Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/31/2005 11:35:35 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: ShadowAce; HAL9000
I like the way HardOCP described this:

*******************************************************

Sinking SCO:The Cnet reports that Novell has put yet another broadside into SCO, filing a countersuit that it has twice violated the Asset Purchase Agreement and its amendment. Both of which govern the Unix assets SCO is based on. Further in the suit, they again refute SCO even owns the copyrights they claim.

2 posted on 07/31/2005 11:37:56 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...

3 posted on 08/01/2005 5:10:15 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Waltham, Mass.-based company in June lost a bid to have SCO's case dismissed.

Now SCO probably now wishes it had been dismissed, then Novell wouldn't have filed its response with these claims.

4 posted on 08/01/2005 6:27:59 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Novell: "Not only are we the truthful owners of the SCOUnix license, we want our money owed... and then some more."

We are seeing the last days of the company formally known as SCO.


5 posted on 08/01/2005 8:47:18 AM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (I alone, am the chosen one. Because I alone, did the choosing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: rdb3; chance33_98; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Bush2000; PenguinWry; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; ...
Groklaw also has an interesting take on it as well:
Back in May of 2003, SCO announced that Microsoft had paid them millions, and we were told this is what they paid for:
According to a statement from Microsoft, the company will license SCO's Unix patents and the source code.
Remember that detail? Patents. Plural. At the time, everyone, including me, took them at their word that such patents existed and had been licensed, even if only as cover.

But now that Ninja Novell has put its SCO cards on the table, including at least an implied fraud card, no pussyfooting around, in its Answer and Counterclaims [PDF], it's clear there will be discovery in SCO v. Novell regarding the Microsoft license, and they will be looking more closely at the deal struck. We're all looking more closely. Novell has asked to see the license, and it's very likely they will get to see it. Discovery is very broad, as you may have noticed in the SCO v. IBM case. Anything the least bit relevant is usually ordered turned over. So, if they do depositions of SCO and/or Microsoft employees, here's a question I'd like Novell to ask:

What patents, exactly, did Microsoft license?

This is an excerpt...
6 posted on 08/01/2005 8:53:50 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; ShadowAce

According to the employer of PJ from Jokelaw, Lunix infringes on as many as 300 US patents in the kernel alone.


17 posted on 08/01/2005 4:16:42 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson