This is the SCO motion Novell is here opposing. SCO's Reply to this Novell opposition memorandum can be found here, along with supporting exhibits.

This is mainly about slander of title and hence copyright ownership. On that, the parties are pointing fingers at each other. And both of them are saying that the APA is clear as a bell as to which of them owns the copyrights, namely not the other guy. SCO has asked only for partial summary judgment on its claims in this motion, slander of title (1st claim), breach of contract (APA and TLA, the 2nd claim) and the unfair competition (5th), again all on the basis of its alleged copyright ownership. Novell, is asking for summary judgment on its slander of title counterclaim and specific performance claims, on the basis that the plain language of the agreements shows that it is the owner of the copyrights.

Novell reveals in this memo many new details about the history of the Asset Purchase Agreement's drafting and execution and about Santa Cruz's and Caldera/SCO Group's conduct thereafter we haven't heard before. I think it would be fair to characterize it by saying that Novell is effectively saying that SCO has been willfully pretending to own the copyrights when it knew better all along.

In late 2002 and early 2003, Novell tells the court, SCO repeatedly contacted Novell asking it to amend the APA to transfer the copyrights:

SCO's actions speak louder than its words: SCO was well aware that no transfer of copyrights had occurred.

One of the people who Novell says tried to get them was Darl McBride. Another was Ralph Yarro.
Read more: