It is unfortunate that Maureen O'Grady has been given a position with the word "News" in it, and it is unfortunate that this was published as "news" while lacking several significant facts and being partially false. For instance, according to transcripts, Novell did not waive said claim, at least according to Novell and SCO lawyers, who presumably know what they're talking about (which puts them one up on Ms. O'Grady).

If waters have been muddied regarding SCO copyrights in Linux, then the blame is on SCO for constantly altering its position. The position of Linux distributors has been consistent, namely that Novell owns the UNIX copyrights (which has been ruled true), that Linux does not infringe non-UNIX SCO properties (as SCO has practically stipulated in discovery, filing only based on UNIX header files, which are un-copyrightable), and that any code contained in Linux would have been authorized by SCO's use of the GPL to release Caldera Linux. The facts of the matter remain unchanged. Linux can not infringe copyrights licensed for its use, either by Novell or through the GPL.

Furthermore, Ms. O'Grady, in an attempt to smear a more accurate site, attempts to point out irrelevant evidence from the Utah case. While it's unfortunate that Groklaw may have overlooked that, such evidence is only relevant in the case of an ambiguous APA. The SCO APA is simply not ambiguous to anyone of even near-average intelligence who reads English at a high-school level.

The editor of this site needs to take action if this site is to be considered reputable.

1) Check to see if the author of this article is clean of drugs and not drinking on the job while doing research.
2) Check to see if the author knows the difference between reality and fantasy.
3) Find out if the author is being paid by a third-party to to twist the truth and facts like what has been done in this article.
Posting articles like this only hurts the reputation of this site as long as the article stays up.

Is she a professional troll?

Wow, bias, bile & lies all in one article!

Being wrong happens... but it's probably pretty embarassing to make fun of someone for being wrong when it turns out that they were right and you weren't...

Now we have proof that this whole article is just completely factually wrong.

Just consult the transcript: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071114235730272

I guess the "amateurs" got it right. Maybe the article could be re-written; "... so much for the so called professionals."

Novell did not drop the damage claim. See the transcripts:

Mr. Spector: .......... We proceed in Chapter 11 which is a breathing spell from litigation. We come up with a plan that will resolve if not the litigation in a way that the opponents would be satisfied, at least we say, here's the alternative, Judge. If the company, the debtor, wins this litigation, this is what we're going to do with the proceeds. If we lose the litigation, stockholders are going to most likely be wiped out and what remains are going to go to Novell if it gets a money judgment, which I was told, in order to get -- and this is an side -- I was told that in order to get the waiver of the jury trial that was -- is a big issue recently, in September, they waived, Novell waived their money damages claim. And I'll stand corrected if counsel wants to correct me on that. Is that incorrect?

Mr. Jacobs: That is incorrect.

Novell did not drop the damage claim. See the transcripts:

Mr. Spector: .......... We proceed in Chapter 11 which is a breathing spell from litigation. We come up with a plan that will resolve if not the litigation in a way that the opponents would be satisfied, at least we say, here's the alternative, Judge. If the company, the debtor, wins this litigation, this is what we're going to do with the proceeds. If we lose the litigation, stockholders are going to most likely be wiped out and what remains are going to go to Novell if it gets a money judgment, which I was told, in order to get -- and this is an side -- I was told that in order to get the waiver of the jury trial that was -- is a big issue recently, in September, they waived, Novell waived their money damages claim. And I'll stand corrected if counsel wants to correct me on that. Is that incorrect?

Mr. Jacobs: That is incorrect.

Are you completely batsh*t?

I remember when some journalists actually had integrity and resigned from your magazine after it permitted the hateful comments from Mz O'Gara.
http://dee-ann.blog-city.com/resigning_from_linuxworld_magazine.htm

Now we know Sys-con really doesn't care about things like integrity anymore. First they "CLAIMED" to have removed Mz O'Gara and her articles for a previous article, now we see that it was simply all lies.

Well done.

This article is as follows:

Incorrect, as that is not what happened.

Misleading, as it has suppositions, not facts.

Discredits Sys-con, as they said Ms. O'Gara would not be writing for them anymore, and here we are with her writing, writing badly, writing inaccurately, and writing without facts.

Another winner by Sys-con.

Wow, wow, wow. An article so biased, so confused, so poorly written. How can anyone take this woman seriously as a journalist?

The author of the so called article is simply in conflict of interest. Bankruptcy fillings show the author of THIS article as a creditor. G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. is Maureen's publication. G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc. is a creditor of SCO. How can SYS-CON permit such a thing?

Speaking of amatures - you think the decision to affirm Novell as the rightful owners of Unix Copywrites was "questionable."

That would make it you and McBride I think. That is about it.

You know, I can get past the biased reporting and lousy fact-checking. But the article is just so poorly written. Never mind journalism - did the writer ever pass 6th grade grammar?! And please - turn on your spell checker!

Now you know why the author is on the list of SCO creditors.

Oh boy. You are right when you say "So much for amateurs" since you are one. Geez. Novell never dropped the claim and many of your facts are way off. Read the court transcripts. It spells out exactly what happened.

typical biased reporting who in their right mind would employ this hack who gets almost nothing right and has a viewpoint so onesided its embarasing

At a court hearing Tuesday Novell surprised a lot of people and withdrew its claim that SCO damaged it to the tune of $100 million by reneging on a deal supposedly assigning its Unix IP to UnitedLinux, the failed Linux consortium, in 2002. Novell - or rather its allegedly independent Nuremberg-based German subsidiary, SUSE Linux GmbH - originally made the claim under seal to an arbitration panel in Switzerland that was supposed to decide whether SCO had in fact turned the IP in question over to UnitedLinux. UnitedLinux was supposed to produce a common Linux distribution and was composed of SCO, Turbolinux, Connectiva (now part of Mandriva) and SuSE, the Linux distribution that Novell subsequently bought with IBM's money. Each of the companies was supposed to own 25% of a Delaware LLC that held the IP and Novell claims that the LLC then turned the IP rights over to SUSE.