decoration decoration
Stories

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

Groklaw Gear

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


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO's Answer to Novell's Counterclaims
Wednesday, September 14 2005 @ 07:13 PM EDT

Here it is at last, SCO's Answer to Novell's Counterclaims [PDF]. I haven't read it yet myself, so we can do it together. We'll try to get a chart done, so you can read it side by side with Novell's Answer to Amended Complaint, Counterclaims, paragraph by paragraph. But you'll notice they deny utterly the allegations in Novell's paragraph 41, about filings with the SEC. And as for the famous conversations where Novell claims SCO tried to get them to join in the "scheme", SCO says this:
38. Admits that in 2002, as part of the review of its intellectual property, SCO contacted Novell to confirm SCO's understanding that the UNIX and Unixware copyrights had been transferred under the APA and to ask if Novell had documents concerning the APA; admits that Novell counsel and other employees repeatedly and successively asked SCO to call again at a later time after Novell had had the opoportunity to rersearch the matter; admits that in early 2003, Novell counsel agreed to sign a letter stating that the APA transferred all right, title, and interest in and to the copyrights associated with the AT&T SVRX software agreements; admits that SCO sent Novell counsel a draft of that letter but Novell responded that it was no longer interested in UNIX and would not sign; admits that Novell did not sign the letter and ceased communications with SCO; further admits that during the aforementioned conversations Novell never asserted its purported, or challenged SCO's, ownership of the UNIX and Unixware copyrights; but denies each and every allegation of paragraph 38.

I'm sure you don't need me to point out the logical disjoints in such an account. Novell refusing to sign a letter saying that all copryights had transferred *is* a challenge to SCO's ownership, one would think. And a disinterested observer might also notice that apparently SCO was missing some documents. If they knew they owned the copyrights, and could prove it, why would they need to ask Novell for a writing, pray tell?


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )