Slashdot Mirror
SCO Files Suit Against Novell Over System V Ownership
nadamsieee writes "Yahoo! Finance is carrying a press release from SCO that details a new lawsuit against Novell for "Slander of Title". It looks like SCO has finally ditched their failing product line in favor of 24/7 litigation and PR work." To recap: Novell and SCO have a lengthy correspondence over the meaning of the contract between the two companies, Novell registers a claim with the U.S. copyright office over the code in dispute, SCO files this suit in response. Update: 01/20 23:04 GMT by M : SCO has placed their complaint (pdf) online.
Pssst, Darl.. Some 17 year old punk named Mike Rowe is running his website on Linux! You better file suit against him, too!
Trolling is a art,
Oh yeah. Novell had to be the last company I thought SCO would sue. How can anyone really feel good about working for these guys? Granted, jobs in IT are harder to come by as of late, but I would be absolutely embarrassed to say "I work for SCO"....... They are less and less a tech company every day and more and more a front for litigious action that appears to pump up their stock and dump shares as quickly as possible given the SEC filings over the past little while. Come on now, these guys split off from Novell via Noorda who almost ran Novell into the ground after fightin' it out with Microsoft and tried under the guise of Caldera to sell (rather unsuccessfully) a Linux distro, almost killing another company yet again. Darl McBride then thought "I know what let's do, let's build a business model based upon legal action. Hell, we don't need no stinkin' IT product. We've got lawyers .
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I think we are at a point where it is easier to list the companies that SCO has _not_ sued. I'm waiting on them to bite the hand that feeds them by taking a shot at Microsoft and Sun. Hell, they may even end up suing themselves!
Could this be a last ditch effort to bump their stock so they can sell the last few shares...
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
This press release contains forward-looking statements regarding SCO's lawsuit against Novell.. . . These forward- looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties including, without limitation, the risk that SCO may not be successful in its claims against Novell and that the pursuit of protections for SCO's copyrights will require the expenditure of resources and may result in further litigation.
They have my nomination for understatement of the year (& it's only January). Second, anyone?
It's a bad sign when you start putting disclaimers in your press releases.
When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.
Mark Twain
...is it whack, or is it whack?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
This case will be their most important case, if they lose this they don't have a case against IBM anymore either (if they ever did)
I don't know how SCO possibly hopes to sustain another lawsuit, with the IBM one and all the counter-suits against them still pending. They have basically no cash flow (and their SEC filings confirm) that they probably won't see any additional revenue this quarter.
Looks like another publicity ploy to divert attention from the amended S3 filings they made last week that announced all the risks they "forgot about" in the original filing.
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten. -George Carlin
Now, finally, a good test case for the Lie Detector Glasses for sceptical Slashdot readers!
Now, that's the pot calling the kettle "black".
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Figures.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
A press-release? From SCO? You m-u-s-t be kidding me...
...from software to litigation?
Inconceivable!!!
Sneakabout is a mysterious figure, having done too much mathematics.
Gosh. Weren't they supposed to provide evidence for their case against IBM first? What evidence do they have now against Novell? Will we know only next year when yet another judge gives SCO more time to prove their point?
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
How long until the BSA starts conducting raids on businesses without SCO "liceneses"? By the BSA's standards, unlicensed software will get you audited, and they like to bring in their pet cops to do these raids. Novell lawsuit is probably good though as it will help force closure on the great IP landgrab on the century.
SCO sues Michael Jackson for touching their code
SCO sues God over use of their code on Earth
SCO sues SCO over use of SCO name
The FSF and the kernel hackers could have a field day with SCO right now. This, along with the aborted attempt to sell binary run-time licences that restrict rights in a similar fashion, may be exactly the mistakes the GNU/Linux copyright owners have been waiting for. I'm pretty sure SCO's public statements about the invalidity of the GPL, combined with the GPL's own statements that any disagreement over the terms of GPL-code distribution kicks the whole package back to standard copyright and thus makes SCO's own continued distribution illegal as hell, will make this case a laugher. For all of SCO's claims that the GPL is anti-copyright and unconstitutional, the licence itself makes clear that if the conditions can't be fulfilled or the licence is found to be unenforceable, standard copyright law applies--which means, unfortunately for SCO, the code they're trying to distribute is not automatically public domain, and thus they have no right to distribute any code they can't claim direct ownership for. It just means the authors would have to come up with another way to licence their code, either collectively or individually--and SCO would be in no position to make demands. Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
SCO can kiss my shiny metal ass.
SCO to IBM: "Hold on a sec while I go and steal something from this guy so I can say you stole it from me."
I bet that will fly.
..."a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions"
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Funny one PR... funny..
"where words meet intent, lies rhetoric's lament"
I think SCO is in this for a long time, and they won't go away. Judging by 2003 and the last month's efforts, they will stick about and sue anyone and everything vaguely related to them.
And when their stock finally takes a plummet back under a dollar... they'll sue their investors and anyone who ever traded on them!
I guess it's a smart move by them to get in first before Novell acted. If Novell had acted in suing SCO for claiming to own Novell's UNIX when they didn't, it would give the worldwide impression that SCO is using IP illegally. As SCO has taken the first step of taking legal action against Novell, it now looks all the more (even if only to the clown troup of DiDio and Deutschebank) like SCO is the one working to protect THEIR ip.
Can a company sue another company for being plain stupid? I mean, SCO thought they were getting all of System V because they failed to grasp all of the ramifications of the contract they had with Novell. The only argument that they might have is the claim that Novell tricked them into a contract that they thought was more inclusive. From reading the correspondence, I don't think this is the case. It was just a matter of shear stupidity on SCO's part to agree to a contract under their assumption that it was more inclusive than it is.
Now, can't Novell simply ask SCO to stop annoying them, and if they don't stop, just proclaim on behalf of SCO that this one lawsuit is over?
Swap the words Novell and SCO in their itemized statement and this press release would probably more resemble the truth.
So what do I have to do in order to get my bullshit press releases on Yahoo?
So what? Darl decided to "Wag the Dog" with another lawsuit?
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
Question
What do you have the best chances of seeing this year?
A) - The Easter Bunny
B) - Cupid
C) - SCO's compelling evidence against Linux.
D) - Another John Woo movie, including his signature cinematic touches such as; crossed guns, the boot, the villain's outer garment whipping in the wind, and, oh yeah.....those fucking birds !!!
Answer D - BECAUSE THE REST ARE FUCKING FIGMANTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION.
Are there any legal consequences for all of SCO's barratry?
About SCO
:) Yeah, they really help people grow their business, don't they. Whenever I, as a software vendor, want to help my customers grow their business, I threaten to sue them.
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday.
Wow, is that what they do?
I, like many others, am salivating to see what happens after the hearing on the 23rd. May SCO go down in flames after that, or at least just STFU.
/.: why the hell am I here?
Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its copyrights, its business, and its reputation.
aaahahhahahahahaha. *breath* aahehehehahahehe
yeah sure, Novell was the cause of the irreparable harm! ahahahhahahahe!
"Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO."
... threatening and suing your OWN customers didn't do any damage to your reputation. Sheesh. Drugs are bad, hmmkay?
Yeeeaahh. Like
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
I think this explains why they didn't have time to correctly respond to the Judge's request that the produce evidence in the IBM case. The were apparently already working on their next frivolous lawsuit.
Finkployd
Round and round they go... being sucked inexorably to the bottom of the funnel, at which point they die.
SCO's updated SEC documents found it necessary to state that they can't afford to pay their lawyers in cash, so they're using stock instead. So it makes a lot of sense to take on a new lawsuit... Oh, except they have to, to defend their other lawsuits.... And they don't seem to be noticing anything *wrong* here. Either they or us are missing something.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
I am the only one that found it hilarious that this story came in on the front page right after the story about the "Lie Detector Glasses"?
Since this goes to the heart of SCO's claims against IBM and also of Redhat's suit against SCO, I predict that both sides in both lawsuits (SCO vs IBM and Redhat vs SCO) will ask for the respective lawsuits to be suspended (on-hold) until this is resolved. Bottom line: several more years of drawn out FUD with no resolution in sight.
http://ichart.yimg.com/y?s=NOVL&z=b&t=1d&c=SCO X
A couple of minutes later, however, prices were back at the level as they were before.
Looking at the correspondence Novell's put up, and given that SCO has acknowledged paying Novell royalties for SysV recently, it's hard to see how they can be serious. We can only hope that the judge here doesn't allow McBride & Co. to drag out the disclosure process as they have in the IBM case.
SCO delenda est!
No doubt Novell will file a countersuit. In fact, from Novell's correspondence it looks like Novell was preparing to file a suit over non-compliance with the purchase agreement. Maybe SCO saw it coming, and decided it would be better publicity to file first. Not that such a tactic will do SCO any good in the long run.
How long can this go on? What kind of justice system do we have if a company is allowed to make false claims and interfere with the on goings of other businesses? I thought these morons had to prove that there was wrongdoing. I'm not a lawyer or anything but isn't SCO in a shit load of trouble if their claims are proven false? Isn't this kinda thing criminal? Like conspiracy to commit fraud or something? I mean come on, this is a bunch of BS. Bunch of rambling but can someone explain how something like this can be legal?
No, Darl. It's all of the false statements that YOU have made that is causing customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.
This really isn't suprising news, as it has become pretty clear that Novell was getting it's ducks in a row, prior to suing SCO. This is merely SCO striking first, though I don't know what, if any, long term good this will do them. (I haven't checked to see if this boosted their stock, but it could just as easily backfire).
Anyway, Novell is sure to file a counterclaim. No doubt about it, SCO is in trouble, and the financial world is slowly catching on to the fact.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Catch this:
... nobody but SCO!
Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO.
So if that is what it takes for SCO to sue someone, their next target has to be themselves! Who else has done so much "to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO"
Infuriate left and right
The word SCO is in danger of becoming a synonym for sue. Some thing like "Oh yeah, well I am going to SCO your ass off, buddy" Sorta like google became a standardized verb.
just when you thought it could not get anymore ironic. Darl opens his mouth and says what Kevin tells him too.
From the Press Release...
/. bandwidth providers.
"About SCO
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday"
And of course it must be true, many (but not sure if it is millions) of lawyers grow their business with help from SCO. Not to mention news services and
then no cash flow
The title of the page will display whatever you put in the path name
This is the WORST possible choice of lawsuit for SCO, considering that the burden of proof will solely be on them to prove that Novell slandered them. Proving actual malice is difficult when what Novell says is true. However, even if the copyright claims made by Novell are proven to be wrong, SCO will still have difficulty proving Novell acted with actual malice, since Novell believes their statements to be true.
This is another blowhard public relations stunt by _SCOX_. I use the stock ticker symbol because that's the exact reason SCO is filing these lawsuits. As long as their stock performs, they'll have the cash to file lawsuits.
Let's get the facts straight. SCO is posturing since their lifeline is running dry. The recent Motley Fool article shows that the investment community is losing patience with scox. Once the investment runs out, the litigation runs out. Period.
"Provider of UNIX-Based solutions":SCO :: "religion":$cientology
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Jesus Christ! Is there anyone SCO won't sue? I can just imagine the next ./ article
SCO's next lawsuit target CmdrTaco's Aunt Tilly for her recipe for Scones since the first three letters in it are SCO. Aunt Tilly gives SCO the finger and states "Come near me and my recipe book and I'll let you have it with a rolling pin you bastards"
Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
SCO is doing that to themselves quite nicely by threatening Linux users. They don't need to sue Novell.
This sig no verb.
I haev your magic beans!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It means that SCO has been out of the picture for to long as PR goes, they need something to boost their declining stock.
We've had issues with copyright infringement and only once had to resort to any type of legal action. The other times, they removed content when asked and apologized and that was enough for us.
But then again...many business models still don't make sense to me.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
At SCO Countdown, I have a countdown to SCO's self imposed deadline for suing a Linux end user (I doubt that a Novell lawsuit can be counted as a end user suit), so remember, SCO has to file another lawsuit in 28 days or it misses it's deadline. In addition, after that litigious bastards campaign that was started on /. a few days ago, I acquired that domain and threw up a quick page.
Remember, link link link!
This title may seem off topic, but i wanted to point out to everyone that Papa John's Pizza, is using SCO unix. I know this, cause i work on their computers. I don't know which i hate working on more, the old dos base setup or the SCO unix based. Luckily sense the software is Unix based, it should be relatively easy to port over to linux. They love me.
SimonTek
They have my nomination for understatement of the year (& it's only January). Second, anyone? It's a bad sign when you start putting disclaimers in your press releases.
I realize you may be joking but in the interest of being sufficiently pedantic, SCO actually is legally required to put disclaimers like this in. Whenever a company releases information about the managament's expectations for future events they have to identify "forward looking" information with a disclaimer like this. If they do not put this sort of disclaimer in the press release, the could be subject to discipline by the SEC or shareholder lawsuits. (I know, I know, that would be a good thing here...) SCO is just following the law and giving investors a disclosure of risks.
In other words nothing to see here. Move along...
The asset purchase agreement in a much more readable form than the scrambled PDF on SCO's site:at Groklaw
I don't think I've seen attachment E before, but it appears to be a list of documentation, not software. I wonder if SCO thinks that owning the documentation for the ABI gives them ownership of the ABI itself?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
that's the pot calling the sugar bowl black. Isn't Novell in the right on this??
/. password!)
(Damn, I wish I could remember my
the day SCO closes their doors. It is amazing how much effort is being spent to put up with these cretins. I agree with others that their new business model is litigation.
/.? I wonder what they think about whats been happening? Are they embarrassed? Happy? Or just brain dead? I know jobs are tough to get but at some point you gotta realize that some jobs are just plain BAD for you. Working at SCO is not going to be a good career move.
If I was an SCO employee, I would edit my resume and remove the time I worked that, replace it with "spent some time to deal with personal issues".
I wonder if employees at SCO read
Just when did they throw away the paddle, or is it all they have left? Perhaps there is some old Norse blood in them, the red mist has fallen over their eyes and they are lashing out at anything that moves.
You don't need a lab to make mud.
correction:"The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) manuals and programmer guides"
Mark Heise says: "We encourage the public and commercial Linux users to read the Asset Purchase Agreement from 1995 (including Attachment E found at www.sco.com/novell)"
Simply put attatchment E is a list of programmer manuals and user guides. So now we know what oldSCO bought from Novell.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
you have got to be fucking kidding me, how is ther lawfirm working with them letting them file these suits knowing there is no way in hell they could possibly win!!!!! (was yelling but /. wont let me, I thin there should be a CAPS ok if yelling about a sco article button over there)
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
The IBM lawsuit is about contract disputes not copyrights, these two will probably go on in parallel.
http://requaweb.home.comcast.net/dewey/
>
> Show some objectivity, or I have no reason to bother reading the story you found, since I must assume you are pushing an agenda, rather than reporting news.
I find this interesting:
Its like they don't even believe that they own the copyrights and want to secure them via litigation. Of course, that shouldn't surprise anyone...
Lie detector glasses that work on press releases, coming soon from Nemesys-co!
Isn't it $1499 by now?
Stop using the Caldera logo for SCO stories. It's unfair to the "old" Caldera that would have never had anything to do with this stuff.
I must assume you are pushing an agenda, rather than reporting news.
You must be new here.
Let's see Friday is court day on IBM's case. I smell a pretty bad debacle for SCO there.
Novell's been doing a pretty good job harrying SCO's flanks to the point where SCO is probably getting nowhere selling "licenses". They HAD to sue Novell to keep the pretense up.
I've noticed that their PR releases don't list a PR agency anymore. I used to work for a PR firm and usually they'll handle or coordinate media queries. Being done in house now. Hmmmm.... Maybe they can't find a flack who'll touch them.
My guess is that it's all about the stock price now but... The PR machine is losing steam. Like a junkie they need more drugs/PR to keep going.
Don't worry about the stock price, that's trailing news. There's so little stock being traded relative to amount outstanding that it doesn't take much to support it and the press releases are getting less effective. It'll crash rather spectacularly when there's a completely adverse opinion in one of the cases.
Friday will be fun to watch!
I'll bet even the BSA looks at SCO and says "Jeez, what a bunch of clueless pricks."
Talk about the ultimate insult.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Pssst, Darl.. Some 17 year old punk named Mike Rowe is running his website on Linux! You better file suit against him, too!
Don't get him started. There's probably some kid out there S. C. Oh with a website...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yeah, I'd like to know about that, too.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This case should be an easy win for SCO. Novell is shooting their mouth off since they own a stake in Linux, and it will be good to get the actual facts, rather than Novell BS.
Caldera as a company was founded with the sole purpose of suing Microsoft over DR-DOS, which they had acquired. Litigation is nothing new, it's been their business model from day one.
Anyways, here's the link: http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1269 26
SCO accusing others of slander? That's like Jenna Jameson accusing the local librarian of having a loose puss.
In viewing SCO Group's actions, a quote from Babylon 5 comes to mind.
In the words of Londo Mollari: "only an idiot fights a war on two fronts; only the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."
I think that we have found the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots. I have lost track on how many entities they are really going after and how many they are threatening to go after.
Caldera's business model was always litigation.
"Do you remember when you asked me the definition of irony..."
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
said Mark Heise, partner, Boies, Schiller and Flexner, LLP. "We encourage the public and commercial Linux users to read the Asset Purchase Agreement from 1995 (including Attachment E found at www.sco.com/novell) and Amendment 2 so they can see for themselves that SCO owns the copyrights to UNIX and UnixWare."
...Besides the fact that Novell just bought into the Linux sector with it's purchase of SuSE. This debate apparently stems from something well before Novells involvement with Linux.
What does a copyright violation case between Novell and SCO have to do with Linux?
Save it for the judge pall, I know we slashdotten have uber legal skills, but thank your lucky stars that it won't be up to us.
Seriously though, why point out Linux users specifically? Why not just leave it at "public" instead of "public and... "
SCO and lawyerfriends are now just perpetuating a flame war.
SCO's income and "popularity" comes from harrassing and intimidating their customers (and people who might even have thought about being customers). Why would they have any customers left? I want to buy a (useful) product from someone, rather than purchasing a useless POS with the option of paying for further litigation at some time in the future. That more than anything shows SCO's contempt for their customer base, and is why SCO no longer has a customer base.
the whole of Darl's lies and misrepresentation to his customers and stockholders is icing on the cowpie that SCO is trying to force on its stockholders, customers, and anyone who owns a computer. The suits (and the "licensing fees" SCO hopes to extract) are the "cake".
Maybe I'm confused, but shouldn't SCO have sued Novell first? If they go to trial with IBM before the Novell suit is worked out, then the Big Blue Bulldozer can ride right over them with the ol' "SCO is tied up in court to prove they own the rights to the code that they say they own, but Novell says differently, and it's still up in the air, so they can't touch us" argument. Therefore, SCO better pray that Novell loses (yeah, that'll happen) quickly (Oh wow I can't stop laughing) before IBM gets in front of a judge to have SCO's claims dismissed while Big Blue can continue with its counterclaims. Put simply, SCO just found out, or realized, that they put the cart in front of the horse...not that they own any such horse, cart, or are even on a road anybody recognizes...
Everybody who thinks IBM's lawyer's bust out a Big Blue Grin when this came out, raise your hand.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
This is all a little strange. It seems to me that the IBM case would have to be set on hold until after the Novell case is settled. I mean how can you finish suing IBM for misuse/misappropration of IP until you've settled who the actual owner of the copyrighted material is? (That of course assumes any of said copyrighted material can be proven to belong to anyone in particular or that it has actually been misappropriated into other software ;-)
Remember everybody, gotta link! litigious bastards.
/. post
As seen in this
litigious bastards
Agent: This is a simple lie detector. I'll ask you a few yes or no questions and you just answer truthfully. Do you understand?
McBride: Yes.
(The polygraph explodes.)
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I think ladbrookes should start taking bets on this, they could fill the shop with geeks staring at stock screens instead of horse punters etc! SCO must have something big after all this, even if its the revelation that they had nothing but the lawyers figured it was a good and legal idea that would make money from licensing and give them advertising!?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I hope the judge of this case is fully aware that the SCO that Novell sold stuff to is NOT the same SCO that is around now. The current company calling itself SCO used to be Caldera and had nothing to do with the Novell-SCO 1995 agreement.
.. on SCO before now. From my reading of the asset purchase agreement(s), Novell retained certain rights over SCO, including the right to "undo" certain things that SCO might do to their licensees, e.g. SCO revokes IBM's license, Novell un-revokes it. I find it surprising that they have not been able to just pull the plug on SCO for all of their recent behaviour. It's a shame, but I'm sure that if they could have done, they would have.
That is, to maliciously waste one's time.
Or more succinctly, just FAIL IT.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And really, if that's not humour, what is. I imagine somewhere someone hacked the website just to kill that one page. That someone is a cool person, no matter what any of you think. They have my vote, at least.
/.'ers are too lazy to follow links. Feel free to mod down for redundancy anyway.
I'm composing this all with links to the 404 in question simply because 99% of
like SCO has a reputation to uphold at this point...
SCO (SCOX) has recently announced a change in the mission of the company. Citing failures to produce revenue growth chairman Darl McBride has decided to initiate a corporate injury law firm. "We already have several important clients (SCO v. IBM,SCO v. Novell, Redhat v. Novell) and this is proof that we can draw out lawsuits for many years, producing extraordinary increases in stock value." In other news the recently bankrupt Redback Networks has filed with SCO to sue Cisco for alleged patent infringement. When the Redback CEO was asked about the details of this infringement he replied "due to the potential damage to Redback such details cannot be provided. However we recognize that the corporations who purchased infringing hardware from Cisco did so without prior knowledge, so we are introducing a new licensing fee of $500 per unit until the end of the summer, at which time the said fee will be raised to $1000".
SCO might be a good stock to short sell... Wall Street seems to think that SCO has the goods, we who are actually in the tech community are almost certain that SCO is full of crap.
Even if SCO can prove that some of their code worked its way into Linux, that code will be coming out within weeks, I guarantee, and they essentially lose again.
Here's what it means, courtesy of yogi61bear's findings:
Slander of Title
To recover in an action for slander of title, a party must allege and prove: (i) the utterings and publishing of disparaging words; (ii) that they were false; (iii) that they were malicious; (iv) that special damages were sustained thereby; (v) that the plaintiff possessed an estate or interest in the property disparaged; and (vi) the loss of a specific sale. Malice is a basis for recovery of actual damages in a slander of title case means merely that the acts must have been deliberate conduct without reasonable cause. A patent may well be the subject of a slander of title action as Prosser and Keeton state that intangible interest such as "trademarks, copyrights [and] patents" may be the subject of the tort.
As compared to other "injurious falsehood" causes of action, slander of title or property differs in that there is no presumption of damages. The plaintiff must show that he or she sustains special damage proximately, naturally and reasonably resulting from the alleged slander. Attorneys' fees are not recoverable in slander of title actions, and neither damages to reputation nor consequential mental damages are recoverable in action for slander of title. The plaintiff must prove the loss of a specific sale, i.e., that a pending sale was defeated by the slander. However, the reasonable expense of litigation necessary to remove the doubt, or cloud, from the property or title thereto has been held to be recoverable. Additionally, punitive damages are also recoverable in an action for slander of title. Thus, as was the case with a defamation cause of action, a plaintiff should allege that defendant's actions were both intentional and with malice.
-- By Paul C. Van Slyke
Belief is the currency of delusion.
These guys at SCO are deceptive idiots!
Reading Amendment E and you will see that only the copyrights to the various manuals of Sys V are transferred to old SCO (not current Caldera/SCO Group).
However to a casual observer it might look like SCO got the copyrights to Sys V itself, which is not the case.
Thus Novell is correct and this new Fog and Mirror attack from SCOG is completely bogus.
--
Andre
SCO files suit against Novell in an effort to have their balls released from Novell's vice grip.
Laziness is a virtue, anyone who bothers to tell you otherwise, is clearly lacking it.
Wheeee!!! Another SCO lawsuit!
Darl and Co. really missed the boat on another revenue tie-in: Reality Programming. Can you *imagine* what a great comedy this would make? Just prop up the cameras, then let Darl, Chris Sontag, Blake Stowell, Jeff Hunsaker, Mark Heise, David Boies, Kevin McBride, and etc., rip.
They'd make a *fortune*!!!
And then they could sue Court TV for "IP infringement". More Money!
Po' li'l set upon Darl. All the big corporate boys are conspiring against him. And all the li'l Linux boys are piling on.
Seriously, though, I think Litigious Bastards 'R' Us, Inc. have finally signed their death warrant.
So, to win this case, SCO will have to prove in court that what Novell said was false, and that SCO lost a specific sale because of what Novell said. I don't see much chance of them proving either one... But hey, what am I thinking? I'm talking like they care about winning the suit, instead of just pumping the stock price, slinging FUD, and stalling. Disclaimer: IANAL.
BUT WHY , WHY in the name of god do companies wait till the end of the day to release this stuff.
Calm down, Dean.
This could serve a significant ulterior goal for SCO. By postponing the IBM trial (awaiting resolution of their ownership of the copyright), they increase the time during which uncertainty (such as it is) about linux remains high.
So this could be as much an attempt to decrease linux share and increase royalties as it is to establish whether Novel sold the rights that SCO claims they did.
Let's hear it for the litigious bastards
They think they own it, so why not hire for it?
projection (pr&-JEK-sh&n): The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Nonsense.
Redhat's claims have nothing to do with who owns the property rights to UNIX, and IBM's case is nearly at a close, and doesn't really hinge on whether or not SCO owns UNIX - they've gotten this far, they're surely not going to suspend the case until the Novell/SCO case builds up for a matter of months, etc.
As soon as one case concludes against SCO, SCO is pretty much done for. It doesn't really matter which one, and IBM's is the one that is closest to closure at the moment. Why not let it finish, instead of shutting it down?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The SCO case against IBM will fail. SCO will then divert it's efforts into a meritless copyright case based on 'error.h'.
Considering that they're not claiming Copyright infringement, but rather breach of contract and misappropriation of Trade Secrets- it's in their court filing for IBM case. A dismissal with predjudice would imply that they didn't have a case in the first place and that they made public proclaimations of infringement but could not produce anything of the sort before the Court in IBM's countersuit. This turns ON Red Hat's case, irregardless of Copyright issues between SCO and Novell- they're claiming infringement, but can't produce it. Doesn't matter whether or not they own the alleged infringements or not- if they can't prove them, they're guilty of violations of the Lanham act either way.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
There are no shares available to short. That means that at least 25% of the float is held short, possibly more. Some people on Wall St. apparently don't believe that SCO has the goods, and are shorting this pig massively.
I've got to hand it to SCO. This is one of the most elaborate pump-n-dump schemes I've seen. The only thing missing is SCO using a virus to distribute spam about SCO's stock prices....
Oh wait, there's goes my email alert. I spoke too soon.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
I personally believe this to be a Good Thing(tm). IANAL, but wouldnt that mean if this case goes through and SCO lose, all other cases are null and void?
Yeah, this attachment E seems to be new, I don't recall having seen it before.
I must admit, the actual entire asset purchase agreement is incredibly strange. I think that the text in Ammendment 2 is a bit weird - it would be interesting to know what copyrights SCO would ever need to do certain things. It's very strange
I think you need some proper courses on the art of trolling. Try trolling 101 by SexyKellyOsbourne.
Sounds cool and useful but...
I do not need lie dector glasses to tell that SCO is lieing and full of shit.
I think SCO thinks that the more lawsuits with the same 3 companies they can dish up the better. This way things will get so confusing, and laywers of IBM, Novell and RedHat will be exchanging so much infomation they will lose track and think they are suing each other. Letting SCO slip out of the lawsuit all together.
This in turn gives SCO the perfect amount of time to create a new buisness. SCO Chocolates.
You're so vain, I'll bet you think that OS is about you
Don't you? Don't You? Don't You?
SCO had some dreams they were flushed down the toilet, flushed down the toilet, and...
Oh course there's no resolution! The Pixel is SCO's IP!
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
Amendment #2 of the SCO/Novell Asset purchase Agreement paraphrased: SCO gets Copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell that are REQUIRED for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.
Which copyrights and trademarks are required so SCO can exercise it rights?
What are SCO's rights in terms of the purchase agreement?
What would make a copyright or trademark required?
What is the mechanism for transferring these copyrights and trademarks?
Who gets to decide if they are required?
SCO apparantly says that all trademarks and copyrights are required and the only necessary mechanism for transfer is that they register them.
Novell apparantly says that SCO has to specifically ask for a particular trademark or copyright and it is up to Novell to decide if that trademark or copyright is actually required. Only then does SCO get the trademark or copyright.
Is there some standard, established way that trademarks and copyrights are transferred?
If IBM is an 800lb gorilla, and their lawsuit was their weapon, then they essentially are asking the gorilla for a stick to hit them with.
If Novell is the 400lb cousin of the 800lb gorilla, then SCO just shot it with a BB gun and is expecting it to drop.
If you locked John Grisham in a room blaring Rage Against the Machine and hooked him up to an IV drip with LSD filled in the bag and gave him some Nicotine gum to chew and no sleep for 10 days, he wouldn't come up with this mess in a million years.
...I do not think it means what you think it means.
Novell was able to rescind SCO's license :)
I think that is called 'rough justice'
"Welcome to Hell - Here's your copy of Windows"
You can replace every mention of "Novell" in that article with "SCO Group", and every mention of "SCO Group" with "Linux" and it'd still be true.
This is not the sig you're looking for.
That has to have been the worst joke I've heard in a while... yet, I still find it incredibly funny.
I'm easily amused, I guess
Folks, go toThe Linux World page and look at the ad from IBM.
The page linked is Linux World's page on SCO v. Novell - with an IBM Linux ad, featuring the face of "Linux" with the words
I know you are
but what am I?
over it.
EEEEVILLLL!
You KNOW that IBM had that ready and waiting for this move!
www.eFax.com are spammers
Believe me - I hate SCO as much as the next guy, but Novell is partly to blame for this mess because they have so poorly managed the ownership of UNIX and its related intellectual property so that this situation could happen in the first place. I bet even they do not know what the hell they sold SCO or what they own at this point. Novell just got copyright assignment for the Sys V code a few months ago. For the record, what did they sell to SCO, anyway? And how much did SCO pay for whatever it is they bought?
Where is SCO getting all this cash for legal expenses from? Certainly not from Linux "IP" licenses. Have they got a money tree, or hoping that they can win a few cases early enough to finance the other pending cases? Lets hope they sue so many more SIMULTANEOUSLY, that they run out of money before any of the cases conclude.
It kinda reminds me of playing Monopoly. If you spend all your remaining cash buying hotels on Park Avenue, etc, and you land on someone elses hotel before they land on yours, you're screwed. Hopefully "SCO is Bankrupt" will be the next SCO headline we read.
Yet another story making a big deal out of nothing. Aren't SCO in court for what is purely a contractual issue? All this "We own linux, the kitchen sink and all your base" is pure PR. Don't feed them for goodness sakes or they'll never go away...
In their section about SCO:
"The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX - News) helps millions of customers in more than 82 countries to grow their businesses everyday[sic]."
I didn't know they had legal firms representing them in 82 countries!
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
irregardless is NOT a word.
Well - I expected this. You see - if SCO does not hold the copyrights then their case is substantially weaker.
The first thing the court will do is to determine what the contracts between Novel and SCO are really all about. Money changed hands. SCO must have recieved something for the money they paid - but what? The court may deem SCO bought the copyrights even though Novel clearly had no intentions of giving them up.
This brings up the issue of Novel down the track fallowing in SCO's footsteps. Corporations have interests, not friends. We all need to realise this.
Might as well tag this on: complaint_filing_jan_20_2004
Haven't opened it yet, but I see humor in the near future.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
...about SCO's binary-only runtime license: SCO does not distribute the Linux kernel to licensees, rather it gives them permission to run what they have already acquired elsewhere. Ignoring SCO's own distribution of the kernel under GPL for a moment, it is not clear that this license scheme violates the GPL, because SCO does not distribute the kernel and so does not need permission from the copyright holder (Linus, et al).
Now, since SCO has in the past (and perhaps continues to do so today) in fact distributed the Linux kernel, then there might be a problem for them if they try to sell the license to someone who uses Caldera Linux (or who downloaded the kernel from them). But customers of Red Hat have not received any code from SCO directly (I'm sure SCO can distinguish code that was correctly contributed by Caldera from code that was allegedly inappropriately contributed by others), and so there might be no recourse for Linus against SCO if SCO successfully sells a binary-only runtime license to a Red Hat customer.
they bought a bunch of licenses they didn't need as well.
SCO should still have to show IBM what, exactly, IBM illegally included in Linux.
Then, the legal agreements regarding that material can be judged. It might be that SCO doesn't even have a case against IBM, even if SCO did have the patents.
SCO should get a hold on the IBM case only after SCO has shown what was "stolen" and the contracts have been found to support SCO's case and the "stolen" material is part of the Novell case.
IANAL so feel free to ignore me.
I may be completly wrong about this, anyhow...
It just crossed my mind that in a destructive scenario piling lawsuit on lawsuit may be just a way to "produce" law costs in order to get money/stocks out of the company.
Some weeks ago we had a lot of details on the huge sums that already went to law firms and that it wasn't just Boies but a surprising number of law firms, including McBrides brother. They were paid in cash and stocks.
Now, a law firm receiving it's payment in stocks can sell them without danger of violating any "insider" rules?
Say, their rationale is to liquidate the company in the most lucrative way. They fix a row of dates when insiders will sell stocks and they make sure they have the backing of some unknown interested party by aiming their campaign on Linux. Then carefully select the lawyers (choosing the CEOs brother is a bit to obvious, though). Boom IBM, boing RedHat, boom Novell. Everyone shaking heads, the costs will kill them - but this is not a problem if you intend to use the costs to get money out of the company while the stock prices are still high.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
A lot of people seem to think that SCO is doing the right thing it seems.
Those who truly believe SCO don't have a case, put your money where your mouth is and short the stock!
I would submit to you that there are at least two other options:
3) Change the rules. Don't like the hand your dealt in the game? Change the rules so you have a winning hand. (See one James T Kirk and the Kobayashi Maru Scenario)
4) Don't play. Some games don't have a winning solution. (See Global Thermonuclear War: "This is a strange game. The only way to win is not to play.")
SCO's attitude about litigation, copyright and GPL seems to be some evidence that they've also chosen option 3.
If I read Amendment 2 correctly, all rights went away when the old SCO sold themselves. Also the Attachment E lists primarily manuals and docs - not sources and copyrights.
They should read these themselves (grin>
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
Good idea...I think I would like to jump ship from the *Imperialist* camp and join yours where we can shoot our political foes supporters in the head. Another darling quote from the Angry Left.
SCO's claims against IBM are about contract violations and trade secrets. This suit does not "go to the heart" of that; in fact, it's pretty much irrelevent to what Caldera^WSCO has claimed in court.
:)
Now, the claims they make in press releases, that's another matter!
They aren't supposed to associate with people who aren't Witnesses (unless they're trying to convert them.) And by their reckoning only 1440 people are getting into heaven, so it's gotta be pretty competitive to get in at this point.
Did any other legal-ese newbies find the "prayer for relief" section (near the end of the complaint) especially poignant?
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
And neither is "fuckwit", you fuckwit. But I'm sure you understood what I meant, irregardless of whether or not the words used were actual words.
Foreign Policy advisor to the Bush administration.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I agree, it is all most strange. However, here's a theory:
If SCO have the exclusive right to sub-license Novell's UNIX technology, they are also going to have to provide the manuals and datasheets to the new sublicensees. Owning the copyright to those manuals and datasheets would make it a lot easier for SCO to reprint/amend/update them, wouldn't it?
Check out my Darl McBride pic. Thanks to the GIMP.
C|N>K
SCO is trying to displace Duke Nukem Forever as the king of VaporWare, so they have to keeping filing their daily lawsuits.
After all, they only got a dishonorable mention, so they really have to step up the heat to take the title.
They've shown themselves to be:
Copyright violators suing for copyright violation.
Contract violators suing for breach of contract.
Royalty stiffs (withheld payments from Novell) sending fraudulent invoices for royalties.
And now they're slanderers suing for slander. Though technically it's libel.
Did anyone else see the SCO linux licence deal this way:
Nice linux box you've got there, it would be a shame if someone took you to court over it - pay us a few hundred bucks and we'll make sure you're OK.
Funny thing is the local SCO office hasn't sent anything like that out in my country yet - it appears they don't want to go to jail.
Here's one that IBM is waiting for...
SCO's stolen code in Linux
No wonder SCO is asking IBM to product their source code.
In this case should be named "Yeah Right Online" ;-)
You have 28 days remaining.
Schedule 1.1(b) Excluded Assets (Page 2 of 2)
V. Intellectual Property:
A. 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. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks.
B. All Patents
So unless SCO can show that they need these copyrights to exercise it's rights to UNIX (not likely since they just admin the licenses), and UnixWare (they might have a case here) rights, and that they have asked Novell to give them up, they are totally talking out their ass.
Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
From internetnews.com.
In other words, SCO is issuing press releases within hours (maybe minutes) of filling lawsuits. Certainly before even discussing these matters with Novell. Surely that's not normal behaviour.
There's a running joke on Groklaw that SCO is using press releases and lawsuits as a foul form of free advertising. Unfortunately I'm not finding the joke very funny anymore.
http://www.sco.com/I/sold/your/stock/short
* Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX
and UnixWare copyrights has caused SCO irreparable harm to its
copyrights, its business, and its reputation.
I thought they were doing a fine job of ruining it all by themselves.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Nah, he's an MCSE.
It actually might be a very good thing if invidiual devs sue SCO. It looks like the whole SCO/IBM case might be thrown out before a verdict on the grounds that SCO is completely farking nuts... think ADHD kid in a court-room -- amusing but accurate picture, seeing their non-compliance.
.02
Anyway, if the SCO/IBM case can't get a precedent, maybe these folks should set several with several different judges all over the world.
Another angle on this: IBM is a big company backing Linux, hence other companies will be afraid to sue Linux folks in the future. But what happens if/when companies behind Linux aren't seen as much of a threat? Thus far, nobody seems to be scared of the developers. Maybe they should go after SCO to scare off folks who can sue without stepping on the toes of big Linux-backing corps.
Just my
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
If you'd read Novell's letters, they've told SCO just that. Except SCO is basicly claiming they own it and can do whatever the fuck they want. I think Novell was either a) letting SCO dig their own grave or b) taking their time collecting evidence for a lawsuit.
Novell could probably have ended this earlier, but I think they underestimated SCOs ludicrousy. Now their rabid dog has is chewing on the leash (contract) and attacking their master.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I hope Darl knows better circus tricks than this!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
COuld someone point me to a brief "SCO for Dummies" site which would explain to me WHO SCO is (I never heard of them until I started reading SlashDot), what do they do (I mean what business were they in before the litigation), and what's the core litigation about?
Google's "I'm feeling lucky" doesn't hit SCO, but a page documenting the Google bomb. We've been foiled :-(
Perhaps it's because they're a bunch of litigious bastards!
Wikileaks, no DNS
That damn pdf came right across. Don't you guys care anymore? wtf!
Sure, if SCO can win they'll win big by giving a serious blow to obsolete versions of Linux and make IBM etc. pay a royalty, but what if they don't win? When are the shareholders in SCO going to wake up and realize that a settlement is probably in the best finnancial interest of the company?
Welcome to the net of 1000 lies. Upgrades are scheduled soon that should bring us to the 10,000 lies mark.
Think of all the shrinks that can 'do' Darl, and then retire for life! They will top Bill Gates easy.
---
Yes, posting as AC wouldn't be a sign that you were embarassed, would it? I have seldom seen an attorney embarassed about anything he/she did in any case, they are used to slime (quite literally in the case of SCO attorney Hatch, who recently teamed up with the polluters and his Senator Father to make Utah safe for toxic waste dumping and defeat a popular referendum all in the name of the public good).
And I think all this bad press about this lawsuit is unfair: IBM did never own Unix but they stated goal was to kill Unix by pushing Linux.
Talk to Daryl if you want no more press. SCO is playing (well) to all the ignorants with completely false statements at every opportunity. Perhaps you have not seen the web sites archiving all the lies and contradictions he has made (hint, he does not link to them on your internal web site). It seldom is followed by the ridicule it merits in the popular press, so I agree that aspect is unfair. Tell him to shut up if you don't like it.
I don't have negative feelings against the Linux community but we can't let IBM get away with this. Indeed Darl is just doing his job and definding SCO against this unfair method to put us out of business.
Yes, I am sure it is nothing personal, violating the intellectual property of the community and slandering them. I am sorry, what does this have to do with suing Novell and other Linux users, who unlike SCO, stick up for the rights of the community? What does SCO have to offer anyone but lawsuits for everyone using their own intellectual property? SCO Unix was never worth anything, which the people selling it in a fire sale knew, which is why the suits are never about anything SCO ever owned or produced, but about what IBM and other community members produced for the community.
I have heard many attorneys make this sort of claim that destroying innocents is nothing personal. Either you are an attorney or have listened far too long to particularly twisted ones to make any judgements about fair and unfair.
I doubt there is a friend of Linux anywhere who doesn't see your evil intent despite such lawyerish disclaimers for the thing you are doing which is morally wrong, for which Daryl should be denied his Mormon Temple recommend -- open fraud does notqualify him. Every version of Linux Caldera distributed represents a lie by your company.
Genesis 3:17-19
The context here is that God is upset with Adam, and is letting Adam know about it. This is because Adam ate the forbidden fruit.
King James Version (sorry for the Old English, but it's public domain)
SCO buys 3D Realms... Duke Nukem Forever coming out Real Soon Now.
Haida Manga
If this were not occuring in the context of SCO's outrageous actions, I would think that Novell is completely in the wrong. It is certainly clear that Novell attempted to misrepresent their current rights in the System V codebase.
I am thankful that Novell is doing this, but I worry that they could lose money in this lawsuit. I am especially afraid that the suits at Novell will get cold feet. They may step back, evaluate the cost of proceeding, determine that it is too expensive, and settle with SCO.
SCO sues Novell, but won't disclose its copyrights in Linux, even though it has to defy a court order.
In its press releases and letters to its customers, SCO claims that violations of its copyrights are in the Linux kernel. On December 5,SCO's lawyer, Keven McBride, said in court that SCO would be filing copyright claims against IBM. He also objected to the requirement to specify copyrights, but, after the judge insisted, said that SCO would comply. SCO was compelled by court order to answer ALL IBM questions with specificity by January 12. One of those questions was:
INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
On 1/12/04, SCO responded with an affidavit, a 60 page supplemental response, and some documents. Like everyone else, except IBM, I am still waiting to see the 60 page supplemental response, but I have additional information from public statements by SCO.
On 1/13/04, in the interview "SCO shows IBM the code", SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations. We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
SCO could have made arguments like this before it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now it's too late.
The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed. It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to Linux.
If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or it has not complied with the court order.
If SCO now officially declines to claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could claim them in any later suit against a Linux user or distributor.
If SCO does claim ownership of any copyrights in Linux, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to comply with the order.
I wonder if SCO will now claim that it does not own any code in Linux, but it owns the copyrights that Novell claims. It would be typical of the way SCO has been making and revising claims.
I can only hope someone finishes their auction to sell "www.sco.com" before someone cancels the auction. Damn, if only eBay allowed us to host auctions for less than 1 hour...
I would think this might be a problem for Novell ( if they actually ARE trying to register Unix/Unixware copyrights. Also, where is the Open Group in all this ?
UPS Sucks
Yeah, it sucks. The really scary thing is that this "system" works better than anything else that has been tried. Live with it.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Sco , v. t. [imp. & p. p. Scoed.] - to sue everyone for frivilous reasons. Ex: You have been scoed...
SCO or Goatse guy? In my mind, not much difference. They are both trying to get you to take it up the *&^
When will they stop with all this crap? I bet SCO generates as much spam and bullshit as Nigerian scammers.
[alk]
Dude, that article rocks.
There have been lots of changes at SCO since your arrival. Last month, the company announced a major shift in its business to return to its Unix roots. What's happening, and what's the future of SCO?
Darl: The opportunity for this company is to really tap into the heritage that it has with the Unix operating system on the Intel platform. Some people are saying we're rushing back to the 1980s with our strategy. I like to think we're going back to the future. The interesting thing when I got here is we started looking at the history of this whole thing.
Where do you see SCO in five years?
Darl: I see SCO five years from now being as significant a technology brand as it was five to 10 years ago. We're going to embrace the great things of our past and our roots in Unix and move forward with a strong set of Unix and Linux offerings. On top of the operating systems business, we see a number of solutions-based opportunities, including in retail point-of-sale software. We're not only going to be getting back to where we were, but going beyond that.
It's interesting because Tarantella's history used to mention that it is was once, in fact, the Santa Cruz Operation. The revised history page only mentions events after SCO the First went public, and, has excised any mention of the Cursed Initialism ;)
These copyrights are the last four items listed in attachment E.
Caldera later placed Unix v1-v7 and 32v under a BSD license. You can find it here.
Then, launch a lawsuit. How much money will SCO want to put into lawyers?
4. ???
5. Profit!
This is a troll, right?
It's meant to be funny, right?
Could anyone actually be quite so stupid?
I have a great deal of difficulty believing so.....
Usually, they take infants with no brain function off of life support, but this one must have found a job with Darl&Co.
"Can't let IBM get away with this"
Basically: They(whoever the hell THEY may be(Linux community? Linus Torvalds? IBM? Caldera?) beat us fair and square, so we have every right to play dirty!
Yeah. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that!!
So, because IBM's stated goal was to 'kill' Unix (which is BS, AIX is Unix, and one of their biggest products), SCO is allowed to generate revenue based upon the hardwork of others (Linux community)?
While your at it, why don't you cut me a check, too? As long SCO is getting money for other people's work, can I have some money for other people's work, too?
Who, exactly, are you at SCO? I don't believe you.
Anyone that stupid would have managed to suicide someway or another---Darwinism, and all, ya know?
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
If they are given enough rope hoppfully they will hang them selfs
Oh come on, you can be more specific than that.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
if MS and Sun are forcing SCO to do this otherwise face lawsuits by them for lying to them?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
also FOAD.
I think the wording of the original agreement, even as changed by amendment 2, makes a strong case that SCO did not acquire the SysV copyright, but there's some wiggle room. In the "excluded assets" (i.e., what SCO didn't get), they list:
"A. 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. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and trademarks."
Two things stand out here. First, the fact that Novell retains "All copyrights and trademarks, except..." stronly implies that they retained most of the copyrights involved (otherwise why would this section be in "excluded assets", rather than putting "All copyrights and trademarks, except..." in the "included assets" section?).
Second, what does the word "acquisition" mean in this context? I would interpret it as saying that SCO required certain copyrights and trademarks in order to be able to legally sell SysV UNIX (since the amendment was a generalization of the phrase "except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare"). According to this reading, source code would definitely not be included, and transfer of copyright would take place only as part of the acquisition (i.e., SCO can't come back and claim copyright over other things now). This seems to be Novell's interpretation as well as mine. However, it could be argued that "required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition" is an ongoing thing, and that SCO is now claiming that they need the copyrights in order to continue exercising their rights.
Looking at the section as a whole, and at the history of the document, I'm inclined to lean toward Novell's interpretation, but I have to admit that there's enough ambiguity that SCO might have a case, albeit a weak one.
BTW, FWIW, IANAL. IJLTRLD (I just like to read legal documents).
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Whenever SCO is mentioned, the term "Asshats" comes to mind. This is the corporate equivilent of some moron walking in a "free-fire" zone with a target stapled to his forehead. And I'm sure Laura DiDio sees this latest waste of the court's time as more "money in the bank" for investors, and both people who believe her will help fuel McBride & Company's stock fraud for a little while longer. Too bad.
SCO is about to sue its own attorneys, because their firm uses Linux-based software.
"We cannot sit idly by and let our lawyers steal source code from us. Therefore, SCO is suing the law firm representing them, as they have apparently infringed upon use of SCO's UNIX source code. We decided, oh, their total legal fees would be about right."
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Where did they come up with that number? Unless they're including the OSS community (of which they are trying to royally screw). How many coders are really working on SCO only stuff anyways?
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
No wonder scox was up another $0.50 today.
Slashdoters who think scox is stupid don't know what they're posting about. This is a great scam. When Darl first took over as ceo, the share price dropped to $0.60! Now the share price is 25X that. Is that your idea of stupid?
Scox-scam going strong for just under a year, so far.
Can I sue for damages as all companies in Santa Cruz now have a negative image associated with them?
Don't short SCO, buy Novell instead.
Dump it after they win the suit, but before they have a chance to screw-up SUSE (and they will).
or else
I really think Linus should file a similar suit. He has been slandered and the proof is in the public domain. If SCO fails to deliver the goods on the 23rd - case closed. If nothing else he could donate the judgement to some worthy cause like groklaw, OSDL or FSF.
In case anybody's wondering, under Utah law here's what SCO will have to prove:
"To prove slander of title, a claimant must prove that (1) there was a publication of a slanderous statement disparaging claimant's title, (2) the statement was false, (3) the statement was made with malice, and (4) the statement caused actual or special damages." First Sec. Bank of Utah, N.A. v. Banberry Crossing, 780 P.2d 1253 (Utah 1989).
(1) and (4) are a piece of cake, but (2) will be a hotly contested contract interpretation question and (3) will be VERY hard to prove.
They got the extra 8 billion in revenue from suing themselves! Quick, buy our stock why its still hot!
http://saveie6.com/
Morbo: Morbo demands an answer to the following question!
Morbo: If you saw delicious candy in the hands of a small child, would you seize and consume it?
John Jackson: Unthinkable!
Jack Johnson: I wouldn't think of it!
Morbo: What about you, Mr. McBride? I remind you, you are under a Truth-o-scope.
[Truth-o-scope flies into frame, begins quietly inspecting McBride]
McBride's head: Uh...we-well...uh...the question is...is vague! You don't say what kind of candy...whether anyone is watching, or um... At any rate, I certainly wouldn't harm the child.
[Truth-o-scope beeps and graphs furiously]
But then again, I could be wrong.
Much as I hate the idea, I can see how the SCO execs could read the Asset Purchase Agreement to mean that they DID buy the copyrights:
SCO could easily read this as "You now own the source code. That includes all of Novell's copyrights on the source code that you need to enforce your ownership of the source code."
Also Novell has claimed in the past that SCO has asked them to transfer the copyrights, but they (Novell) refused. If they can bring hard evidence of this out (and I would bet they can) then that proves SCO knew Novell retained the copyrights.
But SCO can argue that this was just a request for confirmation of what they believed the contract meant, in preparation for their suit to enforce their copyrights. Then they could argue that Novell's refusal to give that "confirmation" was just Novell trying to back out the deal once they discovered they'd given away the store to someone who was actually going to KEEP it.
(None of which, even if the court upholds SCO's interpretation, in any way releases them from promptly identifying the alleged infringing code in Linux, so the open source community can expunge it, end the alleged infringement, and minimize the alleged damages.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
ALERT! Everyone! sell your SCOX shares or there go your profits!!!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I'm not talking as much about the end result, everyone knows that SCO, upon eating its own dog food, will shrivel and die only to be thoroughly ground to dust by IBM.
I'm talking about setting a precedent, making an example out of SCO. One of Linux's weak spots, IMO, is the court room. The best way to beat a group of bullies is to beat the first one that swings at you to a pulp. Linux is seen as 'the little guy', and that image must be changed.
Cheers
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
SCO Sues SCO Over SCO Ownership
Its a lawsuit caught in an infinite loop!
Recursive subponeas!
this->sue($$);
Ack!
Yes, it's a real shame Dean was beaten by infinitely more viable candidates.
Don't worry about the stock price, that's trailing news. There's so little stock being traded relative to amount outstanding that it doesn't take much to support it and the press releases are getting less effective. It'll crash rather spectacularly when there's a completely adverse opinion in one of the cases. Friday will be fun to watch!
:-) )
I think the SEC should worry before SCO turns into another Worldcom or Enron. It will be episode III of SEC in the shitty all over again! Domestic and international community as well as politicians are going to start rattling and hissing fire.
SEC needs to make an informal request requiring all board members to sign an affadavit declaration that
1. The evidence exists and is substantial and has been valued (i.e. worth $3bn)
2. They are not actively engaged in stock manipulation in respect of unusual trades
3. They don't have an active policy to boost stock prices through frivolous suits and PR releases to rope in unwitting investors or to bring harm to existing investors through not having substantial material assets other than outcome of lawsuits and PR releases themselves
4. They are not dependent on other GNU/Linux hating companies and their continued support to see their lawsuits through
5. That if any such GNU/Linux hating company dependencies exist, that it is a material consideration for investors and if omitted from SEC filings that they understand it is stock market fraud
6..blah blah blah.. plus the usual SEC legal blurb protective of investors and their rights (which I'm sure must be a news to them!
Panhead
I was thinking about sending Darl a dollar...
covered in shit.
sco: novell said false stuff about us.
novell: what did we say that was false?
sco: the stuff you said about us.
novell: what stuff that we said about you?
sco: the stuff you said about us that was false.
novell: what stuff are you claiming is false?
sco: the stuff that we're suing you about. contracts.
novell: this sounds really familiar.
I think HAND and FOAD are mutually exclusive, but YMMV
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Why'd you have to spoil it? I hate it when people give away the ending!
I actually downloaded and read the entire agreement orginally set forth between the two parties in 1995. The most provocative (and enlightening) part of the agreement is Schedule 1.1(a), Assets, and Schedule 1.1(b), Excluded Assets.
* 1. I find it odd that SCO would cite on their website (as part of their justification, I believe, for their primary thrust in their litigation) a brief snipet from 1.1(a) (assets) and exclude the important part after the ellipses (...), which IS the version/revisions of UNIX/UNIXWARE which are to be purchased under this agreement. In my best estimation (and understanding of the agreement as it reads), BUYER (SCO) does not acquire rights (or other properties, intellectual or otherwise) to prior or post revisions of said material.
2. I believe for legal reasons they have to provide links to the entire document (which you can download, as have I). And, the obvious ommission of the details to the purchase agreement strike me as misleading (at best).
I assume the snipets they take from the agreement (and which they post on their website) are for their own benefit (and primarily directed to parties with an invested interest in SCO). That in itself is not surprising, but, however, these types of PR stunts are normally shown by sides in a losing battle (in my experience). The irony is, such a PR stunt is at face a flawed PR one when carefully scrutinized...and, I had given SCO the benefit of the doubt.
After reading the agreement, I believe the entire case will hinge on the technical differences between product revisions, and I believe that's why the source code in question is so important. After combing through those documents, a brief moment of perspective afterwards made me smile as I just witnessed (in the agreement), a much more saavy set of Novell lawyers sticking it to a fresh lot of SCO bar graduates.
Unfortunately, there's lots of people who use/care about Linux, but not yet organised, except behind distro manufacturers.
I'm guessing we'd need at least $1 million as a legal fund to back up developers. We'd need to find a couple of people who can prove they own code that is being binary licensed by SCO, and are willing to go through the hassle. Basically, case 1 and 2 have got to be so thorough as to give SCO a mashing they and anyone considering infringing upon the GPL won't forget.
Some people are very hot on suing (for things like libel in the UK). Eventually, the press don't go near them because they are just too scared. Companies who consider infringing the GPL have to understand that they will be brought to justice.
Where do we start?
...you happen to be allied with the Shadows. While I hope that parallell isn't true, I like the B5 spin on it. Imagine:
The cast:
Centauri: SCO
The little race played up to fight the big war
Shadows: Microsoft
The enemy lurking in the shadows
Vorlons: Novell
The silent, powerful guys with big guns, but don't want to get involved, but finally has to
Minbari: IBM
The ones being attacked. Making stuff based on Novell technology.
League of non-allied worlds: Kernel devels
Varied bunch that contribute little each, but much when united
Babylon 5: Groklaw
The forum of the lesser races, organizing the resistance among them
Narns: Santa Cruz Operation
For all they must endure being dragged through the mud
Humans: TBD
Secret ally of SCO. Gets even more evil afterwards. Noone wants the role, or at least not announce it...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Lets give them enough rope, gravity shall do the rest for them.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
From the SCO complaint:
"Section III: Factual background"
Actually, it does. SCO is enforcing a contract that is predicated on its ownership and right to license. Now apparently according to the unix purchase agreement with Novell, as long as Novell continues to own UNIX, SCO can only take actions against licencees with Novell's consent, So if Novell owns UNIX, SCO can not proceed against IBM. Also, how can SCO enforce a trade secret if it does not own the trade secret in the first place?
...against all the OTHER copyright holders who contributed to Linux?
Remember, SCO's claims invalidates their rights to distribute Linux.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
If SCO can show that Amendment 2 isn't a complete work of fiction, then they will win.
Read Schedule 1.1(a) 1, Schedule 1.1(b) V A, and then read Amendment 2 in the context of 1.1(a) 1.
In 1.1(a) 1 Novell list "All rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare [...] including source code, source documentation, source listings and annotation [...]" (my emphasis) in the transferred assets.
They then inexplicably contradict that in 1.1(b) V A by exluding "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare." 1.1(b) V A is non-sensical in the context of 1.1(a) 1. If Novell intended to exclude copyrights, then why did they list "All rights" in 1.1(a) 1? What would be the point in SCO "owning" the source if they didn't own the copy rights for it?
Amendment 2 reverses that and restores the clear intent of 1.1(a) 1. The important clause is 1.1(a) 1, not 1.1(b) V A, which in its original incarnation made no sense.
SCO are going to win, and win fast. Sorry.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you go through "Attachment E" it is a list of manuals and guides. There is no Code mentioned. I wonder how fast this will get laughed out of court.
/. thing as RTFA, I'll post AC.
Since I did such an anti
If he gets into enough battles, it may even bring down his paymaster, the Convicted Monopolist.....
I love how it (the PDF) says that Novell is spewing slander saying they own all Unix and UnixWare copyrights, then when they declare what they want in return for a guilty verdict they say that they want Novell to sign over all Unix and UnixWare copyrights. heh.
"We are SCO. You will be litigated."
Somehow, I just seem to see a parallel between some of their tactics.
If Star Trek is our future... Guess that makes Darl the borg Queen? Not a far stretch for my mind...
Perhaps I should have used "regardless" or "irrespective" to be more formal and proper- but I was in a casual discussion, not an actual debate. But, you're still wrong, it IS a word all the same.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That was rather funny- and apropos.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
= 9J =
It's obvious to me, SCO's next target will have to be Slashdot...
Think about it, everytime they send out a PR the /. community rip them to shreds, and falsify their claims within 20 minutes of being posted. not to mention raising bandwidth fee's /.'rs surely contribute to...
Then they will hit groklaw for posting "false statements that hurt their business." i.e. ruining every piece of code that they have referred to being implemented into Linux, by pointing out that they helped create the code in question, rcu...etc.