Robert Pogson

Today, Groklaw posted news about the decision on some summary judgments (matters of law) in SCO v Novell. The constructive trust was not granted because some facts needed deciding by jury but many other items were decided in Novell’s favour such as:

• Novell holds the copyrights
• Novell may override SCOG with respect to licence cancellation
• SCOG must remit the SVRX licence fees to Novell

This mostly nails SCOG to the wall with respect to Novell, and renders much of SCO v IBM moot because SCOG had no right to cancel the licences of IBM to use SVRX. Most importantly, it cools any FUD from SCOG about copyright violations of SVRX in Linux because SCOG did not have the copyright and knew it did not have the copyright when it started this whole SCOSource thing by attempting to tax Linux. Unfortunately, it looks like SCOG can spend the money at least until the trial scheduled for September. One wonders how foolish those who bought licences for Linux from SCOG feel now. One wonders how foolish the “journalists” who parroted SCOG’s claims as truth feel now. Some feasting on humble pie is in order.

The ruling is 100 pages long and detailed, but I quote the conclusions here:

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO’s First Claim for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for Relief for specific performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of SCO’s Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for Relief for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court denies SCO’s cross-motion for

99

summary judgment on its own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims, and on Novell’s slander of title claim. Accordingly, Novell’s slander of title claim is still at issue.

The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright to enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement claim and a breach of contract claim based on the non-compete restrictions in the license back of the Licensed Technology under APA and the TLA. The court further concludes that there has not been a change of control that released the non-compete restrictions of the license, and the non-compete restrictions of the license are not void under California law. Accordingly, Novell’s motion for summary judgment on SCO’s non-compete claim in its Second Claim for breach of contract and Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition is granted to the extent that SCO’s claims require ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, and denied in all other regards.

Furthermore, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonable interpretation of the term “SVRX License” in the APA is all licenses related to the SVRX products listed in Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA. Therefore, Novell is entitled to a declaration of rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent. Accordingly, Novell’s motion for partial summary judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief for declaratory judgment is granted, and SCO’s cross-motion for summary judgment on Novell’s Fourth Claim for Relief is denied.

Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only reasonably interpretation of

100

all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court further concludes that because a portion of SCO’s 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX products contained in each agreement. Furthermore, because Novell has obtained the information that it would otherwise obtain through an accounting during the course of this litigation, the court denies Novell’s Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting. However, the court also notes that SCO has a continuing contractual obligation to comply with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in the APA.

Accordingly, Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; SCO’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on Novell’s Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [Docket No. 180] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim [Docket No. 171] is GRANTED; SCO’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell’s Fourth Claim [Docket No. 224] is DENIED; SCO’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its First,

101

Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell’s First Claim [Docket No. 258] is DENIED; Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO’s Second Claim for Breach of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [Docket No. 271] is GRANTED; Novell’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO’s Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims [Docket No. 273] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific Performance [Docket No. 275] is GRANTED; and Novell’s Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO’s First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to Establish Special Damages [Docket No. 277] is MOOT.

DATED this 10th day of August, 2007.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________________ DALE A. KIMBALL, United States District Judge