Novell filed a flurry of summary judgment motions earlier this week in its ongoing legal battle with SCO. Summary judgment motions, which are filed after the discovery phase but before a case goes to trial, are awarded when undisputed material facts nullify the need for a full trial to evaluate specific claims. With the discovery phase out of the way, Novell is once again asserting that SCO's claims regarding UNIX ownership are baseless and not substantiated by fact.

The question is whether or not a contractual Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) between SCO and Novell from 1995 included UNIX copyrights. On this matter, SCO's argument revolves around Schedule 1.1(a) of the APA, which enumerates the UNIX and UnixWare assets conveyed from Novell to SCO. As Groklaw has reported in the past, Schedule 1.1(a) of the APA specifically lists licenses, claims, binaries, test data, and several other things, but not copyrights. In Schedule 1.1(b), which enumerates the assets excluded from the agreement, the APA clearly and explicitly excludes "all copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare," and "all patents."

How does SCO justify its belief that Novell handed over UNIX copyrights? During discovery, the company offered the deposition of Kim Madsen, a SCO office manager who didn't directly participate in the negotiations in any capacity and never heard copyrights discussed at all by her own admission. SCO bases its claims of UNIX ownership on Madsen's personal belief that the language in Schedule 1.1(a) implied transfer of copyright ownership, despite the fact that Schedule 1.1(b) clearly indicates that copyrights and patents were not included in the agreement.

SCO's UNIX ownership claim could only be described as incomprehensibly vacuous, which means that it is roughly on par with just about everything else SCO has said during its litigious reign of terror. Novell's filing points out that the integration clause in the APA—which states that the text of the agreement is the sole basis for the agreement—makes evidence regarding the perceptions of others (like Kim Madsen) regarding legal intent inadmissible and irrelevant.

We have previously revealed that SCO's infringement allegations against IBM amount to nothing, and no evidence emerged during the discovery process to substantiate SCO's claims of UNIX ownership. One must marvel at the determination a company to drag out multiple cases for years on the basis of overtly baseless fabrications. A favorable ruling for Novell would also spell the death of SCO's case against IBM. The trial in SCO v. IBM has been postponed until the conclusion of the Novell case, as a Novell victory would undermine SCO's position against IBM—if Novell owns the copyrights to Unix, SCO has no legal standing to bring a case against IBM.

SCO's case has obviously imploded, and the legal onslaught could soon come to a close. SCO's revenue is still rapidly declining as a result of decreasing UNIX sales and the company has admitted that it may not be able to remain liquid past October. With SCO's hopes for legal salvation obliterated and UNIX revenue continuing to decline, it may be time for SCO executives to move on to more practical endeavors, like claiming ownership rights of rickety shopping carts filled with aluminum cans, cardboard box domiciles in deserted alleyways, and handmade signs that read "will work for litigation money."