Authored by: devnull13 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:57 PM EDT

Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:58 PM EDT

For all those misteaks --> mistakes



---

--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT

Off Topic Posts start here....



---

--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: IMANAL on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 04:59 PM EDT

CET 22:54, when it matters the most.



More than three years to hear that. Wow!!!



.





---

--------------------------

IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]



and all the money - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:45 AM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:45 AM EDT European time - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 04:12 AM EDT

Authored by: peterhenry on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:01 PM EDT

As we are being trained to do...

Discuss your newspicks here so we can pick them out



---

--We have met the enemy and he is us......Pogo

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT

Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead!





Err...let the appeals begin.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:02 PM EDT

We're dancing now! How soon until red dress time??



Oh my goodness, if I hadn't been sprawled on the couch, laptop in lap, and

somewhat near sleep, I'd have fallen out of my chair. I'm suddenly wide awake

and looking to see where the order is. I want to read the news with my own eyes,

not that I don't believe the inestimable PJ's posting here on Groklaw.



Oh, there will be much celebration here. I've awaited this day with bated breath

for years and can now relax and breathe much easier.



WOOT!!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: seanlynch on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:03 PM EDT

Authored by: itchytweed on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:04 PM EDT

After being on vacation for a week and no data service due to a toes-up DSL

modem, this is wonderful news to test the replacement equipment on. Now to wait

for the rest of the fireworks to go off! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT

Executive summary of the other important conclusions of this motion

(p100-p102):



[...] 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 [...]



[...] 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 [...].

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: chaz_paw on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:05 PM EDT

WOW!



---

Proud Linux user since 07/26/04

Registered Linux user #422376



Charles [ Reply to This | # ]



Fantabulous GNU's!!!!!! - Authored by: MajorDisaster on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:58 PM EDT

Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:06 PM EDT

I'll do the text on it, if you can wait until I get home (and until I pop a cork

to celebrate).





---

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports

Night" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:07 PM EDT

The case was not about copyright ownership, but about slander of title. Now

could not SCO at least get a ruling on attempted slander of title, on the basis

that Novell could not possibly have believed to own the copyrights even though

it did?



Something like that. Or so.



Anyway, let's hope that the court handed SCO enough rope to hang itself on three

or four gallows.



And what does this mean for the counterclaims? License money, enough to let SCO

go broke. Will they survive long enough to see their other cases thrown out of

court?



Basically this leaves only the IBM case, and on the flimsiest legal theories. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:08 PM EDT

Soon we should see some "interesting" press, and possibly a few Flying

Chairs (tm).

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:11 PM EDT

With regards the ruling, the phrase SWEEEEEETTTTT just doesn't seem to cut it ;) As of 3:09 Edmonton, AB time: nothing in the main news sources showing up on Google quite yet. Wonder when they'll wake up. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:12 PM EDT

This *is* interesting, since the conveyance from AT&T to Novell has never

been questioned, and Novell themselves may never have received complete

copyright ownership in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: saltydogmn on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT

Let's all toast the fact that SCOX is now, indeed, toast.







CHEERS!







Here's to you, Darl. HA! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:13 PM EDT

SCOX always rises on bad news, so I predict that on Monday the share price will

reach $100.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ox on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:17 PM EDT

Even an old disenfranchised jaded Viet Vet stands in awe. Justice is served! The

Light has won a major issue in modern America. {Blinks in amazement}



---

ox

Linux Reg.#199890 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: anesq on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:18 PM EDT

As a bit of color commentary on the timing:



Judicial clerks, the judicial assistants who go to work for judges usually right

out of law school, generally work for a judge for a year or two, and generally

from September to September. They also tend to do the heavy lifting on opinions

like this, and can have a lot of institutional knowledge on particular cases in

their heads. I suspect that this opinion came out now because it needed to be

finished before the current clerk(s) left and the new clerk(s) came on board.

This way, Judge Kimball doesn't have to get yet another clerk up to speed on the

case. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:19 PM EDT

So much for TSG's Fifth Cause of Action against IBM!



---

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports

Night" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:21 PM EDT

Doesn't the stock price normally react to things like this? :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:26 PM EDT

So what do we do now, Brain?



Narf!



--

BMO - snoopydancing in the smoking crater [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: chris hill on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:28 PM EDT

How do people think magazines like Forbes will spin this?



They don't like to admit they're wrong, and have tried to paint SCO as the

protectors of all that is good with Dan Lyons.



Will they back down and admit they're wrong, or will they say it's delayed

justice and SCO will win in the end?



Chris [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Filter on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:33 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT

Bwaa haa haa haa haaaa! Bye bye SCO! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT

Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:35 PM EDT

Discuss here



---

If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what

it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con

so [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:36 PM EDT

Discuss here



---

If the only way you can value something is with money, you have no idea what

it's worth. If you try to make money by making money, you won't. You might con

so [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:37 PM EDT

So... the big question: Will SCOG accept they went down the wrong path completely when they decided to sue IBM or will they still - being as stuborn as they seem to be - insist that they're in the right? My vote is that they'll insist IBM is all about the contract and that the ownership of the Unix copyrights means nothing because they still control IBM's works due to the contract interpretation. After all, they've used that line already in a few places. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bigbert on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:39 PM EDT

SO good to hear! Thanks to all involved, and especially to PJ who has kept on,

year after year, to hammer home the point.



Any bets how quickly the rest will unravel? Will we have peace by Christmas?





---

--------------------------

Surfo, ergo sum. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: esni on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:40 PM EDT

'The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with

respect to the Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or

Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;'



Why is that?



---

Eskild

Denmark





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tim Ransom on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:47 PM EDT

On a beautiful summer Friday evening, no less!



Oh, to be a fly on the wall in Lindon!



---

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tredman on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:49 PM EDT

I UNDERSTAND that this is only the Novell case, and IBM, Red Hat and AutoZone

still wait in the wings for their day...



I UNDERSTAND that this doesn't settle all claims on both sides, that we still

have some work to do on what remains...



I UNDERSTAND that we've only just scratched the surface on this, what with the

litany train of appeals to come...



With that said, I just have two words:



WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO



Okay, now that I have that out of my system, this weekend should be about

getting the decision transcribed into plain text, finding out what motions are

still on the table, analyze what this moots in the IBM case as well as RH/AZ,

and seeing where we go next.



It's far from over, and the case has been on a downhill slide for some time now,

but I think we've reached the point where spin just ain't gonna cover it up any

more.



I think there are also implications with this in terms of the Novell/Microsoft

deal. Does their ownership of the UNIX copyrights give them an upper hand in

that relationship, or will we see the agreement start to wither? Or was the

upfront money that MS ponied up on that deal a portent that Bill et al truly

knew the UNIX technology which Microsoft has dutifully licensed for years,

stayed with Novell after all?



There is work to be done, but tonight, everybody raise a

glass/mug/flagon/container of choice in the air and celebrate a milestone. PJ,

Mathfox, and all the rest of you deserve it.



---

Tim

"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:51 PM EDT

I'm double-dog glad that Judge Kimball issued the ruling we've all been

anticipating, and the the bad guys didn't win.



My only complaint is that the plaintiff of these cases was able to drag them out

for *over 4 years* before the first seriously dispositive ruling was issued.



To put this in perspective: I became an IBM employee a few months after the SCO

debacle started. I worked there for four years, following the SCO cases here at

Groklaw for most of that time. Then I quit my job and moved on to a new job, 9

months ago.



And its only now that SCO is finally getting the proper slapdown that it was

obvious (by 2004 at the latest) that they deserved. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MacsEntropy on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:53 PM EDT

Put on your red dress, mama,

'Cause we're goin' out tonight;

Put on your red dress, mama,

'Cause we're goin' out tonight.

You better wear some boxing gloves,

case some fool might wanna fight... (old blues song; no idea where from; I heard it first from Jose Feliciano in about 1974) That one's for you, PJ, but I think maybe Josh'a Fit de Battle ob Jericho might be more fitting for the rest of us...

---

"Trusted third parties" aren't. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:55 PM EDT

Something about a filing in the IBM case? Oh, I can't wait!



MSS2 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:56 PM EDT

On page 50 (begining of the last full paragraph) In Blumenfeld v. R. H. Macy & Co., 92 Cal. App. 3d 38 (1979), the California Court of Appeals rejected a similar attempt to interpret all to mean less than all. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 05:59 PM EDT

Is the fat lady singing or is she warming up.

I think it is the introdution [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:00 PM EDT

I like how Judge Kimball very clearly distinguishes between "Santa

Cruz" and "Caldera/The SCO Group" in this ruling, even to the

extent of replacing something (presumably "SCO") with "[Santa

Cruz]" in quoted passages (e.g. on page 7 of the ruling, where he quotes

from the APA)



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jjock on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:02 PM EDT

Daily reading of Groklaw has taught me many things about the

workings of the courts and the lawyers, but the most important

word I have learned is conversion. SCO stole from Novell and

now they are going to have to pay.

Bob [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: osaeris on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:05 PM EDT

Well done. I've largely been a lurker but I'm very impressed by the collective

might! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:12 PM EDT

We're there! We're there!



A very happy Groklaw member, om1er - at work, not signed in.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:15 PM EDT

How will this affect the IBM case?

Also, I guess SCO's slander accusation is void now.

I hope IBM won't stop now, and they will prove that SCO knew they had no

copyrights. So IBM could move forward, and eventually criminal charges agains

McBride and Co. could be filed as well. Maybe even M$'s role is revealed as

well?

Yeah, i know i want too much :)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:16 PM EDT

will the scox stock actually drop like it would for other companies, or will it

defy gravity and make a monumental jump skyward? i'm thinking even scox can't

put enough lipstick on this pig to get anyone to buy [ Reply to This | # ]



its all lipstick - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT SCOX stock - Authored by: jmc on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:08 AM EDT

Authored by: LaurenceTux on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:18 PM EDT

so what exactly is left of the Novell case?

(and how much of IBM is intact??) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:22 PM EDT

It turns out that 'all' means 'all' and not just some bits now and other bits

then. Haha! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eggplant37 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:23 PM EDT

Oh yeah? I've got Mega M&Ms, fresh cherries, and a glass full of Patron

Tequila Sunrise going.



Like I said, celebration be happening here! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: overshoot on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT

Alas, one word I was hoping to find was missing:



"Frivolous"



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:25 PM EDT

It is my understanding that if an officer of a company breaches his or her

fucidiary duty they can be held personally liable. The court ruled SCO breached

its fucidiary duty. Is there any way Novell can now hold the corporate oficers

liable for SCO breaching that duty, since they had a fucidiary duty to the

company and it was by their management the company breached its duty? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:28 PM EDT

Entertaining quote from SCO's website :D

http://www.sco.com/scoip/lawsuits/ibm/index.html



On March 6, 2003, The SCO Group filed a civil lawsuit against IBM. SCO's

principal claims arise out of IBM's alleged breaches of its obligations under

UNIX license agreements that IBM and Sequent, a company now owned by IBM,

entered into with AT&T in 1985. SCO claims that IBM violated those

agreements when it removed substantial source code from AIX and Dynix, two

UNIX-based products, and dumped that code into Linux. In addition to multiple

claims for breach of contract, SCO claims that IBM infringed SCO's UNIX

copyrights;



SCO never owned the UNIX copyrights so the above quote must be a lie.. finally

proven wooot go novell! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sirwired on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:29 PM EDT

Finally, we know why the copyrights didn't transfer.



Throughout all this copyright tussling and APA Amendment tussling, SCO has

repeatedly asked why they would have paid money for UNIX and

<i>not</i> picked up the copyrights. I actually thought it was a

pretty good question, even if the documents were clear in the fact that the

copyrights did not transfer.



If you look starting at page 9 or so, you see some declarations I don't think we

have seen before (correct me if I am wrong) stating that SCO could not have

afforded the copyrights, and all they were buying from Novell was the right to

develop their own product based on UNIX. In addition, the deal was structured

in such a way that if SCO went bankrupt, no title to anything UNIX (other than

the development rights) would be part of the bankruptcy estate. Not even the

license revenue. (Which is why it was 100% passed-through to Novell, and then

5% went back to SCO. If SCO had taken ownership of the revenue and instead

required to send 95% of it to Novell, Novell would have just been another

creditor in a bankruptcy.)



SirWired [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT

Good morning SCO... - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:05 AM EDT

Authored by: stgilbert on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:35 PM EDT

Hi folks! Long time lurker, first time poster here. I know there is still more

to come, but I've poured drinks for my family and we're giving a toast (even

though most of them have only the vaguest clue as to what we're celebrating): to

IBM, Novell, Groklaw, the FOSS community, and everyone else who stood up to the

thieves at SCO. And also to the not-so-good ship SCO herself: may she sink

quickly. [ Reply to This | # ]



Amen! - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:21 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:40 PM EDT

Goodness. How long is it now that this mess has been going on, five years? And I

guess basically it's over now.



I guess my main response right now is kudos to PJ for her amazing and tireless

journalism throughout this case. I'd be curious, PJ, what are your plans are as

to what you're going to do next once the autozone/IBM stuff gets mopped up?



Have you considered writing a book about this entire debacle? [ Reply to This | # ]



I'm amazed - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:42 PM EDT

Great. We had chocolate tonight already. Oh PJ? It wasn't just the courts - it

was

you girl! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: xtifr on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:43 PM EDT

No! This is terrible news! I kid, of course, but this ruling does have one minor drawback: the question of whether any "stolen" code ever did make it into Linux will now never be examined. I mean, most of us realize how stupid it would be to steal code just to post it publicly where millions of people can see it, and that stealing GPL'd code by proprietary developers is far more common. And now we've lost an opportunity to drive that point home, and rub it in the face of those who like to accuse FLOSS developers of being a bunch of renegade hippy pirates. I would rather have seen a ruling on IBM"s alleged infringement of SCO's alleged copyrights before it was decided that SCO didn't own bupkiss. I suspect that IBM would have rathered that as well. But oh well. I also wish this ruling had come a couple of days earlier. Linuxworld in San Francisco ended yesterday. If this ruling had come in during the conference, there would have been dancing in the halls. I would have loved to have seen that! :) ---

Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT

"The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow, but exceedingly fine".

W. Churchill





Many thanks to P.J. and everybody in the community!!!!



Ockham's Razor





[ Reply to This | # ]



A Fine Grind Indeed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT

Authored by: sirwired on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT

SCO's "evidence" about the intent of the APA was pathetic. Novell had

the actual folks that drafted the agreement, and of course, the plain language

of the agreement itself.



What did SCO counter with?



A bunch of folks that knew about the agreement, read it while it was being

drafted, in some cases revised it themselves, but all of whom were somehow

surprised that it didn't transfer copyrights, even though it was as plain as day

in the APA.



How exactly did they expect to win bupkis with these clowns?



SirWired [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:44 PM EDT

Kimball tells SCO that no, SCO does not own the copyrights. Not from the APA,

and not from Ammendment 2. Not in 1995, not in 1996, not in 2003, and not in

2007. Just NO!



MSS2



PS: For those wondering, 1995 was the APA, 1996 was the ammendment, 2003 was

the request from SCO to Novell for the copyrights, and 2007 was this wonderful

day.



Enjoy the chocolates, PJ! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: glitch on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:45 PM EDT

For the United States Of America!



This is way bigger than IBM, Novell, Groklaw & Open Source

It's about freedom, truth, & liberty. This lawsuit is like many others where

lawyers on behalf of their clients

go after deep pockets... to many times cases are settled to save aggravation

time and money.



Someone needs to be held accountable. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: oldgreybeard on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT

The end has truly begun.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Churchill revisited - Authored by: grouch on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:01 AM EDT

Authored by: comms-warrior on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT

SCOx's share price? Down the toilet come market time, (except for the stuff

traded after the bell?)



Darl's Empire? et tu Kimball? Someone shoved a knife in, twisted, wiggled and

broke the handle off.



It's not that BSF didn't know this was coming.. They may act like a mob of

brown-shirts, but they aren't stupid lawyers.. They could see the delusional

bent the case was taking and tried everything to keep it going, to see if

IBM/Novell blinked.



Novell nor IBM did blink - now BSF will start appealing like mad to reverse an

irreversible position - wasting more time and money, money that is now owned by

Novell!



The lessons learned from this whole saga? If you get into legal trouble - you

would be better off going Pro se than hiring BSF...



Chris Ford. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:47 PM EDT

Hi Laura and Rob. Are you reading this?



:-)) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wzzrd on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 06:48 PM EDT

Hale fracking lujah



justice has not died just yet



thanks for reporting this great news, pj [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:00 PM EDT

I like the ruling on copyright. But I REALLY like the ruling on conversion

because it's half way to proving that the SCO directors can reasonably be

thought of as crooks for letting SCO try to take money that did not belong to

SCO.



So, to what extent can the directors be prosecuted for approving an illegal act? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: JasonWard on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:01 PM EDT

Authored by: overshoot on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:03 PM EDT

I do rather regret the fact that several of the points in the IBM and AutoZone cases have become moot thanks to Novell's waiver. We'll never see those resolved on their merits. Oh, well -- I guess I'll just have to live with my disappointment. Now let's see: what's left in IBM? Hmmm.... looks like counterclaims are all that's left on the table. Pity that, eh Darl? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT

Accordingly, Novell and Santa Cruz executed a "Bill of Sale", on

December 6, 2005.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:05 PM EDT

It's now very, very clear that Darl & Co. absolutely positively KNEW they

did not own the copyrights at the time they started the racketeering scheme

called SCOSource. It may not happen, but this greybeard programmer sure hopes

to see Darl in court for fraud facing a gallery full of the many distinguished

people he had the gall to call "thieves".



I'mjustabigcat, not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mcinsand on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:08 PM EDT

Maybe this is the beginning of the fun phase, when the scum that started this

are held accountable for their incompetence and dishonesty... which reminds

me... any chance of Lyans and O'Gara being publicly reminded or at least shown

for their role in sowing disinformation to propagate this mess?



I did wonder, for a moment, whether I should be happy-dancing at someone's loss.

However, when such dishonest, libelous, incompetent, sleazy,

societally-worthless scum as embodied by SCOX started this mess, then having

justice served will indeed be cause for happy-dancing. And justice has not been

served, yet. The fun will lie in the counterclaims. I hope that breach of

fiduciary duty is a criminal, rather than civil offense, and that we see Mr.

McBride led away before he has a chance to leave the country. Any chance he

might have that slimmest thread of competence that would have had him keep some

evidence of under-the-table PIPE-fairy backstopping, just to make him valuable

as a witness in a bigger case? What about the legal malpractice of Boise et al?

You can't tell me that they weren't capable of reading and interpreting the

APA. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:17 PM EDT

For Novell and IBM,, the music is sweet and victorious...something like Queen's

"We Are the Champions" or something.



For SCO, can we cue up the Loser's Music from "The Price is Right"?



"Doo doo da doooooo....waaaaaaahhhhhh!"



:-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: comms-warrior on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT

Not withstanding a few loose threads, (albeit very strained threads), they have

comprehensively *lost* against Novell and IBM.



The Summary Judgment now affirms Novell is the owner of Unix - This means that

when SCO goes broke (I suspect sometime in the next two weeks!) The Unix

Copyrights can only flow back to a Linux "friend" (fiend?) as a court

has proved so without any room for doubt. Bankruptcy administrators can't sell

this "asset" off to recover money... Microsoft can't get to it -

Novell is in a strong position.



If Novell moves this code to the Public domain, Microsoft would be left a

"shag on a rock" with their Linux "patent" threat. I'd love

to see that, but I'm not sure if they will ....





Time to open that bottle of Moet... :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jbb on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:20 PM EDT

Darl's face is all red

SCO's owners are blue

'cause none of our Linux

is belong to you ---

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Bas Burger on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:26 PM EDT

The first goal of Groklaw is being fulfilled but of course there are more

battles to be fought.



---

No comments... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:28 PM EDT

For PJ:



"I am NO MAN!!!" as she stabs the Witch King in the face.



For the rest of us Groklawers:



"I'm already on my way out" as Wedge and Lando shoot the main reactor



Either way, I think a lot of Ewoks and Hobbits will be celebrating tonight. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: om1er on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:33 PM EDT

Want to bet that SCOG's lawyers say "Oh, that stuff. That's not what the

case was about."



Nevertheless: WE ARE THERE, CAMPERS!







---

Are we there yet? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:36 PM EDT

PJ wrote: 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. So to summarize: Microsoft hired these guys to cripple Linux in the business world for the many years until they got Vista out. IBM, Red Hat, and many other companies lost business for years because CEOs wanted to "play it safe" until people got around to finishing these court cases. One of the 3 court cases is over; and the cloud of the other two remain. Unix now belongs to the new anti-Linux Microsoft pawn; and whether or not Linux is misusing any Unix stuff is still unsettled. Did I get any of that wrong?

If not, what's to celebrate? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:37 PM EDT

Won't both parties now file press releases claiming the Judge ruled in their

favor? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: stats_for_all on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:47 PM EDT

SCOX cheerleader Scott Lemon hasn't updated his blog, but the August 6 entry might serve the purpose just as well, worth checking out. Implosion in Salt Lake M'OG's usual Friday morning post on her sites miss as well, though a headline at linuxgram, at the end of the scroll: "SCO Mobile Moving" means she hasn't forgotten about that court date just yet. Lastly, Michael Anderer has caught religion in a big way. He has assumed a CEO role at C2 Systems in Georgia, a spinoff of his S2 Partnership. C2 Systems has taken the leap into the linux distro development world: Olmec Embedded Linux I don't know whether to 'dis the 'pathetic one' as an ungodly opportunist, or welcome him to the fold. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:49 PM EDT

I hate to be a party-pooper, but let's wait and see what Microsoft's patent deal

with Novell really bought. I highly doubt it was the right to use Novell's

patents.



By Monday, I expect to see an announcement by R. Hovsepian of Novell regarding

'good will' and 'co-operation' and 'industry leadership', which will boil down

to letting TSG do whatever they want, as long as they recognize Novell's

controlling interest.



This is not over, not by a long shot.



Cheers!



Mark S.

Dallas, TX

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:51 PM EDT

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf



I wonder if this one, from Caldera before they turned

SCO, is now void. That would be a truly bad day for

UNIX® archivers and the BSDs.



Could please anyone shed light on this? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Zak3056 on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:51 PM EDT

Allow me to be the first to say:



Nah nah nah nah!

Nah nah nah nah!

Hey Hey Hey!

Goodbye!



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: brickviking on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM EDT

I've no doubt it's already been said, but this really does pull the legs out

from underneath SCOX on their case against IBM, as they can't reasonably pursue

a case for infringement of copyrights they don't <em>own</em>, but

have merely sublicenced (if I have that right) from Novell.



Good one, PJ, and the rest of the team. I have been waiting for this decision

for a while, and will watch to see what happens with the other relevant cases.



I'm off for a whisky.



Incidentally, will there ever be a CDROM or DVD produced containing the evidence

presented, along with a guideline to the case?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 07:58 PM EDT

... in the friendliest possible way! <grin>



No matter how big a "win" this turns out to be for Novell and

subsequently IBM (and will they really win if they can't recover their costs

from a bankrupt company?):



There's still something massively broken in the system that allowed the case to

continue for this many years without SCO being forced to present some up-front

prima facie evidence that they had a case to argue.



The problem appears to be the US's "discovery" mechanism - "we

honestly, truly, believe that x did us wrong so we want to go on a three-year

fishing expedition to see if we're right".



Instead of - "here is some hard, irrefutable, evidence that x has done us

wrong - we now need discovery of y and z to quantify the extent of that wrong

and identify who the specific guilty people are".



It's my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that the latter is how the UK

legal system works.



Certainly, the only cases I know of in the UK that have ever run this long are

antitrust/fraud style cases brought by the government and/or its agencies

against multinationals.



No simple copyright/contract case between two private companies could possibly

survive more than a month without the judge seeing solid prima facie evidence

that a violation of civil or criminal law had occurred.



In the case of SCO v World+Cat that would have been something like the

infringing code - *presented on the first day of the trial!!!*



Having worked for the last couple of years in a legal firm (in IT, not law), and

in reading Groklaw over the same period, I've now got a massively higher opinion

of lawyers than I used to have.



But you guys over there in the US need to put some brakes on their antics in

cases like this!











[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT

... in the friendliest possible way! <grin>



No matter how big a "win" this turns out to be for Novell and

subsequently IBM (and will they really win if they can't recover their costs

from a bankrupt company?):



There's still something massively broken in the system that allowed the case to

continue for this many years without SCO being forced to present some up-front

prima facie evidence that they had a case to argue.



The problem appears to be the US's "discovery" mechanism - "we

honestly, truly, believe that x did us wrong so we want to go on a three-year

fishing expedition to see if we're right".



Instead of - "here is some hard, irrefutable, evidence that x has done us

wrong - we now need discovery of y and z to quantify the extent of that wrong

and identify who the specific guilty people are".



It's my understanding - correct me if I'm wrong - that the latter is how the UK

legal system works.



Certainly, the only cases I know of in the UK that have ever run this long are

antitrust/fraud style cases brought by the government and/or its agencies

against multinationals.



No simple copyright/contract case between two private companies could possibly

survive more than a month without the judge seeing solid prima facie evidence

that a violation of civil or criminal law had occurred.



In the case of SCO v World+Cat that would have been something like the

infringing code - *presented on the first day of the trial!!!*



Having worked for the last couple of years in a legal firm (in IT, not law), and

in reading Groklaw over the same period, I've now got a massively higher opinion

of lawyers than I used to have.



But there needs to be some legislative brakes put on their antics in cases like

this! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:41 PM EDT

Thanks Groklaw

Thanks to the larger community



This cannot be overstated, its a victory for freedom and democracy [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:43 PM EDT

Great News!



I have to say I will take great pleasure when SCO is taken to task for this

ridiculous case.



/breaking out the bubbly :D



---

Linus

The bulk of all patents are [bad]...

Spending time reading them is stupid...



Moglen

I can change the rules...

The coupons have no expiration date.. [ Reply to This | # ]



Whoooo Hooooooooooooooo :) - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, August 13 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT

Authored by: bbaston on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT

... since the credibility of Groklaw and PJ are over the moon while the believability index of Forbes et al is about six feet under the sand of Death Valley (lowest point in US). PJ, I've got on my Red Dress pin. Take the night off!!!!!!!!!!!! ---

IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO

imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: arthurpaliden on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:47 PM EDT

Now since Novel is recognized as the owner of the Unix copyrights et la how

long will it be before they, Novel, certify that the Linux OS does not infringe

on any of the Unix copyrights or if it does which ones they are. This of course

should be an academic exercise for Novel since the have access to both sets of

source code. Or are they going to pull and tSCOg and not tell us and use the

same threat for their own personal gain. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 08:50 PM EDT

The traffic seems to have brought the site down for a little while. So, SCO did

get one wish granted. They put Groklaw off line. Too little to late though. ;)

Thanks PJ, but I've been a one issue reader. I may take Groklaw out of my tool

bar soon. I've been coming here at least once a day for years now. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:03 PM EDT

What a wonderfully clear articulation of the deconstruction of the contract and

analysis of each of the claims. Judge Kimball has, in my non-lawyer opinion

done a superb job in crafting this so that anyone reading the ruling can follow

his logic.



It's nice to see the court telling SCO that they don't know how to read, too.

:-)



...D [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:13 PM EDT



Appeal. Definately appeal. It's their only hope.



Of course the trial isn't that far away, and I have a suspicion that the trial

will be an even worse nightmare for them. The Management and Board must have

chewed their fingernails off up to the elbow by now.



I don't feel sorry for them though. If you can do the crime, you can do the time

(wish I could remember where that quote is from - guess I watch too many cop

shows on TV).





---

Wayne



http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: atheist on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:20 PM EDT

Cool



What I would like to see next is Novell announce, as each voucher is redeemed,

which bogus patents now belong to the community, as GPL3 versions of programs

get incorporated into Suse.



Or have they already said that MS patent assertions are FUD? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:21 PM EDT

I should share this one who earned it!



---

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:22 PM EDT

I am a longtime lurker, brought to you good folks by slashdot and digg. PJ, you

are an amazing person and your dedication to this is just beyond what anyone

could imagine. I applaud your efforts and your determination to this case.



The "common folk" here should take a bow themselves. What a way for a

community to get together and bring down something evil.



Someone should make a movie about this. It's got all of the elements to be a

blockbuster.



Congrats to all, and thanks for the most entertaining and informative site I've

ever been to on the 'net. I'm sticking around to see where the pieces go.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:24 PM EDT

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but Kimball cited an important paraphrase

from the Sun agreement.



As I've long assumed, Sun's deal w/ SCOX was so they could open source Solaris,

which is pretty much canonical SVRX because it was a joint development effort

between Sun and AT&T that gave rise to SVRX.



The operative word is "disclose" (p. 40 of the ruling PDF) in both

"source and object (binary) code".



At the same time that SCOX was suing IBM for $4 billion (or whatever that number

morphed into ;-) for disclosing SVRX source code and methods in Linux (pure BS

as we've seen), they sold Sun the rights to disclose SVRX in Solaris for $10

million.



As I see it, even if SCOX won the IBM case (which seems completely impossible to

me), they placed a valuation on the disclosure of SVRX source code that would

limit damages to less than they've spent on legal fees.



Of course, the really delicious part is that as far as I can see (IANAL), the

Novell trial will be not about how much Novell owes SCOX, but how much SCOX owes

Novell.





What a lovely day!



rhb



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: webster on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:27 PM EDT

..

something was up. GL wouldn't load. I finally got to another computer and read

a link to GL then finally got on. Indeed a plum, pleasing, pleasure. It's hard

to keep up from here in Honduras. Greetings to all and thanks PJ for leading us

through this mess. The bad part is over. How much does IBM want to mop up?







---

webster





© 2007 Monopoly Corporation. ALL rights reserved. Yours included. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cyphergirl on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:32 PM EDT

I've been lurking since 2003 and this is my first post. I am elated to see this

finally happen.



PJ, tonight I salute you with 2 (or maybe 3 :) ) glasses of fine Georgia

Riesling. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:35 PM EDT

PJ, don't these decisions count as dispositive?

If so they are subject to appeal, right? This could still go on forever if so. J [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cymraeg on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:46 PM EDT

As of about 8 PM US Central Daylight Time, I was able to find the following articles on a variety of websites:

Wall Street Journal

Beta News

PC World

Computer World Market Watch Each publication has a different take on the news. You'll have to decide for yourself if they are cheering or disappointed.



Cymraeg "An optimist says the glass is half full, a pessimist says the glass is half empty, an engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be..." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:46 PM EDT

SCOBK by the end of Monday.



JSL [ Reply to This | # ]



My prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:45 AM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:45 AM EDT My prediction - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:47 AM EDT Perhaps so - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:28 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 09:54 PM EDT

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." How long did Kimball consider the PSJ's? Months and months and months. That Kimball is giving the parties just 3 weeks to assess his rulings' impact on SCO v. IBM is very telling. I think he thinks there is very little left to decide. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: belzecue on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT

What a way to start the day! (morning in Western Australia).



Congratulations to the Novell and IBM teams for showing us how to litigate with

honour. Thanks to BSF for demonstrating the opposite ('nuf said).



Thanks to PJ for keeping a calm, firm guiding hand on the crazy circus that was

the coverage and discussion of the case. Imagine if, for the past three to four

years, we'd only heard about this in the press (SCO's PR, 'fake' Dan Lyons, the

MOGster, etc.). Sure, there were some other informative community sources out

there, and kudos to them, but Groklaw quickly became ground zero. Apart from the

lawyers, has anyone had to work as hard as PJ during this? Keeping the

information and analysis flowing? Keeping the signal to noise ratio as high as

possible? No. Thank goodness for PJ's passion for the law and her passion to get

to the truth.



Through Groklaw and its sharp-eyed community, PJ demonstrated the power of the

"many eyes make all bugs shallow" approach. In this case, it's

"many eyes make all lies shallow."



There will be appeals, I suppose, and mopping up, and who knows what other

twists and turns remain -- e.g. Hovsepian still worries me, and I wonder if he

too will try to 'monetize' Unix now that the ownership is clear.



But today is a day to celebrate and reflect and be thankful. To that end, let me

be the 236,418th to punch the air and voice a mighty "W00T!"



Reap what you sow, Darl and Ralph!

[ Reply to This | # ]



worth repeating - Authored by: grouch on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:02 AM EDT worth repeating - Authored by: joel on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:53 PM EDT

- Authored by: grouch on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:02 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:41 PM EDT

[Novell] SCO, you lied, you stole, you lied some more, you filed frivolous

lawsuits, you lied to the courts and you tried to extort money from innocent

Linux users.



You also attacked an innocent blogger who exposed your scam, and paid media

shills to further your attacks.



At long, long last, Kimball has finally hobbled you in your ill founded and

illegal actions.



[IBM - Preview of coming attractions] Now hold still while I break your other

knee... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:48 PM EDT

Authored by: tyche on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 10:55 PM EDT

SCOsinks.jpg has been scaled up to 850 pixels high and placed on a blue vertical

gradient background as my new wallpaper. I should probably take a screenshot

and send it to the "Community Cafe" Ubuntu Forum. Congratulations,

PJ.



Craig

Tyche



---

"The Truth shall Make Ye Fret"

"TRUTH", Terry Pratchett [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:01 PM EDT

Happy with the decision today. But, I think many here, even PJ, still don't get

it.



The point of this lawsuit was not to "win." Not in the sense of a

final court decision. The point of this lawsuit was to exist - to cast a cloud

of doubt over the legality of Linux. That, and of course, to make some money for

scox execs.



Before the scam: scox was as good as dead anyway. Look at their financials if

you don't believe me. You may have noticed that it is usually not the strong

companies that becme msft puppets. Darl made out like a bandit, as did Kevin,

and BS&F did best of all.



Praise the US justice system? I think not. If I claimed I owned the Brooklyn

bridge, and I sued NYC over it. And I cost NYC $100 million in legal defense.

Then after an astonishing 4.5 years the court finally discovers what was obvious

from the start - that, of course, I don't own the Brooklyn bridge: would that

show the justice system as being brilliant, or incompetent? I doubt I can expect

any honesty from that question.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wethion on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:15 PM EDT

This ruling, as far as I can understand, is merely a ruling on a contract

between two competing parties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the GPL or

GNU/Linux or Free Software. The GPL remains untested. I actually would have

preferred to see SCO win against Novell and then have to contend with the mighty

IBM machine. At this point, all of IBM's footwork and steelclad lawyering is

moot, if I understand correctly.



So, Free Software has received a setback because of the bad publicity.



M$ succeeded in using proxies in a conflict, and suffered no negative

ramifications.



IBM now will have little to no chance to hone it's GPL defense skills in what

looked to be a "all but sure to win" practice run.



The GPL remains untested.



Free Software remains under threat from the M$ juggernaut.



BTW, I will no longer use the term Open Source or Open Source Software. I will

use strictly the terms Free Software when referring to the movement as a whole,

and the term GNU/Linux when referring to the operating system commonly known as

Linux.



PJ, I love you for what you've done, and I understand everyone's desire to

gloat, but methinks the battle has just been enjoined. What we've seen thus far

is naught more than M$ testing the waters to see which strategies could bear

fruit.

Just my $.02.

Peace,

V



---

Jon Postel, you are missed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:23 PM EDT

It looks to me like some of SCOs remaining claims only remain because Kimball has drastically narrowed their scope. Re unfair competition: The license in the APA and the TLA does not preclude Novell from pursing its business. Rather, the license merely restricts Novell's ability to use SCO's property and is part of an ongoing relationship between the parties. So SCOs unfair competition claims seem limited to Novell's use of SCOs property (presumably Unix/UnixWare derivatives) rather than Novell's business in general. Sounds like a major limitation to me. (IANAL) [ Reply to This | # ]



You are exactly correct. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:42 AM EDT

Authored by: kberrien on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:24 PM EDT

<exhale>



A great pop the cork moment! Congrats to Novell, and PJ for being a big part in

making the public's decision a lot faster than the courts.



A little vindication on the linux side, and some good slapping of SCO and we're

all set. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Bojan Sudarevic on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:24 PM EDT

So, is Novell Good Guy or Bad Guy? Groklaw is very funny sometimes.



---

Bojan Sudarevic [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsi on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:32 PM EDT

Please join with me while we all sing: Where is the moment we needed the most

You kick up the leaves and the magic is lost

You tell me your blue skies fade to grey

You tell me your passion's gone away

And I don't need no carryin' on



You stand in the line just to hit a new low

You're faking a smile with the coffee to go

You tell me your life's been way off line

You're falling to pieces everytime

And I don't need no carryin' on



Cause you had a bad day

You're taking one down

You sing a sad song just to turn it around

You say you don't know

You tell me don't lie

You work at a smile and you go for a ride

You had a bad day

The camera don't lie

You're coming back down and you really don't mind

You had a bad day

You had a bad day

...



Daniel Powter - Bad Day Lyrics We feel your pain Darl! ;^) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:41 PM EDT

Among other important points, Judge Kimball ruled that Novell did not transfer

the copyrights to Unix SVRX (and other versions) to SCO and that it retained the

right to waive violations of the provisions of the SVRX licenses.

It appears that the issue of whether Linux infringes SVRX copyrights is still an

open question. In his ruling, the judge seemed to imply that the license from

Novell to Santa Cruz gave Santa Cruz the right to prosecute actions for

infringement of the copyrights. Specifically at issue is whether the sale of

SUSE Linux by Novell violates the terms of its TLA and whether this infringes

SCO's rights (as licensee under the APA) in the SVRX Copyrights. While Novell

can waive the claims against existing licensees (e.g. IBM), it cannot waive

copyright infringement claims against those who do not hold a license.

It would appear that the question of whether Linux infringes (Novell's)

copyrights is still open and it would appear that by way of the APA and the

license(s) granted by it, SCO has the right to pursue claims against non-SVRX

licensees who they claim infringe the copyrights.

Don't misinterpret what I am saying, I don't agree that Linux infringes the

copyrights, only that those claims are not yet settled. The trial of the claims

for breach of contract and copyright infringement against Novell for the sale /

distribution of SUSE Linux, which survive this ruling may (should) decide that,

but the question seems to be very much open in a legal sense.

Am I wrong? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ikester on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:44 PM EDT

Now that, after the appeals and/or accounts run dry, we can safely assume that

Novell will be compensated with the dry husk of SCO. It seems like it would then

be up to Novell to decide how to manage IBM's counterclaims. Some folks have

bemoaned the fact that, due to Novell going first, IBM did not have the

opportunity to get Linux declared clean of infringing code. Is it possible that

something like this could be worked out in a settlement between IBM and Novell?

Or are IBM's counterclaims really toast? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wethion on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:45 PM EDT

On that thought, it's a good day. There were some sound slap-downs handed to

TSG, no doubt. All's well that ends well.

Peace,

V



---

Jon Postel, you are missed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sonicfrog on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT

My life seems a little empty now that the fantastic ruling is in...



Oh SH>>> It's time to party!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: TedSwart on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:58 PM EDT

Whilst the judges ruling that Novell owns the Unix and Unixware copyrights is

welcome it does not exactly come as a surprise. Moreover, the good news is sadly

tarnished by the dishonourable deal which Novell reached with MS. Methinks we

need to see some more convincing developments which undercut the MS monopoly

such as a decision by ISO to deny OOXML their seal of approval.

The imminent end of SCO's bogus cases against Novell, IBM and Red Hat is indeed

a blessing but we still badly need eternal vigilance. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 10 2007 @ 11:59 PM EDT

Hmmm...so, does someone have a list of commentators/pundits who predicted SCO

would win? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SteveOBrien on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:05 AM EDT

A happy day indeed. Thank you for your work, PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: darkonc on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:07 AM EDT

Is there anybody that I can send chocolate to, and be reasonably sure that it'll get to the lady with the red dress on? ---

Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:49 AM EDT

1) So what happens to groklaw now?



2) Since the patent deal Novell has been treated as much a pariah by some as

SCO. To the point that there were some people who said things "We should

show Novell what happens when you cross the linux community". So what if

Novell tries to do the same thing. Not to stop linux, but to be the only people

who can legally distribute linux?



What is to stop Novell from starting the whole process again? Would IBM fight

again, or tired of the litigation

just settle with Novell.



Since SCOs claims against IBM are now moot, what legal protections has linux

won?





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:58 AM EDT

Not so fast! The court did not rule that SCO-created copyrighted code (derivative code) belongs to Novell. I believe that means SCO does own its own "Unix" copyrights and those copyrights could still allow SCO to argue that Linux is in violation of SCO-owned Unix copyrights. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:05 AM EDT

I wonder if Darl thinks that opening up the second law suit and suing Novell for

slander of Title was a good move after all. Had he not there might have actually

been some other issues on the table with regard to the IBM lawsuit. This ruling

effectively wipes out the majority of the IBM case, although should SCO survive

the next few months they might still be able to get Novell on the no-compete

clause, but I don't remember if Novell or SCO breached first. Anyone know off

the top of their head if Novell bought SUSE before or after SCO got it's funding

from Sun and M$? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:07 AM EDT

Our thanks to PJ and the many folk who worked tirelessly with her to make the

court materials available to all of us so quickly. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:10 AM EDT

The court also acknowledged that SCO owns copyrights on the derivative code it

created under the contract with Novell. Doesn't that mean that SCO owns Unix

copyrights irregardless of the finding that Novell didn't transfer Novell's

copyrights? Methinks that leaves SCO enough wiggle room to still be a nuisance.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:16 AM EDT

Darl planned all along that Groklaw would be created in response to SCO's wild

claims knowing that the end of Groklaw would follow on the heals of the court's

decision that SCO grossly misrepresented their case.



Darl wins. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bilfurd on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:23 AM EDT

Yeaaaahhhh! News worth celebrating! It's Friday! The Honorable Judge Dale Kimball has jugulated SCO's legal actions After many years, I finally have the opportunity to use "jugulated" in a sentence Many, many thanks to PJ and all those that donated their time and effort to cover the SCO shenanigans. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: maz2331 on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:24 AM EDT

I was wondering what that big flash out to the west was earlier. Now I know -

it was the entire SCO vs Everybody saga being nuked into oblivion. Expect

follow up legal strikes as the counterclaims begin to detonate soon afterwards.



The smoking crater is forming as we watch. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: chad on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:25 AM EDT

Judge Kimball was paying attention, wasn't he. An a 102 page document,

explaining everything that went into his decision in order to withstand the

inevitable appeal. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: wharris on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:53 AM EDT

<blockquote>

All right, all you Doubting Thomases. I double dog dare you to complain

about the US court system now.

</blockquote>



<p>I accept that dare. It has taken the US court system three years to

agree

that a contract avaialble since before the start of the case did not transfer

copyright to SCO. In that three years, multiple summary judgement requests

on this very point have been denied, IBM and Novell have had to spend tens

of millions of dollars against a baseless claim. Money that SCO can not repay

even if the court orders them to. And this does not count for the massive

costs IBM had to pay to comply with SCO's discovery orders for code the court

now recognizes was not theirs for violations the court now recognizes Novell

properly waived.</p>

<p>Before this case started, SCO was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.



This case provided SCO, the corporation, with massive capital infusions and a

new lease on life. It has provided SCO directors not just with an opportunity

to profit from stock sales, but a paying job for much longer than it seemed

like SCO would last in 2002. </p>

<p>In short, while this ruling is a tremendous victory against SCO, it has



come several years too late to restore my (lack of) confidence in the US justice



system. I will remind everyone that SCO made similar threats against Linux in

Germany, and a German court was able to stop SCO within 3 weeks.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:08 AM EDT

As far as I can tell, this is basically where SCO v Novell now stands.

Corrections appreciated.



SCO 2nd Amended Complaint



http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060109231849961



1. Slander of Title (by Novell)

Denied



2. Breach of the APA and TLA

Denied in part (possible Unixware derived infringement)



3. Alternative Breach-of-Contract Claim Seeking Specific Performance (transfer

copyrights)

Denied



4. Copyright Infringement

Denied in part (possible Unixware derived infringement)



5. Unfair Competition

Denied in part (SUsE?)





Novell Counterclaims



http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060921155822851



1. Slander of Title (by SCO)

TBD by Jury



2. Breach of Contract: 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA (right to audit)

Basically moot



3. Breach of Contract: 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the APA (Royalties)

Granted



4. Declaratory Relief: Rights and Duties under § 4.16(b) of the APA (right to

waive claims)

Granted



5. Declaratory Relief: Rights and Duties under § 4.16(b) of the APA (right to

approve new licences)

Granted



6. Constructive Trust/Restitution/Unjust Enrichment

Denied due to uncertain amount



7. Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Granted



8. Conversion

Granted (amount TBD by Jury)



9. Accounting

Moot due to discovery

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mtew on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:31 AM EDT

The purity of Linux with respect to SVRx may not get settled directly as a

result of this order. It was not one of the issues raised in either the IBM or

Novell case. It was an issue in the Red Hat case, but only with respect to SCO.

With tSCOg not having the copyrights, the issue becomes moot.



The question is how can a definitive settlement of this issue can be reached?



I'm not a lawyer so this is speculation.



Novell, as the nominal copyright holder is key to any solution. Without their

cooperation, getting an answer becomes much more difficult. Is it in their

interest to see the issue settled?



Assuming that it is in their interest and they are willing to cooperate, what

could be done?



The first step would be a real examination of the SVRx and Linux code. That

suggests a community project. A major problem is assuring those that study the

SVRx code will not get tarred by the 'contamination' brush tSCOg was waving

around. This would require Novell to provide an 'anti-NDA'. Something like the

FSF would need to review it. Other issues concern resources and methodology.



If the study reaches a conclusion and any problems found can be resolved, the

next question is how to assure that the results are a proper legal precident.



No answers, just questions...



---

MTEW [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: KAKMAN on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:33 AM EDT

Hey PJ, does this mean you can now make live appearances in other media without

fear of getting harassed or subpoenaed by the Lindon gang or their Redmond

string pullers? [ Reply to This | # ]



Why would she want to? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:52 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:34 AM EDT

Finally!!! PJ, I've had this (among others!) cartoon up above my desk for a long,

long time now. I've been waiting for the day when it would be proven right! To Groklaw and UserFriendly!! You know not how indebted I am to you both over the years! Thank you from the bottom of my heart... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:50 AM EDT

How much of the ruling directly applies to the IBM case?

Clearly the part about Novell waiving the contract claims, which certainly takes

most of the (hot) air out of SCO's case. But does the whole decision transfer

over? Isn't the decision based on the evidence presented in this case? Could SCO

argue that there was evidence presented in the IBM case that was not presented

in the Novell case. Or information not presented in the IBM case that was

presented in the Novell case that would change the the outcome?



Is this why IBM asked to have all the material from the Novell case admitted

into the IBM case?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Pending motions - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:18 AM EDT Pending motions - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:48 AM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:18 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:15 AM EDT

What a great timing. Planned since some time SCO will be Hax0rcised today at the Chaos Communication Camp 2007. The Day of Judgment has arrived. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:21 AM EDT

Gee, you think we'll hear from them? Do you think they'll put their pro MSFT

spin on it? That there's still hope for SCO?



PJ, thank you for standing up for true journalistic integrity. This truly has

been a pleasure. Not that it's over by any means, but the Fat Lady is sure

warmed up. I look forward to the next large exploration of legal subject matter. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:22 AM EDT

Dear PJ, if you think this makes the US court system look good, you're *still*

too close to it. What happened here was still a travesty, and if you think this

somehow vindicates the sorry excuse for a legal system we have, you're wrong.



It only proves yet again how hopelessly broken it is, that someone like IBM had

to wait this long and spend so much money, and even now, it's the Novell case

that got decided, not IBM. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:27 AM EDT

Meryl Streep is a little old now, so who would play PJ in the film version of

this saga?



Fran [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:35 AM EDT

I can see the MOG and BOR reports now?

"Court rules UNIX copyrights are valid"...



LOL



Can we see a "piercing of the corporate veil" to recover money from

SCO execs and lawyers next?



---

If you love your bike, let it go.

If it comes back, you high sided..... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:40 AM EDT

It's old but it's funny: <a

href="http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=75144&cid=6728865"

>The SCO minivan of mimes</a> (some "language"). C where are

you? That was a brilliant post! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:42 AM EDT

eating chocolate at the top of the page. But who is the lady in the red dress dancing in the sidebar of Tux Deluxe? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:44 AM EDT

It's old but it's funny: The SCO minivan of mimes (some "language"). C where are you? That was a brilliant post! (reposted because original was in the wrong format) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: CD Baric on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:07 AM EDT

You have every right to be proud for the profound effort and lasting effect you

have had on these proceedings and the entire field of IT law.



All I can say is, Well Done PJ, Well Done!



CD Baric [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:17 AM EDT

Wired said there was a response from SCO on their website, at

http://www.sco.com/scoip/lawsuits/novell/index.html



But, when I went to check, the website was down. The whole website. Which

speaks well of their site maintenance, the reliability of the software that runs

it, or how quickly the power company decides whether bills are likely to get

paid.



-dB





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:24 AM EDT

I think I have changed my mind. Is it possible for Novell and SCOG to settle

over the last of the issues rather than go to jury trial?



Novell know they are not going to get much of the Sun & Microsoft money.

Perhaps the two sides will do a deal to clear the non-compete and conversion

issues. Now the big issues are settled it seems pointless to take these side

issues to the wire.



IBM, of course, are still putting their plans to lay waste to SCOG and salt the

earth. The embarrassment of losing to Novell in no way compensates for the

impugnment of IBM's reputation. Settle? As if!



"Put on your red dress PJ

'cos we're goin' out tonight"



with apologies to De Santa (IIRC)



---

Regards

Ian Al [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: TheEvilTroll on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:40 AM EDT

So, PJ, you think that this latest ruling vindicates your claims that SCO was full of hot air and bluster?

You think that they mean that your predictions of ultimate SCO ruin were accurate?

You think that you think this means that it's all over for SCO but the moaning an knashing of SCO executive teeth, as they worry about the counter-claims??

You think that this means the death of one more Redmond-financed attack on Linux?

You think that you now have the right to sit back, suck on a thick, dark piece of chocolate an celebrate? Well, well .. well . . . I'll think of something !! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:46 AM EDT

SCO beleives the recent decision by Judge Kimball reinforces our position.



The court ruled that "Novell's slander of title claim is still at

issue."

This directly contradicts Novell's claim that we slnadered their title.



SCOs copyright entitlements are upheld by the court when it states

"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."



Additionally the court has scolded Novell by declaring "The court denies

Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting."



We beleive that this case is leaning towards a final declaration in favor

of SCO and we fully expect the court to award SCO the punitive and compensetory

relief we are seeking from Novell.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:47 AM EDT

I think Novell's slander of title counterclaim will be interesting. For their

counterclaim, they have to establish that Novell has the copyrights (done), SCO



doesn't have the copyrights (done), there were special damages (I think we can

say that, because Novell had to defend itself in a court case because of SCO's

false claims). The open question is that of malice. <br><br>

I think the criterion is whether SCO could have reasonably assumed that they

own the copyrights. It has been ruled now that their assumption was wrong, but

was it ever reasonable, was it made up maliciously, or was it one grand self-

delusion? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nattt on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:48 AM EDT

I asked a question on Slashdot a while back about what the equivalent to open

source software would be for the legal system.



Soon after that, PJ started Groklaw, answering my question in a very positive

way.



Now we're seeing the fruits of that first build of open source law. And not only



that, but we've all learned so much about patents and copyrights and contracts

along the way.



Thanks PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 05:56 AM EDT

Because the constructive trust was denied (dispute of amount), SCOX can wait

until it's decided to have to restate their accounts for the past 4 years, but

that time will most assuredly occur, possibly even if the firm goes into Chapter

13 - indeed at that time it's quite probable imo.



On a related note, Darl got his $1m bonus based on a profitable quarter, as I

recall. Once that quarter is restated with no profit, he may (or may not) be

liable to refund it as he knew, or should have known, that the money on the

balance sheet did not then and does not now belong to SCOX. The extensive use of

'plain language of the contract/clause' in the decision might help that happen.



Sarbanes-Oxley anyone?



PeteS





---

Only the truly mediocre are always at their best [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:06 AM EDT

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. My name IS Thomas and I double dog doubt the US court system. If this fight had been between Linus and SCO Linus would have lost years ago despite not a single legal difference in the issues at hand. What made the system "work" was injections of huge amounts of cash and time, neither of which the real creator(s) of Linux would have had access to without the (much appreciated) help of IBM and others. US Law - the best justice money can buy. TWW [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: comms-warrior on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 06:28 AM EDT

Hey - We should all appeal and then take bets on how long the buggers survive.



I'm reckoning on two weeks. I had it wrong previously, by my last count, they

should have been gone and buried about 8 months ago.



Hey SCO - I have 32 Uby servers - Frigg'n SUE ME!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: trekkypj on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:18 AM EDT

Huzzah!



Fantastic outcome - no doubts that Groklaw's part in documenting the SCO cases

played its part. :D



Now when's the book going to be written to explain the whole story from start to

finish? ;)



---

"I am free of all prejudices. I hate everyone equally."

WC Fields. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Nice Kitty on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 07:58 AM EDT

However, as of 11 August, 2007, @ 0745, SCO, by way of its' website; see below, continues to claim (that): "Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX and UnixWare, used under an exclusive license, are registered trademarks of The Open Group in the United States and other countries." Hmmm. More interesting read under "Warranties and Disclaimers". Perhaps Darl & 'Company' have _not_yet_ "gotten the message". [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dobbo on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:09 AM EDT

While I would not wish to dampen the happy sprints of those calibrating personal I don't see anything worth me popping a cork for. This is a ruling on who does or does not own some propriety chuck of closed source software. Unix is dead, long live Linux. The only relevance this decision has for me is in that it allows the SCO v IBM case to go forward. So the following questions are in my mind: If SCO appeal against this decision while that cause additional delay to the IBM case? If SCO now owes Novell more money than is has and declares itself bankrupt what happens to the IBM case? As SCO doesn't own the copyright to Unix how could they grant Sun a license to open Solaris? And if they couldn't isn't Sun now in volition of copyright law? Couldn't Novell now sue Sun (assuming they can prove ownership, after all they did that deal with Microsoft which wasn't exactly in the spirit of Free Software)? I thought Groklaw was now dedicated to looking at the legal issues surrounding Open Source and Free Software. For me that means that the IBM counterclaims which involve the GPL are the important stuff, everything is just bumf, stuff we had to wade through to get to the stuff that matters. Dobbo Bumf is British slang and is short for bum (more British slang for backside) fodder. I believe if comes from WWII where unwanted printed material was cut into little sheets, tied together with little bits of string and then hung on a nail next to the toilet. Well manufacturing soft, fluffy toilet paper was not a priority; there was a war on you know. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT

As I expected, Novell has won the most important aspects of this case, and frankly I'm glad that part of the case/s is over. Now Novell has to decide what to do with the Unix System V Release X source trees it has the copyright to, since the whole farce has shown rather too openly one of the major problems with the "Intellectual Property Rights" regime currently in force - namely, that deeply hidden historical facts in a science and commercial field as rapidly moving as the computer one is, can turn toxic. And that therefore, a cleansing of the stables is best before, not after, they turn into the Augean Stables. Since the SVRx source tree is arguably - and provably - obsolete in the sense that Linux became its equal in about 1996-98, and since there is a group of Unix fans with a suitable web site, my suggestion to Novell is to put it out to pasture, under a suitable OSI-approved license - the GPL v3 would occur to some to be the most appropriate, while other people would argue most strenuously for the BSD or MIT X11 license ;) And simultaneously issue a declaration that the requirement for a Unix System V Release x license that bedevilled the likes of the OSF/1 operating system, and similar requirements for other related Unix-based or Unix-like operating systems, was waived, and The Open Group could release as much of the source tree of OSF/1 as it could, at its discretion. (actually, the GPL v3 license would be best insofar as it would kill at least two birds with one stone - its software patent provisions would kill off the threat of SVRx and SVRx-based software patents haunting the Free and Open Source Software communities; and releasing it under the new GPL version would help mollify those amongst us who had written Novell off completely following its "patent peace" with Microsoft. It wouldn't mend bridges completely, but being willing to assign a former valuable commercial property to the care of the community, and also sink any related submarine patent threats, would show a care for community values. my 0.02c worth. ;) Of course, Novell could also do something to build bridges, based on its possession of the Unix System V Release x source trees and copyrights thereto - it could do a study of Microsoft's entire software patent portfolio, comparing and contrasting it with the "methods and concepts" known and used in Unix. Then it could do a compare and contrast between Unix and Linux and Microsoft Windows, and point out the not-so-novel aspects of the latter. Microsoft's in great need of the exercise back-pedalling on its claims of software patents willfully violated by Linux hackers, would provide. Well, that's my 0.02c worth. Novell is welcome to make whatever use of it that it feels is useful. ---

finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:21 AM EDT

Wouldn't it be appropriate to ask Microsoft what they really got for their

investment an if they are willing to sue SCO. Is this called a 'snake oil for

shareholders value'- investment? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:40 AM EDT

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. Whoah, hold on there. Are you seriously suggesting that if after several years the courts FINALLY reach the conclusion that was obvious to every informed person from the very first day, this should inspire confidence in the legal system? Because, speaking as someone outside the legal profession, I am not reassured. This thing has been going on since 2002, and SCO never at any time had anything that even vaguely resembled a legitimate case, but our legal system has allowed them to significantly harrass a number of parties with obviously-spurious suits for the better part of a decade. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: fredex on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:55 AM EDT

Oh frabjous day!!! :) :) :)



Bye bye, Darl! It's been nice knowin' ya! (not) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 08:57 AM EDT

Any comment by SCO yet, whatsoever? This is one of those days when I'd love to

read some spin. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: aha on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:27 AM EDT

tSCOg still has a big stick to hit Novell. The noncompete clause of the

contract was upheld. This may mean that Novell will have to settle with Caldera

for money or divest themselves of SUSE. I suspect those at SUSE would like the

divestiture.



---

You get what you focus on. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ashnazg on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:30 AM EDT

So, does this mean I can stop reading Groklaw now? ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: butrusgali on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:31 AM EDT

well everything you celebrate is true and ok with me. i wanted SCO to go down

the drain,

but beware of the U.S supreme court which is highly politica$$$$ and corrupt [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:32 AM EDT

Among other items that Hizzoner cites are the evidence that SCOX in general, including Darl and Ralph in particular, knew from the outset that they didn't have the Unix copyrights. My, oh, my. Just think of all those conference calls, all those SEC filings, etc. All of them carrying criminal penalties. Or, a bit more likely (given the general disinclination to prosecute in the current Administration), consider the possibility of criminal fraud charges in Texas where Robert Marsh lives. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:34 AM EDT

The Chronology is wrong. CP/M was written after Unix.



Multics inspired Unix only in the sense that it encouraged the AT&T

developers to do something completely different. The name is a joke: Multi(cs) =

many, Uni(x) = one, get it?



Multics was the operating system for the big General Electric mainframes. It was

way big and way, way late. The guys at the AT&T lab got bored waiting for it

to be finished and decided to write a much simpler operating system for a DEC

minicomputer they had sitting over in the corner doing nothing. Since the GE OS

wasn't ready, they had nothing better to do either. The rest is history.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:41 AM EDT

well not much to say... other than HURRAY! and BRAVO BRAVO!!

klap klap klap klap!!



---

-Skuggi. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:45 AM EDT

Next comes the appeals. Already Microsoft is activating its hideous

plans that were ready on the shelf. You might call it unfair. You might

want to declare victory and call it quits. Think again, or be blindsided.



This case has entered a new phase.



SCO's lawyers are maneuvering to keep their side out of prison.



Microsoft had already seen this outcome and has been preparing the

way forward.



The best permanent solution is to declare Microsoft an illegal monopoly

and split it up into an OS company and an applications company. You

cannot change corporate DNA without some splicing and tremendous

pressure.



Community, rejoice and prepare! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 09:56 AM EDT

Your Chronology is wrong. CP/M was written after Unix.



Multics inspired Unix only in the sense that it encouraged the AT&T

developers to do something completely different. The name is a joke: Multi(cs) =

many, Uni(x) = one, get it?



Multics was the operating system for the big General Electric mainframes. It was

very big and very late. The guys at the AT&T lab got bored waiting for it to

be finished and decided to write a much simpler operating system for a DEC

minicomputer they had sitting over in the corner doing nothing. Since the GE OS

wasn't ready, they had nothing better to do either. The rest is history.



I doubt they copied any code. Everybody was writing operating systems back then,

and like music, software was in the air. (What, you're going to sue me for

playing "Stairway to Heaven" on the ukulele?)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: billyskank on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:01 AM EDT

But still, excellent news. We have been waiting long enough!



---

It's not the software that's free; it's you. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:05 AM EDT

Conrad Black's recent white collar crookery fraud convictions pales in

comparison to SCO's pretending to "own" something it never did. All

one needs to do is read SCO's (et al.) prospecti filed with the S.E.C. to see

what SCO has been telling shareholders about what SCO "owns".



Black could get up to 35 years in jail for just 3 fraud convictions. I wonder

what the count would be for SCO (et al.)?





http://www.sec.gov/ [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:09 AM EDT

I was thinking of Caldera, only without the capitalization; as in the molten

heart of a volcano...

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:21 AM EDT

Well I looked, and looked, and looked in all those comments and still could not

find the reaction from mog and lie'n. They must have something inspiring to

add.



Lovely day today. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 10:43 AM EDT

As another said of the UK Justice system im sure that the canadian system would

not allow such a travesty of justice to carry on 4.5 years with NO PROOF. PJ if

anyhting this really does show how broken your system is. That someone can make

allegations and unless you are rich and powerful you will not survive ( perfect

example is the lawsuits by the RIAA in sueing poor people whom cannot afford to

defend themselves you

blast the founding fathers that i believe if you look what they say, they

themselves would be appalled. ) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: belzecue on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:33 AM EDT

This from SCO's website, viewed today... CEO Darl McBride Interveiw [sic] on Business Jive Podcast Darl McBride is CEO of SCO Group, a pioneering developer of Unix-based networking solutions. In his interview, Darl discusses being raised by a bona fide cowboy, the law of the harvest, and the similarities between cattle rustlers and certain defendants in a certain high-profile lawsuit. -- link O RLY? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 11:42 AM EDT

well not much to say... other than HURRAY! and BRAVO BRAVO!!

klap klap klap klap!!



---

-Skuggi. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:07 PM EDT



The court has ruled that SCOG owes Novell $BIGNUM for the Microsoft and Sun

licences.



Under UK law (how does USA law apply) Novell could now issue a Statutary Demand

claiming in detail the amounts owed and go direct to a Summary Bankruptcy

Petition.



At that point SCOX would have 2 options, the debt having already been proven :-

1) Pay the entire amount within 14 days or be automatically bankrupt.

2) Petition the Bankruptcy Court disputing in full and specific detail some

detailed items not clearly covered by the judgement within 14 days AND pay the

undisputed amounts within 14 days or be automatically bankrupt.



END of story.

But probably not quite as simple in the USA ?.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:27 PM EDT

Linux mallxs.nl 2.6.18-4-k7 #1 SMP Wed May 9 23:42:01 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux



Judge Dale Kimball at the console:

> chown Novell Unix*



PJ at her console

> chmod 777 Linux*



McBride on his first Sony

> su

su: Authentication failure

Sorry.



Solved a small problem in Utah; lets us now focus on Redmond



/Arthur

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: snakebitehurts on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 12:39 PM EDT

It was a long time coming. Wow. The Judge clearly was able to sort through all

the bullhockey and focus on the issues.



I also noticed that his decisions were near mirrors of PJ's many analysis's of

the various filings over all these years. Way to go PJ!



I have read the the ruling a couple of times now. I note that SCO can persue

Novell on "breach of contract" for their distribution of Suse linux as

a competing product.



I'm surprised no one has commented on this. There is no mention of SCO

distributing linux - and even being a linux company - itself for years. IBM has

pointed this out about a million times in their filings and it should be

interesting what the Judge has to say in that case.



I guess I'm wondering what will happen if the judge (in IBM) says "SCO -

you did it too (distributed linux)" and how that will tie back to any small

hope SCO has left in this case.



Seems odd that SCO could sue Novell for distributing Suse linux as a

"competing product" when SCO did the exact same thing. I am certain

that the judge will have much to say about it.



In any case, it will be fun watching the final pieces come together as SCO is

crushed into dust.



We know SCO never gives up. I fully expect to see SCO file an appeal that the

"judge got it wrong because ....".



Overall it's a wonderful day for PJ, open source, and for all of us who have

watched this for years.



MikeD [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:12 PM EDT

Like Wile E. Coyote, SCO ran off the edge of a cliff, chasing the Linux

Roadrunner--we've watched SCO treading air for 3 years, and now Judge Kimball

has handed them the anvil!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:48 PM EDT

Authored by: stites on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 01:49 PM EDT

Novell is asking the court for money from SCO and will probably be awarded more money than SCO has. Novell can probably bankrupt SCO without anybody else's help. IBM has counterclaims against SCO that IBM can pursue. IBM has not named any amounts yet but IBM could possibly bankrupt SCO without anybody else's help. Red Hat has sued Novell for damages. The Red Hat case has been stalled forever but it will probably start up again as SCO's cases against Novell and IBM swiftly unravel. Hopefully Red Hat will be able to do SCO serious damage in Red Hat v SCO. SCO v AutoZone has been stalled for a long time. I think that AutoZone is not so much interested in punishing SCO as to just getting SCO out of their hair. Hopefully the Novell ruling will give AutoZone their wish. The U.S. Federal government has done nothing about the crimes committed in association with this case. One reason may be that the Federal government is reluctant to intervene while the case is in civil court. If so, then the SEC may now enter the fray. Here is a list of thinks the SEC could investigate. SEC complaint -------------------- Steve Stites [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:28 PM EDT

my sco source tells me that there are now 2 factions in sco management:

optimists and pessimists. it is unclear which faction will emerge on top.



the pessimists draw pretty much the obvious conclusions from the ruling, and are

talking to the press. the optimists are biting their tongues and want to press

on.



the optimists believe that sco is still in with a chance to get a decent

settlement. their reasoning is:



- they avoided the bullet of the constructive trust



- some portion of the sun and ms revenues will need to go to novell, but it will

be considerably less than 95% (if it was 95% then novell would have already been

awarded the money). all the witnesses to the sun and ms deals are either sco,

sun or ms employees, and all will argue the deals are mainly about unixware and

sco derivative code, and not really much about legacy svrx code/licenses.



- kimball didn't give novell anything on the linux licenses like ev1. he didn't

require sco to give an accounting (in fact he ruled in sco's favor on this one).

he didn't classify linux scosource as svrx. so sco can keep 100% of future

linux licenses as well as money from previous linux licenses.



- yes kimball said the original unix copyrights belong to novell. but kimball

also said that the derivative copyrights for sco's versions of unix (i.e. open

server and unixware) belong to sco. sco still have a copyright claim against

novell for infringement of these copyrights. sco also have breach of contract

(the non-compete) and unfair competition claims for infringement of these

copyrights.



- they accept sco will lose on novell's slander of title claim, but damages

novell wins on this claim will be minimal (things like some attorney fees on

researching and filing copyrights).



so for sco vs novell at trial, they think:



- sco will be able to win some copyright related damages from novell, under

copyright, unfair competition and contract (non-compete theories)



- novell will be able to win some percentage (much less than 95%) of sun and ms

deals.



- novell will win nominal slander of title damages from sco



=> overall: sco comes out ahead in turns of damages won



plus, they still have the derivative code owned by sco stick to scare up some

sco-source licenses. in fact, they will argue to potential licensees, that

their copyrights though narrower than they originally thought, have now been

confirmed by the court.





now sco v ibm::



yes, they lose on their contract claims against ibm



but they believe they can make their 5th cause of action, the copyright claim,

potentially winnable by focusing on derivative code owned by sco found in linux,

rather than on unix code in linux, or ibm's continued distribution of aix.



they think they can also get some damages on unfair competition and interference

with contract (but not ibm interference with the novell contract).



as far ibm counterclaims are concerned

- the contract claims - they believe they are safe because ibm can't show they

didn't have a good faith belief in their termination, etc.

- the lanham act and slander claims - most of their comments are privileged,

some nominal damages to ibm

- gpl stuff - ibm may win on these, but they don't think the damages will be

anything but nominal



=> overall: sco comes out ahead in turns of damages won





so, if both cases go to trial, they think they'll survive, still have a stick to

beat linux with, and maybe even come out slightly ahead. and then, they'll

appeal and try and get some of issues they lost on overturned. they see

themselves continuing to inflict pain on ibm, novell and linux for several more

years... unless they are paid off.





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MattZN on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:29 PM EDT

Congratulations, PJ! And congratulations to the open source community in general! -Matt [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 02:30 PM EDT

How about those of us that use and love open source starting a campaign to get

Microsoft to show the 235 patents it claims are infringed. After all, what is

MS afraid of other than the facts that their claims will be proven false? I

think one target audience of such a campaign is all of the journalists that

cover computer related news, especially those that like to parrot this claim

like it's real and proven. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: enigma_foundry on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:03 PM EDT

This opens the door for slander of title, plus the funding by Microsoft has got

to be dug through.



Any chance of seeing Bill Gates prosecuted under RICO?



---

enigma_foundry



Ask the right questions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 03:46 PM EDT

WOOOHOO!!!!

Finally after all these years. Righteousness. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: seekamp on Saturday, August 11 2007 @ 04:13 PM EDT

Looking at pp. 28-29 it couldn't be much clearer. Darl is contacting Novell over and over again about getting the copyrights. He knew he didn't have them and he also knew that Novell was refusing to give them, but SCO went on with the SCOsource initiative anyway. So the bottom line to me is (1)he knew he didn't have them, and (2)he knew that Novell wasn't just going to give them to him. So he couldn't possibly know that they would ever get them. Obviously the only way to get them would have been to sue for them. So why didn't they sue, if you want to assume that they had a chance of winning the suit and getting them? I guess because it would have been abundantly clear to everyone (even the EV1's of the world) that they didn't own any copyrights and didn't have a basis for the SCOSource licensing racket. But if they thought they had a real chance to get them, wouldn't they have sued anyway and said to potential licensees "buy the license for $699 now, or it will be $2,000 when we win the lawsuit and we WILL win the lawsuit.". Instead, once Novell didn't go in on the scheme and told the world SCO didn't have the copyrights, they thought it was better to pretend they had them and do a slander-of-title suit? Maybe Darl really believed (though I doubt it) that it was a clerical error that the copyrights were not transferred to the original SCO, but the fact is he knew they didn't since he was asking for them. I know they had 