Novell's fraud claim against SCO

Novell's fraud claim against SCO

Summary: At issue here are the SCO Source deals Microsoft and Sun signed-off on in 2003, which included "patents." What patents? That's what Novell wants to discover.


Novell logoNovell upped the ante in the SCO vs. IBM case over the weekend, bringing up the possibility of criminal fraud charges against SCO.

And the "victims" in this case? How about Microsoft and Sun?

At issue here are the SCO Source deals Microsoft and Sun signed-off on in 2003, which included "patents." What patents? That's what Novell wants to discover.

This suit is actually a counter-claim to a suit SCO filed against Novell last year, surrounding issues concerning Novell's sale of Unix assets to <s>Caldera Systems, SCO's predecessor, </s> the Santa Cruz Operation a decade ago.

Personally I don't like reporting this. I no longer care about the course of these civil suits. But the possibility of criminal fraud, committed against Microsoft, was just too funny to ignore. I wonder if the nation's D.A's are laughing?

Topic: Enterprise Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Taking Unfair Advantage

    You should be ashamed, Joe. It's not funny when a big corporation like SCO takes unfair advantage of the naivete of unsophisticated people like those at Microsoft and Sun.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
    • LOL

    • Actually...

      That was Dana's post, not mine.
      • Mea culpa

        My apologies -- I can see why you'd be insuleted ;-)
        Yagotta B. Kidding
        • No apologies necessary

          Not insulted, but just thought I'd clear that one up - since both of our names are on the blog, I expect that people sometimes attribute what one person writes to the other, or both of us.
  • MS as a victim

    Let's See MS Exec's recommend SCO to Baystar which pumps 10s of millions (50?) into SCO's warchest.

    Poor MS unable to afford legal advice license non existant patents for more millions. Followed by Sun who also can't afford the legal expertise to find out what they are buying....

    Yeah MS is a victim. Sure they are. Partners in crime is more like it.
    • sure M$ and $un are victims. who in their right mind would think that those

      two megaCorps would be so dastardly as to willingly organize a plot to economically or otherwise punish people for using or improving a rival operating system.

      show me your proof.

      showing me the money is not enough to prove conspiracy.

      or is it?

  • Does anyone really doubt their motives?

    Sun's payment of SCO for extending it's considerable rights to UNIX (technically SVR4+) was for nothing more than to provide SCO with much needed capital to fight Linux.

    How do I know? Because Sun already owned all of the UNIX property rights it needed since it was a co-developer of SVR4 along with AT&T. Their perpetual license was a side-deal made when Novell first purchased the USL from AT&T. At that time, Sun paid $200 million so that they would never again have to pay royalties to anyone for each copy of UNIX it distributed. Sun's lost nothing by making this seemingly unnecessary deal with SCO - including 'plausible deniability'. It's the same for MS.

    One side benefit however for both Microsoft and Sun making separate deals with SCO is that they are now free to exchange UNIX intellectual property amongst themselves. Thus making it possible for them to enter into their highly publicized agreement to collaborate (on what is not exactly clear) without any restrictions about what UNIX IP can be shared between them.

    Of course, this agreement makes strange bedfellows and surely falls under the guise of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' -- since both Micorsoft and Sun suffer from Linux entering into the enterprise server space.
    M Wagner
  • Microsoft asleep at the helm

    Whats this say about Microsoft and subsequent events? Asleep or DUI?