|
AutoZone's First Interrogatories |
|
Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT
|
Here are AutoZone's First Interrogatories as text, thanks again to the prolific Henrik Grouleff. They are found in this document, on page 68 [PDF].
*****************************
James J. Pisanelli Nevada Bar No. 4027 Nicki L. Wilmer Nevada Bar No. 6562 SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]
Michael P. Kenny. Esq. James A. Harvey, Esq. David J. Stewart, Esq.
Christopher A. Riley, Esq.
Douglas L. Bridges, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Defendant AutoZone, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
THE SCO GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation
Plaintiff,
v.
AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada Corporation
Defendant.
|
Civil Action File No.
CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL
|
DEFENDANT AUTOZONE, INC.'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO
PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter "FRCP"), Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone" or "Defendant") requests that Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO" or "Plaintiff") respond to the following interrogatories. In accordance with FRCP 33, each interrogatory is to be answered fully and in writing under oath within thirty (30) days after service hereof.
Each interrogatory is addressed to the knowledge of SCO, as well as to knowledge, information or documents in the possession, custody or control of SCO and SCO's attorneys, accountants, agents, employees, or officers.
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
AutoZone incorporates herein by reference each of the Instructions and Definitions contained in Defendant AutoZone, Inc.'s First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc., served concurrently herewith. Each of the Definitions apply with respect to each of the following interrogatories, and each of the terms defined therein, when used in any interrogatory below, shall have the meaning given therein.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify with specificity each copyrighted work that you allege AutoZone has infringed, including, but not limited to, each of the works identified in Paragraph 2 of SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement. For source code, identify the specific lines of code that you allege AutoZone has infringed. For non-source code, identify the specific lines or sections of the materials that you allege AutoZone has infringed.
2. For each line of code identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1, (a) identify all products in which, in whole or in part, the code is included or on which, in whole or in part, the code is based, and (b) identify whether SCO has ever
distributed the source code under the GPL, LGPL or any other open source license, and if so, the circumstances and license under which it was distributed or otherwise made available.
3. Identify the author(s) of each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.
4. Describe in detail when and how SCO obtained ownership of the copyright of each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.
5. Identify by registration number the United States copyright registration for each copyrighted work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.
6. Describe with specificity how AutoZone has infringed the copyright in each work identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.
7. Identify the date when SCO first learned that AutoZone was migrating, or had migrated, from OpenServer to Linux.
8. Identify the date when SCO first learned that AutoZone had allegedly infringed each of the copyrighted works identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above.
9. Describe in detail all harm that you are suffering as a result of each alleged act of infringement identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6 above.
10. Identify all persons who have knowledge or information regarding the creation of the works identified in response Request No. 1 above, and describe in detail the substance of each person's knowledge.
11. Identify all persons who have knowledge or information regarding your ownership of the copyrights identified in response to Request No. 1 above, and describe in detail the substance of each person's knowledge.
12. Identify all persons who have knowledge or information regarding your claims that AutoZone has infringed the copyrights identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 above, including. without limitation, each of the SCO employees referenced in lines 7 & 8 of Paragraph 2 of SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement, and describe in detail the substance of each person's knowledge.
13. Identify all facts, documents and other information in your possession, custody or control that support your stated belief that "it is reasonably likely that AutoZone copied SCO's copyright material during the migration process in violation of its contracts with SCO and in violation of Federal Copyright laws," as stated in Paragraph 2 of SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement, and identify all individuals with knowledge of the same.
14. Identify each expert witness that you will call to provide testimony on your behalf in support of your anticipated motion for preliminary injunction, and, for each such expert, state the subject matter and a summary of each such expert's testimony.
This 1st day of September, 2004.
________[signature]_______
James J. Pisanelli Nicki L. Wilmer SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
AutoZone, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certity that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing DEFENDANT AUTOZONE, INC.'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO
PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC. upon all counsel of record addressed as follows:
Stanley W. Parry, Esq. Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
[address]
(Via Hand Delivery)
David S. Stone, Esq.
Robert A. Magnanini. Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
(Via Hand Delivery)
Stephen N. Zack. Esq.
Mark J. Heise. Esq.
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address]
(Via First Class Mail)
This 1st day of September, 2004.
__[signature]______
An employee of Schreck Brignone
|
|
Authored by: entre on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 11:59 PM EDT |
Typos [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eckenheimer on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:00 AM EDT |
---
You can complain because roses have thorns,
or you can be happy because thorns have roses.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
identify whether SCO has ever distributed
the source code under
the GPL, LGPL or any other open
source license, and if so, the circumstances
and license
under which it was distributed or otherwise made
available. There will not be
rejoicing in SCOX
headquarters following that news... what
a terrible tragedy. [jumps, clicks
heels, grinning]
There are more barbs on that hook than first reading
might
suggest. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:21 AM EDT |
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
Step 1. Save a copy of these. Nicely done.
Step 2. If what you are drafting looks too complicated, vague, or disconnected
from your central issues, refer to documents created in Step 1.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
For trolls who want to post to hide under. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 01:12 AM EDT |
I looked in the original post by PJ (with the PDF) and here, but I can't find
out how long SCO has to reply to these. And will SCO's reply be public? I'm sure
everyone would love to hear these answers, regardless of the way SCO tries to
handle them.
I suspect SCO will wiggle wildly and reply something like "The copyrights
infringed are wide ranging and numerous, but difficult to isolate because of the
deliberate obfusciation by the evil Linux thief-programmers and the lack of
cooperation of other parties." and therefore duck most of the (excellent,
simple, on-topic) Autozone queries.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
According to whatever laws, what level of detail should SCO know/have before
filing for a preliminary injunction? I mean, in response to interrogatory #1,
could SCO say "We can't answer #1 because we don't know. We do, however,
know X, and X is enough to get a preliminary injuction."? --- Give a
man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 02:29 AM EDT |
AZ is taking a page from SCOG's IBM litigation and is pounding hard on
"specificity", a concept that SCOG has yet to show any grasp of. It
looks as if that 90-day discovery period is going to be quite eventful. If I
were SCOG, I'd try stalling AZ's discovery demands and try to get away with it,
while drowning out AZ's discovery demands with my own histrionic, unlimited,
burdensome discovery demands - which I would preface in my legal filings by
describing them as reasonable, limited, non-burdensome, etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 07:38 AM EDT |
AllParadox, your 'Official "The SCO Group" Positions' thread says that in the
thread we may not :
...call names or suggest or imply
unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or
attorneys.
I understand being on best behaviour, not calling
names. I agree we shouldn't be trollish. But, I don't agree that we should be
banned from implying unethical conduct. I'm pretty sure that most of us here
think they _have_ engaged in unethical conduct, and that indeed, all their
lawsuits and public conduct on this matter are unethical. Why can't we ask them
about that ?
And, not to get all "schoolboy" about it, but they
continually make public remarks alleging (not just implying) unethical behaviour
by PJ and other Groklawers, Linux and other hackers, and the companies they've
sued......
gibodean [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Do not het all worked up - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 08:14 AM EDT
- Discussion of thread Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- I think the point is... - Authored by: lifewish on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- To state it differently - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 09:10 AM EDT
- Discussion of thread Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 09:59 AM EDT
- Hear! hear! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 01:13 AM EDT
- Tough to reply... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 10:21 AM EDT
- It's already too late. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT
- Discussion of thread Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Authored by: MadScientist on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 02:37 PM EDT
- Discussion of thread Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Authored by: AllParadox on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 11:17 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 08:36 AM EDT |
Interrogatory 2: "... GPL, LGPL or any other open source license ..."
(emphasis added)
This strikes me as an quite undefined term. Also the "all
persons" in the Interrogatories 10 to 12 seems to be asking a bit too much,
because if you take the question on its face, SCO simply cannot know the full
answer.
What is the procedure in these cases? Can SCO say "This
interrogatory is too broad and asks for knowledge we cannot have, so we won't
answer it at all" or do they still have to answer as good as they can with the
knowledge in their posession?
TToni [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
I hope Autozone can convince the judge to go ahead with the SCO vs.
Autozone lawsuit since SCO vs. IBM doesn't appear to adjudicate any issues in
the SCO vs. Autozone lawsuit since SCO is trying to argue that the copyrights
are not relevant in the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit.
Now Autozone can be very aggressive in their own discovery motions and can
hopefully get sanctions on SCO for not cooperating in discovery.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
It's nice to see that AZ is on the ball. One would think that a preliminary
injunction would not be granted unless they establish reasonable answers to
these interrogatories. And if the answers to any of the above are not specific
enough, or have any holes to exploit, the AZ lawyers will be able to head off
the injunction.
For example, if TSG says: "We'll tell you what lines of
code we own in Linux, as soon as IBM gives us all of the code they've ever
written. Ever. Including MVS." then AZ can reasonably say, "SO how do you KNOW
that there's code in there? Enough to file a lawsuit, and seriously burden us
with an injunction." And the answer "We just know!" is not going to cut it in
order to get an injunction that would seriously distrupt AZ's
business.
And, of course, if they do answer what lines of code they
own, they not only have to answer the follow-on questions--which are only fair
as those are the minimum items to establish ownership--but then they jeopardize
the IBM case, since their answer about what code they own should be identical to
what they told IBM. They literally can't answer any more specifically than the
IBM's case, or they jeopardize that case. But of course, the IBM answers are not
specific enough for an injunction. It's a neat trap.
Another
devistating question is the GPL interrogatory. The thing is, everyone knows that
TSG did distribute Linux. This was even established as facts in the IBM case,
due to the 8th IBM counterclaim. And if there was any copyrighted code in Linux,
they distributed it under the GPL. The key word here is "distribute". TSG often
says "release" in order to confuse the issue (since they claim to not have
released any code under the GPL), but that is not AZ's question. If TSG answers
"NO", then AZ can bring them to task regarding the mountains of evidence in
IBM's case. Or they could just have one single person make a declaration that
they did download Linux from TSG's site, and that it was licensed under the GPL.
And once AZ establishes that it was distributed under the GPL, AZ can say that
it was acting under the extremely reasonable assumption that they have rights to
the code under the GPL license. Now, TSG will probably say that there is a
dispute that the GPL is valid, but I assume that this dispute at least proves
that an injunction is not appropriate at this time.
Finally, it's clear
that interrogatory number 9 is also enough to kill an injunction, unless they
can allege some specific harm that can't be rectified with just money (as was
explained by others when we first talked about a preliminary injunction).
Monetary harm is not enough, there would have to be some other type of harm to
TSG's business. We know that there isn't any. AZ is not even a distributor of
Linux. They just use it in their business. It's impossible to consider what harm
there would be besides monetary even if, arguendo, TSG owned code in Linux.
This little injunction is now looking like a minefield for TSG in
terms of their other lawsuits. They have to be careful what they answer for fear
of contradicting what they said in the IBM, and especially the Red Hat lawsuit.
(Red Hat is a distributor of Linux, after all. Any harm they suggest for an
answer to interrogatory 9 might also apply to Red Hat, and contradict something
they said in that suit).
Unfortunately, TSG has already gotten what
they wanted out of this lawsuit: Publicity that they MIGHT get an injunction.
They're probably not going to try all that hard to get it, considering what
they'd be giving up in other suits to gain this injunction.
While I am
not a lawyer, I don't see how they could argue successfully for an injunction in
this case. Nor could they argue that all of these questions irrelevant to the
case, even though they dearly don't want to answer them. At the least, it should
be interesting to read what comes out of this, as it may provide ammo in the
other cases if they make a mistake.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kberrien on Sunday, October 17 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
Interogs 1-6
Here we go again!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|