http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/Novell/Novell-377.pdf

For the reasons stated above, the court concludes that Novell is the
owner of the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights. Therefore, SCO's First Claim
for Relief for slander of title and Third Claim for Relief for specific
performance are dismissed, as are the copyright ownership portions of
SCO's Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition and Second Claim for
Relief for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The court denies SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on its
own slander of title, breach of contract, and unfair competition claims,
and on Novell's slander of title claim. Accordingly, Novell's slander of
title claim is still at issue.

The court also concludes that, to the extent that SCO has a copyright to
enforce, SCO can simultaneously pursue both a copyright infringement
claim and a breach of contract claim based on the non-compete
restrictions in the license back of the Licensed Technology under APA
and the TLA. The court further concludes that there has not been a
change of control that released the non-compete restrictions of the
license, and the non-compete restrictions of the license are not void
under California law. Accordingly, Novell's motion for summary judgment
on SCO's non-compete claim in its Second Claim for breach of contract
and Fifth Claim for Relief for unfair competition is granted to the
extent that SCO's claims require ownership of the UNIX and UnixWare
copyrights, and denied in all other regards.

Furthermore, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only
reasonable interpretation of the term "SVRX License" in the APA is all
licenses related to the SVRX products listed in Item VI of Schedule
1.1(a) to the APA. Therefore, Novell is entitled to a declaration of
rights under its Fourth Claim for Relief that it was and is entitled, at
its sole discretion, to direct SCO to waive its claims against IBM and
Sequent, and SCO is obligated to recognize Novell's waiver of SCO's
claims against IBM and Sequent. Accordingly, Novell's motion for partial
summary judgment on its Fourth Claim for Relief for declaratory judgment
is granted, and SCO's cross-motion for summary judgment on Novell's
Fourth Claim for Relief is denied.

Finally, the court concludes, as a matter of law, that the only
reasonably interpretation of all SVRX Licenses includes no temporal
restriction of SVRX Licenses existing at the time of the APA. The court
further concludes that because a portion of SCO's 2003 Sun and Microsoft
Agreements indisputably licenses SVRX products listed under Item VI of
Schedule 1.1(a) to the APA, even if only incidental to a license for
UnixWare, SCO is obligated under the APA to account for and pass through
to Novell the appropriate portion relating to the license of SVRX
products. Because SCO failed to do so, it breached its fiduciary duty to
Novell under the APA and is liable for conversion.

The court, however, is precluded from granting a constructive trust with
respect to the payments SCO received under the 2003 Sun and Microsoft
Agreements because there is a question of fact as to the appropriate
amount of SVRX Royalties SCO owes to Novell based on the portion of SVRX
products contained in each agreement. Furthermore, because Novell has
obtained the information that it would otherwise obtain through an
accounting during the course of this litigation, the court denies
Novell's Ninth Claim for Relief for an accounting. However, the court
also notes that SCO has a continuing contractual obligation to comply
with the accounting and reporting requirements set forth in the APA.
Accordingly, Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or Preliminary
Injunction [Docket No. 147] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; SCO's
Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment on
Novell's Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Counterclaims [Docket
No. 180] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on its Fourth Claim [Docket No. 171] is
GRANTED; SCO's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Novell's
Fourth Claim [Docket No. 224] is DENIED; SCO's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on its First, Second, and Fifth Claims and Novell's
First Claim [Docket No. 258] is DENIED; Novell's Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Copyright Ownership of SCO's Second Claim for Breach
of Contract and Fifth Claim for Unfair Competition [Docket No. 271] is
GRANTED; Novell's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on SCO's
Non-Compete Claims in its Second and Fifth Claims [Docket No. 273] is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; Novell's Motion for Summary Judgment
on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title and Third Claim for Specific
Performance [Docket No. 275] is GRANTED; and Novell's Motion for Summary
Judgment on SCO's First Claim for Slander of Title for Failure to
Establish Special Damages [Docket No. 277] is MOOT.