SCO vs. Novell; Novell wins.

Jerry Feldman gaf at blu.org
Thu Apr 1 10:27:56 EDT 2010


On 04/01/2010 09:08 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
>   
>> On 03/31/2010 11:37 PM, Jeffry Smith wrote:
>>     
>>> Well, Red Hat sued them, so they can't make that go away, and the main
>>> thing left in the IBM case is the IBM counterclaims.  Whether they're
>>> liabilities or not (and they're major liabilities), the decision to
>>> stop them doesn't reside with TSCOG any more.  I don't think either
>>> Red Hat or IBM are interested in settling.  IBM could have bought
>>> TSCOG (which is probably what they wanted to begin with).
>>>
>>>       
>> I know that Red Hat did sue TSCOG, but right now, it is up to the
>> bankruptcy court. Not sure what would happen to these suits if TSCOG
>> were to go chapter 7. But, the IBM case is not just counterclaims, it is
>> still the contract issue, and that has not been adjudicated. Now since
>> the copyright issue has been resolved as well as the Novell royalty
>> claims, IBM and or Red Hat could petition for a lifting of the stay. But
>> there could be more interesting stuff. Remember that when Darth tried to
>> sell TSCOG to to his buddies in the York Galaxy, the litigation would
>> have been pursued by the buyer. And basically, the court has not ruled
>> on the 3 derivatives that IBM contributed to Linux. IBM must prove that
>> either the derivative clause itself does not apply or that it does not
>> apply to SMP, NUMA, and JFS. In any case, we've essentially eliminated
>> the SCO vs. Novell from the mix (unless by some idiocy, TSCOG decides to
>> appeal). I think TSCOG should sue Kevin and Darl McBride :-)
>>
>>     
Please reply to the listserv not me.
> I'll check Groklaw, but I don't see any sort of case now on those
> issues.  All three are owned outright by IBM as the developer,
> USL/Novell explicitly denied thier rights over derivitive code, Novell
> (who owns the code according to this ruling), in accordance with the
> APA, explicitly waived prosecution of IBM,.
>   
Not entirely true. Novell waived the copyrights. TSOG still holds the
contractual rights. While SMP, NUMA, and JFS were developed by IBM (and
Sequent) under the strict terms of the original AT&T contract these are
considered derivative works. IBM needs to prove in court that the
derivative clause does not apply. They signed their perpetual contract
with AT&T before AT&T sold USL to Novell. This has not yet been
adjudicated which is why I am including JFS which (IBM claims) was not
part of AIX. Basically, while Novell owwns the copyrights to the Unix
source code, TSCOG has the right to manage and sell licenses. This is
what Santa Cruz bought from Novell.
> Quick check - SCO is still claiming unfair competition, interference
> in contracts, and interference in business relationships, based on
> their last report on the case to the judge, after Judge Kimball ruled
> for Novell (which it looks like this is the jury trial confirming) -
> ref:  http://groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-1079.pdf
>
> Of course, they have to prove those claims.
>   
In any case, there are still some rulings left in the SCO vs. Novell
case that are before Judge Stewart.

-- 
Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20100401/2b1abb55/attachment.bin 


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list