The suit, filed in Utah's Third District Court in Salt Lake City, accuses Novell of slander and seeks an order that would require Novell to assign to SCO all Unix-related copyrights and to withdraw any statements claiming ownership of Unix.
SCO rattled the technology world last year when it filed a $3bn (£1.65bn) lawsuit against IBM, claiming that the computing giant illegally incorporated into its Linux software source code from the Unix OS, which SCO controls. Novell became an early combatant in the dispute, claiming that it retained certain copyrights when it sold the Unix rights to SCO.
The companies have continued to clash over Unix ownership claims, as Novell has deepened its investment in Linux, most recently with its purchase of No. 2 Linux seller SuSE Linux.
"SCO takes this action today, given Novell's recent and repeated announcements regarding their claimed ownership of the Unix and UnixWare copyrights," SCO lawyer Mark Heise said in a statement. "SCO has received many questions about Novell's actions from potential customers, investors and the press. Although SCO owns the Unix and UnixWare copyrights, Novell's efforts to claim ownership of these copyrights has forced this action."
A Novell spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit but said the company stands behind its earlier statements regarding its Unix position. Novell has said the US Copyright Office granted the company copyright registrations for 11 versions of System V Unix, giving Novell a substantial ownership position.
Novell bought Unix from AT&T in the 1980s and sold at least some rights to a predecessor of SCO in 1995. Novell claims that it retained some rights to Unix and related works; SCO claims that it bought all rights to Unix and that any Unix-related copyrights granted to Novell are therefore invalid.
The lawsuit accuses Novell of "slander of title" for continuing to suggest that it has a stake in Unix. "Novell, with full knowledge of SCO's exclusive ownership of copyrights related to Unix and UnixWare, has embarked on a malicious campaign to damage SCO's ability to protect its valuable copyrights in Unix and UnixWare," according to the claim. "Novell's wrongful claims of copyrights and ownership in Unix and UnixWare [have caused], and continue to cause, irreparable harm to SCO."
The suit seeks unspecified punitive damages and injunctions that would transfer to SCO any Unix-related copyrights obtained by Novell and bar Novell from "representing in any forum that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in Unix and UnixWare copyrights."
The lawsuit comes on the eve of the LinuxWorld trade show in New York, where Novell is set to play a prominent role following its acquisitions of SuSE and desktop Linux specialist Ximian.
SCO's latest actions weren't met warmly by LinuxWorld Conference and Expo attendees.
"I think SCO's business model is all about lawsuits," said John Harlow, president of software consulting company BravePoint. "Nobody is going to buy their products."
SCO lobbed a similar surprise before the August version of LinuxWord in San Francisco, when the company revealed steep licensing prices for those who wish to use Linux with SCO's blessing.
Lawyer Jefferson Scher, a specialist in intellectual property issues at law firm Carr & Ferrell, said the latest lawsuit may quickly be added to SCO's case against IBM.
"There is a chance the judge will say, 'Why are you here? Take this to the other court,'" Scher said. "I think it's logical for the court that's hearing the copyright case to decide if the plaintiff owns the copyright. This appears more like an attempt to get a restraining order."
Whatever court hears the case against Novell, the judge is likely to have a tough time sorting out the intent of Novell's 1995 transaction.
"Contracts like this are difficult enough to parse out at the time they're signed, let alone many years after," Scher said.
CNET News.com's Stephen Shankland contributed to this report.
Talkback
If SCO claims to own the copyrights then why did they beg Novell to transfer it to them ?
"We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently, you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
From the link below.
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/5_28_03_n-sco.pdf
If anyone should be sued for slander it should be SCO. They are a disgrace.
I am at a loss as to why SCO cannot be restrained, at this time, by the justice system. They have, as yet, still to prove any of their claims. There must be laws to say what they are doing is wrong and they should/must desist and use the courts properly to establish or debunk their assertions.
If their claims are solid, I would have expected to see more actual progress by now, rather than all this FUD activity which I regard as criminal.
No doubt the case may be legally complicated, even if it is morally simple, but you don't execute a murder suspect before before bringing him to trial and convicting him
Similarly SCO should not be able to threaten or extort (the suggested licence fee is excessive whatever the outcome) the LInux community when the facts have not been established.
So far as SCO products are concerned, I hope people vote with their feet and walk away from their products and services. Hardly a company to trust. Being a suspicious person, I still wonder where Microsoft is positioned in all this.
By reading the entire agreement between SCO and Novell one finds that the only copyrights that were ever transferred relate only to Users Manuals, Instruction Manuals, Datasheets, etc. Nowhere in the contract does Novell actually hand over copyrights to actual source code as to the reason they still maintain these copyrights which can be found at the US Copyright office and is publicly available. I think the judge in the IBM-SCO case has FINALLY put a gag order on SCO as to the reason for their recent silence. I do think that SCO prematurely pushing for licensing fees is criminal and may be actionable as we may very well see in Australia as Linux groups are taking it to their local legal authorities. Apparantly SCO has whacked a hornets nest and now are running for cover; rest assured the TRUTH will prevail and SCO will be bankrupt before it ever gets to actual trial.
that was a good question,where is microsoft positioned in all this.considering the fact that SCO was to be a member of the UnitedLinux consortium ,a move that would have consolidated the Linux market share in the server side of things ,i wonder what SCO's motivation in all this mess is!the lawsuit against IBM affected Suse directly,they are the only distributor that covers the IBM server range.my guess is that since Novell's acquisition of Suse,SCO might have decided to go for the jugular what with Novell pushing for the desktop market.the bottomline is that its a shame SCO doesn't want to see real progress towards secure computing!!(still the ? stands,where is microsoft in all this?)