decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
AutoZone Complaint - as text
Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST

Here's the AutoZone complaint, thanks to JeR, once again, who stayed up until 3 in the morning, his time, to do this for us. Thank you.

The operative paragraphs are 11, where SCO once again claims clear title to the copyrights, and 19:

"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 inter-process 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."

Netcraft has an ironic detail, which Groklaw's muzza found. This court runs on GNU/Linux:

"However, the defence may take heart that the court in which SCO filed suit runs its own web site on Linux, and that the key electronic documents SCO filed in the case will be living on a Linux server. Plaintiffs filing lawsuits must enter copies of their legal documents in Adobe PDF format in the court's Linux-based Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which will provide electronic updates of case information for the litigants and their lawyers."

Cute, huh? SCO's problem is, they are surrounded by GNU/Linux users. There is a comical picture on SCO's SCOSource page.

****************************************************

Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
State Bar No. 1417
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
State Bar No. 7802
CURRAN & PARRY
[address, phone]

Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
Mark J. Heise, Esq.
[address, phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation.

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,
a Nevada corporation,

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

JURY DEMAND

CV-S-04-0237-DW11-LRL


COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”) sues Defendant, AutoZone, Inc., (“AutoZone”) and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Defendant uses one or more versions of the Linux operating system that infringe on SCO’s exclusive rights in its propriety UNIX System V operating system technology. This case seeks relief under the Copyright Act to compensate SCO for damages it has sustained as result of Defendant’s infringing uses of SCO’s proprietary UNIX System V technology, and to enjoin any further use by Defendant of the protected UNIX System V technology contained in Linux.

2. Plaintiff SCO is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Utah County, State of Utah.

3. Defendant is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Tennessee.

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 1331 and 1338.

5. Venue is properly situated in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '' 1391 and 1400.

BACKGROUND FACTS

6. UNIX is a computer software operating system. Operating systems serve as the link between computer hardware and the various software programs (known as applications) that run on the computer. Operating systems allow multiple software programs to run at the same time and generally function as a “traffic control” system for the different software programs that run on a computer.

7. In the business-computing environment for the Fortune 1000 and other large corporations (often called the “enterprise computing market”), UNIX is widely used.

8. The UNIX operating system was originally developed by AT&T Bell Laboratories (“AAT&T”). After successful in-house use of the UNIX software, AT&T began to license UNIX as a commercial product for use in enterprise applications by other large companies.

9. Over the years, AT&T Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, and its related companies licensed UNIX for widespread enterprise use. Pursuant to a license with AT&T, various companies, including International Business Machines, Hewlett-Packard, Inc., Sun Microsystems, Inc., Silicon Graphics, Inc., and Sequent Computer Systems, became some of the principal United States-based UNIX vendors, among many others.

10. These license agreements place restrictions on the valuable intellectual property developed by AT&T, which allow UNIX to be available for use by others while, at the same time, protecting AT&T’s (and its successors’) rights..

11. Through a series of corporate acquisitions, SCO presently owns all right, title and interest in and to UNIX and UnixWare operating system source code, software and sublicensing agreements, together with copyrights, additional licensing rights in and to UNIX and UnixWare, and claims against all parties breaching such agreements.

12. During the past few years a competing, and free, operating system know as Linux has been transformed from a non-commercial operating system into a powerful general enterprise operating system.

13. Linux is in material respects an operating system variant or clone of UNIX System V technology. According to leaders within the Linux community, Linux is not just a “clone” but is intended to displace UNIX System V.

CAUSE OF ACTION

(Copyright Infringement)

14. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 13 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

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. These materials are covered by numerous copyright registrations issued by the United States Copyright Office (the “Copyrighted Materials”). Registrations in the Copyrighted Materials have been obtained by SCO and its predecessors in interest and are owned by SCO. Included among such registrations are the following reference materials:
TITLE REGISTRATION NO.
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Integrated Software Development Guide TX 2 931-646
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Reference Manual For Intel Processor Commands m-z TX 3 221-656
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Reference Manual for Intel Processors Commands a-1 TX 3 227-639.
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Device Driver Interface/Driver Kernel Interface Reference Manual for Intel Processors TX 3 232-578
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Programmer’s Guide: Streams for Intel Processors TX 3 218-286
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Device Driver Interface/Driver Kernel Interface Reference Manual for Motorola Processors
TX 220-500
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Reference Manual for Motorola Processors Commands a-1 TX 3 220-331
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 PROGRAMMER’S GUIDE TX 2 120-502
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 Transport Application Interface Guide TX 2 881-542
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 Device Interface/Driver Kernel Interface (DDI/DKI) Reference Manual TX 2 883-235
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 Programmers Guide: SCSI Driver Interface TX 2 902-863
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 System Administrators Reference Manual TX 2 881-543
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 Programmers Reference Manual
TX 2 853-760
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 Users Reference Manual TX 2 890-471
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 4 Users Reference Manual TX 2 820-791
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Device Driver Interface/Driver Kernel Interface (DDI/DKI) Reference Manual TX 3 820-792
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Programmers Guide: Streams TX 2 833-114
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Programmers Reference Manual TX 2 832-009
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 System Administrator’s Reference Manual TX 2 830-989.
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 Programmers Guide Vol. II TX 2 454-884
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 RELEASE 3.2 Programmers Reference Manual TX 2 494-658
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 Programmers Reference Manual TX 2 373-759
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 System Administrators Reference Manual TX 2 371-952
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 Streams Programmers Guide TX 2 367-657
UNIX SYSTEM V/386 Streams Primer TX 2 366-532
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.2 System Administrators Reference Manual TX 2 611-860
UNIX SYSTEM V. RELEASE 3.2 Programmers Reference Manual TX 2 605-292
UNIX SYSTEM V Documentors Workbench Reference Manual TX 2 986-119
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Users Reference Manual/System Administrators Reference Manual for Motorola Processors Commands m-z TX 3 218-267
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 System Files and Devices Reference Manual for Motorola Processors TX 3 221-654

16. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. _410 (c) the Certificates of Copyright Registrations identified above constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyrights and of the facts stated in the Certificates. SCO’s registered copyrights in the Copyrighted Materials as embodied in the above Copyright Registrations are entitled to such statutory presumptions.

17. Registrations in the Copyrighted Materials have also been obtained by SCO and its registrations in the following additional registrations of software code:
UNIXWARE 7.1.3 TX 5-787-679
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.0 TX 5-750-270
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.1 TX 5-750-269
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.2 TX 5-750-271
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.0 TX 5-776-217
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.1ES TX 5-705-356
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.2 TX 5-762-235
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4.1 TX 5-762-234
UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 3.2 TX 5-750-268

18. SCO and its predecessors in interest created the Copyrighted Materials as original works of authorship, and, as such, the Copyrighted Materials constitute copyrightable subject matter under the copyright laws of the United States. The Copyrighted Materials were automatically subject to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a) when such programs were fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 102 and 103 extends to derivative works. Derivative works are defined in 17 U.S.C. Section 101 to include works based on the original work or any other form in which the original work may be recast, transformed, modified or adapted.

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 inter-process 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.

20. On information and belief, parts or all of the Copyrighted Material has been copied or otherwise improperly used as the basis for creation of derivative work software code, included one or more Linux implementations, including Linux versions 2.4 and 2.6, without the permission of SCO.

21. Defendant has infringed and will continue to infringe SCO’s copyrights in and relating to Copyrighted Materials by using, copying, modifying, and/or distributing parts of the Copyrighted Materials, or derivative works based on the Copyrighted Materials in connection with its implementations of one or more versions of the Linux operating system, inconsistent with SCO’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

22. Defendant does not own the copyright to the Copyrighted Materials nor does it have permission or proper license from SCO to use any part of the Copyrighted Materials as part of a Linux implementation.

23. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s conduct was and is willfully done with knowledge of SCO’s copyrights.

24. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. Defendant’s conduct has caused, and if not enjoined, will continue to cause, irreparable harm to SCO.

25. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, SCO is entitled to the following relief:

a. Injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 502 against Defendant’s further use or copying of any part of the Copyrighted Materials;

b. SCO’s actual damages as a result of Defendant’s infringement and, to the extent applicable and elected by SCO prior to trial pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 504, SCO’s statutory damages and enhanced damages; and

c. Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 505

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, having fully set forth its complaint, plaintiff prays for relief from this Court as follows:

1. Injunctive relief pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 502 against Defendant’s further use or copying of any part of the Copyrighted Materials;

2. SCO’s actual damages as a result of Defendant’s infringement and, to the extent applicable and elected by SCO prior to trial pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 504, SCO’s statutory damages and enhanced damages;

3. Attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 505; and

4. Pre- and post-judgment interest, and all other legal and equitable relief deemed just and proper by this Court.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that all issues in this case be tried by a jury in accordance with the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2004.


Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 1417
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
State Bar No. 7802
CURRAN & PARRY
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff


  


AutoZone Complaint - as text | 108 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
URLs, Updated Info Thread
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST
Please put all updated info, urls to other interesting and related stories here

in this thread.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible typos
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:46 PM EST
Not having scanned the pdf, I've got some questions. I'm assuming the official
court document doesn't have the typos, but if they do, I apologize in advance.
Just want to make sure we've got this OCR'd correctly.

Paragraph 8: The UNIX operating system was originally developed by AT&T Bell
Laboratories (“AAT&T”).
Should read: The UNIX operating system was originally developed by AT&T Bell
Laboratories (“AT&T”).

Paragraph 10: There are two periods at the end of the final sentence.

Paragraph 12: ... operating system know as Linux has been transformed ...
Should read: ... operating system known as Linux has been transformed ...

Line 3 of Table 1 reads: UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Reference Manual for Intel
Processors Commands a-1
Should read: UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 Reference Manual for Intel Processors
Commands a-l
Looks like the OCR swapped 1 and l, at least in my font.

Same for Line 7 of Table 1

A few other things caught my attention in Table 1. Lines 3 and 19 of Column 2
have periods at the end of the Registration Number.
Looking at the HTML source, there's an extra </tr><tr> at what would
be lines 6 and 13 of the table.

Very interesting language coming from SCO's lawyers. I'm looking forward to
AutoZone's response.

-James Twyford
jtwyfordTAgeorgiasouthernTODnospamTODedu

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Complaint - as text
Authored by: CyberCFO on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:52 PM EST
Am I reading this correctly in that they are essentialy saying that the code
itself is not all that is copyrighted, but the ideas and concepts implemented
with the code? I thought that was covered by the concept of patent, of which
they have none.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Direct attack on LINUX
Authored by: zdz80 on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 09:55 PM EST
This is not a suit attacking shared libraries owned by SCO. This suit states that:

1. Defendant uses one or more versions of the Linux operating system that infringe on SCO’s exclusive rights in its propriety UNIX System V operating system technology. This case seeks relief under the Copyright Act to compensate SCO for damages it has sustained as result of Defendant’s infringing uses of SCO’s proprietary UNIX System V technology, and to enjoin any further use by Defendant of the protected UNIX System V technology contained in Linux.

once again show me the code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It really ISN'T a Linux copyright suit!
Authored by: arch_dude on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:05 PM EST
My frist (30 second) analysis led me to believe that this
was a true SCO-stuff-in-Linux suit.

It is not.

There are two lists of copyrights. The first list would be relevant to a suit
against any Linus user, IF there were any copyrightable SYS V code in Linux.
Ignore this list. It is a smokescreen.

The second list is is relevant only if the defendant used UNIXWARE code without
a valid license. This complaint is valid only against UNIXWARE customers.

The complaint fails if either:
1) Autozone did NOT use UNIXWARE elements in Linux
or
2) Autozone used UNIXWARE in Linux, but did not contravene the SOCG license.

Groklaw has a communicatin from the Autozone dude that actually did the port.
This communication says that Autozone did not use UNIXware stuff at all in the
Linux port of Autozone's code from UNIXWARE to Linux.

Even if Autozone did use UNIXWARE elements (such as libraries or includefiles)
this would not necessarily violate the copyright laws. SCOG would have to prove
that the specific way that Autozone used the material actually created a
copyroight violation. Most practical ways in which Autozone would have ported
their code would not in fact contravene the copyright laws.

In addition to the above arguments in law, we have at least two arguments in
equity:
1) absent specific contractual clauses to the contrary, it is inequitable to
assert that Autozone cannot port its code. The code belongs to Autozone.
2) oldSCO and Cladera both offered to assist Autozone in porting the code to
Linux. Therefore, they must not have considered the port to be illegal.


This looks like a frivolous lawsuit to me.

IANAL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ROFL
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST

16. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. _410 (c) the Certificates of Copyright Registrations identified above constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyrights and of the facts stated in the Certificates.

Wow. That almost sounds intimidating, until I translate prima facie into English: "at first glance; before closer examination". So, in other words, the registrations noted above provide preliminary evidence (not actual proof) that The SCO Group holds the copyrights to System V. Never mind that they're contested... Never mind that TSG asked Novell to transfer the copyrights, suggesting that TSG knew quite well that it did not own them...

It'll be amusing when TSG finally gets around to trying to demonstrate Linux actually contain anything from System V. I wonder if TSG will claim that AutoZone has to show what code it uses in Linux that violates TSG's prima facie copyrights...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • ROFL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST
  • The prima facie presumption... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST
  • ROFL - Authored by: darthaggie on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:29 AM EST
SCO claims CS technologies
Authored by: DH on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:18 PM EST
In § 19, SCO claims ownership of some basic technologies of computer science.
So this is not like the RIAA's chasing illegal distributed songs, SCO's
approach is more like a musician claiming that someone used his tunes to create
a similar piece of music and demanding compensation.

Given the similarity of source code in different operating systems if it is
based on the same resarch and naming convention, such claims could get approval
by a jury.

So to defend against those claims, it should be helpfull if we could find
prior art or evidence that these technologies are in the public domain, like one
would do in a patent suit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nevada court is an IBM shop too
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:20 PM EST
The web server is more than just a
regular Linux box. It runs IBM's
LotusDomino web server, not Apache.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting. . .
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:24 PM EST
This is another 'indirect-direct' (if you will) attack against GNU/Linux.
Secondly SCOG is claiming rights which are currently under dispute (copyright,
et al). Thirdly SCOG is claiming they own "unix," which as we all
know is utterly incorrect.

Move to stay until copyright and ownership issues are cleared up (SCOG v.
Novell).

krp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why did they go after Daimler?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST
Interesting that they chose a company with substantial German ownership interest
for this round of suits. On the surface, it seems to add additional risks. Does
this mean SCO has made a copyright infringement claim against the Daimler-Benz
company, coming under purview of the German courts? Do they now have 30 days to
prove it, or else?
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040301025634926#c87549>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wrong [sic!]
Authored by: Lev on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:55 PM EST
SCO’s [sic!] registered copyrights in the Copyrighted Materials as embodied in the above Copyright Registrations are entitled to such statutory presumptions.
I don't think it's a typo.
SCO's [...] copyrights [...] are entitled [...]

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Complaint - as text
Authored by: eSavior on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:58 PM EST
I am a bit confused on what this case is about, I have read 20, a bunch of times
now and I still dont know.

20. On information an belief, parts or all of the Copyrighted Material has been
copied or otherwise improperly used as the basis for creation of derivative work
software code, included one or more Linux implementations, including Linux
versions 2.4 and 2.6, without the permission of SCO.

Are they saying, that autozone used system v code on their linux boxes, or that
the kernel contained system v code? I was thinking about it, and since sco lives
in the world that responsibility falls on end users, because of the GPL. Is that
how you would word the complaint pointing to a end user even if it was someone
else who did the coping? Sorry if this sounds stupid IANAL

---
/* Doom */

[ Reply to This | # ]

Summary judgment
Authored by: overshoot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:59 PM EST
Am I missing something or is this fundamentally deficient as a 17 USC complaint?

I thought that the complaint had to be specific enough to distinguish the purportedly infringing material from adjacent noninfringing material -- of which there most certainly is, since parts of the Linux kernel were written de novo by the inventors of the patented algorithms embodied therein. This complaint makes absolutely no attempt to identify the purported infringing material, so doesn't AZ have a slam-dunk dismissal shot?

[ Reply to This | # ]

By using?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 10:59 PM EST

Defendant has infringed and will continue to infringe SCO’s copyrights in and relating to Copyrighted Materials by using, copying, modifying, and/or distributing parts of the Copyrighted Materials, or derivative works based on the Copyrighted Materials in connection with its implementations of one or more versions of the Linux operating system, inconsistent with SCO’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act.

Infringe by using? That would be SCO Copyright Act 2003, I presume?

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Complaint - as text
Authored by: Stephen on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:05 PM EST

At first read, I found myself noticing the odd separation of the two lists of copyright registrations in paragraphs 15-17.

Paragraph 15 looks like a subset of the list of copyrights from the asset purchase agreement with Novell.

Paragraph 16 then says that the registrations named in 15 can be taken as "prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyrights", etc.

Then comes the good part... Paragraph 17 says that SCO have "obtained registrations" for a number of versions of the Unix source code. Notice, though, that paragraph 16 applies only to the copyright registrations mentioned "above". The corresponding claim for the copyright registrations in 17 is notable in its absence.

Perhaps there is some strategic or legal reason to omit making claims about owning clear title to those copyrights. Are they not already making those same claims in the Novell case, and is not such ownership necessary for the AutoZone case to fly? It seems very odd to omit the verbiage of 16 for the copyrights in 17 unless they hope no one will notice this bit of legerdemain.

Also noticeable is the total lack of specifics about what AutoZone allegedly copied. It looks like another fishing trip is in store. Will AutoZone bite?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Use vs. Copy
Authored by: Lev on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:21 PM EST
The only part of the complaint that alleges that AutoZone somehow broke the law is this:
21. Defendant has infringed and will continue to infringe SCO’s copyrights in and relating to Copyrighted Materials by using, copying, modifying, and/or distributing parts of the Copyrighted Materials, or derivative works based on the Copyrighted Materials in connection with its implementations of one or more versions of the Linux operating system, inconsistent with SCO’s exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. (Emphasis added)
On the other hand, the only place that alleges what AutoZone did is this:
1. Defendant uses one or more versions of the Linux operating system that infringe on SCO’s exclusive rights in its propriety UNIX System V operating system technology. (Emphasis added)
Shouldn't this complaint be thrown out as legally defective because if fails to allege that the defendant "cop[ied], modif[ied] and/or distribut[ed]," and the only allegation that it makes (using) is not "inconsistent with SCO's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act?"

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 11:50 PM EST
    • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Lev on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:28 AM EST
      • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:44 AM EST
  • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Thrystan on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:07 AM EST
    • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:38 AM EST
    • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST
      • Use vs. Copy - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST
AutoZone Complaint - as text
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:07 AM EST
From the complaint:
1. Defendant uses one or more versions of the Linux operating system that infringe on SCO’s exclusive rights in its propriety UNIX System V operating system technology. This case seeks relief under the Copyright Act to compensate SCO for damages it has sustained as result of Defendant’s infringing uses of SCO’s proprietary UNIX System V technology, and to enjoin any further use by Defendant of the protected UNIX System V technology contained in Linux. (Emphasis added)
Three things I notice here (and IANAL):
1. The complaint seems to be that Linux infringes on their exclusive rights because it uses technology found in Unix.
2. They are seeking relief under the copyright act.
3. The infringing technology in Linux is from Unix System V.

This seems to be another case of SCO stringing unrelated thoughts together to say something or imply something without really saying it. IIRC, copyright only protects expressions, not the technology expressed. I believe only patents or trade secrets can cover the latter. SCO has no patents whatsoever on any of Unix, and has openly admitted there are no trade secrets in System V. That leaves only copyright. As I understand it, copyright could be infringed in this case only by direct copying of code from Unix System V into Linux. And this SCO has utterly failed to prove.

Some thoughts--
-This appears to be only one of a number of deceptive statements, half truths and the like in this complaint.
-If this is the entire basis of SCO's case, they have no case.
-They might get by with this sort of deception in the press, but I hardly think it will fly in court. I suspect a good lawyer could make mincemeat out of this sort of language very quickly.

Sooner or later I believe this whole thing is going to blow up in SCOG's face, and when the smoke clears there's not going to be anything left of SCOG but a big crater in the fiscal landscape where they used to be.

---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Complaint - Here we go again
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 12:19 AM EST
I see it now, SCO is not going to show the code, attempt to get another judge to
rule that they get to look through all of AutoZone's files in hopes of finding
something more significant.

I expect that AutoZone will almost immediately ask that the complaint be
dismissed as inadequate and failing that asking SCO to be more specific.

As for injunctive relief, that requires the probability of irrepairable harm.
Since AutoZone has probably not distributed their software outside the company,
damages must be limited to the cost of purchasing a license for all of the CPUs
AutoZone has Linux on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Summary
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:21 AM EST
A brief summary

1) SCO owns everything. Yes everything. There is no controversy. They own
everything. Nobody else can possibly own anything that even remotely resembles
UNIX. They own structures and methods, even though those are patent issues and
SCO owns no patents.

2) Autozone infringes on SCO's copyright.

The sad thing is, this summary is not a joke.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" - Was there an earlier one?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:40 AM EST
The complaint is labeled as "First Amended Complaint". Does that mean
this is their second try at filing this? or is the first complaint considered
"amended"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

USL vs BSDi revisited
Authored by: tgf on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST
18. ... The Copyrighted Materials were automatically subject to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. Section 102(a) when such programs were fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

Methinks that SCO and their liars lawyers have forgotton that the US copyright laws have changed since these programs were first written; I believe that clause only applies to earlier works.

They seem to be forgetting the ruling of the [federal] judge in the USL vs BSDi case pointing out that most of the USL code was effectively public domain precisely because that clause was not in effect.

Tim

---
Oxymoron of the day:
Trusted Computing

[ Reply to This | # ]

$3million dollars for this?
Authored by: blhseawa on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:51 AM EST
This is so poorly written, these lawyers will be laughed out of court. There is

not a signle actionable claim! Time to start putting tort attorneys behind
bars!

I strong urge tort reform. And suggest others follow suit.

When this is current state of praciticing law, time has come for poeple to take

the courts back!

US justice is seriously broken.

This has been permitted to go on long beyond reasonable period.

Seek tort reform now! Judegs should have the power to dismiss this out of
hand!

[ Reply to This | # ]

AutoZone Complaint - as text
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 04:20 AM EST

First things first, and let's cut down to the bone:

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 inter-process 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.

This is actually patent-type talk, not copyright-type talk. As should be known, copyright protects specific examples of expression and discourse; patents protect the base idea of a specific type of invention or design.

That is, copyright protects the particular example of code I write, but never the structure, sequence, and/or organization of what I have written. To claim as this does, that System V file system switch interface; virtual file system capabilities; [...]; file system quotas; support for Lightweight Processes (kernel threads) are copyrighted is fair enough; to claim as this filing does by implication, that the very ideas are "copyrighted", is to defame all copyright lawyers, all patent attorneys, etc, because one has implied that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

To claim, as our Dear Miniscule Fiend Darl McBride does, that the copyrighted Material protects not only the specific expression of an idea, but the very idea itself, is the sort of confused thinking that comes naturally to people who talk of something nebulous like "Intellectual Property", and it so happens RMS is proved absolutely correct again.

---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Informatoin and Belief" - not enough for Copyright suit
Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 07:45 AM EST
Once again, SCO fails to identify its infringement claims with specificity. And "on information and belief" is not enough for a copyright suit, unless you are just asking for a look at the source code and can show some solid evidence that something of yours was ripped off and is now in a proprietary binary. Given that most of Linux ( is freely available for download and comparisoin

You have to be specific. The usual complaint will have an annotated copy of the plaintiff's copyrighted work, along with an annotated copy of the defendant's purportedly infringing work ... "A" in yours points to "A" in theirs, with an explanation of how it infringes.

With technical writings (manuals, computer code, etc.) it is much harder to prove infringement. The restraints of writing technically correct and compact/efficient text reduces your possibilities of "unique expression". There is ONLY one correct way to write out the pinout of a USB port ... by itself it is not copyrightable. In a manual for the USB device, along with examples, troubleshooting, installatoin, and some illustrations, the whole thing is copyrightable.

In the one copyright case I have been in, the proof that the defendant stole my work was not the switch settings and pinouts. It was in the examples and "free text" parts of the manual. They changed a few words and called it theirs. The court disagreed. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

All the fluff of SCO v IBM
Authored by: Chugiak on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 03:39 PM EST
But without contract law to fall back on.

Groklaw has done a pretty good job of dismantling the claims of SCO v IBM. But
at least in that one SCOG has some contract claims to allow it to wriggle and
squirm about what the lawsuit is really about. This one is a cut and dried
copyright infringement case. At least it should be. We'll see what Boies' boys
can come with.

I don't even want to go down the list of Herculean feats that SCOG must
accomplish to show any hope of actually winning this case. I expect the real
purpose is to pump and dump.

The problem with the pump, from the perspective of the poor sap/greedy pig silly
enough to buy SCOX and take a bath when it plummets is this: the lawsuits
themselves will generate spit in revenue. SCOG will have to show actual
damages. I know, there is little hope of the lawsuit even reeaching that point,
but I am reminded of CA v Altai, whereby Computer Associates won a slam dunk
copyright infringement and was awarded appx. $350K. I expect their legal fees,
which they had to eat, were at three times that, if not ten times greater.

When SCOG nee Caldera has distributed this exact code for a cost of, oh what was
that figure -- oh yes, US$0, the damages will be exactly that, $0.

[ Reply to This | # ]

CM/ECF does *not* run on Linux
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 05:15 PM EST
The CM/ECF case management system used by the court does not run on Linux; it
runs on Unix.

Netcraft misidentified the court's public server running Lotus Domino as a Linux
server.

I know, I work for the Federal Judiciary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's betting that AutoZone & Daimler ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 10:57 PM EST
..., being "non technology" companies, are not going to be tech-savvy
enuf to
defend themselves against an onslaught of specious claims.

1st, i'm not sure that its *possible* to know less than SCO about Linux ...
given their constantly morphing, fictitious technical blather

2nd, not only do AutoZone & Daimler have their own lawyers, they may (?)
have access to OSDL's services/collaboration ...

and finally, the lawyers they DO have own REALLY LARGE, PAINFULLY HEAVY
wrenches ...

NOT the folks I'd wanna pick a fight with ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )