Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Caldera Novell Operating Systems Software Unix GNU is Not Unix News Linux

Novell Asks Court to Separate SCOsource Money 203

Posted by timothy from the now-that-would-be-interesting dept.
clusterix writes "Groklaw has posted Novell's answer to SCO's slander of title complaint. In it, Novell produces many counter claims. The most eye-catching is the claim for the revenue from the SCOsource licenses bought by Microsoft and Sun and others. Novell states that they must be SVRX licenses which entitles them to 95% of revenue in royalties. They further request a trust to be constructed to hold the revenue until the case is decided. It is hard to see how the judge could deny such a request to protect the money which will likely bankrupt SCO."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell Asks Court to Separate SCOsource Money More

Novell Asks Court to Separate SCOsource Money

Comments Filter:

  • "UNIX" title? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:13PM (#13204530)
    This is somewhat off topic; but does anyone know what the legal position over the brand/name "UNIX" will be? If SCO owns it and dies off will it become public domain? And can people legally say that Linux is a form of UNIX?

    • Re:"UNIX" title? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pthisis ( 27352 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:16PM (#13204551) Homepage Journal
      The UNIX trademark is owned by the Open Group, not SCO.

      http://www.unix.org/trademark.html [unix.org]

    • Re:"UNIX" title? (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:18PM (#13204562) Homepage Journal
      Only The Open Group can decide the trademark. Wikipedia has the info on this crazy, screwed up situation:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX#Branding [wikipedia.org]

      Just in case you're wondering, The Open Group has the power to happily brand MS Windows as UNIX(TM) without it actually being UNIX.

      • Re:"UNIX" title? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @09:36PM (#13205139) Journal
        Their official comment is

        Microsoft® Windows NT was developed as a completely new, state of the art, 32 bit operating system. As such, it has no connection with the UNIX system source code. However, market demand for POSIX.1 , POSIX.2 has led to developments by several companies of add-ons that provide partial functionality. Should the functionality meet the requirements of the UNIX brand then indeed it could become a registered UNIX system.

        Could well destroy the value of the brand, though...

        • Re:"UNIX" title? (Score:2, Informative)

          by SA Stevens ( 862201 )
          Windows NT with Interix, a replacement plug-in POSIX subsystem that talks directly to the NT Kernel, paralleling the Win32 Layer (and the OS/2 1.0 layer) was a branded UNIX. Microsoft bought Softway Systems, the developers of Interix, and have crippled Interix and released it as Services for Unix. There was a point in time when they sold Microsoft Interix, which included in the on-CD bundle, the GNU Toolchain, and the GNU C Compiler. There was a popup message during the install that informed you of it's
    • Companies don't just disappear, they are liquidated. This means all assets are sold to the highest bidder. Of course, SCO doesn't own the UNIX trademark, so nothing would happen to it.

    • Re:"UNIX" title? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by darkonc ( 47285 ) <stephen_samuel@b ... m ['n.c' in gap]> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:47PM (#13204705) Homepage Journal
      If SCO owns it and dies off will it become public domain? And can people legally say that Linux is a form of UNIX?

      SCO doesn't own the the Unix Trademark. That's owned by The Open Group... if they did, and became bankrupt, the trademark wouldn't just disolve. It would become part of the property divied up and/or sold to pay off debtors.

      As far as can be told, Novell owns the copyrights on SYSV, and licensed SCO to develop new versions, and administer the licenses. This is why they're claiming that SCO owes them 95% of the money that they got from SUN and M$. This also why they say they have the right to tell SCO to lay off of IBM (it's in the contract).

      Saying that Linux is a form of Unix is like saying that the tap water in my glass is a form of Evian (or Perrier). The two may be chemically identical, but you're actually dealing with a Trademark issue, not physical reality. It would be more (legally -- but IANAL) appropriate to say that Linuxx is essentially the same as, equivalent to, or even like, but my guess is that saying that it's a form of is getting close enough to an equality statement to get an IP lawyer's pen finger itchy.

      Most places I look say that it's a Uniz-like, or even a Uniz-family operating system. Note that all of the acceptable statements are similies and comparatives, not equality class statements.

    • When companies go bankrupt, their assets generally get sold off...they don't automatically become public domain.

      For that matter, one of the good arguments against the current state of Intellectual Property is the market confusion that results at the end of the life cycle of the company that owns the rights to a product or other published works.

      On the pro-IP side. The whole point of IP in a capitalistic society is that IP allows people to borrow against IP as an asset. I imagine that bankruptcy courts w
  • If they request the money be set aside, it'll force SCO to put it's money where it's legal mouth is.

  • It's hard to see...? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's hard to see how the judge would deny a motion that would, oh by the way, bankrupt one of the litigants...? I think the judge might look favorably on the motion, but he is very very unlikely to take an action that would bankrupt SCO.

    more likely he would require a "reserve against" account, which is a paper transaction, rather than a cash account.

    • Re:It's hard to see...? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wcdw ( 179126 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:21PM (#13204584) Homepage
      Completely disagree. If SCO is bankrupt without the funds in question, and those funds do belong to Novell, then Novell stands to lose considerably if/when SCO goes bankrupt anyway.

      Given that situation, it's not at all unreasonable for at least SOME of that money to be physically sequestered.

      • This isn't a question of reasonableness . . . (Score:5, Informative)

        by werdna ( 39029 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:47PM (#13204707) Journal
        In the absence of a fiduciary duty or fraud, it would be extraordinary for a court to award money in the absence of entering judgment. This is particularly so if it would cripple the grantor to the constructive trust.

        Consider the fairness to previously existing creditors, including secured creditors, who believe they might have priority as to these assets, particularly if there is a risk of bankruptcy.

        The response is simple. If you want to secure your assets in any credit scenario, negotiate advances or a security interest, and then seek such relief you may want in bankruptcy.

        I would be very surprised to see the Judge do anything, regardless of his sympathies on the merits.

        • Re:This isn't a question of reasonableness . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

          by wcdw ( 179126 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:55PM (#13204755) Homepage
          As noted in a Groklaw comment:

          110. novell also seeks an order from the court attaching SCO's assets pending
          adjudication of this claim because SCO is quickly dissipating its assets. ....

          And I disagre with your comment in at least one other regard -- I never implied that the court would "award" money. "Sequester" != "award".
          • Yeah, that does sound reasonable on the face of it but the judge will have to look at a MUCH bigger picture. I don't know the amounts involved, but if this is about enough cash to either bancrupt SCO or even cause significant damage it would be VERY hard to see thier request be granted.

            The ONLY way this could be considered is by making a case of irreperable harm to Novell if it isn't done and that thier is a VERY reasonable chance of Novell winning judgement in the end. The first part of this seems prett
            • Gad, does no one have any imagination? SCO has something over $18M in assets. Novell claims they are owed some $24M. So what's to prevent the judge from sequestering, say, $12M of SCO's assets?

              They don't go immediately bankrupt, and Novell has some recourse in the event they're correct -- which is exactly what they've asked the judge for.

              Clearly no judge is going to 'award' Novell $24.5M without actually trying the case. That is far from saying that an interim position does not exist....
              • Again, that would be 66% of the company value being taken from shareholders, creditors, etc. Why does Novell get "first bite" at the assets for "maybe" at the expense of 100% for sure creditors/shareholders?

                If this was say MS where the ruling would cause a basically 0% harm to all those other parties then it would have a much better chance. Even though your 12M idea wouldn't take ALL thier asstes, a court isn't going to cause such MAJOR harm for "maybe".

                What this may do (as I'm sure its meant to) is cau
                • Shareholders are not creditors, and do not figure at all in such a tranmsaction.

                  If Kimball see that there is a real risk of SCO going bankrupt, and SCO being able to burn the remaining assets, the proper action would be to grant Novell these damages.

                  Clearly the current SCO management are criminals, and in order for justice to be served, the company should seek bankrupcy. This would put the company under receivership, and would ensure that the remaining process was in no danger of being exploited by the crim
                • Well, to be honest, I don't recall every saying anything like" "how can it not happen", so I have no idea where that came from.

                  As to what the court(s) will do, anyone who purports to predict those actions is obviously blowing smoke, as NO ONE can predict what any court/jury will do these days.

                  And frankly, if Novell can confirm a $24.5M debt, I'd say they have a huge leg up on the remainder of SCO's creditors. Bankruptcy cases *do* tend to give more to the largest creditors.... (And yes, I know SCO has not
                  • Yeah, the "how can it not happen" was a reference to the original write up that the original reply was saying was by no means a given. Since you replied arguing I'd assumed you agreed it was a given. Anyway, I REALLY didn't mean to get in a big arguement about this ;-) I'd like to see it happen, but I think its a long-shot for the reasons stated above. We'll have to just wait and see I guess, but I still would VERY comfortably bet against this being granted. May well be wrong, I'd be pretty compfortabl
                • What this may do (as I'm sure its meant to) is cause additional questions for shareholders.

                  Indeed, even for the insider shareholders who may not have been aware of this potential debt to Novell. Also, SCO will have to respond and give some attempt to explain, for the record, why Novell is not entitled to the $25 million. SCO will have to claim the licenses sold were not for anything covered by the APA, which will lead to questions regarding their earlier SEC filings; or SCO will have to layout a posit
                  • Any shareholder who wasn't aware of the probability of this suit has been living with blinders over his eyes for the past two years. It was nearly two years ago that Novell first alledged that tSCOg owed them this money.

                    I'm NOT a share holder, and I was aware. (It's nice to see it in the court record, but this isn't the first time Novel has mentioned it.)

                    And Novell should be near the first in line to be paid, because the debt to them was contracted before the other agreements were made. (I'll grant that
                • Shareholders are the last to be taken into account. They're owners of the company. The only thing that prevents the extra money that SCOG might owe somebody from coming out of their pockets is that that's the nature of a limited company -- a shareholder's potential loss is limited to how much they invested in the stock -- but they could lose all of that with no recourse (well, other than suing McBride etc.).

                  The court could sequester the assets without necessarily awarding it all to Novell. If SCOG declar
                • ....if a major corporation hires a bank robber to ROB A BANK -- do the shareholders of that corporate take the "first bite" of those profits, or does the bank, suing the corporation, get first bite? In essence, Novell is saying "Hey! SCO stole that money! It is rightfully ours!" -- and that is why if their story is true, they get first bite.
                • Because those assets were essentially stolen from Novell in the first place by SCO selling liscenses against their contract with Novell?
                • that would be 66% of the company value being taken from shareholders, creditors, etc.

                  No, it wouldn't. That would be 66% of money that was never SCO's in the first place

                  Why does Novell get "first bite" at the assets for "maybe" at the expense of 100% for sure creditors/shareholders?

                  They don't. This isn't talking about assets, it's talking about money that was collected on behalf of Novell. It was never SCO's, it's not an assett.
        • I can't see why not.

          SCO has announced several times that BS&F has a prtnership with them. Even Boies himself sat in on one of SCO's erarnings conference calls, and vexed eloquently about how thas was more of a partnership than a client-alwfirm relationship.

          Now since then, the fiscal love affair has cooled off abit, but BS&F is supposedly fully covered to carry on the litigation.

          Given how much Kimball has been hoodwinked by SCO over the last 2 years, I don't see him having any pangs about confiscatin
        • " Fact is there aren't many unique thrills left on this planet. Climbing Mt. Everest has been done so many times and there are so many cheats(ladders) its not that hard if you have the gear, are in shape and don't hit bad weather. People are desperate for a new experience and this will be one for a while."

          Nice legalese but what your saying doesn't really make any sense. Creditors only have priority on assets which are really SCO's. If SCO kept money that was not there's to keep(i.e. the contract clearly
      • Completely disagree. If SCO is bankrupt without the funds in question, and those funds do belong to Novell, then Novell stands to lose considerably if/when SCO goes bankrupt anyway.

        I thought the whole reason it was requested they be put in a trust was so if SCO loses another case and has to pay damages, or decides to throw in the towel and declare bankruptcy, the money would be there for Caldera if they are in fact entitled to it.

        The money is supposed to be in dipute. If it is already a given fact the mone

      • at least SOME of that money to be physically sequestered

        Considering that it looks to me like a scam where Darl is shunting money off to his brother, who just happens to recieving a lot of the money for legal expenses, sequestering the money will make such a scam less successful.

        I see the whole situation as being similar to this sort of behaviour - Darl is given a company vehicle, drives it deliberately into a very solid wall and takes it to his brothers panel shop while the company foots the bill.

        SCO is f

  • Hey (Score:4, Funny)

    by binkzz ( 779594 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:19PM (#13204568) Journal
    I'd like to volunteer for the trust position if no-one else will

  • If Novell has even the.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mwaggs_jd ( 887826 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:22PM (#13204588) Homepage
    smallest leg to stand on with these allegations SCO is toast. If the court freezes SCO's assets, up to at least 95% of the contracts with WS and Sun, there will be no money left to pay SCO's lawyers. BTW from another article, NOvell my have the right to dismiss SCO's suits agaist IBM and others, since they actually own the rights to the System V code.
    • I think the SCO lawyers have already been paid all the cash they are going to get. And for any other work they do they get a % of the win.

      Article here [zdnet.com]

      • In some special cases the courts can go after money already paid. When you are in bankruptcy court there is a order of who gets paid, if you pay someone low on the list before filing bankruptcy, they can take that money back and give it to someone higher on the list to be paid.

        I would be very surprised if this happened here, but it could. Lawyers are fairly high on the list of who gets paid.

    • ... Novell my have the right to dismiss SCO's suits agaist IBM and others, since they actually own the rights to the System V code.

      Originally, SCO claimed to own copyrights to SVR4, and sued IBM for infringing their copyrights. Novell them claimed that they are the ones who own the copyright, and waived, on SCO's behalf, any claim of infringement. The current litigation (SCO v. Novell) is exactly about who owns these copyrights. It depends on the interpretation of a contract between AT&T (which ow

      • Re:If Novell has even the.. (Score:4, Informative)

        by rm69990 ( 885744 ) on Sunday July 31, 2005 @12:17AM (#13205772)
        No, you are wrong. SCO sued IBM originally in their first complaint for breach of contract and trade secret theft. The matter was only between IBM and SCO though, and SCO needed cash, so they started announcing that the Linux kernel infringed their copyrights. Novell stepped in at this point and demanded to see the infringing code, and told the world that Novell owned the copyrights, and not SCO.

        SCO then began licensing Linux and if I am not mistaken, ammended their complaint against IBM to include copyright infringement. Novell continued saying they owned the copyrights, and SCO filed suit against Novell.

        The contract was NOT between AT&T and Santa Cruz. AT&T spun off Unix Systems Laboratories as a subsidiary. USL then was aquired by Novell. 2 years later (1995) Novell assigned the Open Group the Unix trademark, and sold its Unixware business to Santa Cruz. The deal also allowed Santa Cruz to license SVR4 on Novell's behalf, for a 5% administration fee. This is what confuses people. Santa Cruz did NOT get ripped off. If Santa Cruz licensed your business Unixware, Santa Cruz got 100% of the licensing fee. If Santa Cruz licensed IBM SVR4, Novell would get 95% of the deal. Unixware != Unix SVR4. Novell still holds the Unix copyrights.

        So AT&T sold Unix to Novell, and then Novell sold certain Unix assets to Santa Cruz, not AT&T to Santa Cruz and Novell at the same time. Then Santa Cruz sold Caldera their server division, which included these assets received from Novell.

        Also, Project Monterey was not a port of Unix to Intel a.k.a. x86. It was a port of AIX combined with Unixware to the Itanium. When Linux gained so many enterprise features between 2.2 and 2.4, and Itanium kept getting delayed, IBM dropped Monterey and proceeded with Linux on Power and x86/x86_64. (I believe they also support Itanium with Linux too...I know HP does)

    • Re:If Novell has even the.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by lgftsa ( 617184 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:16PM (#13204850)
      ...there will be no money left to pay SCO's lawyers.

      I'm sure someone will be willing to take on the case pro bono. After all, this all about the little guy fighting the corporate behemoth, and there's reputations to be made.

    • Re:If Novell has even the.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @09:53PM (#13205200)
      Maybe it wasn't so smart of Microsoft to fund SCO by buying SCOsource licenses after all. If BG had simply left a grocery sack of cash on Daryl's porch with a short note reading "murder linux," Novell would have no claim on the MS money.
    • NOvell my have the right to dismiss SCO's suits agaist IBM and others, since they actually own the rights to the System V code.

      What Novell is pointing out is that SCO never had the right to sue anybody over Unix copyright, and SCO never had the right to terminate IBM's and Sequent's licenses. According to IBM though, IBM paid for a "irrevocable, fully paid-up, perpetual" license way back in 1996. It is Novell and not SCO that has any standing to challenge that claim by IBM.

      • You are missing the point. What he is saying is that SCO does NOT have the right to alter existing Unix SVR4 licenses without Novell's consent. SCO amended Sun's license, amended Microsoft's license, terminated Sequent's license and terminated IBM's license without permission from Novell. This is not allowed by the APA between Novell and Santa Cruz (later sold to Caldera a.k.a. the SCO Group). Novell did step in and waived SCO's termination of IBM's license. SCO proceeded on anyways and sued IBM over copyri

  • which will likely bankrupt SCO.


    about time.

  • The humorous part (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mcc ( 14761 )
    Early on in the case, this would have been a huge big revelation; a sort of a... "Wait, you mean SCO is basing their entire future around denouncing UNIX license fees not being paid by people who aren't even using UNIX... yet SCO allegedly isn't paying the license fees for their real UNIX?"

    ...but now now we've gotten to the point where literally no amount of lying, theft or abuse on the part of SCO can surprise us, this little tidbit will slide right past the media as nothing but a footnote and a ha
    • this little tidbit will slide right past the media as nothing but a footnote and a handful of slashdot comments

      Not if it successfully freezes SCO's entire (ill-gotten) war chest.

    • Early on in the case, this would have been a huge big revelation...

      This isn't a new revelation. This is ongoing legal action based on a revelation from before this lawsuit even began. The law works slowly.

      It didn't exactly escape mainstream media. But the revelation wasn't really highlighted; simply included in the news concerning Novell's involvement. I suppose it's to be expected. After all, it's hard to track what's going on with Novell's involvement without a diagram. Heck, even so-called exper [cs.vu.nl]

  • my theory (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:36PM (#13204663)
    back when this whole thing started, sun was pretty anti-linux, and we all know microsoft loves linux. i think this was a grand conspiracy conducted jointly by microsoft and sun, and the method of payoff to sco was the licensing purchases that they made.

    • Re:my theory (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Decaff ( 42676 )
      back when this whole thing started, sun was pretty anti-linux

      Yes, that explains why, years before SCO started all this, Sun had spent to much time and money working to make Linux one of their main platforms for Java development, why they had opened up Star Office in the form of Open Office, including a version for Linux, why they had been providing an open source version of Sun Studio (NetBeans) for Linux.

      Some very strange definition of 'pretty anti-linux', perhaps?

      By why let facts get in the way of Slashdo

      • Re:my theory (Score:3, Informative)

        by SA Stevens ( 862201 )
        Those were all 'middle period' moves by Sun in support of Linux. Back in the day they refused to release an official JVM or JDK for Linux. They've not had a consistent position on Linux and in fact were rather negative toward it for years.

  • Sun and MS in Fraud? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:48PM (#13204712) Journal
    The real question on this story will be how much and when was information known. Did SCO fraud MS/Sun or where they partners in all this. If so, then they may end up be held liable by IBM/SEC.

    In addition, with the fraudulent paper, it shows that SCO is willing to go to extraordinary lengths. I wonder if perhaps the 2 suicides should be investigated further? Mormons do not commit suicides and both were practicing.

    • Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:04PM (#13204796)

      This is truly the meat in the Novell case. They must know that NewSCO itself is small potatoes. Novell also mentions they rejected NewSCO's invitation to join in the SCOSource initiative because it sounded like a scheme.

      I think Novell is now hoping discovery will reveal evidence that NewSCO approached Sun and MS with the same scheme offer prior to launching their war against Linux.

      If Novell can show Sun or MS acting with some fraudulent intent (shakedown, FUD to keep Linux down, etc.) then just imagine how big the pot of gold at the end of that litigation rainbow would be.

      In the end Novell may be the one laughing all the way to the bank as a result of the NewSCO fiasco.
      • >> Novell also mentions they rejected NewSCO's invitation to join in the SCOSource initiative because it sounded like a scheme. I think Novell is now hoping discovery will reveal evidence that NewSCO approached Sun and MS with the same scheme offer prior to launching their war against Linux.

        This is actually a very good find. I am kicking myself for not seeing this earlier. It finally makes sense.

        SCO tried to get Novell to join the Linux FUD scam. Novell had not bought Suse yet so they were not in

    • Re:Sun and MS in Fraud? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sneakers563 ( 759525 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:12PM (#13204827)
      Actually, Utah consistently ranks above the national average for suicides. In the 1990's, for instance, suicide was the #1 cause of death for males 24-40 and the #2 cause of death for males 15-24.

      I'd also like to point out that the first suicide was apparently commited in front of the man's wife. Can we resist accusing Darl McBride of murder, until there's at least a shred of evidence to support it?

      • Re:Sun and MS in Fraud? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alienw ( 585907 )
        Actually, Utah consistently ranks above the national average for suicides. In the 1990's, for instance, suicide was the #1 cause of death for males 24-40 and the #2 cause of death for males 15-24.

        You are lying with statistics. The leading causes of death for people under 40 or so will always be suicide, homicide, and accidents, so saying that suicide is in the top 3 says nothing. All you are saying is that the state has a lower homicide/accident rate than it does a suicide rate, which is not very surpri
        • That page is sweet - if you "reject jesus" in the faux checkboxes you get to the really fun stuff. If I had realPlayer I'd be interested to hear the "millions in hell" clip...

        • Re:Sun and MS in Fraud? (Score:4, Informative)

          by sneakers563 ( 759525 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @09:40PM (#13205150)
          First off, the parent said that Mormons don't commit suicide. Obviously, if suicide is the leading cause of death for males under 40, they do and you're criticism is immaterial.

          Secondly, if you had bothered to look up the statistics, you'd see that Utah's suicide rate is, in fact, above the national average and has been at least since the early 90's. Too much trouble? Take a look at this [suicidology.org]. Or how about this [afsp.org]?

          • I'm sorry, that's like saying "Irish don't commit suicide. There are suicides in Boston. Irish are killing themselves."

            Utah isn't 100% mormon. Not saying he's right and you're wrong, just saying how you're saying it is wrong.
            • Lol - fair enough. I'll even concede the point if someone can come up with a statistic showing 0 annual suicides among Mormons.

              How about this: the states with the highest suicide rates are in the West, which also happen to be the states with the highest Mormon populations. There's a high positive correlation between suicide rate and % LDS adherents. Just kidding.

      • So how is the job at the Utah tourism commission going?
    • Which suicides are these?
    • Mormons do not commit suicides and both were practicing.

      And Catholic priests don't fuck little boys.
    • Interestingly, there was a recent study [adherents.com] which suggests that practicing Mormons have a lower suicide rate than non-practicing Mormons and us idolatrous heathens.

      The obvious implication of that would be, of course, that Mormons do indeed commit suicide, albeit at a lower rate.

      So is it worth investigating? Maybe, but not because "Mormons do not commit suicide."

  • 95%? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kaemaril ( 266849 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:52PM (#13204740)

    It's incredibly pedantic I know, but my understanding is they're entitled to 100% of the royalties ...

    It's just that they then give 5% back to SCO to handle administration.

    • In this case, they are asking for 100% of the money since SCO was negligent in their administrative duties.

  • 100 percent, not 95 percent (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hal9000_sn3 ( 707590 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:52PM (#13204741)
    Novell states that they must be SVRX licenses which entitles them to 95% of revenue in royalties.

    Novell does not, and did not ever claim to be entitled to only 95% of revenue on royalties.

    Novell is entitled to 100% of royalties and remits 5% back to SCO as an admistrative fee.

    See page 13 of Novell's answer and counterclaim.

    http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-78.pdf [groklaw.net]

  • Novell Goes for SCO's Throat (Score:4, Informative)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:54PM (#13204750) Homepage
    eWeek also has the story with the interesting title:

    Novell Goes for SCO's Throat [eweek.com]

    As others have already mentioned, one of the many interesting things that came out in this filing was that SCO asked Novell to go in on the scam. Novell called it "scheme". Novell declined and SCO marched on.

    It will be interesting to see how SCO management avoids jail time.

  • Beautiful irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tamnir ( 230394 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:55PM (#13204752)
    This has the potential of finishing off SCO for good. The way things have been going with this case, I don't have so much hope that will be the end, but if it could be, what a grand finale that would be! Not only will we have the satisfaction to see the litigious bastards [sco.com] go down, but more importantly, beautiful irony, the money Microsoft and Sun had invested in hurting Linux will end up in the pockets of a Linux champion! Talk about karma...

  • Show your support. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by btarval ( 874919 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @07:58PM (#13204774)
    Here are some of Pamela's words which are worth repeating:

    "And now we know Novell is a hero in this saga, and I am going out to buy the latest SUSE Linux this exact minute, even though I already have it. I hope you do too, even if you don't need it."

    While I have my own other favorite distro, I think her example is a good one; and I for one intend on purchasing a copy as well.

  • Twenty years in jail for SCO gang (Score:5, Informative)

    by linuxguy ( 98493 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:03PM (#13204790) Homepage
    For falsely claiming SUN and MS revenus among other things Darl and gang face prison terms in addition to fines.

    From Groklaw:

    CEOs and CFOs of listed companies (like SCOX) face ten years in jail and $1m fines for a mistake in their reporting. Twenty years and $5m if it's a "willful" mistake.

    See sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act: here's the relevant bit of s.906:

    (c) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.--Whoever--
    (1) certifies any statement as set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section knowing that the periodic report accompanying the statement does not comport with all the requirements set forth in this section shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; or
    (2) willfully certifies any statement as set forth in subsections (a) and (b) of this section knowing that the periodic report accompanying the statement does not comport with all the requirements set forth in this section shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
    • From Groklaw:

      Where exactly? I couldn't find the reference. The summary missed the key phrase "not more than" in the act, in other words:
      CEOs and CFOs of listed companies (like SCOX) face up to ten years in jail and up to $1m fines for a mistake in their reporting.

      • Good point. On the other hand... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Saturday July 30, 2005 @10:34PM (#13205339) Homepage Journal
        ...a weekend in jail for the SCO board of directors could finish the company. The major shareholders are already fidgity and this could result in a major pull-out of any and all investment. Too much risk of bad publicity.


        On the flip-side, SCO would make a great target for the Justice Department - too puny and insignificant to have any real impact on business, too flat-broke on their existing lawsuits to mount much of a defence, good publicity for their anti-corruption efforts (!) for every executive they convict and good for some of the big-name US companies being hastled by SCO.

  • To paraphrase Judge Marilyn Millian (Score:5, Funny)

    by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:14PM (#13204839) Homepage Journal
    They're done, done, done, stick a fork in 'em, they're DONE! (sfx: gavel BANG!)

    It would be so cool if the final moments of the Smoking Crack Organization could happen on The People's Court. So we could actually hear Darl McBribe whimper and see him pee himself. In public. On camera.

    Gotcha, you litigious bastard [sco.com]!

  • SCO late for Audit: 730 days and counting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arthurski ( 903953 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:43PM (#13204974)
    Novell asked for an Audit of SCO's SVRX licences in July 2003.
    After asking for an initial 3-weeks delay, SCO still hasn't answered.

    This is the very same SCO that was badgering Daimler-Chrysler for taking 30 days to answer an Audit they had not even received ???

    Un-effing-believable!

  • Current events, calendar. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30, 2005 @08:47PM (#13204991)

    Quick update: Big news. Novell [groklaw.net] has answered SCO's complaint and has filed some impressive counterclaims. Read the pdf here [groklaw.net] . Among other things, Novell alleges that SCO had repeatedly asked for Novell to transfer UNIX copyrights, and at the early stages, actually asked Novell to go in with SCO on the SCOSource program. In Novell's counterclaims, they specifically allege:

    In late 2002, SCO repeatedly contacted Novell in connection with SCO's soon-to-be-announced SCOSource campaign. SCO requested copies of certain documentation concerning rights to UNIX, including the agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz. SCO also expressed its interest in a campaign to assert UNIX infringement claims against users of Linux. SCO asked Novell to assist SCO in a Linux licensing program, under which SCO contemplated extracting a license fee from Linux end users to use the UNIX intellectual property purportedly contained in Linux. Novell refused to participate.

    Some of what Novell is seeking seems to hit right to the heart of SCO's cash resources. The best example of such a tactic is a request by Novell to require SCO to put the money it received from Microsoft, Sun, and others (through SCO's "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors") in a "constructive trust" until Novell's contract claims are decided. Unless they move to extend their time, SCO should respond to Novell's counterclaims by 22 Aug 2005.

    Current events:

    • SCOvIBM: In the wake of the recent opinion [groklaw.net] issued by Judge Kimball, fact discovery will continue until 27 Jan 2006, and the parties must disclose with specificity all "allegedly infringing materials" by 22 Dec 2005. Redacted and unsealed motions are being rapidly released, with SCO finally joining in. The parties seem to be still consulting [groklaw.net] with each other on the privilege log issue. Finally, a fully briefed, completely sealed discovery motion [groklaw.net] awaits a ruling, though no hearing date is yet set.

    • SCOvNovell: Judge Kimball has denied [groklaw.net] Novell's motion to dismiss, and now Novell has answered SCO's complaint. On top of that, Novell has filed an impressive array of counterclaims [groklaw.net] . Alleging that SCO "asked Novell to assist SCO in a Linux licensing program, under which SCO contemplated extracting a license fee from Linux end users to use the UNIX intellectual property purportedly contained in Linux," Novell not only says that they refused, but indicate that these conversations demonstrate the SCO launched their storied lawsuits with knowledge that their ownership position in the UNIX System V copyrights was uncertain. Perhaps the most compelling request that Novell is presenting to the court is a request that income SCO received from Microsoft, Sun, and the "Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors" be put out of SCO's reach into a "constructive trust" until Novell's contract claims are decided. Other counterclaims call for relief relating to SCO's alleged slander of Novell's title to UNIX System V copyrights and declarative, injunctive, and monetary relief relating to SCO's alleged breaches of the contracts relating to the sale of Novell's UNIX business to Santa Cruz. Unless SCO is granted an extension of time, it should reply to these counterclaims by 22 Aug 2005.

    • RedHatvSCO: This case remains stayed. However, Judge Robinson indicated [groklaw.net] that if "it woul

  • Word of advice RE: Groklaw (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @09:27PM (#13205121) Journal
    Word of advice regarding groklaw: RTFA *and* the comments. The stuff is not as simple as it looks. It's a lot like debugging somebody else's code. Then come back when there is a new article, lather, rinse, repeat. I say this because there's a metric assload of wrong ideas and misinformation floating around about how this stuff works.

    • Re:Word of advice RE: Groklaw (Score:4, Funny)

      by drxenos ( 573895 ) on Saturday July 30, 2005 @10:32PM (#13205334)
      How much is a metric assload converted to English units?
      • Well, that depends on whether one considers an "assload" to be a measure of weight (mass) or of volume.

        If one takes "ass" as synonymous with "donkey", then the measure is probably by weight, and a metric assload is probably in kilograms. Multiply by 2.2 to get pounds.

        If one takes the other common meaning of "ass" then it may well be a unit of volume, but the specific metric unit could be anything from milliliters or perhaps centiliters for average, or perhaps litres for the goatse.cx guy.

        And on that note I
      • I believe that the arseload is one of the few metric measurements to be fully adopted in England. However, I'd say a metric arseload is around 1.312 imperial buttocksloads. Which is of cause 14 moutheloads, 84 earholeloads and 112 nostrilloads. Back when I was a boy you could get a 3 earholeloads of candy for one pound two shillings and eightpence. Life was simpler back then.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close