[svlug] (forw) SCO v. Novell Decided

[William Teeple]

What a sweet and beautiful ending to my otherwise horrid week at work!

I, for one, am glad that the ruling ended up as it did.

Very Nice!

Cheers,
Bill


On Aug 10, 2007, at 5:59 PM, Rick Moen wrote:

> Groklaw coverage is at
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718 .
>
> Note also:  (1) Judge Kimball left Novell's claim against SCO Group  
> for
> slander of title still undecided.  (2) SCO Group now owe to Novell the
> copyright royalties money it collected from Microsoft and Sun,  
> which is
> considerably more money than it now has.  (3) The SCO v. IBM and  
> Red Hat
> v. SCO cases can now proceed.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from David Chait  
> <davidc at bonair.stanford.edu> -----
>
> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:12:07 -0700
> From: David Chait <davidc at bonair.stanford.edu>
> To: "sulug-discuss at lists.Stanford.EDU" <sulug- 
> discuss at mailman.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject: SCO v. Novell Decided
>
> For all of those who haven't heard yet, there has been a ruling on SCO
> v. Novell this afternoon, and SCO lost massively.
>
> (reposted from groklaw.net)
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the
> owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First  
> Claim
> for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific  
> performance
> are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO's Fifth
> Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief  
> for
> breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court
> denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its own slander of
> title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on
> Novell's slander of title claim. Accordingly, Novell's slander of  
> title
> claim is still at issue.
>
> The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a  
> copyright to
> enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement
> claim and a breach of contract claim based on the non-compete
> restrictions in the license back of the Licensed Technology under APA
> and the TLA. The court further concludes that there has not been a
> change of control that released the non-compete restrictions of the
> license, and the non-compete restrictions of the license are not void
> under California law. Accordingly, Novell's motion for summary  
> judgment
> on SCO's non-compete claim in its Second Claim for breach of contract
> and Fifth Claim for unfair competition is granted to the extent that
> SCO's claims require ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights,  
> and
> denied in all other regards.
>
> Furthermore, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only
> reasonable interpretation of the term "SVRX License" in the APA is all
> licenses related to the SVRX products listed in Item VI of Schedule
> 1.1(a) to the APA. Therefore, Novell is entitled to a declaration of
> rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is  
> entitled, at
> its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and
> Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's
> claims against IBM and Sequent. Accordingly, Novell's motion for  
> partial
> summary judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief for declaratory  
> judgment
> is granted, and SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on Novell's
> Fourth Claim for Relief is denied.
>
> Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only
> reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal
> restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The  
> court
> further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and  
> Microsoft
> Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of
> Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for
> UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass  
> through
> to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX
> products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary  
> duty to
> Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.
>
>
> The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust  
> with
> respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft
> Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate
> amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of  
> SVRX
> products contained in each agreement. Furthermore, because Novell has
> obtained the information that it would otherwise obtain through an
> accounting during the course of this litigation, the court denies
> Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting. However, the court
> also notes that SCO has a continuing contractual obligation to comply
> with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in the APA.
>
> Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or  
> Preliminary
> Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;  
> SCO's
> Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on
> Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [Docket
> No. 180] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for
> Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim [Docket No. 171] is
> GRANTED; SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's
> Fourth Claim [Docket No. 224] is DENIED; SCO's Motion for Partial
> Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell's
> First Claim [Docket No. 258] is DENIED; Novell's Motion for Partial
> Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO's Second Claim for  
> Breach
> of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [Docket No. 271] is
> GRANTED; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's
> Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims [Docket No. 273] is
> GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for Summary  
> Judgment
> on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific
> Performance [Docket No. 275] is GRANTED; and Novell's Motion for  
> Summary
> Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to
> Establish Special Damages [Docket No. 277] is MOOT.
>
>
> --++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
> The SULug web page is at http://sulug.stanford.edu and lists many
> resources for the new and experienced linux users.
>
> sulug-discuss mailing list
> sulug-discuss at lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/sulug-discuss
>
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> _______________________________________________
> svlug mailing list
> svlug at lists.svlug.org
> http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/svlug