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
Week 2, Day 10 of SCO v. Novell - Chris Stone, O'Gara, Maciaszek, Nagle - Updated 2Xs
Saturday, March 20 2010 @ 09:30 AM EDT

Friday at the jury trial of SCO v. Novell, Chris Stone testified, and despite valiant efforts by SCO's Stuart Singer to make the phone call with Maureen O'Gara seem somehow scandalous, he handled himself professionally and apparently made her allegations look inaccurate at best. He testified that he didn't tell her Novell was issuing a press release. She already knew. As for the call, he says he mostly listened.

The big news is that he says he's a venture capitalist now, and he was recently approached by none other than Darl McBride, contacting him about investing in his startup, and McBride allegedly told Stone he wouldn't have to worry about "that O'Gara business". Can you imagine the gall? Mr. Stone was surprised, naturally. And then her deposition was played, with the jury giggling, and then John Maciaszek testified, and then Andrew Nagle was on the stand to talk about copyright notices in UnixWare. He testified that Novell changed the copyright notices to say Santa Cruz after the APA. When Novell puts on its case, I expect they'll demonstrate that at a minimum, they must have missed some then. But I don't really think UnixWare is any major issue to Novell. Nagle also admitted that the phrase "intellectual property" can also mean source code. (It'd be hard to deny that, since one of the press releases about SCOsource used the phrase that way:"The creation of SCOsource, a division of SCO that will expand the licensing of the company's core intellectual property, including the core UNIX source code.") Michael Jacobs got a number of answers on the record that Nagle probably doesn't know will matter when Novell begins its case next week, but I noticed foreshadowing.

Here, first, are the minutes for Thursday and Friday:

03/18/2010 - 813 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ted Stewart: Jury Trial held on 3/18/2010. Trial continues. Testimony heard, exhibits admitted. Trial will continue tomorrow morning at 8;30 a.m. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Edward Normand, Brent Hatch, Attorney for Defendant Sterling Brennan, Eric Acker, Michael Jacobs. Court Reporter: E. Young, L. Robinson, Patti Walker. (slm) (Entered: 03/18/2010)

03/19/2010 - 814 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ted Stewart: Jury Trial held on 3/19/2010. Out of the hearing of the jury, trial issues are discussed and resolved. Testimony heard, exhibits admitted. The jury is again instructed on proper behavior and released for the weekend. Trial will continue Monday morning, 3/22/10, at 8:30 a.m. Attorney for Plaintiff: Stuart Singer, Edward Normand, Brent Hatch, Attorney for Defendant Sterling Brennan, Eric Acker, Michael Jacobs. Court Reporter: L. Robinson, Becky Janke, Patti Walker. (slm) (Entered: 03/19/2010)

We'll start with cpeterson's report of the day, which he filed late last night:
Mr. Jacobs came into the courtroom, and greeted Mr. Singer and Mr. Hatch. In response to the obligatory "How are you", it turns out that Mr. Singer is coming down with a cold, and Mr. Hatch feels like he's got the flu.

While commiserating, Mr. Jacobs related having recently read a transcript from a case in Boston where, in the transcript, counsel keeps saying "Your Honor, I'm feeling nauseous..."

They all had a good laugh over that.

We got started with the usual pow-wow before the jury came in.

First issue up was the clock. Both sides are tracking; the numbers are close enough that the parties aren't worried that it will be an issue. The numbers at the start of the day, by Novell's reckoning: 14hrs40min Novell, 15hrs04min SCO. SCO's tracking comes out to 14hrs37min Novell, 15hrs38min SCO. (As I look at that, I'm thinking "That can't be right"; but that's what my notes say.) Anyway, the sides aren't so far apart on tracking or usage that they are concerned.

Then there was some exhibit items concerning the Maureen O'Gara material. Some disagreement over the email chain containing the "war pay" comment. Since it was being used to show a relationship between O'Gara and Stowell, and that relationship was already demonstrated elsewhere, this exhibit was ruled out. Then the "send a jab PJ's way" items - somehow were missed. They are ruled in, over SCO's objections.

Update: This is discussing the hard-copy exhibits that will go to the jury. These portions were not removed from the video deposition, and so the jury got to see/hear the discussion about "war pay", but they won't have the hard copy.

There seems to have been a number of "forgotten" items in the past few days. Some are minor; some appear to be big. Yesterday, there was a "missed" item that Novell wanted to bring into evidence, and they weren't able to: ALL of SCO's 8-K reports.

Chris Stone was today's first witness, called as an adverse witness by SCO. His testimony didn't take very long, really. Stuart Singer made a valiant effort to present this as dramatic revelations, but Mr. Stone was very straightforward and not in the least embarrassed about the answers he gave to the questions.

Mr. Stone was questioned about his speech at the Open Source Business Conference; about the press releases, and about his relationship with Maureen O'Gara.

Q: "Isn't it true you gave Ms. O'Gara your cell phone number?"

A: "Unfortunately, a lot of people have my cell phone number."

Q: "Isn't it true you gave her your home phone number?"

A: "No."

Q: "Isn't it true you spoke extensively with her on the evening of May 27, the day before the press release?"

A: "I would prefer to say I 'listened'."

(This drew laughter from the jury, and I think it became very important later on.)

Mr. Stone testified that he hadn't told Maureen that Novell was going to be issuing a press release, but that she already knew. He indicated that she had a lot of information, and that was a concern, since it wasn't clear where she was getting it from.

Anyway, almost no surprises from Chris Stone. He was forthright and upfront with all of his answers. The jury seemed to be somewhat confused, as Singer appeared to be repeatedly trying to draw out something dramatic, and Stone gave simple, direct answers. No traction.

Almost no surprises. In the cross examination, the final item was about what he's been doing since leaving Novell. It seems he's now an investor and venture capitalist. And apparently, he has recently been contacted by someone who is trying to create a startup firm here in the Salt Lake City area - none other than Darl McBride, who also reassured Mr. Stone that "he wouldn't have to worry about that O'Gara business."

He said he was surprised. If I could put his emphasis on that word, it would burn into your monitor's screen in about 5 seconds.

Next up was the O'Gara video deposition. It was, if I may say, uninspiring. There were long pauses after almost every question. Not defiant, nor deep-in-thought - I kept expecting the questioner (who I think was Mr. Jacobs) to wake her up and repeat the question. Some of her responses actually drew giggles from the jury. I think the characterizations of her that Mr. Stone expressed were only reinforced by her conduct on the video deposition.

It's getting very late; I'll cut this off here. Tomorrow (later) I'll try to put together something covering the testimony of John Maciaszek and Andrew Nagle. After their testimony (actually, during the latter part of Nagle's) Chris came in so you'll have a better look at things.

And here's Chris's report, beginning at around 11:30 AM:
Other matters kept me from getting to the courthouse until quite late in the day, around 11:30am.

My report starts during the examination of Mr. Andrew Nagle by SCO's Edward Normand.

I understand that by not reporting the entire testimony of Mr. Nagle I am leaving part of both Novell and SCO's presentation untold. This is unfair to the parties but entirely unintentional, I can only report what I can. I believe for our purposes a partial report is better than no report at all. As always, the transcripts are the official source. [PJ: Plus cpeterson will be covering this later.]

Mr. Normand asks Mr. Nagle 'How does this Unix System V release 4.2 compare with the first version of UnixWare?' Mr. Nagle answers, There were a few minor fixes and enhancements added to make UnixWare.

Mr. Normand shows the CD used in prior days and asks Mr. Nagle to explain to the jury what it is. He answers that it's UnixWare release 2.1 (and it's entered as physical exhibit 752).

He asks further, do the files contained on that disc contain Santa Cruz copyright notices?

Nagle: I know UnixWare 2.1 contains the notices.

When asked how he knows, he answers, Because they were added in November 1995 by Novell in the process I'd described earlier.

Mr. Normand refers to exhibit 'A' and exhibit 'B,' exhibits to the redacted trial exhibit 655. (They are photographs of a computer screen) Mr. Normand asks Mr. Nagle to describe the exhibit 'A' screenshot. Mr. Nagle says that it shows the opening page of the online command reference manual for UnixWare 2.1. Mr. Normand asks, It shows the copyright registration for Santa Cruz? Yes, added by Novell engineers in November 1995.

Mr. Normand shows exhibit 'B' and asks, If I asked the same questions would you give the same answers? Yes. He asks, 'you approved these changes? Yes, I did.

Mr. Normand shows exhibit 'C' from trial exhibit 655 and asks, Do you recognize this screenshot?

Nagle: Yes.

Q: And what does it show?

Nagle: It shows the output of "uname" on the command prompt.

Mr. Normand asks further about it and Mr. Nagle explains that "uname" tells all the important information about the system, that this is the output of the "uname -X" command. Mr. Normand asks what it shows. Mr. Nagle reports it's identifying the system as Unix System V release 4.2 MP because UnixWare 2.1 is based on 4.2 MP.

[ Update: PJ: I believe these are the screenshots [PDF] that Mr. Nagle is referring to. The first two are books, manuals. The last, the uname -X shows no copyright ownership at all. So this is no way shows the copyright ownership, and if this is the best SCO could come up with, I think it's about on the level of Microsoft's demo in the DOJ v. MS trial, meaning not exactly straight-arrow. If SCO thought it owned the copyrights, why not show the copyright info, and not on books but on the code?]

Mr. Normand says, You mentioned RCS. He then asks something to the effect of, Can someone modify the past RCS entries to alter what they say and Mr. Nagle indicates that someone of sufficient skill and password can change anything on the computer.

Mr. Normand asks, To the best of your knowledge, has the copyright registration changes been changed since 1995? No.

Judge Stewart calls a break. After the jury leaves, Mr. Singer brings up that Novell would like to amend their pleading in regard to claims to Unix and Unixware. He states that SCO opposes this. Mr. Jacobs states that in the intervening 6 sears since the pleading, and with the sharpening of the case and additional information, Novell believes it will be confusing to the jury not to change it.

He states that Novell's position has always been that they claim Unix, not Unixware. Mr. Singer says that this was a clear admission by Novell that they slandered title to Unix *and* Unixware. (I'm only presuming this is relation to the APA where the earliest/first UnixWare seemingly remained Novell's and all subsequent UnixWare releases belonged to Santa Cruz. I'm guessing the presumed confusion Novell refers to is what the definition of 'UnixWare' is. Generally in the case, and colloquially, Unix referred to Novell's product and UnixWare referred to Santa Cruz's.)

Judge Stewart said he will give his decision after the break.... Following the break Mr. Singer tells Judge Stewart that the agreement states, Unix and Unixware "at the time of APA" and he is willing to consent to that. Judge Stewart states he will not allow Novell's request (to modify pleading).

Mr. Normand says they have another issue, the deposition objections to Mr. Ryan Tibbitt's testimony. He says that the two parties are not in agreement on the resolution of the objections. (It appears that despite Mr. Tibbits sitting right at counsel's table, his deposition testimony will be used.) Mr. Normand, or perhaps Mr. Brennan, ask how it should be handled, either after court, now, or by objections at the point of the deposition playing. Judge Stewart says he will hear it now.

Mr. Brennan refers to his April 2007 deposition lines 10-18. He said when Mr. Tibbitts was questioned regarding contacts with SCO licensees regarding Questar (Questar Gas is the local Utah natural gas utility which took a SCOsource license which, incidentally, caused me to indirectly pay SCO via my utility bill.), Novell asked Mr. Tibbitts if SCO contends the damages would have been larger had Novell not slandered title? The witness was not allowed to answer based on "work product." Novell never found basis for this. Mr. Normand replies that Mr. Tibbitts is not testifying as a damages expert. That he's not being used for amount of damages or even if there were damages. He will be discussing the nature of discussions with customers.

Mr. Brennan says that the discussions include Questar and the DOD. He says that the DOD line of questions bring Novell's argument into better view. He reads the questions and responses. Novell contends that discussing these customers implies that SCO believes they've been harmed in relation to them but did not allow Novell to cross-examine their witness on them, that every time they asked, the witnesses attorney directed Mr. Tibbitts not to answer.

Judge Stewart originally seemed to contemplate not allowing any testimony with regards to these two specific customers but then ruled (I believe) that the questions from the deposition may be used.

Mr. Brennan said the next area of objections Novell has to the deposition testimony is (something regarding potential customers). Mr. Normand states that Mr. Tibbitts will not answer questions today regarding existing customers. Mr. Brennan indicates that resolves his objection. Please note that I might have reversed the potential and existing customers issue (I suspect some double negatives might have confused my notes).

Mr. Brennan says the third type of objections relates to an item of correspondence SCO sent to Novell, a letter dated October 9th from Ryan Tibbitts to Joseph LaSala. He jumps forward to the question "...remind you, Novell sold for $150 million. How did you come to that figure?" There is an objection by his counsel of "work product." He says that SCO had the same objections regarding several other letters on the same basis. Mr. Normand stated that exhibit 110 is the only one to be used. And that he will not use the $150 million line, he will use other parts. This resolved it, provided there are the redactions.

Judge Stewart turned to Mr. Nagle and said, I hope this makes you happy you're an engineer and not an attorney. Which drew laughter from the court.

The jury returned and Novell's Michael Jacobs cross examined, asking Mr. Nagle, You discussed with Mr. Normand your employment history and roles. One of your roles with SCO was regarding SCOsource. Mr. Normand objected, not subject of his direct, and stay territory. Mr. Jacobs responded that he will not venture into stay territory but that Mr. Normand asked on direct about roles, and this was one of his roles. Mr. Normand asked for a sidebar.

On return from sidebar, Judge Stewart told Mr. Jacobs, "I will hold you to the five minutes though."

Mr. Jacobs asked Mr. Nagle, You were SCO's representative to the OpenLinux consortium?

Nagle: Yes, 2001 to 2002.

Q: Can you describe the OpenLinux consortium?

Mr. Nagle does so.

Mr. Jacobs refers to exhibit I11, SCO's press release dated November 19, 2002. It reports that SCO is part of the OpenLinux consortium, releasing their own version of Linux as part of goal. It mentions SCO Linux 4 as being a stable, reliable, enterprise-class, operating system for mission-critical business applications.

[I believe this is this press release (from SCO's website): http://ir.sco.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=95573]

Mr. Jacobs reads "High quality..." from the second line and asks Mr. Nagle if it says that?

Nagle: Yes.

SCO's Mr. Normand states that he wishes to make it clear that he has a standing objection to the relevance of the next three and one half minutes of questioning. Judge Stewart says he takes notice of his objection.

Mr. Jacobs asks if SUSE is a member of the OpenLinux consortium?

Mr. Nagle replies Yes, and SUSE was purchased by Novell one year later.

Mr. Jacobs asks, So one year later Novell will have a version from SUSE?

Nagle: Yes.

Mr. Jacobs refers to exhibit C14. Mr. Normand objects and Judge Stewart says it's noted. The exhibit, whose first 1/3 is redacted, is an email from Mr. Nagle dated May 8, 2003. He refers to the statement related to SUSE and asks if SUSE is reacting to the SCOsource campaign?

Mr. Nagle says, It seems so.

Mr. Jacobs reads that so far SUSE is not losing any sleep over the SCOSource campaign... because of (SCO's) contractual obligations. Mr. Jacobs asks, Isn't it true this was widely reported?

Mr. Nagle indicates he doesn't know.

Mr. Jacobs indicates it's Infoworld, it's widely distributed isn't it?

Mr. Nagle doesn't know, but accepts that it's widely distributed.

Mr. Jacobs refers to SCO exhibit 833 and represents to Mr. Nagle that the hand-written boxing, highlighting, were made on document by SCO. He says the document discusses the activities underway to transfer (something) to Novell. Mr. Jacobs asks, Is one activity listed transferring the source code in Intellectual Property plan?

Nagle: Yes.

Q: Describe the plan under the box.

Nagle: Activites to transfer intellectual property from Novell source code archives to SCO archives.

Mr. Jacobs asks, What is the intellectual property as described?

Mr. Nagle answers, The source code.

Mr. Jacobs, Isn't it the case that sometimes intellectual property can be described as source code?

Mr. Nagle answers, By lay people, Yes.

Mr. Jacobs, The copyright notice practices dated back to the old AT&T days, specifically the sub-licensing agreements?

Mr. Nagle replies to the effect that he's not aware of written practices.

Mr. Jacobs produces Novell exhibit E1, AT&T Technologies sub-licensing agreement with IBM and refers to the top of page 5 of the agreement, sub-paragraph B (2.0.8 section on previous page), and read "each portion... shall contain copyright notice ... or if copyright changes, identify owner of changes." Mr. Jacobs asks, Was it the case if a change is made, the company making the change placed a copyright notice to the change?

Mr. Nagle: ... true, to reflect third party changes for, example, drivers.

Mr. Jacobs, How much code has Santa Cruz contributed?

Mr. Nagle, I don't know.

Mr. Jacobs, Would it surprise you if it were millions?

Nagle: No.

Mr. Jacobs: Would it surprise you if they started with seven million and now it's fourteen million?

Mr. Nagle says he's not surprised.

Mr. Jacobs asks, There's no dispute to Santa Cruz's ownership to that code?

Nagle: No dispute.

Mr. Jacobs asks if Santa Cruz inserted copyright notices to their changes?

Mr. Nagle, We inserted copyright notices only on release, not on day to day record of our changes. But on third party changes we did.

Mr. Jacobs asks what the latest UnixWare is.

Mr. Nagle replies, UnixWare 7.1.4 is the latest.

Mr. Jacobs asks if they added copyright notices to it?

Nagle: Not sure if there was a source code release, but if there was, we would have added to every file since we owned all the source code to Unix.

Mr. Jacobs, At the time of transfer, the existing product was sold as-is without changing the copyrights?

Nagle: Yes, we understood the agreements were controlling, not the copyright notices in the product.

Mr. Jacobs produces a hand-drawn demonstrative on the digital projector which he purports to be the Unix tree. He indicates the trunk is Unix, and the branches UnixWare, etc. He asks, At the time of UnixWare 2.1 it consisted of System V, NetWare code, and Network code?

Nagle: Yes, includes at least that, but other third party code also.

Mr. Jacbos asks, and you placed copyright notices on that code?

Nagle: Yes.

Mr. Jacobs asks, would it be accurate to write "copyright notice" on this branch?

Nagle: Yes.

Mr. Jacobs asks, With IBM's AIX, would it surprise you they would place copyright notices on their release?

Nagle: No.

Mr. Jacobs writes "copyright notice" on the AIX branch.

Mr. Nagle continues that it's his opinion that the copyright notice on the box is more of a notice to come to see me to discuss copyright, not that it's meant to override the legal copyright on the files.

Mr. Jacobs states that he has no further questions.

Mr. Normand, on redirect, refers to SCO exhibit C14, middle paragraph, and asks if Mr. Nagle recalls being asked about UnitedLinux?

Nagle: Yes.

He asks if he sees the second line, "SCO, owner of OpenLinux?"

Nagle: Yes.

On being asks, Mr. Nagle states that none of what they contributed (to UnitedLinux) was part of SCO's core product.

Normand: Did Novell change the copyright notices to SCO on code that Novell now claims ownership to?

Nagle: Yes.

How do you know? Mr. Nagle answers that he was part of the team, that he directed the team that made those changes while he was working for Novell.

Do you recall Mr. Jacob's tree, with the trunk labeled System V and the branch labeled UnixWare?

Nagle: Yes.

Mr.Normand, Was it fair?

Nagle: No.

Q: Why was it not fair?

Nagle: Because System V was in all of the branches.

Mr. Normand produces his own, admittedly bad, demonstrative showing two concentric rings. The center he identifies as Unix, and the outer ring (not much larger) he identifies as UnixWare. He asks Mr. Nagle if it's a fair representation of Unix and UnixWare? Mr. Nagle said he would agree if the outer ring is labeled UnixWare 2.0.

(Reporters comment: Is is simply not possible in this entire case to properly describe the incremental development process of source code? Forget these trees and rings (both are SCO constructs) and use a LEGO house or a stack of paper, a different color for each contributor.... you own your own color.)

Mr. Normand scribbles out the center and asks, If he took away the center, would it work?

Answer: No, it's like selling a car to someone and years later coming and taking the engine back.

Mr. Jacobs then asks on re-cross, Can SCO ask HP to remove the core code?

Mr. Nagle answers, HP has a license, as long they are in compliance, they can use the code.

Mr. Jacobs has no more questions, and Mr. Normand indicates Mr. Nagle may be released. Judge Stewart admonishes him that while he will not be recalled he is not to discuss his testimony with anyone.

Judge Stewart recesses for weekend. He admonishes the jury that, as he first directed them, they are not to discuss the case with anyone or with other jurors, not by email, websites, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Do not read, etc. Do not do any research anywhere, etc. He tells them that they have only heard one side's case and have not heard all the evidence, that it would be inappropriate and unwise to make a decision until they have heard the entire defense's case and to only make up their minds at the end. He then releases them for the weekend.

Counsel for both parties indicate they have nothing for the Judge. Court was held in recess until 8:30 Monday morning.

Here's Caldera's press release, announcing Caldera OpenLinux. You can compare it with Nagle's testimony for yourself. And because SCO tends to remove such things, I'll reproduce it here for historians:

Caldera® Announces New Caldera OpenLinux® (COL) Platform and Three-Tier Product Strategy

New Technology and Stratified Products to Ship in 4th Quarter 1996 and Throughout 1997

Provo, UT October 9, 1996 Caldera Inc. today announced the development and implementation of Caldera OpenLinux (COL), a new 32-bit, Linux 2.x-based platform for extending local area networks (LANs) to the home, branch office, remote user, Inter/intranet and embedded systems. To extend the LANs in an economical and easily managed way, COL technology will be offered in three product stratifications; base, workstation and server. Caldera the leader in commercial Linux-based system software debuted COL this week at UNIX Expo in New York.

"Caldera first met customer demand for commercial Linux solutions by combining Linux technologies with enterprise standards like NetWare and Netscape Navigator," said Ransom Love, vice president of marketing and sales for Caldera. "From the best of these and other technologies have evolved the Caldera OpenLinux platform and stratified products. Caldera product offerings will now be based on the COL platform with complete stratified solutions for workgroup and network/server environments."

The secure, peer-to-peer COL platform first evolved from the synthesis of Caldera's existing Linux-based technologies and those acquired from Lasermoon of Wickham, England, pioneers of the Linux migration towards X/Open standards and other certifications.

The efforts of the Linux System Technologies (LST) of Erlangen, Germany, completed the evolution of COL by integrating the Caldera and Lasermoon technologies with additional Internet technologies and LST's Linux 2.x-based products. COL is the official upgrade path for Lasermoon customers.

Certification

Currently, Caldera is working with the Linux community in making COL compliant and certified with industry standards like POSIX.1 (FIPS 151-2), Single UNIX Specification APIs and X-Open branding. These additions will be in future releases of COL stratified products when the enhancements have been integrated by key Linux developers. All of the work for standards compliance will be freely contributed back to the Linux community.

Languages

Caldera is committed to providing products for the global Linux market. COL stratified products will ship with an installation localized into English and German. Additional components of the product will be localized into English, French, German and Spanish. Caldera also plans product localization for the Japanese and Chinese markets.

COL base

The COL base product includes the following:

* Linux 2.x (multi-tasking, multi-user, 32-bit kernel with firewall facilities and comprehensive system utilities open source code included on CD-ROM)

* Looking Glass (graphical user interface with icon bar, drag and drop, comprehensive file typing and user-defined configuration, etc.)

* Netscape Navigator 2.02 (the widely popular client software for enterprise networks and the Internet)

* X-Inside 1.3 (accelerated X-Window system with more than 400 graphical drivers) [Editor's update: the brand of X server to be used in this product is subject to change.]

* CrispLite (powerful, graphical text editor)

* Caldera Solutions CD (fee-based, commercial, Linux-based software applications from Caldera and other industry leaders)

* ... and other technologies

The COL base product provides Linux users and first time UNIX buyers with a comprehensive UNIX system that can run on Intel-based PCs including laptops with 16 MB of RAM. COL will be made available to hardware and software OEMs, Channel Partners and be the industry- standard platform for ISVs porting applications to Linux.

The Caldera Solutions CD allows resellers and Linux users to purchase and install from the CD-ROM Linux-based software applications to facilitate the creation of customized solutions.

COL workstation

Plans for the COL workstation product include:

* COL base product (Linux 2.x, Looking Glass, X-Inside 1.3 and CrispLite, etc.)

* Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold (Java, news reader and authoring tools)

* NetWare Client and NetWare Administration Enhancements (Increased and enhanced NDS, bindery and print administration utility. Enhanced GUI desktop utilities, tightly integrated with the Looking Glass desktop)

* Market-leading, commercial, secure, web server (a complete solution for creating and managing web sites plus, the development and deployment of live, network-centric, media-rich applications for the Inter/intranet)

* Caldera Solutions CD

* ... and other technologies

COL workstation is the Inter/intranet workstation solution providing client and server capabilities for NetWare, UNIX and Windows NT in conjunction with full Inter/intranet, authoring, publishing and browsing capabilities. All services on the local network may be extended down-the-hall, to-the-home or around the world across a high-speed connection by simply adding a frame relay or ISDN commodity card to Intel-based PCs. COL workstation is the second-generation solution for Caldera Network Desktop (CND) customers and replaces CND.

COL server

* COL workstation product (Linux 2.x, Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold, NetWare Client Enhancements, commercial, secure, web server etc.)

* Novell Cross Platform Services (NCPS) (includes license for Novell Directory Services (NDS) and five-user NetWare File and Print )

* Caldera Solutions CD

* Novell GroupWise (Caldera has contracted to include a five-user license)

* ... and other technologies

The COL server is designed for the workgroup and small office environments that need to fully utilize all systems. The COL server combines a complete applications server with all necessary Inter/intranet technologies enabling an organization to publish and interoperate with the Internet in a secure fashion. The COL server complements all NetWare, UNIX and Windows NT environments.

Future Development and Internet/Linux Community Funding

Caldera will continue to collaborate with developers in the Internet and Linux communities to develop and refine technologies that add the specific functionality requested by Caldera's customers. In addition, Caldera will provide a percentage of net revenues from COL-based products back to the Internet and Linux communities through funding for future technology development.

Customer Support

Support for the COL base product will be Internet-based, using the WWW and FTP. In addition to the Internet-based support, support for the workstation and server products will include free thirty-day installation support as well as fee-based, per incident support calls.

Pricing

The COL base product is scheduled to ship in November, 1996 for a suggested retail price of $59 US. The COL workstation product will ship for a suggested retail price of less than $300 US. The COL server product will ship for a suggested retail price of less than $1500 US.

Promotions and Upgrades

Until December 31, 1996, current registered CND users and those who purchase and register CND between now and December 31, or while supplies last, may purchase COL workstation for $59 US.

The COL base product is not an upgrade to CND. Users of the COL base product will be provided an upgrade to both COL workstation and COL server when these products ship.

Until December 31, 1996, current users of any Linux operating system (WGS LinuxPro, Red Hat, Slackware, Yggdrasil Plug and Play Linux, etc.) may upgrade to the COL base product for $45 US. Proof of usage may be presented to any Caldera Channel Partner or Caldera, Inc.

Caldera, Inc. designs, develops and markets a line of full-featured, economical system software for the Internet by the Internet, providing stable, high-quality alternatives to NT, Sun Solaris, and SCO UNIX. Caldera uses it own technological and marketing resources to leverage technologies including the Linux operating system created by independent developers worldwide. Visit the Caldera web site at http://www.caldera.com/.

###

Caldera is a registered trademark; and Caldera OpenLinux, Caldera Network Desktop, Caldera Solutions CD and Caldera OpenDOS are trademarks of Caldera, Inc. UNIX is a registered trademark, in the United States and other countries, licensed exclusively through X/OPEN Company Limited. Netscape Communications, the Netscape Communications logo, Netscape and Netscape Navigator are trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation. All other products, services, companies and publications are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners.

Contact: info@caldera.com

And here is what Caldera Solutions CD was. You can find the technical details of UnitedLinux here on Caldera's homepage as it looked in late 2002. You can download the technical paper [PDF].

Here's the press release that Chris Brown thinks Mr. Brennan was using with Mr. Nagle as an exhibit:

SCO Unveils SCO Linux 4, Powered by UnitedLinux

Stable, Reliable Linux Platform Backed with Guaranteed Support from Trusted Operating System Vendor

LAS VEGAS---Comdex---November 19, 2002---The SCO® Group (SCO)(Nasdaq: SCOX), in coordination with the UnitedLinux 1.0 launch at Comdex, today announced the release of SCO Linux 4.0, powered by UnitedLinux. SCO Linux 4.0 is a high-quality Linux operating system designed for mission-critical business applications, with guaranteed stability, security and worldwide support from SCO. SCO Linux 4.0 is based on UnitedLinux 1.0, the core standards-based Linux operating system co-developed in an industry initiative to streamline Linux development and certification around a global, uniform distribution of Linux. SCO Linux 4.0, powered by UnitedLinux provides customers with the base UnitedLinux operating system as well as the additional software, support and services from SCO that customers need to successfully run Linux in business environments.

"SCO understands that for any operating system to be commercially viable, especially Linux, it needs a well-defined roadmap from a trusted supplier, who is committed to and capable of supporting it," said Andy Nagle, director of SCO Linux products. "SCO is uniquely qualified to make the UnitedLinux platform viable for business because of its proven track record in successfully building, deploying and supporting stable operating platforms for more than 23 years. SCO Linux 4.0 is built upon SCO's traditional combination of top OS platform technology, and support and service features that customers can rely on to support critical business environments."

"Because Linux is built on ideas and components from so many parties and is so widely distributed, the issue of support and reliability is still a key concern of customer and vendors," said Judy Chavis, worldwide Linux director, HP industry standard servers. "Built on a secure set of unified LSB compliant standards by UnitedLinux and with full support offerings from SCO, SCO 4.0 offers our customers another strong Linux platform choice for their worldwide Linux deployments."

"For hardware and software vendors, it has become an increasingly difficult task to certify their products across the many distributions of Linux. SCO Linux 4.0, powered by UnitedLinux can help vendors overcome that obstacle by providing widespread application support across the base of UnitedLinux distributions," said Bill Claybrook, Research Director for Linux and Unix at Aberdeen Group. "This in turn benefits IT departments by providing them with greater choice and support as they deploy Linux."

SCO Linux 4.0 is an ideal platform to support small to medium businesses and replicated branch sites such as retail store operations, hotel chains and banks. In these environments, operational efficiency and flexibility to respond to new customer demands are essential. SCO Linux 4.0 provides these qualities with the support and experience of a trusted supplier.

*SCO Linux 4.0 Features and Support*
SCO Linux 4.0, powered by UnitedLinux adds several features and support services:

* As an enterprise-class, industry-standard Linux operating system, UnitedLinux provides a /Single, Uniform Platform /for application development, certification and deployment, and allows Linux vendors, Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) and Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs) to support a single Linux offering rather than many different versions. SCO offers certification services that will be accepted as support across all distributions of the "powered by UnitedLinux" family.

* /Stability/ with SCO's commitment to operating system quality and continuous operating system uptime, worldwide support and 12-18 month release cycles. This stable, predictable maintenance and support schedule makes SCO Linux 4.0 a smart choice for business IT needs.

* /Award-winning Support Services /are available from SCO for tasks including install, configuration support and 24x7 emergency response. SCO has a presence in more than 82 countries and can provide local language support worldwide. SCO's dedicated engineering services organization provides experienced support for UNIX, all other Linux platforms powered by UnitedLinux, as well as all RPM-based Linux distributions.

* /Maintenance /is guaranteed with every copy of SCO Linux 4.0. Each release of SCO Linux will be maintained for a minimum of two years, and SCO has a dedicated team of escalations engineers to work on fixes for the UnitedLinux platform. Maintenance includes notification of security patches and other critical upgrade information.

* /Customized Linux Solutions /are available through SCO's channel of more than 16,000 resellers. SCO's partners and resellers are willing to partner with OEMs to sell SCO-based solutions. SCO can incorporate the support of UnitedLinux into existing Engineering Services agreements providing a one-stop-shop for OEM customers requiring representation with SCO and the UnitedLinux development teams.

* /Certified Training /on UnitedLinux is available from SCO and SCO authorized education partners using award-winning SCO education materials.

To read what the industry is saying about SCO Linux, please visit
www.sco.com/company/press/quotes/scolinux.html.

*Pricing and Availability*

SCO Linux 4.0 is available today in four different editions:

SCO Linux 4.0 Server, powered by UnitedLinux *Base *Edition--$599

* Includes SCO Update maintenance service
SCO Linux 4.0 Server, powered by UnitedLinux *Classic *Edition--$699
* Includes unlimited installation and configuration technical support incidents via phone, Web or email for one year; SCO Update Service; five business hour response; designated technical support contacts; and Online Service Manager which includes access to current product technical articles and patches, ability to submit service requests online, and online support activity and status
SCO Linux 4.0 Server, powered by UnitedLinux *Business *Edition--$1249
* Includes unlimited technical support incidents via phone, Web or email for one year; SCO Update Service; three business hour response; designated technical support contacts; Online Service Manager (same access as Classic Edition)
SCO Linux 4.0 Server, powered by UnitedLinux *Enterprise *Edition--$2199
* Includes unlimited technical support incidents via phone, Web or email for one year; SCO Update Service; one business hour response during regular business hours; designated technical support contacts; 24x7 after-hours emergency service telephone support; Administrative Account Manager; Office Service Manager (same access as Classic Edition)
*About SCO*

The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX), formerly called Caldera International, provides "Powerful Choices" for businesses through its UNIX, Linux and Volution product lines and services. Based in Lindon, UT, SCO has representation in 82 countries and 16,000+ resellers worldwide. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and services to partners and customers. For more information on SCO products and services, visit http://www.sco.com.

SCO and the associated SCO logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. All other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are used to identify products or services of, their respective owners.

And here's the white paper on UnitedLinux by John Terpstra, published by IBM, but advertised by Caldera on its home page in November of 2002. And the truth is, Caldera contributed a great deal of work to UnitedLinux, and tweaked the code and then distributed it, including the code they then sued IBM over.

Update: Maureen O'Gara is speculating that Charles River has sent observers to the trial "assessing whether there’s an opportunity to clean up if SCO wins." But looking at their latest SEC info and CEO statement, I wonder if they are flush enough these days themselves to take a chance on something as unlikely as SCO. They do have Intellectual Ventures in their portfolio, I notice.


  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 )