Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Novell's Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, as text

By Pamela Jones et al.

Here is Novell's Reply in Support of Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief [PDF], the redacted version, as text. Our thanks to Steve Martin for doing the text and HTML for us. If you are having trouble following the bouncing ball, this is in the Utah case, SCO v. Novell, the one that goes to trial April 29. The hearing on this motion will be April 30, in case you want to be there.

Novell minces no words, on page 12, calling SCOsource "an extortion racket based on property SCO does not even own." This particular motion, then, is about whether SCO had a right to even enter into SCOsource licenses, according to the terms of the 1995 APA [you can find all the amendments on our Contracts page, under either the subheading Caldera or Novell]. SCO argues SCOsource was all about Unixware, and any SVRX elements were "incidental"; Novell says they were about SVRX, and pre-APA SVRX code, to boot, because that is all SCO has ever listed in SCO v. IBM as having been infringed. How "incidental", then, can it be? On pages 5 and 9, Novell highlights that this is a real problem SCO has:

As discussed below, despite years of effort and considerable incentive to locate every last line of supposedly infringing code, SCO has identified only pre-APA SVRX code as within Linux....

There can therefore be no genuine dispute that SCOsource is really about SVRX. Instead, SCOsource was an effort to extract money using unsupported claims of copyright infringement based solely on copyrights this Court has held were and are owned by Novell. And, in any case, all Novell needs to show here is that SVRX was more than a "minor accompaniment" to those licenses, which it plainly was.

I wonder if the new money men are aware of this?

Full post as published by Groklaw on February 29, 2008 (boomark / email).