Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Novell Caldera Government The Almighty Buck The Courts News

Novell to SCO - Pay Up 151

Posted by Zonk
from the they-want-money-that's-what-they-want dept.
gosherm writes with word that, now that the dust is beginning to settle on the long-running SCO case, Novell wants to get paid. Now. They're requesting that the customary stay on SCO's finances (as a result of their bankruptcy) be lifted so that Novell can begin recouping some of its losses from the protracted legal battle. "'We need to adjudicate if this is money owed to Novell or if it is Novell's property,' said Bruce Lowry, spokesman for Novell. That could determine how quickly Novell can recover those funds. And time is of the essence since there's a possibility SCO 'may run low or even completely out of cash during the process of trying to reorganize,' Novell said in court documents filed Thursday. Novell is also trying to protect royalties SCO collects from Unix and Unixware software licensees and remits annually to the software developer. SCO is required to continue to remit between $500,000 and $800,000 annually to Novell -- the next payment is due Nov. 14. SCO remitted $696,413 to Novell between the third quarter of 2006 and the second quarter of this year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell to SCO - Pay Up

Comments Filter:
  • by debilo (612116) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:09PM (#20883749)

    Haven't heard from you in a while McBride, cat got your tounge?
    You must have missed this recent interview [wired.com] where Darl once again confirms that most assholes take pride in their self-righteousness and delusion. I especially enjoyed this part:

    WN: You knew you'd be vilified?

    McBride: In this particular case we're talking about, I joined the company, and we had problems with our intellectual property.... I said we should protect our rights.... The former CEO said, if you do that, you will be vilified by the Linux community. The Linux community will attack you. You will be hated. Don't go down that path.

    Well that's not a reason to not step up and defend your property. That's not a reason to stand back and say, "I'm not going to fight." We got attacked, vilified and we got branded as pariahs. When you pay 149 million dollars for a property, do you have the right to defend it or not? I think it's a matter of principle. I think anybody in their right mind who was in my position would have done the same thing if they had half a backbone.

    Beautiful, innit?
  • Yes, you are. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sturm (914) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:29PM (#20883877) Journal
    Now, go away or I will taunt you a second time.
  • by Epsillon (608775) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:36PM (#20883919) Homepage Journal
    Damn it! Quote [computerworld.com] your sources, man! (page 2) We really need an "edit this half-arsed post" button.
  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:51PM (#20884025) Homepage

    Somebody went through Judge Kimball's entire summary judgement appeal record and posted it. [investorvillage.com] No, he doesn't get reversed two-thirds of the time.

  • by debilo (612116) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @08:53PM (#20884043)

    Tell me, when RMS does what he believes is right in the face of opposition, what is he?
    Controversial. As usual. What's your point?
  • by hedwards (940851) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @09:11PM (#20884145)

    So basically, he's saying he did what he believes is right in the face of opposition, and you call him a self-righteous asshole.
    Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased. What SCO purchased was the exclusive right to license and rent UNIX, as well as decide what OSes can and cannot be referred to as UNIX. What SCO did not purchase, were the copyright or the patents for UNIX. It is fairly clear to anybody that has read up on copyright, that one cannot buy copyright once it has been established, one can buy exclusively world wide rights to a copyright work, just not the copyright itself. The closest thing is paying somebody to create the work, making it a work for hire, but still not transferable later on.

    And as such, SCO never had the authority to claim infringement on the copyrights or patents that go along with UNIX. SCO could however sue Linux or anybody else if they claimed that their OS was UNIX, as SCO has the legal right to decide which OSes are or are not UNIX. They could also sue anybody that was selling copies or licenses of UNIX without their say so.

    I don't know how an attorney, especially an IP attorney, wouldn't know that you can't buy a copyright. It just seems like one of those things that you should know before you set forth to buy something. Worse still for SCO was that it was explicitly stated in the terms of the contract that the neither the copyright nor the patents were included with the exclusive trademark and licensing rights.
  • by dosius (230542) <bridget@buric.co> on Saturday October 06, 2007 @09:23PM (#20884203) Journal
    Ironically, SCO was a spinoff of Novell, back when its name was still Caldera.

    -uso.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 06, 2007 @09:55PM (#20884351)
    They're far and away the biggest creditor,

    Technically, Novell isn't a creditor. SCO is acting as an agent for Novell; collecting license fees and forwarding them to Novell (and receiving a 5% administration fee). That means, legally, that it's not SCO's money to begin with.

    Someone used the analogy of a person robbing a bank then declaring backruptcy and then trying pay the bank back 10 cents on the dollar because they're a creditor. No, it doesn't work that way.

    Just as the bank robber's money still belongs to the bank, the SVRX license fees belong to Novell. Novell is not a creditor to be paid 10 cents on the dollar.
  • (-1, Wrong) (Score:5, Informative)

    by cduffy (652) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Saturday October 06, 2007 @10:07PM (#20884415)

    Except that he is wrong about what SCO purchased. What SCO purchased was the exclusive right to license and rent UNIX, as well as decide what OSes can and cannot be referred to as UNIX.
    No, they didn't get that -- The Open Group held (and holds) the UNIX trademark, and they decide what is and isn't a UNIX. And you're quite wrong in stating that a copyright can't be purchased -- they can indeed be transferred, but that transfer needs to be explicit, and the APA didn't qualify.
    (IANAL)
  • Re:(-1, Wrong) (Score:3, Informative)

    by xigxag (167441) on Saturday October 06, 2007 @10:59PM (#20884639)
    Yes, you're correct. Copyrights can be sold [artquest.org.uk] or transferred [about.com], as we should know [fsf.org].
  • by elronxenu (117773) on Sunday October 07, 2007 @03:41AM (#20885979) Homepage
    Judge Kimball already ruled that Copyrights did not transfer with the Asset Purchase Agreement, and so SCO does not own the Unix System V Copyrights. He also found that the Microsoft and Sun licenses were in part SysV licenses, so some part of the revenue belongs to Novell. SCO claims it owns all the revenue. Therefore, SCO has converted (stolen) Novell's property.

    The 5-day trial which was suspended due to SCO's application for Ch11 bankruptcy was all about finding how much of that revenue was Novell's. SCo petitioned for bankruptcy on the last business day before the scheduled start of the trial.

  • Re:out of money (Score:3, Informative)

    by jellomizer (103300) * on Sunday October 07, 2007 @08:58AM (#20887201)
    That is why they are in this trouble. Part of the victory for Novel was that SCO had to pay the money it made from right to use Unix. Which MS Paid for. If MS Didn't Pay for these licenses That would be a lot less that SCO will have to pay.
  • Not exactly (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xtifr (1323) on Sunday October 07, 2007 @03:26PM (#20890033) Homepage
    Caldera was formed by Ray Norda, founder and one-time CEO of Novell, and for many years, the public face of Novell, just as Billy is/was the public face of Microsoft and Larry Ellison is the public face of Oracle. However, Caldera was never directly connected to Novell. Norda had, IIRC, already retired from Novell at the time he founded Caldera, and the startup money came, IIRC, came from an umbrella foundation set up by Norda directly.

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI

Working...