Welcome Serena Central users! CLICK HERE
The migration of the Serena Central community is currently underway. Be sure to read THIS MESSAGE to get your new login set up to access your account.
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

Matthew Good;1955844 wrote:
On 3/31/10 12:26 PM, kjhurni wrote:
>
> I think Corel's on a semi self-destruct and MS is also slowly making
> inroads (just like against GroupWise). Personally I don't think it'll
> be too much longer before either product is snuffed out.
>
>


It will be awhile before WordPerfect is snuffed out. They still have a
very large install base inside governments and law firms. Although it
is eroding.


Yeah, we used to be one of them. Some genius decided it would "save" money by costing an extra $800,000 more to migrate to Office.

MS Office that is.

Not that I wish for Corel to lose business.

(although I personally prefer MS Word 2003/XP over WP, but I do NOT like Office 2007--it's slow, bloated, and takes twice as long to do anything and that ribbon should go die somewhere).

I used to use OpenOffice, but the problems with migrating the xml files between Office 2007 just became too much (plus it's not good when it loses/mangles things).
0 Likes
hspeirs Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

Wallgames.com,

> "At issue was a poorly worded portion of the contract that could be read to
> say that Novell retained the Unix copyrights in the sale. SCO presented
> top-level negotiators and executives from Santa Cruz and Novell -- including
> former Novell CEO and Chairman Robert Frankenberg -- who all said the deal's
> intent was to transfer every bit of the Unix system, including the
> copyrights."
>
> Does anyone truly believe SCO would have purchased UNIX otherwise?


From the APA - Doesn't look particularly complex to me:

"Excluded Assets
(Page 2 of 2)

V. Intellectual Property:
A. All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and
UnixWare.
B. All Patents
"

Excluded from the sale were all copyrights, trademarks and patents.

H.


0 Likes
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

So does that mean copyrights, trademarks and patents were excluded?

🙂

Or is that "depends on what the word 'excluded' means"?

LOL!
0 Likes
hspeirs Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

kjhurni,

>
> So does that mean copyrights, trademarks and patents were excluded?
>
> 🙂
>
> Or is that "depends on what the word 'excluded' means"?


Well, what I posted is what was in the original agreement, about a year
later, they 'clarified' that passage to fix something with regard to 3rd
part drivers. SCO wanted it modified to say that SCO got the copyrights,
Novell refused because - they didn't get them. So the nice clear "No
copyrights" was replaced with

"All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks
owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to
exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare
technologies. However, in no event shall Novell be liable to SCO for any
claim brought by any third party pertaining to said copyrights and
trademarks. "

And that is what seven years and millions of dollars has gone into
fighting about.

H.
0 Likes
islander Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

This is my opinion, and not Novell's.

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Anyone in business at the level of companies the size of Novell and SCO
knows better than to depend or count on intent.

What matters is what's written down. Period. Nothing else matters.

I wasn't a party to the deal, but I've been involved in enough law
firms to feel confident that this deal went through several iterations
of negotiations and iterations of the contract before anything final
was signed.

Both sides make changes, and the attorneys for both sides then review
the papers again.

An attorney worth any salt will have a checklist after each negotiation
to check against the papers that come through, to make sure the points
their side wants covered are covered.

So if SCO wants to sue someone, they might consider a suit against
whatever law firm represented them in this deal. Because themselves and
their attorneys are the only ones at fault if the final contract didn't
include what they thought it did.

Once they signed it, they agreed to live with it. Period. : )

--
Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator
http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules

http://www.ncci.org
http://ncci.blogspot.com

Susan Novell Community Chat Moderator http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
0 Likes
Marcel_Cox Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

What I'm suprised is that Frankenberg allowed himself to be cought pants
down in this trial in that sense that he is now publically demonstrating
that he was clueless about one of the most major contracts Novell signed
in his time as a CEO.

--
Marcel Cox
http://support.novell.com/forums
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcel Cox's Profile: http://forums.novell.com/member.php?userid=8
0 Likes
Anonymous_User Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

Caveat emptor?

Or Novell sold the Brooklyn Bridge to some rube?



"Susan" <nscv.sysop.susan@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:XjTsn.15471$yE3.13909@kovat.provo.novell.com...
> This is my opinion, and not Novell's.
>
> A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
>
> Anyone in business at the level of companies the size of Novell and SCO
> knows better than to depend or count on intent.
>
> What matters is what's written down. Period. Nothing else matters.
>
> I wasn't a party to the deal, but I've been involved in enough law
> firms to feel confident that this deal went through several iterations
> of negotiations and iterations of the contract before anything final
> was signed.
>
> Both sides make changes, and the attorneys for both sides then review
> the papers again.
>
> An attorney worth any salt will have a checklist after each negotiation
> to check against the papers that come through, to make sure the points
> their side wants covered are covered.
>
> So if SCO wants to sue someone, they might consider a suit against
> whatever law firm represented them in this deal. Because themselves and
> their attorneys are the only ones at fault if the final contract didn't
> include what they thought it did.
>
> Once they signed it, they agreed to live with it. Period. : )
>
> --
> Susan
> Novell Community Chat Moderator
> http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules
>
> http://www.ncci.org
> http://ncci.blogspot.com



0 Likes
islander Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

Marcel:

If he has a blog, why don't you tell him so? : )

--
Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator
http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules

http://www.ncci.org
http://ncci.blogspot.com

Susan Novell Community Chat Moderator http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
0 Likes
islander Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Decision in the SCO vs. Novell trial

It looks like the wording in the original contract was very clear.

So saying "Caveat Emptor" for this case is like saying that if someone
comes to a farm to buy a cow, and buys a horse, instead, and the farmer
is very clear that it's a horse he's selling and it's a horse that the
purchaser is buying, and the buyer goes through with the deal, that the
buyer was cheated because he wanted to buy a cow.

I don't feel sorry for the buyer in that case.

And yes, caveat emptor is standard for buying. And in this case, what
was being sold was very clear.

You'd have to be worse than a rube to have misunderstood that wording.
: )

--
Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator
http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules

http://www.ncci.org
http://ncci.blogspot.com

Susan Novell Community Chat Moderator http://forums.novell.com/faq.php?faq=novfor#faq_rules http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.