SCO has filed as an exhibit a new declaration from Jay Petersen [PDF], along with some other filings I'll put up next. Peterson responds to the Declaration of James McKenna [PDF] regarding copyright notices found in UnixWare, offered by Novell in support of Novell's opposition to SCO's motion for partial summary judgment on SCO's 1st, 2nd and 5th causes of action and for summary judgment on 1st counterclaim.
In his earlier declaration for the IBM case, which I gather is sealed, Peterson had testified that he had repeatedly found Santa Cruz copyright notices dated 1998 in UnixWare. McKenna countered with Novell 1995 copyright notices continuing to be found in UnixWare years after the APA deal, which Peterson tries to explain. His explanation is that Santa Cruz didn't remove other people's copyright notices. However he says that Santa Cruz never *added* any Novell copyright notices either. They just left whatever was already in there alone and added their own on top.
I don't believe that is accurate, quite aside from it not being the customary way to handle copyright notices, and I point you to some research Groklaw did several years back that seems to directly contradict what Peterson states. If you reread this Groklaw article from 2004, Notice This Notice?, you'll find both some 1996 Novell copyright notices and one dated 1998 in UnixWare.
I note that Sandeep Gupta also stands up and says [PDF] something about copyrights, but its almost all redacted, so it's impossible to refute, except to note that the same Groklaw article mentions that Novell and Santa Cruz continued to work together for a time on UnixWare after the APA, and I believe that is the answer to Mr. Gupta, who in the IBM litigation gave testimony that did not bear close scrutiny by Brian W. Kernighan, IBM's expert, who scathingly wrote that Mr. Gupta's "methodology, and therefore his conclusions, are indefensible". Another IBM expert, Dr. Randall Davis, also found Gupta's testimony inaccurate.