Once again, SCO has made some odd choices, since its goal is to support this contention in their Memorandum in Support of the motion:

SCO submits that the Court should grant partial summary judgment on those claims and summary judgment on Novell's slander-of-title counterclaim, because the APA as amended plainly transferred the copyrights to Santa Cruz.

Why, then, attach as an exhibit the Aaron Alter deposition excerpts, where he testifies on behalf of the law firm of Wilson, Sonsini that Novell retained the copyrights in the Santa Cruz deal?

'Tis a puzzlement, especially because Mr. Alter's deposition isn't referenced in the SCO memorandum in support of its motion. Now *that* is truly odd. You don't normally just gather up exhibits and throw them at the judge. You are supposed to reference them in your filing, so he knows what they are for and what they are being used to prove.

Tanya Andersen, the plaintiff here, is the single mother in Oregon that the RIAA prosecuted for the last couple of years and then "on the eve of summary judgment" dropped the lawsuit with prejudice. Her counterclaims remain and are restated here and supplemented. It will soon be joined into a single case. So, what started as Atlantic v. Andersen has now turned around, and it is now Andersen v. Atlantic and the defendants are the music companies making up the RIAA -- Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet, formerly known as MediaSentry. She is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the RICO Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

Update: So many of you asked about copyright misuse, and what the consequences can be, I found a paper for you to read, "Competition Law and Copyright Misuse" by John Cross and Peter Yu. Here's the paragraph I think you are looking for:

The independent doctrine of copyright misuse ... focuses on whether the owner attempts to avoid some limit imposed by copyright law.... Rather than criminal penalties or treble damages under U.S. antitrust law, the sole "penalty" for copyright misuse is the inability to sue the affected party for infringement. That penalty applies only with respect to the particular licensee bound by the provision, and exists only for so long as the misuse continues.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:...

2. That plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.

The plaintiff found a judge equal to the task, one willing to actually sift carefully through every minute detail to determine if the defendant was more credible in testimony that the pants were in fact the plaintiff's and that she knew they were because of the unusual three belt loops or if the plaintiff was credible in his account, that she must have altered someone else's pants to make them look like his. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are 23 pages long, with 15 footnotes.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove his case and that it was based on a faulty assumption anyway as to what a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign means. Each witness was asked what he or she thought it meant that one's satisfaction was guaranteed, and they all agreed on a common sense definition, except for the plaintiff, who had his own elaborate construction.

Pro se litigation can be unbelievably annoying, but in the end, in my experience it rarely works out for the litigant who represents himself, even if he is a lawyer. I think it's because when you are emotionally involved, legal theories can start to seem plausible -- even inevitably fair and just -- to you, when no one else in the universe sees the matter that way. Litigants with lawyers can make the same mistake, now that I think of it.

Linux-on-Intel appears likely to emerge as the dominant platform in corporate data centers. This paradigm shift should have significant implications for a broad range of enterprise IT vendors. Our handbook highlights key themes and offers an initial framework for investing in Linux's emergence.

Isn't this the the company that brokered that deal? Anyway, the paper is presumably so you too can make a bundle from Linux. Microsoft evidently knows it is over for them going forward as the dominant player in that area, and the deal, with its "you must pay me forever to use Linux" aspect, likely flows from that stark awareness. And all the folks that make money from Microsoft want to find a way to make money from Linux going forward now.

I have a tip for them. If you want the community to code for you -- and you do, as that is the source of the money you want to make -- respect the terms of the GPL and its intent. And block Microsoft from being able to redefine what the community can do with its code. Otherwise, things won't work out well for your investments.

According to that page, Ubuntu is perfect:

Note: This is the desktop version of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a community developed operating system that is perfect for laptops, desktops, and servers. Whether you use it at home, at school or at work Ubuntu contains all the applications you'll ever need, from word processing and e-mail applications, to Web server software and programming tools. Ubuntu is and always will be free of charge. You do not pay any licensing fees. You can download, use and share Ubuntu with your friends, family, school or business for absolutely nothing.Version 7.04, named "Feisty Fawn," adds the Ubuntu Studio, a multimedia editing and production suite, to the distribution.

Heaven only knows that's true, simply perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations". Actually, the GPL does set some limitations, like what you are responsible to do if you redistribute.

If we had been there, we could have seen one because he passed it around. I so want to play with one. Why find a way to educate in a new way? Because a billion + children in the world have no schooling or inadequate schooling. Also speaking is Eben Eliason, a UI designer who explains the software. The talk begins by Ivan saying that he gave a more technical talk at Google about security, and if you'd like to see that, it's here. Python is the "mother glue". He lists all the components, all Open Source.

The laptop has a View Source key. Wow. If they're in a browser, they see HTML; if running an application, they see source code. These six-year-olds are going to figure out how to code. No wonder in all the pictures, the kids are smiling. If you are a programmer, he says, they still have a need for your help.

Virtualization for mobile form factors? Most think that virtualization has value in server space and even in running multiple OSs on the desktop. Virtualization actually turns out to be a valuable architectural tool for mobile devices such as smart phones, tablets, etc. As more mobile devices allow users to download and run 3rd party applications, these applications need to be isolated from the rest of the system for security and bandwidth reasons. Virtualization provides a mechanism for this isolation as well as a mechanism for insuring that the realtime telephony portions of the mobile architecture get sufficient cycles in both multi CPU architectures as well as single CPU architectures. The Linux Foundation Mobile Linux workgroup recently posted some Mobile Platform Guidelines for Virtualization (http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Mobile_Platform_Virtualization_Guidelines).

Generally, mobile handsets use processors that do not currently support hardware virtualization. Therefore, practical solutions must use the paravirtualization approach. Because paravirtualization achieves the same goals as virtualization and differs mostly in the means by which it is achieved, for the sake of brevity, I will simply refer to virtualization from here on out.

Real-Time and Virtualization

Virtualization must enable real-time environments to execute in parallel with OpenOS and other execution environments on a common hardware platform or processor. The virtualization software layer that supports these multiple environments must maintain the system?s real time properties. It must also occupy a small memory footprint as required by real-time embedded markets. The most important benefits of virtualization for real-time systems are:

• Consolidation of RTOS and OpenOS: One or more OpenOS such as Linux, Symbian or Windows may execute in parallel with a RTOS without disrupting the behaviour of the supported applications. Guest OS? require only some adaptations in their Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) to run within the virtualized environment.
• Binary Legacy Reuse: Most of the guest OS? is reused without modifications. Native device drivers, protocol stacks and system modules can be reused in a straight-forward fashion. Legacy applications are absolutely unmodified and still run in the new context. This ensures minimum development costs and a short time to market.
• Device Assignment: Devices can be dedicated to a given partition or efficiently and securely shared by different guest operating systems.
• Increased Security: The real-time virtualization solution offers robust security via hardware enforced memory isolation of partitions, isolating each OS from the others, and preventing cross-corruption. In addition, specific partitions may be added and used to execute secure applications in small certifiable environments protected from the larger and open OpenOS or RTOS executing in other partitions.
• Increased Availability: Guest systems may be transparently monitored and, depending upon the configuration, may be automatically rebooted in case of failure. Failure of a guest system does not impact the other ones which continue to deliver their service. Moreover, restart of a failed system is triggered by software and bypasses any hardware mechanisms leading to a faster return to service. Hence, overall system reliability is increased.

Virtualization most often relies on a foundation layer known as a hypervisor or a Virtual Machine Monitor (VMM) which may provide all or parts of the following services:

• Memory partitioning, robust isolation and I/O access control, CPU virtualization and scheduling,
• Virtualization of at least a few basic devices such as clock, timers, and PIC (Programmable Interrupt Controller).

If multiple guest OS? execute on the same processor, the hypervisor has to schedule the guest OS? in a way that maintains the RTOS? real-time properties.

Resources Partitioning

Physical memory must be partitioned, and each memory partition allocated to a given guest OS. Thus, each guest OS may use its own native memory management mechanisms and policies without interfering with other guest OS’. This approach allows OS? that make use of the MMU, for example, Linux and Windows CE, and those that do not, to run cooperatively on a single processor.

I/O devices used by a single guest OS are assigned exclusively to that guest OS. Native device drivers can thus be reused with no modification.

Resources Virtualization

Hardware resources required by several guest OS?, such as the CPU, MMU, and FPU are virtualized so that they can be shared between all guest OS?. The CPU is shared among guest OS? based on scheduling policies that ensure that real-time guest OS? (and their applications) are assigned the highest...

Actually, SCO filed the exhibits in the wrong place in what I believe is a kind of Freudian slip. They filed the exhibits as Docket number 1070 in SCO v. IBM by mistake. The clerk fixed it with instructions to "the parties" to please pay attention. But if you remember, at the last hearing in SCO v. Novell, Stuart Singer twice said IBM when he meant to say Novell. And now there is this little goof. It's not of major importance, but it tells me what SCOfolk have on their minds, most likely. And that is that what happens in the Novell case can be curtains for SCO in the IBM case. It doesn't matter as much to IBM, because their position is they haven't infringed anything, no matter who owns it. But if the court rules that SCO never got any copyrights, it could be The End -- That's Aaall, SCOFolks. I don't think it would be just the IBM case either.