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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:06 PM EDT

SCO has filed with the court its periodically required filing letting the judge in the AutoZone case, The Honorable Robert C. Jones, know how things are progressing in the SCO v. IBM case. I think I know why SCO always trash talks IBM in its filings in that case. It's so they can report the trash talk as fact in the reports to the judges in the other cases. For example, in its letter to the judge [PDF] in AutoZone, it reports:

On December 22, SCO filed a Motion to Compel with respect to IBM's failure to fully comply with the Magistrate Judge's October 20 Order...

That's only according to SCO's interpretation, of course. But see how handy it is to overstate your case?

Two other filings have to do with discovery. The limited period of discovery, which was originally extended by the judge, is stretching longer and longer, as you probably suspected it would, given SCO's gifts. The parties stipulated to a 60-day extension, which came to an end on March 19, and then the parties stipulated [PDF] to yet another 45-day extension, which they call a "final" extension, and a letter to the judge [PDF] explains why they need it. It's quite humorous, actually. SCO couldn't unzip or decipher some compact discs AutoZone turned over. Whatever could the problem be?

You have to admit, that's funny.

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

Curran & Parry
[address, phone, fax, email]

March 16, 2005

VIA HAND-DELIVERY

The Honorable Robert C. Jones
U.S. District Judge
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada
[address]

RE: The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc., CV-S-04-o237-RCJ-LRL

Dear Judge Jones:

We are counsel to The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") and write to apprise the Court of recent discovery-related developments in the above-referenced matter and to request an additional brief extension of the limited discovery period for an additional 45 days.

As Your Honor will recall, on August 6, 2004, the Court ordered limited discovery, in part so SCO could examine information, documents, and computer data in AutoZone, Inc.'s ("AutoZone") possession to determine whether AutoZone had used or copied SCO's proprietary materials in connection with, or subsequent to, AutoZone's migration from SCO's proprietary UNIX-based Operating System "OpenServer" to a Linux-based Operating System. On November 4, 2004, SCO wrote to advise the Court that the information it had obtained warranted further discovery on this issue and that AutoZone had consented to the application. The Court executed an Order extending discovery for the first time on November 12, 2004 for an additional thirty days.

Thereafter, the parties conducted extensive factual discovery during the first extended discovery period including among others things, production by AutoZone, and analysis by SCO, of highly-technical computer programs and AutoZone store server images which elicited additional facts requiring even further discovery. Thereafter, in early January 2005, the parties jointly requested that the Court enter a Stipulation and Order further extending discovery for an additional sixty days fully-anticipating that all discovery would be completed within that period. (See Exhibit "A" hereto) The second extended discovery period will conclude on March 19, 2005.

The parties now request a final 45 day discovery period as a result of unanticipated technical production problems which occurred throughout the second extended discovery period which delayed the production of responsive materials to SCO for analysis. In particular, Counsel and SCO's expert -- a computer software engineer -- were unable to unzip or decipher certain compact discs produced by AutoZone shortly before the discovery deadline which contained materials responsive to SCO's discovery requests. Indeed, AutoZone did not produce a hard drive that contained the majority of the supplemental discovery until 4 days before the close of the second extended discovery period.

Given the foregoing unanticipated occurrences, and the parties contemplation that SCO will need an adequate opportunity to review and analyze the various responsive technical materials produced by AutoZone before taking the deposition of the manager of the AutoZone IT Department, the parties respectfully request that the Court enter the enclosed Stipulation and Order providing for an additional 45 day discovery period. (See Exhibit "B" hereto).

We thank the Court for its continued courtesies in connection with this matter.

___[signature]___
Stanley W. Parry, Esq.

cc: James Pisanelli, Esq. (via hand-delivery)
David J. Stewart, Esq. (via facsimile)
David S. Stone, Esq. (via facsimile)


  


New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery | 285 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic Here
Authored by: DannyB on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:20 PM EDT
Make links clickable.

---
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is SCO hoping to use **AIX** against AutoZone
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT
I've been waiting for this to be covered on groklaw.... Here is a thought that has been nagging me for some time

Now maybe it's a coincidence, but the exact same day SCO requested a 45 extension in AutoZone (i.e. March 16th), Judge Kimball granted IBM a 45 day extension in SCO vs IBM.

Now if you check back, you will see (see comments section of the Kimball order story linked in last paragraph, or see here), I speculated whether there might be any connection between SCO wanting IBM to have no more than a 2 week extension - and the timeline of the AutoZone case.

In fact, in reply to my own post, I even went so far as to predict that if SCO were hoping to use IBM AIX code against AutoZone (for the record, this could include just dumping it on them as opposed to actual evidence, or it could be a claim that AutoZone infringed SCO's "copyright" in AIX as a "derivative" of UNIX, by using Linux) - that SCO would request a long extension to the AutoZone discovery period.

(a) And they did exactly that!

(b) And they did on the very same day as Kimball granted an IBM extension.

(c) And they did it by the exact same number of days as the IBM extension.

So while the prediction is not proof of the theory that SCO/AZ and SCO/IBM are connected, it is entirely consistent with the theory... and not just slightly consistent... but almost miraculously consistent, when you consider the 3 "coincidences".

Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc.


P.S.
If anybody is wondering why SCO might want to use some AIX "derivative" theory against AutoZone's use of Linux - one possible reason is that they don't have any evidence for any actual SysV/OpenServer code in Linux or in AZ's implementation of their in-house apps. i.e. this theory is premised on the speculation that "AIX is owned/controlled/whatever by SCO, is the best that SCO can come up with, and we know that there is some AIX-like code in Linux).

P.P.S.
Anybody want to take bets that SCO's software engineer referenced in AZ-48 is Sandeep Gupta?

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: ebacon on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT
SCO couldn't unzip or decipher some compact discs AutoZone turned over. Whatever could the problem be?

Sounds like a typical PEBKAC to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here Darl
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:32 PM EDT
It's Shareware. Remember to fork up
http://www.rarlab.com/
21 bucks isnt to much Darl that your sure to reap from that Autozone bonanza.

RT Smith
Laughed til pepsi shot out of my nose and ruined my antec keyboard.
SCO owes me $23.95 now

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT
PEBKAC

Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair

i.e. the dumb son-of-a-biscuit running the computer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here...
Authored by: OK on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 03:02 PM EDT
Please, put corrections here.

---
The one I was...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Communications Breakdown
Authored by: emmenjay on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 03:18 PM EDT
Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what format they could have used that was
hard to decode, but lets assume there is one. Normal sofwtare engineer would
pick up the phone:

SCO: Hey AZ, what format is that data you sent me?

AZ: It's in Super-Foobar plus.

SCO: I can't read that, can you give it to me in Advanced FUDpress.

AZ: Sure, I'll courier you a new disk this afternoon.


That's how most would solve it, but I guess that was too hard.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Get in the Zone® - AutoZone
Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 03:31 PM EDT
Support the cause - go buy ALL your auto parts and supplies at AutoZone

Get in the Zone® - AutoZone

Disclaimer: I posted this on my own - this is not a paid endorsement or paid for advertising. And this is not in partnership or affiliation with Groklaw.net, it's members, or Autozone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bar Complaint Against Mr. Parry?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT
"On December 22, SCO filed a Motion to Compel with respect to IBM's failure
to fully comply with the Magistrate Judge's October 20 Order..."

I wonder: is intentionally making false statements to the Court contrary to the
Professional Code of Ethics? If so, does Mr. Perry need a reminder as to his
responsibility to be truthful to the Court?

Inquiring minds wnat to know....

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't understand how this warrants more discovery.
Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 03:35 PM EDT

Maybe a more lawyerly type could help me understand, but I don't understand how SCO's reasons require any extension to the discovery period.

Here's the reason they give:

"The parties now request a final 45 day discovery period as a result of unanticipated technical production problems which occurred throughout the second extended discovery period which delayed the production of responsive materials to SCO for analysis. In particular, Counsel and SCO's expert -- a computer software engineer -- were unable to unzip or decipher certain compact discs produced by AutoZone shortly before the discovery deadline which contained materials responsive to SCO's discovery requests. Indeed, AutoZone did not produce a hard drive that contained the majority of the supplemental discovery until 4 days before the close of the second extended discovery period."

OK, so they were unable to unzip the discovery delivered, can't they do that now? How will extending a discovery deadline allow them to un-zip files?

Isn't it normal for discovery to end, and for the materials delivered in discovery to then be analyzed? SCO never seems to make their case here, and I think AZ should jump on that point.

If SCO had argued that they were unable to do a quick first walk through of the delivered discovery. And that now they are worried that they may miss an opportunity to ask for additional discovery based on discovery delivered already but un-analyzed due to their inability to unzip files, I would agree that they might have an argument.

I think that AZ should oppose this extension, saying that all requested discovery has been delivered. It is now time to analyze that discovery. They should also point out that SCO could always submit a motion to allow more discovery if some overwhelming new piece of evidence shows up in the material SCO was unable, through SCO's own incompetence, to review before the already extended discovery period ended. So there is no harm in not granting another lengthy extension.

AZ should back this up with some case law, which seem to be completely missing from SCO's arguments. AZ needs the case law, because this looks like an attempt by SCO to create an issue that could be appealed if their request for extension is denied.

I find it curious that SCO does not site any case law in their request. There must be someone who has requested an extension due to 'technical difficulties' at some time in the past.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 03:42 PM EDT
"SCO couldn't unzip or decipher some compact discs..."

Didn't I hear somehere that SCO was a hi-tech supplier of software?

I wonder how much confidence its customers will have if they ask SCO in to help
with some technical problems and then hear of this sort of inability of SCO...

Does this mean that AutoZone is operating at a higher tech level than SCO's
ability to cope...

Then again maybe all the disks really were bad. (When this happened to me,I
went out and bought some utilities to recover data, and I got 99+%.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lack of qualified
Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 04:17 PM EDT

PKZip Operators at SCO.

You see, Autozone provided the data compressed with WinZip 9.0.

And SCO only has a DOS command line version of PKZip but the last person that knew how to use it was canned over a year ago....

[ Reply to This | # ]

CD's wouldn't fit in the coffee cup holder?
Authored by: Saturn on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 04:39 PM EDT
"Error in module 'user'. Replace user and try again"

---
----------------------------------------
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
SCO states in it's filing:
As Your Honor will recall, on August 6, 2004, the Court ordered limited discovery, in part so SCO could examine information, documents, and computer data in AutoZone, Inc.'s ("AutoZone") possession to determine whether AutoZone had used or copied SCO's proprietary materials in connection with, or subsequent to, AutoZone's migration from SCO's proprietary UNIX-based Operating System "OpenServer" to a Linux-based Operating System.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I thought the limited discovery was explicitly just to determine whether or not a preliminary injunction is warranted. The above statement sounds like they're doing discovery for the whole case.

Also, isn't SCO supposed to already know "whether AutoZone had used or copied SCO's proprietary materials in connection with, or subsequent to, AutoZone's migration from " UNIX to Linux before filing a law suit?

That is essentially what this whole case is about right? If SCO don't already know that AutoZone has done what they are accused of, what business do they have suing them? I didn't think lawsuits were supposed to be initiated based on hunches.

[ Reply to This | # ]

were unable to unzip or decipher certain compact discs
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 05:15 PM EDT
This is a try on the judge's technical knowledge, I
presume.

The files may not be compressed, nor indeed 'ciphered'.
'Unreadable' makes more sense to me on a burnt CD-ROM.

If that was the case, then why not ask AZ at the time
about it rather than wait and use as an excuse in a court
filing months later?

Nick

[ Reply to This | # ]

Clue for Darl
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 05:38 PM EDT
Try entering these commands at your Unix term:

man file
man tar
man gzip
man compress
man unzip
man restore

Somewhere in there, there's got to be a clue that he could use to solve the
mysterious unreadable CD problem thingy.

I must say, these fellers got game.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Judge should return letter for revision
Authored by: Christian on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT
"In particular, Counsel and SCO's expert -- a computer software engineer -- were unable to unzip or decipher certain compact discs produced by AutoZone shortly before the discovery deadline which contained materials responsive to SCO's discovery requests. Indeed, AutoZone did not produce a hard drive that contained the majority of the supplemental discovery until 4 days before the close of the second extended discovery period."

First, I noticed that the second sentence refers to delivery of a hard drive, not CDs. Did AZ actually send out drives full of information rather than tapes or CDs? The easiest way to transfer huge amounts of data today may be by shipping 300 gig drives, but it is hard to imagine they would provide information in a format so easily alterable.

SCO claims that it could not "unzip or decipher certain compact discs". There is no way of interpreting their words that begins to make sense. "Decipher" is how you read material that has been enciphered. They are claiming that AZ encrypted the material and sent it to SCO without a key, which is inconceivable. Next, only a file can be unzipped. You can unzip files on a CD, but "unzipping a CD" doesn't mean anything.

They could have said that files on the CDs were corrupted. They could have said that information on the CDs was in a non-standard or proprietary format. They could have admitted that they are technologically naive and not up to industry standard, Instead, they sent the judge a letter saying, "The dog ate my homework".

It's hard to imagine that the judge cares one way or the other, but it would be nice to see one of them stand up against the SCO snow jobs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 05:59 PM EDT
SCO couldn't unzip or decipher some compact discs AutoZone turned over. Whatever could the problem be?
Cutbacks. They must have laid off the kid who knew how to work WinZip.

---
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

lieing to the judge...
Authored by: Latesigner on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 06:26 PM EDT
"I think I know why SCO always trash talks IBM in its filings in that case.
It's so they can report the trash talk as fact in the reports to the judges in
the other cases."

Is there a penalty for doing that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't see why it takes an extra 45 days
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 06:31 PM EDT
I'd imagine that while working out what on earth SCO are
on about and finding the right info could take ages, once
AZ have done that, they'd keep a copy of all the
materials. So it's just a matter of supplying it in SCO's
preferred format. That should take a few hours plus
courier time max.

By the way, didn't SCO fail to read a tape with some pile
of IBM discovery (all released versions of AIX or
somesuch) Do we have any record of any storage media that
SCO have successfuly read.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 06:44 PM EDT
On Sat Oct 9, 2004, groklaw posted "AutoZone Interrogatories &
Depositions and Two More SCO Attorneys, Etc."

There are questions posed then that I've awaited answers for (see below),
anybody have a clue as to when we'll here these?...

"Then, on page 68, you find the interrogatories AutoZone served on SCO. The
first item on the list is:

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.

Ah, the eternal quest to get a simple answer to the simple question, Exactly
what have we infringed? I like their questions number 4-6 quite a lot, too:

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.

But my all-time favorite interrogatory in the entire SCO saga must be AutoZone's
#9:

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."

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041009064811132&query=interrogato
ries+autozone

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is It So hard to Believe ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 07:36 PM EDT
that a lawyer or his secretary had trouble opening a Zip file?

I've sent Zip files that my colleagues (PhD scientists) couldn't open because
the version of WinZip was different, or they were using another unzip program
(like gunzip) which is not entirely compatible.

Conspiracy theories abound here, but I still believe in Occam's Razor: the
simplest explanation is usually the right one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yes it is - Authored by: LocoYokel on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 09:48 PM EDT
    • Yes it is - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 10:04 PM EDT
      • Yes it is - Authored by: micheal on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 06:50 AM EDT
      • Yes it is - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 10:12 AM EDT
    • Yes it is - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 06:31 AM EDT
Which was it, then?
Authored by: anwaya on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 07:54 PM EDT
RPM or bz2 files? My bet's on the former.

[ Reply to This | # ]

off track more fud
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 08:26 PM EDT
We need a nother fud report. Microsofts latest get the facts. They had 18 MS
Windows managers and 18 Linux managers running a shop for four days. They
claimed windows gave the users 15% more up time. Of course what they don't tell
you in the report was that you reboot windows about once a week to keep it from
crashing on you, while Linux just runs. Four days was hardly a meaningful
comparison. But then I don't suppose you could afford to hire 18 Windows admins
for a significant time. Also claimed Windows warned you when Linux didn't that
you were running low on memory. Say what? What kind of Linux admins did they
have?

Their idea of administering a system is to constantly make changes, add devices,
etc. That's not the way a system is normally run. You get things tuned
properly then keep your backups and leave things alone!!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: so23 on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 09:16 PM EDT
As Your Honor will recall, on August 6, 2004, the Court ordered limited discovery, in part so SCO could examine information, documents, and computer data in AutoZone, Inc.'s ("AutoZone") possession to determine whether AutoZone had used or copied SCO's proprietary materials in connection with, or subsequent to, AutoZone's migration from SCO's proprietary UNIX-based Operating System "OpenServer" to a Linux-based Operating System.

This verges on misrepresentation. The judge granted limited discovery to SCO restricted to the question of whether a preliminary injuction could be justified.

I recall we all commented at the time on how this was probably a mistake on the part of the judge, since justification of a PJ in theory requires demonstration of the likelihood of success on the merits and hence the stated limitation on discovery is effectively no limitation at all.

With a normal litigant this wouldn't matter much. However SCO could be expected to abuse this loophole since its primary purpose seems to be to waste time and money in order to underpin its threat-of-legal-action extortion business. And sure enough SCO immediately pressed for the maximum discovery possible.

However in omitting all mention of justification of the restriction to the question of justifying a preliminary injunction, they now seem to be virtually rubbing the judges nose in his mistake. Surely this is unwise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They (again) do not know what to do with all those bits
Authored by: ak on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 03:56 AM EDT
They do not say that the CDROMs are unreadable. They say that they do not know
what to do with the bits on those CDROMs. But did anyone really expect a
different reaction? They do not even know what to do with the Linux source code
they have access to since years.

And even if they knew what to do with the bits on the CDROMs: The well-known
expert Chris Sontag certainly will be able to explain that it would take them
thousands or millions of years.

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 07:14 AM EDT
Rather then 45 days, wouldn't it have made sense to extend discovery just 45-n
days. Where n was the number of days left in the original discovery order from
the time SCO first tried to "read" the files?


One explaionation what if neither side wants this to go on. In the case of
Autozone, it may be like DMC defend only as much as needed but don't take the
offensive(perhaps very costly dollar wise to do so).

It's this is what happened both here and in DMC (and with Chanberlin in WW2), I
now see a lot more logic in George Bushes war strategy (offensive, not just
defensive).

and to repeat the unanswered question of my earlier post in this topic , what
about all those interrogotories?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Famous empty floppy?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 10:47 AM EDT
Is this SCO telling the court that AZ intentionally made the CD unreadable,
without being blatant about it?

Way back when (floppies were the delivery mechanism of choice), a sofware
company that shall remain nameless sent out many sets of floppys to meet a
product delivery deadline. However, one of the floppy images was corrupt and
could not be read by the install program. Conspiracy theorists abounded saying
that this was done intentionally just so the company could meet the deadline.
Of course it took several weeks to reproduce the floppy image sets....

So, are they trying to say this about AZ, or are they trying to use this plain
in reverse -- "well judge, we have to have more time because we couldn't
read the files...."?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is it really *FINAL* ? New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 07 2005 @ 12:19 PM EDT
"The parties now request a final 45 day discovery period "

[ Reply to This | # ]

New AutoZone Filings - SCO Needs More Time for Discovery
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 08 2005 @ 01:15 PM EDT
You make a good point. However, I believe the "substantial likelyhood of
success on the merits" is not quite as determinative to the outcome of the
case as you might expect. As I understand, this requirement is less critical
than the determination of injury to each party, or to the public.

In the AutoZone case, I don't think a PI would risk public injury. The case is
purely about private interests: SCOs copyrighted libraries and AutoZones use of
Linux to run their business. If SCO could successfully argue a significant
irreparable injury to itself, along with a relatively small potential for injury
to AutoZone as a result of injunctive relief, the question of likelyhood for
success on the merits would be less critical.

An example is the PI granted in the Sun vs. Microsoft case:
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/111798ruling.html

Scroll down to section II, "Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunctive
Relief".

Also, as referenced a few paragraphs lower in the above ruling, Copyright law
has a weaker requirement. It requires only a "reasonable likelyhood of
success on the merits" (rather than "substantial"). So, success
on the merits has to be demonstrated to not be unlikely. Essentially, the
copyright holder is given a higher benefit of the doubt. Then again, for SCO,
even this low standard looks like it would be a difficult hurdle.

Therefore, SCO doesn't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that AutoZone is
using their libraries in a manner that isn't authorized by the license. They
just need to primarily prove the case for irreparable injury, and secondarily
that their is a "reasonable likelyhood" that they could win the case.

When you think about it, the "success on the merits" requirement is
intended to balance the injury or prejudice against the non-movant against the
likelyhood that the movant can win the case. In the case of a frivolous law
suit, it isn't fair to burden the nonmovant with the injury caused by a PI if
the movant has little or no chance to win the case.

[ 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 )