Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT

Congratulation PJ and all Groklawers!!

Congrats also and a big THANK YOU to Brennan and Novell

:-)



bjd

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:31 PM EDT

Let's all join in the "ding dong" song... :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT

Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT

Make links clickable.



Read the Important stuff at the bottom of the Post A Comment page. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT

Faith in the jury system is not completely misplaced! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Scott_Lazar on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT

Time to go whoosh...let that feeling of vindication wash over you....



---

Scott

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

LINUX - VISIBLY superior!

-------------------------------------- [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:32 PM EDT

Galaxy Quest - Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:41 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT



Finally, something to restore a bit of faith in the US legal system!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM EDT

Please include the title of the Newpick on the subject line of your comment [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT

Excellent news!



Still I'm surprised; I couldn't follow the court reports too well, but to me it

didn't look that good for Novell. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:34 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:35 PM EDT

Finally, SCO had its days in court, in front of a jury here in Utah.



:o) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT

Not wanting to rain on any parades, but I'm trying to remember what Judge

Stewart was deciding and whether it is mooted by the verdict.



One was the "bad faith" and specific performance. This has been

mooted by the jury verdict I assume. What were the rest? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AntiFUD on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT

Can I stop refreshing every four seconds now?



Thank you very much to the jury, to MoFo and Brennan, to Chris Brown and all the

reporters, and to PJ, without whom none of this would have been possible.



I have put the champagne into the freezer to chill extra fast, and I will drink

to all Groklawians everywhere.



---

IANAL - Free to Fight FUD - "to this very day"

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AndyC on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:37 PM EDT

Woo hoo!!!!



Not that we doubted it for a second...



Now, what'll that do the other court cases?



AndyC [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT

Specific performance is still not yet decided. Proposed decisions on that are

due, if I recall correctly, on April 16th.



MSS2 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM EDT

Boy, that's sure going to hurt their stock... ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: arch_dude on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT

Great news on the Jury Verdict! Now, when does Judge Stewart rule on specific

performance? Will Novell get to bill SCOG for attorney's fees and expenses? What

happens next? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tinstaafl on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT

I wish people with cameras could be near some of SCO's protagonists when they

receive the news. The looks on their faces would be priceless. Can't wait to

hear their version of reality. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT

Doesn't the issue of what copyrights are "required" as a matter of

contract, and specific performance, now go to the court though ie Judge

Stewart?



Or did the jury also decide that no copyrights were "required" as a

matter of contract - specific performance was definitely for the court. The

copyrights may not be worth very much of course if Novell have in the meantime

open-sourced them. SCO also have the problem that specific performance would

probably be denied as they have failed on their side of the contract, namely

handing over the Sun money.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT

The Bowlegged IP Posse appears to have "bridged the gap" toward "utter destruction"!



Yay team!







---

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM EDT

Anyone who's ever joined, posted or just read Groklaw should

memorialize this moment with a short, but sweet reply here

(log in or include nickname and / or sig).



NealyWilly [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jbeadle on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT

Thanks, PJ for all your hard work, and not just in the last 3 weeks, either.



Now - please get some rest.



Thanks,

-jb



. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT

I've placed Beethoven's Ode to Joy on the stereo, and am hoisting a glass of

wine to all concerned. Justice! Justice! Justice!

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nb on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:40 PM EDT

Ok, the jury has reached the decision which we know to be the correct one. And I must admit, now I'm a bit glad that Judge Stewart was so (IMO unfairly) kind to SCO in several of his decisions, because that obviously make it harder for SCO to win any appeal, or even to convince their chapter 11 Trustee that an appeal would be worthwhile to attempt. But still, it isn't really over before the deadline for filing an appeal has passed, is it? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: stevec on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT

Can they afford to appeal or can they afford not to appeal, that is the

question, they are washed up no matter which way they go now.

Well done All.



---

Registered Linux user #375134 http://counter.li.org [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT

I really hate to rain on everyone's parade. I'm happy to see the news, as

everyone should be. However, don't get too optimistic, as there will most

likely be an appeal filed by SCO.



I don't think this is done, by a long shot. In a perverse sort of way, I look

forward to seeing what tricks SCO pulls. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM EDT

This is good news, but I still don't think we can get too excited until someone

cuts the head off the zombie (ie, Judge Stewart rules on the stuff he still can

rule on and the appeals court rejects SCO's appeal - we all know they are going

to appeal, right?). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT

What's to stop the Chapter 7 now? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT

Is that all? What about the other questions the jury were

voting on?



It seems fairly logical that they would also vote "not

guilty" on those, but how did it actually play out?



Is it correct that SCO now got 20 days to come up with a

story to the judge? So final judgement can at earliest be in

a month or so. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT

It'll be up on Slashdot soon - I haven't posted a story but I'm sure some of you

have....



Have the Groklaw tech folks talked to the server people to give them a heads up?



---

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 Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT

Just curious. Obviously this affects SCO v IBM, and probably a couple others.

How long will it take for the lawyers on either side to file for appeals? How

long will it take for the District Court to respond, etc., etc.? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:43 PM EDT

Been watching this almost since day one and this took my breath away. What a

wonderful day! But won't SCO just appeal? And appeal? And appeal? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT

So with this case, came a lot of FUD about the use of Linux within the

enterprise. Though I've seen a small migration to the platform the last year or

two, I wonder if this decision won't open up the floodgates. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bruzie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:44 PM EDT

I can't believe that after all this time, it's done. How long

before the IBM case is thrown out (with extreme prejudice)?



---

Chris Brewer

"Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilisation?"

"I think it would be a good idea." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:45 PM EDT

WHOOOHOOOO! Thank goodness. I really didn't expect this news

so soon. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: maroberts on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT

Result! I've been concerned, as I have to say that Brent Hatch seems to have

played a masterclass game considering the bad hand he was dealt with.



I can get some sleep now :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nattt on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:46 PM EDT

Got to say I'm proud of the Jury for seeing through to the bottom line of this

case. Well done.



Now - how does this help IBM nail Darl and his cronies to the wall? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:47 PM EDT

As PJ says, justice is not served if SCOfolk and their lawyers take their cash

and walk away. I have been predicting for years that IBM will pierce the

corporate veil after SCO's farcical case-in-chief is exposed on the record for

the utter fraud we've always known it to be. There are still some loose ends to

wrap up (like the arbitration) but it won't be long now (relatively speaking).

IBM will want to teach SCO a lesson that will reverberate all the way to

Redmond. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: amster69 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:48 PM EDT

I've just poured myself a large one!



Bob [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: deck2 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT

Woooo Hoooo!!!



That is the question of the moment for me. I might not wear a red dress;

however, I will put on a red shirt for that day. I will also wear my hat and go

out and admire my cattle as I have both! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT

woot!



So, does this moot SCO v IBM? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM EDT

If I were a SCO stockholder, I'd be looking to make somebody pay for the way all

of the value had been stripped out of this company by the way that the

executives have pursued this particular folly -- particularly in light of some

of the things that they knew when they began taking this course.



For example, the lack of any real evidence of copied code, the lack of any

transferred copyrights, etc. etc.



SCO executives all seem to have personally done quite nicely thank you out of

this little scam. Now it's time for the stockholders to start consulting their

own lawyers and see if they can't get their day in court -- and their pound of

flesh out of McBride et. al. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:50 PM EDT

I am so glad Novell won the case. I have been on a Grand Jury before and still

am. Reading the court reports, I had the impression that Novell should win, they

have more evidence(witnesses that were part of the APA) . Linux can now expand

and continue to be used without lawsuits.



- ndowens [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Laomedon on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT

Awesome!



Now let's hope the second shoe will also drop and Judge Stewart will rule for

Novell on the remaining issues before the court! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM EDT

Yes, Stewart has to make that ruling however I would be shocked if he found for

SCOX on specific performance. He heard all the testimony, specifically from the

lawyers who were actually involved in writing & negotiating the APA and

Amendment 2 - those were Novell's lawyers, SCOX apparently couldn't 'find' or

decided not to bring the action Santa Cruz lawyers. Major hole to fill there,

one a Judge can't miss. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nyarlathotep on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:54 PM EDT

The end is a bit closer and clearer. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:55 PM EDT

This is what I have been waiting for since the beginning, finally and ending to

this lawsuit!



Thank you Novell! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: furkoolitter on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT

Thank you PJ and Groklaw Hall of Fame.

Great work! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 03:59 PM EDT

I'd like to think this seemingly never-ending campaign has

really come to an end. But I'm not so sure with SCO being SCO,

they will probably try anything to soldier on.



What are the rules for appeals in federal cases? From the

apparent pro-SCO bias of the judge's rulings and the jury

ruling 100% against SCO in spite of that it seems their

prospects of having anything overturned are slim or

nonexisting, but can they actually do it? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:00 PM EDT

Thank you Novell for staying the course against SCOs shameful litigations. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: nyarlathotep on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:02 PM EDT

...is what now happens to the Oracle (nee Sun) contract and the Microsoft

contract. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: AH1 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT

So now does IBM get its chance to pick over what is left of SCO? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:03 PM EDT

... wondering who PJ is and what the website they weren't allowed to visit is

all about. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT

Can we just say a big congratulations to all the lawyers who've worked for

Novell on this case. Their work in this respect has been absolutely stellar, and

has been a total pleasure to watch. It's wonderful to see them finally triumph,

when so many of us had our doubts at times.



Well done, folks. Hope you get a well earned bonus for this one. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:04 PM EDT

A mysterious drop of almost 80% in the last few minutes. Has something happened? ;-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:05 PM EDT

This is going to make SCO v's IBM interesting.



As Novell owned the copyrights when SCO sued IBM, the APA kicks back in and

Novell's instruction that SCO can not pursue IBM as well.



So I guess all that's left is IBM's ICBM's of a counter-claim. :-)



---

Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he

considers himself your master. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Gringo on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:06 PM EDT

Hard to believe it is all over but for the fat lady to sing... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:07 PM EDT

http://linux.sys-con.com/node/1338835 (not clicky, for reasons I think should be obvious) Without the copyrights SCO has no standing to go after IBM. Couldn't agree more. This one is killer: A few former Novell attorneys claimed they had reserved the copyrights without telling anybody. There's a few other gems. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT

Suppose this stands and Cahn defaults on the loan, what does Ralph get?



He gets the license to Unix, he gets the copyright that SCO sold Caldera and the

ones Caldera/SCO developed on their own.



There might be a viable legitimate business in there but it's hard to see how he

can start another litigation terror campaign.



Essentially he loaned SCO some of the money he took out of the company and it

might be viewed as a sort of recovery.



I'd love to see the verdict form, with what the jury actually decided.



---

Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.



"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."

Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT

I guess SCO must be in SHOCK now that they have discovered that a jury can

read.... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT

The frantic pace is almost over. Chapter 7, maybe an appeal , the supreme court

??

The war is won.

Now Mickeysoft and what. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: chris_bloke on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:09 PM EDT

Well done and a very big thank you to Novell, their legal

team, Groklaw and above all PJ. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Zenock on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:15 PM EDT

"What a waste of money this all has been, and if the only folks who get

paid in the end are Cahn's lawyers and SCO's lawyers, something is seriously

rotten in this picture."



Darl McBride got paid. Oh he might not have gotten the MILLIONS he dreamed of.

But he got his 6 digit salary plus bonuses.



Ralph Yarro got paid.

He sold stock when the stock price peaked. He made millions.



Many of the other executives got paid who worked at SCO and Canopy group.



So, ok they didn't rake in what they were looking for. But there were many many

involved that got paid more than I will make in my lifetime.



And most of them will move on to some other scam er job making even more money.



If everything ended today, this would in no way be justice. It will not be

justice unless those that propigated this scam are made personally responsible

and restitution is required.



It won't happen, corporate protection and all that. But although legally a

coporation is a "person", it is an abstract entity. It can die and go

away and the people who made the actual real decisions in the corporation simply

move on while real people get hurt.



So did justice prevail. No. But a large part of the injustice was finally

stopped.



What a bitter sweet victory.

Z.



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT

Now to see just if SCOG is going to continue down the utter path of destruction. Personally, I'm glad the Jury reached a verdict so quick as to be in 1.5 days of deliberation. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT

Will we now also be treated with a photo of PJ in her red dress, surrounded by

Groklaw reporters and web masters in tuxedos and red bow ties?



:-)



We thank you all for your tremendous efforts!



Rolven [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:17 PM EDT

This allows Novell to demand a higher price if anyone wants to buy them, I would

think.



Still, we saw what happened when Novell only got a new CEO a few years ago --

after the SCO litigation began. What will happen if they get a new owner --

Microsoft or a Microsoft proxy, for example?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: argel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT

A warm thanks to the jury for working through the evidence to arrive at the

correct verdict!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:18 PM EDT

Now that we know it was all a scam. to answer the question:

they took in millions from Sun and Microsoft and threatened the Linux world for

copyrights they don't own? Why, yes. Yes, they did.



Does Novell now have a case to go after SCO? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: argel on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:20 PM EDT

That was pretty nice of Normand to flag Chris about the verdict. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: thorpie on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:21 PM EDT

Well, actually Magistrate Wells, we don't even have that!



---

The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime -

Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:22 PM EDT

http://www.sco.com/scosource/ipprotectionfaq.html



"#6 Who owns the copyrights for UNIX?

SCO does not believe there should be any confusion as to ownership of the UNIX

copyrights. It clearly purchased these from Novell in 1995 as is evidenced in

the Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment 2 with Novell (see

www.sco.com/scosource/novell). Novell also further clarified this in its own

press release of June 6, 2003." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT

That's what it looks like. Smart folks.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:23 PM EDT

Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed

in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in the jury's

verdict in the dispute over which company owned the copyrights to Unix, which is

widely used in business computing.



But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the

computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system

a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO's revenues.



"The copyright claims are gone, but we have other claims based on

contracts," Cahn said.



http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14786202 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jpvlsmv on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:25 PM EDT

Does this verdict impact the chances that the Supreme Court will review the

Appeals court ruling that a vague document can transfer copyrights?



Will the SCOTUS now look at it and say "Well, the Jury said no transfer

anyway, so no point in making precedent"



Will Novell continue their appeal?



--Joe [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:31 PM EDT

Authored by: Leg on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:32 PM EDT

I returned from my lunch hour and walked past the server room on the way to my

desk. IT was serving cake -- sitting around the floor of the server room making

loud noises eating cake from napkins without paper plates or plastic forks. I

understood at first glance what had happened... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:35 PM EDT

Anyone feel up for a virtual party? Pick a time, and we'll all raise a glass and celebrate this milestone. PJ, you get to bring the chocolates. (For those that don't remember the reference, see this article.) ---

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:36 PM EDT

PJ,



Thanks for working so hard for what seems like decades.



It is time to paypal a donation to celebrate a little......



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:37 PM EDT

Soooo.... Do we get to see PJ at long last? What's O'Gara gonna do now? It's

over. :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:38 PM EDT

I hope he feels better now, especially that it took only a day and a half for

the jury to agree with him.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jheisey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT

SCO's stock price is currently down 36 cents or 78% on the day to 10 cents a

share, with a day's low of 8 cents a share. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:39 PM EDT

Truth will Out.



Well done to to every one who kept the faith.



SCO are a former Litigation company, that is they are now a deceased Litigation

company.



Goodbye SCO I will always loathe and detest you and what you represented. You

deserve to be treated with contempt and you have reaped the furious righteous

wrath you so deserve.





---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM EDT

Come on you know BSF will try to . [ Reply to This | # ]



It was the trip to Vegas... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 06:51 PM EDT

Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:44 PM EDT

This is indeed a good day.



I'm sure SCOG is still inclined to make mischief, but I think their wound truly

is mortal this time.



PJ, I can't describe how much I've enjoyed hearing this story from you over the

last seven years. I'm looking forward to more as the story winds down.



To all who've contributed, I've learned so much reading your comments. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jeff on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:47 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:49 PM EDT

Where are all those troll gloating about the decision they've been warning

about? You mean this wasn't what they expected? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:50 PM EDT

'E's not litigatin'! 'E's passed on! This SCO is no more! He has ceased to be!

'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests

in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the corporation 'e'd be pushing up the

daisies! 'Is corporate processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked

the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined

the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SCO!!



:) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: zdvflyer on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:51 PM EDT

Would debtors have a good chance with requesting conversion to CH 7? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Leg on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT

Will there be opportunities for the parties to question witnesses or argue their

case before Judge Stewart, or will Judge Stewart issue rulings with no further

proceedings? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:52 PM EDT

"Thank you, Novell, for never giving up, and never giving in. Those of us

who love to use Linux will forever be thankful to you."



I am a little shocked you worded it this way PJ, after your Novell, Microsoft

reaction.



Although I have had three major event happen in the last week (this one of

them), I reserve judgement, until I see that SCO verses the world, is FINALLY

resolved.



So, in this instance, TODAY, can you consider this a partial victory, and just

wear the Red Skirt? :) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:53 PM EDT

"This is a significant victory for Novell and, I think, a tremendous

victory for the open-source community," said Novell attorney Sterling

Brennan. He added that while there are still a few issues to be decided in the

case and SCO has a right to appeal, "This verdict largely brings an end to

this." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:57 PM EDT

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Winston Churchill, 1942 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT

District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware,

said the company is "deeply disappointed"



Now Cahn has to go back and explain how he bet the farm and lost to the Judge in

Deleware. I'd be dissapointed too if I had the undaunted task of facing the

judge and explain losing everything on such a bet. Cahn fell for SCO's shady

business practices. Good luck Cahn, you're going to need it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: LaurenceTux on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 04:59 PM EDT

Authored by: iksrazal on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:01 PM EDT

What effect would that arbitration have on the IBM case, now that copyrights are

out of the picture? Will the arbitration continue after the Novell case judge

hit the gavel for the last time? If so, to what effect? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:07 PM EDT

After 7 years. Thank you Novell. I'm typing this from my OpenSuse box.



---

-inode_buddha



"When we speak of free software,

we are referring to freedom, not price"

-- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:12 PM EDT

Authored by: NZheretic on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:25 PM EDT

In Reply To Novell

Decision in the SCO Group vs. Novell Jury trial Thank you Novell



David Mohring (NZHeretic) Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

March 30th, 2010 at 2:54 pm



Thank you for your long persistence in this matter. I hope you will continue to abide by the terms of the Gnu Public Licence (GPL) upon which so much of your legal defense relied upon. I wish you could continue to show such great fortitude in confronting current threats to the Linux/Open source/Free Software ecosystem ( see website ). Quote from website

< blockquote>The SCO Group has entered into a series of essentially inherently flawed lawsuits and fraudulent license claims against users of the Linux operating system. Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa Cruz Operation have been accepting, profiting from and distributing software developed by hundreds of independent developers under the terms of the GPL and LGPL license. The SCO Group has failed to put forward any sustainable legal theory why it should not abide by the terms of the GPL license. Detailed investigation into other facts and evidence which regularly conflict with the SCO Group's various legal claims, filing, press and public statements, raises serous questions which can no longer be explained away by a lack of competence in either the SCO Group's CEOs or the SCO Group's legal representation. There is now increasing evidence that Microsoft has been indirectly financing -- to the point of sustaining -- the SCO Group's campaign against Linux. Disclosed internal email memos back up by recent filings to the US Securities and Exchange Commission indicate that at least a third of SCO's entire market capitalization, and their entire current cash reserve, is payoffs funnelled from Microsoft. The relationship between Microsoft, the SCO Group and the SCO Group's recent financial backers requires immediate investigation by all agencies entrusted with providing the consumer with protection from abusive business practices and monopolies. [ Reply to This | # ]



General Public License. - Authored by: SLi on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:27 PM EDT

Authored by: Totosplatz on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:30 PM EDT

This trial is now over and the SUSE arbitration should begin - tSCOg needs more

nails in its coffin!



.



---

Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location

varies).



All the best to one and all. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM EDT

"See? They never quit, and they never learn."



Why should Cahn quit? It's not his money that's getting

spent. The professionals (including Blank Rome) are getting

paid. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:35 PM EDT

Dear Mr. Cahn and Judge Gross:



It's been seven years. After the Novell verdict, do you really think IBM is

going to settle now?



Problem is, I suspect Gross will go ahead, anyway. It's not if, but when, he

will lift the stay on IBM. If it were any other judge and any other case, this

would be a slam dunk Chapter 7.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:38 PM EDT

How does this affect the arbitration in Switzerland? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: comms-warrior on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT

YAAAAHOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



It's taken *SEVEN* years to kick their butts out of the door. SEVEN!



I'm so proud of the work that Groklaw has done with this whole situation - The

SCO scum really needs to have a good, hard look at themselves - and to look at

the values Groklaw have held throughout this whole sorded affair. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT

Since they violated the GPL, can they not now be sued by any of the various

authors of Linux code?



If 100 entities each filed a law suit against SCO surely they would not be able

to answer all 100 suits.. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT

Maybe we can come up with a tee shirt design (to be sold on the Groklaw store) to commemorate the occasion. Here is one idea: Seven years ago, Microsoft funnelled $50 million to dummy corporation that sued Free and Open Source Software (that I helped make) for copyright infringement. On March 30, 2010, a jury said they didn't even own the copyrights they were suing us over. All I got was this wonderful tee shirt.

---

You just can't win with DRM. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dyfet on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:44 PM EDT

This was the question on my mind when I first heard the news though this article

sheds some light. It seems to me continuing the IBM litigation is very much a

suicide march. If SCO has no demonstratable copyright "standing", any

and all contract issues already fully goto Novell control per the existing

contracts, simple as that. At most, all that SCO can accomplish is seeing how

many of IBM's counterclaims get validated in court.



In a way it is a shame that Novell's Slander of title claim died before the jury

got to decide, although clearly, given the limited time and the immensely tilted

field they were on, Novell choose the right things to focus on.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jjock on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:46 PM EDT

I guess Darl had better round up his hat and waddle off into the

sunset. I am sure that this isn't the end of SCOs attempt to

survive as a litigation company, and I can handle it as long as

they remain a litigate and lose company.

The cost to the people who have to defend themselves from

these extortionists is high, but there just isn't another option.

I hope this doesn't moot the appeal to SCOTUS.

I am so happy,

Bob [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:50 PM EDT

V.

SCOS ALTERNATIVE CLAIM FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

If the APA, as amended, somehow failed to transfer the UNIX and UnixWare

copyrights, SCO clearly would be entitled to compel the transfer of copyrights

required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX

and UnixWare technologies. If SCO only received an implied license to the

copyrights, SCO would not be able to exercise the rights it indisputably

acquired under Items II and III of the Assets Schedule to bring claims under the

UNIX and UnixWare Software and Sublicensing Agreements. SCO needed ownership of

the copyrights to bring such claims, as Novell itself acknowledged by asserting

ownership of the copyrights precisely to foreclose SCOs contract claims against

IBM.



The evidence will show that (1) SCOs capacity to bring claims to enforce the

UNIX and UnixWare copyrights is an integral and necessary component of operating

the UNIX and UnixWare licensing businesses, (2) SCOs copyright claims against

IBM were premised on UNIX and UnixWare copyrights existing as of the execution

of the APA, and (3) such copyrights covered all of the technology in UNIX and

the majority of the technology in UnixWare.



Contrary to Novells prior argument, moreover, Amendment No. 2 does not compel

SCO to show that it was unable to operate its business without suing IBM in

particular, but even if it did, SCO easily meets the standard. If SCO were

unable to pursue or recover on those claims against IBM, SCO would be unable to

exercise the rights in the entire UNIX business, which includes the right to

pursue claims to protect misuse of the UNIX and UnixWare source code.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: lnuss on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:59 PM EDT

I got on the web a bit ago, not yet expecting to hear anything, and I was

wonderfully surprised by the news! And, there were already a bit over 400

comments. I just looked again, less than a minute ago, and there were just about

600 comments. Wow! I bet that's a record (for Groklaw) of comments in a short

time period.



Not Red Dress Time yet, perhaps, but it's (figuratively) around the corner.



And ever so many thanks to all the reporters we've had at the various

trials/briefings/etc. over the years. And even greater thanks to PJ who has done

an almost unbelievable job keeping us all informed and explaining to us about

the various legal procedures/rules/etc.



SUPER!



---

Larry N. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:02 PM EDT

That is of course unfair; it took seven years! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:16 PM EDT

Dixit PJ: Linux didn't sign contracts with SCO. There is the UnitedLinux contract. The arbitration has not been resolved yet. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:17 PM EDT

On the surface SCO seems to be plain crazy pursuing this litigation against

obvious odds. But what if that isnt the objective. What if microsoft is using

this to divert attention while it quietly pursues its more sinister plans:

bashing open source in europe. hedging open source projects in with patents to

block their development options (see sudo patent as an example), bullying

companies to sign patent protection agreements etc. If that is microsofts plan

then they will want this litigation to go on and on until the last possible

moment. Someone very big is underwriting this litigation. For example, even the

way that the trustee has swung in line with the litigation speaks of big

personal rewards. SCO isnt in a position to offer those rewards. the elephant in

the drawing room is. I think whether SCO loses is almost inconsequential to the

objectives behind the litigation (an unexpected bonus if they did win). i'm sure

the boies boys are being well remunerated by somebody for all their effort. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:18 PM EDT

Authored by: eschasi on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT

This inspired me to go back and look at a few items from Court Rules: Novell owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights! Novell has right to waive! I'm savoring such gems from Judge Kimballs decision as ... the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on Novell's slander of title claim. And ...Novell is entitled to a declaration of rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent... And who could forget PJ's pithy comment: That's Aaaaall, Folks! The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". That's the ball game. There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses. It does my heart good to have all that stuff re-affirmed. Break out the chocolate and scotch, honey, I'm comin' home to celebrate. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:19 PM EDT

Congratulations Novell



And thank you, everyone, at Groklaw [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:22 PM EDT

The UST needs to wake up from his stupor and recommend an end be put to this.

All of the converter Novell funds were used to fight Novell, and SCOX lost. Now

more money is going to be wasted fighting IBM? The same IBM which held off the

US Government?



Move to convert to Chapter 7 and shut this abomination down.



hpn

(yeah, I forgot my password, what are you going to do, take me out back and

shoot me? :) ) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT

PJ... A sincere thank you. I took some offense to the tone of the site and

stopped posting here during it's first few months. I have continued to be an

avid reader and as long as your site exists I will remain so. Your service in

providing factual data to the community and the world at large has been

invaluable. You cannot be thanked enough. If I wore one then my hat would be off

to you. This is a sweet victory. It's not over as appeals will loom but it is

vindication of your efforts and the smear put on the open source community by

those at SCO who attempted to blackmail (in the vernacular if not the legal

sense) the world at large.



Again I thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:25 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:26 PM EDT

From Businessweek...



http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-30/novell-owns-unix-copyrights-jury-say

s-in-defeat-for-sco-group.html



"Still pending before U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart in Salt Lake City is

whether the copyrights should be transferred to SCO for the future and whether

Waltham, Massachusetts-based Novell breached the contract with SCO by not

allowing SCO to go after IBM, Jacobs said." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:34 PM EDT

Here's one thing that remains, that will absolutely kill Cahn's dreams of continuing the IBM case. 2. The judge should decide SCO's breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Novell's claim for declaratory judgment regarding the waiver, and SCO's claim for specific performance. Footnote 1 indicates the parties dispute what is left to be tried by anybody on the good faith claim. Remember, these issues are still before the judge. When he rules that Novell has the rights as listed in the contract, regarding the waiver, SCO can no longer pursue the IBM case. Novell is going to get the court to say so. I don't know why Cahn thinks he can, has he not followed this litigation? He's an ex-judge. How can he be so blind? The IBM case is going nowhere. It's like he's been hit with an "Imperious Curse", and everything Yarro says he does. --Celtic_hackr [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:39 PM EDT

If you haven't actually taken the time to compare the Linux code base and Unix Sys V. Please be willing to consider spending the resources to do that. With those results in hand, you can put forth an official press release as an owner of the copyrights clearing stating whether or not Linux infringes. This would be a serious step in the direction of preventing a future would-be SCOG from ever attempting to use Unix in the same fashion again. It would also be a significant step in clearing the FUD about Linux. After all... the copyright owner is in the most official position to be able to Legally analyze and clear someone else of copyright infringement :) RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:40 PM EDT

Question: How can SCO go after IBM? I mean sure they can plan to, or say a lot

of things but the fact is Novell has already told them to back off. Novell has

now confirmed their right to tell SCO to back off IBM or anyone else over Unix.



Thank PJ,

Brotherred [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:46 PM EDT

Truth is as the Tide, as the Sea, as the great Oceans of this Earth. Every

child, woman and man can escape the ebb and flow for some while, this is facile.

None can command the ebb and flow, this is impossible.



SCOG and the mysterious backers are as Canute. They have averted the ebb and

flow, and so they delude themselves that they may command the ebb and flow, they

cannot. SCOG will drown soon, before I suffer from most of the pains of old

age. The mysterious backers will drown later, perhaps before my children will

suffer from most the pains of old age, I hope.



The struggle will be life long, it will have to pass through the generations, it

is worthwhile beyond mesaurement, it is the duty of all us who aspire to be free

women and men, who begin to understand what it means to be free, it is our duty

for our children, and our childrens' children, ...





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:51 PM EDT

Just went over to Yahoo for a quick look at the news and the headline is



"Tyra Banks stuns in simple red dress"



Timing!





---

Linux powered squirrel. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MacUser on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:53 PM EDT

Here is a cartoon to mark today's verdict. It's public domain; following the jury's lead, I have ruled that the copyrights do not go to me;) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT

Kumbaya anybody? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:11 PM EDT

Authored by: kh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 06:56 PM EDT

Look you honour, TSCG have persevered with this case for years, even until they

drove the company into bankruptcy. They must know something. That proves they

must be right. This verdict is only a flesh wound. Come back here and I'll

bite your knee. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: ak on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:04 PM EDT

It is now obvious (if it was not obvious before) that Edward N. Cahn is not

competent to act as a trustee in this case. It is time to replace him before he

creates even more damage.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Alan(UK) on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:10 PM EDT

A wicked witch was brought in to run an ailing company that distributed a

version of GNU/Linux.



The company also had a UNIX business that it had purchased.



The wicked witch saw some similarities between Linux and UNIX and said that much

of Linux was copied from UNIX.



The wicked witch ignored everyone that tried to say that Linux code was either

original or copied legally from UNIX.



Despite being the head of a company specialising in both Linux and UNIX, the

wicked witch never revealed any significant details of the alleged infringment.



On the basis of the UNIX purchase agreement that said that all copyrights were

excluded from the sale, he demanded payment for the right to use Linux.



When told that the copyrights had not been transferred the wicked witch sued for

slander of title and lost.



Meanwhile the wicked witch had started lots of other court cases and bankrupted

the company.



The wicked witch lost the job of running the company...



...and the penguin and the GNU lived happily ever after.



---

Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: charlie Turner on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:14 PM EDT

Now what am I going to do with myself and my time after work each evening?????? [ Reply to This | # ]



Uh-oh!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:21 AM EDT Uh-oh!! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:33 PM EDT

- Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:21 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM EDT

Stupid layman's questions:



SCO stole Novell's share of the MS and Sun licenses. Given that ruling, which

the 10th Circuit upheld, why wouldn't Novell be entitled to withhold its end of

the bargain (the copyrights) until SCO upholds its end of the bargain (the

license fees)?



Isn't the conversion a breach of contract?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:15 PM EDT

On what grounds?



Either they can prove a jury misconduct (e.g. a jury

discussion the issues with family over the weekend) or serious

error by the judge (e.g. refusing to let them bring some

evidence/testimony). I don't think that either one will be

easy to prove. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: eggplant37 on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:19 PM EDT

We are just dancing over here. I can't wait to get home from a friend's house so

I can hoist an absinthe to celebrate.



Cheers, all!



Linux Uber Alles!!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:25 PM EDT

Does the jury verdict effectively moot the Court of Appeals opinion as a

practical matter, or does it still stand as binding precedent in the 10th

Circuit.



---

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: MikeA on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 07:40 PM EDT

I think you should put the jury verdict form on some t-shirts too. =) ---

---

'Unifying UNIX with Linux for Business' are trademarks or registered trademarks of Caldera International, Inc." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dkpatrick on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:08 PM EDT

SCO wants 'em assigned! '"Obviously, we're disappointed in the jury's decision," said SCO trial lawyer Stuart H. Singer. "We were confident in the case, but there's some important claims remaining to be decided by a judge. 'SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but it's not over." ' Huh? How does this work? ---

"Keep your friends close but your enemies closer!" -- Sun Tzu [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:10 PM EDT

Since Cahn rolled the dice and lost, can he be sued by the creditors for

draining the estate by continuing on an obvious path of self destruction? One

would hope that a trustee that enjoys gambling with other people's money would

be fired by the bankruptcy court. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:13 PM EDT

then SCO tried with threats to sell something that is not theirs, that according

to them can be infringing.



how you defend yourself without money?, already know how good they are their

lawyers



in a "but for" without Novell, RedHat, IBM, etc., what would happen?



I was just imagining the plot of the new movie :)





[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:29 PM EDT

Is it common for the jury not to have a transcript?



I have followed this case for years and read all the reports, but I would still

have a hard time remembering who said what on the stand.



Greg H [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:30 PM EDT

Not bothering with a clicky since it's a teaser for paid "content"

(what else did you long haired smellies expect).



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304739104575154253257189786.html?K

EYWORDS=+novell++sco



"Novell Wins Unix Case"



(We'll send them the AT&T "bible of the UNIX* trademark").



OneSpot was generating hits here from the deep pocket wannabees: Goog:

"wall street journal +sco +novell".











*UNIX® is a registered trademark of The Open Group [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: UncleJosh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:43 PM EDT

we wash them off and use them in the next trial :-) :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:44 PM EDT

IBM will win.

They want their quota of blood from SCO.

Cahn has NO choice.



MaUrEeN O GARaH's column is mindless trash. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:49 PM EDT

At long last, SCO has had its day in court - and SCO has had a huge victory.



The court confirmed SCO's long held position that Novell did not transfer the

copyRIGHTS. So therefore it is clear that they transferred the copyLEFTS.



Everyone knows that linux is all copyLEFT.



Therefore SCO owns all of linux.



What a glorious day. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kh on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 08:56 PM EDT

I seem to remember that the Sun and MS licenses were ruled by Kimball to be

Unixware licenses not Unix licenses.



Since SCOXQ.BK now doesn't have the copyrights to Sys V does that mean that Sun

and MS only have rights to whatever SCO added to unixware not to basic Unix Sys

V code? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:01 PM EDT

... for Chris Brown and MSS2 and everyone who did such a wonderful job of giving

us reports from the courtroom.



Absolutely fabulous, IMO. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:12 PM EDT

The SCO Group argues their demand for the alleged "UNIX copyrights"

under schedule 1.1(g) of the amended APA:



"II. All of Seller's claims arising after the Closing Date against any

parties relating to any right, property or asset included in the

Business."



This is a lost cause under the jury's verdict, which has clearly stated that the

amended APA did not convey the alleged "UNIX copyrights" as a property

or asset in the Business acquired by the Santa Cruz Operation.





"III All of Seller's rights pertaining to UNIX and UnixWare under any

software development contracts, licenses and any other contracts to which Seller

is a party or by which it is bound and which pertain to the Business (to the

extent that such contracts are assignable), including without limitation:



A. Joint Development with third parties:



1. In-process development agreements

2. Past development agreements with on-going pricing discounts

3. Past development agreements without ongoing pricing discounts

4. Joint development agreements in which Seller didn't get full rights to

the code developed.



B. Third Party Software license agreements -- Those agreements in which Seller

pays per copy fees for technology/products which are shipped with or to be used

with UNIX System and/or UnixWare.



C. Joint marketing agreements -- Marketing programs with customers.



D. End user MLA agreements -- Agreements to allow end users to copy binary

products for internal use only. Associated with these agreements are support

requirements.



E. UNIX-only VAR agreements -- UNIX Master VARs



F. Support agreements - End user support agreements (i.e. TMAC, NALCOMIS)



G. Microsoft agreement (Xenix Agreement) - Xenix compatibility and per copy fee

agreement. Seller will agree to discuss with SCO Seller's interpretation of this

agreement.



H. Microsoft Agreement (Extra-Ordinary Discount) - Microsoft's additional

discount beyond 50%



I. Strategic Relationship Agreements (i.e. MTA, ECPA, MBA, etc.)



J. Out-sourced development (i.e. India) - Development agreements with third

parties Wipro and HCL) and Infix Development Center. IDC is a Seller

subsidiary.



K. Out-sourced Support Agreements



L. Software and Sublicensing Agreements - This includes the source codes and

sublicensing agreements that Seller has with its OEM, End User and Educational

customers. The total number of these agreements is approximately 30,000.



M. OEM Binary Licensing Agreements - OEM distribution of UnixWare with Seller's

agreement to include some OEM added value into future releases of

UnixWare."



The software and sublicensing agreements are included under this clause, but the

seller's "rights" are assigned, and not any "claims" that

might arise under the the agreements. The Santa Cruz Operation would be

empowered to rightfully receive payment of royalties and to audit the

performance of the licensee as would be expected of an agent, but the equitable

interest in the proceeds and any claims that might arise are not assigned to

S.C.O. [ Reply to This | # ]



Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 11:21 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:15 PM EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPzG7q3IW9I (Goodies pirate radio station, part

16)



Watch to the end - there's some good lessons in here. [ Reply to This | # ]



Appropriate video.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:43 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:18 PM EDT

Hurray!Hurray!

SCO is dead!

I hope every Linux Company sues them for defamation and slander.



<a href="http://mylinuxpage.com/">My Linux Page</a> [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:20 PM EDT

Something about that reads like the hammer shutting this case closed. The way it's the first question is answered, and all of the rest of the BS is skipped. Beautiful. Sums it up perfectly. And, I hesitate to put this part here, because I really want SCO to pursue this pipe dream to it's inevitable conclusion, but I feel like I need to say this to Judge Cahn. Please. Go ahead. Pursue the IBM litigation, please. Look at the comments, look into our (metaphorical) eyes, from the day this fiaSCO began seven long years ago until today -- have you ever seen any trace of fear? Please pursue the big question of Linux infringing on anything. My big concern has been that SCO will drive themselves out of business before the conclusion of the IBM case and then get to claim "We had valid claims, but the big money ran us out of business before we could have our day in court". Have your day in court. Present your "evidence". Put your experts up for cross examination. It's the day we've been waiting for. Keep listening to the SCO principals. Don't look at the history. Keep pushing to the end. We say "bring it on". I only hope that, at the end of it all, the veil is pierced (because somebody should pay for the seven plus years of needless litigation) and I hope, when that day of reckoning comes, the name of Cahn is not forgotten. [ Reply to This | # ]



Full on loving 46 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 12:10 PM EDT

Authored by: kenryan on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:29 PM EDT

It amazes me that everything that's been going on, all that fuss and bother,

comes down to one little pen mark on a piece of paper, written by somebody who

has never heard of SCO, likely never heard of Linux, and likely could not

possibly care less other than to do his civic duty.



Power to the People!



:-)



---

ken

(speaking only for myself, IANAL) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:32 PM EDT

Guys, docket 846 is the official jury verdict form. It has one checkbox checked on it (*Suitable for framing*). Docket 847 is fifty pages of official jury instructions: I believe I'm going to fire up the printer and do just exactly that. [ Reply to This | # ]



Suitable for framing - Authored by: zdvflyer on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:02 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:32 PM EDT

1. Cahn keeps going because he fears a legal harassment from the "SCO"

side more than IBM, Novell, Red Hat, remaining SCO shareholders and creditors

side. He also knows that the "SCO" side is so afraid that someone will

come up with more money.



2. Judge Stewart considers awarding specific performance just to return the

favor the CoA provided him, maybe even have them overturned in the Supreme

Court.



3. If SCO can't win in Utah, with a jury, with fine lawyering, and with Stewart

giving them pert'near anything that had a ghost's chance of grounds for appeal,

where are

they to draw inspiration for slogging on?



4. Jurors that don't have to worry about being sued by SCO, they can be a little

more decisive. Yay juries!



5. SCO's best chance was jury tampering. It's nice to see that our community

made this bug dangerously shallow. Three cheers for our reporters and the way

they comport themselves! Hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray, hip hip hurray!

And to my fellow Groklawers thanks for being awesome.



6. SCO finds a way to spin this as vindication.



7. I hope PJ gets some hugs out of this. I'd be hard pressed not to hug her if I

ever met her. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Guil Rarey on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:36 PM EDT

Re: Settlements



Executive summary: Ain't happening.



Fuller explanation:



The marketing and strategic value of seeing these suits through to the end and a

final vindication on the undoubted merits vastly outweighs the cost of

litigation to both IBM and Novell, not to mention Red Hat.



You will not get a dime in nuisance money from anyone.



The only settlement terms likely available to you amount to abject surrender on

your part and participation in the pursuit of the people who sponsored this

attempted extortion racket in the first place.



Time to quit while you're behind.







---

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: Zarkov on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:41 PM EDT

SCO will ask U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart to award the copyrights to SCO "even if we didn't have them before," he said. "It's a setback, but it's not over." Here's what he's referring to, the issues the parties agreed would be decided by the judge, not the jury. It's the next step. One of the issues is specific performance, meaning that SCO wants to argue that even if they didn't get the copyrights, they were entitled under the APA and Amendment 2 to ask for the copyrights if they needed. Like now, I gather. Here's the judge's order [PDF] on their various requests. But here's a question. If it's true, as Singer reportedly told the jury in his closing argument, that SCOsource is dead and can't be revived now, why do they need the copyrights? For what use? This has to be a last desperate plea to stay in the game surely? SCO need the copyrights to maintain its status to the IBM litigation. Without the copyrights all SCO can hope for is not to be eaten too quickly by IBM's counter-claims... Also, if Judge Stewart hands the copyrights over to SCO, they win on two fronts: They keep the litigation lottery alive, and at worst they have something to sell to some other troll who might have better luck than them... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bjnord on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:43 PM EDT

I wish we had had 847 (the jury instructions) before the trial started. (I know,

I know, they weren't done yet, and we wouldn't get them anyway.) They provide a

clear roadmap of what SCO had to prove -- as I read them, there were a lot of

"aha, so that's why they had <foo> testify about <bar>"

moments.



Long, but well worth reading. I'm still learning about the law after all these

years -- the main reason I've enjoyed Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]



Jury Instructions (847) are fascinating - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:04 AM EDT

Authored by: Lazarus on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM EDT

Play them off, keyboard cat!





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eGQ5VFt7P4&feature=related





(I may try to make an SCO specific Keyboard Cat.)



---

I have no opinion on things I know nothing about.



This separates me from 90% of the human race, and 100% of politicians. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 09:59 PM EDT

I hope the Bankruptcy Judge wakes up after hearing this bit of news.



I hope he realizes that the game is OVER. The litigation game is DONE.



I hope he moves SCO into Chapter 7.



Otherwise, the bankruptcy courts are a farce. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Nice Kitty on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:00 PM EDT

As I wrote, perhaps a half-hour or so ago in some slightly-obscure NNTP

newsgroup:



*FINALLY*.



Oh wait... when/where SCO is concerned, "finally" is *never*

"finally" (as in "How long will SCO drag this

s#it out on appeal?").



Pamela Jones is probably doing backwards

somersaults ; - )



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:04 PM EDT

Comments here and even lawyers for both sides talked about Amendment 2 excluding

all copyrights except what SCO needed for their business. That's not what it

says. It excludes all copyrights except those that are required for SCO to

exercise their rights with respect to the acquisition.



This gives Singer a powerful argument to use. The jury decided that the APA plus

Amendment 2 did not transfer any copyrights. Naive logic would conclude that the

jury interpreted Amendment 2 as saying that copyrights would have transferred if

any of them were necessary for anything that was being acquired by SCO via that

APA, but in their opinion there were no such copyrights so none were excluded

from the exclusion.



But that would not be SCO logic. If Judge Stewart would only rule that Novell is

required to hand over all the copyrights, then that would make copyrights part

of the Acquisition. Naturally in order to exercise their rights with respect to

the acquisition of the copyrights, SCO would require the copyrights. Therefore

all the copyrights would be included in the set of copyrights included in the

exclusion phrase in the exclusion clause 1.1b.



This would not contradict the finding of the jury, because at the time the jury

found that copyrights were not transferred by the APA plus Amendment 2, they

really had not transferred. That will all change when Judge Stewart grants SCO's

request regarding specific performance, as that will change what is included in

"with respect to the acquisition". Since the APA and Amendment 2 were

written before the trial even began, Judge Stewart's decision by changing the

meaning of the word Acquisition as defined in the APA will have a retroactive

effect, erasing the jury decision as if it never happened. Slam dunk for SCO.



Don't worry, though. By making the jury decision as if it never happened, that

will open the door for Novell to take it back to the 10th Circuit on the grounds

that the appeals decision required the issue to be remanded to the District

Court to be decided by a jury. The 10th Circuit will have to send everything

back to Judge Stewart for a jury trial. Because everything will have been reset,

they will have to repeat the same trial with the same arguments with the same

results.



As everyone knows, changing the past like this is liable to create a time loop.

Luckily before the start of the loop Novell was able to get their petition for

cert to the Supreme Court. If it is granted, the Supreme Court will have the

power to break the loop. Otherwise we are doomed to read Groklaw articles about

the trial over and over and over and...

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Rollyk on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 10:47 PM EDT

Thank you Pamela Jones ! PJ ! Rules !

Your persistence has paid off, for us, the faithful silent crowd that has

followed you through the slights and slanders.

You have helped the "Open Source" community towards an even greater

victory.

Getting rid of abused "patent protection" .



Wish there was a victory party !



---

pay now, or pay later, there's no free lunch. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:43 AM EDT

It seems like for every step forward for Novell there is a

step back.



http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/20114

83078_msftnovell31.html



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:51 AM EDT

I'm sure he had a pleasant day. He deserved it and the hurrah [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:54 AM EDT

Doesn't the verdict make the appeal to the SC moot?

What happens to that now?



I know not really relevant but I am curious. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:05 AM EDT

So SCO gets double dibbs. If they don't get the copyrights, they get a second

chance to ask the judge just to give it to them. Nice strategy. I hope it

fails. SCO shouldn't get 2 shots at the copyrights, acutally 3 because the lost

the first time, then lost to a jury and now are trying to get a 3rd shot by

willy nilly asking the judge to make Novell hand them over and void the very

powerful language in the contract. Novell can Waive. SCO will beg Judge Stewart

to condone their extortion racket. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: hsjones on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:06 AM EDT

Wow... It's been so long since I've logged in to Groklaw! It was once my favorite recreational activity! I can't believe it's been so long, and yet the facts remain exactly as we all understood them to be five years ago... but now with a jury verdict. Amazing. I summarized my thoughts on today's news on my blog. I invite you all to please go there and read what I said: http://s jones.prblogs.org/2010/03/30/novell-still-owns-unix-duh/ Thanks and... Peace! Scott Jones Former Product Line Manager, Novell, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:34 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:48 AM EDT

The news came when I had my beauty sleep, and was updated four times.



Great news!!!



Excellent!



Brilliant morning!



Congrats to each and everyone involved!







. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: symbolset on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 01:57 AM EDT

I want a Groklaw book. A story, from the PJ POV, that documents this disaster from beginning to end. PJ, give us a book! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 02:19 AM EDT

I was one of those people who was critical of the way Judge Stewart was

conducting the trial. It appears that he was smarter than all of us. In

hindsight it would be surprising if he hadn't read through all the previous

court deliberation. He knew what he had to do. Don't give SCO the slightest hint

of an appeal-able decision on his part. He had full confidence in the jury and

didn't mind if he appeared to be biased against Novell. He wasn't concerned

about a Novell appeal.



Of course, his follow-up decisions will be the yardstick but I fully expect that

they will now go Novell's way. Let's see.



Other posters are talking about the IBM case. It won't happen. SCO are out of

money. They're dead in the water. The trustee is merely going through the

motions. He is saying what he has to say in his position. He can't be seen to be

throwing in the towel. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:41 AM EDT

SCO Group Inc. (SCOXQ.PK) 30 Mar: 0.10 $

Volume: Mar 30 2010 3,963,700



http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=SCOXQ.PK#chart1:symbol=scoxq.pk;range=6m;i

ndicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=unde

fined



---

RMS: The 4 Freedoms

0 run the program for any purpose

1 study the source code and change it

2 make copies and distribute them

3 publish modified versions



[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: thorpie on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 03:43 AM EDT

There are many previous comments that Stewart now has to decide a number of

issues.

But hasn't Kimball already decided them?

If the appellate court passed back only the items that needed a jury, and these

has now been decided as per how Kimball initially ruled, why does SCO have a

second pick at anything else?

Surely Kimball's rulings on all other matters should now simply be affirmed.

And there wasn't anything else left, was there?



---

The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime -

Floyd, Pink [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:01 AM EDT

Anyway, some time in February or March, 2004 I forecast that Novell would win the jury trial. Unfortunately, I cannot find the text using the Groklaw search engine, but my next door neighbour says that's what he remembers happening and the girl at the checkout says she can't believe it could be any other way. So, just give me my props.



This has never been about the money. It is about the principle. BS&F owe it to the US court system to take this to appeal and to oppose the Supreme Court review. SCOG have $2MM which is more than enough to cover the expenses as long as they get rid of the staff not essential to the litigation and the financial reports. BS&F must pay for the actual legal costs under the capped fee agreement with SCOG. Of course, SCOG must stay in Chapter 11 until this is done. It may be wise to sell off all their assets other than the litigation in order to make this possible.



The judge stayed certain issues for judicial efficiency while they were heard in the arbitration. I think they all stem from this part of SCOG's second amended claims; the ones that triggered the arbitration in the first place. 45. The "core products" and "core application server offerings" referenced in the APA and TLA, respectively, refer to the UNIX and UnixWare operating systems owned by Santa Cruz upon the closing date. Even before acquiring the UNIX source code, Santa Cruz had been primarily involved in the business of distributing UNIX in binary form, so that with the acquisition of the UNIX and UnixWare source code and copyrights, the UNIX and UnixWare operating systems undoubtedly represented Santa Cruz's "core products."



In addition, as of the closing date, Santa Cruz had no "application server offering" other than UNIX and UnixWare operating systems.



46. On November 4, 2003, Novell announced its acquisition of SuSE Linux, one of the world's leading distributors of Linux. Since that time, Novell began distributing Linux worldwide.



47. On December 22, 2005, SCO filed with the Court in the SCO v. IBM case a compilation of 293 disclosures of technology which IBM has made to enhance Linux (in violation of its agreements with SCO) with the stated objective of making Linux a more enterprise-hardened operating system.



48. Linux contains SCO's UNIX technology, including unauthorized UNIX System V source code, derivatives and modifications, methods and concepts contributed to Linux by IBM in violation of its license agreements with SCO. Thus, Linux contains the Licensed Technology which, pursuant to Section 1.6 of the APA and Section II.A.(2) of the TLA, Novell covenanted not to distribute in an operating system.



49. As a general-purpose operating system, Linux is "directly competitive" with SCO's core application server offerings.



50. Furthermore, the measure of UNIX technology in Linux far exceeds the trivial portions that the parties intended Novell was authorized to use, in Netware, pursuant to the TLA. Whereas UNIX became enterprise-ready after decades of development, Linux matured into a powerful enterprise-ready operating system in a few years, due primarily to the UNIX technology wrongly contributed by IBM into Linux.



50. Novell therefore breached Section 1.6 of the APA and Section II.A.(2) of the TLA.



52. Novell has also infringed and continues to infringe SCO's copyrights in UNIX by copying, reproducing, modifying, sublicensing, and/or distributing UNIX intellectual property as part of its Linux business. This all revolves around the copyrights and technologies held by Novell before the closing date. It is in two parts; the non-compete provisions allegedly violated by Novell distributing SVrX technology in Linux and the copyright violation for the same reason. The jury trial finds that the copyrights are still held by Novell. Thus, the copyright violation claim in para. 52 fails. Judge Stewart can settle that now which leaves just the rest, which I think is part of the specific performance issue that will be heard by the judge. If not, it has fallen through the cracks.



If it remains, it might have to be stayed until after the IBM trial. On the other hand, if Judge Stewart decides that Novell is entitled to its waiver SCOG's claims about IBM putting SVrX into Linux in contravention of their contract cannot be proven in court and the claim fails. If IBM proceeds, as Cahn is saying it will, then the Novell case remains stayed by this issue. In their amended claims against IBM, SCOG withdrew claims that IBM put SVrX copyrighted code into Linux. The issue left in IBM is whether they are prohibited by the contract from putting code that IBM own into Linux. Whatever the outcome, the IBM owned code is not part of the technologies owned by Santa Cruz at the APA closing date and is not subject to the non-compete clauses.



Please note that Novell is not liable for distributing Linux with 'derivatives and modifications, methods and concepts' contributed by IBM since that is a contractual issue between IBM and SCOG. They might, however, still be liable under the non-compete claim.



Just in passing, I note that SCOG lied in para. 45. At the time of closing Santa Cruz had the Open Server "application server offering" based, I think, on Microsoft's Xenix. I happen to know they were still paying royalties to Microsoft to use the technology. If they did not have at least one "application server offering" then they would have breached the merged product part of the APA agreement.



I do hope that the expenses money holds out until all this is done!



---

Regards

Ian Al



I sentence you to seven years, or more with good behaviour. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:05 AM EDT

Finally, a stake in the heart of Darlcula McBride.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:17 AM EDT

You've taken a heck of a lot of abuse over the years for

keeping us informed on the SCO saga. And the amount of time

and money you've put in is heroic. Thank you from the bottom

of my heart for fighting the good fight. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 04:39 AM EDT

This shows Cahn hasn't been doing his homework. Everything he needed to know

was in Kimball's August 10, 2007 ruling. I thought the primary duty of his

appointment was to get to grips with the SCO litigation and offer top-quality

advice and guidance on it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 05:01 AM EDT

I think I have managed to get in first. If not, I apologise. What a remarkable job they have done, and Sterling Brennan with Workman. Just amazing to watch. Was it not a pleasure? Yes, PJ, it was just like being there, with additional commentary by our studio expert.



It's not over yet, but this seems a good time to celebrate the wonderful job our reporters and PJ have done throughout the trial, so far.



---

Regards

Ian Al



I sentence you to seven years, or more with good behaviour. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:11 AM EDT

SGOG wants Judge Stewart to transfer the copyrights now, based on APA+2. But the

copyrights at issue are "copyrights needed for the acquisition of the

business."



*Did APA+2 transfer any copyrights? No (per the Jury.)

*Did oldSCO acquire the business? Yes.

*Was this acquisition completed before oldSCO sold the business to Caldera?

Yes.



Conclusion: oldSCO did not need any of these copyrights to acquire the business.

But this is the acquisition that was referred to in APA+2. Therefore, There are

no copyrights that transfer at any later time. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: sonicfrog on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 06:52 AM EDT

As a Linux user and advocate since 2000, I remember the chill that developed

when SCO first announced the infringement of "millions of lines of

code". Once it became clear that no such examples could be shown I was

sure

the lawsuit would quickly fade away. Well, this is why I don't gamble much.But

It as been a frustrating seven years, but that only make this decision even

more

delicious.



And yet, they still want to sue some more.... though at this point this is more

entertainment value than anything else.



Anyway, thank you PJ for being the lone voice of reason in an otherwise murky

world of law. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: iraskygazer on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:05 AM EDT

It seems that the SCO lawyers are following this saying:

The bigger the lie the more believable. Or, keep telling a lie long enough and

people will begin to believe it as though it were the truth; only because it has

been so long that nobody can remember what the truth was.



If SCO is issued the copyrights now it proves the judge is not on the side of

justice and truth. You don't simply take something from one entity and give it

to another, this is considered theft in most jurisdictions. But then again, the

federal government started doing that, out in the open, over the passed 2 weeks.

Can't expect the judge to act any different than the federal lawmakers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:06 AM EDT

Kimball said that SVRX copyrights were not needed for SCOsource therefore Novell

couldn't claim any SCOsource revenue.



If SCO argue that specific performance should be made with regard to these

copyrights could that open the door for Kimball's decision that the SVRX

copyrights are not a part of a SCOsource licence (and therefore Novell's claim

on SCOsource revenue) to be overturned?



j [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: BobDowling on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:52 AM EDT

If Novell wins in the non-jury component of this case it will presumably claim legal costs against SCO. If they are granted where are they in the pecking order? We currently have Novell's converted [=stolen] money, Yarro's privileged repayments, ordinary creditors, SCO's legal fees, and also Novell's. What order do they come in? Does the amount of money owed to Novell in relation to other creditors change the influence they have on the bankrupcy? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 07:58 AM EDT

So, when is SCO obligated to remove the information from their website stating

that they believe they own the copyrights? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: kinrite on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:29 AM EDT

Whilst juries may be unpredictable if you desire to manipulate them, they seem

to be the best method we have at getting to a fair decision in disputes.

I am less than impressed with Cahn. What must he have been like as a Judge? In

the real world he seems to be clueless.



---

"Truth is like energy...it can not be created, nor destroyed" [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:39 AM EDT

Judge Gross has agreed with everything SCO has wanted. Why would now be any

different?. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:00 AM EDT

The verdict is signed by a member of the jury. It was

my impression that the identity of jurors was supposed

to be protected.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dobbo on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:08 AM EDT

Okay, I've donned my asbestos underwear; I'm ready for the flame war that this post may provoke. First I will say that am glad, very glad, that Novell won. I use Linux a lot and I do not want to see it's development and use harmed in any way. But this isn't the important case because there is more to the FLOSS software stack than just Linux! This case has been about kernel code, and we have a drop in replacement for Linux. Anyone of the BSDs could be used. Most of the software that works on Linux already does run on, or could be easily ported to, a BSD API. And let's not to forget OpenSolaris, although I don't like it's T&Cs nearly as much. So the important case is the IBM one. In it's counterclaims IBM site the GPL about six times; it's almost as if they wanted to prove the GPL a strong license in a court of law! In fact that is what I think they do want. At the beginning of all this I read on Eblen Moglen's site that a license is stronger once it has been ratified in a court of law. Given that IBM's decision to fight make a lot of sense. And a proven GPL is far more important because so much free software is licensed under it. And if the GPL is ratified I think this will help the other FLOSS licenses as well as they all aim to do pretty much the same thing. So lets not call this whole think over just yet. If Judge Stewart awards the copyrights to SCO then won't that allow SCO to continue it's fight against IBM? And as PJ has pointed out in the past, the IBM counterclaims are far more damaging to SCO than SCO's claims against IBM. So I for one hope that SCO do continue, as long as this means that IBM gets its day in court. Because that, for me, is where the important stuff as far as the free software community is to be done. Dobbo [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: peope on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:15 AM EDT

I am really happy about the verdict.

And the limitations of frivolous lawsuits when SCOX no longer (reasonably) no

longer can claim copyrights to GNU/Linux.



However. There was never any infringements on GNU/Linux shown.



Even if SCOX would have had the copyrights and sold it to another litigation

party they still would have no claims in GNU/Linux. And if they by some fault

would have. It could be removed.



The law need to be such that really unknowing copyright infringement does not

exist.



Somebody should show that there is a copyright infringement and/or the infringer

should be aware of some specific copyright being infringed. Not just say (There

is some code in there that is ours).



This whole circus is an abuse of resources better spent on doing something

productive for the society or for people. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:33 AM EDT

I haven't been following the court case very closely but have been following the

story since the verdict but am confused by the request by SCO still in front of

the judge to award them the copyrights. How, why, could, the judge award the

copyrights to SCO? I'm not going to say that if the judge did this it would

overturn the jury verdict but I am left wondering that if that were to happen

then what was the purpose of having a jury rule? I am probably missing

something basic here so... I am just trying to understand why or how there is

still something undecided. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:54 AM EDT

I think this is a Groklaw record.



I strongly suspect Edward Cahn mis-spoke when he said SCO was going to continue

the suit against IBM.



Novell had the right, and did waive the contract dispute against IBM. That was

Judge Kimball's decision, and was only in question if Copyrights transfered to

SCO. The appeals court only said that the issue of copyrights transferring was

something for a jury to decide. They did not reverse anything.



Edward Cahn has no basis for continuing the suit against IBM, unless he is

claiming IBM transfered Unixware code developed after SCO bought the Unix

business, and discovery was all about Unix code, not Unixware code, so the

evidence he has has got to be non-existant. I suspect the smartest thing he can

do is to see if he can get the IBM case dropped without facing all those

counterclaims and legal fees. He is woefully mis-informed.



Maybe he can sell the business to Darl for another thirty five thousand. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Guil Rarey on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:56 AM EDT

Here's the link to the status reports from IBM and SCO filed regarding the state of their case after Judge Kimball's rulings in SCO v Novell which triggered SCO's bankruptcy filing. IBM and SCO File Reports on What They Think Remains in That Case Now of course the ground has shifted back and forth a little since then, but probably not as much as SCO would hope. We'll have to review and factor in those changes to see where we are, but Judge Cahn, if you're reading, you're not goinjg to like what you see. ---

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: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:06 AM EDT

With the sudden surge of attention in the wake of SCO losing in court, it looks

like the Skyline Cowboy lost his nerve.



The site now redirects here:



http://www.gtrnissanskyline.com/



Aw!



If you boys kick your legs up behind you any higher, you're likely to get spurs

stuck in your voluminous posteriors!



Thanks for the laffs.



---

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:12 AM EDT

Congratulations Novell.



Thank you, everyone, at Groklaw [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: bb5ch39t on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:19 AM EDT

NZ no software patents bill - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:06 PM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:27 AM EDT

I understood this was something the judge was to decide himself (ie; no jury).

Does anyone know how long it might be before a ruling is given or is this going

to turn into another long fiasco involving dozens of lawyers, another jury trial

and years of litigation?. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:29 AM EDT

Novell has spent millions of dollars to defend against SCOG.

Questions:

*Will Novell ask the judge to make SCOG pay these fees?

*Will the judge agree?

*Are these considered pre-petition or post-petition debts to SCOG, or are

they allocated based on when Novell spent the money?

* Where in the priority order of the creditor list do they go? [ Reply to This | # ]



Novell's legal fees? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:13 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:32 AM EDT

I had thought that a jury verdict in favor of Novell would pretty much end this

fiasco.



However, now I'm more confused than ever! What happens next? This is madness! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:46 AM EDT

In regard to the specific performance issues and SCO's need for the copyright

transfers: Santa Cruz could not afford the copyrights in the first place. This



is why the copyrights were never transferred.



Thus, if SCO wants the copyrights now they have to:



1. Prove there is a UNIX Business need for them. But Darl said in court that

there was no need for copyrights for running the UNIX Business - thus

stubbing SCO right in the foot.



2. SCO will have to pay Novell's current PRICE for the copyrights if it can

afford them. Since SCO wanted the copyrights thinking they were worth

billions, then obviouslly, Novell should charge SCO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS for

the copyrights - PAYABLE UP FRONT. This is only fair. SCO PAYS NOVELL UP

FRONT FOR THE WORTH OF THE COPYRIGHTS - which are worth billions since

SCO wants other companies to pay it billions of dollars after suing them.

Tough luck for SCO's lawyers on the cost issue. Obviously, the copyrights

won't be given to them for free if they are worth billions.



These two conditions SCO can never meet. Case closed. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 10:49 AM EDT

I wore a red shirt to work today.



Anybody else? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Jeffrey on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:16 AM EDT

Thank you to everyone who works so hard to make Groklaw what it is. I read it everyday that I can, often several times each day. I HOPE that this is the beginning of the end of this chapter on Groklaw. Still, there are so many new chapters to follow. PJ - You will be remembered as one of the first, if not THE first, to apply FOSS principles to news/information management. The truth has a chance here, because it the truth that is under the light, not opinion. Huge kudos!!! Huge thanks!!! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:28 AM EDT

So, if sco asks the judge to transfer the copyrights under specific

performance,(to enable scosource) isn't Novells monkey wrench 95% belongs to us [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:34 AM EDT

A friend at Novell just informed me that although the verdict against SCO was

great, they also had their case against Microsoft (re: WordPerfect) tossed out

of court on summary judgement on the same day. Ironically, the judge ruled that

Novell no longer owns the claims and cannot pursue them. Even more ironic, the

court ruled that Novell had assigned their antitrust claims years ago via APA to

none other than Caldera! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT

1. Plaintiffs slander of title claim against Defendant should be tried to the jury;

2. Defendants slander of title claim against Plaintiff should be tried to the jury;

3. Plaintiffs remaining claim that Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should be tried to the Court;

4. The Court should declare Defendants rights under § 4.16 of the APA;

5. Plaintiffs claim for specific performance should be tried to the Court; and

6. If Defendants unclean hands defense is tried, it should be tried to the Court. 1 and 2 are gone. 3 - ? don't know what is involved with this one ? 4 - I believe this is whether Novell can interfere between SCO and IBM 5 - Whether SCO should now get some copyrights 6 - Whether SCO broke the agreement first (is this still in play?) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 11:50 AM EDT

And the last stage of the trial is Stewart's call.



I think he should maybe give the Unixware copyrights on their modified source

code (back) to SCO. Novell really did not want those anyway, I think. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:04 PM EDT

The outlook wasn't brilliant for Caldera and its crew,

A Lindon, Utah, software firm that hadn't got a clue.

A Unix on the Intel chip could generate some dough

But no one there could figure out a way to make it go.



Since Unix was historical and Linux was brand-new

To link them to each other was the best that they could do.

To build an honest business was not something they could master

And every shortcut to success led only to disaster.



Now which of those two said it first they never will reveal,

But Yarrow and McBride together came up with this deal,

Where a certain friendly party would supply the needed loot

For a lawsuit to kill Linux, and a pump-and-dump, to boot.



So they studied all their contracts, and they combed through all the laws,

And they picked and chose the paragraphs that seemed to suit their cause.

They found an ambiguity on which their case could hinge

And announced that they were suing Linux users who infringe.



Then Yarrow said to Darl McBride, "Go sue a Linux user

"For you are a famous and mendacious civil law abuser.

"Whatever copyrights and patents that you think you'll need,

"Purchase them and file the registrations with all speed."



So Darl attacked the problem with his customary zeal.

He sent out fifteen hundred letters (printed, to look real),

And most of those who got them tried to find out what they meant,

And why the content was so vague, and why they had been sent.



That same friend who financed the case provided something more:

The threat of war is always more effective than a war.

Instead of telling people why he wanted cash from them,

Darl publicly announced that he was suing IBM.



"Millions of lines in Linux are our property!" Darl crowed,

And "Talk is cheap," said Linus in reply, "Show me the

code."

But though the court-- and IBM-- demanded, asked, and begged,

Darl McBride would not disclose on what his claims were pegged.



"My daddy gave me good advice I never will forget:

"You don't reveal your cards until the suckers have all bet."

Judge Kimball issued deadlines with the patience of a saint,

While Darl McBride reset the clock by changing his complaint.



The court remarked that it was like denouncing as a crook

A random bystander, without describing what he took.

Then Darl said, "Well, our case may be an unsupported mess,

"But you don't need evidence to sell your story to the press."



Just then the chiefs of Novell noticed something smelling bad:

Their company was threatened, too, for Novell also had

Their own -- well, purchased -- distro, and a plan to make it pay.

This parasite was scaring all their customers away!



Ironically, McBride was pinning all his hopes for the big kill

On copyrights that Novell once had sold for fifty mill.

Except-- on close inspection of the contract, second pass,

Apparently, they hadn't. Well, now, wasn't that a gas.



Thus Novell wrote a letter to their rival, SCO,

Instructing them, in re infringement lawsuit: let it go.

But Darl, instead of backing off, rose up in perfect dander

In public and the trade press, and then sued Novell for slander.



The first court ruled that witnesses do not need to be polled;

The sales agreement clearly states no copyrights were sold.

Now, anyone would know, who has a lawyer for a brother,

If one court rules against you, you can always find another.



And so a jury had to hear Novell being maligned

As they defended once again the contract that they signed,

While SCO described their absurd view of the affair

With witness after witness, not a one of whom was there.



Today will see the ruling on Novell's nefarious deeds,

And how they tried to denigrate the evidence Darl needs.

Our pens are poised-- our breath is halt-- we've camped out here for weeks--

And now the jury has returned; and now, the Foreman speaks!



Oh somewhere in this glorious land inventors ply their trade,

And somewhere men enjoy the fruits of what their minds have made,

And golden are the shining days and joyous are the nights--

But there is no joy in Lindon: McBride never bought the rights.



-Wang-Lo.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rfrazier on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 12:19 PM EDT

1. According to the CoA, extrinsic evidence can be taken into account in

deciding whether copyright has transferred. Surely then it can be taken into

account in deciding under what conditions it was envisaged that the copyrights

might be needed for the Unix business, perhaps by considering what folks then
