The Asset Purchase Agreement means what it says: copyrights were not included as an asset; copyrights were specifically excluded from the asset transfer. The exclusion was intentional. Should any persons suggest otherwise, they are mistaken.

SCO would like to undermine this testimony, and they use Mr. Johnson for that purpose.

In his earlier declaration for the IBM case, which I gather is sealed, Peterson had testified that he had repeatedly found Santa Cruz copyright notices dated 1998 in UnixWare. McKenna countered with Novell 1995 copyright notices continuing to be found in UnixWare years after the APA deal, which Peterson tries to explain. His explanation is that Santa Cruz didn't remove other people's copyright notices. However he says that Santa Cruz never *added* any Novell copyright notices either. They just left whatever was already in there alone and added their own on top.

I don't believe that is accurate, quite aside from it not being the customary way to handle copyright notices, and I point you to some research Groklaw did several years back that seems to directly contradict what Peterson states. If you reread this Groklaw article from 2004, Notice This Notice?, you'll find both some 1996 Novell copyright notices and one dated 1998 in UnixWare.

Discussion Draft 3 includes a term intended to require Microsoft to make the same patent covenants that our customers receive to all recipients of the GPLv3 software included in our products. It also includes a license condition intended to preclude companies from entering into patent arrangements such as our agreement with Microsoft by prohibiting any company that has entered into such an arrangement from distributing GPLv3 code. This license condition does not apply to arrangements entered before March 28, 2007, so as currently proposed it would not apply to our agreement with Microsoft; however, the FSF specifically indicated that this "grandfathering" condition is tentative and may be dropped depending on feedback the FSF receives.

If the final version of GPLv3 contains terms or conditions that interfere with our agreement with Microsoft or our ability to distribute GPLv3 code, Microsoft may cease to distribute SUSE Linux coupons in order to avoid the extension of its patent covenants to a broader range of GPLv3 software recipients, we may need to modify our relationship with Microsoft under less advantageous terms than our current agreement, or we may be restricted in our ability to include GPLv3 code in our products, any of which could adversely affect our business and our operating results. In such a case, we would likely explore alternatives to remedy the conflict, but there is no assurance that we would be successful in these efforts.

Here's the technical collaboration agreement. First amended and restated business collaboration agreement. And the one you've been waiting for, the patent agreement. Portions are redacted.

Discussion Draft 3 includes a term intended to require Microsoft to make the same patent covenants that our customers receive to all recipients of the GPLv3 software included in our products. It also includes a license condition intended to preclude companies from entering into patent arrangements such as our agreement with Microsoft by prohibiting any company that has entered into such an arrangement from distributing GPLv3 code. This license condition does not apply to arrangements entered before March 28, 2007, so as currently proposed it would not apply to our agreement with Microsoft; however, the FSF specifically indicated that this "grandfathering" condition is tentative and may be dropped depending on feedback the FSF receives.

If the final version of GPLv3 contains terms or conditions that interfere with our agreement with Microsoft or our ability to distribute GPLv3 code, Microsoft may cease to distribute SUSE Linux coupons in order to avoid the extension of its patent covenants to a broader range of GPLv3 software recipients, we may need to modify our relationship with Microsoft under less advantageous terms than our current agreement, or we may be restricted in our ability to include GPLv3 code in our products, any of which could adversely affect our business and our operating results. In such a case, we would likely explore alternatives to remedy the conflict, but there is no assurance that we would be successful in these efforts.

Here's the technical collaboration agreement. First amended and restated business collaboration agreement. And the one you've been waiting for, the patent agreement. Portions are redacted.

You'll recall that Sun recently asked China to merge its Uniform Office Format with ODF. Microsoft later worked out a deal to create a translator between its competing OpenXML and UOF. But I think there is a difference between merging two formats and creating a translator. For one thing the Microsoft translators don't always work so well.

Rob Weir has some screenshots showing how the Microsoft translator for ODF works in Microsoft Word, and it's scary bad.

Oh, I hope some of you can go, so you can tell us all about it. This is going to be thrilling, I'm sure. You are going to see some fine lawyering, guaranteed, from the Novell team. You can work your entire career as a paralegal and never see this level of skill in person. And I can't help but wonder if David Boies himself may show up, although what he can say that won't sound silly is a mystery to me after reading the filings. That's what they pay him the big bucks for, I guess, to try to find a way to survive these motions and get to trial.