"Judge Dale Kimball has issued a 102-page ruling on the numerous summary judgment motions in SCO v. Novell. Here is what matters most: [T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights. The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent". There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses", GrokLaw writes.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
MS and Sun bought licenses from SCO (which SCO had the right to sell) and Novell is entitled to part of the money that MS and Sun paid (95% or what was it?)
Actually no.
The agreement was that if SCO was bought out, they lose rights to the code; SCO was bought out by Caldera, SCO lost rights to the code, so therefore, if Microsoft or Sun needed to purchase rights, they had to go back to the holder whom it reverted back to after the Caldera buyout.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Judge_Novell_Not_SCO_Owns_UNIX_Copy...
SCO was acquired, therefore, SCO owns nothing. Like I said, Microsoft and Sun paid the wrong people for the technology. Considering that these arrangements were most likely confidential, both companies worked with SCO with good faith that SCO had the rights to the intellectual property they were attempting to licence.
Member since:2005-08-26
What's more, the two companies' technology license agreement (TLA) stated that for a two-year period after the deal commenced, should Santa Cruz become acquired, Novell "shall automatically have unlimited, royalty-free, perpetual rights to the Licensed Technology."
Did Caldera buy SCO during those two years?
AFAIK, this case revolved around the fact that the copyrights was never included in the deal to begin with.
Member since:2007-05-04
IT's amazing how much misinformation commentors are posting on this board. You are completely and utterly wrong.
That 2 year period had absolutely nothing to do with ownership of the Unix copyrights, or the rights to license said copyrights, whatsoever. It was regarding future derivatives that SCO WOULD own the copyrights to, and Novell's rights under a LICENSE SCO granted to them. Read the ruling for Christ's sakes, it says so right in it. Don't rely on news sites that also apparently don't know how to read.
Member since:2007-05-04
You're wrong, the contract specifically prohibited SCO from entering into those licensing agreements, which forms the basis for one of Novell's counterclaims against SCO. If Novell really pushed that issue instead of asking for money, they could likely have the licensing agreements declared invalid. It makes sense for them to go after the money instead though, which is what they did.
Section 4.16b of the APA states:
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify
or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior
written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and
direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights
under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so
directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer
shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as
required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the
rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf. Buyer shall not, and
shall have no right to, enter into future licenses or amendments of the
SVRX Licenses, except as may be incidentally involved through its rights
to sell and license the Assets or the Merged Product (as such term is
defined in the proposed Operating Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit
5.1(c)) or future versions thereof of the Merged Product.
Member since:
2005-08-26
Why would they need to sue for anything?
MS and Sun bought licenses from SCO (which SCO had the right to sell) and Novell is entitled to part of the money that MS and Sun paid (95% or what was it?)