|
<- Back | Last modified: Tue Aug 2 22:26:03 2005 |
ANSWER
In response to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.'s ("SCO") Amended Complaint filed July 9, 2004, Defendant Novell, Inc. ("Novell") pleads as follows:
1
10. Admitted.
2
[W]e demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions of
ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive
information regarding S CO's ownership claims.
3
this amendment is not present in
Novell's files. The amendment appears to support SCO's claim that
ownership of certain copyrights for UNIX did transfer to SCO in
1996. The amendment does not address ownership of patents, however,
which clearly remain with Novell.
4
5
6
7
1.
Novell admits that it entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement with
SCO's alleged predecessor in interest dated September 19, 1995. Each
and every other allegation in paragraph 1 is denied.
2. Novell
admits that Attachment E to the Asset Purchase Agreement provided a
list of approximately 106 copyright registrations. Novell denies that
Attachment E, alone or in connection with the Asset Purchase
Agreement, transferred any UNIX or UnixWare copyrights to SCO. Each
and every other allegation in paragraph 2 is denied.
3. Novell
admits that SCO has registered a claim to UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
with the United States Copyright Office. Each and every other
allegation in paragraph 3 is denied.
4. Novell
admits that Novell has registered its claim to UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights with the United States Copyright Office. Each and every
other allegation in paragraph 4 is denied.
5. Novell
admits that it has, in good faith, publicly stated its belief that it
owns UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Each and every other allegation in
paragraph 5 is denied.
6. Denied.
7. Denied.
8. Novell
denies that SCO is entitled to any relief under its Amended Complaint,
and each and every allegation in paragraph 8 is therefore denied.
9. Admitted.
11. Admitted.
12. Admitted.
13. Admitted.
14. Novell admits that Schedule 1.1(a)
to the Asset Purchase Agreement contains substantially the text quoted
by the Amended Complaint. (SCO's Amended Complaint contains a
typographical error, however: the first sentence of the quoted text
actually reads "all versions of UNIX and UnixWare and all
copies of UNIX and UnixWare.) Novell denies that this text acted to
transfer UNIX or UnixWare copyrights to SCO. Each and every other
allegation in paragraph 14 is denied.
15. Denied.
16. Denied
17. Denied.
18. Denied.
19. Novell
denies that it has made any false oath, misleading public
representation, or wrongful assertion of ownership rights, and on that
basis denies each and every allegation in paragraph 19, except as set
forth below:
a) Novell
admits that on May 28, 2003 Jack Messman sent a letter to Darl McBride
of SCO in order to assert Novell's claim to the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights and to protect Novell's interests and the interests of its
customers. This letter contained the following text:
Importantly, and contrary to SCO's
assertions, SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only
would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact,
but
a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO
confirms it. To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's
purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated
copyrights. 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. Finally, we find it telling that SCO failed
to assert a claim for copyright or patent infringement against
IBM.
On January 13, 2004, Novell made a copy
of this letter available on its website at www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html.
Novell is without further knowledge as to details of other publication
and therefore denies each and every allegation related thereto. Each
and every other allegation in paragraph 19(a) is denied.
b) Novell admits that on June 6, 2003, SCO sent
Novell a letter pertaining to Amendment 2 and the Asset Purchase
Agreement. Each and every other allegation in paragraph 19(b) is
denied.
c) Novell admits that on June 6, 2003, it issued
a press release containing the following text:
In a May 28th letter to SCO, Novell
challenged SCO's claims to UNIX patent and copyright ownership and
demanded that SCO substantiate its allegations that Linux infringes
SCO's intellectual property rights. Amendment #2 to the 1995
SCO-Novell Asset Purchase Agreement was sent to Novell last night by
SCO. To Novell's knowledge,
Each and every other allegation in
paragraph 19(c) is denied.
d)
Responding to a threat by SCO to sue Novell for federal securities
fraud conveyed in SCO's June 6, 2003 letter, Novell admits that Joseph
LaSala sent a letter to Darl McBride on June 6, 2003, containing the
following text:
Your letter contains absurd and
unfounded accusations against Novell and others, coupled with a veiled
threat to publicly state those allegations in a SCO press call to be
held today at 11:00 am EST. Novell continues to demand that SCO cease
and desist its practice of making unsubstantiated allegations,
including the allegations contained in your letter of June 6, 2003.
Each and every other allegation in
paragraph 19(d) is denied.
e) Responding to a subsequent press
release issued by SCO, Novell admits that Joseph LaSala sent a letter
to Darl McBride on June 26, 2003, containing the following text:
SCO's statements [claiming to own "the
patents, copyrights, and core technology associated with the UNIX
system"] are simply wrong. We acknowledge, as noted in our June 6
public statement, that Amendment No. 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement
appears to support a claim that Santa Cruz Operation had the right to
acquire some copyrights from Novell. Upon closer scrutiny, however,
Amendment No. 2 raises as many questions as it answers. Indeed, what
is most certainly not the case is that "any question of
whether UNIX copyrights were transferred to SCO as part of the Asset
Purchase Agreement was clarified in Amendment No. 2" (as SCO stated in
its June 6 press release). And there is no indication whatsoever that
SCO owns all the patents associated with UNIX or UnixWare.
We are still reviewing the Asset
Purchase Agreement and other materials to determine the actual scope
of rights transferred to SCO. In the meantime, we wish to make clear
that we do not agree with SCO's public statement on this
matter.
Each and every other allegation in
paragraph 19(e) is denied.
f) SCO
subsequently registered claims to the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights
with the United States Copyright Office. Responding to that
registration, Novell admits that Joseph LaSala sent a letter to Darl
McBride on August 4, 2003, containing the following text:
We dispute SCO's claim to ownership of
these copyrights. The Asset Purchase Agreement, in Schedule 1.1(b),
contains a general exclusion of copyrights from the assets transferred
to Santa Cruz Operation. Amendment No. 2 provides an exception to that
exclusion, but only for "copyrights...required for [Santa Cruz
Operation] to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of
UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
In other words, under the Asset Purchase
Agreement and Amendment No. 2, copyrights were not transferred to
Santa Cruz Operation unless SCO could demonstrate that such a right
was "required for [Santa Cruz Operation]" to exercise the rights
granted to it in the APA. Santa Cruz Operation has never made such a
demonstration, and we certainly see no reason why Santa Cruz Operation
would have needed ownership of copyrights in UNIX System V in order to
exercise the limited rights granted SCO under the APA. Nor is there
any reason to think that a transfer of the copyrights required for SCO
to exercise its APA rights necessarily entails transfer of the entire
set of exclusive rights associated with a particular copyrighted
computer program.
Unless and until SCO is able to
establish that some particular copyright right is "required" for SCO
to exercise its rights under the APA, SCO's claim to ownership of any
copyrights in UNIX technologies must be rejected, and ownership of
such rights instead remains with Novell.
g) Responding to SCO's copyright registrations,
Novell admits that it has registered its claim to the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights enumerated in paragraph 19(g). Each and every
other allegation in paragraph 19(g) is denied.
h) Admitted.
i) In response to a public claim by SCO that
Novell had conceded the superiority of SCO's claim to the UNIX and
UnixWare copyrights, Novell admits it issued a press release on
December 22, 2003, containing the following text:
Novell believes it owns the copyrights
in UNIX, and has applied for and received copyright registrations
pertaining to UNIX consistent with that position. Novell detailed the
basis for its ownership position in correspondence with SCO. Copies of
our correspondence, and SCO's reply, are available here. Contrary to
SCO's public statements, as demonstrated by this correspondence, SCO
has been well aware that Novell continues to assert ownership of the
UNIX copyrights.
Each and every other allegation in
paragraph 19(i) is denied.
j) On
January 13, 2004 Novell announced a Linux Indemnification Program. In
connection with this offer, Novell issued a press release clarifying
its beliefs as to its legal rights concerning the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights. The press release contained the following:
Novell also made available today
additional information on the unique contractual and intellectual
property rights it holds because of its position in the historical
ownership chain of UNIX and UnixWare. These rights include:
to authorize its customers to use
that UNIX technology in their internal
business operations.
Copies of relevant correspondence
between Novell and SCO are available at
www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html.
The rights reflected in these documents
are part of the foundation for the indemnification program Novell is
announcing today.
Each and every other allegation in
paragraph 19(i) is denied.
k) Admitted.
20. Denied.
21. Novell
denies that it has made any wrongful claims of copyrights and
ownership in UNIX and UnixWare and that SCO is entitled to any relief
under its Amended Complaint, and each and every allegation in
paragraph 21 is therefore denied.
Novell incorporates by reference the
answers contained in paragraphs 1 - 21 as if they were set forth here
in full.
23. Denied.
24. Denied.
25. Denied.
26. Denied.
27. Denied.
28. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Privilege)
30. The
Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is
barred due to absolute and conditional privileges enjoyed by Novell.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel)
31. The
Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is
barred, in whole or in part, by the
equitable doctrine of estoppel.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 32. The
Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is
barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 33. The
Amended Complaint, and each of its purported causes of action, is
barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 34. To
the extent that SCO did sustain any damages, which Novell denies, such
damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the comparative fault of
SCO and/or third parties,
8
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 35. To
the extent that SCO did sustain any damages, which Novell denies, such
damages were caused, in whole or in part, by SCO's failure to mitigate
any damages it may have suffered, which failure to mitigate bars
and/or diminishes SCO's right to any relief against Novell.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 36. To
the extent SCO has suffered any injury or damage, which Novell denies,
such injury or damage was not proximately caused by any conduct or
inaction of Novell, or was not foreseeable, or both.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE 37. The
Amended Complaint, and each of the purported causes of action, is
barred, in whole or in part, by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Novell prays for judgment as follows:
41. That
the Court grant Novell such other and further relief to which Novell
may be
9
COUNTERCLAIMS
Novell counterclaims against SCO as follows:
PARTIES
JURISDICTION
10
VENUE
FACTS
12
C. The Asset Purchase Agreement Between Novell and The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
13
16. One such obligation that Santa Cruz assumed under the APA was responsibility for administering the collection of royalty payments from SVRX licenses. The APA provided that Santa Cruz shall collect and pass through to Novell 100% of the SVRX royalties. In return, Novell agreed to pay Santa Cruz an administrative fee of 5% of those royalty amounts. Santa Cruz also agreed to pay additional royalties relating to other products.
14
Novell and Santa Cruz were the only parties to the APA and its Amendments. SCO was not a party to the APA or its Amendments. SCO was originally incorporated on August 21, 1998 as a company called Caldera Systems, a developer and provider of Linux-based business solutions. SCO purports to be the successor in interest to Santa Cruz under the APA and its Amendments. This dispute is about Novell's rights under the APA and whether SCO breached its obligations as the alleged successor of Santa Cruz.
15
16
E. The Sale of Certain Santa Cruz Assets to Caldera Systems
17
33. Caldera incurred significant financial losses during its fiscal years 2000, 2001 and 2002. Caldera suffered losses from operations totaling $32 million in 2000, $133 million in 2001 and $24 million in 2002.
18
19
b. On May 14, 2003, SCO stated in a press release, "[SCO], the owner of the UNIX operating system, today warned that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of UNIX and that legal liability for the use of Linux may extend to commercial users."
20
d. During
at least June and July, 2003, SCO wrongfully registered copyrights in
UNIX and UnixWare releases owned by Novell. These registrations
related to UNIX System V release 3.0, UNIX System V release 3.1, UNIX
System V release 3.2, UNIX System V release 3.2/386, UNIX System V
release 4.0, UNIX System V release 4.1, UNIX System V release 4.1ES,
UNIX System V release 4.2, UNIX System V release 4.2MP, and UnixWare
7.1.3.
21
21
(Unclean Hands)
(Laches)
(Comparative Fault)
which thus bars SCO's recovery for said
damages or diminishes such recovery by the amount of fault
attributable to SCO and/or those third parties.
(Failure to Mitigate)
(No Causation)
(U.S. Const. Amend. I)
That SCO
take nothing by the Amended Complaint;
That the
Court enter judgment in favor of Novell and against SCO, dismissing
with prejudice the Amended Complaint and each of its causes of action;
That the
Court award Novell its reasonable expenses and costs incurred,
including without limitation attorneys' fees, in defending against the
Amended Complaint; and
entitled as a matter of law or which the Court deems just and proper.
1.
Counterclaim-plaintiff Novell, Inc. ("Novell") is a Delaware
corporation that was incorporated in 1983. Its headquarters and
principal executive offices are located in Waltham,
Massachusetts. Novell's principal product development facility is
located in Provo, Utah.
Novell also has offices in numerous
cities worldwide.
2. Counterclaim-defendant The SCO Group,
Inc. ("SCO") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Utah County, State of Utah.
3. This
Court has original jurisdiction over SCO's Amended Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
4. This
Court has jurisdiction over Novell's counterclaims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (arising under
the Federal Copyright Act), 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental
jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202 (declaratory
judgment). Novell's slander of title claim involves questions of, and
arises under, federal law. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over Novell's state law claims of breach of contract, accounting,
restitution and slander of title.
5. Venue
is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
1391(c) and 1400(a), in that SCO resides or may be found in this
district and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
A. UNIX
6. UNIX is the name of a computer operating system originally developed beginning in the late 1960s by a group of software engineers at AT&T's Bell Laboratories. Over time, AT&T licensed its UNIX family of operating systems to universities, corporations, other entities and individuals.
7. In 1993 AT&T sold its UNIX assets, held by its subsidiary UNIX System Laboratories ("USL"), to Novell. This transfer of assets to Novell included UNIX copyrights, trademarks and all active UNIX licensing agreements, including contracts relating to the most recent version of the UNIX operating system called UNIX System V. At the time there had been several major releases of System V, including Releases 1, 2, 3 and 4, also referred to as SVR1, SVR2, SVR3 and SVR4, or generically as SVRx.
B. Linux
8. Linux is the name of a computer operating system, originally developed beginning in the early 1990s when Linus Torvalds, an undergraduate student at the University of Helsinki, began writing the Linux kernel, or the core of the Linux operating system. He released the first version of the Linux kernel on the Internet in 1991. Since then, thousands of software programmers around the world have engaged in a collaborative effort to further develop Linux.
9. Linux was developed as open-source software and has become a popular alternative to proprietary operating systems. Unlike with other major operating systems, the underlying source code of Linux is available to the public.
10. In 1995, Novell and a company called The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ("Santa Cruz") entered into negotiations over the sale of certain business assets of Novell relating to its UNIX and UnixWare software products.
Santa Cruz was a California corporation that was incorporated in 1979. It was founded as a UNIX system porting and consulting company and began to ship its first product, a packaged version of the UNIX operating system, in 1983. In 1993 Santa Cruz completed an initial public offering and became a publicly-listed company on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange.
12. On September 19, 1995, Novell and Santa Cruz executed an Asset Purchase Agreement ("APA"). The APA provided each party with certain rights and obligations.
13. The parties entered into two Amendments to the APA. On December 6, 1995, Novell and Santa Cruz executed "Amendment No. 1." Novell and Santa Cruz subsequently executed "Amendment No. 2" on October 16, 1996.
Under the APA and its Amendments, and subject to various conditions and exclusions set forth therein, Santa Cruz obtained a variety of assets, including assignment of tens of thousands of contracts and licenses, various trademarks, source code and binaries to UNIX and UnixWare products, and physical assets such as furniture and personal computers. The obtained assets also included the right for Santa Cruz to develop a "Merged Product."
Santa Cruz did not have the financial capacity to pay the purchase price contemplated by Novell for these acquired assets and rights. In order to bridge the price gap and
consummate the transaction, Novell and Santa Cruz agreed that Novell would receive Santa Cruz stock and retain certain rights as protection. For example (and as discussed further below), Novell retained the right to receive royalty payments under SVRX licenses, prior approval rights relating to new SVRX licenses and amended SVRX licenses, the right to direct Santa Cruz to take certain actions relating to SVRX licenses and the right to conduct audits of the SVRX license program. Santa Cruz assumed several related obligations.
Novell retained certain assets under the APA. Schedule 1.1(b), which lists "Excluded Assets" under the agreement, specifies that Novell retained "all copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare," "all patents," and "all right, title and interest to the SVRX Royalties, less the 5% fee for administering the collection thereof."
18. Novell also retained rights to supervise Santa Cruz's administration of SVRX licenses. Novell retained the "sole discretion" to direct Santa Cruz to amend, supplement, modify, waive or assign any rights under or to the SVRX licenses; if Santa Cruz fails to take any such action, the APA specifically granted Novell the right to take these actions on behalf of Santa Cruz. Novell retained the right to veto Santa Cruz's attempts to amend SVRX licenses, subject to two exceptions, as noted below. Novell also retained the right to veto Santa Cruz's attempts to enter into new SVRX licenses, subject to one exception, as noted below.
19. The APA gave Novell the right to confirm Santa Cruz's compliance with its contractual obligations under the SVRX licensing program. The APA explicitly provided that Novell "shall be entitled to conduct periodic audits" of Santa Cruz "concerning all royalties and payments due to Seller hereunder or under the SVRX Licenses." The APA required Santa Cruz to "diligently seek to collect all such royalties, funds and other amounts when due" and to "investigate and perform appropriate auditing and enforcement." The APA also required Santa Cruz to provide Novell monthly reports detailing the SVRX royalties it received.
D. Novell's Ownership of the UNIX Copyrights
21. The APA transferred certain assets from Novell to Santa Cruz. However, as specified by Section V.A of Schedule 1.1(b) to the APA, certain assets were excluded from the transfer. Among the "Excluded Assets" from the APA asset transfer were "[a]ll copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks UNIX and UnixWare."
The APA as executed on September 19, 1995 therefore does not transfer any copyrights.
Novell and Santa Cruz later executed Amendment No. 2 to the APA. Amendment No. 2 modifies Section V.A of Schedule 1.1(b) to provide that Excluded Assets include:
All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies.
24. Neither Amendment No. 2 nor the APA as modified by Amendment No. 2 were intended to, nor do they actually, transfer ownership of the UNIX or UnixWare copyrights owned by Novell at the time of the APA and its Amendments ("UNIX Copyrights").
25. Neither Amendment No. 2 nor the APA as modified by Amendment No. 2 qualify as "an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer" under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) for at least the following reasons:
a. Amendment No. 2 merely amends the schedule of excluded assets and therefore does not, itself, constitute a transfer of any asset.
b. Neither Amendment No. 2 nor the modified APA identifies "the copyrights and trademarks owned by [Novell] as of the date of the Agreement required for Santa Cruz to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
c. Neither Amendment No. 2 nor the modified APA contains any language suggesting a contemporaneous transfer of any copyright. To the contrary, the APA provides only that certain assets "will" be transferred.
d. Neither Amendment No. 2 nor the modified APA provides a date for any purported transfer of copyrights.
26. Title to the UNIX Copyrights therefore remains with Novell.
27. By and during early 2003, SCO repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the UNIX Copyrights to SCO. In doing so, SCO conceded that title to the UNIX Copyrights remains exclusively with Novell. Novell rejected all of SCO's requests.
28. During the second quarter of its fiscal year 2000, Santa Cruz restructured its business into three divisions: the Server Software division, the Professional Services division and the Tarantella division. The Server Software division included Santa Cruz's UNIX-related business.
29. On August 1, 2000, Santa Cruz entered into an agreement with Caldera Systems, under which Caldera Systems acquired Santa Cruz's Server Software and Professional Services divisions. With the acquisition, Caldera Systems planned to add Santa Cruz's UNIX server solutions and services to its Linux business.
30. On May 7, 2001, pursuant to an amendment to the agreement between Santa Cruz and Caldera Systems, Caldera International ("Caldera") was formed as a holding company to own Caldera Systems, including the assets, liabilities and operations of Santa Cruz's Server Software and Professional Services divisions.
F. Caldera's Financial Woes and Its Shift in Business Strategy Under New Leadership
31. Prior to Caldera's acquisition of Santa Cruz's Server Software and Professional Services divisions, substantially all of Caldera's revenue was derived from sales of Linux products and services. However, Caldera had been unsuccessful in creating a profitable Linux business.
32. After the acquisition of Santa Cruz's Server Software and Professional Services divisions, most of Caldera's revenue came from UNIX products and services, including 90% of
Caldera's total revenue at the end of fiscal year 2001 and 95% of Caldera's total revenue at the end of fiscal year 2002. But Caldera's revenue from the sale of UNIX-based products declined in the fiscal quarters following the acquisition. Caldera experienced significant decreases in actual and forecasted revenue of the acquired Santa Cruz operations.
In June 2002, Caldera hired Darl McBride as its President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. McBride was responsible for the company's strategic direction and planning.
On our about the time of Mr. McBride's arrival at Caldera, Caldera began to pursue a new business strategy for the company, launching a rebranding effort of its products and services as well as its corporate image.
On August 26, 2002, Caldera announced that it would change its name to The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), pending shareholder approval. On or about that time, Caldera then began doing business as SCO. Caldera soon thereafter changed its trading symbol on the NASDAQ Stock Exchange from "CALD" to "SCOX." Caldera's name change was formalized on May 16, 2003, when Caldera's shareholders approved an amendment to Caldera's certificate of incorporation that changed the company's name to SCO.
As part of Caldera's rebranding efforts and shift in business strategy, Caldera purportedly initiated a review of its intellectual property rights. This effort culminated in the launching of a licensing initiative, which it called SCOsource, in January 2003. SCOsource, as described in further detail below, was an effort by Caldera to expand the revenue base of a company that had never before been profitable.
G. SCO's Requests to Novell To Assist in a Licensing Scheme and To Transfer the UNIX Copyrights
38.
In late 2002, SCO repeatedly contacted Novell in connection with SCO's
soon-to-be-announced SCOsource campaign. SCO requested copies of
certain documentation concerning rights to UNIX, including the
agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz. SCO also expressed its
interest in a campaign to assert UNIX infringement claims against
users of Linux. SCO asked Novell to assist SCO in a Linux licensing
program, under which SCO contemplated extracting a license fee from
Linux end users to use the UNIX intellectual property purportedly
contained in Linux. Novell refused to participate.
39. In aid of its scheme, SCO requested that
Novell transfer its UNIX Copyrights to SCO and thereby acknowledged
that it did not own the UNIX Copyrights. SCO contacted Novell on
multiple occasions by and during early 2003. For example, SCO's CEO,
Darl McBride, repeatedly contacted Novell and asked Novell to amend
the Novell-Santa Cruz agreement to give SCO the UNIX
Copyrights. Novell rejected all of these requests.
H. SCO's Scheme To Claim Ownership of the UNIX Copyrights
40. Notwithstanding Novell's rejections, SCO
embarked on an aggressive campaign in which it falsely asserted
ownership over these same copyrights via public statements, a series
of letters to Linux end users, several lawsuits against Linux
distributors and end users, and a licensing program purporting to
offer SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses for Linux.
41. SCO's misleading and wrongful public assertions of ownership include the following:
a. On
March 7, 2003, SCO stated in a press release, "In 1995, SCO purchased
the rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare that had been
originally owned by AT&T. This included source code, source documentation, software development contracts, licenses and other intellectual property that pertained to UNIX-related business.... 'SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system,' said Darl McBride, president and CEO, SCO."
On June 6, 2003, SCO stated in a press release, "[SCO], the owner of
the UNIX(R) operating system, today
confirmed its previously stated ownership of UNIX copyrights. As SCO
has consistently maintained, all rights to the UNIX and UnixWare
technology, including the copyrights, were transferred to SCO as part
of the Asset Purchase Agreement between Novell and SCO dated September
19, 1995. Any question of whether the UNIX copyrights were transferred
to SCO under the Asset Purchase Agreement was clarified in Amendment
No. 2 to the Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 16, 1996.
`This amendment simply confirms SCO's
long stated position that it owns all copyrights associated with the
UNIX and UnixWare businesses,' said Chris Sontag, senior vice
president and general manager, SCOsource intellectual property
division, SCO.
'SCO is the owner of the UNIX operating
system, as well as all of the UNIX contracts, claims and copyrights
necessary to conduct that business,' said Sontag. `None of the
litigation we are currently involved with asserts claims based on
copyrights. Because others have called into question SCO's ownership
of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights, we are satisfied that we have now
proven without a doubt that SCO owns those copyrights.'
On January 13, 2004, SCO stated, "[SCO] today reiterated its ownership of UNIX intellectual property, source code, claims and copyrights and has made all of the documents surrounding the companies' ownership of UNIX and UnixWare available for public viewing at www.sco.com/novell."
f. On January 28, 2004, in its Form 10-K filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, SCO stated, "We own the UNIX operating system and are a provider of UNIX-based products and services.
We acquired our rights to the UNIX source code and derivative works and other intellectual property rights when we purchased substantially all of the assets and operations of the server and professional services groups of The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., in May 2001. The Santa Cruz Operation (now known as Tarantella, Inc.) had previously acquired such UNIX source code and other intellectual property rights from Novell in September 1995, which were initially developed by AT&T Bell Labs. Through this process, we acquired all UNIX source code, source code license agreements with thousands of UNIX vendors, all UNIX copyrights, all claims for violation of the above mentioned UNIX licenses and copyrights and other claims, and the control over UNIX derivative works...."
42. As part of SCO's scheme to claim ownership of the UNIX copyrights, SCO has falsely claimed that Novell acquiesced to SCO's claims. For example, on July 21, 2003, Darl McBride stated in a public interview:
Interviewer: Well, Novell would say that you actually don't own those copyrights fully.
McBride: Yeah, well, the Novell thing, they, they came out and made a claim that held up for about four days and then we put that one to bed. If you go talk to Novell today, I'll guarantee you what they'll say, which is they don't have a claim on those copyrights.
43. Novell has not acquiesced to SCO's claims, as recited in SCO's own Amended Complaint. (Amended Complaint PI 19(d)-(e).) To the contrary, Novell was vigorously
contesting those claims in private
correspondence with SCO at the very same time SCO was publicly
claiming otherwise. For example:
a. On May
12, 2003, SCO's CEO Darl McBride sent Novell a letter asserting that
it owned the UNIX copyrights and that Linux end users were infringing
those copyrights.
b. On May
28, 2003, Novell's CEO, Jack Messman, responded by letter, asserting
in no uncertain terms that "SCO is not the owner of the UNIX
copyrights."
c. After SCO registered its claim to the UNIX
copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office, Novell's General Counsel,
Joseph LaSala wrote to SCO, again disputing its claim to ownership of
the copyrights. In his August 4, 2003, letter, LaSala stated, "We
dispute SCO's claim to ownership of these copyrights."
44. In
September and October 2003, Novell attempted to protect its rightful
ownership of the UNIX Copyrights, and to correct SCO's erroneous
registrations claiming ownership, by filing its own copyright
registrations.
I. SCO's Scheme To
Extract Licensing Fees from Novell, the Linux Community and
UNIX Vendors
45. A
significant aspect of SCO's rebranding efforts and new business
strategy was its adoption of a scheme to extract "licenses" from the
UNIX and Linux communities based on claims to own intellectual
property specifically reserved to Novell, i.e., the UNIX
Copyrights. SCO proceeded on its own in this scheme after Novell
rebuffed SCO's overtures to participate.
22
47. Under the
SCOsource licensing program, SCO seeks to enter into license
agreements with UNIX vendors and offers Intellectual Property Licenses
to Linux end users ("Intellectual Property Licenses"). The purported
purpose of these licenses is to allow UNIX vendors to use SCO's UNIX
intellectual property and to permit Linux end users to "properly
compensate us for our UNIX intellectual property as currently found in
Linux." One term of SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses for Linux is
that licensees "will be held harmless against past and future
copyright violations based on their use of SCO's intellectual property
... in Linux distributions ...."
23
48. SCO
charges a sizeable licensing fee for SCO's Intellectual Property
Licenses for Linux. For example, for a server with 8 CPUs, the initial
licensing fee is $4,999, with $1,079 payable every year after that.
49. As
part of its SCOsource initiative, SCO filed a lawsuit against IBM on
March 7, 2003, asserting, among other things, UNIX Copyrights that SCO
does not own. SCO has alleged that it owns the UNIX Copyrights and
that IBM's contributions to Linux and use of Linux infringe these
copyrights.
50. As
part of the SCOsource program, SCO entered into at least two license
agreements. These licenses related to the use of UNIX technology by
the licensees. The first of these licenses was with Sun Microsystems,
Inc. ("Sun"). The second license was with Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft") and purportedly covers Microsoft's UNIX compatibility
products. On
information and belief, through these
licenses SCO broadened the rights of Sun and Microsoft to use SVRX
code.
51. The
Sun and Microsoft licenses resulted in significant revenue for SCO and
produced the first profitable quarter in SCO's history. During the
fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2003, SCO recognized $8,250,000 in
revenue from these two new licenses. In addition, these licenses
accounted for $25,846,000 of SCO's revenue in fiscal year 2003.
52. As
part of the SCOsource program, in May 2003, SCO sent letters to 1,500
of the world's largest corporations threatening suit based on its
alleged ownership of the UNIX Copyrights ("End User Letters"). On May
12, 2003, SCO sent one of these letters to IBM, and sent another
letter to Novell. On information and belief, all of the End User
Letters were nearly identical in content to the IBM and Novell
letters.
53. In
the End User Letters, SCO made the false and misleading statement that
"SCO holds the rights to the UNIX operating system software originally
licensed by AT&T to approximately 6,000 companies and institutions
worldwide (the `UNIX Licenses')."
54. In
the End User Letters, SCO also made the unsupported assertion that "We
[SCO] have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have
been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX
System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux,
seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source."
55. After
setting forth these alleged facts in the End User Letters, SCO
erroneously concluded that "Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual
property and other rights." According to SCO, end users of Linux were
liable for this alleged infringement whether-or not they participated
in any contribution of UNIX System V software code into Linux.
24
57. Shortly
after the inception of its letter writing campaign, SCO brought suit
against Autozone and Daimler Chrysler, both Linux end users. In these
lawsuits, SCO has made substantially the same allegations as set forth
in its letters. In the Autozone lawsuit, SCO has alleged that
"[Autozone] uses one or more versions of the Linux operating system
that infringe on SCO's exclusive rights in its proprietary UNIX System
V operating system technology." ln the Daimler-Chrysler lawsuit, SCO
has alleged that Daimler-Chrysler's use of the Linux operating system
violates the UNIX license between Daimler-Chrysler and SCO.
25
58.
Novell has established a Linux Indemnification Program under which it
offers indemnification for copyright infringement claims made by third
parties against qualifying, registered Novell customers of the SUSE
LINUX Enterprise Server 8, SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 9, SUSE LINUX
Retail Solution, and Novell Linux Desktop products.
59. SCO
has continued to pursue its SCO source initiative with other industry
participants that it believes will lead to additional licensing
agreements. On information and belief, via this campaign, SCO has
convinced several Linux end users to participate in its licensing
program, obtain purported licenses to use "SCO's intellectual property
contained in
Linux," and thereby avoid suit by
SCO. In fiscal years 2004 and 2005, SCO generated additional revenue
from sales of its SCOsource Intellectual Property Licenses.
J.
SCO's Breaches of the Asset Purchase Agreement
60. SCO's
misguided campaign has led SCO, as the alleged successor of Santa
Cruz, to breach its obligations under the APA and its Amendments.
61. Novell
has performed its obligations under the APA and its Amendments.
62. SCO or
Santa Cruz has received adequate consideration for its duties under
the APA and its Amendments.
26
a. Any
amendments and modifications to SVRX licenses, and in particular the
amendments to the Sun and Microsoft SVRX licenses. Novell specifically
requested (1) "copies of the Sun and Microsoft amendments to verify
SCO's compliance" with the APA and (2) "a detailed explanation of
SCO's position" if SCO contends that either of the two exceptions to
the prohibition on unilateral amendments by SCO were applicable.
27
28
Breach of Obligation To Remit Royalties Under Sections 1.2(b) and 4.16(a)
29
b. Any
buy-out of SVRX licenses, and in particular any information concerning
any buy-out of Sun's and Microsoft's royalty obligations under their
SVRX licenses. Novell specifically requested that SCO identify any
potential buy-out transactions so that Novell could verify SCO's
compliance with the APA.
c. Any new
SVRX licenses, and in particular SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses
for Linux. Novell specifically requested (1) "copies of all SCO
Intellectual Property Licenses for Linux, and any other agreements
connected with attempts by SCO to enter into new SVRX Licenses, so
Novell can verify SCO's compliance" with the APA and (2) "a detailed
explanation of SCO's position" if SCO contends that the exception to
the prohibition on new SVRX licenses by SCO was applicable.
d. Any SVRX
to UnixWare Conversions. Novell specifically requested that SCO (1)
identify and provide documentation for any allegedly valid conversions
and (2) "explain in detail" how the alleged conversion
complies with the APA and (3) provide
"a detailed explanation of SCO's position" if SCO contends that any
exception to the prohibition on conversion by SCO was
applicable.
68. Novell
renewed its November 21, 2003 demand on December 29, 2003 and again on
February 4, 2004.
69. On
February 5, 2004, SCO conveyed its refusal to provide at least the
information identified in subparagraphs a, b, and c of Paragraph 67,
above.
70. On
March 1, 2004, Novell again contacted SCO for the above categories of
information: "In order to complete our audit, we need the Sun,
Microsoft and any other Intellectual Property Licenses for
Linux. Stated more categorically, we need all agreements in which SCO
purported to grant rights with respect to Unix System V." Novell noted
that SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses for Linux appeared to be
SVRX Licenses since they purported to grant rights relating to UNIX
System V or UnixWare.
71. Novell
again sent a letter to SCO on April 2; 2004 urging a response.
72. On
November 17, 2004, Novell contacted SCO yet again:
We have communicated with SCO several
times about our concerns with SCO's handling of UNIX licenses,
including the license with Sun. In these communications, we have noted
that our audit rights under the Asset Purchase Agreement require SCO
to provide Novell with copies of any UNIX agreements (including
amendments) SCO has reached with Sun. We have sent you letters twice
on this issue (in March and April 2004), and have not received an
adequate response.
Accordingly, we must once again insist
that you provide us with copies of any agreements with Sun
(including
amendments) that relate to UNIX. We would appreciate a response by Friday, December 3, 2004.
73. Despite
Novell's repeated requests, SCO has never provided copies of the Sun
and Microsoft licenses, or amendments, or copies of SCO's Intellectual
Property Licenses for Linux or other agreements connected with
attempts by SCO to enter into new or amended SVRX licenses. SCO also
never provided any explanation why SCO was not obligated under the APA
to seek Novell's consent to amend or otherwise enter into new SVRX
agreements. As a result, Novell has been unable to verify SCO's
compliance with the APA, as Novell is entitled under the APA.
74.
Sections 1.2(b) and 4.16(a) of the APA obligate SCO to remit 100% of
"all royalties, fees and other amounts due under all SVRX Licenses to
Novell. "SVRX Licenses" are in turn
defined to include "[a]ll contracts relating to" the various UNIX
System releases and auxiliary products
enumerated at Schedule 1.1(a)(VI) and Attachment A to Amendment
No. 1. Under the APA, Novell has "all right, title and interest to the
SVRX Royalties, less the 5% fee for administering the collection
thereof."
75. SCO
has failed to remit to Novell all royalties owed under §§ 1.2(b) and
4.16(a) of the APA.
76. As SCO
admitted in its February 5, 2004 letter to Novell, SCO has entered
into "new" agreements with Sun and Microsoft.
77. On
information and belief, these new agreements are "contracts relating
to" the various UNIX System releases and auxiliary products enumerated
at Schedule 1.1(a)(VI) and
Attachment A to Amendment No. 1. The new agreements are therefore SVRX Licenses under the APA.
78. SCO has not remitted any royalties from its new SVRX Licenses with Sun or Microsoft.
In addition, SCO has entered into Intellectual Property Licenses with a variety of parties. For example, on March 1, 2004, SCO announced an intellectual property licensing agreement with ` EV 1 Servers.Net" that purportedly grants that company a site license to use SCO's intellectual property on all Linux servers managed by EV l Servers.Net in its hosting facilities.
On information and belief, SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses are "contracts relating to" the various UNIX System releases and auxiliary products enumerated at Schedule 1.1(a)(VI) and Attachment A to Amendment No. 1. The Intellectual Property Licenses are therefore SVRX Licenses under the APA. SCO has not remitted any royalties from these SVRX Licenses.
81. Among other changes to the APA, Amendment No. 1 added § 1.2(e), which provides that SCO has a right to retain all "source code right to use fees attributable to new SVRX Licenses approved by [Novell] pursuant to Section 4.16(b)."
82. SCO has neither sought nor obtained Novell's approval to enter into any new SVRX license. Therefore, none of SCO's new SVRX Licenses fall within § 1.2(e)'s exception to S CO's general duty to remit 100% of SVRX royalties to Novell.
Breach of Section 4.16(b)'s Obligations
83. Section 4.16(b) of the APA reads in pertinent part:
31
84. SCO has threatened to cancel or terminate various parties' SVRX licenses and has purported to cancel or terminate certain parties' SVRX licenses. For example, on March 6, 2003, SCO sent a letter to IBM threatening to cancel or terminate IBM's SVRX license. On May 29, 2003, SCO sent a similar letter to Sequent Computer Systems ("Sequent").
85. SCO subsequently purported to cancel or terminate IBM's SVRX licenses as of June 13, 2003. On August 11, 2003, SCO sent a letter to Sequent similarly purporting to terminate Sequent's SVRX licenses.
86. SCO did not obtain Novell's prior written consent to cancel or terminate either SVRX license. Accordingly, on June 9, 2003, and again on October 7, 2003, Novell directed SCO to waive any purported right SCO claimed to have to terminate IBM's SVRX licenses. On February 6, 2004, Novell similarly directed SCO to waive certain of its purported rights under the lBM and Sequent SVRX licenses.
87. Following SCO's failure to take the actions identified in the preceding paragraphs, Novell elected to take actions on SCO's behalf, as Novell is empowered to do by § 4.16(b). Section 4.16(b) of the APA provides in pertinent part:
In the event that [SCO] shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, [Novell] shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on [SCO's] own behalf.
88. After SCO conveyed its refusal on February 11, 2004 to waive its purported rights against Sequent, Novell on the same day waived SCO's purported right to revoke any rights
32
89. SCO refuses to acknowledge Novell's right to take such actions on SCO's behalf
90. Under Section 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO shall not amend or modify any SVRX license "without the prior written consent of [Novell]." As modified by Amendment 1, Section 4.16(b) of the APA provides further that:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, [SCO] shall have the right to enter into amendments of the SVRX Licenses (i) as may be incidentally involved through its rights to sell and license UnixWare software or the Merged Product .. or future versions of the Merged Product, or (ii) to allow a licensee under a particular SVRX License to use the source code of the relevant SVRX product(s) on additional CPU's or to receive an additional distribution, from [SCO], of such source code.
In addition, [SCO] shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into new SVRX Licenses except in the situation specified in (i) of the preceding sentence as otherwise approved in writing in advance by [Novell] on a case by case basis.
91. On information and belief, SCO has entered into new SVRX Licenses with Sun, Microsoft and others (through, for example, S CO's Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users or UNIX vendors), or otherwise amended the Sun and Microsoft SVRX licenses.
92. SCO never sought advance approval from Novell to enter into these new SVRX Licenses or amendments thereof SCO also never explained why under the APA it was not obligated to obtain Novell's advance approval.
93. Under the APA, SCO also had no authority to enter into the Sun and Microsoft SVRX Licenses, or the Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors.
33
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Slander of Title)
94.
Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
99.
Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
34
Any buy-out or potential buy-out of SVRX licenses, and in particular any information concerning any buy-out of Sun and Microsoft's royalty obligations under their SVRX licenses;
SCO substantially and materially breached §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA by refusing to do so.
35
103. The legal remedies available to Novell for future failures by SCO to comply with its audit obligations under §§1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA may be inadequate. Therefore, Novell seeks an order from this Court compelling SCO's specific performance of its aforementioned audit obligations under §§1.2(b) and 1.2(f).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
104.
Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
Novell seeks an order from this Court compelling SCO's specific performance of its remittance obligations under §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the APA.
108. In addition, Novell seeks an order from the Court imposing a constructive trust on revenues received by SCO from its new SVRX Licenses with Sun and Microsoft and from its Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors. Creation of this trust is necessary to protect Novell from SCO's wrongful retention of monies owing Novell due to SCO's failure to perform its remittance obligations under §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the APA. As set forth above, Novell owns "all right, title and interest" to these royalties, less SCO's 5% administrative fee.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
111.
Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
37
a. Purporting to cancel or terminate SVRX licenses, including the IBM and Sequent SVRX licenses, and then refusing to waive these purported rights as directed by Novell; and
38
b. Purporting to enter into amendments of SVRX Licenses without Novell's prior approval, including agreements with Sun, Microsoft and other licensees of SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses, without demonstrating that a limited exception to the prohibition against amendments by SCO was applicable.
39
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
117.
Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
40
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
41
129. Under section 1.2(b) of the APA, Novell was entitled to "periodic audits" of SCO concerning "all royalties and payments due to [Novell] ...." Under section 4.16(a), SCO was required to "diligently seek to collect all [SVRX] royalties... and [to] investigate and perform appropriate auditing and enforcement under [the SVRX] licenses." SCO was also required to provide regular audit reports to Novell regarding the SVRX royalties and the other royalties under section 1.2(f) of the APA.
42
134. On information and belief, SCO has entered into new and/or amendments of the SVRX licenses with Sun and Microsoft, as well as with Linux end users under SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses. SCO failed to seek approval to enter into these licenses, and failed to explain why it was not obligated to obtain Novell's advance approval. Despite repeated requests by Novell to SCO to obtain the underlying information and documentation to verify SCO's APA compliance as part of the audit, SCO failed to report these licenses. This failure to report constitutes a substantial and material breach of the APA.
43
138. Novell therefore seeks an accounting for monies owed to Novell under the APA. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
44
For an order imposing a constructive trust on the revenues remitted to SCO under new or amended SVRX Licenses;
Counterclai [m]-plaintiff Novell hereby demands atrial by jury of any and all issues triable by a jury.
Michael A. Jacoi s
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Novell, Inc.
Brent O. Hatch
Kevin P. McBride
Stephen N. Zack
Robert Silver
DATED: July 29, 2005.
ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
<- Back
SCO made its public statements claiming ownership of the UNIX Copyrights, and improperly registered its claim to UNIX Copyrights, with knowledge that title to these copyrights remains with Novell.
96. SCO made such statements maliciously, in bad faith, and with intentional disregard for the truth.
97. SCO made such statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers of Novell not to do business with Novell, to slander and impugn the ownership rights of Novell in UNIX and UnixWare, and to attempt, in bad faith, to block Novell's ability to exercise its copyrights therein.
SCO's slander of Novell's title has resulted in special damages including, inter alia, Novell's costs and fees in preparing and filing copyright registrations and declarations correcting S CO's erroneous registrations claiming ownership of Novell's intellectual property and in prosecuting this action.
(Breach of Contract: §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the Asset Purchase Agreement)
100. Pursuant to its audit rights under the APA, Novell requested certain information from SCO to verify SCO's compliance with the APA, including:
a. Any amendments and modifications to SVRX licenses, and in particular the amendments to the Sun and Microsoft SVRX licenses, including a copy of these amendments and a detailed explanation of SCO's position if SCO contends that either of the two exceptions to the prohibition on unilateral amendments by SCO was applicable;
Any new SVRX licenses, and in particular S CO's new SVRX agreements with Sun and Microsoft and SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users or UNIX vendors, including copies of these agreements and a detailed explanation of S CO's position if SCO contends that the exception to the prohibition on new SVRX Licenses by SCO was applicable; and
Any SVRX to UnixWare Conversions, including documentation for any allegedly valid conversions, a detailed explanation of how the alleged conversion complies with the APA and a detailed explanation of SCO's position if SCO contends that any of the exceptions to the prohibition on conversion by SCO were triggered.
101. Under the APA, SCO was obligated to provide all this information to Novell.
102.
On information and belief, SCO's breaches of §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA
have caused Novell damage in an amount to be later proven. In addition, these breaches have
caused Novell special damages, including, inter alia, the costs associated with making repeated requests for information necessary to confirm SCO's compliance with its contractual obligations to administer SVRX licensing program, conducting further reviews of the limited information provided by SCO, attempting to estimate royalties owing based upon incomplete information provided, and prosecuting this action.
(Breach of Contract: §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the Asset Purchase Agreement)
SCO has substantially and materially breached §§ 1.2(b) and 4.16(a) of the APA by failing to remit all royalties owed to Novell, including any royalties SCO obtained from its new SVRX Licenses with Sun or Microsoft or from its Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users or UNIX vendors.
On information and belief, SCO's breaches of §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the APA have caused Novell damage in an amount to be later proven. These breaches have caused Novell special damages, including, inter alia, the costs associated with attempting to ascertain from SCO the royalty amounts due to Novell, and with prosecuting this action.
The legal remedies available to Novell for future failures by SCO to comply with its royalty obligations under §§ 1.2(b) & 4.16(a) of the APA may be inadequate. Therefore,
This constructive trust should be imposed for the additional reason that SCO is quickly dissipating its assets. On information and belief, SCO's revenues are declining, its operational losses are increasing and its cash is dwindling quickly. SCO expects to have only $11 million in cash remaining for its business operations as of October 31, 2005, just a fraction of the revenue it purportedly generated as a result of its new SVRX Licenses with Sun and Microsoft.
110. Novell also seeks an order from the Court attaching SCO's assets pending adjudication of this claim because SCO is quickly dissipating its assets.
(Declaratory Relief: Rights and Duties under § 4.16(b) of the
Asset Purchase Agreement)
112. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell has the right, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive any rights under any SVRX Licenses. In the event that SCO fails to take any such 36
action at Novell's direction, § 4.16(b) gives Novell the right to take any action on SCO's own behalf. SCO refused to perform its corresponding duties under § 4.16(b) and substantially and materially breached § 4.16(b) by:
Refusing to recognize actions taken by Novell on SCO's behalf pursuant to § 4.16(b), including Novell's waiver of SCO's purported claims against IBM and Sequent.
113. Novell seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that:
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled, at its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees;
Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, Novell is entitled to waive on SCO's behalf SCO's purported claims against IBM, Sequent and other SVRX licensees, when SCO refuses to act as directed by Novell; and
c. SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's purported claims against IBM and Sequent.
114. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO is obligated to seek Novell's prior approval to enter into new SVRX Licenses or amendments of SVRX Licenses, subject to limited exception. SCO did not perform its corresponding duties under § 4.16(b) and substantially and materially breached § 4.16(b) by:
a. Purporting to enter into new SVRX licenses without Novell's prior approval, including agreements with Sun, Microsoft and other licensees of SCO' s Intellectual Property Licenses, without demonstrating that a limited exception to the prohibition against new licenses by SCO was applicable; and
115. Novell seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that:
a. Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO was obligated to seek Novell's prior approval to enter into new SVRX licenses or amendments to SVRX licenses, including SCO's agreements with Sun, Microsoft and other licensees of SCO's Intellectual Property Licenses; and
Under § 4.16(b) of the APA, SCO is obligated to seek Novell's prior approval to enter into new SVRX licenses or amendments to SVRX licenses, unless SCO can demonstrate to Novell that an exception to the prohibitions against new licenses and amendments by SCO is applicable.
116. Novell pleads in the alternative for a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201
that SCO had no authority to enter into the Sun and Microsoft SVRX Licenses, as well as the
Intellectual Property Licenses with Linux end users and UNIX vendors.
(Declaratory Relief: Rights and Obligations Under APA's Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing)
The APA incorporates a covenant of good faith and fair dealing whereby each party agrees to work with the other to fulfill the purposes of the contract.
The APA granted Novell broad audit rights to verify SCO's compliance with the APA, as well as rights to approve (subject to limited exception) new SVRX licenses and amendments to SVRX licenses. The APA also granted Novell the right to direct SCO to amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under any SVRX license, and to act on SCO's behalf if SCO fails to take such direction.
Under the APA, SCO was obligated to administer the SVRX License Program, subject to the additional duties provided in §§ 1.2(b), 1.2(f) and 4.16. SCO failed to abide by these obligations under the APA and therefore substantially and materially breached the APA's covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Novell seeks a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that SCO is obligated under the APA to:
a. Comply with Novell's exercise of its audit rights under §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) by providing information requested concerning new SVRX licenses and amendments to SVRX licenses;
Seek Novell's prior approval before entering into new SVRX licenses or amendments to SVRX licenses, or otherwise demonstrate to Novell that an
exception to the prohibition against new licenses or amendments by SCO is applicable;
c. Amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Novell in its sole discretion; and
d. Accept actions taken by Novell on SCO's behalf when SCO fails to take such action in subparagraph c, above, as directed by Novell.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Restitution/Unjust Enrichment)
122. Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
123. SCO has been unjustly enriched by retaining in part or in full portions of all SVRX Royalties to which Novell was entitled under the APA.
124. In addition, SCO has been unjustly enriched by retaining a 5% administrative fee for administering the SVRX License Program but having failed to fulfill its administrative auditing duties under the APA.
125. Novell seeks restitution of all monies constituting SCO's unjust enrichment.
126. Novell also seeks an order from the Court imposing a constructive trust on revenues SCO unjustly received by failing to perform its administrative auditing and remittance obligations under the APA.
(Accounting)
127. Novell incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if they were set forth here in full.
128. Under the APA, Novell and SCO shared the stream of revenues from the SVRX licenses. In particular, SCO agreed to collect and pass through to Novell 100% of the SVRX royalties as defined and described in Section 4.16 hereof, while Novell agreed to pay an administrative fee of 5% of the SVRX Royalties. SCO was also responsible for making additional royalties and payments to Novell.
Under the APA, the amounts due Novell were determined and verified on the basis of the audits required under the APA. The right to an accounting of the royalties and payments due to Novell under the SVRX licenses and other provisions of the APA was inherent in the APA.
131. SCO has failed to fulfill its duties under the audit provisions of the APA, and substantially and materially breached those provisions.
Between the time the APA was concluded and the present, there have been hundreds of customers responsible for making royalty payments to SCO under the SVRX Licenses or under other agreements relating to royalty bearing products. SCO was obligated under the APA to receive and administer these royalty payments and share them with Novell.
133. Under the APA, royalty payments under the SVRX licenses or other agreements relating to royalty bearing products were to be paid to Novell through SCO. The amount of royalties was calculated through a specified formula.
On information and belief, SCO has received royalties under the SVRX licenses which it consummated with Sun and Microsoft, as well as from Linux end users under S CO's Intellectual Property Licenses. SCO has not passed on to Novell the required 100% of the royalties it has received under these licenses. This failure to pay royalties also constitutes a substantial and material breach of the APA.
136. Because SCO has refused to provide Novell with a copy of these licenses, Novell is unable to allege with particularity the precise payment terms of the licenses or the corresponding amounts payable to Novell under these licenses pursuant to the APA. Without an accounting, it is therefore impracticable for Novell to name a fixed sum that is owing with respect to these licenses.
137. Given the large number of customers currently responsible for making royalty payments to SCO under the SVRX licenses or under other agreements relating to royalty bearing products, the complexity of the formulas by which these royalty payments are calculated, and the fact that SCO receives directly all these royalty payments without immediate notice to Novell, it is impracticable for Novell to name a fixed sum that is owing with respect to these royalty payments without an accounting.
WHEREFORE, Novell prays for judgment as follows:
139. For actual and special damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, caused by SCO's slander of Novell's title to the UNIX Copyrights;
140.. For punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial for S CO's malicious and willful conduct in slandering Novell's title to the UNIX Copyrights as alleged herein;
141. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring SCO to withdraw its improperly registered claims to UNIX Copyrights and to withdraw all other representations it has made regarding its purported ownership of the UNIX Copyrights;
142. For actual and special damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, caused by SCO's breaches of §§ 1.2(b), 1.2(f) and 4.16 of the APA;
For specific performance of future compliance with SCO's audit obligations under §§ 1.2(b) and 1.2(f) of the APA;
144. For specific performance of future compliance with SCO's royalty obligations under §§ 1.2(b) and 4.16(a) of the APA;
For an order attaching S CO's assets pending adjudication of Novell's contract claims;
For declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 establishing Novell's rights and SCO's obligations under § 4.16(b), as well as SCO's authority to undertake certain actions under § 4.16(b);
For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enforcing Novell's contractual rights under the APA, including injunctive relief barring SCO from taking actions inconsistent with or in violation of §§ 1.2(b), 1.2(f), 4.16(a) and 4.16(b);
For declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2001 establishing Novell's rights
and SCO's obligations under the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the APA;
150.. For an order of restitution of all monies constituting SCO's unjust enrichment;
151. For an accounting of the royalties remitted to SCO under the SVRX licenses and
the monies owing to Novell under the APA;
152. For pre judgment interest on any monetary recovery;
For Novell's reasonable expenses and costs incurred, including without limitation attorneys' fees, in defending against the Amended Complaint; and
For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
R. Karrenberg
P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
45
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
DATED: July 29,. 2005.
-Kenneth W..Brakebill
as R. Karrenberg
ohn P. Mullen
Heather M. Sneddon
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 29, 2005, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOVELL, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS, to be served via first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following:
Mark R. Clements
HATCH JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
10 West Broadway, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
1299 Ocean Avenue, Suite 900
Santa Monica, California 90401
Mark J. Heise
BOlES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
100 Southeast Second Street, Suite 2800
Miami, Florida 33131
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, New York 10504