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
Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Monday, April 26 2004 @ 01:42 PM EDT

Finally, we have AutoZone. I must warn you that one of the filings is huge, because they added as exhibits all the prior legal actions, and so while I am making it available, you might want to wait for us to try to detach it from the exhibits, especially those of you on dialup. With that disclaimer, here is their Motion to Transfer Venue and their Motion to Stay or In the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement, the long one.

Essentially, they tell the court that they should be granted a stay until all the other cases are done. SCO hasn't yet established it has a copyright, so it isn't in position to sue for infringement. But if the court disagrees, AutoZone asks that SCO be required to tell them more precisely what they are alleged to have done wrong. What, exactly, they would like to know, is the code they are supposed to have infringed and exactly how? Ah, yes, the eternal quest to know what code precisely we are talking about in Linux. How large a crowd would like to have the answer to that question may be discerned by the size of this filing. I haven't read it all myself, but we can do that together. Meanwhile, AutoZone has joined the line, where they would like to remain the last to be heard.

By the way, if anyone is in a position to drop by the Michigan courthouse and pick up the DaimlerChrysler material filed there, please contact me. I know one of you did already offer long ago, but I've lost your email somehow. Thanks.

UPDATE: The long document is now available in chunks here, number 10. As some of you have observed, the Motion for a Stay stops in midsentence on page 16. We will have the rest soon.


  


Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?" | 132 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT
The complaint ends mid-sentance on page 16 and then continues with the
appendices, so it looks like someone needs to go to the utah courthouse as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT
For the benefit of any transcriber-types out there,
looks like the new material is in pages 1 through 20
of the PDF. All the rest is AutoZone's Exhibits, which
are just reprints of material we already know about.


---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: Mike B on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT
Again, to prove a case against a defendant accused of infringing their
copyrights, SCO MUST PROVE:

1. There is code that is theirs in Linux, that was used by the defendant.

2. That they OWN this code.

3. That the defendant was the one who did it, otherwise their problem is with
the vendor of the software.

They have to show AutoZone proof of this before they can get a trial.

We all know this wont' happen, because this proof doesn't exist (outside a
mythical suitcase). Why does this "copied code" not exist?

Simple. There is no bettter evidence than SCO's own actions. They ALWAYS seek
to delay. They always seek to obfuscate, move "goal posts", and do
anything BUT prove their claims.

Why would a company that is dying on life support DELAY getting their $billions
from suing Dog+World?


---
Disclaimer: Former IBM employee (I worked as a Q/A tester in their server
division, qualifying prerelease products with IBM supported Network Operating
Systems,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey AutoZone - you are just an innocent 3rd party user of LINUX?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT
Autozone,

Maybe you should contact your state attorney general and see if SCO's attack on
you qualifies for the state to go after SCO as well...

I will leave the reasons to be listed in the following comments... Let's tell em
folks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Was it source code or a book?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT
sco has Autozone really confused. They're not sure if they copied a book or
source code at this point. That's fairly amusing.
Several of Autozone quotes were verbatim from "Unix in a Nutshell"
(O'Reilly and Associates).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:10 PM EDT
Seams everyone is asking for the same thing. Proof? How long will SCO be able to
stall without coughing up some details about where exactly they thing there
code is? What ever happen to the March 19 deadline?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A 350 page motion - is that common?
Authored by: tlk nnr on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:23 PM EDT
How common are such huge motions?
To me as a non-lawyer, it looks like a threat:
Either transfer the case or you'll have to read through that novel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT with Story On Topic with site.
Authored by: kbwojo on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:34 PM EDT
I am curious, Baystar stated they want SCO to just concentrate on the IP issues and sideline their products. It looks like this is prohibited in section 4.18 of the asset purchase agreement. If SCO followed Baystars advice and failed to meet the obligation stated in the APA what would happen. It seems like a breach of contract, but I have not found anything myself in the contract that seems to explain the consequences of this breach. Does anyone have an idea what would happen if SCO breached this element of the contract? In other words would it void the contract and give Novell all assets back or would it be something with a monetary fine involved? I have no clue and I welcome all Guesses, opinions, and informed answers.

4.18 Development of Merged Product. Following the Closing, Buyer shall diligently and vigorously market, sell and promote the Business. In addition, Buyer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to complete the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating agreement) by a date not later than December 31, 1997 to be agreed upon by Buyer and Seller. Buyer shall be entitled to modify the specifications of the Merged Product provided that any modification is previously reviewed by the Architecture Board described in Section 3(a) of the proposed Operating agreement, and (i) does not impact upon the anticipated migration of Seller's Product to the White Box Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating agreement). Notwithstanding the foregoing without the prior written approval of the Architecture Board, Buyer shall not change the specifications of the Merged Product such that the Merged Product will not include the "NetWare Services" specification set forth on Exhibit A of the proposed Operating agreement.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT
This is a beautiful one-liner from the motion, talking about SCO's vagueness in
what exactly AutoZone infringed:

There is no reason for SCO to be so obtuse in its pleading, unless SCO is
intentionally trying to avoid the nature and basis of its purported claims.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO OpenServer=AT&T Sys V 386 Rel. 3.2
Authored by: jog on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Old SCO had an AT&T license that they used for OpenServer.
When they bought whatever from Novell; were they still
obliged to pay Novell for their AT&T license? And subsequently, did Caldera
pay Novell for the AT&T license
used in OpenServer?

SCO only has copyrights to the additions that they made to
the AT&T code in OpenServer.
jog

[ Reply to This | # ]

they either havn't been following, or are being smart.
Authored by: Budgreen on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT
"As plaintiff, SCO certainly will have no objection to the prospect of
getting to trial more quickly on its claims."

little do they know >:) bwahhhahhahhaaaa

---
Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hersay and conjecture, those are
*kinds* of evidence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Page 16 (last ??) - definitely the best
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT
This is taken from line 19 on page 16 of Autozone's motion to stay ...

"There is no reason for SCO to have been so obtuse in its pleading. Unless
SCO is intentionally trying to avoid identifying the nature and basis of its
purported claims. The Linux code is freely available to anyone to examine, and
SCO has been in possession of the code for years. Indeed, SCO was a distributor
and developer of Linux code until after it filed its lawsuit against IBM last
year. ..."

Why did it have to stop when it was just getting really interesting ??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clinton v Jones
Authored by: crs17 on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:47 PM EDT
It seems oddly appropriate that Autozone uses Clinton v. Jones to back up an obvious point they make at the beginning of their Argument.
This court possesses the inherent discretion to stay this case. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) ("The district court has broad disceretion to stay proceedings as an incident to control its own docket")
Clinton v. Jones is of course Bill Clinton and Paula Jones. I imagine they could have picked any of thousands of cases to establish this point. The attorneys must have been laughing their heads off by talking about Clinton v. Jones and "discretion" in the same sentence. Not to mention that they found a case that was just as sleazy as SCO v. Autozone or any other of the SCO cases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is something catching ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT
From the motion to change venue "...the Western District of Tennnessee's caseload is lighter that the caseload of this district. The case will therefore more likely get to trial more quickly in memphis that in this district . As plaintiff, SCO certainly will have no objection to the prospect of getting to trial more quickly on their claims."

Are they being nieve or have they been watching and decided to exercise a sense of humour ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:49 PM EDT
"I must warn you that one of the filings is huge, because they added as
exhibits all the prior legal actions ..."

A filing that's huge? That sounds like a shot across the bow to SCOG about the
kind of court battle it will have to fight against poor, helpless, little
Autozone which, according to Forbes: "... For the 24 weeks ended 2/14/04,
net sales rose 4% to $2.44B. Net income rose 16% to $213.4M."

Shall we say that SCOG had best expect a long, drawn out, dirty and ugly hair
pulling, nose biting, private parts crushing, eye gouging legal donnybrook
before the unsatisfatory conclusion (to SCOG, that is)? It goes without saying
that I and every member of the groklaw community will queue up to go to bat for
SCOG like the true blue friends of SCOG that we are - to take yet another swing
at SCOG, of course.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - kid safe language on groklaw
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT
As you may recall, PJ wants the language on groklaw to be "kid safe".
I am a New Yorker, and "kid safe" for me means a foul mouthed, street
wise, 13-year old punk junior who is about to get kicked out of his sixth foster
home in four weeks. I somehow suspect that PJ would crack down on me like a ton
of bricks, if I tried to run that definition of "kid safe" past her.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why can't they say "Talk to RedHat"?
Authored by: GLJason on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 05:37 PM EDT
Why can't AutoZone move for dismissal on the grounds that they purchased their
product under a license from RedHat. Each file contains a copyright attribution
and is released under the GNU Public License. If SCO is saying Autozone is
misusing "errno.h", can't Autozone say "Why are you suing me? I have a proper
license to use this code from the author, Linux Trivolds. If you wish to sue me
over this, you must take Linus to court and prove that he copied the code from
you."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Footnote
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT
Footnote on page 8 reads:

The 45 day time period for SCO to comply with the court's order expired on April
19, 2004. AutoZone does not know what, if any, additional documents or
information SCO produced to IBM. However, if SCO's production mirrored its
prior productions, IBM still does not have an identification from SCO of the
specific lines of UNIX System V code that SCO claims to be at issue in that
case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Daimler- Chrysler Reply?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:13 PM EDT
Shouldn't the Daimler-Chrysler reply be due about now? Anyone know the status of
that one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: Retep Vosnul on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT
Well well well, SCO is in a fix here !.

Not sueing a tech company is going to make it hard to repeat there every day
retorical nonsence.
What could they possibly say to this ?
" ehh judge, first AutoZone must obey to a discovery on how exactly they
distribute brakepads for ford station wagons
because only then we can show what they did." ??

This is not just a extortion letter like the one the Australian HQ of SCO send
to some people ( with a similar response ), This is the company they are
actively sueing.

Does this mean the question AutoZone asked is the first in the series of many
that has to be answers trough the US legal system ?. Namely, WHAT CODE ?


Retep Vosnul, ( pardon my spelling ).

[ Reply to This | # ]

I transcribed and sent the motion and memorandum to PJ
Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:31 PM EDT
No exhibits yet.

What impressed me most was the summary of the history of all SCOG's court cases.
It was good to see all this in one place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[OT]Here's AutoZone: "We Should Go Last, and What Code Exactly?"
Authored by: bilby on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:35 PM EDT
I thought that SCO was to reply to IBM's amended counterclaims on 4/23. Why
haven't we seen those yet? Could it be that SCO missed a court imposed
deadline?

[ Reply to This | # ]

They cite the USL case!
Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:38 PM EDT
On pdf page 11, Autozone cites several cases in support of the point that the
plaintiff must prove that they own a valid copyright to win an infringement
case. One of the cited cases (at about line 7) is:
"[...]; see also Unix Sys Labs.,1993 WL 414724, at *12("In order to
prevail{on claims of copyright infringement], Plaintiff must prove that it has a
valid copyright in the UNIX [source] code.") "

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ghostscript fails on these PDFs
Authored by: js on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:39 PM EDT
Acrobat Reader displays them nicely but GS 7.07.1 (SuSE
9.0) fails. Can someone confirm that this is a Ghostscript
bug? Anyone having tried a newer version?

BTW kghostview, ghostview and gv all use Gostscript to
render PS/PDF files.

-js

[ Reply to This | # ]

Predicted SCO answers
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT
Autozone: Which copyrights are we alleged to be infringing?

Predicted SCO answer: Discover is just beginning


Autozone: SCO is currently attempting to establish it does own the copyrights in
its litigation with Novell

Predicted SCO answer: SCO owns the copyrights. SCO's litigiation against Novell
is merely about Novell's Slander Of [SCO's' Title.


Autozone: We should change court

Predicted SCO answer: We shouldn't. We filed the case, and this venue is
appropriate. It is up to us to decide where to file as plaintiff, subject of
course to law and court procedures.


Autozone: We use RedHat Linux. This litigation should be stayed pending the
outcome of the RedHat case

Predicted SCO answer: It shouldn't. I can't guess the reason, maybe because Red
Hat is not a party to this suit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

links
Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT
I don't know if this story has been posted or not, but on CNET's News.com is this story by Stephen Shankland and Scott Ard; Hidden text shows SCO prepped lawsuit against Bank of America
The SCO Group filed lawsuits this week against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone, but the Unix seller's attorneys also had prepared a complaint against Bank of America, according to a document. A Microsoft Word document of SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler, seen by CNET News.com, originally identified Bank of America as the defendant instead of the automaker. This revision and others in the document can be seen through powerful but often forgotten features in Microsoft Word known as invisible electronic ink.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • links - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT
Another pearl
Authored by: js on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT
AZ-10.pdf, p. 14:

"SCO begins its Complaint by listing copyright registrations it purports to own for thirty reference manuals, programmers' guides, and other written documentation related to UNIX. Compl. 15. The Complaint therefore appears to be headed in the direction of alleging that AutoZone has somehow infringed these written materials. [...] Why these written materials are referenced at all is a mystery that cannot be unraveled from reviewing the allegations of the Complaint itself.

I can hardly imagine a lawyer being so stupid to claim copyright to the Linux kernel by listing man pages as being infringed. The list contains all the stuff from the amendment of the APA with Novell.

Maybe M$ is involved, but another story is what the lawyers are doing. Seemingly they try to cash in as much as possible from the most stupid management in the world. I imagine DMB walking into Boise's office saying "Hi, we've just got $ 6E07 ("%E4.0") in the bank. Wanna play?" What else could Boise do but play? It looks like SCO is on the losing side. Losing against IBM, Novell, Red Hat, DC, AutoZone, BayStar, Boise, Heise, Young.

I pity the poor SCO engineers.

—js

[ Reply to This | # ]

Transcription
Authored by: darkonc on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 09:10 PM EDT
I've put the motion to transfer venue on my webpage.
Given that the motion to stay has already been converted to text, I'm not going to translate it.

If you want to transcribe, then stake your claim here.

---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

One suspects...
Authored by: PeteS on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT
The attorneys for AutoZone have been reading Groklaw. All it would take is an
attorney for Red Hat to call (on a personal relationship basis, of course) and
simply mention that the best research on this entire fiasco is to be found at
http://www.groklaw.net

The rest, as they say, is history.



---
Today's subliminal thought is:

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Don't have a cow, man!"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 10:10 PM EDT
I found it interesting that in the history of Unix, no mention of GNU was made. Only that Linus came along and then, poof, there was Linux.

RMS had better not read this support of motion or he'll have a cow.

BTW, in the history of "title" to Unix recited in the document, don't AutoZone confuse the SCO's?

Their lawyer(s) couldn't have been spending much time here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm in Michigan
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 27 2004 @ 05:09 PM EDT
Hello!

I'm not the original volunteer, but I'm in Michigan, and in the same county as
DaimlerChrysler, so the court shoud be around here somewhere... ;) I have free
time tomorrow: where can I go?

If you need to send me more info, please drop me an e-mail at t_m as_sey_a t_
_ina_me.com (removing all _ and spaces) and I'd be happy to pick up the
documents!

Tim Massey

[ 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 )