SCO vs. Linux: It's over
This was for SCO's headquarters in Utah responsible Tenth Court of
Appeals in Denver, confirmed the verdict of the lower court in full: A
jury decided in March 2010 that the copyright to Unix, Novell is. The
sentence was three months later explained to an input of SCO by the
competent court to be valid, however, SCO had appealed. Which has now
been discarded.
With the recent ruling must pay back now SCO licensing fees to Novell -
SCO in 2008 a court to make a payment of over 2.5 million U.S. dollars
was sentenced. It also eliminates the loss of the purported copyrights
to Unix, the basis for lawsuits against IBM and Linux users and
distributors.
SCO would now theoretically possible that the Supreme Court (Supreme
Court, is equivalent to the Federal Constitutional Court) to call, the
specialists at Groklaw, however, assume that the Supreme Court would
reject a corresponding entry without a hearing.
SCO vs. Linux: The Neverending Story
Threats to the Linux community to demand royalty payments, a lawsuit
against IBM for alleged stolen code in Linux, and legal battles with
Novell for the copyrights to Unix System V: Such actions catapulted the
SCO Group to the public interest. SCO itself has to offer here an
intricate and interesting history of Ownership. The SCO Group is the
result of a merger between the former Linux distributor Caldera and the
remains of the legendary Santa Cruz Operation Unix Company of
California. Caldera is the largest shareholder with 43 percent of the
Canopy Group also based in Utah. The roots of Caldera back to another
legend, the computer industry: Ray Noorda, longtime head of the network
company Novell.
The NetWare company had tried several times to gain a foothold in the
Unix world, and was in the wake of several acquisitions, it also came
into the possession of the notorious intellectual property rights of AT
& T Unix. Novell's Unix portfolio verscherbelte but later continued to
SCO. The now wants to impose the contract documents, that this is
complete, including the copyright, happened while Novell rights to the
Unix code on claiming. SCO has filed suit against on the basis of such
statements Novell: The company had been unjustified demands rights to
Unix technology to claim a copyright on the SCO. To allow Novell false
and misleading statements have made the ownership of Unix, which SCO
prevented from defending their own copyright.
Had started the legal dispute over allegedly stolen source code in the
Linux kernel in early March 2003: The SCO Group - formerly Caldera - IBM
sued one billion U.S. dollars in damages, because IBM had stolen as part
of its Linux initiative intellectual property of SCO intended. In
addition, SCO argued, even at this time provider of Linux-versions and a
member of United Linux initiative, Linux is no serious competition for
their own commercial Unix platform based on Intel hardware was before
Linux was IBM heavily promoted .
SCO vs. Linux: The process can begin
The SCO Group gets $ 2 million from an investor group led by majority
owner Ralph Yarro. The competent bankruptcy court in Delaware approved
the loan after an oral hearing. So SCO has sufficient funds for the
upcoming trial before a jury trial against Novell. This process, which
is about the ownership of Unix and the legality of a license protection
for Linux users who want to start tomorrow and last for three weeks.
In the hearing before the court was able to convince the SCO competent
judge that the loan from the investor group led by Ralph Yarro the
cheapest offer of twelve representing various interested parties. The
cash injection of 14 investor will bear interest at 6.6 percent, while
the set of a competitor offering an interest rate of 10 percent did.
With this offer would also set up fees for the loans became due, the
renunciation of the group led by Ralph Yarro out.
Together with the details presented to the loan will have a SCO
developed under the bankruptcy trustee Edward Cahn two-part business
plan for the next 13 weeks, separated after the software business
achieved in the revenue, and the lawsuit business, which currently
produces only expenses. Without the loan from the investor group could
not be further continued in business suit, Edward Cahn said in his
remarks. With the end of the process between SCO and Novell in late
March SCO will have sufficient funds to repay the loan back - if SCO win
the case. The further rehabilitation of the ailing company, he had
visited the offices in the UK and Germany, which can be expected to be
concluded soon, Cahn told the court. Bankruptcy judge approved the big deal.
SCO vs. Linux: the Court of Appeal to Supreme Court
In the confrontation between the SCO Group and Novell over the question
of whether there have been sold in the transfer of distribution rights
of the Unix copyrights to Unix, are signs of a further twist. Because
quote at the hearing before the Court of Appeal SCO many witnesses from
memory, Novell has filed a petition before the Supreme Court .. Court to
clarify the principle, whether included in the sale of software
distribution rights, copyright is or it is left to a distribution
contract with the buyer, which copyrights are transferred without
explicit mention.
The filed by Novell in an application, a Certiorari (the superior court
may request files from a running process) question about the copyright
is to be understood against the background that at the hearing, the
appeals court in Salt Lake City by the SCO lawyers many witnesses are
summoned, the report by the contract between SCO and Novell hearsay.
Because there were contracts which could operate the distribution and
development of SCO Unix, Unix is the copyright of these contracts went
over to SCO, then the position of the witnesses.
This position was especially striking on the fourth of the trial in the
videotaped testimony of Doug Michels expression, which was the agreement
with Novell's Vice President of SCO. For him, there were no doubts that
includes the transfer of copyright to purchase a software need to be
mentioned explicitly in a contract. According to Michels copyrights
belong "like oxygen" to software development. "Well, I meant that the
only way that I know of, and anyone on my team knew of to buy a software
business is to buy the copyrights, and there's no way we would have ever
done a deal to buy a software business where we did not get the
copyrights and all the other intellectual property. "The SCO's founding
had to demand to admit, however, never dealt with the contracts in
detail and has no knowledge of additional contractual arrangements have.
In these agreements, the so-called asset purchase agreement, are the
restrictive provisions relied on by Novell.
Michel's statement may seem surprising in the context that this together
with his brother, the original Santa Cruz Operation, founded to develop
the Unix derivative produced by Microsoft Xenix on. While SCO Xenix,
sold the copyright remained with Microsoft.
Against the statement of Michels and others stood above all the versions
of the Novell chief Jack Messman, which were also recorded on video.
This described the transfer of Unix to SCO development against the
backdrop of the then market conditions. SCO gave everything they had, so
the company could bring a unified, competitive Unix to Microsoft Windows
NT on the market. The copyrights were not part of the agreement because
they would not necessarily need to develop a software. For this reason,
Novell wants to make his entry before the Supreme Court the question of
copyright in a matter of principle.
Whether the attempt by Novell to succeed, in the ongoing negotiation of
the Supreme Court can clarify and change to a fundamental question about
software contracts is uncertain. According to U.S. law, the Supreme
Court is not bound to accept the application and may reject it without
further notice. Have harmed another point in Messman denied in his
testimony with a statement to the SCO Group. To get the Linux-protection
program against claims by SCO, Linux installations for license fees, had
been launched by Novell alone, therefore, to reassure their customers.
Before the appeal court is next to the disputed claim copyrights to SCO
Group, Novell has screwed up the company with its Linux Indemnification
Program, the business. SCO will make Novell be liable for lost payments,
because many companies wanted to acquire an antidote license. After
assessing the damage SCO is at least $ 25 million.
The appeal hearing will be held in Salt Lake City before a grand jury
and goes to this weekend at the intermission. In recent days, the judge
repeatedly admonished the jurors not to discuss the case, either in
person or over the Internet via Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, in online
chat rooms or via Blackberry email. The news in the media concerning
this case should not be considered by the jury. Judge Stewart told them
to just start the process, it will go to an "open-source Unix program
called" earned, but with this characterization of protest from both parties.
SCO vs. Linux: The jury is informed
In the second week of negotiations in process between the SCO Group and
Novell to Unix on the Coypright before a grand jury in Salt Lake City,
the process further surprising details of the endless story has exposed.
Initially charged as a witness confirmed the former SCO CEO Darl
McBride, SCO does not dispute that copyrights of Unix required for the
development of its operating system family, but only for the business
license of companies part SCOScource. Then the unsuspecting to date
jurors were informed that a judge had already spoken in the procedural
law, but his sentence was revised. The process starts in the third week
of negotiations, during the same time in Salt Lake City, Novell's Open
House takes place Brainshare.
The current proceedings before a grand jury had become necessary after
it had been revised in 2009, an appeals court the first instance
decision of Judge Dale Kimball of the single year 2007. The court found
that the issue needed to be renegotiated if the sale has gone over the
Unix distribution rights of the copyright to Unix, Novell and SCO. That
issue is so sensitive that they before an impartial jury and must not be
negotiated with a single judge. Accordingly, in the first week of
negotiations of the appeal hearing were sworn in the jury they must find
without prior knowledge of the long process of history about the
copyright issue.
Due to the survey of a financial expert, the presiding judge decided on
9 The trial, the jury regarding how that SCO was convicted at an earlier
hearing, an appellate court ruling but had been revised. Earlier, a
witness interview on 8 The trial revealed that the issue of copyright is
closely linked to the issue of the antidote licenses, SCO wanted to sell
to companies that use Linux. Former SCO CEO Darl McBride was forced to
admit in court that the property was seen as a prerequisite to the
copyrights, licenses to sell antidote. This deal collapsed after
presentation by McBride, as Novell, said company by its customers to
protect themselves against claims in SCO.
Other surprises in the second trial included the testimony of weeks
bestallten of SCO experts admit Gary Pisano, who had to have taken one
used by him to the Yankee Group market study without looking at the
methodology of this study as a basis for damage calculation.
Furthermore, an internal memorandum from Hewlett-Packard was presented
to the question whether one should be in the interest of the customer to
purchase a license antidote. The authors of HP-memorandum were of the
opinion that the purchase of a license should be assessed similarly to
the support of terrorists through money payments.
SCO vs. Linux: The jury recognizes Novell's Unix copyrights to
In the proceedings before a grand jury in Salt Lake City dispute between
the SCO Group and Novell over the question of who owns the copyrights,
the jury rendered the unanimous verdict, as Groklaw writes: Novell has
resold the copyright, as the Unix business was sold to SCO. The
intellectual property of Unix is still one of Novell. Accordingly,
there is currently no way for SCO, Linux users with a license to
threaten antidote. The procedure is the jury's verdict does not end
because some action points must be decided by the presiding judge. This
includes a request from SCO, but still get the copyrights, because they
had acted in "good faith" to own the copyrights.
In a first reaction to the decision of the jury, Novell shows extremely
happy, and emphasizes the role that the process for Novell's open source
community has taken over: "The decision is good news for Novell, Linux
and the Open source community. We have long advocated the view that this
approach has against Linux has no basis, and we are pleased that the
jury, this just looks unanimous and in a decision. I'm proud of Novell's
role in protecting the interests Linux and the open source community,
"said Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian threw into the chest. Sober is the
verdict for IBM. Compared to the Wall Street Journal said an IBM
spokeswoman, that the ruling meant the failure of the entire strategy of
SCO lawsuit.
This is exactly what SCO does differently, however. Compared to the Salt
Lake City Tribune showed the SCO bankruptcy trustee Edward Cahn very
disappointed by the verdict of the jury. At the same time he announced
that machinery will continue to run the action and now IBM is attacked:
"We still have claims against IBM, regardless of this decision." In
contrast to the controversy over the copyright issue in the proceedings
between SCO Group and IBM to the question of whether IBM had illegally
transmitted code or programming concepts from Unix to Linux, as both
companies worked together at the Monterey Project.
The renewed challenge of bestallten by a bankruptcy court bankruptcy
trustee is important because it has to decide the former Justice Cahn
now about what to do with the cash infusion of $ 2 million, the SCO
short by an investor group led by equity majority owner Ralph Yarro
before the procedure had received. The SCO's stock went even immediately
after the announcement of the verdict on the free-fall.
SCO vs. Linux: The role of Groklaw
Still, the confrontation between the SCO Group and Novell to Unix
copyrights is not over, even if the jury unanimously confirms Novell's
ownership of such rights. Nevertheless, already a winner is clear: They
are the volunteers of Groklaw, who tirelessly every turn in the "Endless
Story" followed and documented. Led by a being named "Pamela Jones"
Groklaw has ensured that any move by SCO was dissected and analyzed.
Today is the most important website Groklaw, the processes of property
claims pursued in the software industry.
Developed as the SCO Group in early 2003 from the Linux distributor
Caldera out a lawsuit machinery, was distinguished from the outlines
that the use of Linux in enterprises is an important IT trend. The first
lawsuit by SCO against IBM in March 2003 it was clear that fundamental
questions addressed in court for intellectual property in the
open-source can be. At the latest after the presentation of evidence and
in highly questionable "Greek" issued lines of code, there is resistance
formed in the scene with the opinions of prominent activists to Linus
Torvalds.
In this phase, Pamela Jones started a blog on Radio Userland. Jones,
claims to have a paralegal, called the blog Groklaw, in allusion to the
verb "grok" that the hacker long as counterpart "zen" of the complete
understanding of code used (it comes from the language of the Martians
in a science fiction novel).
Groklaw watched the events which soon developed on several fronts. SCO
began to demand licenses for Linux installations, companies such as
DaimlerChrysler sued Autozone and Novell, and finally, when the company
objected, pointing to the copyrights. The development was so fast that
the anonymous blogger needed help and they got it. A crowd of volunteers
gathered at Groklaw, which reached no later than the end of 2003 as a
state official, partisan process monitoring platform and defends to this
day with stamina. Even in the last week of judges and lawyers were
negotiating over the issue of whether the jury must be informed of the
existence of Groklaw, with the admonition not to call this side of the
Internet.
Long before the wild theories developed a Web 2.0, Groklaw showed the
possibilities of self-organization on the Internet. Volunteers, the
thousands of digitized documents, the shorthand any court created by
SCO, a message center, which itself was used by the SCO's attorneys. The
importance of Groklaw is so important because it at the beginning of the
actions of SCO with the exception of the slightly different oriented
Free Software Foundation has been little lobbying organizations for open
source. Only much later formed structures such as open source for
America - this also as a reminder to the accusation of SCO that open
source by nature is un-American. It can rely on Groklaw a virtue, the
Alexis de Tocqueville admired even when he referred to the active action
in the community as ur-American nature. Great American also the target
of Groklaw is: if all processes are over, will present themselves Pamela
Jones in a red evening dress.
Copyright Unix: SCO wants a new sentence
SCO wants to try some other process on the question of who owns the Unix
copyrights. In the summer of 2007, a court had awarded the rights to
Unix, Novell. After an objection by SCO Appeals Court ruled that the
issue should be heard by a jury. She had also decided a few weeks ago
that the Unix copyright is owned by Novell.
As Groklaw reports that SCO has now made an entry on the court, asking
the judge to set aside the verdict of the jury award and the copyright
but SCO. As an alternative, SCO before a new trial. The reason: The jury
was the question of whether the copyright was by the contract between
SCO and Novell transferred to SCO, misunderstood.
SCO vs. Linux: The never ending story ends
In the seven years of protracted dispute over copyrights to Unix, to
license fees for Linux installations and the question of whether
programming code or programming concepts from Unix to Linux migrated,
the SCO Group's court sustained a severe and probably final defeat .
Judge Jack Stewart rejected a petition by SCO, which urged the company a
new trial, and declared the jury's decision, according to the lie the
copyright to Unix from Novell, to be convincing and appropriate. In
addition, the judge declared the case closed. Whether the bankrupt SCO
Group is suing the verdict is not yet known.
According to the Groklaw published by decision of federal judge handed
down the verdict Stewart relies on a statement of the former SCO CEO
Darl McBride. This was explained in the procedure before the jury that
it needed the copyrights to SCO Unix does not necessarily. Together with
the persuasive decision of the jury that the Unix copyrights are owned
by Novell, it follows for the Court no position is justified by which a
repositioning of the process.
In an initial statement said Novell spokesman Ian Bruce, Novell is
pleased with the ruling and see it as crucial in the development of
Linux and open source software. A statement from SCO or the SCO
bankruptcy trustee Edward Cahn is still pending. Cahn had recently made
the continuation of the procedure depends on whether the bankruptcy
court approves its reorganization plan, according to the SCO's Worldwide
exclude or sold. The approval of this reorganization is still pending.
From the decision of Federal Judge some procedures are concerned, the
SCO had filed. In addition to leading the fight over the copyrights to
Unix, SCO and Novell with the complaint and counter complaint is a
lawsuit by SCO against Linux distributor Red Hat has become obsolete.
Moreover, the defeat means that the SCO case against IBM lacks the
conditions to continue the lawsuit. Technically, alone remains the
countersuit by IBM from 2004, but it is questionable whether IBM enabled
this action given the situation at all from SCO.
Total distinguished from one end to the never-ending story. Whether the
failed attempts by SCO sufficient to prevent other companies from the
development of Linux to fight legally, only time will tell.
SCO filing an opposition against the end of the endless story
A few days before the hearing in his own bankruptcy, the SCO Group has
filed its appeal against a ruling by a series of processes the rug out
from under this company. As Groklaw reports that SCO wants to negotiate
the decision by Judge Ted Stewart in front of an appeals court. Stewart
had declared the decision of a jury to be legal, who had been following
a hearing that the copyright to Unix, Novell has remained, as Novell
sold the Unix business to SCO Group. Stewart had also rejected a
petition by SCO to repeat the process.
In the filed of Groklaw, SCO wants documented statement that the 10th
U.S. Court of Appeals dealt with the case. It should overrule the
decision of the jury and collect the verdict of Judge Stewart.
Alternatively, in this case, SCO would agree to repeat the process.
Whether SCO has the financial means, this new round, or even to deny a
new trial, however, depends on the negotiation of the bankruptcy court
in which the SCO Group must present a business plan. The company itself
is apparently of the opinion that you are covered thanks to a financial
agreement reached in 2005 with the law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP, the cost of rolling up the entire process in the first instance.
