|
AutoZone's Notice of Deposition - as text |
|
Monday, October 18 2004 @ 04:34 PM EDT
|
Here is a bit more from SCO's AutoZone collection, this time the Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of the Plaintiff The SCO Group, as text, thanks to Steve Martin and Henrik Grouleff. You'll find it on page 80 of the PDF. This matches and complements their First Interrogatories and First Request for Documents and Things. I note particularly AutoZone intended to ask about item 7: 7. The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this action against AutoZone If this were a novel, I'd call that foreshadowing. Of what? Maybe that AutoZone could be thinking of some steps of their own, if this nonsense keeps up. You are supposed to have some kind of good-faith basis for a claim prior to suing somebody. Number 8 on the list can't be there just for our entertainment, I'm sure, but I, for one, can't wait to read SCO describe how it is being so irreparably harmed by AutoZone booting up its own computers now and again and using them every day that SCO requires an immediate injunction to keep AutoZone from using its chosen operating system until the trial is over. Like the judge will make that happen in the real world. Like SCO will even ask. Sorry, but much as I'd enjoy all the merriment that would ensue, I don't honestly think they will even ask the judge for that, unless something extraordinary comes out in discovery, which I can't even imagine at this point. Of course, SCO is nothing if not surprising. These are the folks who thought it would be sensible to sue a company that hasn't used its product in nearly a decade, so in SCOland, anything is possible.
******************************
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
|
NOTICE OF 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF
OF PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC.
Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone") hereby gives notice that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it will take the deposition upon oral examination of Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") through one or more of its officers, directors, managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf and who are most knowledgeable with respect to the topics set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The deposition will commence at 9:00 a.m. on October 13, 2004 at the offices of Schreck Brignone, [address] and will continue from time to time and day to day until completed. The deposition will be taken before a notary public or other officer duly authorized by law to administer oaths.
Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, SCO is required to designate one or more persons who will testify to the matters known or reasonably available to SCO regarding each of the subjects set forth on the attached Exhibit "A."
This 1st day of September, 2004.
_____signature]______
James J. Pisanelli, Esq. Nicki L. Wilmer, Esq. SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address, phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
AutoZone, Inc.
AutoZone incorporates by reference herein the Instructions and Definitions contained in AutoZone's First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
EXHIBIT "A"
1. Identification of the specific copyrights that SCO contends that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.
2. SCO's acquisition, ownership and licensing of the copyrights SCO contends that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.
3. The functionality of any source or object code that SCO contends that AutoZone has copied or otherwise infringed.
4. The creation of any source or object code that SCO contends that AutoZone has copied or otherwise infringed.
5. How AutoZone has allegedly infringed each of SCO's copyrights, including the copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.
6. The date(s) when SCO first learned that AutoZone was allegedly infringing SCO's copyrights, including copyrights identified in SCO's Injunctive Relief Statement.
7. The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this action against AutoZone.
8. The harm that SCO is suffering as a result of AutoZone's alleged acts of infringement.
9. SCOsource and the SCO Intellectual Property License Program.
10. AutoZone's migration from OpenServer to Linux.
11. Communications between AutoZone and SCO, or any of its predecessors, regarding Linux.
12. Communications between AutoZone and SCO, or any of its predecessors, regarding Unix or OpenServer.
13. The terms of the OpenServer and/or Linux license agreements between SCO and AutoZone.
14. Identification and authentication of each document produced in response to AutoZone's First Requests for Production of Documents and Things to Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF THE SCO GROUP, INC. upon all counsel of record addressed as follows:
Stanley W. Parry, Esq. Glenn M. Machado, Esq. CURRAN & PARRY
[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: overshoot on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
Clickable links:
<a href=""></a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT/ Hearing Tomorrow? - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:51 PM EDT
- Cisco CEO & Bill Gates against hackers - Authored by: thinman on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- WIPO getting better? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- OEM's and alternative browsers - Authored by: LesBrunswick on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 07:59 PM EDT
- Comming Attractions??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 08:19 PM EDT
- Microsoft on Patents - Authored by: Darkside on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 02:34 AM EDT
- PearPC = CherryOS ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:33 AM EDT
- Microsoft Replays Monopoly Games - Authored by: yellowsnow314159 on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:33 AM EDT
- Don’t pay SCO without a refund guarantee - Authored by: SmyTTor on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 08:34 AM EDT
- EXPAND---Official "The SCO Group" Positions - Authored by: spuluka on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 10:10 AM EDT
- MS's Linux expert Martin Taylor interviewed - Authored by: WojtekPod on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT
- New Linux distro designed for desktop users - Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT
- Off Topic, but IP focused - Authored by: DigiGato on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Microsoft License News - Authored by: the_flatlander on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:49 PM EDT
|
Authored by: voxclamatis on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:01 PM EDT |
This is another interesting inclusion. Would this perhaps be there to show that
TSG has already voluntarily put an upper limit on the harm: $699/per server or
something? Or is it a setup to a countersuit?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Lev on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT |
Won't SCO just claim work product privilege? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Rule 11 - Authored by: overshoot on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:20 PM EDT
- Rule 11 - Authored by: Jude on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:46 PM EDT
- Rule 11 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 07:29 PM EDT
- Rule 11 - Authored by: marbux on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 08:22 PM EDT
- Item 7 - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Anybody know what happened? Did anybody from SCOG show up to give the
depositions?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PolR on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
A deposition about prior communications? Isn't this information already
available to both parties? Or do they want to make it undisputed there was a
lack of proper communication prior to the lawsuit?
This looks like a page from IBM's book on PSJ motion preparation. Foreshadowing
is indeed the word.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Corrections go here.
Trolls please post umopəpısdn.
-Cyp [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:23 PM 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: Tomas on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
I would love to be present (the "fly on the wall" ploy) at this
interrogation, er, excuse me, "deposition."
Actually, just knowing who The SCO Group could send to speak intelligently about
these subjects would be interesting...
Has anyone heard anything that might indicate anything like this actually began
on October 13?
---
Tom
Engineer (ret.)
Comment ©2004 Tomas@TiJiL.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
I for one am interested in how SCOG thinks AutoZone violated the SCO license.
Based on SCO licenses I've seen, I believe that Autozone had a right to use
parts of OpenServer, providing that they didn't increase the number of users and
servers beyond the number they had licenses for.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Glenn on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 08:33 PM EDT |
Has the SCOG presented any interrogatories to AutoZone? I cannot find any
record of such here on Groklaw or on Tuxrocks.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT |
The document refers to "persons who consent to testify." It also says
that SCO must designate someone to testify.
Can someone who is designated by SCO then refuse to testify? "I'm sorry
your honor, we designated Joe Blow but he refuses to testify." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 09:12 PM EDT |
There is one thing that is puzzling me about these SCO cases in
general....
The more time progrsses, and the more analysis done on the SCO
complaints, it is becoming more and more obvious that they neither have nor ever
had any evidence whatsoever of any developer or customer misparropriating,
illegally copying, improperly using or anything else any IP that either
belongs to SCO/Caldera now nor ever belonged to SCO/Caldera or any company that
they bought these products from, nor anyone they bought it from and so on
in the past.
In short - it is becomming more and more obvious SCO bought
these cases on in order to create a nuisance so that people would pay them to go
away. A bit like these "protection" people who carried violin cases but were
not musicians that one associates with the seedier parts of 1920 Chicago
(possibly unjustifiably).
Please excuse the question, but are SCO in any
way liable for the costs they are causing what is in fact their victims? Or is
the legal system such that it allows the SCOs of this world to get away with
this? And if so, will that not encourage others? If that is the case it
would mean there is no risk in these IP pirate conmpanies from trying to cream a
large chunk of the profits of legitimate companies at no risk to themselves! Is
that really the case? (I genuinely do not know).
Please forgive me if this
should be in the OT (or similar) section.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 18 2004 @ 09:18 PM EDT |
... "13.The terms of the OpenServer and/or Linux license agreements between
SCO and AutoZone." ...
Could it be that AZ just happens to be running ....
... SCOLinux ( be it one of the OldSCO versions, or
one of the "Caldera" versions )?
Now that would be ...
... FOMCROTFLMAOSTC! ...
Sorry. But the possilility is just to funnie.
But it would not be unlike TSOG to go after someone that ...
A) use to use SCOUnix,
B) that moved from SCOUnix to Linux,
C) and that the version of Linux that
they are using just happens to be SCOLinux.
George
PS: Would anyone be interested in seeing a "Offical"
copy of a SCO "Certificate of License and Authenticity"
looks like. I just happen to own a copy of SCOLinux
Server v. 4.0 ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 01:30 AM EDT |
"SCO's acquisition, ownership and licensing of the copyrights SCO contends
that AutoZone has infringed, including the copyrights identified in SCO's
Injunctive Relief Statement."
So AutoZone wants to see where the hell SCO claims they got these copyrights
from.
From what I understand newSCO has yet to provide the document that shows what
they received from oldSCO when the purchase agreement was signed. The transfer
of these *copyrights* to new SCO is not shown anywhere. Please correct me if I
am wrong.
The last I heard new SCO was claiming that it cannot *find* the purchase
agreement detailing what it got from old SCO. You would think that they could
get a copy of the agreement from old SCO? Unless they have lost it too. Now
wouldn't that be interesting.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:06 AM EDT
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:39 AM EDT
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 04:42 AM EDT
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: mossc on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: eskild on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:56 PM EDT
- Item#: 2 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 03:29 AM EDT
- Watch the Language please - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:25 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 05:24 AM EDT |
[pj:] "...so in SCOland, anything is possible."
More things are possible in Scotland than in Scoland[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 05:39 AM EDT |
It seems to me that SCO (Darl?) has just tacked one more calculation onto an old
equation.
The old equation would be the old Dotcom scenario where lots of other peoples
money is floating around on nothing but promises and whoever is telling the
stories is living high on the hog. But then it comes to an end when the company
is grossly overvalued and not really performing and producing.
Suppose (and take a look at Darl's track record here) that one gets the money
flowing with the empty promises and hype, but then when the natural
over-valuation and drop starts, you sue somebody else for causing it.
Exploiting three sources of income with noise and threats, but no real product
or service.
The three sources are 1) investors buying into the hype, 2) a monopoly willing
to invest into the detraction of a competitor, 3) the company(s) you are able to
place the blame on and sue.
And if no one checks what is holding up your kite by digging into your meritless
claims you actually start a business making money from other peoples work.
Balance this against the probability that there will be no consequence in giving
it a try. Voila.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT |
>>7. The factual investigation SCO performed in advance of filing this
action against AutoZone
I am going to be very interested in what is written here. My guess is AutoZone
is getting ready to sock it to SCO for filing a false law suite.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
I expect SCOG's reply to AZ's demands for discovery to be right out of the
"Twilight Zone". Now that I think about it, being sued by SCOG is a
"Twilight Zone" experience - "do not touch that dial!",
suspension of disbelief and all. Having said that, we will continue our analysis
effort with the seriousness and effectiveness we have always shown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
Leaverage the ggod will of the FOSS community. Use their distribution network
and in house Linux skills... and irritate the hell out of SCO and Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 11:57 AM EDT |
Can someone please explain why the autozone Collection was assemled and filed?
I can see a reason for the letters between council, the court would not know
that, but why the hearing transcript? Why the interrogatories?
There does not seem to be any motion attached, or anything else pending.
I probably missed something.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:04 PM 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"..."
I think this thread is a very good idea as a device to, hopefully, entice SCO
personnel to describe their stance on the various topics typically addressed on
Groklaw.
I think the rules PJ and AllParadox have established for poster behavior are
prudent and acceptable. As guests who are likely to represent unpopular
positions, it is essential that we treat them as guests, observing every
protocol for polite and respectful behavior.
That said, dissenting views are apparently welcome provided the proper protocols
are observed. I think that we, as members of Groklaw, are both willing and able
to present our views in a clear, concise and polite manner.
---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, abolish software patents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
My observtion is that the AutoZone lawyers have done a good job of coming to an
understanding of the situation and have covered the relevant points clearly and
effectively in their brief(s).
Though I have no direct evidence, I like to think that GROKLAW, through its
analysis and investigations, have, however indirectly, contributed in some way
to the clarity and thoroughness of these submissions.
Together we are stronger.
-----------------------------
Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 19 2004 @ 12:28 PM EDT |
Anyone else getting antsy about the hearing? I know, I know, it's just the the
wait is killing me. I have to fly out this afternoon, not sure I'll be able to
keep up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|