Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO!

MSS2

March 30 2010

I got a phone call from Chris, saying that the verdict was in. I dropped everything and raced up to the courthouse. I missed the verdict by three or four minutes. (Chris said it was really short.)

I got there just as a couple of Darl McBride's crew were leaving, heads down. They didn't want to talk to me.

I saw Stuart Singer as he was leaving. I told him that I thought it was a very impressive display of lawyering, or words to that effect. He said, "Thank you. Obviously, we're very disappointed." He seemed subdued.

And, I raced out so fast that I left my pen behind in my cube. I don't know what it is about me winding up at the Federal courthouse without a pen. That's the second time this trial...

03:28 PM EDT

A word of caution

MSS2

March 30 2010

Specific performance is still not yet decided. Proposed decisions on that are
due, if I recall correctly, on April 16th.

03:38 PM EDT

A word of caution

mpq

March 30 2010

Can you/someone please explain what the ramifications of 'specific performance'
are?

03:43 PM EDT

A word of caution

Steve Martin

March 30 2010

"Specific Performance" means that the Court could decide that,
although the contract as written did not meet the requirements for a copyright
transfer, it did obligate Novell to transfer them. So the Court could order
Novell to meet their obligation.

Basically, it's a question of whether the contract entitles TSG to receive the
copyrights now (as opposed to whether or not it actually transferred them back
when it was executed).

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

03:55 PM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100330152829622&title=A%20word%20of%20caution&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=837157#c837230

What of the rulings from the bench?

Leg

March 30 2010

Will there be opportunities for the parties to question witnesses or argue their
case before Judge Stewart, or will Judge Stewart issue rulings with no further
proceedings?

04:52 PM EDT

So *when* does the specific performance thing get decided?

Anonymous

March 31 2010

I understood this was something the judge was to decide himself (ie; no jury).
Does anyone know how long it might be before a ruling is given or is this going
to turn into another long fiasco involving dozens of lawyers, another jury trial
and years of litigation?

10:27 AM EDT

So *when* does the specific performance thing get decided?

March 31 2010

This will be decided very soon, actually.

But then it's on to the bankruptcy court and
then the IBM case.

10:57 AM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100330152829622&title=So%20%2Awhen%2A%20does%20the%20specific%20performance%20thing%20get%20decided%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=838653#c838679

What of the rulings from the bench?

webster

March 31 2010

Judge Stewart is going to be rational here. It has been SCO's presumptive
position from the get-go that they had the copyrights from the amended APA. The
Jury, thinking that SCO witnesses were either ignorant or lying, concluded that
they did not have any copyrights. The Court of Appeals directed that the jury
decide the ownership of copyrights so the world and Judge Stewart is bound by
it.

SCO must now ask Judge Stewart for the copyrights. They can't say they need
them for the "UNIX Business" because they have been conducting the
"UNIX Business" for more than a decade without them, since the APA.
They have said they didn't need them in the trial. To argue that they now need
them risks contradictions, SCO confounding itself.

Why does SCO now need the copyrights? To file suit. What is the basis of their
suits? Violation of their copyrights! Copyrights that the Jury said they
didn't have. Their suits and their claims are unfounded until they get the
copyrights per the terms of the APA which have NEVER been addressed by them
since they presumed the copyrights.

Since Novell retained 95% of the fees, the copyrights, and the waiver authority,
they can protect UNIX. SCO doesn't need to.

So what can SCO come up with that isn't unnecessary and contradictory? So now
let Groklaw help SCO. SCO can now say that they need the rights to sue under
Novell's copyrights because this "UNIX Business" they licensed from
Novell is being wiped out by Novell and other Linux Distributors. This is so
because this Linux derives significant value by infringing on Novell's UNIX
copyrights. By doing this, Novell has emasculated the value of the deal, the
APA. Instead of "Novell UNIX" SCO got "Novell Eunochs."
SCO will ask Judge Stewart to give them the copyrights to effectuate the
reasonable value expectations of the deal. Ms. Botosan could fill in the value
part. She has a head start.

Novell would then say to Judge Stewart that the copyrights are not needed and
fruitless because Linux does not infringe UNIX. SCO can not prove that they
need them unless they can prove that Linux infringes UNIX. This plows us into
ground that SCO v. IBM has already covered. But SCO v. IBM is not final or ripe
for appeal yet. Judge Stewart might not have the patience for this... Maybe
SCO v Novell will need a stay ... just a little bit longer.

~webster~

03:11 PM EDT

http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20100330152829622&title=What%20of%20the%20rulings%20from%20the%20bench%3F&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=837490#c838878