SCO News Roundup

• GL covers the latest SCO v. Novell filings, in four (so far) posts:
  
  • Novell Files 4 Summary Judgment Motions
    
  • Declaration of Allison Amadia as text - Amendment 2 Didn't Transfer Copyrights
    
  • Declaration of Tor Braham - the lawyer for Novell who drafted the APA
    
  • Novell's Memo in Support of SJ Motion on SCO's 1st Claim for Slander of Title, 3rd for Sp. Performance, as text
    
  
  
  It's really not as complicated as it looks. The condensed version: Novell & SCO are fighting over who owns the Unix copyrights. In the new filings, Novell unveils what sure looks like decisive evidence that the copyrights are still theirs. Decisive, as in, they found the people who handled Novell's side of the Novell-OldSCO deal, and asked them what they meant by it. Oh, and Novell also included draft versions of the infamous Amendment 2, complete with underlining and other markup, giving some insight into what the negotiations were all about.
  
  After reading all the stories, or just the original docs, or even a small subset of either, you'll probably conclude that SCO is royally screwed now. But then, think back to all the previous times where it sure seemed like SCO was royally screwed, and yet they're still in business, and still on the warpath. When the company ceases operations, and the court cases go away, then I'll believe it's curtains for SCO. And I'm cynical enough not to try predicting when (or if) we might see that.
  
  One thing that works in Novell's favor is that the SCO claims they're trying to be rid of are not precisely about who owns the copyrights. SCO does a bit of handwaving, asks the court to just assume they own the copyrights, and ding Novell for a variety of injuries that SCO could only suffer as the rightful copyright owner, like "slander of title". Novell seeks to prove they're the real copyright holder, not SCO, but to prevail all they really need to do is show they sincerely believed they owned the copyrights, and thus weren't acting out of malice. That's not an argument they make explicitly, though; I think they'd rather have clear title to the copyrights than win a wishy-washy argument over intentions.
  
  As for what happens next, I'm not sure the stock will go up on the news. It's become folk wisdom that this always happens, but that hasn't been true in the last year or two. The last two huge drops in the stock have come shortly after adverse court rulings. This is not a ruling, not yet anyway, it's just a few filings, so I doubt the stock's going to move a lot either way on the news.
  
  I think we will see a new batch of delaying tactics, similar to the IBM case's endless Renewed Motions to Please-oh-Please Reconsider Yet Again. I'm increasingly skeptical that the September trial date is going to hold. The motion practice will somehow drag on and on until the date becomes unfeasable, and the court doesn't immediately set a new trial date. And don't be surprised if SCO tries to completely change the subject again, while claiming that was the real point of the case from day 1. That's what they're pursuing their get-PJ crusade again right now, and I doubt that's the only dirty trick they've got in store.
  
  
• Meanwhile, a highly astute reader discovered yet another Yarro tentacle, this one named "Codesquid".
  
  Business Name: CODESQUID, INC.
  Entity Number: 6238812-0142
  Registration Date: 06/05/2006
  Registered Agent: BRENT CHRISTENSEN
  Address Line 1: 1485 E 840 N
  City: Orem
  State: UT
  Zip: 84097
  
  
  Same addy as ThinkAtomic. Domain registration's private, via GoDaddy, and Netcraft says the site's Win2k3+IIS6.0. What, no OpenServer 6? I'm shocked, shocked!
  
  

Labels: linux, open source, sco, tech

By brx0 @ 1:34 PM