Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Novell Bombards SCO with Summary Judgment Motions

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the ratatatatat dept.

rm69990 writes "Novell has filed 4 motions for Summary Judgment against SCO, which essentially ask the court to toss the remainder of SCO's case that isn't already being arbitrated between SUSE and SCO. One seeks a ruling from the court that Novell transfered none of the copyrights in Unix to SCO, which is backed up by many exhibits and declarations from people who negotiated the deal. Another, along the same lines, asks the court to toss the portions of SCO's Unfair Competition and Breach of Contract claims pertaining to the Unix copyrights. The third asks the court to rule that Novell did not violate the Technology License Agreement between SCO and Novell, and last and also least, the fourth seeks to toss the Slander of Title for the additional reason that SCO has failed to prove any special damages. These motions follow 2 motions for summary judgment filed by Novell late last year on 2 of their counterclaims."

3 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. I remember by El+Lobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember the time when software was just software and no politics...

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:I remember by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is the first post automatically scored -1 now or something? This is on topic and I'm sure a TON of us feel the same way. I am extremely sick of all the BS lawsuits, patents, and all the other non-programming crap.

      I used to -hate- the GPL. Now, I like the LGPL and I'm starting to think the GPL is the right way to go after all. Could RMS actually be a visionary and not just a zealot? It's already undeniable that he's done the entire software industry a world of good by sticking to his beliefs.

      And all because the world of corporate greed has managed to get a toe-hold on the world of programming.

      I personally think they should make patents only good for 5 years, give everyone that currently has a patent 5 years remaining, and be done. In 5 years time, we'd see such a monumental growth in the software industry that it will be amazing. The simple stuff that was costing tons of money would come out as open source projects, and commercial products would in turn work on stuff that's truly innovative.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  2. You're right: for the wrong reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The declarations that Novell just filed would gut SCO's case all by themselves. SCO's case is so feeble that there are many things that would independently destroy it. All SCO has to do is lose on any of about ten different things and they lose the whole shooting match.

    Consider the declarations of Braham and Amandia. These are both people who were directly responsible for negotiating and writing the contracts with Santa Cruz. They clearly remember the events that took place and have original documents to back them up. They say there was no intent by Novell to transfer the copyrights and they made darn sure the contract and the ammendment did not transfer the copyrights. Santa Cruz asked that the copyrights be transferred and Novell agreed only that Santa Cruz could use the copyrights to develop and sell the product they were developing.

    These declarations directly contradict SCO's theories and the half remembered garbage of their witnesses who weren't actually involved in writing the contracts.

    So, Novell could very well get their PSJ. In fact, Novell could get the psj even without these declarations because the wording of the contract and ammendment is clear and there is no written conveyance of the copyrights. The latter is required by law and the judge can decide the case as a matter of law (which is necessary for a psj). So you could be right. The new filings might not be necessary to decide the case.