SCO Amends Novell Complaint 286
rm69990 writes "According to Groklaw, SCO now seeks to amend their complaint against Novell. SCO says it 'seeks leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in significant part in consideration of the counterclaims that Novell asserted in its Answer and Counterclaims.' SCO now accuses Novell of infringing SCO's copyrights by distributing SUSE Linux, of breaching a non-compete clause between the two companies, and SCO is also asking for specific performance forcing Novell to turn over the Unix copyrights to SCO. So SCO is essentially admitting that Novell owns the copyrights at this point, but is saying that Novell breached the contract (that specifically excluded copyrights) by failing to transfer them to Santa Cruz."
Wha?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wha?!? (Score:5, Funny)
You watch your mouth, young man!
---
"I think not!", Descartes said, and promptly dissappeared.
Re:Wha?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha?!? (Score:4, Interesting)
In essence if you are in a lawsuit and the court rules against you then the other goy can ask the court to make you pay his lawyer. The courts usually accept those requests.
In the case of the fiasco sco has been carrying on, those rules would immediately double the cost to them. It also reduces the likelihood of someone settling a frivolous lawsuit.
SCO has also filed suite in contries that require you to support your original claim. Those casses are over. In Ostralia they are under warning to not try it again. (Public mischife is a crime)
Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we definitely should have more protections in place against frivolous and groundless lawsuits, but I don't think that dumping all the legal costs on the loser is the way to go about it.
Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (Score:4, Interesting)
It would sorta act as a resource balance in proceedings. If "big company" is sued by "Joe Schmoe" working with a single lawyer, they have every right to use a team of 30 lawyers, but should only expect to be reimbursed for the first one.
- Tony
Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (Score:4, Interesting)
As taxpayers, we're paying for their damn circus and I think they owe us for all the public money they've wasted on their stupid pump and dump scheme.
"who else is going to pay?" (Score:5, Interesting)
The US should just admit that the "law" is supposed to be for the people and be reasonable and just and understandable for the most part for anyone with any sort of normal English language comprehension. This "law" situation has gotten to be too complex and ill suited for "the people" because they are essentially locked out of the system and must needs hire (most of the time) an EXTREMELY expensive translator. That's all lawyers are, glorified translators who turn human speak into confusing and overly verbose law speak, then enjoy a "vendor lockin". Even "your" lawyer has a clear cut case of belonging to this conflict of interest scenario of maintaining the translator monopoly, along with the judge and the rest of the "legal system". Then you notice that there is no incentive whatsoever for them to make laws simpler or fairer or easier, or just "less" of them,nope, the opposite is true, and they rule in congress.
We have no over all "law" that would limit the growth industry of "more laws" and more complex laws on the books. We are already at the "millions of laws" state now, with no end in sight. This is obviously insane to anyone who isn't a lawyer, but they hold the cards now.
It's just a carved in stone racket now. Would we put up with plumbers who consciously and universally always add an extra quarter mile of plumbing to a house just because they could?
Would we put up with carpenters who used tens times the amount of wood needed for a project all the time, just so they could always charge more? Would we put up with auto mechanics who insisted on replacing your engine and transmission every time you needed an oil change? No we wouldn't, but we as a society put up with that crap from the politician/lawyers/lobbyist/judges law racket cartel.
Oh ya, they have an added bonus! They have armed mercenaries who do whatever they are told, usually involving you when you run afoul of one of their bosses rackets. Too bad the plumbers and carpenters and mechanics can't enjoy this level of the threat of violence to increase their profits and social standings in the "equal" society we are supposed to have.
Re:"who else is going to pay?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Law == Programming (Score:4, Interesting)
Law is like programming. It requires nailing down all sorts of intricate little details, getting the syntax just right, and tweaking the niggly bits until everyone is satisfied.
As long as anything has two interpretations, you can bet that two sides on a dispute will argue about which interpretation is correct.
The main difference between programming and law is that programmers argue with a machine that can't change it's mind about the rules. There is no such predictable arbitrator for law.
Programmers remove bad code -- the law just keeps adding to the mudball without ever actually deleting the cruft. Imagine "debugging" a system when someone can bring up a (fixed) bug (case) from 10-15 years ago and actually have the courts/system accept the old bug as relevent to the current implementation...
Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (Score:4, Funny)
If the Brits really had "looser pays" then the Spice Girls would have to pay for every case in Britain. I think you mean "loser pays."
Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (Score:2)
Re:Luser Pays. Support your original claim. Re:Wha (Score:3, Funny)
Looser -> Loser (Unless you actually mean that the person who is less tight pays. I'm not sure how you would determine that.)
goy -> guy (I am assuming you don't actually mean goy, because sometimes Jewish people go to court too)
Ostralia -> Australia (While we may pronounce it "Ostralia", we actually spell it Australia)
mischife -> mischief (I love Olde Englishe too, but we do have a dictionary now)
Re:Wha?!? (Score:5, Informative)
They also claim that parts of UNIX were misappropriated into Linux, therefore they should get ownership of those parts also, but that is a seperate part of the complaint
Re:Wha?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the short version. Novell contracted with Santa Crus Operations to manage the UNIX licensing, but did not transfer the ownership of the Copyrights. Santa Cruz Operations sold its UNIX licensing operation to Caldera. Caldera changed their name to The SCO Group. This (the non-transfer of copyright) is now disputed by The SCO Group .
I wanted to clarify the difference between 'SCO' and 'SCO'.
Okay, so just to be sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.
Re:Okay, so just to be sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Okay, so just to be sure (Score:3, Informative)
From functionality/feature set, performance, and user experience Linux may as well be considered Unix but the semantical distinction is very important for precisely this kind of issue (e.g., SCO trying to get all Linux users to fork $600/processor over to them)
ALSO as an aside:
SCO is guilty of not paying the 90%+ of licensing fees that they owe to Novell. I believe the suit against Nov
Argument over an exception. (Score:3, Interesting)
The part of the agreement that said Novell kept the copyrights and other IP said something to the effect that the IP rights were not transferred EXCEPT as necessary for SCO/Caldera/whatever to enforce their rights under the contract. (The actual text was posted on (or linked from) groklaw a while back but I can't find it just now. If anybody knows a URL for it, or has the paragraph in question, pl
Re:Wha?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wha?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux IS NOT Unix, so it doesn't compete.
Re:Wha?!? (Score:2)
Re:Wha?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Read these linked PDFs.
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/8_2
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/10_
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/11_
As you can see, SCO brought up the non-compete clause in the press back when Novell first announced the aquisition, but never addressed the issue with Novell. Novell said that claim was baseless.
Also notice the difference in wording from the two lawyers corresponding back and forth. Lasala (Novell) always mentions specific clauses in the agreement that support his position, and lays it out very clearly, whereas Tibbits (SCO) simply says "We don't agree, fuck off" (paraphrased of course).
Also, in the SCO complaint you will notice SCO says "Why would Novell need a license if they retained the copyrights?"
The TLA specifies the licensed technology as "any code not owned by Novell as of the date of this agreement". This means that Novell retained the copyrights over Unix (due to copyrights being excluded elsewhere in the agreement), and also a license to any SCO modification or derivative. In the first linked letter, Novell demands all versions of Unixware and Unix under SCO's control. This includes the latest versions containing copyrighted SCO code.
So, if the copyrights didn't pass to SCO (very likely) Novell is allowed to distribute their own code, and has a license to redistribute SCO's code, without any restrictions (due to the change of control of SCO). If the copyrights did or do transfer, Novell still has a license to all of Unix with no restrictions.
Novell has killed any hope SCO had of ever holding any Linux users or vendors liable for copyright infringement.
Re:Wha?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Legally Linux is *not* Unix. This is a fact.
It's also, and this gets into opnion here, not really competing with Unix. Most of the growth in Linux is against Windows and other OSes. Most Unix installs are, and of course there are exceptions here, running on platforms and/or running apps that are closely tied to the Unix that they are running on and are, by and large, being sold to folks who would never *dream* of replacing those things with Linux. Think in terms of transaction processing for banks and such.
So really it's nothing more or less than the truth. No matter how much some folks want to tell themselves that Linux competes with Unix, at this point, it simply doesn't. This is not to say that it couldn't. But it just ain't there on many fronts. Many if not most of them not techinical really. Although, and this is the snarky bit, as a BSD guy I kind of laugh at Linux anyway. But that's neither here nor there.
How can they keep doing this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell me this -> How are they making a profit today?
No. I really want to know.
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:5, Funny)
They have a secret ad-revenue sharing agreement with
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:2)
Recently some current bagholders came up with some more money to try and continue the lawsuit.
Don't worry, there are lots of really rich and powerful people who benefit from the FUD gen
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:2)
I'll bite. I can think of Microsoft and conceivably Sun -- these folks compete with Linux and can benefit from any bad PR generated. Who else, though, possibly profits from a string of unwinnable lawsuits filed against Linux?
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's amazing that SCO would even consider throwing away money on such a lost cause in the first place.
How are they making a profit today?
I'm sure everybody knows that they're not making a profit; their goal is to own Linux and Unix, take over the world, and make mountains of cash. Of course, it seems that they're the only ones who believe that this is likely... oh, and Rob Enderle.
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:3, Funny)
I suspect that SCO now realizes that it can't possibly win, and is merely trying to extend its lawsuit long enough for the public to forget they exist. If they can keep the case tied up in the courts for a few more years, they probably think that everyone will no longer care. I don't think they realize how long Slashdot holds a grudge.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hack my CueCat.
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect they can keep it up for another year or so before they start running out of investors to screw.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, another $10,000,000 helps. (Score:5, Interesting)
More MSFT funding? (Score:5, Interesting)
At first I thought that ESR was a conspiracy nut. Then you realize that, no, Microsoft actually *is* as nasty as he claims.
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:4, Funny)
Reload.
Re:How can they keep doing this? (Score:2)
creative accounting and earnings management, of course!
SCO still exists? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:2)
The winner will be the one with most money (which luckily for us isn't SCO).
Where are the Monty Python when you need them ? (Score:5, Funny)
Man in suit of armor walks in and hits SCO over the head with a dead chicken.
Dear Sir,
I would like to protest in the strongest possibe terms about your SCO sketch. I have been a village idiot all my life and your Darl Mc Bride character is giving village idiots everywhere a bad name.
Sincerely,
Re:SCO still exists? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, you recall correctly but the last time a judge showed any honest sign of being sick of nonsensical and irritating behaviour in court Microsoft got let off by the "tainted" judge's replacement.
Hopefully the judge in this case is only putting up with this bullshit in order to avoid accusations of failing to hear SCO's side of the story
Yea! (Score:2, Funny)
Sco ??? (Score:2, Funny)
Ready... Set... (Score:3, Insightful)
v.m
Second Amendment Complaint? (Score:4, Funny)
In related news... (Score:2)
Second Amendment (Score:4, Funny)
That's pretty off base, even for SCO.
Re:Second Amendment (Score:2)
Not my guns! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not my guns! (Score:2)
Re:Not my guns! (Score:2)
I expect he's busy meeting other members of the elite cadre of individuals responsible for keeping the internet functioning. It's a full-time job.
SCO Needs to do more of this... (Score:5, Funny)
From the complaint (via Groklaw): V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff SCO prays this Court enter judgment for SCO and against Novell:
Although I doubt God will be listening, as he's upgrading his SUSE Linux...
Re:SCO Needs to do more of this... (Score:2)
No, God is more of a "close to the metal" kind of guy. He is compiling his Gentoo box. Of course he has access to those nice quantum boxes so it goes really fast especially when He pushes them through a time portal...
God is dead (Score:2)
In Corporate America... (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (Score:3, Interesting)
Namely that there was a maximum price they would have to pay for legal support, above that amount of money the costs were for the legal company.
Couldn't find a link to it on Google though.
Re:Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (Score:2)
Re:Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (Score:3, Informative)
Try these:
Re:Didn't SCO have a ceiling agreement (Score:3, Insightful)
From The Article (Score:4, Informative)
EXHIBIT B
Novell's unauthorized copying in its use and distribution of SuSE
Linux includes but is not limited to the appropriateion of the
following data structures and algorithms contained in or derived
from SCO's copyrighted material:
1. SuSE's implementation of the "Read/Copy/Update" algorithm
2. SuSE's implementation of NUMA Aware Locks
3. SuSE's implementation of the distributed lock manager
4. SuSE's implementation of reference counters
5. SuSE's implementation of asynchronous I/O
6. SuSE's implementation of the kmalloc data structure
7. SuSE's implementation of the console subsystem
8. SuSE's implementation of IRQs
9. SuSE's implementation of shared memory locking
10. SuSE's implementation of semaphores
11. SuSE's implementation of virtual memory
12. SuSE's implementation of IPC's
13. SuSE's implementation of load balancing
14. SuSE's implementation of PIDs
15. SuSE's implementation of numerous kernel internals and APIs
16. SuSE's implementation of ELF
17. SuSE's implementation of STREAMS
18. SuSE's implementation of dynamic linking
19. SuSE's implementation of kernel pre-emption
20. SuSE's implementation of memory mapping
21. SuSE's implementation of ESR
22. SuSE's implementation of buffer structures
23. SuSE's implementation of process blocking
24. SuSE's implementation of numerous header files
Re:From The Article (Score:2, Funny)
Re:From The Article (Score:2, Funny)
Re:From The Article (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty much everything that makes SuSE remotely like UNIX, basically. This seems to be derived from SCO's amusing claim that all our UNIX are belong to them; they must have sat down, asked themselves 'what makes a UNIX system so UNIXey?', written out a list and handed it to the lawyers...
Re:From The Article (Score:4, Insightful)
The American legal system is a joke.
Re:From The Article (Score:5, Insightful)
It'd be one thing if Novell stole SCO's bicycle. But we're not talking about property and stealing, we're talking about property rights and agreements made about future behavior with respect to the use and non-use of those rights. Since what we're talking about is abstract, it's not as simple as looking in SCO's garage and seeing the bicycle is gone, then going to Novell's and seeing it is there.
What SCO is arguing now is more like this: "Novell sold me the exclusive rights on the use its bicycle to court Mary. Then he rode over on his bike to Mary's house."
Then Novell says, "True, I sold you exclusive rights to use that bicycle to court Mary, but I bought a different bicycle and used it."
Then SCO says, "Well, you gave me exclusive rights to the design of the bike in courting Mary. Look see, the derailleur on the bike you rode works just like the one you gave me exclusive rights to."
Then Novell says, "No, I sold you exclusive courting rights to use the components specific to the bike in question. The derailleur design is not specific to that bike."
And so on. It's all about promises not to engage in broadly defined classes of activities centering around vaguely defined abstract entities. It's always going to be possible argue that an activity does or doesn't fall into the relevant class, or that the entity in question is or is not identical to the one covered in the agreement. On top of this, the judge is supposed to render if possible an airtight and irreproachable decision, otherwise he risks being overturned and losing judge-karma.
Re:From The Article (Score:2)
Oooh, be careful about pushing this one SCO. He's got guns [wikipedia.org].
Re:From The Article (Score:2)
For a little perspective:
SCO: Novell is using Linux buses in their SuSE transportation network. Linux buses infringe on our copyrights on the UnixWare bus, because they have four wheels and an engine; therefore, Novell is infringing on our copyrights!
Re:From The Article (Score:3, Informative)
1. SuSE's implementation of the "Read/Copy/Update" algorithm
RCU was developed by Sequent as part of NUMA IIRC, with the express intent of it being used by multiple operating systems. I was working on a Sequent S81 years ago, and their sales reps were quite excited about the idea. IBM subsequently acquired the rights by purchasing Sequent. SCO will lose this one.
2. SuSE's implementation of NUMA Aware Locks
See above RE: RCU.
13. SuSE's implementation of load balancing
Nonsense. If SuSE used SCO/SV
Err, uh .. what? (Score:4, Funny)
I can see there collectively being a large amount of heads exploding after trying to make sense of that one. I'm thinking SCO has nothing to do with Santa Cruz and more to do with SChizOphrenia because they've seem to have lost touch with reality.
Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
/. editors up to their usual form (Score:4, Informative)
SCOX is arguing that Novell has infringed on their copyrights with SuSe Linux. They've also argued that Novell has failed to properly transfer the copyrights to them. Two lines of argument, each in opposition to each other, are perfectly fine the the court system. I forget the name for this, but basically SCOX is offering judge Kimball two different ways to give them 'relief' for Novell's supposed wrongdoing.
SCOX has admitted nothing. The meaning of 'admit', to a court, is that one of the parties involved is giving up information to the court that the other side can't prove. If SCOX were 'to admit' a lack of copyrights in lawyerspeak their case would instantly disintegrate and the door would open to Lanham Act claims and all sorts of other nastiness. SCOX never, ever 'admits' to anything.
There are plenty of people with knowledge of this case - see groklaw.net for mind numbing detail, or go to the Yahoo SCOX board if you'd like rowdy commentary and a sad, funny little troll named backinfullforce.
Re:/. editors up to their usual form (Score:2)
Agreed, but I don't think this one's well set up. The idea is to present the same concept as a f
Re:/. editors up to their usual form (Score:5, Informative)
(Note: just pointing out how "pleading further and in the alternative" works, not - Heaven forbid - supporting those clowns at SCO.)
So... (Score:2)
ESR? (Score:4, Funny)
I know Debian has "Virtual RMS", but I think SuSE is really going weird if they implement stuff like this. Weird syslog messages from SuSE boxes:
Jan 4 06:47:45 localhost esr: gunning some processesGotta love that circular reasoning. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does SCO even know what they're suing for?
Re:Gotta love that circular reasoning. (Score:2)
The entire suit is hysterically funny, of course, but this one point looks to me as if it would fit the original claim well (however stupid the claim was, of course).
bleh. (Score:2)
--
BMO
Re:bleh. (Score:2)
My idea (Score:2)
It's all about delay, and msft scare tactics (Score:5, Interesting)
At this point, the entire point of the scam is keep delaying. Msft's army of shills are screaming the message: "People are being sued for using Linux - don't use Linux." Of course the msft influenced tech-pop-media is leaving out the details, but most of the public isn't interested in the details.
There is also a very powerful object lesson being sent to other companies: "if you contribute to Linux, you better be ready to spend $100MM to fight a msft backed nuisance lawsuit. And you better be squeaky clean, because the discovery will never stop." How many companies want to bother with that? "Screw it. I was going to donate this code to Linux, but it just isn't worth the trouble."
McBride rakes in an easy $1MM a year. Scox market cap goes from $6MM to $70MM. Life is good for the scox scammers. Scox execs can lie, cheat, and steal, all they want. The USA bogo-justice system isn't going to do anything about it.
A stunning plan folks... (Score:2)
1 Get SCO to sue Microsoft from breach of copyright
2 Sue MS for breach of contract and get them to turn over the copyright to us
3 Get LOTS of money and domination in the software world 4 rep
Oh yeah... (Score:2)
"Persistence: It's over, Man...let it go!"
Novell Did Steal from SCO (Score:3, Funny)
ELF again. Sheesh. (Score:4, Funny)
They must not be into Dungeons & Dragons I guess.
Listen up..Elves come in a large variety of races, and each has its own nuances. They are here described in alphabetical order: Dargonesti, Dimernesti, Drow, Gray Elves, High Elves, Kagonesti, Qualinesti, Silvanesti, Valley Elves, Wild Elves, and Wood Elves.
IBM or Novell should just buy SCO out (Score:3, Informative)
If IBM or Novell (or some trust composed of several heavy hitters) completely bought SCO out, all of this legal crap would go away. It's not too far-fetched, either. We could even see SCO's copyrighted UNIX code released under the GPL ... in the event that we actually wanted it ;-)
Maybe my suggestion is a year or two early; at the rate SCO is shrinking, its value will soon drop below the cost of defending its claims in court.
Re:IBM or Novell will *NOT* just buy SCO out (Score:4, Interesting)
That was the theory three years ago, when IBM could have bought scox for $20MM. IBM wanted no part of it then, and after three years, and about $100MM spent by IBM, you can be absolutely certain that IBM wants no part of that scam company now.
When you buy scox, you buy lawsuits, lots of lawsuits. Scox has violated many companies, and many laws. Do you think IBM wants that? Do you think IBM wants all the ill will that comes with buying scox?
IBM's linux business is in the billions, the msft/scox nuisance lawsuit is hardly worth jeopordizing that.
Re:IBM or Novell will *NOT* just buy SCO out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IBM or Novell will *NOT* just buy SCO out (Score:3, Informative)
Re:IBM or Novell should just buy SCO out (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM's not going to buy SCO out, or settle on any terms SCO would agree to. And nobody else is crazy enough to buy SCO out and take on the legal problems. The big problem is that SCO didn't just sue IBM, they publicly claimed IBM stole from SCO and ignored contract terms. Those are deadly serious claims to make considering the amount of business IBM does with governments, militaries and financial institutions (domestic and foreign) who have less than no tolerance for shenanigans and who won't do business wit
Duel it out (Score:3, Funny)
When it's over (2008?) will IBM sue msft? (Score:2)
This is on topic.
I think ibm has some agreement not to sue msft untill at least 2007. Also, with the present administration, the DoJ will take no action against msft. The scox-scam trials are set mid-2007. And when does Vista come out?
All the financing for this purely malicious lawsuit was provided by msft. Msft has cost IBM around $100MM in legal expenses, so far. Msft has also used this lawsuit in msft's smear campaign against Linux - which is a substantial part of IBM's business.
Msft has also used the sc
Re:Wookies, Anyone? (Score:2)
In the South Park sense, or in the 'I'm going to rip your arms off if I lose' sense?
Re:Wookies, Anyone? (Score:2)
Considering that, in all respects, SCO is about as intimidating as C3P0...
Re:What BS (Score:2)
Seriously, the longer they go on with this crap the angrier the judge gets, I can imagine he's had just about enough of this case...
Re:Ready! Fire! Aim! (Score:2)
Why? SCO isn't aiming for public approval. McBride knows that he is "the most hated man in the industry". At this point, he's going to gamble long with the remnants of his hand, and that's hoping that he'll hit something, anything, where a judge might smack Novell.
The justice system doesn't require that a plaintiff be liked (and we don't have much of a mechanism to keep people from filing unfounded lawsuits).
Re:Pull the little yellow bus over, now! (Score:2, Funny)
Not exactly, contract is confusing. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is hoping to use this vague wording to override the clear wording of the original contract. They're claiming that the conditional clause has been met and that all the copyrights should be transferred. Novell is going to argue that SCO doesn't need the copyright to exercise their rights "with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies". No doubt they're going to ask what technologies SCO is seeking to acquire and why they'd need the copyrights to do so. It's going to be up to the courts to decide this one.
I don't see how this can be read the way SCO wants to read it. SCO doesn't want the copyrights to acquire UNIX technology (which they did a decade ago); they want the copyrights to sue Linux users. This clause was put in so SCO could co-develop Monterey with IBM, so the historical context doesn't help SCO out either.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
Novell didn't start Caldera. One of the founders of Novell started Caldera.
Your history's wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
SCOG's run their business into the ground (their clients are fleeing in droves), and decided to misread the AT&T -> Novell -> Santa Cruz agreements to believe they own UNIX in toto, and that any code that touched the SysV codebase (as in IBM's RCU, NUMA, etc.) is theirs, despite lawyers from the preceding firms telling them they're full of it. They went after IBM, apparently expecting a quiet payoff/buyout, and got a countersuit instead. Now that they're facing the unblinking horde that is IBM's legal department, and the techies deconstructing their PR within minutes, their strategy seems to be reduced to delaying the inevitable.
Novell, meanwhile, decided that Linux was a Good Thing, also, and bought another Linux vendor, and seem to be making a reasonably successful go of it.