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
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.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO's Statement of Basis for Claim for Preliminary Injunctive Relief & Nature of Relief - as text
Friday, September 03 2004 @ 11:09 PM EDT

Here is SCO's Statement of Basis for Claim for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Nature of Relief as text. Obviously, the most interesting part of it is the footnote, in which SCO again puts forth its theory of what constitutes "copying". More with the structure, sequence, and blah blah blah. No matter how you look at it, their claims just keep getting smaller and smaller, unless you view this all as an attempt to expand what copyright law covers, which, personally, I do. Nothing they are complaining about here seems to have anything to do with anything "inside" Linux.

So, when do we get to the part of their claims where they prove problems in the Linux development process? They've been saying it for over a year now, but where is the problem they think they have identified? The clock is ticking. IBM, they now say, is just a contract claim. And AutoZone is about shared libraries when migrating from Unix to Linux. So, as far as Linux the kernel is concerned, where's the beef?

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

Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
State Bar No. 1417
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
State Bar No. 7802
CURRAN & PARRY
[address, phone]

David S. Stone, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Robert A. Magnanini, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
The SCO Group, Inc.

_________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

__________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation.

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,
a Nevada corporation,

Defendant.

__________________________

STATEMENT OF BASIS FOR CLAIM FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND NATURE OF RELIEF

Civil Action File No.
CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-LRL

_________________________

Pursuant to the Court's Order dated August 6, 2004, the Plaintiff, SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") hereby serves upon Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone") its Statement of Basis for Claim for Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Nature of Relief as follows:

1. In its August 6, 2004 Order, the Court stayed all discovery on SCO's claims in the above-referenced matter with the limited exception of discovery concerning AutoZone's migration from a Unix Operating System to a Linux Operating System. The Court has permitted SCO to conduct limited discovery on this issue in order to determine whether or not to file a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

Migration from Unix to Linux

2. SCO is informed and believes that AutoZone may have infringed SCO's copyrights in various SCO Software Products including, without limitation, SCO's OpenServer version of Unix. SCO is informed and believes that AutoZone's servers and other hardware were migrated from SCO's Software Products to the Linux Operating System. Santa Cruz Operations ("old SCO"), a predecessor in interest to SCO, provided consulting services on-site to AutoZone between 1998 and 2000 and became familiar with the hardware and software utilized by AutoZone in its business. Based upon SCO's employees' knowledge of the AutoZone System, SCO is informed and believes that AutoZone "copied" 1 certain copyrighted material contained in SCO's Software including, without limitation, SCO's shared libraries during its transition to Linux. At least one of the versions of OpenServer utilized by AutoZone operates using static shared libraries. In order to cause Linux to function effectively with legacy applications previously designed for OpenServer Software, SCO believes that it is reasonably likely that AutoZone copied SCO's copyrighted material during the migration process in violation of its contracts with SCO and in violation of Federal Copyright laws. Specifically, SCO is informed and believes that AutoZone has infringed the following SCO copyrights pertaining to code used in or with Open Server versions 5.0.2, 5.0.4, and 5.0.5: TX 5 750-268, TX 5 763-235, TX 2 611-860 and TX 2 605-292.

SCO is further informed and believes that it is reasonably likely that AutoZone has also improperly used and/or copied the following additional copyrighted code and manuals during and after the migration process:

(a) Dynamic shared libraries;

(b) Dynamic linking code;

(c) Kernel optimization features;

(d) Documentation pertaining to the above including, without limitation, manual pages.

This list is not exhaustive and SCO reserves the right to supplement it in accordance with the rules once SCO has had an opportunity to conduct discovery.

Potential Injunctive Relief

3. Under applicable law in this Circuit, any use of copyrighted materials i.e., source code and manuals, in a way that is inconsistent with exclusive rights of the copyright owner protected under 17 U.S.C.A. 106, constitutes a prima facie copyright infringement. See, e.g., MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, irreparable harm is presumed and it is not a defense that the defendant could have paid a royalty. See Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avant! Corp., 125 F.3d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1997) ("It is well settled that availability of money damages does not rebut the presumption of irreparable harm in a copyright case.")

4. Pursuant to the Court's Order, SCO intends to conduct limited discovery into the above issues in order to determine whether or not, under the circumstances, an application for a Preliminary Injunction is warranted.

5. In the event SCO determines Preliminary Relief is warranted, SCO will seek a Preliminary Injunction enjoining AutoZone from using any of the copyrighted materials identified in its motion pending final resolution of this action.

Dated: August 30, 2004

Stanley W. Parry, Esq.
State Bar No. 1417
Glenn M. Machado, Esq.
State Bar No. 7802
CURRAN & PARRY
[address, phone]

_____[signature]________

David S. Stone, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Robert A. Magnanini, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone]


1 The term "copying" as used herein includes verbatim copying of code or man pages, and copying where the resulting product is substantially similar to the original considering structure, sequence and organization, and other non-literal elements of the code. In addition to copying, SCO's rights may be violated by preparation of derivative works based on the original, gaining beneficial use of the copyrighted materials through interfaces or other means supplied by third parties, or any other act which interferes with the exclusive rights of the copyright owner protected under 17 U.S.C. 106.


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

__________________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
a Delaware corporation.

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.,
a Nevada corporation,

Defendant.

Case Number: CV-S-04-0237-RCJ-(LRL)

_______________________

RECEIPT OF COPY

___[signature Kimberly Peels/JJP]___
James J. Pisanelli, Esq.
State Bar No. 4027
Nikki L. Wilmer
SCHRECK BRIGNONE
[address]
Attorneys for Autozone, Inc.

Douglas Bridges, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
[address]
Attorneys for Autozone, Inc.


  View Printable Version


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 )