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 Files Reply to Novell's Counterclaims in SCO v. Novell
Friday, May 19 2006 @ 09:37 AM EDT

Here's SCO's Reply to Novell's Counterclaims [PDF]. It almost feels a little irrelevant, since May 19th is SCO's deadline to respond to Novell's Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration and Novell's Motion for a More Definite Statement. Somehow that feels like the main event, and this Answer feels more like a side show.

Here's the order [PDF] giving SCO until today to file, signed by Judge Dale Kimball.

In Novell's Answer to SCO's Second Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, which is the document you need if you want to compare each item by number -- the counterclaims begin after paragraph 149 -- (here's SCO's Second Amended Complaint), you'll recall that it listed the following affirmative defenses:

# Privilege
# Estoppel
# Unclean hands
# Laches
# Comparative fault
# Failure to mitigate
# No causation
# U.S. Const. Amend. I
# Misuse of copyright
# Fraud on the Copyright Office
# Independent creation
# Fair use
# License (the UnitedLinux agreements, the TLA, and ye olde GPL)
# Implied License
# Waiver
# Abandonment and forfeiture
# Obligation to Arbitrate

In this Reply, SCO raises most of the same affirmative defenses, so we find the comical situation where both SCO and Novell have accused the other of slander of title, and each claims the same affirmative defenses, the First Amendment, Privilege, Estoppel, Unclean Hands, Failure to Mitigate, No causation, etc. So each will have to argue that the other side doesn't deserve the affirmative defenses, but they do.

So SCO says to Novell, "You said in public that we don't own the copyrights on Unix." And Novell says, "I was allowed to, for a list of reasons. And *you* said to the world that we don't own the copyrights." And SCO replies, "I was allowed to, for a list of reasons, the same list of reasons you are claiming but that you don't deserve to use but I do." "No," Novell will say, "only I can make use of this list. You're just in the wrong. Totally."

I have a brainstorm. Let's let them cross each other out. Just drop the stupid slander of title stuff and let's talk about what's really important: Who owns the copyrights? Maybe then there will be a hope of getting this resolved without three years of discovery.

Of course, that won't happen. Once you get caught up in litigation, there's no quick fix or easy escape. It's like marriage. It's much easier to get in than to get out, as I believe poor Paul McCartney is about to discover.

I'm working on a chart and I have the Novell side done. If someone could quickly send me this SCO Reply OCR'd, I would appreciate it a lot. Thank you, if you can. Leave a comment, so others know not to duplicate effort.


  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 )