What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Introducing DJ Hero Game view!
djhero.com - Scratch and mix 102 songs in 93 original mixes from today's hottest artists. Available Now.
213 Comments
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -3/+87SCO is Toast. Since SCO diw not acquire UNIX copyright *ownership* from Novell, just a license to use, SCO does not have *standing* to sue IBM re: Linux.
Standing, example: Jane cannot sue Bill for sealing John's tires. Jane does not have standing. (although John has standing to sue Bill for stealing his tires.)
Novell has standing to sue IBM re: Linux. But Novell had directed SCO to waive all rights in regard to this.
IBM's counterclaims still stand. And among these IBM has a Lanham act counterclaim against SCO. And that has teeth! - DuckFOO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+53This is GREAT news!! ***** you Darl!!!!
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51Judge Kimball wrote...
"The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only indidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion."
Conversion is a nice word for "stealing". When Microsoft and Sun gave SCO millions of dollars for a "unix license" back in 2003, according to SCO's APA agreement with Novell, SCO was supposed to pass 100% of that money to Novell, who would then pass back 5% of it as SCO's administrative fee. SCO kept it all. Just as Microsoft and Sun intended. After all, that money was intended to finance SCO's litigation. SCO now owes Novell more than SCO is worth. - DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -4/+53Why wouldn't we let it on the front page?
It is the Microsoft fanboys I would worry about. - benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+41Put a fork in them, they're done. SCO's claims against IBM are toast now. IBM's counterclaims will put SCO out of business. They'll be bankrupt by the end of the year. Yippy!
- nurick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+40Justice. SCO had become the worst kind of company - that which adds no value, yet uses its lawyers to try to extract money from others. Best tech business news of the year.
- benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+33SCO's business was failing because Linux was competing them out of business. They tried to exrtact infinite IP-licensing profits from Linux vendors by trying to prove they owned the rights to Linux. They claimed IBM illegally contributed UNIX code to Linux and therefore everyone using Linux owed SCO money. Of course, IBM wasn't going to deal with that *****, so they've been fighting hard in court since ~2003. Meanwhile Novell comes forward and says to a Utah court: "SCO doesn't own UNIX, we do!" Therefore, SCO has been illegally licensing Novell's IP (UNIX) to big cos like Sun and Microsoft. Well, today is a landmark day. The court ruled that Novell owns UNIX, SCO owes Novell an absolute ***** 'o cash (from the IP licenses with Sun and Microsoft) and IBM is free to pursue counter-claims against SCO effectively putting them out of business. Don't forget: Microsoft was behind it all. They were paying SCO's legal bills all along. This is twofold awesome.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -12/+44ubuntu 8.04 Horny Hamster edition is really gonna ***** M$ up.
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33Did anyone else notice that SCO now owes Novell more money than SCO is worth? (See my comment below.)
- grendelboogie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31'bout time.
- cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30This is big. About darn time.
- asaone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30I think Daryl needs to apologizes to everyone in the FOSS world. I also thing he needs to move to China he might be welcome there
- ropers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+27It's "ARE belong to us", ya n00b.
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24Aside: Sun did not need a Unix license from SCO. It already had a license from AT&T. Microsoft surely did not need a Unix license from SCO back in 2003. For what? Oh, yeah, to help finance a baseless lawsuit against a potential competitor (IBM and Linux).
I love the smell of SCO bankruptcy on a Monday morning.
The judge used the word "conversion". Does this mean that it may become a criminal matter?
Still reading the 102 page decision by Judge Kimball. - DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
First the IBM case has to come to a resolution.
Then I would like to see (in approximately this order):
* SCO bankruptcy
* SEC investigation
* Criminal charges filed
* Darl, Yarro, and a few others (Stowell, Sontag, etc.) go to a nice prison somewhere - unloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21I know this is very off-topic, but your username made me laugh very loudly.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Break out the Cristal. Or in SCO's case, the 40 or any handy bum wine.
- charityjustice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21SCO did its job - it put the fear of a lawsuit into the minds of pointy-haired managers at a time when Linux was looking to gain a serious foothold in the corporate environment. SCO slowed down its penetration at least 10 years worth. A few million to SCO saved Microsoft billions.
- ompaul, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Daryl n Bill up a hill on their own! Forbes explain your previous print, Baystar explain the value in that!
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19It acquired the Unix copyrights as one of the assets when it bought Unix System Laboratories from AT&T.
- bubba9999, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Hah! Suck it SCO bitches!
- darrenprog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20We salute Novell! We all toast a good beer to your contribution!
As for SCO, all your licenses belong to us. - Quadduc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16I think the stock closed before the ruling was out. We'll see what happens on monday.
- addakorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16What does this mean for the SCO protection license that I bought? /sarcasm
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17For everyone shorting SCO stock, it sounds like now is the time to dump it.
- atrn, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24No, just a judge who has good comprehension and applies sound logic. It's not completely over yet but the light is starting to stream through. Thank you Dale A. Kimball. Thank you.
- mikedoth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18While I don't doubt this is good news, I wonder about the MS-Novell deal will affect this.
- TheWriteGuy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18And yet I wonder if Microsoft already knew this battle was lost, which was why they aggressively pursued a patent licensing agreement with Novell.
Mark my words: SCO was the first battle, and MS lost. Now we are onto the second major battle: Microsoft subtly enforcing patents through FUD, and splitting apart the Linux community. - ObeseSnake, on 11/14/2007, -0/+14Best summary ever.
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16If you don't care....why comment at all. Why not just ignore this article?
- lengau, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18No, they're more like anti-anyone-that-doesn't-agree-with-what-Steve-Ballmer-does fanboys.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14We dislike them for the Microsoft partnership, but like them for what they have done to SCO.
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19I dunno.....Microsoft fanboys aren't really Microsoft fanboys. They're more like anti Linux fanboy fanboys.
- andyduncan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Good thing groklaw still has the IBM case to fixate on. I was getting worried when I saw this title that they might go into some sort of depression without an SCO case to pick apart. Seriously: groklaw has been covering this thing (well) for what seems like an eternity.
- graviplana, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20Uh oh....this is not good. This may seem good as SCO is taken down, but watch out for the Novell M$ Partnership....
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13You can't even compare SCO to Novell. SCO are scum who have tried to steal the hard work of hundreds of thousands of FOSS developers. Whatever Novell have done they have not tried to steal everyones work and have made huge contributions to the community. What Novell did was slimy but they didn't try to kill FOSS and extort everyone for $695.
- McGrude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Linux is not a derivative of Unix, it just works pretty much the same way.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12IBM had already won. It turned out that their million lines of code turned out to be about 400 lines of code which came from header files (which naturally came from pretty much standard C things like kmalloc(), of course those API's are similar).
SCO were dead, IBM don't care about cash they are solely doing this to enforce who you do and do not sue around here. It makes a lot from FOSS and isn't going to let little ***** like SCO wreck that for them (luckily this benefits us). - atrn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Yeah, I guess you're right. I should lighten up but this whole SCO debacle has pissed me off no end. Having been a UNIX geek for more than 25 years and having worked with some of those who wrote chunks of the original research systems its been a ***** nightmare watching the ***** spew from the likes of McBride and co. So yeah there is a god.
- Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16HERE'S THE TEXT FROM GROKLAW:
Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive!
Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:52 PM EDT
Hot off the presses: Judge Dale Kimball has issued a 102-page ruling [PDF] on the numerous summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell. Here is what matters most:
[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights.
That's Aaaaall, Folks! The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". That's the ball game. There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses.
If anyone can please put this into text for us, that'd be simply great. [We have it done.] I hear there is a filing in IBM also, and we'll get it for your soon. Here's the docket entry:
08/10/2007 1077 - NOTICE OF DECISION AND REQUEST FOR STATUS UPDATE. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 8-10-07. (sih) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
Judge Kimball asks the parties, in view of the ruling in Novell, which "significantly impacts the claims and counterclaims asserted" in IBM, to prepare by August 31 a statement of its view of the status of this case and, more specifically, the effect of the SCO v. Novell decision on each of the pending motions."
All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain about the US court system now. I told you if you would just be patient, I had confidence in the system's ability to sort this out in the end.
But we must say thank you to Novell and especially to its legal team for the incredible work they have done. I know it's not technically over and there will be more to slog through, but they won what matters most, and it's been a plum pleasin' pleasure watching you work. The entire FOSS community thanks you for your skill and all the hard work and thanks go to Novell for being willing to see this through.
I'm eating chocolates!
Here's the Conclusion section, which sums up the decision:
***********************
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on Novell's slander of title claim. Accordingly, Novell's slander of title claim is still at issue.
The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright to enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement claim and a breach of contract claim based on the non-compete restrictions in the license back of the Licensed Technology under APA and the TLA. The court further concludes that there has not been a change of control that released the non-compete restrictions of the license, and the non-compete restrictions of the license are not void under California law. Accordingly, Novell's motion for summary judgment on SCO's non-compete claim in its Second Claim for breach of contract and Fifth Claim for unfair competition is granted to the extent that SCO's claims require ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, and denied in all other regards.
Furthermore, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of the term "SVRX License" in the APA is all licenses related to the SVRX products listed in Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA. Therefore, Novell is entitled to a declaration of rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent. Accordingly, Novell's motion for partial summary judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief for declaratory judgment is granted, and SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief is denied.
Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.
The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement. Furthermore, because Novell has obtained the information that it would otherwise obtain through an accounting during the course of this litigation, the court denies Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting. However, the court also notes that SCO has a continuing contractual obligation to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in the APA.
Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; SCO's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [Docket No. 180] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim [Docket No. 171] is GRANTED; SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's Fourth Claim [Docket No. 224] is DENIED; SCO's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell's First Claim [Docket No. 258] is DENIED; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO's Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [Docket No. 271] is GRANTED; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims [Docket No. 273] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [Docket No. 275] is GRANTED; and Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to Establish Special Damages [Docket No. 277] is MOOT. - BHRecon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13sounds like a lawyers name to me.. therefore it must be credible ^.^
- DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11If you've been reading Groklaw daily for the last four years you would know that there can be no possible effect. There are so many levels upon which I could argue this.
Here is just one:
What possible effect could an agreement between Novell and a non-party to the litigation have upon the decision of a sitting Federal Court Judge? - PatoLucas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Served, I'll also block you now that we're at it, one spammer/troll at a time
- benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11"# Who owns the copyrights for UNIX?
SCO does not believe there should be any confusion as to ownership of the UNIX copyrights. It clearly purchased these from Novell in 1995 as is evidenced in the Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment 2 with Novell (see www.sco.com/scosource/novell). Novell also further clarified this in its own press release of June 6, 2003.
# If SCO currently ships Samba and Apache in its own products, how can it justify this if it believes that the GPL is invalid and unenforceable?
While SCO believes that the GPL is a poorly written and unenforceable license, SCO is not aware of any intellectual property violations regarding Samba and Apache. However, should any arise, SCO would take all efforts necessary by removing the offending products or obtain the appropriate IP licenses."
http://sco.com/scosource/ipprotectionfaq.html
These guys are so stupid it's awesome. - Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Honestly now, how can we take a poster whose username is DickBreath seriously about legal proceedings?
- Tatsumaki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11@wallish
If you're shorting stock, you WANT it to go down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_%28finance%29 - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11*ahem* Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. Way to keep up.
- ilobmirt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Gusty Gibbon FTW! XD
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11What link is there between SCO and MS officially?
In reality SCO were the hired guns of MS who's tactics backfired by giving Linux some serious publicity but there is no official relationship. - ropers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12sheesh. get a sense of humour.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 213 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is