Novell Sued Microsoft Through Caldera?

cheesedog writes "The intrigue increases: According to this article in the Salt Lake Tribune, the secret terms of the sale of DR-DOS to Caldera included the provision that Caldera would have to sue Microsoft (for Novell by proxy) over the OS and that they would have to do so without revealing Novell's hand in it. Did Novell indirectly create a monster? Caldera's 300 million winnings against Microsoft are now being used to fund lawsuits against Linux (and Novell)."

Comments

A moot point now that SCO is...

[rokzy]

dying!

Novell found guilty

[YouHaveSnail]

it has to be said, innocent until proven guilty

It's nice that you want to keep an open mind, but paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of Judge Jackson's findings, Novell did indeed arrange secretly for Caldera to sue Microsoft, essentially on Novell's behalf. I think that qualifies as "proven guilty."

He said she said.

[Alan Hicks]

Linux Weekly News had an article about this several days ago, and it's been talked about on Groklaw. Basically Caldera claims that there was an unwritten, oral contract between Novell and Canopy that said they would sue MS on behalf of Novell, and not reveal Novell's hand in it.

Of course Novell responds in the negative. Canopy is using a rather interesting attack here though. Many of the people working with Canopy now worked for Novell back when this suppossed oral contract took place. They claim no one at Novell knows about it because all those people who once worked for Novell have moved on. This of course puts them in the spot of saying "We know everything because we were there and you people running Novell now have no idea what you're talking about. Our guys worked for Novell back then, and they know what was said."

Novell's defense is simple. Show me a written contract.

It's Not Like This Wasn't Obvious

[hbo]

At the time, it was clear that the sale of DR-DOS to Caldera/Canopy was to allow the lawsuit to commence without tying Novell to it too closely. The details of the arrangement are interesting nevertheless. It wasn't a case of the Novell board refusing to go along with a vendetta by Ray Noorda against Microsoft. Instead,the arrangement was specifically designed to allow Novell to realize some of the monetary value the (iron-clad, caught-you-in-the-act) antitrust claims contained.

The connection to the SCO/IBM suit is also obvious, if you ignore any good guy/bad guy spin. It's the same business model playing out in the new case, but hopefully with different results.

Re:Caldera and Novell are the same company..

[grendelkhan]

They are both owned by the Canopy Group

No, the Canopy Group and Novell were both founded by Ray Noorda, the Canopy Group being the company he started after being booted out of Novell.

Re:Jackson not exactly a bastian of impartiality

[stevesliva]

This is not the same Judge Jackson, not the same court, not the same state, and not the same finding. It is, however, the same nation, so by all means let us distrust judge Norman Jackson because judge Thomas Penfield Jackson talked to the press too much.

Good point...

[acariquara]

From fool.com

Knowledgeable IP litigators have told me they think SCO has less than a 10% chance of prevailing in its cases, and even then, the courts' remedies would likely be a rewrite of the offending Linux code, not a cash windfall for SCO. BayStar Capital can afford to bet against the odds and lose. SCO cannot.

also SCO stock has an analyst rate of 5.0, strong sell. Actually it cannot be bigger than 5.0, so that can be loosely translated as jump ship.

Is it the end though? I doubt...

The court decided "He said"

[Len]

The decision of the Utah Court of Appeals, which was also reported on Groklaw, says that there was a secret agreement that Canopy would sue Microsoft. Novell and Canopy were simply fighting over which of them should pay the cost of Canopy's suit against Microsoft.

Novell concealed ... not really

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

The contract between Nov ell and Canopy provided that Novell would get a portion of any revenues from lawsuits

Hardly secret, as the Utah courts have already noted. Novell sued them and WON for their share of the proceeds. SCO tried the usual tricks of getting greedy and trying to rewrite the contract unilaterally, trying to bring in oral agreements, then as usual, got shafted by their own evidence.

Groklaw has already covered it.

best quote: The district court perspicuously noted that the Canopy position "requires the court to reach the anomalous conclusion that by taking the attorney fee provision out of the agreement it really was writing the provision into the agreement."

Re:Kinda like the U.S.

[kbahey]

I think that to blame Americans for inventing this kind of short term tactical alliances is incorrect. The Americans did not invent this kind of world politics.

We can blame the Americans for not learning the lesson from the mistakes of others though.

Let me help you there with other examples from history:

• At the height of Muslim rule in Spain, the Umayyad Caliphs, and then Al Mansour Ibn Abi Aamir (Almanzor), allied with various Christian kingdoms against others (Leon, Castille, Navarra, ... etc). This policy increased resentment from the Christian Spaniards, and eventually contributed to the downfall of the Muslim empire in Spain.
• Then the tide turned and the Muslims were split into weak Taifa kingdoms. The Spanish kings then played the game of "divide and conquer", allying with one to topple the other, then devouring the first when the chance came. Eventually, the policy worked out and the Spanish Christian ousted the Muslims. However, the Inquisition that followed, and the expulsion of the Moriscoes are not something to be proud of as a legacy.

In retrospect, there are differences between these scenarios, and Britian's, and the current American ones.

The current American scenario suffers from "enemy of my enemy is my friend" and from severe short sightedness. At best they are tactical, and they create long term enemies.

Foreign policy has been erratic at best, and extremely short term.

Examples of mistakes in supporting the wrong people abound:

• Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Not only were they supported, but when the USSR left, the country was left to duke it out on its own. The Mujahedeen turned against one another, and a civil war ensued. In Kabul alone, 50,000 people died over 5 years. The emergence of the Taliban was a direct reaction to the frustration that was there at the time (insecurity, killing, ..etc.) These same Mujahedeen are the Northern Allaince who are in control today in Afghanistan.
• The Manuel Noriega example is well known. From ally to foe.
• Saddam's example is well known too. The fact that he oppressed his own people was overlooked.
• The same goes for other regimes in the area (can you say "The spice must flow"?

In some cases, they are long lived, and endure various administrations: examples are the policy towards Cuba (no effect except on people and economy), Iran (more or less the same), and the long standing "Israel can do wrong" attitude.

None of these policies were productive.

As another poster pointed out, the same short term high gain, long term no gain policy is rampant in the corporate world too. Outsourcing internet dot com bubble bursting, and accounting scandals is the direct result of such penny wise dollar foolish policies.

So, will the Americans learn and adjust? Or are they doomed to repeat the mistakes of history?