Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

SCO's Statement on Final Judgment and the Melaugh-Gonzalez Emails

By Pamela Jones et al.

SCO has filed a Statement Regarding Entry of Final Judgment [PDF], responding to Novell's Response to SCO's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal , which asked the court to confirm the amount of the constructive trust the parties have agreed to and to make SCO pay it now, which in turn followed SCO's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.

It's breathtaking to me. SCO actually argues, quoting selectively from the trial order's wording, that while one clause of the 2003 Sun agreement was not authorized, the rest of the agreement was, and in fact in the judge's "nuanced" trial order, that's what he meant, that SCO was authorized to enter into the agreement except for that one itsy bitsy part. Just excise that one clause, and what do you get? An *authorized* agreement. What? Don't hyperventilate. SCO does this.

Here's the part of the July 16, 2008 trial order SCO *doesn't* quote from:

The Court concludes that Sun's 2003 Agreement License, therefore, "concerns" a buy-out, and SCO was required to follow the additional restrictions imposed by Amendment No. 2 on transactions that concern buy-outs. SCO did not comply with these terms. The Court thus concludes and declares that SCO was without authority to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement under Amendment 2, Section B, of the APA.

Do you see any wiggle room there? Any lack of clarity on the judge's part? If so, send your resume to Boies Schiller right away. They might have use for you.

Joke. Joke.

Full post as published by Groklaw on November 08, 2008 (boomark / email).