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

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

SCO's Redacted Memo in Support of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings - as text

By Pamela Jones et al.

Here's SCO's latest oeuvre, its Memorandum in Support of SCO's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Novell's Claims for Money or Claim for Declaratory Relief [PDF], as text, all about how Novell shouldn't get any money. Like SCO has standing to chip in ideas on what should happen to money that was never theirs to begin with. I think that's an argument for Microsoft or Sun to make, after the Utah trial, depending on what Novell decides to do eventually.

I view it, frankly, as a frantic, if somewhat mean, act of despair. By that I mean, I doubt they'd have filed it, if they thought for a minute that their "UnixWare is just the latest UNIX System V" argument would fly. I am even wondering if they maybe read the Groklaw series on SCOsource, including the article where I quoted SCO's CEO saying in December of 2003 that SCO wasn't approaching UnixWare customers with SCOsource. I hope so. Maybe we can skip touching all the bases and get to the end game a trifle sooner. Not that SCO's attorneys aren't good at delay.

Might they have realized that their "UnixWare is just the latest UNIX" wasn't likely to fly, so they dreamed up this latest motion? SCOsource, from all I see, clearly was primarily about Unix System V, and they are stuck with that history. So it's back to hitting the law books. I think SCO researches backwards, though. Instead of looking up what the case law is, they look for some way to beat Novell. It's not the same method at all. I loved the 1937 references, I must say. I'm questioning if SCO really wants to bring Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment to the court's attention, though. It might cause the judge to have deep thoughts of his own.

By the way, Groklaw member rand noticed something that indicates that the first SCOsource offering SCO called 'System V for Linux', was indeed not about UnixWare. Not only that, but the UnixWare ELF SCO later claimed allowed it to sue people was dated 1990 anyway. Guess what that means? Hint. The APA was in 1995.

Class? Who can tell me if UnixWare copyrights passed to SCO in 1995? No? They didn't? So SCO is sunk? I guess so. Tsk tsk. Well, life is hard.

Full post as published by Groklaw on March 13, 2008 (boomark / email).