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

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Oracle Objects to SCO's Cure Notice: What contracts? Who is SCO selling to?

By Pamela Jones et al.

Oracle now joins EMC in objecting to SCO's cure notice. It has no idea what contracts SCO is talking about, first of all:

2. Exhibit "A" to the Cure Notice identifies Oracle, BEA Systems, Inc. and Sun Microsystems as contract counter-parties with contracts to be assumed and assigned through the Sale Motion.

3. Based on the contract descriptions provided in the Cure Notice, Oracle is unable to identify the contracts described.

So that's two now who are in the dark about having any contract with SCO or if they do which contract is involved. Of course, Oracle asked SCO to tell them, and that's where it gets even more interesting. SCO sent them even more contracts not in the original cure notice, so now Oracle is really in the dark. Oracle asks for information about the successful bidder, when known, because it can't possibly evaluate if the new owner is able to fulfill its obligations under the agreements without that information, and until Oracle knows what contracts SCO is talking about, Oracle can't know if the cure amount is correct or not either. "Oracle remains uncertain as to the Debtors' intent."

In the meantime, Oracle asks the court to deny any forward motion on SCO's request to assume and assign any Oracle executory agreement without Oracle's consent. It points out that federal law makes non-exclusive patent licenses non-assignable unless you have the consent of the licensor. This is patented software at issue, and Oracle reserves its rights to be heard before any license agreements are assumed and assigned.

Full post as published by Groklaw on October 22, 2010 (boomark / email).