Novell Wins vs. SCO 380
Aim Here writes "According to Novell's website, and the Salt Lake Tribune, the jury in the SCO v. Novell trial has returned a verdict: Novell owns the Unix copyrights. This also means that SCO's case against IBM must surely collapse too, and likely the now bankrupt SCO group itself. It's taken 7 years, but the US court system has eventually done the right thing ..." No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.
Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Insightful)
But at least that part is over. There's still a little cleaning up to do but this one could be over and done with finally this summer. If you like Groklaw, head over and give PJ a pat on the back for her long perseverence.
Congrats to Novell's legal team.
/SCO die,die,die!
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Interesting)
It died alright: http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=SCOXQ [cnn.com]
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Interesting)
There's actual volume. Who the hell is *buying* it? Some badly programmed robot?
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who the heck would let someone short SCO? I mean, for there to be a short, someone has to be holding them. At 50c a share, SCO was probably still wildly overvalued. Really, the only way that SCO was going to recover was with a court victory, and while the probability of that wasn't 0, it was as damn near to it as possible for practical applications.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Interesting)
Some idiot had to be the last man to buy the shares. Whyever they did it, they still held them. On top of that, any broker will let you borrow any shares any of their clients have, so long as there's enough of them in the brokerage to avoid naked shorting rules.
Also, in some rarely traded stocks they'll help you find someone who will let you borrow them for a fee. That was likely the best way to make money holding SCO in the past few years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are people who believe things out of spite. Remember when the SCO case got started? There were plenty of folks -- chiefly in the "open-source haters" end of the trade press, but I met a few in industry, too -- who dearly wanted to see the "upstart" Linux smacked down hard.
It may be hard to believe it now that Linux i
What about when Novell starts abusing their (Score:3, Interesting)
position? Maybe not now, maybe not in a few years, but you never know what happens or who buys what company..
Hopefully by then software patents will be invalidated.
Falcon
Smile, Damn You! (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, shaddap and be happy for once. You can go back to playing prophet-of-doom tomorrow :D
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Insightful)
What position?
Ownership of Unix copyrights?
What happens if they start abusing it? Let's see... who's infringing on the Unix source code copyrights... Oh, yeah, no one.
So, um... nothing happens. No one is trespassing on the sacred Unix Copyrights, so Novell can yell at no one to get off their lawn.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Informative)
What about when Novell starts abusing their position?
They can't, for the same reason that SCO couldn't even if they had owned any copyrights: Both companies have released Linux distributions under the GPL. They have thus conveyed to end users any licenses to any UNIX code in Linux (which, BTW, there isn't any, but that's another story).
SCO tried to do some handwaving about being unaware of releasing the code under the GPL. Novell couldn't possibly do that.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Informative)
Irrelevant. Novell does own the copyrights on UNIX, so Novell has the right to license those copyrights as it chooses. Any alleged UNIX code in Linux (owned by Novell) was licensed to the world by Novell's own choice under the GPL when it shipped out SUSE disks. It doesn't matter who added the code; Novell is fully aware of what's on the disk.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This issue has been brought up in courts by SCO for many years. Novell is fully aware of what's going on. There is no way they could claim ignorance.
This is especially true since the extent of any alleged infringement has never been extended past some numeric constants in "errno.h". There is no question that parties on all sides of this dispute have pored over that file at length.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations to all, with special mention of honour to PJ and Groklaw.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Funny)
Darl? Is that you?
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot the "I'll get modded down for this, but here goes..." line in your post.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Informative)
Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.
Reasonable people understand that evidence is necessary to back up their spurious claims.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Funny)
Reasonable people understand that evidence is necessary to back up their spurious claims.
I fail to see how this has relevance to the spurious claim presented.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Funny)
"Fuck PJ."
Umm, I don't think she wants you, but it's probably okay to keep her in your maturbatory Rolodex if you want.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Funny)
Someone just gave me an idea for a new android app!
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Insightful)
PJ did the FOSS community an extraordinary service. I suspect she also did IBM a great service. One thing is sure, whatever her motives, she's ten times the person a worthless little apologist like you is. Go away you piece of garbage.
Why does PJ matter so much to you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck PJ. She's a publicity whore no better than Darl. Shameless publicity whore. She profited in a grand way from this too-doo. Point. Of. Fact.
And "who is PJ"? Just some Small Town Paralegal *that just happened to be interested in Linux*? - YEAH RIGHT. I got a bridge.
Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.
Even if your claims about PJ were true (and I do say if) what difference would it make? Why do you care? Why are you so angry?
Can you point out anything that PJ posted that is not true, or not fair?
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Informative)
Reasonable people understand that PJ works for IBM. Reasonable people understand that there is no "PJ", that IBM spun up a screen name and went to town.
Yes, but intelligent people at least look stuff up before spouting unsubstantiated claims.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7673520174.html [linux-watch.com]
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a jerk.
Absolutely false. Groklaw doesn't run ads, and the donations go to things like court transcripts.
Re:Seven years for eight hours work (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't prove that you exist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? Let's see you draw a triangle on a globe. Place 1 vertex at the north pole. Draw a line from there to the equator. Now go back to the north pole and draw another line starting there at 90 degrees from the 1st line. Draw that line also to the equator. Finally, connect the 2 endpoints sitting on the equator together with a 3rd line.
Now measure the angles at each vertex of the triangle you just drew. Add up the angles and tell me what their sum is.
270 you say? How about that. Seems that not all triangles a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Can you prove "PJ" exists? No? Than shut the fuck up.
Yes actually. Aside from all of the legal and factual evidence, the many people who have met her and publicly stated so, *I* also have had the pleasure of being introduced to her.
I would suggest that maybe you should accept your own advice. Though I dare say I would say it with a bit more civility. (Something about, "better to stay silent than speak and remove all doubt," comes to mind...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is exactly why the AC called Frosty Piss on his bullshit, and why I was backing him up. Get it? You just argued against Frosty's original argument. He called PJ a shill.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What does it matter in the least if PJ is simply a cover for a team of IBM lawyers. The fact remains that SCO's claims were bullcrap. Attacking PJ hardly makes SCO's claims better. It's just a way pathetic SCO and MS shills like you, doubtless paid to come here and mouth this kind of shit, to attack the messenger.
What makes me laugh is you've probably got a pile of SCO stock which is rapidly approaching the same value per unit as a piece of two-ply toilet paper.
Horray! (Score:2)
Re:Horray! (Score:4, Insightful)
All that we can be sure of is that several million dollars of Microsoft money will be going to a few private individuals for the fantastic work they have done in destroying the reputation of the open source concept.Ask any drone in a large company, Open Source is bad news because there are law suits against it. I expect that they can get pretty well paid jobs with Scientology next.
Re:Horray! (Score:4, Insightful)
Waste of money if they do. All this has achieved is to clearly establish that SCO has no claims against Linux users. Well, that's not entirely true; it's also given rise to Groklaw and generally raised awareness of legal matters in the Free Software community. But maybe you're right. Maybe this is the best they could hope to achieve...
Which is why those misty-eyed dreamers at the London Stock Exchange recently dumped Windows for Linux. But what do they know about the realities of modern business?
Re:Horray! (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why those misty-eyed dreamers at the London Stock Exchange recently dumped Windows for Linux. But what do they know about the realities of modern business?
They know not to trust their data to a system built with Microsoft Technology. Even if the "stellar minds from Microsoft" come and help fine tune it.
Novell Wins (Score:3, Insightful)
Novell wins...fatality!
Hopefully they'll finally die. But surely they'll be back in a George Romero movie.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Novell wins...fatality!
Quick, do the spine thingy! - Forward, Down, Forward, Low Punch
More Than McBride (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:More Than McBride (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Than McBride (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO
Now, go away you Microsoft apologist.
Re: (Score:2)
That's part of the price of being the main guy.. When things are up you shine and are on covers of magazines, when they aren't, you get the blame.
Re:More Microsoft Than McBride (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been a Microsoft smear campaign again Linux all along, and it's not over. Why do you think that MS has been funding the entire thing?
Re:More Microsoft Than McBride (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what we've been asking SCO for the past 7 years.
Re:More Microsoft Than McBride (Score:5, Informative)
Follow The Money Mike Anderer March 2004
An e-mail from consultant Mike Anderer to SCO's Chris Sontag revealing Microsoft's channeling of US$ 86 million to SCO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak [wikipedia.org]
On Monday, court documents from the ongoing court case between IBM and SCO claimed Microsoft had encouraged financial firm BayStar to invest in SCO. The claim was made by BayStar founder Larry Goldfarb, who said Microsoft's vice president of corporate development and strategy, Richard Emerson, had offered to underwrite BayStar's own investment in SCO.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/more-microsoft-sco-links-emerge-339271604.htm [zdnet.com.au]
Has Microsoft's money been a significant resource for the financially ailing SCO?
Without a doubt. In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, according to regulatory filings. Only longtime Unix fan Sun Microsystems previously paid close to that, with a $9.3 million license deal.
Microsoft provided a second, though indirect, boost in August or September of 2003, when it referred SCO to BayStar Capital, a fund that arranged a $50 million investment.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-139743.html [zdnet.com]
There is a lot more evidence, but I will leave further research up to you.
Doubt it (Score:5, Informative)
Unless someone finds a way to remove Darl's vocal cords we'll have not heard the last of this by any stretch of the imagination...
We're doomed to hear SCO's moanings until DNF is released.
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Insightful)
"finds a way to remove Darl's vocal cords"?
There are several ways to do that which are quite well known. It's a testament to our community that no-one has implemented any.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're assuming said vocal chords are in the physical plane of existence. I see no evidence to support this theory. Darl is clearly a Greater Demon from the ninth plane of hell.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh come ON! That's giving him way too much credit.
After all this, he'll be lucky to find employment as a bad smell pixie in the Dimension of Dirty Laundry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's ruined the credibility of a geek lawyer firm, he's possibly bankrupted the financiers of both sides, he's crippled the firms that ponied up the Linux license fee, he's turned many IT managers insane and/or paranoid delusional, and he's ruined the credibility of some sectors of the IT press.
Doesn't matter that he lost the case, the collateral damage is stupendous. If you assume he had demonic intent, rather than merely evil intent, this is the perfect outcome.
Winning might actually have been less demoni
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I still think you're giving him way too much credit. Microsoft found a greedy, overambitious nitwit, dumped a ton of cash on him, and hooked him up with (at the time) the best lawyers money could buy.
There's nothing admirable about McBride, but let's not go giving him super powers
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Funny)
You're arguing over nothing. GP asserts Darl works for the antichrist. You assert he was working for Microsoft. You say tomato, I say tomato.
Novel (Score:5, Interesting)
Hurray! Just in time for Novell to be bought out by Microsoft.
Write out the Questions (Score:2)
Re:Write out the Questions (Score:4, Informative)
All the Linux-related claims were dismissed long ago. This case has not been about Linux for years. Even if SCO had won this trial they could not have done anything to Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
THIS IS NOT TRUE! Linux uses Unix copyrights! - Daryl
In other news: Hell has declared a snow emergency. Souls will only be picked-up on snow routes.
Re:Not true! (Score:5, Informative)
Judge Kimball split that bit off from the rest of the case since by the contract the matter is subject to arbitration. The arbitration was stayed by the Bankruptcy Court (it had been scheduled to run in parallel with the jury trial in Utah), but can now go forward.
In fact, the stuff of most interest to Linux users is still to come! The bulk of Novell was about copyrights and SCO-as-fiduciary. Without evidence of infringement, these are directly of interest to Linux users. But the GPL is about to get a hearing. That is of considerable interest!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the "brand" is the Unix trademark, which is owned by The Open Group [unix.org], not by Novel or SCO. What Novel owns are the copyrights to the original Unix code.
Winning in this case... (Score:5, Interesting)
...is like declaring victory because you're the last person to hit the ground in the plane crash. How much has this cost Novell and IBM in real $$'s? With SCO bankrupt how can either expect to recoup any of the 7 years of court costs?
Organ sale? (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, their livers are probably shot, but I have to believe that there are other organs worth harvesting from the board of directors and the legal firm representing them.
Re:Organ sale? (Score:5, Funny)
yes, the brains should be quite valuable, never having been used
Re:Organ sale? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares about the success or failure of a company when you're sipping champagne on your yacht?
The stockholders, when a corporate executive mishandles a corporation driving it into the ground stockholders can sue. Executives have a fiduciary [wikipedia.org] duty to the corporation.
Falcon
Re:Winning in this case... (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM almost certainly doesn't care about the cost, which isn't even a day's worth of revenue for them. They have filed counter-claims against SCO, and in theory could win damages, but since SCO has few assets and many creditors, they won't get paid. In a fairer world, SCO would have had to answer for its baseless campaign against Linux users much earlier. But they didn't - they got to put the victims of this campaign on the defensive, first.
Re:Winning in this case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Winning in this case... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a valid question with respect to Novell, but asking how IBM can afford seven years of court costs is a bit like asking whether Sauron can stay up all night.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, it's practice for the next time.
Second of all, it's a warning to all others, so there won't be a next time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Novell's win against SCO ends that lawsuit but it doesn't end the SCO v IBM suit. The "Salt Lake Tribune [sltrib.com]" article has this little tidbit:
"Former U.S. District Judge Edward Cahn, the trustee for SCO's bankruptcy filed in Delaware, said the company is "deeply disappointed" in th
Re:Winning in this case... (Score:4, Informative)
That is true for some of the lawyers, but David Boies's company took a one time fee up front and that is all that they get. They bet that SCO would win early (basically IBM caving in) and lost that bet.
Re:Winning in this case... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep: even if it is technically cheaper to play ball with an extortionist, neither IBM nor Novell will do this.
Open the doors to one, and you'll have others knocking on the door. Pound that first one into a fine powder, the survival instinct of the others will kick in.
Sorry, gotta disagree.. (Score:5, Insightful)
While it may hold true for quick-change artists, it won't stop true sociopaths like Darl McBride.
Scammers like McBride believe that everyone is as evil as they are, and that if someone else failed, that they just weren't smart enough. Their rationale goes something like "I can see what they did wrong, so therefore I'm smarter than they are, so *my* scam will succeed!"
Just like career criminals - fines, prison sentences etc. don't act as a deterrent - they do it because they don't believe they'll be caught.
To this day, Darl believes that IBM is guilty of *something* - and that he only failed because IBM played dirty (see this troll [slashdot.org] for the "dirty tricks" that IBM used.) The dirty tricks that Darl himself used? (Lies, threats, the entire lawsuit) He believes they were justified because he needed something to fight IBM with.
There is nothing that will stop a sociopath from being a sociopath. If there was, they wouldn't be sociopaths.
"There is nothing that will stop a sociopath..." (Score:4, Insightful)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's taken 7 years, but the US court system has eventually done the right thing..."
This. Is a contradiction. Justice delayed is justice denied. Always.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
No Shatner, it is not a contradiction; it is a sentence fragment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Three fragments, actually. "Justice delayed is justice denied." was the only complete sentence.
"This." "Is a contradiction." and "Always." are all fragments.
Not completely over (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The interesting part about that is that Darl himself stated that they didn't need the copyrights. It's quoted in the Groklaw report on his testimony. Basically, they got all the same rights as HP (HP-UX), IBM (AIX), and others who rolled their own Unix. They didn't need the copyrights and proving that should be trivial at this point.
The problem with this is that if SCO can roll up their own Unix, so can everyone else. If SCO can so can IBM so SCO loses.
I agree it's not over though, SCO will be around for s
Good (Score:2)
It will be very difficult for SCO to spin this one in a positive direction. Darl McBride isn't at SCO any more, which is a shame. It would have been good to see him go down with the ship.
Roll on the IBM case.
In depth coverage on Groklaw (Score:2)
Who's next? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft got good mileage out of SCO in their attack on Linux. Wonder who will do their bidding next?
Re:Who's next? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wonder who will do their bidding next?
NOVELL [novell.com]
Still more to come though... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately for SCO's theory on this, old SCO didn't need the copyrights for their business, which is what was sold to new SCO, and Darl himself testified that the business can be run without the copyrights (statements he made after the FIRST time Novell was told they owned the copyrights by the previous Judge in this case). The wording is also to the effect of "copyrights needed at the time of this APA", which is BEFORE the SCOSource business was conceived to sue Linux users. And then you also have to deal with the fact that "Specific Performance" is only enforced when the party requesting "Specific Performance" has itself performed to the letter of the contract, which there is already case law and verdict on file that SCO has not done so, by not remitting the portion of the license buy-out from Sun and the SCOSource license to Microsoft which were both found to be SYSV Unix licenses, not solely UnixWare licenses (as SCO would change their story afterwards when realizing they were contractually required to remit 95% of the funding SYSV licenses to Novell and not keep it for themselves, and after they have filed to the SCC that they were Unix licenses not UnixWare... one of the stumbling blocks they hit when trying to claim otherwise later).
Re:Still more to come though... (Score:4, Informative)
> The wording is also to the effect of "copyrights needed at the time of this APA"
No. The wording is not to that effect. It was:
"""Excluded Assets: All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."""
This amendment 2 came between the time that SCO (the original) sent a letter to Microsoft requesting that SCO will cease to pay royalties to MS for code that is no longer in Xenix/OpenServer and taking them to the EU to have these royalties squashed.
It is likely that this was the 'technology acquisition' that Amendment 2 was written for and, as it happened, they were not required after all. If SCO had been challenged over copyrights then they may have required some.
The paragraph continues: """However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks."""
The third party being contemplated probably being Microsoft.
FTFS (Score:5, Funny)
No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.
What are you doing? Trying out lines for cheesy movie dialog?
[Novell stands over the fallen body of SCO]
Novell: No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this. Come on everybody, let's go home
[As Novell turns and walks off, the hand of SCO twitches slightly and we hear a sinister laugh.]
[Cut to credits]
SCO has more lives than Freddy Krugger (Score:3, Interesting)
The last we'll hear? Not according to the link... (Score:5, Informative)
' The former federal judge overseeing The SCO Group's bankruptcy said a jury decision today that Novell Inc., and not SCO, owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating system does not end the company's litigation against others.
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. '
So, a victory, but not quite the end. Still, my money's on IBM...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No doubt this is the last we will ever hear... (Score:4, Insightful)
No! You must kill it! Kill It With FIRE!!!
SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case (Score:5, Informative)
"Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM"
Re:SCO still wants to pursue the IBM case (Score:5, Funny)
I believe that IBM will settle for having a pyramid of skulls in Lindon, UT as a warning to any future Darl McBrides.
Novell ONLY got what USL vs BSDI settlment didn't (Score:4, Informative)
Keep in mind that USL vs BSDI settlement (secret and first published on GROKLAW), did not give the IP or copyrights for all of Unix to USL (USL was owned by Novell at the time of the settlement). The settlement when made public showed us that indeed much of Unix was not proprietary at all. So, it is no wonder that Novell didn't transfer to Santa Cruz Operations, as they didn't have all the marbles to transfer, so they didn't want everyone to know this, so they didn't transfer any (otherwise, then they would have to let the world know about the USL vs BSDI settlement (and everyone then would stop paying any money to Novell or any UNIX tax collector)... when BSD was free !
So - saying that Novell has all the IP marbles in the Unix world, and that Novell OWNS the Unix copyrights (all of them), is not exactly correct.
This is not the last we will ever hear of any this (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot Slashdot dupes!
Does "SCO Group Likes Its Stock at These Levels"? (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.linux.org/news/2004/03/12/0006.html [linux.org]
I've only been waiting six years to post this.
Groklaw's input (Score:3, Informative)
Groklaw's input:
'It's over. The jury has found that the copyrights did not go to SCO under the APA or anything else. The verdict is in. Novell has the news up on their website already, but I heard it from Chris Brown also. Here's the brief Novell statement:
"Today, the jury in the District Court of Utah trial between SCO Group and Novell issued a verdict.
Novell is very pleased with the jury’s decision confirming Novell’s ownership of the Unix copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux. Novell remains committed to promoting Linux, including by defending Linux on the intellectual property front.
This decision is good news for Novell, for Linux, and for the open source community." '
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100330152829622 [groklaw.net]
8 hours of jury deliberations means... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what does this mean for Solaris? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) The 1994 Sun-Novell license agreement prohibited Sun from disclosing SRVX code for a period of 20 years. It's not 2014 yet.
2) The jury just said Novell retained copyright to Unix, so SCO had no title to SVRX, and so no power to license SVRX except as provided in the Novell-SCO APA.
3) Under the APA, SCO "shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify, or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent" of Novell.
As a result, SCO neither had the contractual right (under the APA) nor right of title in SVRX necessary to license the release of any SVRX code by Sun prior to 2014. If there is any SVRX in OpenSolaris, then, Oracle is in violation of its SVRX license agreement with Novell, and its right to distribute Solaris (assuming Solaris contains any SVRX) is, as a result, questionable.
Now, yes, the 2003 SCO-Sun agreement requires that SCO indemnify Sun against any claims arising under the agreement . . . but SCO is too bankrupt for that indemnity to have much value.
watch what you say (Score:4, Funny)
"No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this."
You fool! You've doomed us all!
Finally! (Score:4, Funny)
I have finally found my inner-peace.
I held back on paying SCO for licensing since I've been using a Linux desktop for a while on my personal desktop. I couldn't stand it anymore - sleepless nights, the shakes, sweating, and I took up smoking and booze. I was about to rip out the credit card today after work and pay them. Good thing I read Slashdot first!
simply amazing... (Score:3, Funny)
that this case actually reached a verdict before the contested copyrights expired!