digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

SCO is Toast! Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX copyrights!

groklaw.net — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • amfantasy, on 10/10/2007, -78/+6I hope the Ubuntu fan boys let this on the front page.

    PWNED!!!!!!
    • 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.
      • amfantasy, on 10/10/2007, -32/+6fanboys are all the same to me
      • Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19I dunno.....Microsoft fanboys aren't really Microsoft fanboys. They're more like anti Linux fanboy fanboys.
        • lengau, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18No, they're more like anti-anyone-that-doesn't-agree-with-what-Steve-Ballmer-does fanboys.
          • potp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Trust me no one will ever be either bill gates or steve ballmer fanboy. Most windows fans are just "We dont give a ***** about your OS because ours works good enough for us, so shove that attitude up your ass and zip it" fanboys.
        • microsoftrocks, on 10/10/2007, -20/+0lololol ur rite i dont luv mivrosoft i hate all thes stupid ppl saying "use linux use linux!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111" all the time coz their relly annoying and linux sux
          but its the same with teh mac y woud i spend $10000 on a $400 computer!!?
        • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Well, cgt, the rest of us don't _say_ it, but...
        • keeganspeck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Holy crap, "microsoftrocks". You _must_ have just joined to make that comment. Have you noticed not one digg user speaks like that? 'That' being, of course, idiot-speak?
          • microsoftrocks, on 11/03/2007, -5/+0lololol check my comment history ive been here 4 awhile
            ooooooh trying the insult road??? phail
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17For everyone shorting SCO stock, it sounds like now is the time to dump it.
      • andyduncan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Riiiight..... because it's really going to shoot up after this announcement...
        • wallish, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I think that's why he said dump it. He was implying that it is going to go down, so if you have it you should sell it before it does.
        • 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
        • pcghost, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I understood him to mean that the move is done, and the next will be delisting. Everyone reads things differently I guess.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Correct. Delisting, bankruptcy, liquidation. Once the company declares bankruptcy and invalidates all outstanding stock shares, you're obligated to settled up your debt, paying full pop for worthless stock.
        • nikebud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow, Andy, you're smart.
  • 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!
    • 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.)
      • unloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21I know this is very off-topic, but your username made me laugh very loudly.
    • 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.
      • mbondr, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2I don't get how Novell can own Unix. Unix is older than Novell, never was developed by Novell, was in fact developed by several different groups simultaneously. If someone sold it to Novell, who had the right to do it? ATT? If so, I'm switching to BSD.
        • 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.
        • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4My friend, what are you on now?
      • DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Novell bought Unix from AT&T.

        Why would you switch to BSD (and from what?) just because Novell owns Unix?

        BTW, there is NO Unix in Linux. Linux is completely independant from Unix. SCO was ORDERED by this same court three times (in SCO vs. IBM) to put all evidence of infringement on the table by a deadline of Dec 22, 2005. SCO didn't. Therefore, no Unix is in Linux. This same court already gutted 2/3 of SCO's alleged "case" in the SCO vs. IBM litigation.
    • Shiftyeyedgoat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Honestly now, how can we take a poster whose username is DickBreath seriously about legal proceedings?
      • BHRecon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13sounds like a lawyers name to me.. therefore it must be credible ^.^
      • formulathree, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7
        Just as Jesus died for our Sins, DickBreath swallowed a sausage to prevent us from having to do so.
      • Tanath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Seriously? (I know, not seriously, but...). Because it's irrelevant. A gradeschooler could say something completely true in contradiction to an expert on the subject. The fact that one was said by an expert and the other by a gradeschooler is wholly irrelevant. Irrelevant things should not factor into your evaluations of the truth of something. Logic is the only reliable guide.
    • stephant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've got a suggestion: If you're not an attorney with legal experience in an area of law (notice I did not say, "If you're not an attorney"), then don't try to teach me law by analogy. Seriously. It's just a bad practice.

      Sure I'll be dug down. I get it. The less you actually know the better it all feels.
    • stephant, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2it just posted twice with only 1 press of the submit button. sorry.
  • 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!
  • grendelboogie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31'bout time.
  • cusoman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+30This is big. About darn time.
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I thought everyone hated Novell now that they partnered up with MS? Guess they hate SCO more?
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Why do you think Microsoft got buddy buddy with Novell? Makes perfect sense to me that their lawyers smelled this day coming (along with GPLv3 and all kinds of other Really Bad Things (tm)), and needed a new fall guy.
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14We dislike them for the Microsoft partnership, but like them for what they have done to SCO.
      • 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.
        • DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10What Novell did was more stupid than slimy. I think Novell's current management simply had no concept that they were killing their own Linux distribution. Lots of people (myself included) have migrated from SuSE to Ubuntu.
        • shorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"What Novell did was slimy but they didn't try to kill FOSS and extort everyone for $695."

          . . . yet. Be patient.
  • dbking, on 10/10/2007, -85/+11i dont care about unix *****. I love vista
    yep, digg me down.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8It's funny because Microsoft practically owns Novell too.
      • j.carcinogen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8That isn't true. Novell cut a deal strategically with Microsoft which will benefit Linux as a whole (read up on GPLv3 and the vouchers that never expire MS gave to Novell).
    • 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, -1/+11If you don't care about Linux/Unix, feel free to not troll this section, since it's clearly marked "Linux/Unix".
  • dbking, on 10/10/2007, -69/+5i dont care about unix *****, i love vista
    yep digg me down
    • PatoLucas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Served, I'll also block you now that we're at it, one spammer/troll at a time
      • microsoftrocks, on 10/10/2007, -17/+0oooooh!! someones gealous that they dont have vista!!!!
        • deputydink, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8and somebody else must be jealous they don't have spell check.
        • daftman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Use firefox. It has a built in spell-checker so you don't look like a ***** moron on the net.
        • shmatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i don't think that will help this guy.
        • microsoftrocks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0@deputydlink u phail
          @daftman y would i use firefox!!??!?????!???!??!!!!? ie3 was better tehn firefox
          @shmatt u phail 2
    • PseudoKarma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would expect that even those who like vista would digg you down. Mainly because you're a big douche.
  • DuckFOO, on 10/10/2007, -0/+53This is GREAT news!! ***** you Darl!!!!
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -18/+2Darl? What is he your boyfriend?
      • geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11*ahem* Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. Way to keep up.
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Cute name, I thought it was Daryl but evidently I'm wrong. Darl is short for darling where I'm from, it's what you call your girlfriend when you want another beer.
        • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@fkr3

          No, his name is Dark Darl. :)
    • Outdoor83, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Ok, it seems some of us don't get it. Someone care to explain?
  • 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!
    • init100, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8IBM might not even get any money. SCO owes most of the Unix license money it got from Sun and Microsoft to Novell. Some claim that this amount is actually larger than SCO's cash reserves.
    • 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).
      • sexybobo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2(luckily this benefits IBM)
        IBM no longer makes money of an os but the less money you spend on software the more you can spend on hardware. One of the many ways IBM makes money off linux. Though it is a reciprocating partnership we get to keep doing what we want IBM leaves us alone.
  • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Break out the Cristal. Or in SCO's case, the 40 or any handy bum wine.
  • 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, -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.
  • 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.

  • truegodofwar, on 10/10/2007, -12/+44ubuntu 8.04 Horny Hamster edition is really gonna ***** M$ up.
    • Fartag, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Flatulent Fawn 7.04 has already pooped PRETTY THOROUGHLY on MS' anti-competitive tactics. I can't wait for Horny Hamster!!!!!!!1
    • ilobmirt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Gusty Gibbon FTW! XD
  • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7:-) yey, big smiley face. I am happy!!!!
  • AgentOrn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7Well SCOs stock is up 4% today so I guess well there stock holds up to this huge blow.
    btw

    GO NOVELL!!!!!
  • 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
    • 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
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4"Darl, Yarro, and a few others (Stowell, Sontag, etc.) go to a nice prison somewhere"

        I'd also like to hear about them losing their anal retentiveness in the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. ;)
        • ccheath, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2probably not gonna happen... but you can always hope, i guess
  • bubba9999, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Hah! Suck it SCO bitches!
    • GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6What? Not a word of sympathy anywhere? Not a kind thought or so-long farewell from anyone?

      Nah, me neither. Go to hell Daryl! I've been waiting for four years (holy ***** this went on forever) for this!
  • 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.
    • 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?
    • 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.
      • benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The "official" relationship is simply in the numbers. MS paid SCO approx. $30 million for SCOsource licenses at a time when SCO was getting hit pretty hard in court against IBM and Microsoft had every interest in keeping that litigation aka "FUD" going for as long as possible. As someone else here already said, a $30 million investment saved MS billions in market-share loss simply because a dark cloud has been cast over the legal use of Linux for the past 5 years. That cloud is gone now.
  • 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.
  • EdgarVerona, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8This is, perhaps, the greatest bit of justice of all time. Check out DickBreath's quote pulled from the ruling above: Novell is in the position to grease up and aim for penetration. Show no mercy.

    Give 'em the old prison justice. Big D's in SCO's mouth is bad for his health, as the old saying goes... but it's only right in this case.
  • 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.
    • grimw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11It did? Morgan Stanley switched all their backends to Linux machines, and there are probably plenty of others that did as well.
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You do realize that *nix has powered most of the major server systems for far longer than Windows has existed?
      Windows has never been about the server or backend marketplace; it competes for the *employee* desktop, which is the part that the normal people see.
    • DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The very fact that SCO did what you suggest is exactly the basis of SOME of IBM's counterclaims. Red Hat also sued SCO, and that case is on hold. Red Hat's case is all about SCO's damage to Linux. (Despite this Linux has done very well in the last four years.)
  • j37hr0, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Now if they can just make Yarro realize that CP80 is retarded.
  • 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....
  • Wacer, on 10/10/2007, -12/+11Now Novell will probably sue the other Linux Distros.
    • thefinger, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Excellent! That will simplify the distro choice problem. :-)
    • maybeway36, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4and I assume you mean all the BSDs too? that includes Mac OS X. haha
      • neffy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The BSDs have been in the clear since day 0. Google: Use It.
    • DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Even supposing Novell were so inclined, sue for what exactly?

      In SCO vs. IBM we're already gonna find out soon that there is NO unix code in Linux. SCO has done a gang-bang job of proving that for us.
      • CCmachined, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1but it does include the BSDs, and Mac OSX. hahah!
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The same Novell that actively contributes to things like Gnome and KDE, evolution, the Linux kernel, etc. They are going to sue other distros. That is about as likely as Microsoft coming out with Microsoft Linux Vista Ultimate Edition with free pr0n for the first 100 customers.
      • flashingcurser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It doesnt come with free p0rn? crap, and I was going to buy it too....
    • benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Novell can't sue anyone for anything that has to do with UNIX in Linux because they themselves have been actively distributing *the same code* as Red Hat, Ubuntu etc for years now. You can't put code under GPL then sue people for distributing it. Not possible.
  • addakorn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16What does this mean for the SCO protection license that I bought? /sarcasm
    • digitalhippy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Aww man you bet me to it - I was gonna mention it..correct me if im wrong but didn't Ev1 pay the license fee stuff -- i smell a faster-than-light court filing monday for oh,, whats that.. oh yeah....like ya said, protection? or extortion?.. """ERROR: Unknown Error"""
    • jman82s, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I was wondering why no one has asked that question yet. I'm curious as to how many folks have purchased the...*ahem*..."protection," and whether they will be entitled to a refund.

      They just may be SOL, though, as SCO will most likely have a negative amount of funds.Hmmm....

      Oh yeah, and ...."WOOOOOO-HOOOOO!!"
  • joshuakuhn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I didn't even realize SCO was still around o_O
  • shithead7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8From SCO's website:

    SCO owns the core UNIX operating system, originally developed by AT&T/Bell Labs and is the exclusive licensor to Unix-based system software providers.
    • nurick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11If I'm Novell, I'm sending SCO a cease and desist.
    • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3by "core" you mean the core distribution called "System V". There are other variants of Unix not dragged into this battle, who don't actually use the UNIX trademarks other than to mention their code is derived from it. One is Hewlett Parckard's HP-UX and one is Sun's Microsystem's Solaris. There are a few Unix's around though. by core we mean the UNIX brand name.
      • benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If I'm not mistaken, Sun bought SCOsource licensing a few years ago (along with MS) to legalize their use of Solaris. I think HP told SCO to get bent from the beginning though.
  • 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.
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The patent battle has been practically ended by GPLv3.
  • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6so who owns unix?
    • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5what i should have asked is, if novel owns unix could it shut down linux. if they "own" unix don't they "own" anything that came from it.
      • McGrude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Linux is not a derivative of Unix, it just works pretty much the same way.
        • gildude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Right; it is what is normally called a "clean room" clone in some aspects. There have been claims for years that some of the original Linux code contained Unix code, but I believe all that boiled down to was a few comments in header files that were the same. Things like "#define blockSize 4096 // Store the block size" that may or may not have been the same between the two. Even if true, they diverged a lot since then so it doesn't matter. Linux should be completely clean from any Unix copyright now that SCO lost.
      • tech42er, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Linux is a clone of UNIX, not a derivative. I'm not sure, but could Novell take down the BSD's?
        • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9No. That was a done deal between Berkley University and AT&T 15 years ago. BSD is BSD now, it's a different product regardless of if it contains Unix code or not. Novell / SCO can't undo deals from the past.
        • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10No, the status of BSD code was decided in the early 90's. It had a lengthy battle with AT&T, it turned out 16 files out of 3000 derived from Unix tapes distributed when AT&T were banned from selling operating systems. These have all been replaced.
          • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1well....yeah...that came about when they tried to open source it. I didn't want to go into that much detail
    • benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Novell can't sue anyone for their use/distribution of Linux now that they "officially" own the UNIX copyrights. The reason is because Novell themselves have been actively distributing Linux, *the same code* as Red Hat, Ubuntu etc under GPL. They can't put code under GPL then forbid others from redistributing. That's not possible. And even if there is UNIX code in Linux, it doesn't matter now. The _entire_ thing could be UNIX and Novell still couldn't sue. They, themselves, have been distributing it. It's all fair game.
  • 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.
  • trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7http://thestarport.com/Steve_Savitzky/Songs/barratry.html

    barratry : "the offence of vexatiously persisting in inciting lawsuits and quarrels "
    • dopplerdog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Dante, in his Divine Comedy's Inferno, reserved the eighth circle of hell for those that indulged in barratry.
  • mickstephenson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6If Novell own Unix, why the hell haven't they open sourced it already?
    • jabberwolf, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0First its a courts claim on an IP matter where the judge doesnt seem to know much about the open source of Unix only the IP created and patented with Novell and SCO.
      There will be plenty more IP battles in the future. This is far from over
    • Philluminati, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6because they own UNIX brand rights, rather than System V, the primary Unix implementation. They may have a fork of it they can legally open source but System V Unix is sco's product.
      • mickstephenson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2That clears things up, thanks
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean that Novell does *not* own the Unix trademark. That is owned by The Open Group. What Novell seems to own are the copyrights to the Unix System V Release 4 source code.
    • Sdiggmatism, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0One success does not an honest court make.
  • whatthehell9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7sweet sweet karma.
  • LordofShadows, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Can anyone give me the readers digest version of the whole situation?
    • 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.
      • ObeseSnake, on 11/14/2007, -0/+14Best summary ever.
      • diggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Question - Aren't Sun and Microsoft indebted to Novell, too? Didn't they unlawfully use a Novell licensed product? Microsoft has been suggesting that LInux users are illegally using their patented code, isn't that the same as them illegally using Court decreed, Novell software?
        • benanzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Possibly, but it's really not going to matter now. Novell is going to get whatever cash SCO has on hand. IBM is going to be entitled to a boatload as well (the counter-claims look promising). That is, if SCO can stand long enough to finish the litigation (which is doubtful.) I'm not sure that Novell would be too interested in pursuing a case against Sun and Microsoft. It would be awesome, but highly unlikely.
        • diggsIt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@benanzo - Thanks for the summary. Well explained.
        • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Probably not. They paid SCO to use the code (at least that's their public positions), believing that SCO did own the code. It seems more logical that SCO would owe those fees to Novell than for Sun and Microsoft to pay Novell too.
      • Sdiggmatism, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1SCO tried to litigate up sagging profits. Ususally this gets you served ass-on-platter. This news means that SCO got a double helping.
  • monomyth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sadly enough SCO was the first UNIX I ever saw. it would be fun to see SCO delisted now :)
    • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That might not have been the same SCO. The SCO name originally belonged to the Santa Cruz Operation. Their Unix division was later sold to Caldera Systems, which subsequently changed their name to The SCO Group, while the previous SCO changed their name to Tarantella.
  • andywebb95, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Good and good riddance! This has gone on long enough!
    And on a side note... I guess this is the downside of basing your business on litigation.
  • cwcentral, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Very good info. Hence we'll see more IBM, Novell (SuSE) collaboration in products. This does kill any MS intents to overthrow the OSS movement from a SCO standpoint, as well as puts Novell in a position to go against MS as well (from the licensing deal SCO had). If the attorneys are smart at Novell, the MS-Novell will now be reviewed and could hurt MS in the long run. IBM and Novell are likely the winners, SCO and indirectly MS and even Redhat (yep, indirectly) are the losers here.

    This does completely change the linux landscape folks.
    • ilobmirt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4While I agree things will change, why will Redhat lose out? Can you explain?
    • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Like it all matters. We still choose our linux distro. But if Novell can actually legally kiss MS ass we will be looking differently to their deal with MS. We just always assumed microsoft to be the most cunning.
  • dynamolife, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Im in ur rulinz drinkin bum whine n converzioning ur lizenses
  • CommissarKharn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD
  • livevil, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Take that Microsoft & SCO. Open source bitches, open source!
  • 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.
    • IphtashuFitz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Don't worry, even after SCO is dead and buried there will be plenty of other high-tech lawsuits for the Groklawyers to fixate on. Probably not as long and drawn out as the SCO ones, but there will be plenty.
  • EdgarVerona, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5For great goddamn justice.
  • neuonyx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Can someone please explain something to me... I thought the OpenGroup held the copyrights to 'UNIX' and 'UnixWare'.
    Confusing when this states " [T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights." I presume that OpenGroup owns only the copyrights to the NAME UNIX and UnixWare -- but Novell owns the original code.... Its semantics with the I guess -- but just checking.
    • DuckFOO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Yes, the Open Group controls the Unix trademark and specification.

      The Open Group sued Apple for misuse of it and now, all of a sudden, the next version of Mac OS X is UNIX 03 product. Check out the bottom of the below link on Apple.com, which has this statement: "UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group in the U.S. and other countries."

      http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/technology/unix.html
    • IphtashuFitz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5OpenGroup owns the TRADEMARKS to UNIX and UnixWare. They get to decide who can make use of those terms when referring to products, as DuckFOO indicated above. Novell owns the COPYRIGHTS to the UNIX and UnixWare products, which means they have control over how the actual UNIX software is used.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3 Thanks for the insights...This is so cool.
  • absurdist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So... any word from our dear friends O'Gara and Enderle yet?
    • prammy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They are hanging out with Darl trying to drink their sorrows away.
    • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Don't forget Laura Didio(t). :)
  • mpn401, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9BURN IN HELL SCO!!!!!!!
  • EricTheGrey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Wow. This just gave me faith in our legal system. WTF just happened?

    On a more serious note, It's good to see this finally begin to come to an end. First Novell, then IBM. It'll be fun to see Daryl and SCO squirm.

    EtG
    • prammy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5From what I understand, Judge Kimball allowed SCO every play in the book. Something about giving them enough rope.
      • init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If I understand this correctly, Judge Kimball wanted to meticulously cover every aspect of the case, to prevent it from being successfully appealed later on. If he would have done it in a haphazard fashion, SCO could have easily appealed and, with a SCO-friendly judge, won the case.
      • DickBreath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It also makes it appeal proof. There is no basis upon which they can appeal. They can't argue they didn't get enough time. Can't argue they didn't get to do this, or try that, or submit certain evidence, etc.
  • jjcausey, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Now Microsoft will buy Novell
    • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Never Happen. The only way Novell (They never liked MS, and I still assume that the deal was a trap for MS) would ever allow themselves to be absorbed by Microsoft would be as a poison. It is easier to kill from the inside than from the outside
      • MeneerR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dude, its a company. They are about making money. The programmers don't run the show there and the company is not SO wealthy it can choose its battles. In other words: its no google. Its no ubuntu. Novell would be cheating their stock holders if they didn't pursue maximum profit. It this is do-able through selling itself to Microsoft, they will.
        • AnarkeIncarnate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Novell has has $6,395,450,000 (from Finance.yahoo.com) in tangible assets http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=NOVL&annual with 11,046,500,000 in shareholder equity. They have done well for their shareholders. Now, I understand that the last 10yrs have been an aberration, but the sole scope of a company is not profit THIS quarter at all costs. It is the duty of the corporation to create value for the shareholder. Value does not have to be immediate.
          It does not have to be maximum (as that cannot be ascertained at any given time) They simply have to put their shareholder's interests first. Those interests are not just to the screaming of them wanting more and more profits, but to reduce their risk, and do what is generally good for the wellbeing of the company in the sense of continuing to do business. I think you are misguided about the MS/Novell deal. Microsoft paid Novell a lot of money and Novell paid Microsoft less. However, in this deal, Microsoft agreed to a voucher program that likely submits them to agreeing to the GPL. This could seriously hurt Microsoft.
      • Waterrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1 Explain what you mean by the deal being a trap.
  • dapreview, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Wonderful news. While the facts seemed to point to this conclusion long ago, you never know with our wonky legal system. I hope the rest of the story plays out as it should, in short time - SCO bankrupt and Darl McBride sued into oblivion.

    Thanks to Groklaw.net for many an interesting read on this case.
  • BOFH2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Not a big *nix head but I just like hearing that SCO was told off.
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So when does SCO start issuing refunds on the Linux "licenses" they sold?
    Personally, I hope the jackasses who paid them the extortion money never see a dime. They're too stupid to use money.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.