruz found the money to effect
the transfer, and would the amount of money to be paid be
the difference between the original price and the price
actually paid by Santa Cruz adjusted for inflation?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:19 AM EDT |
! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kenryan on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:20 AM EDT |
Wow ... Two thousand comments! A new record?
---
ken
(speaking only for myself, IANAL)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:21 AM EDT |
A new record [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Friday, December 15 2006 @ 04:05 AM EST
Amazing Case, how weak the grounds
brought by a wretch like me....
This case is lost and so unsound,
So blind, that, I can't see.
This case has taught me how to spread
fe-ar, uncertainty, doubt
How precious did that FUD appear...
the hour we started out.
De Novo reviews don't bother me...
I think the case Judge has erred.
I need this expedited delay
to be urgently deferred.
Through many frivolous appeals...
we have already come.
This case which brought us nought thus far...
goes on and on and on.
The PIPE fairy has funded me...
Its cash my hope secures.
It will my shield and portion be...
as long as TIME endures.
When we've delayed ten thousand times...
Just like we have from day one.
We've no less days to bring delays...
than when we've first begun.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:32 AM EDT |
Cahn praised Novell's legal team: "Morrison and Foerster are the
best lawyers west of the Mississippi and they proved that today."
I read that as kind of a backhand
complement.
Translation: "We didn't lose on the merits of the case, we
were just outlawyered." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:49 AM EDT |
Those we're the days, my friend,
we thought they'd never end,
SCO did bother us forever and a day
Their own demise they choose
bet all and still did lose
it's good to see, they just won't have their way.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ROFLMAO! n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 11:23 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
What happens now with the arbitration in Europe, anything? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 08:31 AM EDT |
Meanwhile in the UK, Sings' libel conviction got overturned. But not because his
defamatory statements were true (in my "opinion" his statements are
supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus), but merely because his
statements could be interpreted as opinion instead of factual statements.
Seems like a good strategy for SCO: find something on Novell's website, have a
UK resident download it, and start a libel suit in a UK court. Because it
doesn't actually matter if it is true, it is still libel.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
Watching the performance of former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn as well as
Judge Ted Stewart this just makes me coin a new term based on another well-known
one:
Piercing the Judicial Veil
Groklaw has surely
given me much insight into the system -- seeing the state of affairs I cannot
help myself but transfer a term from one domain into its context domain (kind of
ironic self-application). When will the legal system repair itself or will get
repaired?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Cavan on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:16 AM EDT |
These post-verdict comments stick out in my mind:
Michael 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."
Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn: "Juries are unpredictable and
that's why cases get settled. I was quite confident we were going to
prevail."
One can almost understand Darl McBride and his cohorts being blinded by greed
and glossing over words like "excluded" in a legal agreement but
shouldn't we expect more from a former judge? Or was Cahn's confidence based on
his belief that his lawyers could snow the jurors? Either way, it doesn't
instill confidence...
---
Cavan Kelly[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 11:21 AM EDT |
Even more bizarre than O'Gara's reaction is one by
Paul Murphy who thinks Novell
now has to explain to its shareholders why they aren't pursuing SCO's
case against IBM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Leg on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
Some mistake in edits? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
It seems the COA mistakenly interpreted APA 4.16 as giving Novell powers over
all matters of the agreement. But this is not correct. If I understand
correctly, the rights were only with regards to SVRX.
Since SCOG has no equity interest in SVRX licenses and royalties, and is merely
an administrative agent for same, how can SCOG suppose to even have the right to
revoke such licenses? They can't even enter into or amend such licenses (a la
the Sun agreement).
So the COA contradicted themselves when reversing Kimball with regards to
Novell's 4.16 rights but affirming him with regards to the Sun agreement. I'm
assuming they mistakenly interpreted Novell's 4.16 rights as applying to the
entire subject matter of the APA. But that was not the case. SVRX rights did
not transfer to Santa Cruz; therefore, SCOG has no authority where SVRX is
clearly involved.
Maybe the reason Novell did not prevail in that regard, before the COA, is that
they failed to properly argue it. Hopefully they do a better job before
Stewart.
Novell should definitely win this, as any other ruling would be clear error.
And the related SCOG challenge of breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing should likewise fail.
But of course, IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
First, Novell deserves our sincere thanks. We should now support Novell by
considering Novell products as our needs arise.
But my question,
Darl McBride called it a major victory when they won the right to a jury trial,
and overturned the summary judgment on the copyright ownership.
Realistically, Novell was going to win unless we had a rogue jury. Darl had to
know that SCOs chances of wining at a jury trial were less than 5%.
So, what we have is the expected out come. But I still go back to Darl's
comment about this being a major victory for SCO.
SCO has spend a lot of money, caused Novell to spend a lot of money, delayed the
process, to get a jury to say that the copyrights are owned by Novell rather
than a Judge under a summary judgment to say the copyrights are owned by
Novell.
How does this aid SCO to such an extent that it is a major victory? (And please
don't come back and say Darl thought he would win, that is an insult to his
intelligence.)
Really, how is SCO better off? Or, how is Darl better off?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: polymath on Friday, April 02 2010 @ 07:53 PM EDT |
I became anxious when I read that specific performance was still to be decided
by Judge (leave no grounds for an SCO appeal) Stewart.
IANAL, but I felt an irresistible need to argue that a request for specific
performance is groundless.
Foremost, is that a ruling for specific performance is a ruling instructing a
party to perform at action it is under an obligation to perform (said party
having failed to perform such action). For example, such a ruling could be used
to direct a party to make a payment or waive specific rights as set forth in a
contract. The jury has found that the APA did not transfer the copyrights so
Novell has no such obligation. Thus, the court has no grounds to order specific
performance.
The fact that the matter is clearly settled won't prevent SCOG from dreaming up
an argument that an obligation to transfer the copyrights exists. In their
alternate reality they require the copyrights to pursue the SCOsource business.
My counter arguments would be:
1) SCOG acquired only the UNIX and UnixWare technologies in the APA. SCOsource
was not part of the transaction so it does not create an obligation on Novell's
part.
2) Neither SCOsource nor any similar business was contemplated by the APA and
SCOG did not present any (extrinsic) evidence at trial to suggest otherwise,
much less meet its burden of proof.
3) At times SCOG represented SCOsource as a covenant not to sue. Only lawyers
are required to sue not copyrights (as we have seen in this saga).
4) At times SCOG represented SCOsource as a software license. The APA clearly
states in 4.16 (b) that the Buyer may not enter into new SRVX licenses (without
the Seller's written authorisation) so those copyrights cannot be part of
SCOsource and are not required for it. (SRVX copyrights are the only copyrights
alleged to be violated by Linux and presumably required for SCOsource.)
5) At times SCOG has said that they are in the litigation business. To litigate
copyrights there must be a violation of the copyrights. Since SCOG has abjectly
failed to produce any evidence of a copyright violation in Linux, in any forum
including the instant trial, the business does not exist and the requirement to
own the copyrights evaporates with that business.
Thus, even in SCOG's alternate reality there are no grounds to warrant an order
of specific performance.
We have seen that certain judges can be as unpredictable as juries so Novell
could still find itself appealing an erroneous ruling, but ultimately SCOsource
(and SCOG) will meet with the failure it so richly deserves.
I feel much better now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 04 2010 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
It is so unfortunate that a jury couldn't see through the snakes that novell
are. The defense didn't even want to talk about amendment 2 at
all....sidestepped it for 2 weeks. It's too bad this wasn't a judge trial it
would be over. In my opinion judge stewart wasn't happy with the verdict
either. If you were at the trial you knew novell lost...but they took a chance
and let the jury decide...they left it in the hands of the jury who truly got
this very wrong unfortunately[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|