The SCO Group, notorious for its legal campagin against Linux users and developers, was dealt a devastating blow last week. A federal judge ruled that Novell, not SCO, owns the copyrights to Unix, effectively cutting the foundations of SCO's five billion dollar legal suit against IBM. SCO's case was based on a 1995 asset purchase agreement for Unix between Novell and Santa Cruz Operations, a predecessor to SCO; the group claimed that the 1995 transaction concerned the entire Unix intellectual property, whereas Novell argued the contrary. As proof of its claims, Novell produced the original transaction agreement and bill of sale, which indicated that the purchase did not include the copyright. The agreement furthermore gives Novell the right to waive any claims for misuse of Unix by IBM, and requires SCO to forward all royalties that it received for the software to Novell.
This agreement could very well mark the end of SCO, as the software maker in 2003 inked a $10 million licensing agreement with Sun Microsystems, and a $16.8 million agreement with Microsoft. According to the contract, it should have paid 95 per cent of those funds to Novell, but failed to do so. In light of SCO's most recent financial filings, the $25.46 million claim Novell has on SCO's earnings could give SCO a negative total worth.
Novell hailed the ruling, with spokesperson Kevan Barney saying: "The court’s ruling has cut out the core of SCO’s case and, as a result, eliminates SCO’s threat to the Linux community based upon allegations of copyright infringement of Unix. We are extremely pleased with the outcome." Groklaw, a website closely following the case, had this to say: "The big picture is, SCO lost." SCO could not be reached for comment.
View: Full Story on vnunet.com
This agreement could very well mark the end of SCO, as the software maker in 2003 inked a $10 million licensing agreement with Sun Microsystems, and a $16.8 million agreement with Microsoft. According to the contract, it should have paid 95 per cent of those funds to Novell, but failed to do so. In light of SCO's most recent financial filings, the $25.46 million claim Novell has on SCO's earnings could give SCO a negative total worth.
Novell hailed the ruling, with spokesperson Kevan Barney saying: "The court’s ruling has cut out the core of SCO’s case and, as a result, eliminates SCO’s threat to the Linux community based upon allegations of copyright infringement of Unix. We are extremely pleased with the outcome." Groklaw, a website closely following the case, had this to say: "The big picture is, SCO lost." SCO could not be reached for comment.
View: Full Story on vnunet.com
I'd have to respectfully disagree. Look at the money, time and effort that was wasted by this frivolous suit. Besides the law firms, about the only company that comes out ahead in this whole mess is Microsoft... who helped ensure that SCO could mount the fight by providing major financial help. They played "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" card very well.... and then turning on SCO by forming a collaborative relationship with Novell.
I'd have to respectfully disagree. Look at the money, time and effort that was wasted by this frivolous suit. Besides the law firms, about the only company that comes out ahead in this whole mess is Microsoft... who helped ensure that SCO could mount the fight by providing major financial help. They played "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" card very well.
Frivolous maybe, but it obviously had to be done. So yes it WAS worth it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
So I'm right in thinking that the company is now worthless or
worse?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Novell producing the original "receipt" seems to be the ultimate PWNED in this case, but until the appeal process is over I wouldn't assume anything just yet.
No, SCO is now circling the bowl; it should let go and head on down the sewer pipe with whatever dignity a turd can muster.
What kind of appeal? SCO does NOT own the copyright to Unix so therefore their suit is null and void. You can't appeal on something that's not there.
If I were IBM, I'd counter sue SCO for legal fees.
As the comment above said so perfectly.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Last edited by MrCobra on 13 Aug 2007 - 02:42
Yep, which is the equivalent of SINK OUR SHIP with SCO having the equivalent of only one of the little two point tenders being left over in a game of Battleship, while IBM/Novell has only had in the whole game, one strike on their sub. Darl baby had better be calling in a true Force Majeure to win anything in appeal. He just might get the whole sub by the time they've completed knocking him out.
poor sco. nobody likes them.
Once there was a Santa Cruz Operation which was respected. Then there was a Caldera which being a crater decided it needed some window dressing and bought the rights to rename itself SCO. It blew the operation badly by trying to claim its license to sell System V or whatever it inherited gave it the rights to sue everyone else on the planet for copying what it didn't own. It will soon be a Caldera again, that hole left when all Darl's magma has finished erupting and the cone collapses.
Glassed Silver:mac
Darl McBride is a complete slimeball and deserves everything he and his company are now going to get
Glassed Silver:mac
http://www.sco.com/company/news/statement.html
Maybe they can try a convenient eye hook in a ceiling beam, a piece of rope and a conveniently kickable milk crate. It would save a lot of lawyer's fees and would leave enough of SCO's assets for the creditors to divide in the upcoming bankruptcy party.
Didnt you read Microsoft is secretly funding sco for this lawsuit, Sco 's bosses are working as hitman for Microsoft.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542915,00.asp
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58904
Didnt you read Microsoft is secretly funding sco for this lawsuit, Sco 's bosses are working as hitman for Microsoft.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542915,00.asp
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2003/05/58904
If you see the date in these info, they are back to 2003-2004 too old
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.