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
SCO v AZ Report, Ex. B Letter, David Stewart to David Stone, as text
Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 02:48 AM EDT

Here is SCO's Exhibit B [PDF], attached to its Report Regarding Discovery in SCO v. AutoZone. It's a letter from AutoZone attorney Davis Stewart to SCO attorney, David S. Stone. Our thanks to juliac for transcribing it for us.

This is the letter in which AutoZone reports on its "actions to locate and delete or replace any SCO compiled programs on its servers" and explains to SCO that as far as they are concerned, they have a valid license for most of the code, but as a courtesy, or in some cases because they don't need the code, and in all cases to get SCO off of this dime, so they will quit making an issue of it, they have gotten rid of it all and replaced all COFF files with Linux compiled versions of the files. They end saying this:

Finally, we have reviewed the relevant OpenServer agreements between SCO and AutoZone. These agreements are still in place and do not include any prohibitions on AutoZone's use of OpenServer compiled code on Linux machines.

Of course, SCO paid no attention and their version of the same events to the court is wildly different, making AutoZone sound like hardened criminals.

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

Alston & Bird LLP
[Letterhead]

November 24, 2004

VIA Facsimile and Overnight UPS

David S. Stone, Esq.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
[address]

Re:   The SCO Group, Inc. v. AutoZone, Inc.

Dear David:

This letter supplements the information we have provided to you previously regarding AutoZone's actions to locate and delete or replace any SCO compiled programs on its server. AutoZone has focused its system review on searches for "COFF" files. As you likely know, COFF files are executable files in a format that is normally only used on SCO OpenServer computers. Such files would reside at AutoZone only on its store servers and on servers in AutoZone's store support center (i.e., servers at AutoZone's headquarters). All COFF files have now been located and deleted or replaced with Linux compiled versions of the files. An update of the actions AutoZone has taken to reach this result is provided below.

Store Servers

On October 19, 20, and 21, AutoZone sent a release of its software to its store servers that updated the store servers to replace nine COFF files with Linux files and to delete nineteen unused COFF files. Two other COFF programs, COMPX and DECOMPX, were also deleted in this release. The nine replaced COFF files were on the store servers because they were inadvertently included in a Linux-only release in November of 2001. They subsequently became part of the Linux image rolled out to the rest of the AutoZone stores.

Of the nineteen unused COFF files deleted in the October 19-21 release, most were help utilities used outside of AutoZone's store management system that were


David S. Stone, Esq.
November 24, 2004
Page 2

errantly omitted from the original conversion schedule and loaded into the Linux load image. It is likely that many of these programs would not run under Linux due to compatibility issues or the fact that these programs predated year 2000 and would not have operated correctly with the new AutoZone date format in use after the year 2000. In addition to the help utilities, there were four SCO compiled programs that were copied to the Linux machines errantly because the programs were not located in the proper directory for binary files prior to the Linux conversion. The programs were located in the directories where data is kept on the AutoZone store servers. During the migration from OperServer to Linux, this entire data directory was copied onto the Linux machine; thus, the four binary files that were in the COFF format were copied as well.

The deletion of the COMPX and DECOMPX programs in the October 19-21 release caused the replenishment system to fail on some of the AutoZone store servers. The replenishment system is a program used by AutoZone store servers to order and receive new inventory from the distribution centers. The replenishment system failed with regard to stores serviced by distribution centers 66 and 77 (approximately 650 of AutoZone's 3,500 stores). Investigation of the failure revealed that the store servers served by these distribution centers still used the COMPX and DECOMPX programs in connection with the replenishment system. The AutoZone IT Department upgraded the software in distribution centers 66 and 77 to eliminate the use of COMPX and DECOMPX in all AutoZone stores. This upgrade occurred one day after the notice of the failure of the replenishment system.

The release script sent to the AutoZone stores on October 19-21 also searched each AutoZone store server for the existence of other COFF files beyond the files we identified to you previously. A total of 1,681 additional COFF files were found on 387 store machines. These programs had 127 unique file names. The bulk of these files were files that were inadvertently copied because they were in the wrong directory or because the directory was inadvertently copied. The other files fall into a number of different categories, including files that were mislabeled as COFF files but that were data files, and temporary files created by the release process before being deleted automatically. All of these additional COFF files were deleted from all AutoZone store server machines by November 1st.

Store Support Center Servers

The store support center maintains a new machine load computer that the support center uses to create new store servers. In conducting additional review of all relevant AutoZone servers for OpenServer compiled code, AutoZone's IT staff discovered that the new machine load computer had a program on it called dexpand.x that was compiled under OpenServer. This program was being used to translate data from a pre-Y2K AutoZone format to AutoZone's new post-Y2K format. This translation occurred during the intial loading of information onto the new store server. After discovery, this program was recompiled and replaced.


David S. Stone, Esq.
November 24, 2004
Page 3

AutoZone's IT personnel also discovered that the "Spirit" server had some OpenServer compiled programs on it because of a recent restoration of the server after a crash. Historically, this server was used as both a development server and the home of AutoZone's revision control system. At one time, each AutoZone programmer had an account on the server to develop, compile, and test programs. Several years ago, AutoZone's IT department decided to stop providing developer accounts on the Spirit computer, and the machine transitioned to serving only as the home for AutoZone's revision control system. Spirit recently crashed and, during its recovery, it was converted from SCO OpenServer to Red Hat Linux. All of the old files that were on Spirit were loaded back onto the machine during the recovery process to make sure that a complete restoration was achieved, and this resulted in many SCO compiled programs being loaded onto the machine. These programs were located both in the RCS system and in the developer's home directories. All of these programs (1,130) were removed from the server by October 26, 2004, after copies and backups were made.

We have produced to you previously the first thirty COFF files addressed above. AutoZone's IT personnel have saved copies of the other SCO compiled code. Copies of these files are included on CD's being sent to you with the original of this letter.

Finally, we have reviewed the relevant OpenServer agreements between SCO and AutoZone. These agreements are still in place and do not include any prohibitions on AutoZone's use of OpenServer compiled code on Linux machines. Accordingly, most of the OpenServer compiled code discussed above is properly licensed, and AutoZone is under no legal obligation to delete or recompile the code. Nevertheless, because AutoZone does not need the code to be compiled under OpenServer to serve its purposes (or in some cases, because AutoZone no longer needs the code at all), AutoZone has removed or recompiled the code as a courtesy to your client and to avoid any further issue regarding these files in this litigation.

Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to discuss any of the foregoing further. Please also let me know when I can expect to receive supplemental responses to our client's outstanding discovery requests.

Sincerely,

[signature]

David J. Stewart

DJS
Enclosures
ATL01/11798148v1
cc:   Christopher A. Riley, Esq.
        Douglas L. Bridges, Esq.


  


SCO v AZ Report, Ex. B Letter, David Stewart to David Stone, as text | 37 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
corrections here
Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 03:09 AM EDT
if any

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

off-topic threads here
Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 03:11 AM EDT
Don't forget to make those links clickable, as shown in the example.

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is SCO's exhibit?
Authored by: xtifr on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 03:15 AM EDT
Seems odd to me that SCO would file this as an exhibit, since it mostly seems to
support AZ's side of the argument. Guess that's why Boies is a famous lawyer
and I'm not a lawyer at all! :)

---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v AZ Report, Ex. B Letter, David Stewart to David Stone, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 03:15 AM EDT
"Spirit recently crashed and, during its recovery, it was converted from
SCO OpenServer to Red Hat Linux".

They even use this as an opportunity to stick the knife in to the SCO bandits.

Your OpenServer crashed, so we replaced it with RedHat Linux.

Nice one!

[ Reply to This | # ]

And they make it sound real easy
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 06:56 AM EDT
Perhaps AZ should spin off a small division selling such expertise to other
companies who want to de-SCO themselves!

[ Reply to This | # ]

what is good in this litigation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 07:30 AM EDT
Well, Autozone cleaned up their system by removing the crap completely :)
Everyone should remove old, unused files regularly, (before litigators come
in).

[ Reply to This | # ]

If you have COFF files on your system, you can be sued by SCO?
Authored by: KBellve on Sunday, June 12 2005 @ 04:32 PM EDT

This seems crazy but we need to inform all SCO customers that they risk being
sued if they let COFF files reside on anything but a OpenServer.

If you use AIX, IRIX, Linux, etc as a NFS server to your OpenServer box, you
risk being sued.

If you mail a COFF file to another user and that mail resides on a nonOpenServer
mail server, you risk being sued.

These files that reported don't seem to be owned by SCO, only that they are
compiled for COFF.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Fact versus PR
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, June 13 2005 @ 07:08 AM EDT
Fact versus PR

It's very revealing to read this letter from David S. Stone to Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP alongside SCO's Autozone report. What that reveals is a great
magnitute of distortion. One is clearly based on the other. One is clearly a
simple, straightforward statement of fact. The other, conceding that no further
mileage can be gained from pursuing the issue, seeks to implicate and maximise
the degree of wrongness, where no wrongness may in fact exist. It's the kind of
distortion one would percieve in the Hall of Mirrors at the fair.

When you read two very different accounts of the same event, only one thing is
certain: someone is telling lies. But according to Autozone, we already know
that.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

discovery requests
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 13 2005 @ 12:23 PM EDT
I'm wondering about the last part of the letter where he says he's waiting for
supplemental answers to AZ's oustanding discovery requests. Is this another case
where SCO wants all the discovery from the other party, but they want to wait
until the trial to hand over theirs?

J

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v AZ Report, Ex. B Letter, David Stewart to David Stone, as text
Authored by: AllParadox on Monday, June 13 2005 @ 02:11 PM EDT
"BSF have been allowed to drag this out by a lack of incentive for the
Federal judges to clear their dockets of this type of litigation (bogus,
unsupported claims aimed at intimidation, FUD and delay). Apparently no Federal
Judge wants to take a stand against this legal strategy. It is obviously no
longer rational to assume that all lawyers are officers of the court."

Quick term clarifications; Lawyer: any mope that managed to graduate law school,
whether or not they ever had a law license. Attorney: holds a license to
practice law, with or without law school. For example, I am a lawyer. I was an
attorney, but am now retired. I knew an attorney who never attended law school
(quite a fine judge, actually.) Non-attorney lawyers do not care a bucket of
warm spit about what they should do as "officers of the court".

Strictly speaking, the parent post is therefore wrong for all the right
reasons.

Every attorney is an officer of the court. It is the price of doing business.
It is a weapon used by the disciplinary committees to keep attorney behavior in
line.

Every discipline has its' own absurdities. I am a programmer also, and you
really don't even want to know what bizarre things programmers do that are
counter-productive, e.g. programming in some weird new language called
"C" instead of something efficient like FORTRAN or COBOL.

The practice of law is an ancient discipline, and its' procedures are changing.
As younger attorneys grow into positions of power they continue to ask the often
unanswerable question: "why on earth are we still doing *that*?" I
have suggested before that an attorney from 1900 and an attorney from 2000
simply could not exchange places and have any hope of competently practicing
law, because the practice of law has changed so much.

Others here have suggested that "SCO v. IBM" will be studied in law
schools in the future, as a common teaching tool. I personally want that to be
true, but have very strong doubts about it.

Whether or not "SCO v. IBM" is a law school training tool, it is a
huge wake-up call to the ABA and practicing trial lawyers all over the U.S.
Back in the good 'ol days, before blow-by-blow TV coverage, a criminal trial was
often a large community event. For example, in the 1935 Lindbergh baby
kidnapping case, the whole town assumed a carnival atmosphere, complete with
street vendors. I myself watched parts of the O.J. Simpson prosecution on
television ("how not to run a prosecution", IMHO), and followed the
"U.S. v. Microsoft" case closely.

Criminal cases, therefore, have had considerable public exposure.

This is strictly not true for Civil cases, cases not involving severe penalties
and sanctions. Reporting of Civil cases, when reported at all, was always
perfunctory, at least until now.

PJ and Groklaw have changed the rules.

Most Federal District judges and Federal Appellate judges do not want to take a
stand on this delaying legal strategy. The mere thought of the strategy makes
many of them nauseous, however, but they let it be. Federal Judges are the
epitome of trial lawyers, and trial lawyers are nothing if not pragmatic.

The basic problem is that the strategy is good for litigators and the ABA, but
bad for our courts and the legal system in general. Until now, arguing against
it was a pointless exercise. The court-rules committees would not entertain
serious public discussions about directly ending it.

This is not to say that the problems went unrecognized or completely
unaddressed. For the last fifteen years, at least, the rules committees have
been trying to chip away at the issues. For example, not too long ago, one
committee for the Federal bench seriously suggested that every trial attorney be
required to turn over everything that he knew his opponent could discover. That
proposition is bizarrely absurd, but clearly shows an attempt to address the
problems.

The rule changes have been probably been driven by the overload at the Federal
level, as much as anything. At one time, as many as one-third of the Federal
District Court bench positions were empty, due to Republican-Democrat political
wrangling, and I suspect the shortage is worse now, though I have not checked
the statistics lately.

Now, the Civil legal system itself is on trial. SCO v. IBM, and Autozone, and
Red Hat, and Daimler-Chrysler, and Novell are widely publicized and accurately
dissected, courtesy of PJ and Groklaw. The readership of Groklaw grows daily.
I have heard that the hit count is in excess of five million per day. These are
not teeny-boppers flocking to their favorite teen-icon. These are programmers,
project managers, IT managers, and CEO's. These folks are active in their
political parties, donate to political campaigns, and have a solid grasp of
current political issues. These voters are very nauseous about the delays
engineered by "The SCO Group". Those persons outside the U.S. have
the same positions in their own countries. Groklaw is an international
phenomenon.

Groklaw itself is changing buisiness-as-usual at the courthouse.

Lawyers are taught to listen and analyze before acting. Attorneys and the ABA
are listening now. The results may be some time in coming. The changes will
take time, but they are happening.

The changes are certainly coming much, much, faster because of Groklaw.

---
PJ deletes insult posts, not differences of opinion.

AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO v AZ Report, Ex. B Letter, David Stewart to David Stone, as text
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 13 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT
Autozon expected Supplemental responses to their discovery request?


BRAAAH HA HA HAAAAA.

[ 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 )