decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

SCO Moves to Amend AutoZone Complaint and IBM Protective Order
Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 04:36 PM EDT

SCO has been a busy bee, filing a motion to amend/correct its complaint against AutoZone and a motion to amend/correct the protective order in SCO v. IBM. What it wants in the IBM motion is to get to use documents it got in discovery in that action in the bankruptcy, to demonstrate "the value of its claims". Heh heh. Not sure how well that will work out for SCO. I think we may safely expect an opposition from IBM.

And in AutoZone, it would like to "expand" its copyright claims to include OpenServer. Surprise. Surprise. That's all it reliably has left to use to be annoying, I think. It also wants to add a claim for breach of agreements. Presumably this is to try to avoid losing outright, now that Novell has been ruled the owner of the copyrights SCO initially sued about. So, even if Novell is upheld by the appeals court, SCO evidently wants to continue somehow, in some way, whatever works. SCO tells the court that the court can allow the amendment, if justice so requires. I am not sure justice is the foundation on which I'd build my house, if I were SCO. People might start to have deep thoughts.

First the motion in SCO v. IBM:

06/30/2009 - 1082 - MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Protective Order filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Normand, Edward) (Entered: 06/30/2009)

And here's the motion in SCO v. Autozone:

07/01/2009 - 99 - MOTION to Amend/Correct Complaint re 1 Complaint. by Plaintiff SCO Group, Inc.. Responses due by 7/19/2009. (Pocker, Richard) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

(Note: The AutoZone motion has the proposed amended complaint attached, in the one PDF, starting on page 8 of the PDF.)


SCO Moves to Amend AutoZone Complaint and IBM Protective Order | 163 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: webster on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 04:39 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks discussions
Authored by: oro_meister on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:01 PM EDT
Please quote the article's title.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO makes another great move ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:09 PM EDT
... your honour, the hearing of the motions to convert must be delayed, until we
have an order in Utah to allow us to use these documents as evidence in the

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Moves to Amend AutoZone Complaint and IBM Protective Order
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:10 PM EDT
I think Judge Gross should tell SCO to stop spending money like it has it.
Until SCO is out of the bankruptcy court the only thing the attorneys should be
working on is getting them out of bankruptcy. That doesn't include huge fees to
put together slimey deals to sell proprietary information to go to the middle
east, or to spend money trying to reactivate cases that are suspended while in

These attorneys are nuts. They haven't been paid, and yet they are running up
huge bills. They should be telling the client that when they see some money
they will do the sale plan, etc. Otherwise, only work focused on the chapter 7
filing, and minimal at that.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:27 PM EDT
Your honor, just because we have no case, no evidence, no factual or legal basis
for our suits, no money and just because we have had numerous rulings against us
is no reason to limit our ability to try out ever more innovative ways to game
the system.

To continue on all litigation fronts while under the onerous weight of previous
negative rulings against us would severely prejudice SCO's ability to continue
lavishly spending soneone else's money. Additionally, due to counterclaims
filed by IBM, as well as claims filed by Redhat, certain individuals at SCO may
find themselve restricted in their ability to remain free, unencumbered by
prison cell walls, bars, armed guards, etc.

In order to protect SCO's valuable right to live like kings on someone else's
dime, SCO respectfully requests that the court allow us to yet again alter and
obsfucate our alleged claims in order to delay and prolong our litigation scam.
Additionally, previous disclosure agreements should be discarded, as they limit
SCO's ability to spin believable lies from nothing at all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Aren't these cases stayed?
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:30 PM EDT
How could they spend the estate money on motions to be filed on stayed cases?
Can't that wait until the cases are resumed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Moves to Amend AutoZone Complaint and IBM Protective Order
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 05:34 PM EDT

Here's what Darl has been up to recently

I note that Stephen Norris & Darl McBride seem to be real cosy

Darllll, we seeee youuuuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Here
Authored by: PolR on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 06:03 PM EDT
The last canonical thread was still missing. here it is.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO Moves to Amend AutoZone Complaint
Authored by: ChrisP on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 06:42 PM EDT
"18. Starting approximately in early 2000, Linux was wrongfully transformed
from an upstart hobbyist’s program into a powerful general enterprise operating
system competitive with UNIX and Windows. According to leaders within the
Linux-development community, Linux is intended to displace UNIX System V."

Now SCO nee Caldera wouldn't have had anything to do with that transformation
now would they? Do I hear estoppal? The banging of a footgun?

Any other favorites?

SCO^WM$^WIBM^W, oh bother, no-one paid me to say this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

1082 - MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Protective Order
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 02 2009 @ 11:32 PM EDT
Ok, check me on this - make sure I am understanding this correctly.

SCO is asking Judge Kimball to allow SCO to file confidential info from the IBM
case under seal to the bankruptcy case.They fail to mention that they have
already filed those documents, and have done so in violation of the protective

Their rationale is that it will save everyone mucho bucks to not have to
discovery all over again. They fail to mention what it will cost - in time and
money - to totally replicate the entire litigation stack. In a new venue. That
doesn't have the expertise for it. Nor jurisdiction.

Did I miss something?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Autozone Details
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:39 AM EDT

On pages 8, 9, and 10 of the Autozone document, SCO gives details of what their complaint is about. Or rather, they imply that they are giving some details. They can be summarised as:

  1. Points a and b. SCO claims that Autozone copied several files in COFF format onto a large number of servers. There is no claim however that SCO had any rights to those particular COFF files.
  2. Point c. SCO claims that Autozone copied two programs "Compx" and "Decompx" onto their Linux servers. These programs were licensed from a third party, but SCO claims that they contain some SCO code. However, there is no claim that Autozone was not properly licensed by the copyright owner to use this third party product in this application. Autozone however deleted the two programs because they didn't need them.
  3. Points d, e, f, g, h. SCO claims that there were copies of programs that were compiled on Openserver on some of Autozone's development servers. The programs appear to belong to Autozone, but because they were compiled on OpenServer they contained some SCO code in the form of staticly linked libraries.

And err, that's about it. As for the rest of the document, it is long and meandering with few apparent points. It branches off in various directions which eventually come to a dead end before it zooms off somewhere else without quite coming to a conclusion. If this constitutes "high quality" lawyer work, then I'm not very impressed with lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another attempt to read that e-mail?
Authored by: johnE on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 10:22 AM EDT
Is this another attempt to "out" the e-mail they tried several times
to disclose in the IBM case?

I expect IBM to object


[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:20 PM EDT
It reads to me as though they're trying to create a circular dependency, making
all the cases depend upon one another.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • loop - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 12:43 PM EDT
    • deadlock - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 03 2009 @ 02:56 PM EDT
AutoZone Reseller Agreement?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 05 2009 @ 08:51 AM EDT
Why did AutoZone sign a reseller agreement?

Are AutoZone stores franchises that buy the POS and other software from AZ?

It seems AZ had at least four separate agreements with Santa Cruz. The
Authorized Industry Reseller Agreement (AIRA), The Runtime Product License
packaged with the software, a Development System License packaged with the
software and a Corporate Software License Agreement. Plus probably a support

The Santa Cruz licenses for the Run Time System didn't include static libraries,
headers or a compiler. All of that was in the Development System and covered by
a separate license, which would have been included with the development system.
In early versions it was a separate box of stuff. Later SCO packaged things on
the same CD's.

The Reseller Agreement I had (not the same type as AZ) required me to deliver
all material I sold to the customer unmodified, but didn't limit what I could
sell beyond that, or what I could install (or not install). The customer only
had to get the total package plus whatever else was sold. I gather this was
because some resellers had in the past sold the same license several times on
installed turnkey systems. That makes perfect sense, but does not seem to apply
to use of the software, only deliverables.

It seems SCO is once again taking things out of context in order to make a very
tenuous point.

In time I imagine the full text of the agreements, plus and actual
correspondence with Santa Cruz will be on the record. It also wouldn't surprise
me to find that Santa Cruz had contradicted SCO's version of the meaning of
these agreements.

[ 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 )