|
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.
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|