Novell Files for Summary Judgment Against SCO 112
rm69990 writes "Novell filed a motion with Judge Dale Kimball asking him to grant summary judgment or a preliminary injunction on Novell's claims that SCO wrongfully retained the money it received from Microsoft and Sun for their SVRX licensing and sublicensing agreements. Novell indicated over a year ago, when they initially filed their counterclaims against SCO, that they were planning on asking Judge Kimball to force SCO to turn over these monies. However, Novell only recently received the actual licensing agreements between SCO, Sun and Microsoft through discovery, despite demanding copies of them as early as 2003, and thus was unable to determine that SCO had breached the APA until now, which is why this motion is being filed so late in the case. This motion will likely bankrupt SCO if granted."
Jailtime for Darl (Score:2, Interesting)
I think option 4, the senior execs attempted to defraud stockholders in a pump and dump, fraudulently attempted to obtain money from autozone and dailmer and launched into damaging media tirades that were damaging to linux. Does anyone see this differently?
Too Bad It Won't Go (Score:5, Interesting)
In a case like this, though, where the facts and evidence are sure to be the crux of matters, there is no way the judge will grant it, which is unfortunate.
the Baystar connection .. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft"
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060929
Re:If it's granted, what happens to the IBM case? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Business implications? (Score:3, Interesting)
'Bout Damn Time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Business implications? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the Novell-SCO Asset Purchase Agreement:
1.1 Purchase of Assets (a) ends with: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Assets to be so purchased shall not include those assets (the "Excluded Assets") set forth on Schedule 1.1 (b)".
And further down Schedule 1.1 (b) Excluded Assets (Page 2 of 2) contains the following:
V. Intellectual Property:
A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare.
B. All Patents.
(Source: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031110
Well, not quite (Score:1, Interesting)
In the 2.0.36 kernel tree there is a file in the net section where the ppl admit they took it from FreeBSD and then removed the BSD copyright.
And the ATA code came from BSD/no it did flap a few years ago.
So not everyone's hands are clean in the Linux kernel in the past.
There is a likelyhood of shared code, but is 3 lines 'infringement'? 1 line? 30? 3000? 300,000?
It would be best that there is no code. But being able to be shown what code may have questionable parentage and fix that would also be acceptable.