[Sheflug] SCO vs Novell Reached a Decision

[Richard Ibbotson <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Looks like it's finally reached an end....

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070810165237718

The following summary may be useful .........   (1) Judge Kimball left 
Novell's claim against SCO Group for slander of title still 
undecided.  (2) SCO Group now owe to Novell the copyright royalties 
money it collected from Microsoft and Sun, which is  considerably 
more money than it now has.  (3) The SCO v. IBM and Red Hat
v. SCO cases can now proceed.

>From Groklaw.net .........


CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the 
owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First 
Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for specific 
performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of 
SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim 
for Relief for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair 
dealing. The court  denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgement 
on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair 
competition claims, and on Novell's slander of title claim. 
Accordingly, Novell's slander of title claim is still at issue.

The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright 
to enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright 
infringement claim and a breach of contract claim based on the 
non-compete restrictions in the license back of the Licensed 
Technology under APA and the TLA. The court further concludes that 
there has not been a change of control that released the non-compete 
restrictions of the license, and the non-compete restrictions of the 
license are not void under California law. Accordingly, Novell's 
motion for summary judgement on SCO's non-compete claim in its Second 
Claim for breach of contract and Fifth Claim for unfair competition 
is granted to the extent that SCO's claims require ownership of the 
UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, and denied in all other regards.

Furthermore, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only 
reasonable interpretation of the term "SVRX License" in the APA is all 
licenses related to the SVRX products listed in Item VI of Schedule 
1.1(a) to the APA. Therefore, Novell is entitled to a declaration of 
rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, 
at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM 
and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognise Novell's waiver of 
SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent. Accordingly, Novell's motion 
for partial summary judgement on its Fourth Claim for Relief for 
declaratory judgement is granted, and SCO's cross-motion for summary 
judgement on Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief is denied.

Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only 
reasonable interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal 
restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The 
court further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and 
Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under 
Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a 
license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for 
and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the 
license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached 
its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for 
conversion.


The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust 
with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and 
Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the 
appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the 
portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement. Furthermore, 
because Novell has obtained the information that it would otherwise 
obtain through an accounting during the course of this litigation, 
the court denies Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting. 
However, the court also notes that SCO has a continuing contractual 
obligation to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements 
set forth in the APA.

Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement or 
Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 
IN PART; SCO's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement or Partial Summary 
Judgement on Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth 
Counterclaims [Docket No. 180] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 
Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement on its Fourth Claim 
[Docket No. 171] is GRANTED; SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary 
Judgement on Novell's Fourth Claim [Docket No. 224] is DENIED; SCO's 
Motion for Partial Summary Judgement on its First, Second, and Fifth 
Claims and Novell's First Claim [Docket No. 258] is DENIED; Novell's 
Motion for Partial Summary Judgement on Copyright Ownership of SCO's 
Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair 
Competition [Docket No. 271] is GRANTED; Novell's Motion for Partial 
Summary Judgement on SCO's Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth 
Claims [Docket No. 273] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 
Novell's Motion for Summary Judgement on SCO's First Claim for 
Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [Docket No. 
275] is GRANTED; and Novell's Motion for Summary Judgement on SCO's 
First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to Establish Special 
Damages [Docket No. 277] is MOOT.


-- 
Richard

_______________________________________________
        Sheffield Linux User's Group
  http://www.sheflug.org.uk/mailfaq.html
 GNU - The choice of a complete generation