Court ruling questions SCO copyright claims

SCO v Novell ruling

[cyril kearney]

[infoworld.com...]

'"There is enough ambiguity in the language of (the Amendment) that, at this point in the litigation, it is questionable whether (the Amendment) was meant to convey the required copyrights," wrote Kimball in his ruling.'

This is just a ruling that the case should go forward in Federal Courts. If SCO were to lose this, then all the other cases based upon the copyright transferred by Novell would colapse. If it were to win, a lot of uncertainty would be cleared up and the focus of SCO v IBM would be sharpen.

[gmiller]

It's interesting to say the least. Apparently, Novell is claiming that they signed an agreement to transfer the copyrights in exchange for a payment from SCO, then SCO paid them and they never delivered what was paid for.

If SCO loses this, they won't be able to win their other suits, but they just might be able to sue Novell mercilessly. :)