SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

Last updated

SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
District-Utah.png
Court United States District Court for the District of Utah
Full case nameThe SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
DecidedJune 10, 2010
Docket nos. 2:04-cv-00139
Citation(s)721 F. Supp. 2d 1050
Case history
Prior action(s)578 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2009); cert. denied, 561 U.S. 1051(2010).
Subsequent action(s)439 F. App'x 688 (10th Cir. 2011).
Related action(s) United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware
Holding
SCO's claims of ownership of Unix intellectual property dismissed;
Novell's claims of ownership confirmed;
SCO owed Novell $2.5 million in unpaid royalties
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Dale A. Kimball
Ted Stewart
Keywords
copyright, slander of title, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, conversion, unjust enrichment

SCO v. Novell was a United States lawsuit in which the software company The SCO Group (SCO), claimed ownership of the source code for the Unix operating system. SCO sought to have the court declare that SCO owned the rights to the Unix code, including the copyrights, and that Novell had committed slander of title by asserting a rival claim to ownership of the Unix copyrights. Separately, SCO was attempting to collect license fees from Linux end-users for Unix code (that they alleged was copied into Linux) through their SCOsource division, and Novell's rival ownership claim was a direct challenge to this initiative. Novell had been increasing their investments in and support of Linux at this time, and was opposed to SCO's attempts to collect license fees from Novell's potential customers.

Contents

The case hinged upon the interpretation of asset-transfer agreements governing Novell's sale of their Unix business to one of SCO's predecessor companies, the Santa Cruz Operation. The original APA explicitly excluded all copyrights from the assets transferred from Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation. The second amendment to the APA amended the agreement to exclude all copyrights, "except for the copyrights required for the Santa Cruz Operation to exercise its rights" under the APA. The list of included assets was never amended, which caused ambiguity years after the deal was signed. At trial, Novell successfully argued that they had retained copyrights to protect their 95% ownership of Unix SVRX royalties, and that the amendment to the exclusion clause was merely affirming that the Santa Cruz Operation had a license to the Unix code.

Novell counter-sued with their own duelling slander of title claim and several additional claims against SCO related to the APA and asked the Court to find that SCO had breached the agreements by signing Unix license agreements with Sun Microsystems and Microsoft without paying Novell the agreed percentage of those agreements. Novell further asked the court to find that Novell retained the right to direct SCO to waive rights under existing Unix licenses at "Novell's sole discretion", and that they had the right to take the action on SCO's behalf if SCO refused (a purported right that Novell had used repeatedly in the months leading up to the lawsuit to waive SCO's claims against IBM and others). Additional claims and counterclaims were added by the parties before resolution of the case.

Novell was found to be the owner of the Unix copyrights, to have the right to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and other Unix licensees (and to do so on behalf of SCO if they refused), and SCO was found to have breached the asset-transfer agreements and to have committed conversion of Novell's property. SCO prevailed on none of their claims against Novell.

Background

Novell, a vendor of proprietary network operating systems, acquired the rights to the original Unix source code when it purchased Unix System Laboratories from Unix's creator, AT&T Corporation, on June 14, 1993. [1] Novell's rights to parts of the Unix source code were established as part of the settlement in USL v. BSDi .

On September 19, 1995, Novell entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with the Santa Cruz Operation, a Unix vendor. [2] The APA transferred certain rights regarding Unix, and Novell's UnixWare version of Unix, from Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation. These rights included the right to develop and market new versions of UnixWare, and the right to license SVRX (System V Release X) UNIX incidentally or with Novell's permission. It also required the Santa Cruz Operation to act as Novell's agent for the collection for certain royalties due under such licenses.

In 2000, Caldera Systems acquired the Server Software and Services divisions of the Santa Cruz Operation, as well as the UnixWare and OpenServer Unix technologies. Caldera Systems thus became the legal successor to the Santa Cruz Operation for the purposes of the APA. A year later Caldera Systems changed its name to Caldera International in 2001 and to The SCO Group (SCO) in 2002. Although the Santa Cruz Operation was colloquially known as "SCO", legally The SCO Group is a different company from the Santa Cruz Operation.

SCO goes on the offensive

In 2003, SCO initiated a campaign to compel Linux users to pay them software license fees, claiming that unspecified SCO intellectual property had been improperly included in Linux. As part of this campaign, SCO made several statements that they were the owners of Unix, implying that they held the copyright for the original AT&T source code of Unix, and derivatives of that code. After SCO filed suit against IBM, claiming that IBM had violated SCO's copyrights to Unix, Novell publicly responded to these allegations.

Novell asserts it owns the copyrights

On May 28, 2003, Novell issued a press release titled "Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux" where they publicly challenged SCO's assertions that Unix code had been copied into Linux, or that SCO owned the Unix copyrights. [3]

On June 6, 2003, SCO held a press conference in which it revealed a second amendment to the "asset purchase agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation". SCO claimed this amendment supported its claim to the Unix copyrights. This amendment did not change the included assets list (which still did not list copyrights), but instead amended the excluded assets list to continue to exclude copyrights, except those "required" by SCO. In response, Novell issued a press release in which it stated:

To Novell's knowledge, this amendment is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights for Unix did transfer to SCO in 1996. The amendment does not address ownership of patents, however, which clearly remain with Novell.

While SCO publicly claimed victory, behind the scenes SCO and Novell traded a series of heated letters. In a flurry of private letters, Novell continued its claim that they still were the legal owner of the Unix copyrights, and exercised a series of rights under the APA over the following months (including issuing waivers of SCO's claims against certain parties, auditing SCO's collection of Unix SVRX royalties, demanding access to all versions of Unix code under SCO's control per the APA's related Technology License Agreement and issuing a cease and desist against SCO for seeking information from former Novell executives). The relationship between the companies quickly deteriorated.

On October 14, 2003, Novell registered several key Unix copyrights with the United States Copyright Office and submitted declarations for recordation against SCO's own Unix copyright registrations. These declarations stated: "The SCO Group, Inc. ... has failed ... to demonstrate that any of the Unix copyrights owned by Novell are required for SCO to exercise its rights..." and that "Novell hereby declares that it retains all or substantially all of the ownership of the copyrights in Unix, including [SCO's] U.S. Copyright Registration referenced above". [4]

After the registrations became public knowledge, Novell issued a press release on December 22, 2003, stating:

Novell believes it owns the copyrights in Unix, and has applied for and received copyright registrations pertaining to Unix consistent with that position. Novell detailed the basis for its ownership position in correspondence with SCO. Copies of our correspondence, and SCO's reply, are available [on our website]. Contrary to SCO's public statements, as demonstrated by this correspondence, SCO has been well aware that Novell continues to assert ownership of the Unix copyrights.

On January 13, 2004, Novell announced that it was indemnifying Linux users, agreeing to protect them from lawsuits by third parties, like SCO, on the basis of violating the copyrights claimed by Novell. The same day, Novell released over 30 letters that SCO and Novell had exchanged in the previous months. [5] SCO immediately responded with a press release reiterating its earlier claim, and announcing that it was preparing to file a lawsuit against Novell.

The lawsuit

Utah state court

SCO filed a slander of title lawsuit against Novell on January 20, 2004. Filed in Utah state court, the lawsuit requested both preliminary and permanent injunctions assigning all of Novell's Unix copyright registrations to SCO and forcing Novell to retract all of their claims to the Unix code. [6]

United States District Court for the District of Utah

Novell removed the lawsuit to the Federal court system on February 6, 2004. [7] This removal was upheld in the court's June 9 ruling. [8]

On February 10, 2004, Novell filed a motion to dismiss the case. [9] Novell requested dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Novell argued that:

In response, SCO filed several memoranda opposing Novell's motion to dismiss the case. Additionally, SCO filed a motion to remand the case back to State court. Novell countered that, because the case would hinge upon interpretation of federal copyright law, it should be tried in federal court.

On May 9, 2004, federal Judge Dale A. Kimball heard both parties' arguments and took both motions under advisement. Judge Kimball denied SCO's motion to remand and partially granted Novell's motion to dismiss on June 9, 2004, on a pleading technicality. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which allowed SCO to amend their complaint to include properly pleaded special damages. [8] [10]

Novell's countersuit

On July 29, 2005, Novell filed a countersuit against SCO claiming slander of title, breach of contract, failure to remit royalties, and failure to conduct audit obligations. Novell sought damages in excess of SCO's net worth, and, as SCO was quickly burning through its assets and cash on hand, Novell asked the court to sequester this money from SCO so that it would not be spent before the resolution of the case. Novell also asked the court to attach SCO's assets pending adjudication of their claims. Novell accused SCO of licensing Unix System V Release 4 to Microsoft and Sun Microsystems without then sending Novell the 95% of the license fees as required by the APA.

In the counter-claim, Novell stated that SCO had asked Novell to participate in the SCO's Linux IP infringement licensing plan. When Novell refused, SCO asked Novell to turn the Unix copyrights over to SCO, a request Novell also refused.

SuSE arbitration

SCO filed a second amended complaint on February 6, 2006, containing the original slander of title claim as well as several new claims, including unfair competition, copyright infringement (for Novell's distribution of SUSE Linux), and breaching a purported non-compete agreement (again, related to SUSE Linux). [11]

On April 10, 2006, Novell's SuSE division (a European vendor of Linux operating systems) filed a request for arbitration against SCO with the Secretariat of the International Chamber of Commerce's International Court of Arbitration in Paris, France. Years earlier, while still known as Caldera International, SCO had signed contracts with then-independent SuSE, among others, involving the United Linux product. The United Linux members agreed that each member would have broad licenses to exploit and distribute Linux products that included United Linux technology. These agreements included clauses requiring the members to use an arbitration process to resolve disputes.

SuSE's arbitration request was a response to SCO's amended complaint against Novell. The arbitration process has relatively strict timelines, unlike the U.S. courts' procedures. Novell filed a Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration in the U.S. courts, saying that four of SCO's five claims had been brought to arbitration, including the claim of copyright infringement, and thus should be stayed until the arbitration tribunal rendered its decision. Novell also filed an Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, claiming a large number of affirmative defenses, including a claim that SCO committed fraud upon the U.S. copyright office.

Licensing agreements and Novell's motion for summary judgement

On September 22, 2006, Novell sought leave to file amended counterclaims. Through discovery, Novell had obtained copies of SCO's Unix licensing agreements with Microsoft and Sun. Upon reviewing the agreements, Novell claimed that they breached the APA. The added claims were conversion and breach of fiduciary duties. SCO stipulated to Novell's motion, and therefore Judge Kimball granted it.

Novell filed a motion on September 29, 2006, asking for summary judgment, or if that was rejected, then for a preliminary injunction. Novell alleged that SCO, through their agreements with Sun and Microsoft, licensed Novell's property without paying Novell the royalties it was due under the APA. Novell asked the court to force SCO to turn the royalties over to Novell or, in the alternative, be forced to put the money into a collective trust, where neither party would be able to access it until the issue was decided by the courts.

On August 10, 2007, Judge Kimball ruled that "...Novell is the owner of the Unix and UnixWare Copyrights." Novell was awarded summary judgment on a number of its claims, and a number of SCO's claims were denied. SCO was instructed to account for, and pass to Novell, an appropriate portion of its income from the Sun and Microsoft licenses. [12] [13]

Judge Kimball's ruling stated that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent," referring to other cases SCO had filed against those companies for allegedly violating SCO's intellectual property rights in Unix. [12] After the ruling, Novell announced they had no interest in suing people over Unix, stating "We don't believe there is Unix in Linux." [13]

SCO's bankruptcy

The parties were expected to go to trial on September 17, 2007, in order to determine exactly how much money SCO owed Novell. However, on September 14, the SCO Group filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. [14] As SCO was a Delaware corporation, the bankruptcy filing was made with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The filing caused all pending litigation to be automatically stayed as required by the United States Code.

On November 27, 2007, United States Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross lifted the automatic stay so as to allow the Utah court to determine how much money SCO owed Novell, but the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction over any constructive trust that the Federal court might create.

Trial to determine damages

For the purposes of the trial to determine how much money SCO owed Novell, SCO was named the defendant and Novell was named the plaintiff, because SCO had not prevailed on any of its initial claims. The trial commenced April 30, 2008. Novell sought the recovery of $19,979,561 from SCO based on its licenses to Microsoft, Sun, and others. [15]

On July 16, 2008, the Utah court awarded

...Defendant and Counterclaimant Novell $2,547,817 on its Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims for Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Conversion. On Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief, for the reasons stated above, the court concludes that SCO was entitled to enter into the 2003 Microsoft Agreement and the other SCOsource licenses, but was not authorized to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement based on its amendment of the provisions concerning Sun's SVRX confidentiality requirements under the 1994 Agreement. [16]

The decision, which SCO could appeal, granted Novell the asked-for $2,547,817 award due to the 2003 Sun Agreement's modification of the 1994 confidentiality provisions. These modifications permitted the release of OpenSolaris.

On November 20, 2008, Kimball's final judgment in the case [17] affirmed his August 10, 2007 ruling, granting Novell the award plus interest of $918,122, plus $489 additional interest for every day after August 29, 2008, should SCO fail to pay the award by that date. The ruling also ordered a constructive trust of $625,486.90. Judge Kimball dismissed the case with no possibility to re-file the suit with an amended complaint, restricting SCO to pursue the case only in appeals.

Circuit Court appeal

On August 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit partially reversed Kimball's August 10, 2007, summary judgement, insofar as Kimball had found that Novell owned the copyright to Unix. The portion dealing with the 2003 Sun agreement was upheld by the appeals court. As a result, SCO could pursue its ownership of the Unix copyrights at trial. However, it remained liable for the $2,547,817 royalty award. [18]

Novell filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2010, seeking intervention by the Supreme Court of the United States. Novell argued that there is a circuit split on the correct interpretation of the Copyright Act's transfer requirements, and that the correct requirements are more strict than the Tenth Circuit's holding in this case. [19] The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. [20]

The jury trial on the remanded copyright issues began on March 8, 2010, before Judge Ted Stewart. It was expected to last three weeks. [21] On March 30, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Novell. [22] [23] On June 10, Judge Stewart ruled in favor of Novell on all issues, closing the case. [24] The court found that Novell had not committed slander of title, was not now required to transfer the copyrights under the APA, that its copyright waivers issued to IBM were authorized, and that they did not violate the covenant of good faith. [25]

SCO appealed the district court judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on July 7, 2010. [26]

On August 30, 2011, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial decision. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Linux</span>

United Linux was an attempt by a consortium of Linux distributors to create a common base distribution for enterprise use, so as to minimize duplication of engineering effort and form an effective competitor to Red Hat. The founding members of United Linux were SUSE, Turbolinux, Conectiva and Caldera International. The consortium was announced on May 30, 2002. The end of the project was announced on January 22, 2004.

Darl Charles McBride is an entrepreneur and CEO of Shout TV Inc. McBride is known as the former CEO of The SCO Group. On March 7, 2003, during McBride's tenure as CEO of the company, The SCO Group initiated litigation against IBM, alleging breach of contract and copyright infringement claims connected to Unix. SCO Group lost in a series of court battles, and was eventually forced into bankruptcy.

<i>SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.</i>

SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., commonly abbreviated as SCO v. IBM, is a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court of Utah. The SCO Group asserted that there are legal uncertainties regarding the use of the Linux operating system due to alleged violations of IBM's Unix licenses in the development of Linux code at IBM. The lawsuit was filed in 2003, it has lingered on through the bankruptcy of SCO Group and the adverse result in SCO v. Novell, and was reopened for continued litigation by order of a new judge on June 14, 2013. Pursuant to the court order reopening the case, an IBM Motion for Summary Judgment was filed based upon the results of the Novell decision. On December 15, 2014, the judge granted most of IBM's motion, thereby narrowing the scope of the case, which remained open. On March 1, 2016, following a ruling against the last remaining claims, the judge dismissed SCO's suit against IBM with prejudice. SCO filed an appeal later that month. In February 2018, as a result of the appeal and the case being partially remanded to the circuit court, the parties restated their remaining claims and provided a plan to move toward final judgement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCO Group</span> Defunct American software company

The SCO Group was an American software company in existence from 2002 to 2012 that became known for owning Unix operating system assets that had belonged to the Santa Cruz Operation, including the UnixWare and OpenServer technologies, and then, under CEO Darl McBride, pursuing a series of high-profile legal battles known as the SCO-Linux controversies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caldera International</span> Defunct American software company

Caldera International, Inc., earlier Caldera Systems, was an American software company that existed from 1998 to 2002 and developed and sold Linux- and Unix-based operating system products.

<i>Groklaw</i>

Groklaw is a website that covered legal news of interest to the free and open source software community. Started as a law blog on May 16, 2003, by paralegal Pamela Jones ("PJ"), it covered issues such as the SCO-Linux lawsuits, the EU antitrust case against Microsoft, and the standardization of Office Open XML.

USL v. BSDi was a lawsuit brought in the United States in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to the Unix operating system; a culmination of the Unix wars. The case was settled out of court in 1994 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with Novell and the University agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">UnixWare</span> Unix operating system

UnixWare is a Unix operating system. It was originally released by Univel, a jointly owned venture of AT&T's Unix System Laboratories (USL) and Novell. It was then taken over by Novell. Via Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), it went on to Caldera Systems, Caldera International, and The SCO Group before it was sold to UnXis. UnixWare is typically deployed as a server rather than a desktop. Binary distributions of UnixWare are available for x86 architecture computers. UnixWare is primarily marketed as a server operating system.

Raymond John "Ray" Noorda was a U.S. computer businessman. He was CEO of Novell between 1982 and 1994. He also served as chairman of Novell until he was replaced in 1994.

In a series of legal disputes between SCO Group and Linux vendors and users, SCO alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell, and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

Red Hat v. SCO is a lawsuit filed by Red Hat against The SCO Group on August 4, 2003. Red Hat was asking for a permanent injunction against SCO's Linux campaign and a number of declaratory judgments that Red Hat has not violated SCO's copyrights.

SCO Group v. DaimlerChrysler was a lawsuit filed in the United States, in the state of Michigan. In December 2003, SCO sent a number of letters to Unix licensees. In these letters, SCO demanded that the licensees certify certain things regarding their usage of Linux. DaimlerChrysler, a former Unix user and current Linux user, did not respond to this letter. On March 3, 2004, SCO filed suit against DaimlerChrysler for violating their Unix license agreement, by failing to respond to the certification request made by SCO. The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wishes to pursue the timeliness claim again, it must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed.

Beginning in 2003, The SCO Group was involved in a dispute with various Linux vendors and users. SCO initiated a series of lawsuits, the most known of which were SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, that had implications upon the futures of both Linux and Unix. SCO claimed that Linux violated some of SCO's intellectual properties. Many industry observers were skeptical of SCO's claims, and they were strongly contested by SCO's opponents in the lawsuits, some of which launched counter-claims. By 2011, the lawsuits fully related to Linux had been lost by SCO or rendered moot and SCO had gone into bankruptcy. However the SCO v. IBM suit continued for another decade, as it included contractual disputes related to both companies' involvement in Project Monterey in addition Linux-related claims. Finally in 2021 a settlement was reached in which IBM paid the bankruptcy trustee representing what remained of SCO the sum of $14.25 million.

SCOsource is a business division of The SCO Group that managed its Unix intellectual property. The term SCOsource is often used for SCO's licensing program that allowed corporate users of Linux to buy licenses to proprietary Unix technology that SCO claimed exists in the Linux operating system. A single CPU license costs $699 (USD).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Unix</span>

The history of Unix dates back to the mid-1960s, when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, AT&T Bell Labs, and General Electric were jointly developing an experimental time-sharing operating system called Multics for the GE-645 mainframe. Multics introduced many innovations, but also had many problems. Bell Labs, frustrated by the size and complexity of Multics but not its aims, slowly pulled out of the project. Their last researchers to leave Multics – among them Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Doug McIlroy, and Joe Ossanna – decided to redo the work, but on a much smaller scale.

Caldera OpenLinux (COL) is a defunct Linux distribution. Caldera originally introduced it in 1997 based on the German LST Power Linux distribution, and then taken over and further developed by Caldera Systems since 1998. A successor to the Caldera Network Desktop put together by Caldera since 1995, OpenLinux was an early "business-oriented distribution" and foreshadowed the direction of developments that came to most other distributions and the Linux community generally.

Linux began in 1991 as a personal project by Finnish student Linus Torvalds: to create a new free operating system kernel. The resulting Linux kernel has been marked by constant growth throughout its history. Since the initial release of its source code in 1991, it has grown from a small number of C files under a license prohibiting commercial distribution to the 4.15 version in 2018 with more than 23.3 million lines of source code, not counting comments, under the GNU General Public License v2.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt is a propaganda tactic used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics, polling and cults. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information, and is a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

Xinuos is an American software company that was created in 2011 and was first called UnXis until assuming its current name in 2013. Xinuos develops and markets the Unix-based OpenServer 6, OpenServer 5, and UnixWare 7 operating systems under SCO branding. Xinuos formerly sold the FreeBSD-based OpenServer 10 operating system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCO Forum</span> Unix conference

SCO Forum was a technical computer conference sponsored by the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), briefly by Caldera International, and later The SCO Group that took place during the 1980s through 2000s. It was held annually, most often in August of each year, and typically lasted for much of a week. From 1987 through 2001 it was held in Santa Cruz, California, on the campus of the University of California, Santa Cruz. The scenic location, amongst redwood trees and overlooking Monterey Bay, was considered one of the major features of the conference. From 2002 through 2008 it was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, at one of several hotels on the Las Vegas Strip. Despite the name and location changes, the conference was considered to be the same entity, with both the company and attendees including all instances in their counts of how many ones they had been to.

References

  1. ↑ Novell Inc. (June 14, 1993). "Novell completes acquisition of UNIX System Laboratories from AT&T" . Retrieved August 20, 2010.[ permanent dead link ]
  2. ↑ "Asset Purchase Agreement" (PDF). Groklaw. September 19, 1995. Retrieved July 17, 2008.
  3. ↑ "press release". May 28, 2003. Archived from the original on August 2, 2003. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  4. ↑ "Novell's motion to dismiss" (PDF). Groklaw. August 6, 2004. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  5. ↑ "Novell's Unique Legal Rights". January 24, 2004. Archived from the original on February 21, 2006. Retrieved August 11, 2021.
  6. ↑ "SCO's Complaint In the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, State of Utah" (PDF). January 20, 2004.
  7. ↑ "Novell's Removal Notice" (PDF). Groklaw. February 6, 2004.
  8. 1 2 SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., No.2:04-cv-00139 ( D. Utah June 9, 2004).
  9. ↑ "Novell's Motion to Dismiss" (PDF). February 9, 2004.
  10. ↑ "SCO's First Amended Complaint" (PDF). July 9, 2004.
  11. ↑ "SCO's Second Amended Complaint" (PDF). February 3, 2006.
  12. 1 2 SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., No.2:04-cv-00139 (D. UtahAug. 15, 2007).
  13. 1 2 Montalbano, Elizabeth (August 16, 2007). "Novell Won't Pursue Unix Copyrights". ABC News. Retrieved April 1, 2020.
  14. ↑ The SCO Group Files Chapter 11 to Protect Assets as It Addresses Potential Financial and Legal Challenges Archived October 6, 2007, at the Wayback Machine . The SCO Group, Inc. press release, September 14, 2007
  15. ↑ First Word from Day 1 of the Novell v. SCO Trial April 30, 2008
  16. ↑ SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., No.2:04-cv-00139 (D. UtahJuly 16, 2008).
  17. ↑ Kimball, Dale (November 20, 2008). "Final Judgment in SCO v. Novell: SCO Loses Again". United States District Court for the District of Utah. Groklaw. Retrieved November 20, 2008.
  18. ↑ SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578F.3d1201 ( 10th Cir. 2009).
  19. ↑ "Novell's Petition for Writ of Certiorari - as text". Groklaw. March 13, 2010. Retrieved March 14, 2010.
  20. ↑ "Docket for No. 09-1061". United States Supreme Court. March 4, 2010.
  21. ↑ "Trial Order" (PDF). February 4, 2010. Retrieved February 5, 2010.
  22. ↑ Harvey, Tom (March 30, 2010). "Jury says Novell owns Unix copyrights". The Salt Lake Tribune . MediaNews Group . Retrieved March 30, 2010.
  23. ↑ "Novell Wins Again - Jury Rules Copyrights Didn't Go to SCO". March 30, 2010. Retrieved March 30, 2010.
  24. ↑ "JUDGMENT in favor of Novell, Inc. against SCO Group. Case Closed" (PDF). Groklaw. June 10, 2010. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
  25. ↑ SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 721F. Supp. 2d1050 (D. Utah2010).
  26. ↑ "Notice of Appeal" (PDF). Groklaw. July 7, 2010. Retrieved July 7, 2010.
  27. ↑ SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 439F. App'x688 ( 10th Cir. 2011).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.