[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Groklaw:

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! - Updated

*******************************************EXCERPT********************************************

Thursday, June 10 2010 @ 04:14 PM EDT

Here you go, munchkins. Judge Ted Stewart has ruled for Novell and against SCO. Novell's claim for declaratory judgment is granted; SCO's claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good fair and fair dealings are denied. Also SCO's motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial: denied. Novell is entitled to waive, at its sole discretion, claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees.

CASE CLOSED!

Maybe I should say cases closed. The door has slammed shut on the SCO litigation machine. The judge writes in the Memorandum Decision and Order about SCOsource, "Finally, while SCO's witnesses testified that the copyrights were 'required' for SCO to run its SCOsource licensing program, this was not something that SCO ever acquired from Novell." He totally got it. He noticed Darl McBride admitted that SCO didn't need the copyrights. It couldn't be any better if I'd written it myself.

Was the jury misled or confused? Not at all, the judge writes: "The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO's witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation."

"The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith," Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.

And now it is -- finally -- time, once again, for my red dress! And a huge thank you to Michael Jacobs and the team at Morrison & Foerster, who never gave up but, more importantly, showed that you can fight hard and win with ethics and dignity, and to Sterling Brennan of Workman|Nydegger, who was frankly absolutely wonderful at trial.

SCO's stock I see is today worth a nickel. I consider that overpriced, personally. It's not worth a plugged nickel. Well, I know nothing about stocks, so don't go by me. Here's what I can't wait to read: SCO's press release. Remember when they put them out after all major court events? And Rob Enderle, Dan Lyons, and Maureen O'Gara. Can't wait. Say, didn't Paul Murphy say he'd stop blogging if SCO lost? Promises, promises.

And may I be forgiven for simply stating the obvious? Groklaw was never biased. We merely had sufficient expertise to call it right. And we did. SCO really did fall downstairs, hitting its head on every step. Here's the real question, though. How come Boies Schiller couldn't call it right, when a mere paralegal could, and so protect its client from going forward with a case that to me was obviously a loser from day one? Maybe they tried. But review this 2003 teleconference transcript from our Transcripts page with Mr. Boies in attendance and decide for yourself if they were dragged in or willingly jumped. It's so puzzling to me.

There may be an appeal, you say? Yes, true. I hope there is one, because Boies Schiller has to do it for free, under its contract with SCO, and they claim they are already in the red on this case. I'd call that a healthy learning experience.

You know what else I can't wait to hear? What SCO's trustee Edward Cahn tells the bankruptcy court now. First he told it that SCO had worthy claims, then he said they had a 50-50 chance, all to justify going forward with this turkey of a case, at huge expense to SCO.

And to all the folks who said viciously untrue things about Groklaw, apologies would be most welcome.

Here it all is:

06/10/2010 - 876 - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW that Novells claim for declaratory judgment is GRANTED ; that SCOs claims for specific performance and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are DENIED. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 06/10/2010. (asp) (Entered: 06/10/2010)

06/10/2010 - 877 - MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 871 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law ; denying 874 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 06/10/2010. (asp) (Entered: 06/10/2010)

06/10/2010 - 878 - JUDGMENT in favor of Novell, Inc. against SCO Group. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 06/10/2010. (asp) (Entered: 06/10/2010)

Update: Novell has now issued a statement:

United States District Court Judge Issues Final Judgment Confirming Novell Ownership of UNIX Copyrights and Denying Other SCO Claims

June 11th, 2010 by Ian Bruce

Yesterday, United States District Court Judge Ted Stewart issued a Final Judgment regarding the long standing dispute between SCO Group and Novell. As part of the decision, the Court reaffirmed the earlier jury verdict that Novell maintained ownership of important UNIX copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on the Linux computer operating system. The Court also issued a lengthy Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law wherein it determined that SCO was not entitled to an order requiring Novell to transfer the UNIX copyrights because “Novell had purposely retained those copyrights.” In addition, the Court concluded that SCO was obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and other companies, many of whom utilize Linux.

Commenting on the Judgment, Novell President and CEO Ron Hovsepian stated “After almost a decade of litigation, we are very pleased to see this final judgment uphold all of Novell’s claims. I am very proud of this achievement and the work Novell has done to ensure Linux remains free and open.”

Here's the Final Judgment wording:

This matter came before the Court for trial on March 8, 2010, through March 26, 2010. Based on the Jury Verdict and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment is entered as follows:

1. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for slander of title pursuant to the Jury Verdict.

2. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for specific performance pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

3. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on Novell’s claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Specifically, the Court declares:

a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees;

b. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled to waive on SCO’s behalf SCO’s purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees, when SCO refuses to act as directed by Novell; and

c. SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s purported claims against IBM and Sequent.

4. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.

SO ORDERED.

DATED June 10, 2010.

BY THE COURT:

______[signature]__________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge