Directory
Encyclopedia

NodeWorks
                              ENCYCLOPEDIA

Link Checker
Home
Encyclopedia : S : SC : SCO :

SCO v. Novell

  

SCO v. Novell

After The SCO Group initiated their Linux campaign, they made several statements that they were the owners of Unix. Novell claimed these statements were false, and that they actually still owned Unix. After Novell registered the copyrights to some key Unix products, SCO filed suit against Novell, claiming slander of title.

This is just one of a series of lawsuits in which SCO is involved. Other lawsuits in which SCO is involved are SCO v. IBM, Red Hat v. SCO, SCO v. AutoZone, SCO v. DaimlerChrysler.

History


On September 19, 1995, the Santa Cruz Operation bought certain rights regarding Unix and UnixWare from Novell. These rights included the right to develop and market new versions of UnixWare. The Santa Cruz Operation also bought the rights to act as a licensing agent for an ancillary version of Unix. In 2000 Caldera acquired the Server Software and Services divisions of Santa Cruz Operation, as well as UnixWare and OpenServer technologies. Two years later Caldera changed its name to The SCO Group.

Background information


The conflict between SCO and Novell originated in 2003, after SCO filed suit against IBM and claimed that they owned Unix. Novell publicly responded to these allegation on May 28, 2003 by claiming that they never sold the copyrights of Unix to SCO’s predecessor, Santa Cruz Operation. June 6, 2003, SCO held a press conference in which it revealed a second amendment to the asset purchase agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation. SCO claimed this amendment supports their claim that SCO did receive the copyrights to Unix. In response to this revelation, Novell issued a press release in which it stated:

To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in 1996. The amendment does not address ownership of patents, however, which clearly remain with Novell.

While SCO publicly claimed victory, behind the scenes a series of heated letters were sent back and forth. These letters reveal that Novell continued to believe they are still the legal owners of the Unix copyrights. On October 14, 2003, Novell registered several key Unix copyrights, which was later discovered by a member of the Groklaw website. After their registration became public knowledge Novell issued a press release on December 22, 2003 stating:

Novell believes it owns the copyrights in UNIX, and has applied for and received copyright registrations pertaining to UNIX consistent with that position. Novell detailed the basis for its ownership position in correspondence with SCO.

January 13, 2004, Novell launched its Linux indemnification program and publicly released the letters that were sent between SCO and Novell in the previous months. SCO responded the same day with a press release that reiterated its earlier claim and announced that they were preparing to file a lawsuit against Novell.

The lawsuit


On January 20, 2004, SCO filed a Slander of Title lawsuit against Novell. This lawsuit, filed in Utah State court requested a preliminary and permanent injunction. The injunction would require Novell to assign to SCO all copyrights that Novell registered and that Novell would retract all claims they previously made.

Novell removed the lawsuit from State court and moved it to Federal court instead. Four days later, February 10, 2004 Novell filed a motion to dismiss the case. Novell's motion requests the court to dismiss this case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In support of its motion Novell argues that:

  • SCO did not show a valid transfer of copyright ownership, because the Asset Purchase Agreement is merely a promise to assign and that the Agreement is - by law - not sufficient to transfer the copyrights to SCO.
  • SCO did not specify specific special damages.

    In response, SCO filed several memoranda in opposition to Novell's motion to dismiss. Additionally SCO filed a motion to remand the case back to State court. Novell claimed however, that to resolve this case interpretation of Federal Law is required, which makes this a case that belongs in Federal Court.

    May 9, 2004, Judge Dale A. Kimball heard arguments of both parties and took both motions under advisement. June 10, 2004 Judge Kimball denied SCO's motion to remand and partially granted Novell's motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which would allow SCO to amend their complaint to include properly plead special damages.

    July 9, 2004, SCO filed an amended complaint.

    August 6, 2004, Novell filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.

    See also

  • SCO-Linux controversies
  • Groklaw

    External links

  • The SCO Group - Official website
  • SCO Purchases Specific Novell Assets - SCO's official page about this lawsuit
  • Novell - Official website
  • Novell's Unique Legal Rights - Novell's official page about this lawsuit
  • Groklaw - An online community dedicated to following the progress of the various lawsuits and investigating the claims SCO makes
  • Tuxrocks - An archive of court documents related to this lawsuit

    		•
    NodeWorks boosts web surfing!
    Page Returned in 1.124 seconds - HTML Compressed 69.5%

    This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available
    under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
     GNU Free Documentation License
    © 2008 Chamas Enterprises Inc.