Back in May of 2003, SCO announced that Microsoft had paid them millions, and we were told this is what they paid for:This is an excerpt...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?
Excerpt here:
*****************************************************************
| About Those "Patents" MS Licensed from SCO in 2003: What I'd Like Novell to Ask SCO or MS in Discovery |
| Authored by: pallmall on Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 04:11 AM EDT |
| Ninja Novell ... I like that. The Ninja has put SCO in an awkward spot about their licensing to MS and Sun. Novell claims that 95% of the license fees paid to SCO belongs to them. Now SCO will have to respond and give some attempt to explain, for the record, why Novell is not entitled to the $25 million. What explanations will they give? That the licenses they sold were not for anything covered by the APA? That would raise questions regarding their earlier SEC filings. And if SCO takes a position that the contractual provisions regarding Novell's compensation are not valid, then the whole contract is invalid -- but SCO is claiming that their contract with Novell gives them the right to sell such licenses to *customers* like MS and Sun. So what is it, SCO-boys? Did you sell the licenses to MS and Sun without telling them that the licenses really weren't what you sold them as? Did you sell them and now claim that the agreement authorizing you to sell them is invalid? Or, how about this one: Did MS and Sun buy these licenses knowing that they were not valid and knowing that the fees would be used for litigation and not for fulfilling contractual obligations with Novell? In light of PJ's observation of the mystery patents, the last question is extremely legitimate and can no longer be dismissed as a far out conspiracy theory. If a company pays millions of dollars for a patent that they do not use, or does not exist, then the company is grossly incompetent or they are paying for something other than what they say they are. And I've never heard the term incompetent used to describe MS. Bravo, PJ. You're a true Ninjette. [ Reply to This | # ] |