EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

03.31.10

Consequences of UNIX up for Sale

Posted in Courtroom, Finance, GNU/Linux, IBM, Java, Novell, Patents, SCO, UNIX at 1:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Novell suicide

Summary: How the outcome of the SCO case — as positive as it is — relates to the future

THE SCO case is almost over and just about everyone has already seen the news (so we won’t repeat it). As we shall show at the end, it’s not quite over because of the vulture fund that’s running after Novell (or circling Novell’s decaying body rather) and SCO wants to carry on with the case against IBM. We urge readers to remember what Groklaw said about the timing of the vulture fund’s arrival at the scene. It was only days before the SCO trial.

In this post we’ll try to contain as much coverage as possible and leave readers to explore the sources, which mostly comprise overlapping and obvious information.

Prior to the ruling we found quite a lot of anticipatory coverage such as:

SCO v World Bombshell

The malloc code is stuff that was released years ago by Caldera and certainly is not something SCOG defended in the SCOG v IBM case. Judge Kimball expressed astonishment at how little evidence SCOG presented after years of discovery and litigation.

If a corporation cannot be jailed for fraud, its officers should be.

No Verdict Today, the Final Day, in SCO v. Novell – Deliberations Begin Again Tuesday

SCO v Novell is unfair to Novell

Judge Stewart is obviously capable of great insight and has the legal knowledge. This case suggests strongly that he is not ruling based on law but on some hidden agenda to give every advantage possible to SCOG. Novell has taken the steps to document their motions very well should an appeal be necessary. I believe whichever way the case turns out, some peer review of Stewart’s conduct of this case is in order. Courts run this way are pointless. We can find bullies galore on the street. We do not need them in courts.

Just before the judgment we had:

Court Grants SCO’s Oral Motion for Judgment on Novell’s Slander of Title Claim

Jury deliberating UNIX ownership in ongoing SCO trial

SCO’s fate has been placed in the hands of 12 Utah jurors who will resume deliberations on Tuesday. They are tasked with deciding whether the UNIX SVRX copyrights were transferred from Novell to SCO in a 1995 asset purchase agreement.

SCO’s legal battle began in 2003 when the company claimed that Linux includes code that was misappropriated from UNIX. Novell claims that SCO does not have standing to pursue litigation relating to SVRX copyright infringement because it does not own the relevant copyrights. A bench trial that concluded in 2007 ruled in Novell’s favor but was later overturned. The case was put before a jury, which heard the closing arguments on Friday.

Ownership of Unix copyrights in hands of Utah jury

A Salt Lake City jury has started deliberations in a case pitting two software companies that each claim ownership of the Unix computer operating systems used by large corporations.

Jury rests for weekend in SCO Group-Novell trial (and it’s here also)

A federal jury began deliberations Friday in the trial pitting The SCO Group against Novell Inc. in their dispute over which owns the copyrights to the Unix computer operating systems used by many businesses.

Ownership of Unix Copyrights in Hands of Utah Jury

SCO UNIX Claims Could Be Decided This Week – Or Not.

SCO the company that has been claiming that it owns UNIX copyrights and that Linux infringes on those rights is still alive….barely.

SCO Novell Jury Decision Pending

Ownership of Unix copyrights in hands of Utah jury (AP coverage)

Is this the end for SCO?

I’ve given up on predicting when the zombie movie series staring the undead SCO monster is finally going to stay quietly in its grave Still, this week a jury is deciding whether SCO or Novell owns Unix’s intellectual property rights.

You may have thought that this was settled. Most of us who followed SCO certainly thought that was a done deal. After all, the matter of who owns Unix comes down to a fairly simple issue of contract law and not some esoteric IP (intellectual property) legal gymkhana. And, no matter how SCO sliced it, Judge Dale Kimball decided that Novell owned Unix’s copyrights. Alas, another judge decided last August that Kimball had had no right to make that call and that a jury should decide who Unix’s copyrights instead.

Here is an interesting one which is worth bearing in mind: “SCO Wants to Sell Java Patent and (Mostly) Pay the Professionals”

SCO Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn has now reported to the bankruptcy court that he’s closed on the loan from Ralph Yarro and his friends, and now Cahn wants to pay most of the bills in the bankruptcy from SCO’s numerous professionals. And he wants to sell the Java patent, since SCO’s never used it and has no use for it going forward. He has a buyer, Liberty Lane, LLC, and so he asks the court to approve the sale to Liberty Lane “or another higher and better bidder.” That seems unlikely, in that they claim to have shopped the patent to around 40 potential purchasers. Liberty Lane is offering $100,000.

[...]

And who is Liberty Lane LLC? According to Exhibit B [PDF], they have an office in San Diego, CA but are a Delaware LLC. Exhibit D says Liberty Lane is a company affiliated with Allied Security Trust I, and if that is this patent-protection (from trolls) company, that might not be half bad. Google and HP are members of Allied. At least they’d keep it out of the hands of the litigation lizards. That’s Allied’s purpose, to dry up patent trolling as a “business” by buying up patents that might be used that way. And Exhibit E [PDF] indicates they are one and the same, in that the letter of intent shows the same name as CFO, Kerry Hopkin.

It is worth watching who gets such patents.

Anyway, the statement from Novell’s PR people was probably the first to announce the results of the trial. It’s a good outcome for Novell, which also issued a press release about it. Groklaw has already gotten over 1,500 comments and Brian Proffitt gives Groklaw credit.

Then came heaps of press coverage, such as:

Even a former Novell employee wrote about it (there was no disclosure).

The major news is included in many news digests too [1, 2, 3].

On Tuesday, a jury in Nevada sided with Novell in its long-running legal dispute with SCO. The jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that Novell owns Unix copyrights that SCO has tried to assert as its own. Pamela Jones, a paralegal who has closely followed the SCO v. Novell case since its beginning on her Groklaw blog, initially deemed this the end of the line. “It’s over,” she wrote on her site. However, SCO could appeal the ruling.

SCOTUS Blog had this to say:

Issue: Whether the “writing” referenced in 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) — requiring for a transfer of copyright ownership “an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer” that is “in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent” — must specify which copyrights were conveyed, or instead requires only that the written instrument could be construed to convey some copyrights.

It’s not so crucial. This is more or less a repetition of a 2007 decision. If Novell owns UNIX, there are greater troubles now than there were back then. Since Novell is up for sale, then UNIX may be up for sale, too.

Financially, here is what was happening around that time [1, 2]. Novell got downgraded.

Novell (NOVL) was downgraded today by analysts at Thomson Financial – Gradient and the stock is now at $5.77, up $0.02 (0.35%) on volume of 4,690,115 shares traded.

Now, to emphasise the important part, according to some sources, “SCO vows to press ahead with IBM lawsuit.”

But Cahn said SCO intends to continue its lawsuit against IBM, in which the computer giant is accused of using Unix code to make the Linux operating system a viable competitor, causing a decline in SCO’s revenues.

From Briefing.com (via Microsoft) we learn:

It was rumored that IBM (IBM 128.46 -0.13) could be interested in Novell (NOVL 5.80). NOVL shares did not react to the rumor. As mentioned before, while many rumors circulate during the day, and the validity of the source of these rumors can be questionable, the speculation may increase volatility in the near term.

At ZDNet, one GNU/Linux enthusiast asks, “Why doesn’t IBM just buy Novell already?” (we did an April prank about it one year ago)

I actually started pondering this a few days before the Novell-SCO ruling on Tuesday clearly put Novell in an important position as a “[defender of] Linux on the intellectual property front.” Why, you ask, would a Googley Edu blogger be thinking about major players in the enterprise Linux market? Because I can see an open source showdown in the making here, the beneficiaries of which will be consumers, SMBs, enterprises, and educational institutions. I don’t get the feeling the showdown will be any fun, though, if Novell is left to its own devices.

What we do know is that Novell may be looking for a buyer. As Tim puts it:

That is the question? It certainly seems like its a possibility in the case of Novell, with rumours abound on the Net that it may be up for grabs. Speaking personally, I wonder how much of an opportunity Novell missed when it signed a deal with Microsoft. Regardless of if there is a “master plan” in operation, I don’t think it can be argued that the “deal” did damage to the Novell image.

The eternal boss of JBoss (Marc Fleury), who met Ron Hovsepian, argues that Novell is likely to sell itself.

So let’s see if I can summarize the Novell thing as i understand it.

a/ The offer is from a hedge fund
b/ the offer is 50% above EV
c/ the offer was turned down

c/ can be written off as a mere negotiation step. The board is rejecting the first offer on the table. What else do you expect them to do? There is nothing to see here and I would still put the odds very high on Novell is a sell.

Novell has rejected the first bid (probably as expected from a negotiator) and here is a new video that covers that.

For more background on the subject, see the following older posts:

  1. Vulture Fund Still the Only Bidder for Novell
  2. Novell May be Going Private, Hedge Fund Has Cash
  3. Analyst Expects Microsoft Bid to Buy Novell
  4. Ron Hovsepian Receives Another Large Lump of Cash as Novell Sale Looms
  5. GNU/Linux-Savvy Writers View Elliot Associates as Bad Neighbourhood
  6. Firm Behind Novell Bid Has Shady Past, Could be Tied to Microsoft (Paul E. Singer’s ‘Vulture Fund’)
  7. Simon Phipps: “Seems Even With Microsoft’s Support Novell Couldn’t Cut It”

The bottom line is that SCO does not own UNIX. But we don’t really know who might be the owner of UNIX later this year.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

3 Comments

  1. Needs Sunlight said,

    March 31, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Gravatar

    This long, drawn out case has produced no other verdict than what was expected almost 10 years ago. The duration of Novell’s contract with Microsoft will determine when SCO2 starts. Microsoft was lined up to be the new SCO, it might still be but it will try to throw Novell on the grenade first.

  2. Agent_Smith said,

    March 31, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Gravatar

    What if UNIX falls in Micro$oft’s hands ??? Will they sue the entire Linux ecosystem ???

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Probably not. They funded SCO to abuse GNU/Linux for 7 years, they don’t need to attack directly.

What Else is New


  1. Koch Brothers and Big Oil Could Not Buy the Decisions in Oil States, SAS

    In Oil States Energy Services v Greene’s Energy Group, a case which Koch-funded think tanks meddled in (including those whose panel guests send me threatening legal letters), ends up with dissent from a Koch-connected Justice citing or quoting those very same Koch-funded think tanks



  2. The European Patent Office (EPO) Wastes a Lot of Money on External PR Agencies for Battistelli's 'Heist'

    The EPO's management is once again scattering/throwing EPO budget at PR agencies and media companies (publishers/broadcasters) to disseminate a bunch of puff pieces and virtually ignore the very obvious conflict of interest, which should be a scandal on par with that of FIFA (resulting in the arrest of its boss, Mr. Blatter)



  3. Today's EPO is Not Compatible With the Law and It's Grossly Incompatible With Truth and Justice

    Today, once again, the EPO openly advocates software patents while media promotes loopholes (notably hype waves)



  4. Quick Mention: As Expected, the US Supreme Court Cements PTAB's Role With Trump-Appointed Gorsuch Dissenting

    Oil States has been decided and it's very good news for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); even Conservatives-leaning Justices support PTAB



  5. Links 24/4/2018: Preview of Crostini, Introducing Heptio Gimbal, OPNsense 18.1.6

    Links for the day



  6. Patent Maximalists Step Things Up With Director Andrei Iancu and It's Time for Scientists to Fight Back

    Science and technology don't seem to matter as much as the whims of the patent (litigation) 'industry', at least judging by recent actions taken by Andrei Iancu (following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee)



  7. Mythology About Patents in the East

    Misconceptions (or deliberate propaganda) about patent policy in the east poison the debate and derail a serious, facts-based discussion about it



  8. Patent Trolls Watch: Red River Innovations, Bradium Technologies/General Patent, and Wordlogic

    A quick look at some patent trolls that made the news this Monday; we are still seeing a powerful response to such trolls, whose momentum is slipping owing to the good work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  9. Holding Benoît Battistelli Accountable After the EPO

    The many abuses and offenses committed by Mr. Battistelli whilst he enjoyed diplomatic immunity can and should be brought up as that immunity expires in two months; a good start would be contacting his colleagues, who might not be aware of the full spectrum of his abuses



  10. Links 23/4/2018: Second RC of Linux 4.17 and First RC of Mesa 18.1

    Links for the day



  11. The Good Work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Latest Attempts to Undermine It

    A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents



  12. District Courts' Patent Cases, Including the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX/TXED), in a Nutshell

    A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money



  13. The Federal Circuit's (CAFC) Decisions Are Being Twisted by Patent Propaganda Sites Which Merely Cherry-Pick Cases With Outcomes That Suit Them

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)



  14. Patents Roundup: Metaswitch, GENBAND, Susman, Cisco, Konami, High 5 Games, HTC, and Nintendo

    A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")



  15. In Maxon v Funai the High 'Patent Court' (CAFC) Reaffirms Disdain for Software Patents, Which Are Nowadays Harder to Get and Then Defend

    With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”



  16. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  17. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  18. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  19. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  20. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  21. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  22. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves



  23. Short: EPO Bribes the Media and Then Brags About the Paid-for Outcome to Staff

    The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)



  24. Short: EPO's “Working Party for Quality” is to Quality What the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” is to Democracy

    To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form



  25. Short: This Spring's Message From the EPO's President (Corrected)

    A corrected preface from the Liar in Chief, the EPO's notoriously crooked and dishonest President



  26. Short: Highly Misleading and Unscientific Graphics From the EPO for an Illusion of Growth

    A look at the brainwash that EPO management is distributing to staff and what's wrong with it



  27. Short: EPO Explains to Examiners Why They Should and Apparently Can Grant Software Patents (in Spite of EPC)

    Whether it calls it "CII" or "ICT" or "Industry 4.0" or "4IR", the EPO's management continues to grant software patents and attempts to justify this to itself (and to staff)



  28. Links 21/4/2018: Linux 4.9.95, FFmpeg 4.0, OpenBSD Foundation 2018 Fundraising Campaign

    Links for the day



  29. As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

    Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners' ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)



  30. In Keith Raniere v Microsoft Both Sides Are Evil But for Different Reasons

    Billing for patent lawyers reveals an abusive strategy from Microsoft, which responded to abusive patent litigation (something which Microsoft too has done for well over a decade)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts