furrbear: (Linux Peguin)
[personal profile] furrbear
From Novell's closing arguments in SCO vs Novell (Transcript @ Groklaw.net, scroll down to pg 701):

Your Honor, Novell here seeks for the Sun license, $9,143,809. That was the amount that was paid of the $10 million total.

For the Microsoft, we seek the revenues that were paid in Section 2 and Section 4, $9,750,000.

And for the other license, we ask for all of that money because there has been simply no breakdown between UnixWare and SVRX licenses. And that's $1,156,110.

So, the total that we are asking for from this Court is $19,979,561.

We believe that justice and equity would not be served if SCO's litigation-driven characterization of these licenses were allowed to carry the day. We believe the facts and the evidence and the law do not allow such a result. Thank you, Your Honor.

Date: 2008-05-05 03:51 am (UTC)
urbear: (Default)
From: [personal profile] urbear
I love this.

Someday this will be a classic study in how not to conduct business by litigation and intimidation. SCO's case has been weak from the beginning, not to mention riddled with inconsistencies and blatant contractual violations (that business of neglecting to produce license information on request, for example). How long is it going to take before everyone involved agrees that there's nothing left but a bullet-riddled corpse that somehow hasn't yet fallen down?

Date: 2008-05-05 04:53 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] furrbear.livejournal.com
First Rule of Filing an I.P. Lawsuit: Have a case.

Date: 2008-05-05 07:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] strongaxe.livejournal.com
I just read yesterday on a article referenced by Slashdot, that SCO is attempting to show that some of their licenses were NOT valid.

If they had valid licenses, and customers paid money to them, those moneys would be due to Novell thorugh the licensing agreemens.

However, if the licenses were NOT valid, SCO had no right to sell them, so their customers never had valid licenses in the first place. Thus, Novell would have no valid reason to collect those fees. The customers, however WOULD have the right to get them back, but they would all have to sue SCO individually.

So, it's in SCO's interest to prove that they were selling licenses they didn't even own. Strange world.

Say whaaaa?

Date: 2008-05-05 01:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] healerpatrick.livejournal.com
Glad I'm not an attorney. Trying to figure that mess out. I know what it's all about having once been a senior network engineer certified in Novell, Microsoft, Sun and Cisco. but damn, can you make the language any more confusing?

Profile

furrbear: (Default)
furrbear

May 2013

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2025 11:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios