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
AutoZone's Answer to SCO's Complaint
Thursday, February 12 2009 @ 05:24 AM EST

Here's AutoZone's Answer and Affirmative Defenses [PDF] to SCO's Complaint. For reference, SCO's Complaint against AutoZone is here. AutoZone says to the extent SCO doesn't own the copyrights, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case about copyright infringement, and in any case, AutoZone doesn't need "permission or license from SCO" to implement and use Linux.

- The Groklaw Team



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

James J. Pisanelli, Esq., Bar No. 4027
Nikki L. Wilmer, Esq., Bar No. 6562
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
[address]
[phone]
[fax]
[email addresses]

David J. Stewart, Esq.
Georgia Bar No. 681149
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
[address]
[phone]
[email address]

Attorneys for Defendant AutoZone, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA



THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff,

v.

AUTOZONE, INC.

Defendants
______________________________________
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
Case No. 2:04-cv-0237-RCJ-GWF


DEFENDANT AUTOZONE, INC.'S
ANSWER

(JURY DEMAND)

Defendant AutoZone, Inc. ("AutoZone"), for its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint of Plaintiff The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO"), responds as follows:

1. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, AutoZone admits that it uses one or more versions of the Linux operating system. AutoZone further admits that SCO purports to bring claims under the Copyright Act. AutoZone denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph 1.

2. AutoZone admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 2.

3. AutoZone admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.

(1)

4. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over SCO's claims, and the same is therefore denied. SCO has based its claim of subject matter jurisdiction on copyright registrations in certain versions of the UNIX operating system. To the extent SCO does not own the copyrights claimed in the registrations, the registrations would be invalid and would deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over SCO's claims.

5. AutoZone admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, however, AutoZone denies that this District is the most convenient forum as no relevant witnesses or documents are located in this District.

6. AutoZone admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 6.

7. AutoZone admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.

8. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 8, AutoZone admits that the UNIX operating system was developed at least in part by AT&T Bell Laboratories and that AT&T licensed UNIX to third parties. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 8, and the same are therefore denied.

9. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 9, and the same are therefore denied.

10. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10, and the same are therefore denied.

11. AutoZone denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.

12. AutoZone admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 12.

13. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13, and the same are therefore denied.

14. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, AutoZone repeats and realleges its answers to Paragraph 1 through 13, above, as though fully set forth herein.

(2)

15. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, AutoZone denies that SCO is the owner of all copyright in UNIX software source code and object code. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and the same are therefore denied.

16. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and the same are therefore denied.

17. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and the same are therefore denied.

18. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, AutoZone states that the final two sentences are purported statements of law, and, as such, neither an admission or denial is required as to these statements. AutoZone denies that SCO owns all copyrights in the Copyrighted Materials. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and the same are therefore denied.

19. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and the same are therefore denied.

20. AutoZone is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and the same are therefore denied.

21. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, AutoZone admits that it implemented one or more versions of the Linux operating system. AutoZone denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 21.

22. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, AutoZone admits that it does not own the copyright to the Copyrighted Materials. AutoZone further admits that it does not have permission or license from SCO to use the Copyrighted Material, however, AutoZone denies that any such permission or license is necessary or required for AutoZone to implement and use Linux. AutoZone denies each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph 22.

23. AutoZone denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.

24. AutoZone denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.

25. AutoZone denies the SCO is entitled to any of the relief requested in Paragraph 25.

(3)

Except as specifically admitted, AutoZone denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST DEFENSE

SCO has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches.

THIRD DEFENSE

SCO's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

FOURTH DEFENSE

SCO's claims are barred because one or more of the copyright registrations upon which it relies are invalid.

FIFTH DEFENSE

AutoZone's alleged use of the Copyrighted materials is lawful use based on agreements and licenses with third-parties.

SIXTH DEFENSE

AutoZone currently has insufficient information upon which to form a belief as to the existence of additional, as yet unstated, affirmative defenses. AutoZone reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses in the event discovery discloses the existence of said affirmative defenses.

WHEREFORE, AutoZone requests that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, that judgment be entered in AutoZone's favor, and that the Court award AutoZone recovery of its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this matter and such other and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

(4)

JURY DEMAND

AutoZone demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury that are raised in the SCO's Complaint.

DATED this 11th day of February, 2009.

(signature)
James J. Pisanelli
Nevada Bar No. 4027
Nikki L. Wilmer
Nevada Bar No. 6562
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
[address]
[phone]
[email addresses]

David J. Stewart
Georgia Bar No. 681149
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
[address]
[phone]
[email address]

Attorneys for Defendant AutoZone, Inc.

(5)

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and that on this  11  day of February, 2009, I caused to be sent via electronic mail, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing DEFENDANT AUTOZONE, INC.'S ANSWER properly addressed to the following:

Stanley W. Parry
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
[email address]

Stephen N. Zack
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP
[email address]

Richard J. Pocker
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP
[email address]

(signature)
An employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

(6)


  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 )