It is over. The SCO’s long-running lawsuit against Novell over a number of patents involved around Unix copyright. In short, SCO claimed to own Unix even after Novell bought it back near the turn of the century. SCO’s patent-trolling has been shameless. The once great company reduced itself to a lawsuit machine and essentially attacked IBM and Novell for years. You can read all about the mess here, but trust me, this has been one of the nastiest patent wars in recent history.
The judge’s final decision was based on a number of false claims by SCO as well as “financial interest in the litigation.”
“The jury could have rejected the testimony of SCO’s witnesses for a number of reasons, including their lack of involvement in drafting the APA, the fact that there was little testimony on any actual discussions concerning the transfer of copyrights, or that many of the witnesses had a financial interest in the litigation.”
“The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith,” Stewart writes in the final judgment. I believe that means SCO v. IBM is essentially over now, unless IBM wishes to pursue its counterclaims.
Eventually, the case even led to slander charges agains Novel and IBM. You know when you’re pulling the slander card you’re at the end of your litigious rope. Incidentally, they’re now at 5 cents in over-the-counter trading.
This matter came before the Court for trial on March 8, 2010, through March 26, 2010. Based on the Jury Verdict and the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Final Judgment is entered as follows:
1. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for slander of title pursuant to the Jury Verdict.2. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for specific performance pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
3. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on Novell’s claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Specifically, the Court declares:
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees;
b. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled to waive on SCO’s behalf SCO’s purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees, when SCO refuses to act as directed by Novell; andc. SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s purported claims against IBM and Sequent.
4. Judgment is entered in favor of Novell and against SCO on SCO’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing pursuant to the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
SO ORDERED.DATED June 10, 2010.
BY THE COURT:
______[signature]__________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
Comment