Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Sat 11th Aug 2007 18:25 UTC, submitted by irbis
Thread beginning with comment 262740
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





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.