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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
SCO's prior admissions | 428 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
SCO's prior admissions
Authored by: jjon on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 06:40 AM EDT
SCO has already agreed, in this court filing, that some of its claims are foreclosed by Novell. At the time it was arguing "but we might win on appeal in Novell". Since Novell is now finished, it's time for SCO to lose on those counts.

SCO admitted that Novell means that SCO lose on "SCO’s First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth or Eighth Causes of Action".

Regarding the copyright claims, SCO admitted that it loses copyright infringement claims that were based on claiming to own "all UNIX and UnixWare copyrights", but it claims it can "pursu[e] copyright infringement claims in so far as [SCO] occupies the position of an exclusive licensee from Novell, or as the owner of the post-1995 UnixWare copyrights." In other words, SCO are saying that:

  1. Novell owns the copyright but SCO can sue anyway as it's the exclusive licensee. I expect IBM's motion for summary judgement will cover that, and I expect IBM will win, since this is a ludicrous claim. Novell, acting on behalf of SCO, has very explicitly forgiven IBM for any infringement that occurred.
  2. SCO hopes there may be some post-1995 UnixWare copyrights that IBM might be infringing. However, I don't think SCO identified these before the court-ordered deadline for it to identify with specificity what was infringing. (Probably because they don't exist). So even if SCO can find something, it's too late. Again, I expect IBM's motion for summary judgement will cover that; I'm slightly less sure about this but I hope IBM will win - depends on whether SCO manages to sweet-talk the judge into ignoring the deadline or not.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )