back to article SCO ordered to pay Novell $2.5m Unix royalties

A US district court judge yesterday ordered SCO to pay Novell $2.5m for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. Judge Dale A Kimball’s ruling in the SCO vs Novell lawsuit came 10 weeks after a four-day trial to decide how much money SCO should cough up to Novell. Groklaw, which has a copy of the ruling here …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Sam

Careafuckometer says no

So at the end of all this, we've got a bunch of suits chasing other suits for copyright, instead of people actually developing and improving things..

Is it me, or is this a bit like RIAA/insert wanker here stuff?

0
0
Thumb Up

HAHAHA

Hoisted with their own petard.

0
0
Alert

$$2.5 million?

Does that even pay the wages of the lawyers assistants for the duration of this case? What a waste of time... Oh well glad Novell won....

0
0
Happy

All Together Now

HahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahaha

0
0
Coat

Tee Hee

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

<ahem>

I'll get me coat!

0
0
Linux

Teehee

I'd love to see the look on Darl McBride's face right about now.

0
0

And the lawyers?

So SCO lost $2.5million plus costs

And Novel gained $2.5 million minus costs.

And there's some happy lawyers round there somewhere.

0
0
Thumb Up

Evil Doctor pose

MWUHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Servers Sco right tbh !!!!

0
0
Happy

@Sam

"Is it me, or is this a bit like RIAA/insert wanker here stuff?"

It's more a bit like RIAA *losing* a case - hence the abundance of "hahahahas" in the comments.

0
0
Thumb Down

It's a bit sad though...

to see two tech companies that were in their day market leaders now fighting each other for scraps and bits of each others rapidly dwindling empires.

Such is the lifecycle of business I suppose but yes I am sure that bloodsucker lawyers are extremely happy.

0
0
Flame

I hope that's the fat lady I hear..

SCO has $2.5 million dollars? Maybe this will put them underwater for good. Wankers.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

You kind of miss the point..

2.5 million would be enough to cause SCO to file for bankrupcy.

What you're watching is the end of SCO.

0
0

Heh.

How about all those wankers that paid SCO so they wouldn't get sued when SCO won the case; think class action lawsuit. Big class action lawsuit.

0
0
Paris Hilton

It ain't sad

"to see two tech companies that were in their day market leaders now fighting each other for scraps and bits of each others rapidly dwindling empires"

Novell didn't enter this to fight over SCO's scrap of business, actually they just stood their ground as SCO tried to make a land grab for the whole Linux market.

SCO tried to charge us all for a license to run Linux because if chock full of SCO's Unix code.

All Novell did was say "actually we own the Unix code".

That's pretty much the whole The SCO Group vs Novell litigation in nutshell.

Also of note though, that this SCO, The SCO Group, is not the SCO or yore, the SCO of yore renamed themselves to Tarantula and got swallowed by SUN.

But the main reason it ain't sad is because finally SCO got the bitch slapping it so richly deserved.

Paris because I know who I would rather be a slapping...

0
0
Silver badge

Vague

Only SCO considered it vague. If they were told: "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass 'GO'. Do not collect £200." they would have gone to GO, collected £200, spent it, and complained the court order was not clear.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Uncle Bill

So, as Micro$oft has its hooks in Novell how of the $2.5 million will Novell actually get and how much will end up in Uncle Bill's pension pot

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Ah - but Novell may not want to collect..

According to LamLaw there's a little venomous snake hiding under the grass for SUN. If Novell would accept the money they would, in fact, ratify SUN's right to open source Solaris.

However, Novell may choose to "leave" that cash on the table (collecting it via other arguments such as lawyer fees, of course) and thus declare SUN's open-sourcing of Solaris a violation, starting a game with much highre numbers and much less likely to take years in court.

I think SUN will have a VERY hard job proving they didn't know exactly what they were getting in to when dealing with SCO - that would require a frankly unbelievable failure of due diligence.

Meanwhile, IBM et al get to play with (the remains of) SCO once more. I just hope that at some point someone manages to identify criminal charges for the main actors. They thoroughly deserve them IMHO.

0
0
Alien

Is it over yet??

Can't SCO just file bankrupcy and go away? It's not like they've ever really contributed anything to information technology other than filing suit against IBM and others in order to slow the adoption rate of Linux. With Microsoft's investment in them and some rather suspicious elements present in Windows Vista's file system, it makes one wonder who was really behind them, eh? If Windows 7 looks and feels too much like Linux, I rest my case.

0
0
Linux

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

"We have no products, we have no new customers to sell product to even if we did. I propose we become patent trolls, unleash the dogs of law !"

Some time later.....

"DOH!!!"

Couldn't have happened in a more ironic or amusing way.

0
0
Black Helicopters

$2.5m

I think that the Judge was wrong to use Microsoft's $2.5m license (for rights to use Unix WITHOUT making it's secret, proprietary portions public) as a model for the value of Sun's NEW license to open-source all this code. Sun ALREADY HAD a license with all of the rights of use which Microsoft purchased-- the new license was, IMO, entirely for the "release as Open Source" change.

But Novell's lawyers didn't spend any time to establish the value of this property, separate from other bits in the license. (They just asked for all the money from both licenses.) Novell's lawyers are very smart, and I think that they DIDN'T go after the money with careful documentation because there's a gentleman's agreement in place with IBM:

Don't kill Caldera/SCO right away, leave a more crippled company crawling away from this lawsuit for the Nazgul (IBM's lawyers) to swoop down upon, and utterly destroy. If Caldera/SCO had been made tits-up by the Novell judgement, IBM's suit would probably not be heard.

I think that IBM really, *REALLY* wants to make a caldera out of Caldera-- probably spending time to expose significant Sarbox violations as matters of "fact" in this Civil case, allowing a subsequent criminal case to use the evidence to throw Caldera/SCO's principals in jail, and to go after their personal property. All that will be left is a big hole in the ground, with burned bits of wreckage and a little smoke.

All that Novell really wanted to establish was that Caldera/SCO sold licenses for property which wasn't theirs to sell. That's why they didn't even call SUN to the witness box. Anonymous Coward above (referring to LamLaw) also has an interesting point-- and might be right about Novell going after SUN instead. But it looks like Novell's lawyers have chosen to go after establishing the facts, not the money, and are happy to pull out only a slightly crippling (but NOT fatal) amount of money from the criminal enterprise.

It will be interesting to see if Novell quickly requests reimbursement of costs (lawyer's fees, mostly) in a hurry. That would imply that they ARE interested in getting SCO's money first, before IBM, and that they truly made a mistake in their Court tactics.

0
0

I'd just like to say thanks

to the wickdads who posted mile-long hahaha's and borked the browser wraparound, and the lazy Register website "programmers" who didn't foresee the problem this would cause and mung the text accordingly.

I've often felt that the horizontal scroll control doesn't get enough use.

V.droll.

0
0
J
Pirate

@I'd just like to say thanks

Second that...

0
0
Silver badge

@I'd just like to say thanks

Note to people who find things funny: please remember to pause for breath while laughing (aka insert a space) every few dozen iterations. Do it more often if you're laughing in bold or loud manner.

0
0
Coat

McBride had this coming - what was he thinking???

Probably thinking "SCO what!"

Well, you reap what you SCO.

Before I go, here's another one for your horizontal scroll bar: NyaHaHaHaHa;HoHeHeHeHaHa;Doh!HooHooHooHeHaHa!HoHoHo!BaaaaaaaahHaHaHa!

[Scroll Bar Abuse Deleted - Ed]

0
0
Anonymous Coward

"NonStop Clusters for SCO Unix"

(loosely related to SCO)

Once upon a time, there was an amazing piece of software called NonStop Clusters for SCO Unix, largely unrelated to Tandem NonStop (except in name).

Anyone know where it ended up? Presumably it's no longer an SCO (or Compaq) offering?

If it was still SCO-owned, would/should Novell be interested, eg instead of part of the cash?

ps

officially, it was Tarantella not Tarantula.

0
0
Boffin

@I'd just like to say thanks

Opera puts in the horizontal scroll on those mile long Hahahahha's... I see the standard page width worth and a scroll bar for the rest... it would imply that those so called 'lazy' el reg programmers actually did their job and its actually the lazy programmers of whatever browser you're using... may I suggest an upgrade to a real browser?

0
0

@@I'd just like to say thanks

Ditto,

Firefox has NO problem putting in the scroll bar.

0
0
Bronze badge
Unhappy

@@@I'd just like to say thanks

Not on Gentoo it don't :(

I don't really have a lot invested in this story, so...

Ha.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Oh yes!

I just want to point out that $2.5million is very short of what SCO should be reamed with. However, there's still the IBM case ...

MWAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

[Annoying attempt at excessive MWAHA deleted - Ed]

0
0
Stop

RE:

"I think SUN will have a VERY hard job proving they didn't know exactly what they were getting in to when dealing with SCO - that would require a frankly unbelievable failure of due diligence."

Did you actually see what just happened or did you miss something?

It was only after all this legal process that it was decided that SCO did not own UNIX, but Novell did... If it was so clear before, all of this process would never have happened at all.

0
0
Dead Vulture

Looks like rhe ship is sinking...

And the captain is going with it!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Is this still going on??

I thought SCO was finished a long time ago.

It's been a while since I heard anything about them.

0
0
Happy

Oh yes

By Daniel B,

Thank you Mr Ed, job well done

0
0
Dead Vulture

What goes around comes around

Glad to hear that the baddie has finally gotten the punishment.

Dead vulture, because that's what SCO is.

0
0

Maybe SCO can now FOAD.

Sort the scroll out Reg! Noobs!

0
0
Boffin

@Those asking if SCO can file for bankruptcy...

They did that just at the end of the last part of the Kimball trial (August last year). They're in Chapter 11 and have been very effectively spending Novell's money since then.

The bankruptcy court will determine how much of that 2.5m SCO will actually have to pay Novell and it's other creditors. There's a whole timeline & much comment on groklaw.net which is well worth a read if you want a factual round up of the whole shebang.

0
0

Although...

...bear in mind the Groklaw coverage over the past two or three years has been increasingly "editorialized" - it gave the impression that the counterclaims were a slam-dunk for Novell, instead of SCO winning most of the arguments, arguments which Groklaw's PJ ignored completely because of her biases in this matter.

Skim through the text versions of the filings, and especially the rulings, because PJ's analysis didn't see yesterday's ruling coming at *all*.

0
0

@ Nigel Kneale

> SCO winning most of the arguments,

If winning most of the arguments means having to pay 2M5 to the company that you sued in the first place, I'd be interested to know what you regard as losing...

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

Just to clarify some of the facts.

If you get to the point where your debts greatly outweigh your assets and potential assets, you have to file for Chapter 13 which means the company is insolvent.

(That's the end of SCO).

Before this can happen, IBM would have to either settle or go for a summary judgement based on the outcome of this decision. (Provided that SCO doesn't appeal.)

With respect to those who purchased "blackmail licenses", for the lack of a better term, there is no recourse. What they were purchasing was insurance, and they knew it.

With respect to SoX, it won't go criminal. You'd have to show that the lawyers and the C level execs and board knew that they were misleading the public and that there was no misinterpretation of the contract. (The fact that it went to trial and a judge had to decide kind of blows that argument away.)

This leaves Sun and their open sourcing of Solaris. Sun signed a contract that at the time appeared to be valid and in good faith. (I believe this was done prior to all of the lawsuits, no?) So at best, I think Novell could sue Sun to stop their effort, but at the same time, I don't think it would be in Novell's interest and it would be a waste of money.

So there you have it. One happy lawyer, and alll those in the tech industry heading off to the bar to either have a victory drink, or drown their sorrows.

0
0
Stop

they dont know when to quit!

http://www.sco.com/company/legal/update/ruling_20080716.html

oh dear

0
0

You don't understand the deal with Sun.

Sun did not purchase a new license that gave them the right to open source the Unix source code. They already had that from AT&T and Novell in their original license. What Sun purchased with the new license was to bring all of the code that had been developed since the first license was purchased that Sun had incorporated into Solaris (primarily i385 drivers) under the same terms as the first license. The first license allowed Sun to open source all of the source from that time and all the works derived therefrom. The relatively small amount (in comparison) of code that had subsequently been added was not covered, so Sun had to pay to bring that code under the same terms. It wouldn't make sense for Novell to go after Sun, because the damages involved would be basically non-existent. They would likely to get the same amount that SCO nows owes them or less, and the amount of bad-will generated would be incalculable. They would be the new SCO.

0
0

@JimC

Read the ruling text. Novell only got $2.5m out of the $19.9m they were after. Novell got *no* SCO Source money and only a part of the Sun money.

Out of Novell's counterclaims, the only substantive thing they won was that $2.5m and that was on a single counterclaim out of many.

SCO kept $17.4m, *and* it had SCO Source declared OK - dodgy, but OK.

OK, so it's going to get wiped from the consequences of its original case against Novell when the hammer falls in the IBM case, but SCO vs Novell and Novell vs SCO turned out to be a non-event. Novell was confirmed to own the UNIX rights, got $2.5m for the Sun deal, and that's it.

0
0
Gates Horns

Horizontal Bop

er, scroll, rather.

The most enjoyable part of this horizontal madness is that I missed all the banners and such which were shoved off the right hand side of my browser window.

Thanks to all and sundry.

Oh, and I'm glad that SCO will finally FOAD, but I'm hoping it doesn't help out billg at all.

0
0

@ Nigel Kneale & JimC

> > SCO winning most of the arguments,

> If winning most of the arguments means having to pay 2M5 to the company that

> you sued in the first place, I'd be interested to know what you regard as losing...

Wouldn't be the first time SCO and the idiots who support them have tried to spin a defeat in court to make it sound like they somehow came away victorious. Not that any sane person would believe what they say any more. If after everything that's transpired, you still believe SCOsource to be in any way valid, your head has obviously come undone and you should be locked away for your own protection.

This is just one more part of what has turned out to be the longest, most drawn out corporate suicide attempt in history.

0
0
Boffin

re: Uncle Bill

I doubt that 2.5M will really make that much difference to Gates. I believe you could find more than that in between the couch cushions at his place. Geek icon because no FreeBSD Daemon.

0
0
Happy

End of

"$2,547,817"

That's a very precise amount. I wonder if it was exactly what was left in SCO's bank account?

Haven't heard much from motormouth Darl McBride lately. Hasn't anyone asked him for a comment?

This is the justest piece of justice I've heard for a long time. With any luck, there won't even be funds left for SCO's legal team, in which case, Ha^100

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

This just in...

Following the courts decision RE: SCO/Novell, Microsoft has launched its own lawsuit against SCO for "Flagrant and deliberate violations of Microsoft's patented `Chair throwing by a CEO algorithm`."

McBride was unavailable for comment due to hospitalization for a sprained back caused by recent activities.

0
0

Heh

"maybe this will cause SCo to file for bankruptcy"

SCO already filed for Ch11 last year.

0
0

@Paul

Seems you've been so brainwashed by Groklaw so that you don't notice when SCO wins on various points in court. Let me guess - you believe that everything SCO claims is a lie, right?

Read the ruling. SCO Source licences was ruled to cover "SCO IP" - which doesn't cover SVRX as SCO doesn't have the rights to that. SCO misrepresented the SCO Source licence, but the licence itself is legitimate, although virtually worthless. So, Novell has no claim to that money, and the SCO Source licence had a get-out clause such that licencees couldn't get a refund if it was found to be worthless. End result: SCO keeps $17.4m out of $19.9m. Still think that's not a win for SCO?

I'm no SCO backer, but at least have the objectivity to realise that Novell only won on one single counterclaim out of many. Yes, SCO got toasted in SCO vs Novell, but Novell vs SCO went quite well for them.

0
0
Flame

what about us

ie the small and mid size companies that delayed Linux use? I think that all SCO IP that is theirs should be open sourced to all user's to make up for SCO 's illegal constraint of trade .....

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums