Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050731195508518
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 15:37:46
Document Index: 768162508

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 204', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§\n106', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2201', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2201', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 2001']

Groklaw - SCO v Novell - A Comparative Chart
SCO v Novell - A Comparative Chart
Monday, August 01 2005 @ 09:12 AM EDT
Groklaw's bruzie had the brainstorm of making a comparative chart of SCO's Amended Complaint [PDF] and Novell's Answer and Counterclaims, so that we can figure out what is denied, admitted, etc. because of having them side by side. Thank you for thinking of it. This case, SCO v. Novell, turns out to be such an important aspect of the SCO saga that it seems very worthwhile to focus on it with care. We have counterpointed only the parts that mirror, basically the slander of title parts. That is all SCO's lawsuit was about. No more. Novell has opened up the door all the way, and so Novell's extensive counterclaims section follows the table, so you can see clearly just how much is new now that Novell has decided to fight SCO knockdown, drag-out, to-the-death. SCO will get to reply to Novell's counterclaims and everything it has introduced into the litigation, which is a lot. We've commented already on Novell's remarkably strong Answer and Counterclaims, which alters the landscape completely in this SCO litigation, because we finally have a clear copyright issue before a judge and some very serious charges against SCO, but there is still one more point that I didn't notice until working on formatting this and was prompted by a reader as well. Remember when SCO CEO Darl McBride told us back in August of 2003 that Robert Bench drew up the insider stock sale plan in January of 2003, months before they knew there would be litigation? I wrote about it back then, questioning the accuracy of the story and presenting some facts that created doubt in my mind, such as SCO hiring David Boies in January of 2003. Here's a snip of what I wrote: Bloomberg News has an article, appearing in The Salt Lake Tribune, reporting that Darl McBride says that SCO's CFO submitted a sales plan in January "months before legal action was contemplated", presumably as proof that there is no connection between the stock sales and the lawsuit:
Chief Financial Officer Robert Bench began the selling by SCO insiders, four days after SCO filed the suit against IBM. Bench is selling to help pay a $150,000 tax bill, McBride said. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, companies are no longer able to loan executives money to pay taxes or other expenses.
Novell's account, in the beginning of the counterclaims section, tells us that SCO approached Novell in late 2002, asking them to hand over the copyrights and join them in the Linux licensing program we later came to know as SCOsource, and talked to Novell about asserting UNIX infringement claims against Linux end users: 38. In late 2002, SCO repeatedly contacted Novell in connection with SCO's soon-to-be-announced SCOsource campaign. SCO requested copies of certain documentation concerning rights to UNIX, including the agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz. SCO also expressed its interest in a campaign to assert UNIX infringement claims against users of Linux. SCO asked Novell to assist SCO in a Linux licensing program, under which SCO contemplated extracting a license fee from Linux end users to use the UNIX intellectual property purportedly contained in Linux. Novell refused to participate.
39. In aid of its scheme, SCO requested that Novell transfer its UNIX Copyrights to SCO and thereby acknowledged that it did not own the UNIX Copyrights. SCO contacted Novell on multiple occasions by and during early 2003. For example, SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, repeatedly contacted Novell and asked Novell to amend the Novell-Santa Cruz agreement to give SCO the UNIX Copyrights. Novell rejected all of these requests. You need copyrights, so you can register them and then sue someone. Obviously, if Novell's account is true, SCO knew by late 2002 that it was embarking on a course of litigation. Linux users were not going to pay them money to license Linux without litigation, because Linux already has a license, the GPL, which forbids any such license arrangement as SCO had in mind. The request to Novell to help SCO definitely predates a January sale plan. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. Novell's revelation affects another aspect of the SCO story. Remember SCO announcing it had just discovered "infringement" in Linux in May of 2003 (remember the three teams of deep divers), leading them to say they were stopping distribution (not that they did in reality)? If SCO knew at the end of 2002 that it was going to sue Linux end users for copyright infringement, presumably they had some knowledge of specific infringement in mind to use, unless it's all been a scam. But if they had any such evidence at the end of 2002, why did they continue to knowingly distribute that "infringing" code in Linux under the GPL? If SCO knew about copyright infringement in 2002 and continued to distribute the infringing code under the GPL, the code is now GPL'd code. Period. And there is no use telling us now, if Novell proves correct in its account, that they didn't discover it until May. They are kind of on the horns of a dilemma here, very much the kind of difficulty my mom always warned me about, when lecturing about lying. She always said that lying is harder than telling the truth, because you have to try to remember what you said when you lie. They can lose against IBM and Linux end users because the code is now GPL'd, or, the other horn SCO can choose is: if they *didn't* have any evidence of copyright infringement in 2002, on what basis were they inviting Novell to help them go after Linux end users for infringement? What exactly was the plan? What a terrible choice for them, because there are legal consequences no matter which they choose. And the worst of it is, while it is conceivable that SCO might say that they knew of some infringement in 2002 but didn't discover it all until later, Novell remembers what SCO told them back in 2002, so SCO can't say just anything, even if they wanted to lie. There are witnesses. Do you think they'd invite Novell to join them in the licensing scheme without telling them what cards they were holding? I think that is unlikely. And if they indeed discovered new evidence in May of 2003, where is it? Why haven't they presented it in court? If they had it back when they tried to get Novell to join them, why did they tell us they only discovered it in May? Many questions flow from Novell's revelation. It will be interesting to see what SCO says about all this, if they have a satisfying explanation. For sure, they must say something. There is a very nasty smell in the air.
SCO's ComplaintNovell's Answer
Through an Asset Purchase Agreement dated September 19, 1995, as amended
wherein Novell received 6.1 million shares of SCO common stock, valued at the time at
over $100 million in consideration, SCO, through its predecessor in interest, acquired from
Novell all right, title, and interest in and to the UNIX and UnixWare business, operating
system, source code, and all copyrights related thereto, as well as all claims arising
after the closing date against any parties relating to any right, property, or asset included
Novell admits that it entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with SCO's
alleged predecessor in interest dated September 19, 1995. Each and every
other allegation in paragraph 1 is denied.
In attachment E of Novell's Disclosure Schedule to the Asset Purchase
Agreement, Novell provided a list of approximately 106 copyright
registrations (encompassing 8 pages) covering products relating to the business transferred
Novell admits that Attachment E to the Asset Purchase Agreement provided
a list of approximately 106 copyright registrations. Novell denies that
Attachment E, alone or in connection with the Asset Purchase Agreement,
transferred any UNIX or UnixWare copyrights to SCO. Each and every other
allegation in paragraph 2 is denied.
In the course of exercising its rights with respect to UNIX and UnixWare,
SCO has filed for copyright protection with the United States Copyright Office.
Novell admits that SCO has registered a claim to UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
with the United States Copyright Office. Each and every other allegation
in paragraph 3 is denied.
In an effort to interfere with SCO's exercise of its rights
with respect to the UNIX and UnixWare technologies, Novell has, in disregard of its obligations under
the Asset Purchase Agreement, and subsequent to the Asset Purchase Agreement, filed
Novell admits that Novell has registered its claim to UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights with the United States Copyright Office. Each and every other
allegation in paragraph 4 is denied.
Recently, Novell has repeatedly claimed publicly in press releases and otherwise
that it, and not SCO, owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
Novell admits that it has, in good faith, publicly stated its belief
that it owns UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Each and every other allegation
in paragraph 5 is denied.
Novell has made such statements with the intent to cause customers and
potential customers of SCO to not do business with SCO and to slander and impugn
the ownership rights of SCO in UNIX and UnixWare, and to attempt, in bad faith, to block
SCO's ability to enforce its copyrights therein.
Novell's false and misleading representations that it owns the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights has directly caused and is continuing to cause SCO to incur significant
reputation and has caused several third parties to refuse to enter into license agreements with SCO relating to SCO's UNIX and UnixWare business.
Through this action against Novell, SCO
a) a preliminary and permanent injunction: (i) requiring Novell to
assign to SCO all copyrights Novell has improperly registered in UNIX and
UnixWare following Novell's transfer of all right, title, and interest in and to the UNIX and UnixWare business, operating system, source code, and all copyrights related thereto to SCO pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement; (ii) preventing Novell from representing in any forum that it has any
ownership interest whatsoever in the Unix and UnixWare copyrights; and (iii)
requiring Novell to retract or withdraw all representations it has made regarding
its purported ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights; and
b) actual, special, and punitive damages in an amount to be proven
at trial based on Novell's slander of SCO's title and interest in the Unix and UnixWare
Novell denies that SCO is entitled to any relief under its Amended Complaint,
and in each and every allegation in paragraph 8 is therefore denied.
II. PARTIES JURISDICTION AND VENUE Plaintiff SCO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Utah County, State of Utah.
Defendant Novell is a Delaware corporation with its executive offices
and headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts that does business in the State of Utah.
This Court has found that it has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and Section 1338(a).
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Novell because Novell transacts
substantial business in the State of Utah.
Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b).
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDSchedule 1.1(a) to the Asset Purchase Agreement provides that SCO, through
its predecessor in interest, acquired from Novell:
limited to all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and copies of UNIX and UnixWare (including revisions and updates in process), and all
technical, design, development, installation, operation and maintenance information concerning UNIX and UnixWare, including source code, source documentation, source listings and annotations,
appropriate engineering notebooks, test data and test results, as
as all reference materials and support materials normally distributed
by [Novell] to end-users and potential end-users in connection with the
any parties relating to any right, property or asset included in the Business.
Novell admits that Schedule 1.1(a) to the Asset Purchase Agreement contains
substantially the text quoted by the Amended Complaint. (SCO's Amended
Complaint contains a typographical error, however: the first sentence of
the quoted text actually reads "all versions of UNIX and UnixWare
and all copies of UNIX and UnixWare.) Novell denies that this text acted
to transfer UNIX or UnixWare copyrights to SCO. Each and every other allegation
in paragraph 14 is denied.
In Amendment No. 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell and SCO made
clear that SCO owned all "copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the
date of the [Asset Purchase Agreement] required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect
to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies," and that Novell would no longer
be liable should any third party bring a claim against SCO "pertaining to said copyrights
and trademarks" Denied.
Software technology is valuable only insofar as the intellectual property
contained therein is protected from unlawful misappropriation. Copyrights provide critical
protection against misappropriation established by the United States Congress under
the Copyright Act. SCO requires the full copyright protection it purchased from Novell
to enforce its rights in UNIX and UnixWare source code and related technology,
against infringing parties.
Based on the clear and unambiguous terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement
and Amendment No. 2 thereto, SCO is the sole and exclusive owner of all copyrights
related to the UNIX and UnixWare source code and all documentation and peripheral code
and systems related thereto.
related to UNIX and UnixWare, has embarked on a malicious campaign to damage SCO's
ability to protect its valuable copyrights in UNIX and UnixWare. In particular, Novell
has wrongfully asserted ownership over UNIX and UnixWare technologies by filing
for copyright protection in its own name, and has made numerous false and misleading
public representations disparaging SCO's ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights and claiming that it, and not SCO, owns the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
Novell's false oaths and misleading public representations and wrongful
assertion of ownership rights in UNIX and/or UnixWare include, but are not limited to,
Novell denies that it has made any false oath, misleading public representation,
or wrongful assertion of ownership rights, and on that basis denies each
and every allegation in paragraph 19, except as set forth below:
Despite the clear language of the Asset Purchase Agreement and Amendment
No. 2 thereto, on May 28, 2003, Novell's Chairman, President, and CEO Jack Messman
("Messman") based at Novell's headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts,
publicly claimed that Novell did not transfer the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights to
SCO and that "SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights." Messman's
statement was published in several newspapers and other publications, and was timed by Messman to be released on the eve of the release
of SCO's quarterly statements.
Novell admits that on May 28, 2003 Jack Messman sent a letter to Darl
McBride of SCO in order to assert Novell's claim to the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights and to protect Novell's interests and the interests of its customers.
This letter contained the following text:
of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright
Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer
agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it. To Novell's knowledge,
the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase
of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights.
We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership
interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently, you share this view,
since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer
the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected. Finally, we
[We] demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions
of ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive
information regarding SCO' s ownership claims.
Novell is without further knowledge as to details of other publication
and therefore denies each and every allegation related thereto. Each
and every other allegation in paragraph 19(a) is denied.
In a letter dated June 6, 2003, directed from SCO to Novell, SCO brought
to Novell's attention Amendment 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement that clearly
evidences that the UNIX copyrights were in fact transferred from Novell
Novell admits that on June 6, 2003, SCO sent Novell a letter pertaining
to Amendment 2 and the Asset Purchase Agreement. Each and every other allegation
in paragraph 19(b) is denied.
Following Novell's receipt of SCO's June 6, 2003, letter, Novell issued
a press release dated that same date which recanted Messman's prior statement claiming
Novell owned UNIX copyrights stating "[t]he amendment [to the Asset
Purchase Agreement] appears to support SCO's claim that ownership of certain copyrights
Novell admits that on June 6, 2003, it issued a press release containing
In a May 28th letter to SCO, Novell challenged SCO's claims to UNIX
patent and copyright ownership and demanded that SCO substantiate
its allegations that Linux infringes SCO's intellectual property rights.
Amendment #2 to the 1995 SCO-Novell Asset Purchase Agreement was
to Novell last night by SCO. To Novell's knowledge, this amendment
is not present in Novell's files. The amendment appears to support
claim that ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX
did transfer to SCO in 1996. The amendment does not address ownership
of patents, however, which clearly remain with Novell.
In a letter of the same day, June 6, 2003, directed to SCO, Joseph Lasala,
Novell's General Counsel based at Novell's headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts,
Responding to a threat by SCO to sue Novell for federal securities fraud
conveyed in SCO's June 6, 2003 letter, Novell admits that Joseph LaSala
sent a letter to Darl McBride on June 6, 2003, containing the following
Your letter contains absurd and unfounded accusations against Novell
and others, coupled with a veiled threat to publicly state those
allegations in a SCO press call to be held today at 11 :00 am EST.
Novell continues
to demand that SCO cease and desist its practice of making unsubstantiated
allegations, including the allegations contained in your letter
of June 6, 2003.
In a letter to SCO on June 26, 2003, Joseph Lasala, Novell acknowledged
copyrights", but at the same time, Novell called SCO's claims of ownership of UNIX and
UnixWare "simply wrong" and declared "that we do not agree
with SCO's public statements in this matter."
Responding to a subsequent press release issued by SCO, Novell admits
that Joseph LaSala sent a letter to Darl McBride on June 26, 2003, containing
SCO's statements [claiming to own "the patents, copyrights,
and core technology associated with the UNIX system"] are simply
wrong. We acknowledge, as noted in our June 6 public statement, that
No. 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement appears to support a claim that
Santa Cruz Operation had the right to acquire some copyrights from
Novell. Upon closer scrutiny, however, Amendment No. 2 raises as many
as it answers. Indeed, what is most certainly not the case is that "any
question of whether UNIX copyrights were transferred to SCO as part
of the Asset Purchase Agreement was clarified in Amendment No. 2" (as
SCO stated in its June 6 press release). And there is no indication
whatsoever that SCO owns all the patents associated with UNIX or UnixWare.
are still reviewing the Asset Purchase Agreement and other materials
to determine the actual scope of rights transferred to SCO. In the
meantime, we wish to make clear that we do not agree with SCO's public
In a letter from Joseph Lasala, dated August 4, 2003, Novell responded
Copyright Office, and explicitly "dispute[d] SCO's claim to ownership
of the copyrights."
SCO subsequently registered claims to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
with the United States Copyright Office. Responding to that registration,
Novell admits that Joseph LaSala sent a letter to Darl McBride on August
4, 2003, containing the following text:
We dispute SCO's claim to ownership of these copyrights. The Asset
Purchase Agreement, in Schedule 1.1 (b), contains a general exclusion
of copyrights from the assets transferred to Santa Cruz Operation.
Amendment No. 2 provides an exception to that exclusion, but only for "copyrights..
.required for [Santa Cruz Operation] to exercise its rights with respect
No. 2, copyrights were not transferred to Santa Cruz Operation unless
could demonstrate that such a right was "required for [Santa Cruz
Operation]" to exercise the rights granted to it in the APA. Santa
Cruz Operation has never made such a demonstration, and we certainly
see no reason why Santa Cruz Operation would have needed ownership
of copyrights in UNIX System V in order to exercise the limited rights
SCO under the APA. Nor is there any reason to think that a transfer
of the copyrights required for SCO to exercise its APA rights necessarily
entails transfer of the entire set of exclusive rights associated with
a particular copyrighted computer program.
Unless and until SCO is able to establish that some particular copyright
right is "required" for SCO to exercise its rights under
the APA, SCO's claim to ownership of any copyrights in UNIX technologies
must be rejected, and ownership of such rights instead remains with
Despite Amendment 2 of the Asset Purchase Agreement that clearly established
SCO's ownership of the copyrights, Novell continued with its unfounded
and malicious campaign to slander SCO's ownership of the copyrights. In fact,
Novell, again falsely asserted ownership of UNIX copyrights by submitting twelve
certifications beginning on September 22, 2003 through October 14, 2003,
to the United States Copyright Office. In these certifications, Novell publicly
claimed to be the copyright owner of several versions of UNIX, including the following:
(1) UNIX System V/386 Release 4 Version 3; (2) UNIX System V/386 Release
4 2; (3) UNIX System V/386 Release 4 Version 4; (4) UNIX System V/386 Release
3 2; (5) UNIX System V/386 Release 3 0; (6) UNIX System V/386 Release 4
0; (7) UNIX System V/386 Release 4 1ES; (8) UNIX System V Release 3 2/386; (9)
UNIX System V Release 3/386; (10) UNIX System V Release 4 2MP; (11)
UNIX System V Release 2; and (12) UNIX System V Release 4 1ES/386. Novell
published its false certifications to the world by placing them online
Responding to SCO's copyright registrations, Novell admits that it has
registered its claim to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights enumerated in
paragraph 19(g). Each and every other allegation in paragraph 19(g) is
Also on October 10, 2003, Novell publicly filed under oath with the United
States Copyright Office four different iterations of a "Declaration Regarding
Ownership" of UNIX copyrights TXU-510-028, TXU-511-236, TXU-516-704, TXU-516- 705. In each of these sworn documents, Novell declared "that it retains
all or substantially all of the ownership of the copyrights in UNIX, including
the U.S. Copyright Registration referenced above."
In a press release dated December 22, 2003, Novell, despite its June
2003 statement that SCO owns the copyrights, Novell stated that "it owns the copyrights
in UNIX, and has applied for and received copyright registrations pertaining to
In response to a public claim by SCO that Novell had conceded the superiority
of SCO's claim to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, Novell admits it issued
a press release on December 22, 2003, containing the following text:
Novell believes it owns the copyrights in UNIX, and has applied for
and received copyright registrations pertaining to UNIX consistent
with that position. Novell detailed the basis for its ownership position
correspondence with SCO. Copies of our correspondence, and SCO's
reply, are available here. Contrary to SCO's public statements, as
by this correspondence, SCO has been well aware that Novell continues
to assert ownership of the UNIX copyrights.
In a press release dated January 13, 2004, Novell again knowingly and
wrongfully made the false claim that "it retained ownership of [UNIX] copyrights."
On January 13, 2004 Novell announced a Linux Indemnification Program.
In connection with this offer, Novell issued a press release clarifying
its beliefs as to its legal rights concerning the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
The press release contained the following:
Novell also made available today additional information on the unique
contractual and intellectual property rights it holds because of
its position in the historical ownership chain of UNIX and UnixWare.
Novell's rights to license UNIX technology pursuant
to a Technology License Agreement between SCO and Novell,
including Novell's right to authorize its customers to use that UNIX
technology in their internal business operations.
Novell's rights to take action
on behalf of SCO under legacy UNIX SVRX licenses pursuant
to the Asset Purchase Agreement between SCO and Novell.
As previously confirmed
by Novell, copyright registrations on UNIX SVRX releases,
consistent with Novell's position that it retained ownership
Copies of relevant correspondence between Novell and SCO are available
at http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html. The rights reflected
in these documents are part of the foundation for the indemnification
program Novell is announcing today.
At the March 2004 Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco, Novell's
Novell's false oaths and wrongful claims of copyrights and ownership
of UNIX and UnixWare are in bad faith and constitute a knowing and intentional disregard
Novell's wrongful claims of copyrights and ownership in UNIX and UnixWare
have caused, and continue to cause, irreparable harm to SCO, in the following
a) Customers and potential customers of SCO are unable to ascertain
the truth of ownership in UNIX and UnixWare, and make decisions based thereon; and
c) SCO's efforts to protect its ownership of UNIX and UnixWare, and
copyrights therein, are subject to a false cloud of ownership created by Novell. At the present time SCO is pursuing claims against third parties for infringement of SCO's intellectual property and contractual claims against third parties for infringement of SCO's intellectual property and contractual rights in UNIX. Defendants in those cases have relied on Novell's claims of ownership in UNIX as a defense to SCO's claims, thereby hindering SCO's ability to protect its copyrights and causing SCO to incur significant additional attorneys' fees and costs litigating in other forums issues resulting from the cloud Novell has placed on SCO's title to UNIX and UnixWare.
Novell denies that it has made any wrongful claims of copyrights and
ownership in UNIX and UnixWare and that SCO is entitled to any relief under
its Amended Complaint, and each and every allegation in paragraph 21 is
IV. CLAIM FOR RELIEFSCO realleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs by this reference
Novell incorporates by reference the answers contained in paragraphs
1 - 21 as if they were set forth here in full.
SCO is the sole and exclusive owner of all copyrights related to UNIX
and UnixWare source code and all documentation and peripheral code and systems related
Novell has slandered SCO's title and rights to its UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights and damaged SCO's business reputation and relationships with potential customers
by making false oaths of ownership to public officials, and by repeatedly representing
both to the public in general and directly to several of SCO's customers and potential
customers that Novell, and not SCO, owns UNIX and the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights.
Novell's representations regarding its purported ownership of UNIX and
UnixWare are patently false, and Novell made such representations intentionally, maliciously,
and with the utter disregard for the truthfulness thereof.
As a consequence of Novell's conduct as alleged herein, SCO has incurred
actual and special damages in an amount to be proven with at trial.
27 SCO has also incurred significant attorneys' fees and costs in its attempt to remove the cloud Novell has placed on SCO's title to UNIX and UnixWare, including but not limited to attorneys' fees incurred in researching and reviewing Novell's improper copyright registrations, attempting to mitigate damages by correcting and responding to Novell's false representations made to third parties, and in prosecuting this and other actions to protect SCO's title to UNIX and UnixWare.
Novell's conduct as alleged herein was intentionally and maliciously
designed to destroy SCO's valuable rights to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
and further destroy SCO's business livelihood. As such, this Court should
impose an award of punitive damages against Novell in an amount to be proven
29 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Novell also hereby asserts the following separate defenses to the Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, without assuming any burden of proof on such defenses that would otherwise rest with SCO:
30 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Privilege) The Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is barred due to absolute and conditional privileges enjoyed by Novell.
31 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) The Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of estoppel.
32 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) The Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
33 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) The Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
34 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Comparative Fault) To the extent that SCO did sustain any damages, which Novell denies, such damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the comparative fault of SCO and/or third parties,
35 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) To the extent that SCO did sustain any damages, which Novell denies, such damages were caused, in whole or in part, by SCO's failure to mitigate any damages it may have suffered, which failure to mitigate bars and/or diminishes SCO's right to any relief against Novell.
36 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Causation) To the extent SCO has suffered any injury or damage, which Novell denies, such injury or damage was not proximately caused by any conduct or inaction of Novell, or was not foreseeable, or both.
37 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (U.S. Const. Amend. I) The Amended Complaint, and each of the purported causes of action, is barred, in whole or in part, by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SCO prays this Court grant relief against Defendant Novell in favor of SCO as follows: For actual and special damages in an amount to be proven at trial for Novell's slander of SCO's title to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights;
4. For attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and all other legal and equitable relief deemed just and proper by this Court.
WHEREFORE, Novell prays for judgment as follows: 38. That SCO take nothing by the Amended Complaint; 39. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Novell and against SCO, dismissing with prejudice the Amended Complaint and each of its causes of action;
41. That the Court grant Novell such other and further relief to which Novell may be entitled as a matter of law or which the Court deems just and proper.[ed: see also final section, below
COUNTERCLAIMS Novell counterclaims against SCO as follows:
Asset Purchase Agreement ("MA"). The APA provided each party with
rights. In order to bridge the price gap and consummate the transaction, Novell and Santa Cruz agreed that
memorandum of the transfer" under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) for at
35. On or about the time of Mr. McBride's arrival at Caldera,
had been originally owned by AT&T. This included source code, source
owner of the UNIX© operating system, today confirmed its
SCO's own Amended Complaint. (Amended Complaint ¶ 19(d)-(e).)
To the contrary, Novell was vigorously contesting those claims in private correspondence with SCO at
Microsoft's UNIX compatibility products. On information and belief, through these licenses SCO broadened the
relating to UNIX System V or Unix-Ware.
copies of any agreements with Sun (including amendments) that relate to UNIX. We would appreciate a response
§§ 1.2(b) and 4.16(a) of the APA.
behalf, as Novell is empowered to do by § 4.16(b). Section
(Breach of Contract: §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the Asset
§§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA by refusing to do so.
102. On information and belief, SCO's breaches of §§
by SCO to comply with its audit obligations under §§
§§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f).
(Breach of Contract: §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the Asset
105. SCO has substantially and materially breached §§
106. On information and belief, SCO's breaches of §§
by SCO to comply with its royalty obligations under §§
performance of its remittance obligations under §§ 1.2(b)
remittance obligations under §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of
112. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell has the right, at
action at Novell's direction, § 4.16(b) gives Novell the
and materially breached § 4.16(b) by:
pursuant to § 4.16(b), including Novell's waiver of SCO's
113. Novell seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled, at its
b. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled to waive
114. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO is obligated to seek
not perform its corresponding duties under § 4.16(b) and
substantially and materially breached § 4.16(b) by:
115. Novell seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO was obligated to seek
b. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO is obligated to seek
to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that SCO had no authority to enter into
§§ 1.2(b), 1.2(f) and 4.16. SCO failed to abide by these
121. Novell seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
§§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) by providing information requested
to Novell that an exception to the prohibition against new licenses or amendments
at trial, caused by SCO's breaches of §§ 1.2(b), 1.2(f)
audit obligations under §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the
royalty obligations under §§ 1.2(b) and 4.16(a) of the
147. For declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201
establishing Novell's rights and SCO's obligations under §
under § 4.16(b);
violation of §§ 1.2(b), 1.2(f), 4.16(a) and 4.16(b);
149. For declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2001