Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Now It's Novell v. Canopy (Groklaw)
Groklaw delves into a strange, obscure legal battle between Novell and Canopy (SCO's parent company and largest owner) over DR-DOS and the associated Microsoft lawsuit.
"According to the Daily Herald article, Canopy says it all happened like this: Novell was really the one that wanted to sue Microsoft but was afraid of retaliation. So they negotiated with Canopy to do it for them, then sold them rights to the DR-DOS source code on condition that Canopy sue Microsoft. Novell retained rights to royalties and license fees, but they kept out of the written agreements the part about Canopy suing on their behalf. That, according to Canopy, was agreed upon orally, their little secret. Now Canopy is trying to compel them to live up to the alleged oral contract. Those Canopy folks seem to have altogether too much time on their hands."
(Log in to post comments)
Now It's Novell v. Canopy (Groklaw) Posted May 12, 2004 21:03 UTC (Wed) by pivot (guest, #588) [Link] Independent of what agreements was made or not, suing microsoft over the issues of Windows and DR-DOS was really the right thing to do. Microsoft was really the big bad criminal in that case. As usual, they just paid themselves out of it.
Now It's Novell v. Canopy (Groklaw) Posted May 12, 2004 21:34 UTC (Wed) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] A pattern is emerging here, no not the fact that Canopy/SCO believe that rules and contracts are only relevant to the current trend in moral decay. But that any corporation that comes in contact with Microsoft begets corruption.There was little more that five years between the first time the FTC tried to slap their wrist and the second time when the states each got to use the switch. I hope that within the next year Microsoft finds itself in violation of numerous trade practices and this time it's offenses are totally indefensible by the bureaucrats.
Indefensible to the bureacrats? Posted May 12, 2004 23:58 UTC (Wed) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link] We're talking about an artificial world of dollars and cents; a bloodless, inhumane world without a sole.If our bureacrats can condone and tacitly encourage atrocities and war ourt here in the world of flesh and blood how could you imagine that anything in that rarified realm of business would be held as unconscionable? We're in a world where heinous acts are being committed on people! Little backroom deals in smoke filled windowless rooms with hands shook under the table PALE by comparison! JimD
Indefensible to the bureacrats? Posted May 13, 2004 0:30 UTC (Thu) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link] "We're talking about... a bloodless, inhumane world without a sole."And yet, paradoxically, it's still fishy as hell.
|
|||||||||||