Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : SCO Group (SCOX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (180)	4/13/2007 4:31:36 PM
From: CrazyPete	Respond to of 239

Frankenberg's deposition is convincing but it isn't clear why, if what he said is true, the APA plainly and explicitly excludes all copyrights if this was never anyone's intent (yes I know about the amendments). Also copyright law is completely unambiguous about what is required to transfer copyrights, and is unlike contract law where intent may matter. You've got to have a document saying with specificity which copyrights are transferred. As for O'Gara's testimony, the operative word there is "conveyed". The quoted words are O'Gara's imputations, they are not even hearsay. O'Gara is not suggesting that Stone said those things, she is only saying this is what she thought he meant. I don't think there's anything illegal about issuing a press release about an ongoing issue with another company that might have a negative impact on that company, however you choose to time it. Unless you think the information was plainly false and fraudulent. Novell didn't stand to benefit from any purported manipulation of SCOX's stock price.

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (180)	4/16/2007 1:23:03 PM
From: tonysee200x	Respond to of 239

Scott- The whole copyrights transfer thing is very confusion. Especially since no one involved now was involved when the deal was done. I believe at this point both sides are trying to use the deal other then it was originally intended. One thing that adds to the confusion is the MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORSOF NOVELL, INC. MONDAY,SEPTEMBER 18, 1995 Says regarding the "PROPOSED SALE OF UNIXWARE BUSINESS AND EQUITY INVESTMENT IN SCO" "Novell will retain all of its patents, copyrights and trademarks(except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare), a royalty-free,perpetual, worldwide license back to UNIX and UnixWare for internal use and resale in bundled products, Tuxedo and other miscellaneous,unrelated technology." www.groklaw.net/pdf/Novell-57.pdf Obviously Frankenberg was at this meeting so what does it mean when he says the "initial intent" was to transfer copyrights, but the meeting minutes seem to say otherwise. I expect that Novell will ask the same questions the other way around. For example-- Q. Did you ever tell anyone at Santa Cruz Operation that copyrights for UNIX and UnixWare were part of the technology being sold? Q. Did you ever authorize anyone at Novell to tell anyone at Santa Cruz that copyrights were* being sold as part of the transaction?* It will fun to watch how it all plays out.