|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:58 AM EST |
| Put updated info and urls here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Financial results (OT?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:10 AM EST
- Message from the guy who did the port - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:17 AM EST
- Autozone have an investor's conf call today too ! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Autozone Redhat customer - Authored by: NZheretic on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:26 AM EST
- BBC item about EV1 and Autozone - Authored by: RogerB on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST
- Grim Reaper - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:38 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: Marc Duflot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:46 AM EST
- The site www.nvd.uscourts.gov is running Lotus-Domino/0 on Linux. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:49 AM EST
- SCOX Pre-Market already down to $12.10 (-1.32) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:57 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: zjimward on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST
- Press-releases - Authored by: coolmos on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:10 AM EST
- Strategic Defense of Linux, The Thousand Suit Theory - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:46 AM EST
- Well played by SCOG? - Authored by: TimGroks on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Nuts ... - Authored by: Duster on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:19 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:19 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST
- Schwartz Communications - Authored by: Waterman on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST
- And number two is DaimlerChrysler - Authored by: insensitive clod on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST
- Updates and URLs Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST
- Both suits as PDF - Authored by: fredricl on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:42 PM EST
- Both suits as PDF - Authored by: fredricl on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST
- Not about Open Server shared libraries - Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:35 PM EST
- ZDNet article with more details - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:35 AM EST
- SCOG Still Distributing Linux Files - Authored by: Frodmere on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:36 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:59 AM EST |
| o well. Another front opens. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:00 AM EST |
> The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, requests injunctive
relief
> against AutoZone's further use or copying of any part of SCO's copyrighted
> materials and also requests damages as a result of AutoZone's
> infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
Presumably "an amount proven" is related to "the SCO code proven
in linux"
which means SCO are going to have to prove their code is actually in linux,
instead of just claiming it is, before getting any damages?
Or would this case just be to scare others into paying for a license to prevent
any more legal action against them starting up, from SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:24 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:00 AM EST |
| AutoZone
Chooses Red Hat Services to Support Linux-Based Chain-Wide Intranet
Applications
This could not be better for RedHat's lawsuit against The
SCO Group. It proves Redhat was right that The SCO Group was going to sue one of
their customers.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:01 AM EST |
If so, perhaps they are being accused of using SYSV libraries on Linux without
the right licenses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST |
http://www.reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=marketsNews&storyID=448
6796[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DoctorW on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:02 AM EST |
So it is copyright eh. This ought to be fun to watch. If
the case really does go ahead, SCO will have to show what
lines of System V code have been copied into Linux. This isn't
a "it's derivative, no it's not" case a la IBM :-) Mind you, I haven't
seen the court filings yet. Who knows how accurate the
press release is.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rakaz on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:03 AM EST |
"SCO Revised Supplemental Response to IBM's First and Second
Interrogatories" already mentioned AutoZone as one of SCO customers that
IBM interfered with.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:03 AM EST |
| Autozone can get this case filed till end of Novell and IBM? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:04 AM EST |
| As Jim Greer told
us SCO offered to help AutoZone move. If one were still silly enough to
take SCO lawsuits seriously, one might wonder how they plan to get around the
issue of promissory estoppel. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:07 AM EST |
Looks like the Pump & Dump stock scheme needed a boost? I guess all the
investors did not believe the allegations by themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:08 AM EST |
What part of "code, structure, sequence and/or organization" is
actually copyrightable ?
If it is just code (as I suspect), then haven't SCO already failed to specify
(under a court order to do so) where there is any UNIX code in Linux ?
With such obvious failings of the complaint so readily in view, why do SCO
imagine they have any chance at all of getting an injunction ?
Finally, how much relief is SCO due (in the fantasy world where SCO is proved
right) from the fact that Autozone used Linux ? I'm figuring the damages
determined by the court would amount to beans anyway ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Beans - Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:21 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:27 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:08 AM EST |
It looks like Autozone are a RedHat customer as well... at least according to
linux.org ref Yahoo in 1999
Julian Chick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:10 AM EST |
I'm not sure if I believe that site is real. When I clicked on the link, I got
several warnings about the validity of the certificate for that site.
Is this some kind of anti-SCO ruse? If not, why the warnings?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:11 AM EST |
| Thanks! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:12 AM EST |
| From the response to interrogatory 8: In the second quarter of 2001,
despite the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement with SCO, upon information and
belief, IBM finally successfully induced Autozone to cease using the SCO
software and to use Linux with IBM's version of UNIX. Autozone ultimately
decided not to pay SCO the annual fee to continue to maintain the SCO products
and, upon information and belief, with the encouragement of IBM, began the
efforts required for conversion to Linux. Sounds like SCO is whining
because someone dropped their old, obsolescent Unix. So if I trade in a Chevy
for a Ford, GM can sue me if I still have payments left on my loan? And
this: The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which
the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to
run legacy applications on Linux. In other words, we at SCO are too dumb
to make Linux work, so IBM had to steal our stuff to make their
solution work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:13 AM EST |
It is ours, your soul is ours, you will never be able to leave us....
Actually it reminds me of possesive boyfriends.... If you leave me I will kill
you![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:13 AM EST |
| IMHO they filed suit against a Memphis firm in Nevada to get away from their
Honors Kimball and Wells. Why, you might ask? Well, aside from the many other
reasons that come to mind I suspect that the whole of their complaint is that
AutoZone must be running SCO libraries as described "on information and
belief" above. Not, mind you, that they have any evidence that this is so: that
will have to wait for discovery and "deep diving" into AutoZone's code. If
they brought that line before a Utah court at this point (please note that
Nevada is in a different circuit) they'd get whacked on the pee-pee so hard that
Darl's grandchildren would be sterile. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Nevada - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:31 AM EST
- Nevada - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:28 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: doug on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:15 AM EST |
What was SCO's reason for picking Nevada instead of doing it in Utah? They
wanted some new judges who weren't getting annoyed? Does Nevada have some rules
that makes this sort of case easier? They figured it was a gamble?
- doug[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why Nevada? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:23 AM EST
- Why Nevada? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:32 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:16 AM EST |
http://
www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040215015800694#c78161
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:17 AM EST |
So what impact does this have on Linux users in general? It sounds from the
release that they are accusing Autozone & IBM of taking code that Autozone
had licensed and putting that code into Autozone's Linux installation... and not
accusing that code of being in Linux in the first place.
Sounds again like a lawsuit over a contract violation (Autozone's SCO license).
(One more reason not to get any kind of a license from SCO.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:18 AM EST |
Could they be any more blatant?
Half of their press release is about the AutoZone suit. The next half is about
their earnings conference call.
No wonder they postponed the suit announcement to today, since they are
reporting a big quarterly loss in today's conference call. It's all about the
stock price.
This appears to be manipulation of their stock price for insider gain by abuse
of the U.S. court system. Prestilitigation.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST |
This has played out just as I expected. SCO is claiming infringement of their
copyrights, but they may actually have a case here. They won't be talking about
the software IBM contributed to Linux, but about Autozone using SCO shared
libraries with a non-SCO operating system. If Autozone did that, SCO in fact has
a valid complaint.
If SCO can win this case, they can legitimately claim to have won a copyright
case, which is what they're really after. The general press won't discriminate
between the baseless copyright claims SCO is pursuing against Linux and the
possibly valid copyright claims they're pursuing against a company that used SCO
shared libraries in violation of their license agreement.
I just hope that Autozone didn't in fact continue using the SCO shared libraries
when they converted to Linux and AIX.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:19 AM EST |
Do we actually know what they're suing over? I see "SCO's copyrighted
materials" ... but nothing about copyrights or IP in Linux. Could they in
fact be planning on suing over the use of OpenServer shared libraries under
Linux?
That way, they don't need to come out with real, solid claims about what they
own in Linux, and they have a chance of winning too. If they win, they can
trumpet "we won our suit against a Linux user - now pay us or we'll sue you
too!". Most people won't understand that they didn't, in fact, win a suit
over misused code in Linux at all.
Seem reasonable?
--
Craig Ringer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ricketts30 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST |
This is taken from SCO's SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
8:
... there may in fact be additional SCO customers that have
been interfered with other than Autozone, Sherwin Williams and
Target.
I guess Sherwin Williams and Target must be
relieved! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:20 AM EST |
This sounds to me like a stock complaint against IBM for some non-compete
clause. It doesn't sound like a suit against "Linux" per se but against
IBM for recommending an alternative (any alternative --- which just
co-incidentally in this case was Linux).
Of course they're already suing
IBM so I guess this is a suit against one of their old customers for listening
to one of their "partners" and accepting the advice to move to a different
(arguably more technically suitable) platform.
IANAL nor even a legal
assistant, but that's what a cursory reading suggests to me.
Did I miss
something?
If not, then it looks like characterizing this as a case
against "Linux" is stupid and insane and anyone in the press that swallows it is
non compos mentis!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: BrianW on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:21 AM EST |
The basis for SCO's belief [of infringement] is the precision and
efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of
shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux.
Once
again, they allege that because it's better, Linux MUST have stolen something
from their version of UNIX.
Is this "suggestion" of infringement enough
to sustain a lawsuit? ---
//Brian
#define IANAL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:21 AM EST |
The same problem would exist if those shared libraries
were copied into Windows or Solaris - nothing special about
Linux here, at all.
So the question to SCO: where's the promised end-user suit??
Another question to SCO: will they now apologize to all Linux developers and
contributors and retract all their previous statements where they accused the
Linux community of improperly using "SCO's IP"?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:23 AM EST |
There are several links here
(http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/1999/press_autozone.html) to the Red
Hat press release that say in 1999 AutoZone decided to go to Red Hat. However,
the Response sites dates of IBM involvement begining mid-2000 (At least that
what SCO thinks happened - I think I won the lottery - that doesn't mean I
did.). If both of these facts are true then AutoZone made this decision on its
own. IBM "may have" come in later and said "Hey we can help
ya'", but IBM definatly did not start them on the path.
I would guess that would be defense for the IBM case, as for the AZ case - well,
the Head Geek at AZ (according to his post) said they did everything above board
and not SCO libs were used. Of course SCO will say "Well, we own Linux - so
ALL our libs. were used".
Lastly, I find it funny that technology folks (myself included) are surprised
when a migration goes well... Isn't that part of our job?
Peace.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: marvin on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:24 AM EST |
...The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency
with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared
libraries to run legacy applications on Linux...
That's
it? They *believe* there is infringement simply because the transition went so
well?
Is it just me or does this sound kind...well...weak?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:26 AM EST |
Hmmm... If SCO keeps on losing at the same rate it has lost this time, five to
six months will do away with them. They reported profit 11 million+ for the last
quarter, with the loss being over 2 million. Big plunge!
By the way, would it be smart of AutoZone to counter sue SCO? Any opinions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:26 AM EST |
This sounds to me that SCO is not claiming that Linux contains SCO copyright
code, but that Autozone and IBM copied SCO UNIX shared libraries into Linux as
part of the Autozone migration.
It's the SCO shell game, In public claim Linux contains SCO IP/Copyright, But in
court claim something else entirly.
Bill Tedeski
william.tedeski@acs-inc.com
ACS Inc.
Pittsburgh PA
"Upon information and belief, Autozone's new Linux based software
implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out
of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside Autozone's Linux
implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of
Autozone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and
efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of
shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this
was a breach of the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO
software beyond the scope of the license. "
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:27 AM EST |
OK, so who is Autozone? This is the first time I've heard the
name. Is it something every american is likely to have heard
of? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:39 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:48 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:05 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:28 AM EST |
If using SCO shared libraries on Linux is illegal because they are restricted to
SCO operating systems by license, then using Microsoft shared libraries which
are included with MS Office (DCOM95, MSIE, and others) on linux through
Crossover or Wine is also illegal due to the license. The last time I checked,
both DCOM95 and Internet Explorer were restricted by the license to the Windows
platform. I suspect newer versions of the MS Office EULA state that it can only
be used under Windows as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:31 AM EST |
AINAL but *=="Allegedly"
but...
Surely this is purely contractual. It's about the use of SCO libraries as a
compatibility layer enabling Linux kit to run SCO applications. Autozone then
tried to drop the contract* with SCO while continuing to use the libs*.
Still, its got NOTHING to do with "All your Linux are belong to us",
its more of an "All our libs are belong to us" - a perfectly
legitimate position (contract permitting).
Im sure IBM wouldn't be too thrilled if AIX/PowerPC libs started popping up at
an installation that canned AIX in favour of MacOSX/PowerPC.
The situation seems analogous a Windows shop using Wine with Windows32 libs
without Windows licenses. Naughty.
The pattern emerging is one of SCO targeting existing customers that have
defected to Linux, but who continue* to use SCO subsystems as a stepping stone.
That being the case it raises questions like:
"why didn't they migrate to SCO's Linux"
"why did SCO produce a 'Linux Personality'"
"could the libs be GPL anyway via Linux Standard Base?"
"can SCO dictate how libs are used?"
This is quite different from the sensationalist accusations we have been seeing
in the press. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: brendthess on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:31 AM EST |
Sherwin Williams.
<p>
I called this yesterday in the <a
href=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2004030217594252>Now It's
Tomorrow SCO Will Announce Its First Target</a> article. Well, to be
precise, I said that it would be either Auto Zone or Sherwin Williams, since
both were explicitly listed in the 2nd revised complaint. Since SCO says that
they will be sueing another customer as well, Sherwin Williams is next up.
---
I am not even vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are you listening to me?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:34 AM EST |
So SCO is going after another group of technology types, or at least their
customers (mechanics) are. When AutoZone starts letting their customers know
about SCO, maybe Darl's body guards will need to be packing tire irons, spare
lug nuts and a trunk full of spare tires.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kevin lyda on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:36 AM EST |
| folks, i think this might be a valid case. essentially if what sco
descibes is what happened, it looks like autozone/ibm copied /usr/lib/lib* and
/lib/lib* from openserver installs into appropriate compat directories on linux.
autozone apps built for openserver were then copied to linux
installs.
depending on the license under which sco sold openserver to
autozone, that might not be allowed. maybe the license says, "you can only run
this on openserver." maybe it says, "you're only allowed x instances" and
autozone copied it to x + y linux boxes.
i think we need more info before
saying this is more crap from sco. it might not be sound business practice, but
i think there is a strong possibility that sco is on solid legal ground; that
they have a strong and winnable case. we as free software developers and users
should support sco if more info comes out supporting what they say. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:41 AM EST |
This statement is apparently the entire basis for the SCO Group's lawsuit:
"The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the
migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run
legacy applications on Linux."
... and heeeere's the substantiation for the SCO Group's allegation:
"SCO does not presently know the specific dates on which the interference
occurred, how it occurred or which IBM or Autozone employees were involved
because SCO was not present ..."
In my opinion, the SCO Group's lawsuit attacks: (1) AutoZone as a former
customer of the SCO Group; (2) IBM as a services provider; (3) possibly RH as
the Linux supplier. I hope that IBM takes over AutoZone's defense, because the
SCO Group is clearly attacking IBM's Linux consulting business. As for AutoZone:
AutoZone has a lot of friends, should it decide to fight.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: fb on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:08 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Waterman on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:43 AM EST |
SCOG: Your Honor, we are bringing this case against Autozone for illegal use of
our IP.
Autozone: Your Honor, what IP?
SCOG: The IP we say is in Linux
illegally and used from when they had a UNIX license from us.
Autozone: Your
Honor, they have failed to prove that they even own the copyrights yet. See SCOG
V. Novell and SCOG V. IBM and RH V. SCOG.
SCOG: IBM and Novell and Red Hat
are all in this together. They are trying to ruin us. This proves it. We know
they are.
Autozone: Your Honor, we ask that SCOG be barred from making any
comments on the ownership of the IP in question until it is proven in court. And
we ask, your Honor, that this case be stayed, pending dismissal, until said time
as the courts find they have a valid claim.
Court: Autozone, do you have an
order for such request?
Autozone: Yes, Your Honor.
Court: So ordered.
We can only hope it goes this way. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:44 AM EST |
Hang on, hang on, isn't this just another license dispute? Simply that Autozone
are using SCO's libraries outside of their licensed terms?
And is it the case that Linux is irrelevant to this dispute? That it's about
Autozone migrating to *anything* other than SCO Unix, and carrying over some SCO
libraries to ease the transition?
If so:
1) SCO might win.
2) Who cares?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DrStupid on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:45 AM EST |
I was going to post this in answer to an earlier comment, but it seemed a better
idea to put it top-level.
Obviously code itself can be copyrightable.
"Structure, sequence and organisation" is a term not picked out of
thin air, but one used in past legal findings and precedent.
In brief, the way a program is structured (the specific order in which it does
things) can be copyrighted in some cases. That *doesn't* mean that no-one is
allowed to make a program that works the same way. What it means is that you are
not allowed to look at some code and *copy* the internal workings of it, where
there is some reasonable choice as to what.
Example:
Suppose I give you a program that reads in files and "stupefies" them.
(We'll assume I have no patent on this process ;)
You observe the effect the program has by feeding various files, and conclude
that "stupefying" consists of sorting the file and deleting the last
line. Then you go and write your own program that sorts a file and deletes the
last line. That's legitimate reverse engineering.
But suppose you disassemble my code and look at the algorithm I use to actually
do the sorting. Then you use the exact same algorithm in your
"stupefier." In that case you are copying "structure, sequence
and organisation", not just duplicating the black-box function of my
program. Depending on the status of my sorting code, that could be a copyright
violation.
TSG *may* be about to allege (this is only a guess) that when AutoZone ported
their system to Linux, they looked into the Openserver libraries and *copied*
stuff from them in order to make the system no longer require the libraries
themselves. Of course AutoZone have denied this on Groklaw already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TerryL on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:47 AM EST |
| SCO does not presently know the specific dates on which the interference
occurred, how it occurred or which IBM or Autozone employees were involved
because SCO was not present when IBM sold Linux-related services to Autozone,
when IBM assisted Autozone in the design of the new Linux system deploying
legacy applications that depended on SCO OpenServer shared libraries in order to
function, or when IBM performed the professional services to assist Autozone to
improperly deploy OpenServer shared libraries inside its IBM-provided Linux
implementation. More specific information, such as which IBM and Autozone
employees were involved, is in the possession of IBM and/or Autozone and will
require additional discovery from at least IBM and Autozone.
Sorry for
such a big quote, but by listing all the things SCOG don't know aren't
they saying "we're guessing that this must have happened".
OK,
where's the licence? can anyone check that if their libraries were used it is
documented that it's not allowed by the licence?
Is it not possible that
things went smoothly because IBM/Autozone actually did some work and came up
with a workable alternative that just sort of, well..., worked?
I can't see
that IBM approaching (or being approached by) a potential customer, pointing out
an alternative (and presumably better) options for that potential customer and
that potential customer saying "OK, that looks good to me" and stop
being so potential and becoming a REAL customer is anything other than doing
business. It must happen daily. It does seem SCOG is upset about it, and seem to
think it's a dirty trick not, a nice thing to do.
OK, IF Autozone,
(and IBM), did use SCOG's libraries and it's illegal for the libraries to be
used that way then fair enough, that's wrong and SCOG will win. BUT, what
has that to do with Linux? The libraries aren't IN linux, they are being
used ON a machine running Linux but they aint a part of Linux.
I
thought it was Caldera (was it?) put the code in Linux to allow the libraries to
work on Linux anyway - tho' that doesn't mean it's legal to use the libraries
without a valid licence.
If time is what SCOG is after, I've always thought,
and said before, a whole string of legal cases, each intertwined and dependent
on the outcome of the others seemed like a good way of getting lots of time.
This is another twist in that Gordian style knot of legal cases that SCOG are
tying. Where's Alexander the Great when you need him?...
---
All
comment and ideas expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of
any other idiot... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:49 AM EST |
| Here's how I think it all went down.
Darl became CEO, found out, "Hey, we own
Unix!"
Thought he was onto something and with much greedy cackling, proceeds to
try to charge every linux end-user. (Why, it's a veritable gold mine!)
Then
things get out of hand, they bite off more then they can chew, and Darl finds
out that there really isn't anything to sue over.
(What do you mean, there's no
code, I promised them millions of lines!!!)
So now he's thinking, "oh
crap, oh crap, oh crap" but he's too far in to back out and the stock is
dropping and dropping.
So actually, this latest move is quite clever.
What you do is disguise a lawsuit as something else. Sure, they're not
suing over copyright infringement on the linux kernel only what
Autozone might have taken from OpenLinux. But the point is that it's a
copyright lawsuit of some sort against a linux user and that's all you need in
the headlines: SCO sues linux end-user for copyright infringement!
Hiding behind a veil of half-truths is all the McBrides can do at this
point, and hey look, it's working! (And the devil turns away to blush) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: crythias on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST |
| I got into a long thread<
/a> regarding GPL doesn't cover usage.
Basically, SCO's complaint about use
and distribution have to be covered under separate types of law, as I've
understood that thread.
GPL doesn't cover use. It's outside the scope of
copyright law, and therefore the GPL.
EULAs (contracts) and patents are the
only types of law that cover use.
SCO must prove that it holds a patent on
the alleged infringement, or that AutoZone violated a EULA with SCO in order to
stop AutoZone from USING the software.
Basically, if SCO can't truly claim
EULA or patent infringement, they don't have a case. If it's a copyright issue,
they can't sue users, only distributors. If Autozone is a distributor,
Autozone's only distributed with belief that the license under which they
distributed was fully valid.
It's time to stop this. SCO can't sue end users
for copyright law violations. And they can't stop users from using with
copyright law. Essentially, SCO has to prove theft, and to prove that, they have
to prove ownership.
cat message | lawyer > LegalOpinion
cat message
| crythias > OwnOpinion [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:55 AM EST |
The SCO Group is a heavy user of the phrase "information and belief".
We should find out in the discovery phase which percentage is information and
which percentage is belief.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:01 AM EST |
Its obvious that SCO seems to be more interested in blaming IBM than Autozone.
They are opening a new lawsuit but they still keep their focus on IBM even if
they file against autozone.
quote:
"is in the possession"[...]"will require more information from
from IBM and Autozone"
(I guess in that particular order). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST |
SCO is hoping that, because this one is allegedly about unauthorized use of Unix
libraries (an assertion which Mr. Greer's comments debunk), not Linux,
that Autozone will be forced to go it alone without the assistance of the
various indemnification funds set up - cuz this isn't a Linux
case.
That way, they get to launch a 'copyright' case against a 'Linux
user', even though it isn't about Linux - (a detail that will obviously fall
under the radar of the majority of 'journalists' covering the story, and will be
tactically omitted by the Three Faces of SCO in future FUD) and they get
to put any spin they want on any assistance Autozone might get from said funds:
'They are clearly trying to destroy us! This isn't a Linux case, but they are
funding them anyway!' or 'They say this isn't about Linux, yet they are funding
them, so it must be about Linux!' and so on.
Surprisingly crafty
for a bunch of shallow pans.
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST |
After thinking about SCO's claim, it should be fairly
easy for AutoZone to show that they didn't use any of
SCO's libraries, assuming that is the case. Sound's like another SCO fishing
expedition: "We have no proof but ...".
I sincerely hope SCO gets squashed. Literally. Flat. End.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:37 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: roxyb on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:54 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: rigorist on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:05 AM EST |
| My car needs a new oxygen sensor. I know where I'm buying it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:31 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: JustFree on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:15 AM EST |
It appears that SCO believes that there is a worldwide conspiracy against them.
If SCO was drawing a line from point A to B then they would include C,D,E and
any other point that they could think off. If IBM convince a SCO customer to use
them because they could support them better then there is not wrong about
AutoZone from changing suppliers. This is what doing business is all about.
SCO's case against AutoZone has not relation to their case against IBM. This is
the same antics that SCO has consistently used. Did AutoZone allow SCO to audit
them. I doubt it, but I may be wrong. SCO is trying to convince everyone that
there is a conspiracy against it to destroy Unix.
SCO first would have to convince the courts that the libraries work with Linux.
Review the stories about “errno.h” and “signal.h”, it would be very hard for SCO
to win such a case. The old saying is “this does not hold water”. I also think
the press is waking up. The first round of news in the pressing was to be the
first to report the event.
Even SCO does not know UNIX. There would be similar libraries in AIX and
Unixware they are based on the same version of UNIX. So any claim that the AIX
infringed SCO claim to Unixware, is invalid.
All the case that SCO has file, or have been filed against them are different.
Novell “Who owns the valid copyrights”. RedHat “Interfering with business”.
AutoZone “I can not figure this out”. IBM “Copyright infringement”, and what
ever SCO can think of. “What a tangled web we create when we first learn how to
deceive”.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: moogy on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:18 AM EST |
>>> * AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by
>>> running versions of the Linux operating system
>>> that contain code, structure, sequence and/or
>>> organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V
>>> code in violation of SCO's copyrights.
I didn't think copyright law covered such things as
"structure, sequence and/or organization".
They failed to answer any IBM discovery for code they
claimed rights to in Linux. The issue of whether the
code applied to the IBM case or not was irrelevant.
They were ordered by the court to provide IBM with
any/all specifics of code or IP claims they had in
Linux and provided none.
If you throw out code copying then how can this possibly
be a legit copyright case? It sounds more like the
Monterey crying over things that didn't go their way.
In both cases they were developing and selling Linux
services but failed to get the customers.
---
Mike Tuxford - irc.fdfnet.net #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:19 AM EST |
It's particularly galling to see SCO's interpretation of their
"license" as somehow requiring the customer to continue to do business
with SCO...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: DES on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:20 AM EST |
As far as I can tell, this lawsuit has no bearing on the SCO vs Linux case. It
is a simple matter of SCO claiming that AutoZone continued to use SCO software
after terminating their license, with no claims being made about Linux per se.
It seems to me that Linux's involvment in this case is purely coincidential; it
might as well have been FreeBSD or Solaris/x86 or any OS capable of running
UnixWare binaries.
So SCO still haven't sued a Linux user in the direct sense. They've only sued a
previous customer whom they believe is violating the license agreement (and
possibly IBM for knowingly assisting in that violation).
What's more, the only argument they present to support their case seems to be
that performing the transition without violating the license would have required
a certain amount of work. Well, Darl, I have news for you: some people actually
work, rather than sue, for a living.
DES[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OmniGeek on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:24 AM EST |
Gee, unless the post from the guy who did the port was a TOTAL troll, (a
proposition I find totally implausible), then SCO is once again shooting their
own feet. They cannot win this case.
The most they can possibly do is establish a precedent that they are violating
the GPL by attempting to enforce additional conditions on GPLed code they
distributed, and bring down a ton of bricks on their collective heads. Given
that SCO offered to HELP Autozone make the transition they're suing over, I
smell a summary dismissal coming on fast.
The outcome of the Novell case isn't even relevant here, so it's unlikely SCO
can use that case to drag this one out.
Am I dreaming, or is SCO being shockingly stupid yet again?
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gnutechguy99 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:29 AM EST |
SCO is essentially saying "AutoZone must have used our IP because the migration
went smoothly."
Won't this degenerate into another discovery delay game as
with IBM? Won't AutoZone just say "What PROOF do you have of your claims?" It
looks to to me (and I could be wrong) that SCO AGAIN wants to FISH FOR
EVIDENCE!
"... and beyond them a far green country under a swift
sunrise."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:32 AM EST |
From what I have read, the evidence that they are using to attack Autozone is
they moved to Linux too easily, they must still be using SCO libraries and
illegally copied them....
Can you start a discovery process when you HAVE NO evidence (other than drug
induced dreams) to support your initial lawsuit. I would think that at least
the judge should require something, like a witness that could testify to
something...... otherwise all you end up is using the courts to go fishing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JeR on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:33 AM EST |
| 1. They're not suing for copyright infringement, because Autozone
probably never modified and distributed, but for breach of
contract.
2. They're not suing a Linux user, but their own
OpenServer licensee who happens to use Linux too. Put that way (in the press
release), their stock would have plummeted through the trading floor. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jmc on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:34 AM EST |
I see SCO's press release page about Autozone still has the HTML title "SCO
Grows your business".
Shouldn't they change it to "SCO sues your business"?
Always like to be helpful....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:36 AM EST |
So fare 'we' assume that it's not about linux, but about SCO unix libs used in
porting their application. Btu why? We assume that because Iterregatory nr 8,
mentioned in the article. But is relevant for the announced lawsuit?
The
press release clearly states:
AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX
copyrights by running versions of the
Linux operating system that
contain code, structure, sequence and/or
organization from SCO's
proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of
SCO's copyrights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:37 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:38 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:40 AM EST |
Please forgive all the triple question marks, but I'm confused.
From PJ's link to SCOX financial statement: "Revenue for the first quarter
of fiscal 2004 was in line with the Company's expectations, and was comprised of
$11,372,000 from UNIX products and services and $20,000 from SCOsource
initiatives."
From same place: "The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2004 includes costs of $3,440,000 related to the Company's SCOsource
licensing initiatives."
They made $20K revenue on $3.44M costs in SCO Souce???
The EV1Servers deal (which was a SCOSource deal wasn't it?) was understood to
have been discounted on nearly 20,000 servers at $699 each, or nearly $14M.
They discounted it down to $20K??? Or is revenue from that deal not part of
this report???
I must be misinterpreting this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: T. ProphetLactus on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST |
| ...on "information and belief that SCOG took a battery we sold them for a
Chevrolet Pickupand used it to jump-start a Ford passenger car.
We
also allege the jumper cables were owned by a former MicroSoft
employee."
TPL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:52 AM EST |
This is just a stupid whatif...
As many legal fronts SCO is fighting against their burn rate is through the roof
already -- what if say, every fortune 1000 company with an enterprise linux
edition pre-emptively sued seeking declarations that their code was safe... in
other words... say SCO had about 700 suits filed against them spead out in every
district... that would definately increase the burn rate and perhaps bring this
to a quicker close. I wouldn't think that the suits would be combined as each
one is dealing with a separate installation/migration with its own details...
then again I'm just a programmer that has no idea what i'm talking about so I'll
just leave it at that
just a random thought.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:54 AM EST |
A couple of questions for all of you out there. Consider me as knowing
absolutely nothing (but I'm not Darl)
First, I presume that OpenServer is proprietary software. Therefore the
libraries supposedly cannot be used. Question is: doesn't this amount to a
vendor lockin? Wouldn't SCO need to prove that the libraries were used in the
transition to Linux RH? Isn't there information on Groklaw that explicitly
states that the port was not done by using the SCO libraries?
Second, from running a quick Google search on Openserver, I understand that
there is plenty of GPL and LGPL software out there that can be run on this
proprietary platform. Isn't there a case to be made that since none of these
tools are allowed to be run on this platform in this future? Wouldn't that
really spoil Darl's day? I understand too little of the GPL and LGPL to know
about this.
Thanks for the info,
Kind regards - Ben (intending to create an account asap)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST |
So the facts are:
(a) Autozone was maliciously incited to switch over to a competitor's product by
that same competitor
(b) Autozone was remarkably good at transitioning their own IT
I did not believe that the IBM lawsuit would last for more than a week. If it
weren't for that, I would never believe that this suit would get anything but a
CEO (DMcB) fired.
The way in which the legal system is exploited here is ridiculous. This
indicates that that system is lacking the most basic defenses against gross
abuse.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:02 AM EST |
It appears the Darl strategy is not paying off. Note the pretty violent sell-off
that occurred early in the day. Stock seems to be rebounding a little, but loss
is still over 1$ on the day.
It appears some people are seeing SCO for what they are ... slightly interested
in artificially raising their stock price.
Crossing my fingers for a further sell-off,
Ben[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sam on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST |
| Finanical statements are here.
The best part is this:
Cost of SCOsource
licensing revenue $3,440
SCOsource licensing revenue $20
The
brains behind SCOsource should be fired, but I think the entire company has been
bet on a train it cannot now get off of.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jdk on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:10 AM EST |
I would really love to see Jesse James create an sco bashing monster vehicle.
It is an excellent opportunity to mock sco. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:12 AM EST |
I believe what happened here is:
1:SCO form their theory about use of libraries
2:SCO demand to audit Autozone's software systems
3:Autozone, not being a current SCO customer decline
4:SCO, needing a press release go on a fishing expedition in court.
and hopefully
5: The audit happens and SCO's case vanishes.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- audit - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:42 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:12 AM EST |
From eweek:
"AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux
operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from
SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights."
So, is this about Linux, or isn't it. If it is, will get will their u know what
handed to them on a platter, because RH defense fund will kick in?
Ben[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:27 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST |
SCO, on the pure belief that because IBM didn't use incompetent morons to make a
transition from SCO software to AIX/Linux and it went quickly and smoothly (you
know, they thing they get paid to do for people), that the only POSSIBLE way to
do it was to steal SCO IP.
Last I checked, you needed more than a belief to file a rather large-scale
lawsuit. Didn't they basically get told that the court isn't to be used as a
fishing expedition in the IBM case?
At any rate, SCO gets the sinfully misleading "SCO sues Linux user for
copyright violations" headline - but the case has SQUAT to do with Linux.
Remember folks, this case is NOT about UNIX code in Linux. It's about SCO's
actual IP if you can believe it or not. Unfortunately for them, they're going
to be SOL in the courts. They have no way to prove any of their libraries were
used. And c'mon ... IBM wouldn't be THAT stupid![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: lnxcwby on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:19 AM EST |
to buy all of your car care needs from AutoZone until SCO goes away.
I spend a few thousand on auto parts a year, (fixing my crappy cars, and the
crappy cars of friends and family) and even though Advance Auto is closer to my
house, I'll be buying everything from AutoZone for the forseeable future.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Xaos on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:20 AM EST |
In response to the SCO lawsuit. Autozone refuses to render any mechanical repair
services to Darl McBride and urges others to follow.
---
Can we outsource Darl to india? No wait humans live there. -Xaos-[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST |
How long until Novell instructs SCO to waive its rights against AutoZone?
Or is it only SRVX licencees that can be affected by that kind of play?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ajrs on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:27 AM EST |
Autozone's biggest competitor, Pep Boys, is a SCO shop.
( or were back in
2001). I don't know if they took that
into consideration, but it wouldn't
suprise me if they
did. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:28 AM EST |
It seems that the best way to avoid litigation is to remove all connections with
SCO/Caldera from your company. Switch to
any other OS and destroy anything that has the name SCO on it.
This case has nothing to do with SCO's code in the Linux kernel. This could have
happened with any other OS that relies on SCO libraries.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kuwan on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:34 AM EST |
First off, it looks like I was
right, as were others,
about it being one of their customers. Remember, a
contract with a Canopy
company only makes you a future legal target.
;)
Anyway, from what I've read initially and if this
post from
AutoZone's former Sr. Technical Advisor is correct, then SCO has
once again
filed a lawsuit on a hunch, without any evidence whatsoever. Look
for them
insisting on AutoZone going first with discovery because they need to
first
see all of AutoZone's code (every version that was ever created). Once
AutoZone can provide them with that, then SCO will surely be able to provide
their evidence.
No really, honestly Judge, just make
them go first, there must be
something there. No we don't have any evidence
yet because AutoZone
hasn't given us any.
Apparently
SCO's claims are based on the fact that AutoZone once was a SCO
customer and
they moved to Linux. Oh, and AutoZone also did a good job
doing the trasition.
So watch out all you SCO customers and licensees, if you
want to dump their
software because it sucks for anything else (especially
Linux) then their going
to sue you.
So apparently SCO's business model (aside from just suing
everybody) is that
once you become a SCO customer, you must be one for life.
Don't try to
dump their software for something superior because if you do,
they'll sue
you. And SCO says the GPL is restrictive.
It's amazing
that they've been able to get so far in the legal system.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:38 AM EST |
If SCO has no proof and only speculation, wont the Autozone case get dismissed,
but if SCO does have proof and withheld this from IBM's discovery, won't SCO
face sanctions or dismissal in their IBM case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST |
Not knowing much about the stock market, I'm wondering... Is it normal for a
companies stock to drop 10% at the opening of a new day? SCOX is down about 10%.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: RLP on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:14 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Well, maybe SCO did not claim they were going to sue over
linux. They DID claim they were going to sue a "linux
end_user". In the same sence that they could have
announced that they were going to sue a hubcap retailer
and not sue over hubcaps. By means of pre identifying the
company they just decided to call them a "linux end user"
without that having any relevance with the case itself.
Just maybe Darl would have announced a suit against a
"linux end user" even if the case was totaly NON tech
related.
If a SCO employee files for devorce does, in case the
soon_to_be_ex_partner used linux, he or she refer to it as
a case against the "linux end user" who can't have the
bludy china dishes ??
So Maybe there is a slim change that SCO didn't tell a lie
this time. could that be ?
retep _ so sue me _ vosnul [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ickoonite on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:52 AM EST |
To quote Para. 2 of the Supp. Response to Int. No. 8:
In mid-2000,
upon information and belief, IBM approached Autozone in
an effort to induce
Autozone to breach its agreement with SCO. In the second
quarter of 2001, IBM
was actively advising Autozone's internal software group
about converting to
Linux. In the second quarter of 2001, despite the
Autozone OpenServer License
Agreement with SCO, upon information and
belief, IBM finally successfully
induced Autozone to cease using the SCO
software and to use Linux with IBM's
version of UNIX. Autozone ultimately
decided not to pay SCO the annual fee to
continue to maintain the SCO
products and, upon information and belief, with
the encouragement of IBM,
began the efforts required for conversion to
Linux.
This is simply beautiful, this paragraph and all of it, it
seems, is based on
hearsay - "on information and belief," quoth Boies
(?).
And the way in which it makes IBM so incredibly cunning, devious,
subversive
- it is simply marvellous and quite entertaining ("IBM approached
Autozone in
an effort to induce [it] to breach its agreement with SCO"; "IBM
was actively
advising Autozone's internal software group").
So
basically they are crying, as they have been since this whole scrap started,
because OpenServer/SCO UNIX/whatever is no longer competitive. Funny
then that
McBride, such a trumpeter of capitalism (the GPL is, after all, a
threat
thereto) and surely therefore freemarket economics, should be trying
to subvert
the market to stay in the game.
In a way I hope they never go away,
because, as with their earlier efforts, this
is
another fine piece of entertainment.
---
gareth :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:53 AM EST |
Write and e-mail Autozone and let them know that there is more at stake here
than their own company and that if they stand up to these bullies then they have
your support.
Also let them know where you'll be taking your car from now on.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:05 AM EST |
I've just listened to Autozone's financial conf. call and there was not a single
mention of SCO by either the management or the analysts, although plenty of
concern about the weather affecting their bottom line.
So bascially SCO is of less concern to them than a snow storm ?
LMAO :-D
Welcome to the real world SCO...you are not important, nobody outside your
little incestious fan-club even knows you exist, you will not win, and nobody
will remember you in 18 months time.
Bye bye
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:05 AM EST |
I just got off the Autozone concall. Suit wasn't brought up at all.
Can someone say 'bug--->windshield'?
I'm on the SCO call, I'll have a few choice questions..
Like WTF? At increasingly higher volume.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:11 AM EST |
What does this do to Darly's stock options. Didn't he have to have 4 straight
profitable quarters. Doesn't this mean he has to start all over again???
Please enlighten me someone....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:11 AM EST |
Wow, SCOX is dropping like a rock today:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=1d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
I would hope that IBM will step up to the plate with AutoZone and help defend
them against SCO, especially since IBM is outright accused by SCO of stealing
AutoZone as a customer by taking SCO's libraries and using them in Linux. I hate
to see IBM spending yet more millions but they are the vendor AutoZone chose,
they need to stand behind the implementation they sold.
I wonder what DiDio will say about this. The market has clearly spoken.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:19 AM EST |
SCO today announced a lawsuit to be filed agains
DaimlerChrysler Corporation for its alleged violations of
its Unix software agreement with SCO. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST |
| I'm on the concall [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST |
| That is direct from the conference call. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:21 AM EST |
| They said they're also going to sue Chrysler [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
My theory:
During discovery, I expect it to be very likely that TSG will subpoena the
source code for AutoZone's application that was ported to Linux by J. Greer's
team.
Browsing through the source code, near the top of some of the files, will be
#include's for errno.h, signal.h, etc.
"Aha," TSG's law team will exclaim. "We knew it. There's our
smoking gun. They are including header files that are derived from our
copyrighted code, and therefore are using our Unix IP to build the Linux version
of their application." And the judge, jury, etc. will then be faced with a
long, confusing debate surrounding the evolution of those files.
Not a troll... I am a not logged-in "ashtonp". Mozilla remembers my
Groklaw password when I'm running Linux, but I don't, and I'm not ;-(
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ABM_rulez on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:28 AM EST |
Well that's what SCO is telling to the court:
The basis for SCO's
belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux
occurred, ...
Now, isn't that really good news for everybody who is
not interested in dealing with SCO any more? Even SCO admits that the migration
from Open Server will lead to no technical problems at all. There is a precise
and efficient way instead. That's what I call big news: Even SCO certifies that
there is no problem in switching from their system to Linux. What a big relief
for all those who have been in doubt about Linux beeing be an alternative OS.
Thank you SCO - you made my day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: marvin on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:28 AM EST |
They're sueing....Daimler-Chrysler!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
(breathe)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
This is un-f***ing believable! Just *how deep* can they dig this hole?!?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- It's Autozone - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 12:44 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: trox on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 01:37 PM EST |
| Darl McBride stated to Dan Farber "IBM is a sponsor of Groklaw".
Dan's
really got Darl stuttering, finally a decent interview from ZDnet. Some factual
based questions and it confuses Darl.
Here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:37 PM EST |
What if everyone (or most of us) went out and bought something
from Autozone today?
It could have a large positive effect on the company: they get sued by
SCOG and their profits go up! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST |
Just to show that the SCO lawyers aren't complete dummies, they used a legal
phrase which says they and their clients are going on suspicion, a hunch, and
some hearsay:-
From Law.com
"n. a phrase often used in legal pleadings (complaints and answers in a
lawsuit), declarations under penalty of perjury, and affidavits under oath, in
which the person making the statement or allegation qualifies it. In effect,
he/she says: "I am only stating what I have been told, and I believe
it." This makes clear about which statements he/she does not have
sure-fire, personal knowledge (perhaps it is just hearsay or surmise) and
protects the maker of the statement from claims of outright falsehood or
perjury. The typical phraseology is: "Plaintiff is informed and believes,
and upon such information and belief, alleges that defendant diverted the funds
to his own use."
I would have preferred to just insert the link, but law.com uses a popup
javascript window, with no visible URL.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:04 PM EST |
Autozone should begin -- soonest -- stocking a new product: A Penguin.
Then let the FOSS world know about it. I'll buy one.
If ya got it ... why not flaunt it?
krp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST |
What's up with Groklaw today, I've had trouble getting thru all
day?
Anyway, alleged, details of SCO's suit against AutoZone (posting
this to both recent
stories)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/43910.htm
SCO is suing AutoZone, the premier auto parts chain and former SCO user, worth
about $5.5 billion in annual sales, for violating SCO's contested "Unix
copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code,
structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary Unix System V
code."
In the suit SCO defines this widgetry as including SVR5 static
shared libraries; dynamic shared libraries and inter-process communication
mechanisms including semaphores, message queues and shared memory; enhanced
reliable signal processing; the SVR5 file system switch interface; virtual file
system capabilities; process scheduling classes including real-time support;
asynchronous I/O; file system quotas; support for lightweight processes (kernel
threads); user-level threads; and loadable kernel modules.
Questions
1. Has any of "inter-process
communication mechanisms including semaphores, message queues and shared memory;
enhanced reliable signal processing; the SVR5 file system switch interface;
virtual file system capabilities; process scheduling classes including real-time
support; asynchronous I/O; file system quotas; support for lightweight processes
(kernel threads); user-level threads; and loadable kernel modules." been
produced in discovery to IBM's interrogatory #12? I thought SCO were supposed to
identify all their alleged rights?
2. Are SCO claiming all the stuff
quoted in question 1 as being exclusive to them? In which case, it sounds to me
like all operating systems and much other software, by definition infringes by
their theory?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: subdude on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST |
Hey PJ:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/AutoZoneFinalComplaint.pdf
and,
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/DCComplaint.pdf
Keep up the *EXCELLENT* work!
SubDude[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ra on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST |
Link
to complaint
Please ignore this if it has been posted
before.
I also am not sure it is what SCO filed but it
matches.
From Yahoo! SCOX message board.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST |
The troll SCO keeps trying to troll with a baitless legal hooks hoping to catch
at least one big fish, while they throw all their worms into media streams.
Perhaps Yarro, McBride and company should try going to some of the trout streams
in the Utah wilderness to get in touch with what is real.
another one from under the bridge
I realize I'm only the hired help here but I don't do Windows!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST |
The suit is being publicised as being about copyrighted code in linux. The
comparison with the enforcememnt efforts of the RIAA is being made. Yet the suit
really is about the use of unix shared libraries to run legacy applications.
This concerns me. Lets face it - this is actually possible, unless autozone was
scrupulous and meticulous during the transition. And that really worries me. If
SCO gets permission to go on a diving expedition (which is not certain) it may
actually find something it can make a case out of. A very weak case to be sure.
But enough of a case to stop the suit being dismissed out of hand.
Meanwhile Darl and co are going to continue to misrepresent this case in the
media as being about copyrighted code in linux which it most certainly ISN'T and
try to use it to scare the bejeezus out of other linux users and sell more
scosauce.
Since the case really isn't about linux but is being represented that way, OSDL
and redhat aare in a tricky situation here. They really have no natural interest
in this case, which is a contract violation case between SCO and autozone. Yet
because of the media sping Darl is using, to fail to come to autozones
assistance would be a public relations disaster.
The vital thing to pay attention to here is the publicity. It is essential that
we stop Darl from publicising this as a `copyrighted code in linux' case. It
isn't. Darl could win this case without establishing anything about copyright
ownership or code in linux at all. It is a contract case. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:05 PM EST |
Everyone seems to think that the case is really about the shared libraries,
since they were mentioned in Interrogatory Number 8, but that's from the IBM
case. Couldn't SCO's suit against AutoZone be exactly what SCO claims it is?
Such a suit would be incredibly absurd, but when has that ever stopped SCO
before?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Second that! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:35 PM EST |
If I take share libraries, which I have a license for (x processors) and copy
them onto a Linux machine(s) (x or -x processors), does that violate the
license?
I haven't read a EULA in a while, but what the harm to anyone, whatso ever.
Whats the relief for SCO? They already made the sale. If Autozone techs made
beer coasters out of the SCO cd's, whats the difference.
I'll have to check my OpenServer EULA at work, see if that gives any light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: korda on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST |
TSG is concerned that AutoZone must have done something wrong because their
transition to linux was fast and it coundn't have been done without SCOG 'IP'.
TSG is concerned that IBM must have done something wrong because they reckon
linux 'grew up' too fast & became mature too quickly and this coudn't have
been done without SCOG 'IP'.
Does TSG have a problem with speed? With the idea of intelligent people (Mr
Greer the ex AutoZone guy and the rest of the linux community etc) who can do
their job/hobby quickly and efficiently? Does TSG think they are the only people
that can provide this? Hey, they have to resort to delaying the courts.
I see why they're going after the automotive industry: "You can't go fast
unless you use our stuff". Yeah, like TSG could make cars go faster or
anything. I sure don't think they could make my linux go faster.
ps this might not post or it'll dupe. Even with my superfast university link I
can't get into groklaw well atm.
---
~Duane (yet another West Aussie who cares)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:00 PM EST |
| That's like 28 to 29 customers? Quick, switch to SCO! The masses have spoken! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:07 PM EST |
From this
PDF file, emphasis added:
19. The Copyrighted Materials
include protected expression
of code, structure, sequence and/or
organization in many
categories of UNIX System V functionality,
including but
not limited to the following: System V static shared
libraries;
System V dynamic shared libraries; System V interprocess
communication mechanisms including semaphores, message queues, and
shared
memory; enhanced reliable signal processing; System V file
system switch
interface; virtual file system capabilities; process
scheduling classes,
including real time support; asynchronous
input/output; file system quotas;
support for Lightweight
Processes (kernel threads); user level threads; and
loadable
kernel modules.
Now, since this mentions things
like process scheduling and loadable
kernel modules, it doesn't look like this
is about OpenServer shared
libraries, but about the Linux kernel itself.
However, "System V
static shared libraries" confuses me. Static
libraries have
nothing to do with a kernel, since static libraries are linked
in to
an executable when the compiler invokes the linker. SCO might be
referring to the POSIX implementation in libc which invokes the
appropriate
system calls, but libc isn't a part of the kernel. But
then if you go back a
bit in SCO's complaint:
15. SCO is the owner of copyright
rights to UNIX software, source
code, object code, programming tools,
documentation related
to UNIX operating system technology, and derivative
works thereof.
So perhaps SCO is extending it's claims
beyond the Linux kernel, and
also to things like GNU linker and compiler?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:25 PM EST |
according to <a
href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/03/03/court_that_will_hear_sco
_v_autozone_lawsuit_itself_runs_linux.html">netcraft</a>.
Netcraft wondered if SCO would drop off a cease-and-desist while they were
there. -:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:47 PM EST |
What do you think the damages based on these allegations might be?
4 years of support + one upgrade + a few new licenses * 3,000 + stores. Assumin
This is hardly irrepairable damages. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:24 AM EST |
Don't the US have anti-racketeering laws?
AutoZone have no interest in Linux as such, they just
want SCO to leave them alone. And SCO is betting
AutoZone will pay just to get this case settled. A
trial and lawyers could be more expensive, not to
mention the fuzz and unwanted attention it creates.
SCO is betting on never having to prove its accusations,
simply because AutoZone have no interest in proving
Linux is not the intellectual property of SCO.
Using obscure accusation of copyright infringments
and lawsuits to extort money is no different from
other forms of "selling protection". SCO is selling
protection against legal mess created by SCO.
SCO's behaviour constitutes extortion and is
therefore racketeering. It is time to stop this
racketeer. It is time to sue SCO for racketeering.
Just my five cents.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
