Novell Pulls Out Their Ace Against SCO 433
mattOzan writes "Groklaw is reporting that Novell has just filed a reply with an exhibit in support of their motion to dismiss SCO's complaint. The exhibit consists of "1995 minutes from the corporate kit of a meeting of the Board of Directors, which clearly and unequivocably say that Novell was to retain the UNIX copyrights in the sale to Santa Cruz that year."
Does that mean . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yes, (Score:5, Funny)
Ok (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ok (Score:4, Funny)
or del /s c:\*.*
Somehow I get the feeling that isn't likely to work on a machine you just ssh'd into...
Re:Ok (Score:4, Informative)
Why not? http://sshwindows.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] Just because 99.99% of ssh servers out there aren't windows doesn't mean it's not possible.
Re:Does that mean . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Groklaw coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Trump card? Submitter is a bit off... (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly, the corporate kit isn't much of anything new (see Groklaw if you want to know what the hell the kit is--PJ explains it well). Novell already lined up pretty damn near everyone who had anything to do with that agreement to testify that SCO is full of it. SCO found *ONE* person who was part of the early part of the deal, who LEFT during it, and wasn't really able to contradict any of what Novell's witnesses said anyhow. Yeah, I know, it really does go to show you that Novell's stance on what they own isn't new, but they've already established this to my satisfaction six ways from Sunday...
Now then, let's go on to the actual trump card. Novell found SCO including information outside of its original complaint. So what, you're probably thinking, but this is important. Due to some legal stuff (rules on parole evidence or something), Novell found a case that calls doing what SCO did a poor tactical maneuver. Basically, because of the crazy court rules for these things, the Court can convert Novell's motion for dismissal to one for summary judgement.
If they dismiss it (as they would now), SCO could refile with new, weird allegations they pull out of a hat (unless the judge dismisses it with prejudice, but then they have to show that *no* set of claims SCO could make could prevail... hard to do without ruling on the facts of the case, not just the law, as the jury has dominion over the facts).
If they go the summary judgement route, as Novell is urging, the Court gets to rule on the case here & now. Forget further wrangling, with that, the Court could rule on the case directly and SCO would have to appeal if the ruling went against it.
Now then, I don't claim to be a lawyer (I just read Groklaw, which is about as close as Slashdot often gets to having one), so I have no idea whether or not the Court will buy this. All I know is that it's an opportunity for the Court to get rid of SCO; something I'd do in a heartbeat, personally.
Re:Trump card? Submitter is a bit off... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, that's just good lawyering, and they do have good lawyers.
Score: -1, Oxymoron
The IBM case won't be going away... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does that mean . . . (Score:5, Funny)
well guess that's it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:well guess that's it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:well guess that's it (Score:5, Funny)
Dave - you're still there? Jeez, sorry we forgot to give you the solvent! Did you graduate?
Re:well guess that's it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:well guess that's it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well guess that's it (Score:5, Funny)
At least Bill Gates didn't have the ego to name an OS after himself like Linus did!
Perhaps that's because he didn't write it?
Re:well guess that's it (Score:4, Funny)
Dumb question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad publicity is still publicity.
In the words of GWB - Mission accomplished!
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's true. In any business negotiation you must presume that the other guy is just as big a dick as you are and is trying to fuck you over just like you are trying to fuck them over.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Funny)
Religion -easily- has the Greatest Bullshit Story Ever Told! Think about it: religion has actually convinced people -many of them adults- that there's an invisible man who lives in the sky and watches everything you dot every minute of every day. And who has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.
And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to remain and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry, forever and ever, till the end of time. But he loves you!
He loves yout and he needs money! He always needs money. He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, but somehow.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Funny)
E Pluribus Bullshit
Every time you're exposed to advertising in America you're reminded that
this country's most profitable business is still the manufacture, packaging,
distribution, and marketing of bullshit. High-quality, grade-A, prime-cut,
pure American bullshit.
And the sad part is that most people seem to believe bullshit only comes
from certain predictable sources: advertising, politics, salesmen, and
lawyers. Not true. Bullshit is everywhere. Bullshit is rampant. Parents are
full of shit, teachers are full of shit, clergymen are full of shit, and law
enforcement is full of shit. This entire country is completely full of
shit-and always has been. From the Declaration of Independence to the
Constitution to the "Star Spangled Banner," it's nothing more than one big,
steaming pile of red-white-and-blue, all-American bullshit.
Think of how it all started: America was founded by slave owners who
informed us, "All men are created equal." All "men," except Indians,
niggers, and women. Remember, the founders were a small group of unelected,
white, male, land-holding slave owners who also, by the way, suggested their
class be the only one allowed to vote. To my mind, that is what's known as
being stunningly-and embarrassingly-full of shit. And everybody bought it.
All Americans bought it.
And those same Americans continue to show their ignorance with all this
nonsense about wanting their politicians to be honest. What are these
cretins thinking? Do they realize what they're wishing for? If honesty were
suddenly introduced into American life, everything would collapse. It would
destroy this country, because our system is based on an intricate and
delicately balanced system of lies.
And I think that somehow, deep down, Americans understand this. That's why
they elected -and reelected- Bill Clinton. Because given a choice, Americans
prefer their bullshit right out front, where they can get a good, strong
whiff of it. Clinton may have been full of shit, but at least he let you
know it. And people like that.
In '96, Dole tried to hide his bullshit, and he lost. He kept saying, "I'm a
plain and honest man." People don't believe that. What did Clinton say? He
said, "Hi folks! I'm completely full of shit, and how do you like that?" And
the people said, "You know what? At least he's honest. At least he's honest
about being completely full of shit."
Re:Dumb question... (Score:3, Insightful)
That carlin is one insightful dude.
...addressed in filing (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is trying to claim that Novell was malicious in knowingly publishing a false claim (that Novell owns Unix copyrights). Novell says that it had every right to publish its claim and it has reason to believe that the claim is true.
The particular memo doesn't prove anything about ownership but is one more (small) piece of evidence that Novell sincerely believes its claim (of ownership of copyrights), and so are in no way guilty of knowingly publishing a falsehood.
Novell's case is overwhelming, but this particular document is part of a filing in response to a filing by SCO alledeging that Novell knew it didn't own the copyrights.
I could be entirely misunderstanding things. There will certainly be a compentent analysis on groklaw soon enough.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Novell has decided to start shoveling the dirt in on top of them...
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever worked for a large bureaucracy? The company rarely has everything in the same system for anything - source control, document management, personnel databases, whatever you can imagine, they aren't doing it consistently. Legacy systems, competing systems in different departments, etc. can all cause things to be not where you expect them to be.
They brought this out now for a very good reason (see the "'nough rope" cousin post).
I don't buy that argument. If Novell could have killed this thing long ago, they would have. It's not in their interest to have the trial drag out any longer than it has to. They have legal bills to pay, too.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Funny)
The company rarely has everything in the same system for anything - source control, document management, personnel databases, whatever you can imagine, they aren't doing it consistently.
Dude...just because you work for the phone company doesn't mean the rest of us do...
Re:Dumb question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody cares where you (as a generic company employee) expect to find some documents. It only matters that the specific person or a group knows their filing system.
This means that HR can use a database, accounting can use filing cabinets and legal can keep all their documents in a fireproof safe, with copies offsite. There is no need for a uniform standard, and often there is no wa
Re:Dumb question... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that the "Enough Rope" approach does indeed make more sense. For a very long time, every time IBM smacked them down, SCO would file yet another "amended complaint" to change their story and change the thing they were suing about. The changing claims give any defense a moving target, an expensive target, to fight. Be
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Insightful)
More than that, you have to first REMEMBER the minutes from 10 years ago contained this awesome point, and then track it down. More likely, they've had some poor 1st year lawyer or paralegal searching through EVERYTHING in the hopes of finding something, and this just turned up.
They didn't have the money... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They didn't have the money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO was also looking for a way to remove the Novell issue from the IBM lawsuit without introducing their weak interpretation of the contracts involved.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Insightful)
The minutes do NOT conclusively prove that Novell owns Unix, only that they believed they did, and were acting WITHOUT malice, but in good faith.
Novell does not need to prove that they own Unix at this point. The burden is upon SCO, and so far, SCO is failing miserably.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Insightful)
bad PR!!!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
you have to be crazy...linux has now made it to the cover of almost every business and managerial magazine out there. There's no such things as bad pr. Now novell kills the case...front cover again...linux gets massive mainstream cred.
Re:Dumb question... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dumb question... (Score:5, Informative)
SCO's reply (Score:3, Funny)
SCO's own McBride then retires to the Bahamas where he enjoys a life of luxury until the next major hurricane, which demolishes his house and sends him to the great beyond, not before being tormented by a certain red-colored pitchfork-toting mascot (Oh and being rejected by the Great Penguin in the Sky).
Re:SCO's reply (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SCO's reply (Score:4, Funny)
Weapon
What now? (Score:5, Funny)
p.s. vi kicks emacs' ass
Re:What now? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What now? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What now? (Score:4, Funny)
Umm, hello? That's what the footpedals are for. geez, n00b.
-truth
Sounds exciting (Score:4, Funny)
A million monkeys with typewriters (Score:5, Informative)
> exactly what that means: minutes means a referendum of a meeting
Isn't it ironic that a post about the English language is moderated "informative" by
people who do not know the difference between a referendum [reference.com] and a memorandum [reference.com]?
Are we sure this is an ace? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this is pretty strong (Score:2, Informative)
Aaaah! (Score:5, Informative)
Aaa.. You see this is exactly the point!
SCO didn't file suit against Novell for breach of contract with respect to the alleged copyright transfer.
What SCO sued for was Slander of Title for saying nasty harmful things about SCO, namely that they owned the Unix copyrights.
The problem here is that.. it's not slander if you actually believe what you're saying. And Novell has proved that they have had every reason to believe that they owned the copyrights.
(The Judge himself has indicated that it does not at all appear clear who does own the copyrights. But the copyrights aren't what's in dispute here, even if SCO says otherwise)
What I am trying to figure out (Score:4, Interesting)
And whether they do that or not, will they at least have the right to say to the public/media, once the slander of title suit is tossed, "we believe we own UNIX"? Since it appears the copyright is, at the least, in dispute?
Is there any way to potentially later challenge the side letter with a "valid Novell signature", the one SCO has a copy of, by which SCO claims ownership of UNIX? Is there any way in corporate contract law to claim something like this side letter was accidental, or unauthorized, in a case such as this when apparently nobody at Novell was aware that someone had signed away the UNIX copyright? Does the fact Novell has not yet done so mean that they don't have a way of doing so, or does it mean they're waiting until an appropriate moment (say, when it comes up in someone's court case)?
Re:What I am trying to figure out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are we sure this is an ace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are we sure this is an ace? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are we sure this is an ace? (Score:5, Informative)
That actually matters less than you realize. SCO's suit is for "Slander of Title", which means that SCO is claiming that Novell maliciously made false statements that caused SCO harm by calling their ownership of System V into question. SCO must prove every part of that claim: that Novell made false statements, that the statements were made maliciously, and that the statements did SCO damage. Novell doesn't have to prove that they actually do own the copyrights (i.e. prove that their claims were true), though this is certainly good evidence of that point. Novell only has to show that their claims were not made maliciously, and an honest, well-founded belief that they still owned the copyrights is sufficient to do so.
Re:Are we sure this is an ace? (Score:3, Informative)
These minutes indicate that novell believed that they owned the copyrights. As long as they believed that then there can be no slander of title.
The contract does exclude copyrights (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO, bizarrely, is trying to dismiss this crystal-clear statement as some sort of 'scrivener's error', and has offered the statment of a former Novell employee (who wasn't even there when the contract was signed) to the effect that, no matter what the contract says, Novell really meant to transfer all the copyrights. The Novell Board document kills this (already absurdly weak) theory.
What? (Score:4, Funny)
Novell our best friends. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I want to say is we should not see Novell as our friends, our buddies or whatsoever these are clear minded people who run all for the big cash. Cash is what matters and not the entire open source movement or whatsoever.
I know a few people from Novell who work for them and they told me that Novell doesn't really give a damn slight fuck for open source, the community or the entire movement. What matters for them is cash and outsourcing. As long as it gets them money in their pockets they do everything it's simply a new marketing segment they invest in.
So before overhyping Novell we should calm down and reconsider again. What ough to be our friend today can be our worst nightmare tomorrow.
Re:Novell our best friends. (Score:5, Informative)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
* They currently own SUSE, which is a very nice Linux distribution, and they've been doing interesting things with it since taking over. Meanwhile they've actively been doing good things for the open source community. [computerworld.com] So whoever's side they were on before, they're certainly on our side now.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
- They're selling good open source products
- They're releasing previously closed-source products to the community
- They're making money off of all of this
Sounds to me like everyone wins here.Yes, much of the time the people the Open Source community works with have their own profit in mind and not the benefit of the Open Source community. This isn't a bad thing. This is how things are supposed to work. One of the main strengths of copyleft is its capacity to leverage human greed to a productive end.
Part of the beauty of Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Novell, IBM et al are part of the community. Like all communities the aims and motivations of individual members do not line up 100%. We should celebrate, support and encourage our commonality, not make a big deal out of or fear our potential differences.
Re:Novell our best friends. (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, I'd be interested to discover who your friends are, as I am getting a conflicting message from Novell. In fact, just this week I was having a conversation with a Novell Engineer that was excited beyond reason that he had a change to an OSS project that was accepted. Suddenly, from a company of engineers that had problems even thinking about using a different tool, I hear of mass conversions to Bugzilla, Apache and SuSE.
From what I can tell, the concept of Open Source or Free Software isn't what fascinates these fellows, but an actual desire to be part of the community. It's a foreign idea to them, but now that they've been exposed, it's a good feeling. I, for one, welcome our long-lost proprietary brethren. If they figure out a way to make money while doing it, good for them.
And if they need a little help understanding the GPL along the way, I'm sure we'd all be happy to oblige them ;-)
Re:Novell our best friends. (Score:2)
Re:Novell our best friends. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, how about the two major closed source items (and hence revenue generating products) from the closed source companies they bought: Yast from SuSE, and Ximian Connector from Ximian. Both were kept closed source as a proprietary "this is the good stuff that you're paying for" part of each compnies offering. Both are now GPL and out in the wild in source form. I'd say that's significant.
Jedidiah.
Mental image coming to mind (Score:5, Funny)
Proves Novell *believed* it had copyrights (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Groklaw discussion, the real importance of this document is not necessarily that it proves that Novell has the copyrights (that's actually more difficult to prove), but that it does prove that Novell firmly believed that it has them. This is a direct defense against the specific slander charge against them.
Exactly (Score:2, Interesting)
Winning this one won't help the linux community that much though. What we really need is a judgement that linux contravenes no copyrights. That is IBM's counterclaim 10. When that one goes down, then I start cheering.
Re:Proves Novell *believed* it had copyrights (Score:5, Informative)
PDF's of the arguments are ok.. (Score:5, Informative)
Private conference... (Score:4, Funny)
The game is not over... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just minutes (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't mean Novell owns Unix at all. (Score:5, Informative)
four links... (Score:5, Informative)
What movie is this? (Score:2)
I thought that they had had a home made movie of one of their conferences that was 1995 minutes long.
Man, am I stupid.
Re:What movie is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
1995 minutes from the corporate kit of a meeting of the Board of Directors
But what they meant was:
Minutes from the corporate kit of a 1995 meeting of the Board of Directors
Or even:
Minutes from the corporate kit of a meeting of the Board of Directors held in 1995
There's no reason for the editors to leave such ambiguity in the summary when they could easily have avoided it. I've spoken English as my primarily language my whole life and seeing it as 1,995 minutes opposed to minutes from a meeting in 1995 was how I parsed it first as well. Also reference all the jokes high up in the list about a 33 hour meeting.
For those slashdotters unclear on "minutes" (Score:4, Informative)
SCOinfomercial.con (Score:2, Funny)
All important court documents are available. If they are not there, we simply do not need to know about them.
And there is the pure unadulterated truth to the lawsuits. SCO would not have brought these lawsuits unless they were right, so we should believe everything they say.
I implore you all to stop this blasphemy of the gospel of Darl.
Good summary at Lamlaw (Score:5, Informative)
This defends the slander of title charge... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well the judge has said ON THE RECORD that the purchase agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation (which Caldera bought then renamed themselves The SCO Group) doesn't appear to be a valid transfer of copyright, so that shoots down the first part, because the copyright ownership is now questionable.
Now these minutes show that Novell believes they would be retaining the copyrights after the deal. If you think you still own the copyrights, claiming so can't be malicious, so there goes the other argument.
Case closed.
The side-effect is that it throws SCO's claims to the copyrights into limbo, which should give the other folks they've dragged into court ammunition to claim SCO doesn't have the right to sue them.
And SCO starting a new suit vs. Novell to force the transfer at this point would just confirm that and scuttle the rest of their cases.
Main Article a Bit Off (Score:4, Informative)
The short-version is that the board of directors meeting the day before the critical Asset Purchase Agreement stuf makes spesific mention of Novell *retaining* all the copyrights, and they have (previously) filed those minutes with the court, so they get to sit their as sort of the last word on the motion to dismiss.
So much so that the court may, in light of SCO's foolish attempt to "add evidence" (in the form of a declaration) during the motion to dismiss, convert the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment.
Whoops. 8-)
CBS Breaks Story: Meeting Minutes Are Authentic! (Score:4, Funny)
According to CBS, the Novell meeting minutes are genuine and are actually from the year 1995 despite the fact that they contain modern Agfa and Bitstream fonts. [slashdot.org]
sorry, couldn't resist
The Big SCObowski... (Score:5, Funny)
DARL: Vee vant zat money, Lebowski.
SCOLAWYER1: Ja, uzzervize vee kill ze girl.
SCOLAWYER2: Ja, it seems you forgot our little deal, Lebowski.
NOVELL: You don't have the fucking girl, dipshits. We know you never did. So you've got nothin' on my Johnson.
LINUXUSERS: Are these the Nazis, Walter?
IBM: They're nihilists, Donny, nothing to be afraid of.
DARL: Vee don't care. Vee still vant zat money or vee fuck you up.
SCOLAWYER1: Ja, vee still vant ze money. Vee sreaten you.
IBM: Fuck you. Fuck the three of you.
NOVELL: Hey, cool it IBM.
IBM: There's no ransom if you don't have a fucking hostage. That's what ransom is. Those are the fucking rules.
DARL: Zere ARE no ROOLZ!
IBM: NO RULES! YOU CABBAGE-EATING SONS- OF- BITCHES--
SCOLAWYER1: His girlfriend gafe up her toe! She sought we'd be getting million dollars! Iss not fair!
IBM: Fair! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?!
NOVELL: Hey, cool it IBM. Listen, pal, there never was any money. The big SCObowski gave me an empty briefcase, man, so take it up with him.
IBM: AND I'D LIKE MY UNDIES BACK!
There's only one word for this (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The beginning of the end... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry ... insightful?
SCO's case is for slander of title. There is some chance that the judge might decide that SCO does not own the SysV copyrights, but this filing won't be the document that pursuades him so to do.
This document clearly spells out a lack of malice, since it shows that Novell's execs had a reason to believe that Novell still owns the SysV copyrights.
Furthermore, lack of SysV copyrights won't actually unravel SCO's mostly contract case, but it will advance IBM's counter claims.
Re:Intent (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting but irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which Distribution... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm typing this on my Gentoo laptop, which is awesome, but a bit unwieldy for newcomers. My top choices would be Fedora or Mandrake, but it's been a long time since I've used SuSE.
Re:Wait, these are minutes from a Novell board mee (Score:4, Insightful)
(IANAL - I just read groklaw)
Re:And (Score:3, Informative)
At least as of the 1995 documents...
Re:What the hell did Novell sell SCO? (Score:3, Informative)
SCO bought a business of selling and maintaining the licenses. Novell gets 95 % of all of the royalty payments on these licenses. (Does that sound like SCO owns unix when SCO only keeps 5 % of royalty payments?)
But SCO paid all that money!
Look how much money Novell paid for Unix. Nearly a Beeelion US dollars. Now how much did SCO pay for the right to sell and maintain the licenses -- a whole