text:
Red Hat, Inc. v. SCO Group, Inc.

Red Hat v. SCO is a lawsuit filed by Red Hat against The SCO Group on August 4, 2003. Red Hat was asking for a permanent injunction against SCO's Linux campaign and a number of declaratory judgments that Red Hat has not violated SCO's copyrights.

Background
Beginning in 2003, SCO Group has initiated a number of lawsuits and claims that Linux infringed SCO's copyrights and that users and vendors of Linux should be held accountable for these infringements. Some statements even suggest that users of Linux could expect legal action from The SCO Group. Red Hat is a long time Linux vendor.

The lawsuit
As a response to these allegations, Red Hat filed suit against SCO in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on August 4, 2003. According to the filing, Red Hat has requested that the court make:
 * a permanent injunction against SCO's campaign against Linux
 * 2 declaratory judgments, that Red Hat has not violated SCO's copyrights, that Red Hat has not violated SCO's trade secrets and several other claims for relief

SCO replied with both a press release and two letters to Red Hat on the same day; their claims are reiterated in the press release ("Linux includes source code that is a verbatim copy of UNIX and carries with it no warranty or indemnification. SCO's claims are true and we look forward to proving them in court."), and the allegations made by Red Hat are denied ("SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users."). The letters to Red Hat also hint at possible legal retaliations against Red Hat, saying:

"Of course, we will prepare our legal response as required by your complaint. Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy. I must say that your decision to file legal action does not seem conducive to the long-term survivability of Linux."

On September 15, 2003, SCO filed a motion to dismiss, claiming there is no actual controversy between SCO and Red Hat and that Red Hat could not establish a reasonable apprehension that SCO will sue it for copyright infringement or misappropriation. In fact they claimed that the statements made by SCO representatives in the press that lead Red Hat to believe so were either misquoted or taken out of context. On the question of false advertising, SCO defended themselves by claiming that its statements were fully protected by the first amendment.

Red Hat wanted to proceed as quickly as possible and start discovery. Red Hat sent their first interrogatories, but on October 2, 2003, The SCO Group also filed a motion to stay discovery until the motion to dismiss is heard. Additionally they filed a motion asking for more time to answer Red Hat's first interrogatories.

For over 4 months, both parties waited for a response of the judge. Finally, Red Hat filed a motion to supplement the record with additional information. The additional information contained two letters sent by The SCO Group to Lehman Brothers, a Red Hat customer. In the first letter SCO once again claims ownership of Unix and that certain portions of Linux infringe on its Unix copyrights. In the second letter SCO threatened legal action if Lehman Brothers did not remedy the infringement. A letter sent by Lehman Brothers' counsel instructed SCO to take this matter up with Red Hat, their supplier of Linux products.

During the next 2 months, Red Hat and SCO fought about whether or not this additional, potentially damaging, information should be entered into the record. That fight came to an end when the judge finally made a decision.

In her opinion, dated April 6, 2004, Judge Robinson denied SCO's motion to dismiss. Additionally she stayed the lawsuit pending the resolution of the SCO v. IBM lawsuit, which makes the motion to supplement the record, the motion to stay discovery and the motion for more time to answer Red Hat's first interrogatories moot.

On April 21, 2004, Red Hat filed a motion to reconsider the stay, claiming SCO never asked for a stay and that a stay was inappropriate because the issues in the SCO v. IBM case would not solve the issues in the Red Hat v. SCO case. The SCO Group filed several memoranda in opposition of this motion.

On March 31, 2005, Red Hat's motion was denied, so the case now remains stayed until SCO v. IBM is resolved. The parties have to submit a letter to the court every 90 days.

On October 11, 2007 the case was closed with leave to reopen after the SCO group leaves Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

On April 18, 2008, Red Hat filed a claim with the court handling the SCO bankruptcy to have potential libel damages recognized by SCO as a liability if SCO loses future legal action. SCO objected and Red Hat filed again in pursuit of their claim.

Court proceedings

 * August 4, 2003: Original Red Hat complaint against SCO
 * April 6, 2004: Court orders a stay pending resolution of the SCO v. IBM case
 * April 21, 2004: Motion by Red Hat to reconsider the stay
 * March 31, 2005: Red Hat's motion denied

(A complete list of court documents is available at Tuxrocks.)

title: Red Hat, Inc. v. SCO Group, Inc.


text:
Talk:Richard Marcinko

Pre-Career
Is there any non-classified information about his life prior to the Navy? When his parents immigrated, his local community? School athletics, motivations for joining the service? 75.175.96.208 (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Career
There are so many errors in this it borders on fiction. I can not seem to sign in for some reason and am hesitant to make changes until I am able to do so. -- The way the it reads now, the reader would be led to believe he was promoted to Commander after Vietnam. Well, he was, much later in the 1980s. He was an ensign and Lt. jg in Vietnam. Red Cell is not a counter-terrorism unit nor has it ever been. They did not infiltrate Air Firce One, nor has any memeber of Red Cell ever claimed this that I am aware of (or that I can find in writing). --Team Six was not involved in any deployments or active missions while Marcinko was CO, only training. All the missions refered to happened after he left.138.32.32.44 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Red Cell and Air Force One - Marcinko himself (a member, right?) claims in Rogue Warrior (considered to be non-fiction) that his team was able to simulate an explosion next to the plane during a security exercise. 24.91.126.96 00:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All but the first paragraph has been pilfered verbatim. A rewrite is in order. And by "pilfered verbatim," I believe this is copyrighted material. In addition, it kisses way too much butt and doesn't address corruption allegations. -Joseph 10:27, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)
 * completely rewritten by User:Alkivar

More than allegations, he was convicted and served time in addition to paying a fine. I don't think I should personally add the details as I know him personally and despise him too much to maintain neutrality, but know that he was convicted of conspiracy, conflict of interest, making false claims against the government, and bribery. A Standard Form 180 (SF-180) submitted to NARA can help make this article complete. -keshiklabs 7:30, 2004 Oct 3
 * POV as all hell, I agree you should have 0 to do with this article, leave it to folks who can remain neutral.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:51, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gaping hole in story?
The man went to federal prison, how can this be overlooked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.195.213.246 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 29 January 2005.
 * because there is minimal published information about his trial/sentancing/prison sentance. Find me a source that says more than "and Marcinko served X time in jail" and I'll be happy to put it in.  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * His biography talks about his 18 months in a federal pen, as well as mentioning that it was for misappropriation of funds. It also mentions that these charges were only brought up when more serious charges that would have carried a longer prison sentence were dismissed. While this account is Dick's and therefor could be biased, it has been publically expressed since the publish date of Rogue Warrior (at least 1993). I have not seen any credible accounts on the internet arguing against Dick's account. His prison time is an integral part of his "Rule Breaker" image, as well as being a significant milestone in his life. It should definately be included here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.80.63.244 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 23 September 2005.

 * You misunderstand my point... Yes I know Dick mentions this time served, yes he mentions why, but NO ONE ELSE DOES. You cannot simply reference the subjects own opinion for this, you need either a secondary "non biased" source or at least a link to a case log or something. Find me this and I'll write it in, in suitable form discussing the facts. You will note however that HIS CONVICTION IS MENTIONED! "whom he accuses of involvement in his subsquent conviction for misappropriation of funds and resources under his command."  ALKIVAR ™[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 00:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The person below beat me to citing Cpt. Gormly's book, but the case was covered in multiple articles in the Washington Post (you may have heard of it?) at the time. Since you're volunteering to do the editing, I'll let you do the research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.77.67 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The person above says that no one else mentions Richard Macinko's conviction, and time in Federal prison, I would suggest there is at least another source for Macinko's conviction:

Combat Swimmer - Memoirs of a Navy Seal by Captain Robert A. Gormly, USN (Ret.) ISBN 0-451-19302-4

Gormly, took charge of Team SIX after Richard Macinko, and was involved in the Naval Investigative Service investigation into Richard Macinko, and members of Team SIX, the investigation was referred to as "Iron Eagle" pages 244-260 of the book discuss the investigation. I am not sure it is against copyright to quote it verbatim as a source for further edits, if it is please delete:

"The Iron Eagle investigation finally came to an end late in 1989. With respect to SEAL Team Six, they found no command-sponsored corruption. Three men admitted to bringing one automatic weapon each back from Grenada (and not turning them in during my amnesty). Four other members of SEAL Team Six were charged with submitting false travel claims. One pled guilty and received a slap on the wrist. One was found not guilty at court-martial. After that charges against the others were dropped. Two non-SEAL petty officers I'd found cheating on travel claims before the NIS investigation were convicted at courts-martial in 1987. The Marcinko aspect of the investgations had different results. Dick and a civilian associate were charged with conspiring to defraud the Government of $50,000 while he headed the Red Cell. The case centered on the grenades, and other explosives that Dick had contracted to buy in 1984, ostensibly for Six, and his fledgling Red Cell. I was subpoenaed to testify that as commanding officer of Six at the time, I had neither requested, nor wanted the explosives. The Government alleged that Marcinko and the civilian, who manufactured the ordnance, were in collusion to charge twice the price it cost and split the profit. When Dick was charged, he had his lawyers request for his defense documents he knew were highly classified. They hoped the government would drop the charges rather than risk public exposure of classified information. This wasn't an an unusual tactic" [Page 255]

The reference to his conviction, and Federal jail time comes at the bottom of page 260, and comes with a bias, Gormly spoke in the chapter that Macinko had tried to "burn" him and get him removed from command of Six, so the rest of his quote should be considered non-NPOV opinion of the man:

"The trial ended with a conviction for the civilian and a hung-jury for Macinko. In 1990, however the U.S Attorney General retried him and got a conviction. Again, I had to testify. Marcinko served time in a federal prison. Dick had once been a good naval officer. When he became a convicted felon, he shamed the uniform he'd worn for many years. He discredited himself, the Navy, and SEAL Team Six in the process of trying to steal taxpayers' money. While Dick command Six, he created an aura of suspicion around the Team. The way he did business made many question his honesty. When his actions at OPNAV brought him under scrutiny again, his former associated with Six brought the command under scrutiny, too. Six became known within the upper echelons of the Navy as "the command under constant investigation" -- Dick Marcinko's legacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.81.150 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 March 2006.

I have met Dick, and have also read his book. Even though it is listed as "non fiction", it is largely a work of fiction. There are events in it that either never happened, or were greatly exagerated. One of the things I noticed that he glossed over was his brief mention of the 1986 security test at Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. In this drill, his team was stopped cold by the Marine Security Detachment. He was also arrested for the kidnapping and torture of a civilian employee (charges were dropped - but he was formally reprimanded by the Navy). He even made claims that Seal Beach was a "secret Nuclear Weapons Depot", even though all nukes were removed in 1983-84 (2 years before he conducted the security drill). And I know what happened during these drills, because I was there at the time. In one of the drills, I was the only friendly "casuality", and we "took out" 6 Det Six infiltrators. Hardly the type of thing he would want to brag about, since he makes himself and his team look so invincible on paper. And when he was court-martialed, he became the embarasment of the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Special operations community. If you want more prrof of the conviction, simply look in an old copy of the Navy Times. 72.161.217.83 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

PRISON: I would suggest 'witch-hunt' be replaced with 'retaliation' since those commanders already knew who the 'witch' was.50.10.99.70 (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Commission
How did he become an officer? One does not enlist in the Navy as a teletype operator, and then "work" up to the rank of Commander? I am not questioning that he got a commission, but how did it happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isaac Crumm (talk • contribs) 08:17, 12 June 2006.

I will repeat his question above. Some do start as enlisted and work their way to officer ranks, but as selected based on enlisted experience and expertise. Their officer designators are such they are Limited Duty Officers or Warrant Officers, and also most often do NOT have a college degree. - It says he has a master's degree, which implies he has a proceeding bachelors degree - from where? When? OCS to me implies a degree- it is not OCS for those that are "Limited Duty Officers or Warrant Officers. He served time in jail, was that the result of a Court Martial or What? What form of discharge from Military Service did he receive? - With that information as guidance I would recommend a more recent picture without uniform as the main picture, his service jacket picture in uniform may remain but lower in article . Wfoj2 (talk)
 * He earned a B.A. in International Relations from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California in 1972. He actually completed OCS in December of 1965 without a degree. He was reccomended by a Captain to become an officer under the Officer Integration Program earlier that year, the Navy used to take 50 enlisted men every year and make officer's out of them. He retired from the Navy in February 1989, as a retiree he was investigated by the Grand Jury. No court-martial, honorable Discharge. I have several pictures with him over the past 10 years, I'll see if I can crop myself out of one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see edit adding listing of a Bachelor's Degree. You list his year of OCS completion, and state a program that I can believe did exist for that era but no longer exists. However, I suspect the location/school of degrees are crossed. For the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, the degrees normally conferred by them are are Master's degrees. Under some conditions some students there receive a second bachelors, but to my understanding they do not accept students without a bachelors degree. I recommend picture without uniform. That is only my recommendation, I don't yet see a consensus from others or a must. Getting the bachelors degree after commission - probably on own show a lot of conviction and hard work in addition to that. Wfoj2 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No sir, the schools are not crossed, unless the source crossed them, but I doubt it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Marcinko joined the Navy as an enlisted person and was selected to attend Officer Candidate School (O.C.S.) OCS trains enlisted personnel in order for them to gain a commission as officers the Navy.  He did this after becoming a SEAL.  He also received a Master's degree.JEdward 01:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he did this before becoming a SEAL, while he was still with UDT

All I have to add is the quote from the Wiki: "...While none of his stories are factually inaccurate..." this seems to be all that needs to said. All his stories are factually accurate. If none are inaccurate, then they must be accurate. If they are accurate, then he is what he says he is. If they are inaccurate, then he is not what he says he is.

um...what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Disgrace???
A statement like "Many former SEALs have stated publicly and privately that they consider Marcinko a disgrace." DEMANDS a citation. Especially with the use of the word "many". Additionally, if statements were made "privately", is there really a method of verification?

 * EDIT - This quote seems to have been removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.34.98.202 (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

More on citations
"Marcinko has come under criticism from many in the Special Operations community who feel that he airs too much dirty laundry"

Using "many" without a citation in this case needs a citation. At the very least, 1 or two people in this community should be quoted. The weasel words have to go if they are unsourced. Badfever 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As a reader, might I also say that I do not understand what it means to "air too much dirty laundry". And I suspect I'm not the only one. I suggest finding another way of expressing whatever that means. -Confused Wiki Reader

Meaning he tells TOO MANY SECRETS. SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983

Awards
According to the Aug 22, 2006, SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1650.1H "NAVY AND MARINE CORPS AWARDS MANUAL", The United States Navy does not award Oak Leaf Clusters in lieu of second or subsequent awards for the Navy Marine Corps Commendation Medal, or for any personal Navy decoration for that matter. Oak Leak clusters are worn on the service and suspension ribbons of Defense, Army, and Air Force decorations and the Joint Meritorious Unit Award. For subsequent personal Naval decorations, gold stars are used for the 2nd through the 5th, 7th through l0th, 12th and so on. Silver stars are worn in lieu of multiples of five gold stars; i.e., the 6th, llth, etc.

In Richard Marcinko's case his military awards Navy Commendation Medal should read, "Navy Commendation Medal with one gold star."

Additionally, The awards cited under the military awards header should be listed in order of precedence, not according to date of issue or in any other fashion. This is a practice that denotes the seniority of a medal and its significance among other medals. According to this practice, this would make the new order become; Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star with Valor Device and three oak leaf clusters, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with one gold star, and Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star.

Lastly, Marcinko obviously has more medals and ribbons then those annotated under the "Military Awards" section; you can see at least 13 medals/ribbons and two devices in his photograph. Additional research should be completed that verifies what medals and ribbons he is authorized to wear with a citation denoting the source.

Bsdufault 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points, you're absolutely correct...I changed the order...I'm assuming a previous editor added oak leaf clusters, I can check the source material later. The infobox should only list major awards, but the entry on the page could list everything else.--Mike Searson 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point that I completely missed, the Navy does not issue Oak Leaf Clusters for bronze stars either; however, the USAF and USA does. Instead, the Navy issues the same sequence of gold and silver stars in lieu of subsequent awards as mentioned above. The citation should read, "Bronze Star with Valor Device and three Gold Stars", (Gold Stars should be capitalized).

Bsdufault 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. An Army guy must have put that in there! ;) SF --Mike Searson 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph was ridiculous
Seriously, I almost tagged it as "sounds like an advertisement." "...is one of the United States' most accomplished and recognized special operations experts, with over 30 years of experience in a variety of specialties including counter-terrorism, intelligence and special operations. He has a B.A. in International Relations from the U.S. Navy Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and an M.A. in Political Science from Auburn University." Is this someone's resume or an encyclopedia entry on him!?!? Marcinko deserves an entry, but not a platform on which to advertise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afabbro (talk • contribs) 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, but he was a sailor not a soldier. The criticism section needs to be documented as well. I've seen some of that criticism in print, SOF magazine from the early to mid 90's to be exact. I just don't know the exact issues or I'd put them in there.--Mike Searson 18:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Colloquialisms
It's a small point but, while I realize this is an article about an American subject, repeated use of informal terms and Americanisms such as 'stateside' seem a little inappropriate and colloquial, and perhaps confusing/unclear for international readers.

91.104.51.174 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Awards and decorations
To reflect the style of prominent military-personnel articles (Audie Murphy, Matt Urban, etc), I propose to change the Military Awards section from:

Military awards

 * Special Warfare insignia
 * Naval Parachutist insignia
 * Silver Star
 * Legion of Merit
 * Bronze Star with Valor Device and three Gold Award Stars
 * Defense Meritorious Service Medal
 * Navy Commendation Medal with Valor device and Gold Award Star
 * Combat Action Ribbon with three Gold Award Stars
 * Presidential Unit Citation
 * Good Conduct Medal with Bronze Service Star
 * National Defense Service Medal
 * Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
 * Vietnam Service Medal with four campaign stars
 * Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Silver Star
 * Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal

to:

Awards and decorations
Thoughts, questions, complaints? Bullmoosebell (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The "Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal" is not in the graphic. There's only 12, not 13. - the WOLF  child  09:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My edit: you make a good point about the Parachutist Badge. Perhaps a Master Parachutist? He was a jumpy fellow. Also surprising that a SEAL who trained his team with live fire in killhouses with teammates as hostages would not have Expert Pistol and Expert Rifle. Typical Wikipedia inaccuracy I suppose. But they got the Good Conduct medal right. That's a nice working class "Attaboy!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:497F:CA0:AC56:C47D:E01C:1EF1 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Kudos to the Rogue Warrior
I'm a military mom! My uncles served in the Military, so did my brothers and my sons.

I found my first paperback at a Goodwill Store that Richard Marcinko wrote and loved it. I've acquired every book he has written except the newer one "Curse of the Infidel" (2014) and when I can afford it I will purchase it too. I'm going on 74 years old and I loved all the books Richard M. has written.

I've read through much of the articles on him and the verifications, critical remarks, fault findings and (carping). I can honestly say that it "hurts" to read so much criticisms against one man. "Who in GOD's Green Earth" made these people judge and jury! And why would someone be so crass as to research almost every incident/location mentioned in any of "The Rogue's" books. Some people actually know him and hate him...maybe because they weren't up to "par" to be in his Seal Teams or they were "politically motivated" to put "The Rogue" down. Just remember...you who scrutinized, probed and criticized....will meet at sometime in your future the "Real Judge" and I wonder what he will tell you, but most of all what will "other people say about you".

I wish I could hug this man (Richard Marcinko) because he is the kind of "warrior" I epitomize my military family members to have been. zaedison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.213.153 (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Retired?
The opening paragraph states that Marcinko retired from the Navy.

He was dishonorably discharged after being tried and convicted in federal court on multiple offenses.

The language needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.192.12 (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no. He retired before sentencing, he did not receive a DD. Nice try, though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Died
He passed away today 2600:1014:B116:62AC:3C54:EF94:80F:5DE7 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Richard Marcinko


text:
HMS Agincourt (1796)

HMS Agincourt was a 64-gun third-rate ship of the line of the Royal Navy, launched on 23 July 1796 at Blackwall Yard, London. The Admiralty bought her on the stocks from the East India Company in 1796, who had called her Earl Talbot.

Agincourt served in the navy's Egyptian campaign between 8 March 1801 and 2 September, which qualified her officers and crew for the clasp "Egypt" to the Naval General Service Medal that the Admiralty authorized in 1850 to all surviving claimants.

She was decommissioned in 1809 and converted to a troop ship on 6 January 1812 under the name HMS Bristol.

Fate
Bristol was sold on 15 December 1814 on condition that she be broken up immediately. She sold for £4,510.

title: HMS Agincourt (1796)


text:
SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.

SCO v. Novell was a United States lawsuit in which the software company The SCO Group (SCO), claimed ownership of the source code for the Unix operating system. SCO sought to have the court declare that SCO owned the rights to the Unix code, including the copyrights, and that Novell had committed slander of title by asserting a rival claim to ownership of the Unix copyrights. Separately, SCO was attempting to collect license fees from Linux end-users for Unix code (that they alleged was copied into Linux) through their SCOsource division, and Novell's rival ownership claim was a direct challenge to this initiative. Novell had been increasing their investments in and support of Linux at this time, and was opposed to SCO's attempts to collect license fees from Novell's potential customers.

The case hinged upon the interpretation of asset-transfer agreements governing Novell's sale of their Unix business to one of SCO's predecessor companies, the Santa Cruz Operation. The original APA explicitly excluded all copyrights from the assets transferred from Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation. The second amendment to the APA amended the agreement to exclude all copyrights, "except for the copyrights required for the Santa Cruz Operation to exercise its rights" under the APA. The list of included assets was never amended, which caused ambiguity years after the deal was signed. At trial, Novell successfully argued that they had retained copyrights to protect their 95% ownership of Unix SVRX royalties, and that the amendment to the exclusion clause was merely affirming that the Santa Cruz Operation had a license to the Unix code.

Novell counter-sued with their own duelling slander of title claim and several additional claims against SCO related to the APA and asked the Court to find that SCO had breached the agreements by signing Unix license agreements with Sun Microsystems and Microsoft without paying Novell the agreed percentage of those agreements. Novell further asked the court to find that Novell retained the right to direct SCO to waive rights under existing Unix licenses at "Novell's sole discretion", and that they had the right to take the action on SCO's behalf if SCO refused (a purported right that Novell had used repeatedly in the months leading up to the lawsuit to waive SCO's claims against IBM and others). Additional claims and counterclaims were added by the parties before resolution of the case.

Novell was found to be the owner of the Unix copyrights, to have the right to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and other Unix licensees (and to do so on behalf of SCO if they refused), and SCO was found to have breached the asset-transfer agreements and to have committed conversion of Novell's property. SCO prevailed on none of their claims against Novell.

Background
Novell, a vendor of proprietary network operating systems, acquired the rights to the original Unix source code when it purchased Unix System Laboratories from Unix's creator, AT&T Corporation, on June 14, 1993. Novell's rights to parts of the Unix source code were established as part of the settlement in USL v. BSDi.

On September 19, 1995, Novell entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with the Santa Cruz Operation, a Unix vendor. The APA transferred certain rights regarding Unix, and Novell's UnixWare version of Unix, from Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation. These rights included the right to develop and market new versions of UnixWare, and the right to license SVRX (System V Release X) UNIX incidentally or with Novell's permission. It also required the Santa Cruz Operation to act as Novell's agent for the collection for certain royalties due under such licenses.

In 2000, Caldera Systems acquired the Server Software and Services divisions of the Santa Cruz Operation, as well as the UnixWare and OpenServer Unix technologies. Caldera Systems thus became the legal successor to the Santa Cruz Operation for the purposes of the APA. A year later Caldera Systems changed its name to Caldera International in 2001 and to The SCO Group (SCO) in 2002. Although the Santa Cruz Operation was colloquially known as "SCO", legally The SCO Group is a different company from the Santa Cruz Operation.

SCO goes on the offensive
In 2003, SCO initiated a campaign to compel Linux users to pay them software license fees, claiming that unspecified SCO intellectual property had been improperly included in Linux. As part of this campaign, SCO made several statements that they were the owners of Unix, implying that they held the copyright for the original AT&T source code of Unix, and derivatives of that code. After SCO filed suit against IBM, claiming that IBM had violated SCO's copyrights to Unix, Novell publicly responded to these allegations.

Novell asserts it owns the copyrights
On May 28, 2003, Novell issued a press release titled "Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux" where they publicly challenged SCO's assertions that Unix code had been copied into Linux, or that SCO owned the Unix copyrights.

On June 6, 2003, SCO held a press conference in which it revealed a second amendment to the "asset purchase agreement between Novell and Santa Cruz Operation". SCO claimed this amendment supported its claim to the Unix copyrights. This amendment did not change the included assets list (which still did not list copyrights), but instead amended the excluded assets list to continue to exclude copyrights, except those "required" by SCO. In response, Novell issued a press release in which it stated:

"To Novell's knowledge, 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."

While SCO publicly claimed victory, behind the scenes SCO and Novell traded a series of heated letters. In a flurry of private letters, Novell continued its claim that they still were the legal owner of the Unix copyrights, and exercised a series of rights under the APA over the following months (including issuing waivers of SCO's claims against certain parties, auditing SCO's collection of Unix SVRX royalties, demanding access to all versions of Unix code under SCO's control per the APA's related Technology License Agreement and issuing a cease and desist against SCO for seeking information from former Novell executives). The relationship between the companies quickly deteriorated.

On October 14, 2003, Novell registered several key Unix copyrights with the United States Copyright Office and submitted declarations for recordation against SCO's own Unix copyright registrations. These declarations stated: "The SCO Group, Inc. ... has failed ... to demonstrate that any of the Unix copyrights owned by Novell are required for SCO to exercise its rights..." and that "Novell hereby declares that it retains all or substantially all of the ownership of the copyrights in Unix, including [SCO's] U.S. Copyright Registration referenced above".

After the registrations became public knowledge, Novell issued a press release on December 22, 2003, stating:

"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 [on our website]. 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."

On January 13, 2004, Novell announced that it was indemnifying Linux users, agreeing to protect them from lawsuits by third parties, like SCO, on the basis of violating the copyrights claimed by Novell. The same day, Novell released over 30 letters that SCO and Novell had exchanged in the previous months. SCO immediately responded with a press release reiterating its earlier claim, and announcing that it was preparing to file a lawsuit against Novell.

Utah state court
SCO filed a slander of title lawsuit against Novell on January 20, 2004. Filed in Utah state court, the lawsuit requested both preliminary and permanent injunctions assigning all of Novell's Unix copyright registrations to SCO and forcing Novell to retract all of their claims to the Unix code.

United States District Court for the District of Utah
Novell removed the lawsuit to the Federal court system on February 6, 2004. This removal was upheld in the court's June 9 ruling.

On February 10, 2004, Novell filed a motion to dismiss the case. Novell requested dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Novell argued that:

 * SCO did not show a valid transfer of copyright ownership, because the Asset Purchase Agreement was merely a promise to assign under specific circumstances (SCO's demonstration that copyrights were "required" to exercise other rights under the contract), and that the Agreement is therefore—by law—not sufficient to transfer the copyrights to SCO; and
 * SCO did not specify specific special damages required for such a claim.

In response, SCO filed several memoranda opposing Novell's motion to dismiss the case. Additionally, SCO filed a motion to remand the case back to State court. Novell countered that, because the case would hinge upon interpretation of federal copyright law, it should be tried in federal court.

On May 9, 2004, federal Judge Dale A. Kimball heard both parties' arguments and took both motions under advisement. Judge Kimball denied SCO's motion to remand and partially granted Novell's motion to dismiss on June 9, 2004, on a pleading technicality. The case was dismissed without prejudice, which allowed SCO to amend their complaint to include properly pleaded special damages.

Novell's countersuit
On July 29, 2005, Novell filed a countersuit against SCO claiming slander of title, breach of contract, failure to remit royalties, and failure to conduct audit obligations. Novell sought damages in excess of SCO's net worth, and, as SCO was quickly burning through its assets and cash on hand, Novell asked the court to sequester this money from SCO so that it would not be spent before the resolution of the case. Novell also asked the court to attach SCO's assets pending adjudication of their claims. Novell accused SCO of licensing Unix System V Release 4 to Microsoft and Sun Microsystems without then sending Novell the 95% of the license fees as required by the APA.

In the counter-claim, Novell stated that SCO had asked Novell to participate in the SCO's Linux IP infringement licensing plan. When Novell refused, SCO asked Novell to turn the Unix copyrights over to SCO, a request Novell also refused.

SuSE arbitration
SCO filed a second amended complaint on February 6, 2006, containing the original slander of title claim as well as several new claims, including unfair competition, copyright infringement (for Novell's distribution of SUSE Linux), and breaching a purported non-compete agreement (again, related to SUSE Linux).

On April 10, 2006, Novell's SuSE division (a European vendor of Linux operating systems) filed a request for arbitration against SCO with the Secretariat of the International Chamber of Commerce's International Court of Arbitration in Paris, France. Years earlier, while still known as Caldera International, SCO had signed contracts with then-independent SuSE, among others, involving the United Linux product. The United Linux members agreed that each member would have broad licenses to exploit and distribute Linux products that included United Linux technology. These agreements included clauses requiring the members to use an arbitration process to resolve disputes.

SuSE's arbitration request was a response to SCO's amended complaint against Novell. The arbitration process has relatively strict timelines, unlike the U.S. courts' procedures. Novell filed a Motion to Stay Claims Raising Issues Subject to Arbitration in the U.S. courts, saying that four of SCO's five claims had been brought to arbitration, including the claim of copyright infringement, and thus should be stayed until the arbitration tribunal rendered its decision. Novell also filed an Answer to SCO's 2nd Amended Complaint and Counterclaims, claiming a large number of affirmative defenses, including a claim that SCO committed fraud upon the U.S. copyright office.

Licensing agreements and Novell's motion for summary judgement
On September 22, 2006, Novell sought leave to file amended counterclaims. Through discovery, Novell had obtained copies of SCO's Unix licensing agreements with Microsoft and Sun. Upon reviewing the agreements, Novell claimed that they breached the APA. The added claims were conversion and breach of fiduciary duties. SCO stipulated to Novell's motion, and therefore Judge Kimball granted it.

Novell filed a motion on September 29, 2006, asking for summary judgment, or if that was rejected, then for a preliminary injunction. Novell alleged that SCO, through their agreements with Sun and Microsoft, licensed Novell's property without paying Novell the royalties it was due under the APA. Novell asked the court to force SCO to turn the royalties over to Novell or, in the alternative, be forced to put the money into a collective trust, where neither party would be able to access it until the issue was decided by the courts.

On August 10, 2007, Judge Kimball ruled that "...Novell is the owner of the Unix and UnixWare Copyrights." Novell was awarded summary judgment on a number of its claims, and a number of SCO's claims were denied. SCO was instructed to account for, and pass to Novell, an appropriate portion of its income from the Sun and Microsoft licenses.

Judge Kimball's ruling stated that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent," referring to other cases SCO had filed against those companies for allegedly violating SCO's intellectual property rights in Unix. After the ruling, Novell announced they had no interest in suing people over Unix, stating "We don't believe there is Unix in Linux."

SCO's bankruptcy
The parties were expected to go to trial on September 17, 2007, in order to determine exactly how much money SCO owed Novell. However, on September 14, the SCO Group filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. As SCO was a Delaware corporation, the bankruptcy filing was made with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The filing caused all pending litigation to be automatically stayed as required by the United States Code.

On November 27, 2007, United States Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Gross lifted the automatic stay so as to allow the Utah court to determine how much money SCO owed Novell, but the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction over any constructive trust that the Federal court might create.

Trial to determine damages
For the purposes of the trial to determine how much money SCO owed Novell, SCO was named the defendant and Novell was named the plaintiff, because SCO had not prevailed on any of its initial claims. The trial commenced April 30, 2008. Novell sought the recovery of $19,979,561 from SCO based on its licenses to Microsoft, Sun, and others.

On July 16, 2008, the Utah court awarded "...Defendant and Counterclaimant Novell $2,547,817 on its Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Claims for Unjust Enrichment, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Conversion. On Novell's Fourth Claim for Relief, for the reasons stated above, the court concludes that SCO was entitled to enter into the 2003 Microsoft Agreement and the other SCOsource licenses, but was not authorized to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement based on its amendment of the provisions concerning Sun's SVRX confidentiality requirements under the 1994 Agreement."

The decision, which SCO could appeal, granted Novell the asked-for $2,547,817 award due to the 2003 Sun Agreement's modification of the 1994 confidentiality provisions. These modifications permitted the release of OpenSolaris.

On November 20, 2008, Kimball's final judgment in the case affirmed his August 10, 2007 ruling, granting Novell the award plus interest of $918,122, plus $489 additional interest for every day after August 29, 2008, should SCO fail to pay the award by that date. The ruling also ordered a constructive trust of $625,486.90. Judge Kimball dismissed the case with no possibility to re-file the suit with an amended complaint, restricting SCO to pursue the case only in appeals.

Circuit Court appeal
On August 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit partially reversed Kimball's August 10, 2007, summary judgement, insofar as Kimball had found that Novell owned the copyright to Unix. The portion dealing with the 2003 Sun agreement was upheld by the appeals court. As a result, SCO could pursue its ownership of the Unix copyrights at trial. However, it remained liable for the $2,547,817 royalty award.

Novell filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2010, seeking intervention by the Supreme Court of the United States. Novell argued that there is a circuit split on the correct interpretation of the Copyright Act's transfer requirements, and that the correct requirements are more strict than the Tenth Circuit's holding in this case. The petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Trial on remand for copyright issues
The jury trial on the remanded copyright issues began on March 8, 2010, before Judge Ted Stewart. It was expected to last three weeks. On March 30, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Novell. On June 10, Judge Stewart ruled in favor of Novell on all issues, closing the case. The court found that Novell had not committed slander of title, was not now required to transfer the copyrights under the APA, that its copyright waivers issued to IBM were authorized, and that they did not violate the covenant of good faith.

SCO appealed the district court judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on July 7, 2010.

On August 30, 2011, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial decision.

title: SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.


text:
SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

SCO Group v. DaimlerChrysler was a lawsuit filed in the United States, in the state of Michigan. In December 2003, SCO sent a number of letters to Unix licensees. In these letters, SCO demanded that the licensees certify certain things regarding their usage of Linux. DaimlerChrysler, a former Unix user and current Linux user, did not respond to this letter. On March 3, 2004, SCO filed suit against DaimlerChrysler for violating their Unix license agreement, by failing to respond to the certification request made by SCO. The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wished to pursue the timeliness claim again, would have had to pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed.

History
For use on their Cray supercomputer, Chrysler Corporation bought a Unix source license from AT&T on September 2, 1988. A source license allows the licensee to view, modify and use the Unix source code on a number of specific machines (designated CPUs).

Through a number of acquisitions, The SCO Group became the licensing agent that handled Unix source licenses. Chrysler Motors Corporations merged with Daimler-Benz in 1998 forming DaimlerChrysler.

Background information
The licenses sold by AT&T allow the licensor to ask for certification regarding the use of the licensed product.

 * On [SCO's] request, but not more frequently than annually, LICENSEE shall furnish to [SCO] a statement, certified by an authorized representative of LICENSEE, listing the location, type and serial number of all DESIGNATED CPUs hereunder and stating that the use by LICENSEE of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement has been reviewed and that each such SOFTWARE PRODUCT is being used solely on DESIGNATED CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS in full compliance with the provisions of this Agreement.

The SCO Group invoked their right to ask for certification on December 18, 2003. In addition to the certification specified in the license, SCO also instructed the Unix licensees to certify their use of Linux, a competing operating system.

DaimlerChrysler did not respond to this letter. In fact, it is possible that DaimlerChrysler never received it; it was addressed to Chrysler Motors Corporation at 12800 Oakland Avenue in Highland Park, Michigan, but Chrysler Corporation (as it was then known) had announced the move of its Highland Park headquarters in 1992, and famously moved into a massive, 4400000 sqft headquarters complex (1000 Chrysler Drive) in nearby Auburn Hills between 1993-1996. The company closed down its Highland Park facilities in 1997.

The name of the company, too had changed: "Chrysler Motors Corporation" had become part of DaimlerChrysler when it merged with Daimler-Benz AG in 1998. The former Chrysler operations were now referred to informally as "the Chrysler Group", but were legally known as DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC.

The lawsuit
On March 3, 2004, The SCO Group filed a breach of contract lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler in the Circuit Court for Oakland County. In its complaint, SCO claimed that DaimlerChrysler refused to comply with the terms of the license. SCO also speculated that DaimlerChrysler broke the licensing agreement when they moved to the Linux operating system and that this is the reason why they refused to certify.

DaimlerChrysler responded with a motion for summary judgment on April 15, 2004. DaimlerChrysler claimed that the letter sent by SCO asked for certifications that were not agreed upon in the original licensing agreement, such as certifications about the use of Linux. Additionally DaimlerChrysler claimed that the original licensing agreement does not mention a specific time in which a licensee should respond to a certification request. DaimlerChrysler also told the court that it had not been contacted by SCO after receiving the letter, instead SCO filed suit without further attempts to receive any certifications.

At the same time, DaimlerChrysler also responded by certifying their use of Unix, according to the provisions specified in the original licensing agreement. In this certification DaimlerChrysler revealed that they have not used Unix for over 7 years.

On August 9, 2004, Judge Chabot granted the summary disposition almost completely. The only remaining issue on the case was whether DaimlerChrysler's response was submitted in a timely manner. On November 17, 2004, SCO moved to stay its suit pending SCO v. IBM case, but was denied.

The parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal order on December 21, 2004. The case was dismissed without prejudice, but if SCO wishes to pursue the timeliness claim again, it must pay DaimlerChrysler's legal fees since August 9. On December 29, 2004, SCO filed a claim of appeal notice. On January 31, 2005, the claim of appeal was dismissed.


text:
Battle of Berne (1954 FIFA World Cup)

The Battle of Berne (Berni csata, Batalha de Berna, Schlacht bei Bern, Bataille de Berne, Battaglia di Berna, Battaglia da Berna) was a football match at the 1954 World Cup between Hungary and Brazil, a quarter-final played on 27 June 1954 at the Wankdorf Stadium in Bern, Switzerland. Violent conduct and fighting prompted English referee Arthur Ellis to send off three players during the match. Fighting between the teams continued in the dressing rooms after the final whistle.

Background
Brazil had scored six goals in two group games, and Hungary had scored 17. Brazil had a reputation for attractive and attacking football; in their games in group 1, they beat Mexico 5–0, and drew the other 1–1 with Yugoslavia after extra time.

Hungary had revolutionized football tactics and coaching in Europe. Their fluid and open style of play – an early form of total football – meant that they were unbeaten for 2 years, since defeat to Soviet Union in 27 May 1952. Hungary were clear winners of group 2, winning both of their group games – they beat South Korea 9–0, and West Germany 8–3.

For each of the first two quarter-finals, one team progressing from group 1 was drawn at random against one team progressing from group 2. Brazil were drawn to play against Hungary, while West Germany drew Yugoslavia.

The match
The match was played in driving rain, producing slippery conditions and a hard to control ball. Hungary took the lead in the third minute, with Nándor Hidegkuti scoring. Four minutes later, Sándor Kocsis made it 2–0 to Hungary. Brazil was awarded a penalty; Djalma Santos scored to make it 2–1 at half time.

In the second half, Hungary was awarded a penalty; Mihály Lantos scored to make the score 3–1. The penalty award was the cue for a pitch invasion by Brazilian journalists and officials, who had to be ushered off by police. The game then degenerated into a series of increasingly violent fouls and cynical tactics, with Brazilian forward Julinho scoring to bring the score to 3–2. After this, József Bozsik was fouled by Nilton Santos; the two men started fighting, and both were sent off. Hungary scored a fourth goal via Sándor Kocsis to make the score 4–2 to Hungary. The last moments of the game was little more than a running battle between the two teams; Brazilian forward Humberto Tozzi kicked Hungary's Gyula Lóránt prior to the final whistle and was sent off.

In total, 42 free kicks and 2 penalties were awarded, with 4 cautions and 3 dismissals issued.

The ill-temper continued after the game, with the Brazilian players invading the Hungarian dressing room and continuing the on-pitch fighting. They were driven off by the notorious Hungarian AVH security police with batons and guns drawn. Despite evidence from independent witnesses of violent conduct from both sides, football's governing body FIFA did nothing, leaving discipline to the respective countries. The Hungarian squad were awarded the Order of the Red Banner for finishing as the tournament runners-up, while Brazil awarded its squad the National Order of Merit for Sport.

Post-match commentary
The game's referee Arthur Ellis commented: "I thought it was going to be the greatest game I'd ever see. I was on top of the world. Whether politics and religion had something to do with it I don't know, but they behaved like animals. It was a disgrace. It was a horrible match. Certainly British players and fans would never act in such a most reprehensible manner. In today's climate so many players would have been sent off the game would have been abandoned. My only thought was that I was determined to finish it." Ellis later wrote, "Those people must learn sportsmanship and we must teach them. South Americans are more excitable and more passionate than we are. Even more so than the Italians. Unlike the British, they do crazy things, impulsively, then a few minutes later they are genuinely and deeply sorry".

The Times newspaper correspondent on 28 June 1954 drew a similar conclusion; "Never in my life have I seen such cruel tackling, the cutting down of opponents as if with a scythe, followed by threatening attitudes and sly jabs when officialdom was engaged elsewhere." Ellis’s officiating and gentlemanly conduct was commended by the Daily Mail.

"This was a battle; a brutal, savage match," recalled Hungary manager Gusztáv Sebes, who needed four stitches for a facial wound received during the fighting. "At the end we had won 4–2 but it wasn't over yet. Brazilian photographers and fans flooded on to the pitch and police were called to clear it. Players clashed in the tunnel and a small war broke out in the corridor to the dressing rooms - everyone was having a go; fans, players and officials."

title: Battle of Berne (1954 FIFA World Cup)