News 

The case centres on SCO's belief that Novell is damaging SCO's revenue claims for the use of Unix intellectual property - that Novell is claiming that it never passed them on to SCO when it sold Unix back in 1995.

However, the latest filing details minutes of a meeting of the board of Directors at Novell the very day before the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) to transfer Unix to SCO was signed. The document notes how '[Director Bob] Frankenburg... described one of the key steps in... the sale of a portion of Novell's UNIXWare business to SCO.'

Quite which portions were not transferred were detailed later. The document continues that decisions were 'duly made, seconded, and unanimously carried' that 'Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights and trademarks (except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare), a royalty-free, perpetual, worldwide license back to UNIX and UnixWare for internal use and resale in bundled products, Tuxedo and other unrelated technology.'

Groklaw's editor and paralegal Pamela Jones said the document is 'likely to prove dispositive,' in resolving the case. And in another tactical twist, Novell

ADVERTISEMENT

says the case should be changed from its motions to dismiss SCO's claims, to that of seeking a summary judgement. Under such conditions the case could be concluded without going to trial.

However, SCO responded in a statement: 'SCO's position in opposition to Novells second motion to dismiss our slander of title claim is contained in our court filing of October 1,
2004. We stand by the information contained in that filing. SCO looks forward to progressing with discovery in this case so that all of the relevant facts can be presented to the court.'

That 1 October filing contends that Novell's allegations that it retains ownership are 'meritless', that SCO does indeed have 'sufficient' cause to press its Slander of Title suit and that Novell's Second Motion to Dismiss be denied.

During a court session in June, Judge Kimball was already finding it tough to conclude that the APA transferred the copyrights SCO needs, saying: 'It is questionable on the face of the documents whether there was any intention to transfer the copyrights as of the date the amendment was executed.'

The case also has a bearing on other disputes, such as SCO's $5bn case against IBM. SCO terminated IBM's Unix licence in a bid to stop it from selling its AIX-based products any longer, but Novell claimed it retains Unix rights to reinstate that licence. In addition, Jason Schultz, staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told us that SCO's copyright claims against IBM in the same case will be difficult to press if SCO loses out here. And furthermore, SCO's claims of breach of contract could also be affected as that contract was presumably agreed on the understanding that SCO owned more than it now appears to.