Unfortunately, not directly, but anyone from the public can either call,
fax, or go down in person to the 4th Judicial District Court and obtain a
copy. Novell attempted to have this document sealed. To date, it's a part
of the Court record. Our settlement agreement in this litigation does not
allow us to distribute court documents, and I was an Attorney Pro Se for
this case, so I am also bound by the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct not
to dissemminate any documents. I can however, reference these documents
because they were part of our public filings, and direct any interested
parties to the court to obtain them. There was a big debate over this
document because it purports to be attorney work product and attorney client
privileged, however, the privilege does not extend to documents that would
indicate an attorney is ripping someone off or engaged in the commision of
torttorious or criminal acts. If the court tells you they are under seal,
then you can contact Andrew McCullough, TRG's Corporate Counsel (801)
222-9129 and request a copy under NDA, and then we can provide this to you
if you feel you may be one of the parties harmed by Novell's actions.
We can provide this under NDA, but we cannot post the document itself as TRG
in any public manner. I can tell you that there are several copies of this
document in the hands of reporters who got it from the Court's file, and
they also are sources of a copy of it. This prohibition applies only to us
becuase of what is in the Novell/TRG settlement agremeent -- if someone
other than us gets their hands on it and publishes it, then that's ok. Lisa
Carricabura of the Salt Lake Tribune has a copy, Maureen O'Gara at client
server news has a copy, and the Wall Street Journal also has a copy. Any
one of the reporters can give this out without getting into trouble, as can
the Court.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: Dax Kelson <dkelson@inconnect.com>
To: Jeff Merkey <jmerkey@timpanogas.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: iToaster in violation of GPL?
> Jeff Merkey said once upon a time (Tue, 29 Jun 1999):
>
> >
> > No,
> >
> > They stated that they "disagreed" with our recollection of the facts,
and
> > claimed they had **NO** obligation under the GPL to release the code.
> > Bottom line, we've litigated with them before, and they lie and rip-off
like
> > it's no one's business. There's a document titled the "Jennings
Memoranda"
> > filed as Exhibit 9 to the Motion for Sanctions in 9704-339 in the 4th
> > Judicial District Court that we provided to the court system. This
document
> > details some two dozen companies, groups, and individuals that Novell
has
> > taken GNU code, used it, and failed to re-publish the code. The
documetn
> > also contains a ruthless legal strategy for dealing with these folks and
> > legally classifies copyright holders of the GPL code based on their
legal
> > capabilities to interfere with Novell. Our attorneys also have a copy
of
> > this document. Some of you may be in it -- it's rather interesting.
The
> > best quote out of the Jennings Memoranda is,
> >
> > "..... Once again we must balance the costs in-house development of
> > "comparable code" against the costs and risks of simply taking their
code
> > and using it... this last group of copyright holders could be
particularly
> > troublesome for Novell to deal with.... "
> >
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Can you put this Jennings Memoranda online somehwere?
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/