SCO Owes Novell $2.5 Million 174
CrkHead writes "Groklaw has posted Judge Kimball's ruling on SCO v Novell. For those that have been following this saga, we finally get to watch the house of cards start to fall. For those new to this story, it started with SCO suing Novell and having all its motions decided in summary judgement and went to trial only on Novell's counter claims. Cheers to PJ for keeping us informed!"
Re:The end? I doubt it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, I think not. More likely, SCO will just find another deck of cards and carry on playing for some time.
Nah. They still have to face the music with IBM. Same judge, too.
Re:This isnt any victory. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not at all. IANAL, but from personal experience with involvement in such a legal dispute, I wouldn't say that discovery was anymore deep than normal. The only difference is, SCO dragged their feet and dragged their feet as much as possible. But in so much as what was asked for? Not really unusual at all. The way Judge Kimball and his magistrate handled it? Nothing unusual there, either. If anything, Kimball has been one of the most fair judges I've ever seen.
You can't just stop a court trial for no reason. The judge can't just throw the whole thing out. There are rules that have to be followed and Kimball did, in essence, throw out the vast majority of SCO's claims.
In fact, most of what's left is IBM's counterclaims. That's when the hammer will really fall.
Re:hmmm, (Score:1, Interesting)
"It hints that Novell owns the SVRX code that SCO sold to MS - does this mean that MS will now sue?"
It means that MS will now say they own the rights to use the SVRX code, as they made a deal with Novell.
Priorities on disbursment.... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is independent of any legal action that the SEC or the local AG may decide to take.
only 2.5 Meeeeeeellion dollars??????? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is like out of Austin Power. Was the judge cryogentically frozen for the last 30 years?
2.5 million dollars sounds awfully low.
I think the judge may have been saysing well the rights belong to Novell and to make this contractually clear I'm going to charge you a deminimus fine.
Re:Not per se (Score:3, Interesting)
What it amounts to is a fancy way to describe theft. SCO stole money from Novell by not reporting it and turning it over. I would *love* to see SCO's management face civil and/or legal penalties directly for this but IANAL.
So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? (Score:5, Interesting)
The current judgment of $2.5M is practically nominal in the big picture. A large investor could cover that and SCO would escape a death sentence. SCO, or some version of it, is likely to survive for another day.
This is likely bad news for OpenSolaris and Sun. Novell now has Sun over a barrel. Sun was able to open source Solaris because it thought it bought a license from SCO to have free-and-clear rights to the SysV parts in Solaris. According to the decision, in 1994 Novell & Sun agreed for a 20-year non-disclosure on release of UNIX source code. That runs out in 2014. SUN then amended this with SCO to remove the non-disclosure. The last sentence on page 20 of the decisions says, "Absent the removal of the 1994 Sun Agreement's Confidentiality restrictions, Sun would not have been licensed to publically release the OpenSolaris source code". And on page 36k "In the 2003 Sun Agreement, SCO renegotiated a contract and expanded Sun's rights to technology still owned by Novell". Later on the same page "The court thus concludes and declares that SCO was without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement....".
Novell now has a HUGE stick to beat over Sun's head. OpenSolaris has basically been declared illegal.
If I remember correctly, Novell has declared that they are done suing over UNIX. So Sun might be off the hook. However, if Novell is not so gracious and sues Sun over OpenSolaris. Sun will loose and will seek for SCO to indemnify it. SCO won't have the money. Then SCO will finally die.
Re:So SCO stays alive and OpenSolaris dies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not important (Score:2, Interesting)
So what happens to those in SCO that initiated this case in the first place? If they are not able to appeal nor pay up on what has been ordered, what happens to Darl and co? Claims were made to be found baseless, do they get off free of charge or are there proceedings that can be brought against the architect's of this situation?
Tes