Slashdot Mirror
SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone [Updated]
An anonymous reader writes "News.com
reports that SCO has filed the first (of two) soon to be infamous lawsuits. This one is aimed against car part retailer AutoZone, a multi-billion, Fortune 500 company according to the site. Who's next?" Another reader excerpts from SCO's posted claim: 'AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights.'
Update: 03/03 16:28 GMT by T : njan writes with the news that SCO just announced during their ongoing conference call another lawsuit, this one "to be filed against Daimler-Chrysler, alleging that they are infringing SCO's copyright by using code relating to 'core operating system functionality' of SCO System 5."
Or perhaps SCO hopes to take on Sun as well?
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The crux of this SCO case seems to not be "Autozone are using linux, and linux contains SCO code (millions of lines or just a few .h files) therefore they're infringing IP" as their press release propaganda infer, but that:
1. Autozone used to use SCO products, and their whole system relied on them
2. Autozone converted to Linux, and IBM made them do so
3. Autozone's custom software which used to run under SCO products now run under Linux
4. They still run well and changed over efficiently, therefore they MUST still be running SCO code/shared libraries/etc with linux to do so, which is a breach of their original contract with SCO.
SCO seem to be insinuating that this is about copyright SCO code in ALL of linux, and autozone are just one of millions of linux users who are infringing, but the details of the case show this is NOT true at all. That makes it FUD. The press have been told for MONTHS that SCO are taking issue with code in linux in general, but now legal action is underway, it's in a case that takes issue with existing SCO code used in linux by a client. No damage to linux in general despite the press releases.
As SCO say...
Upon information and belief, Autozone's new Linux based software implemented by IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside Autozone's Linux implementation in order to continue to allow the continued operation of Autozone's legacy applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a breach of the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
They claim IBM made moves to shift Autozone away from Linux, when SCO originally attempted to move autozone to linux themselves
They also claim that SCO shared libraries MUST be being used, because of the efficiency with which this changeover occurred. They don't get it, that they're not indispensible, and Autozone's systems did not rely largely on SCO specific features according to the guy who converted autozone's systems, who posted as such on groklaw here. The relevant parts of his post are:
As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity.
As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false. It was, in fact, SCO's activities that 'greased the skids' and allowed the business case for using Linux to be made more easily. That is a story long in the telling; perhaps I'll share it another day.
I bet SCO keep insisting this is a generic copyright/linux issue, as they infer by claiming "AutoZone violated SCO's UNIX copyrights by running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary UNIX System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights." and don't stress that it's a unique situation with regards to claims an existing customer switched to linux all too easily so must have both used linux and used SCO code in ways they weren't allowed to under their old contract
SCO is appearing like a jealous partner who just can't bear the thought that they're not the entire world to their clients, and are playing the stalking game, and running around town spreading rumours about infidelity. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the second quarter of 2001, despite the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement with SCO, upon information and belief, IBM finally successfully induced Autozone to cease using the SCO software and to use Linux with IBM's version of UNIX. Autozone ultimately decided not to pay SCO the annual fee to continue to maintain the SCO products and, upon information and belief, with the encouragement of IBM, began the efforts required for conversion to Linux.
Sounds like SCO is whining because someone dropped their old, obsolescent Unix. So if I trade in a Chevy for a Ford, GM can sue me if I still have payments left on my loan?
And this:
The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux.
In other words, we at SCO are too dumb to make Linux work, so IBM had to steal our stuff to make their solution work.
Being from Memphis, I am well aware how supportive AutoZone folks are of Linux, as many AutoZone techs are members of GOLUM.
I hope AutoZone countersues them into the ground in a most genteel, southernly manner.
Now off for my morning bowl of hot grits.
No, Vern. They just let him in.
In a positive way for a change. I'm going to go out and buy a new set of plugs, a filter and a case of oil right now.
It's nice to be able to add someone to the "support them" list instead of the Boycott list, like EV1.
Hang Tight, AZ. You've just gained a mess of geek support.
I work for one of AutoZone's competitors (of sorts...we do more wholesale than retail business).
I'm largely a counterpart to Mr. Greer from AutoZone.
We use an ASP-type approach. All of our software is text-based, with our primary servers running in our datacenter, with a large frame-relay network for connectivity. Each and everyone of our stores has a Linux system sitting in it, handling the terminals, printers, desktop (Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc.), and back-office networking.
Our application servers in our datacenter still run on SCO, with Sybase running under W2K (at our vendor's request, at the time).
We're looking at doing the same thing as AutoZone sometime soon--a port to Linux server-side as well, moving to our app servers running Linux, and our database under Linux as well.
Here's one for hoping AutoZone pulls this one off right! The last thing I need is someone here getting into a panic over this crap!
Unix is huge in the automotive software industry. Most part store cataloging systems use it not only on the backend servers, but the terminals as well. Autozone, Hi-Lo/O'Reilly's, NAPA, Pep Boys all at one point used this type of a setup. Firestone also used it during the 90's when I worked for them, but I don't know what they are running now.
If SCO filed this suit solely looking for a suitor to buy them out, they picked a good one here. Owning the rights to the system that literally every major parts house uses would give them a huge push over the top in the industry.
They obviously chose AutoZone because their terminals are clearly visible by customers. I wouldn't be a bit suprised if they go after Lowe's or Home Depot next. Those companies also run linux GUIs and customers can see the X terminals (and 5250 emulators) as they walk around the store.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I must add that SCO was eventually made aware of AutoZone's transition to Linux. They responded by offering to assist AutoZone in the porting activity.
If there's a God in Heaven, and he's listening...please let Jim Greer find his documentation for this!
C'mon Slashdot - let's spend real karma for this! Bow your head and join me in a quick silent prayer to the Deity of your choice....
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Since SCO licenses are reallly expensive, why not create a small--and relatively inexpensive--company that will assist you in your move off of SCO and/or help you install Linux in a way that doesn't violate any of SCO's IP?
Seems like there's a fortune to be made there.
My sister was an expert witness on an embezzlement case. The Judge prot em acting as binding arbiter admitted that he did not Know how to turn on a computer
The judge could not understand how she could retrieve data from a computer when the files were "deleted". My sister explained that information was kept in multiple files, and the just "deleting a file is like taking the tabs off the folder, but the files are still there".
The judge said "How do I know you're not just making that up?" and decided for the embezzler.
(Anon post for whore-avoidance)
OUR TAKE
SCO Digs a Deeper Hole
By Seth Jayson
March 3, 2004
Hey, if you're not making money the old-fashioned way, you might as well see what you can get through lawsuits. That seems to be the primary strategy these days at UNIX software provider SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX).
The trouble is, the company's litigious attempts at jump starting revenue cost a lot more than they bring back. This morning's first-quarter earnings provide a revealing glimpse at this poorly executed strategy.
For those who need a brief recap, SCO appears to own a version of UNIX that it claims has been duplicated, at least in part, in the open-source operating system Linux. For months now, the company has been threatening to sue anyone who uses Linux without paying SCO a license fee. Verified targets have so far have included IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL), which build and support Linux enterprise software.
In response to these shakedowns, a band of technology companies including other heavy-hitters like Intel (Nasdaq: INTC), Dell (Nasdaq: Dell), Red Hat (Nasdaq: RHAT) and Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) formed a legal defense fund.
For the first quarter of fiscal 2004, revenues dropped 16% to $11.4 million. Losses totaled $2.3 million, or $0.16 per share, more than twice the $0.06 per-share loss from the period before.
But it gets worse. The red ink was tempered by a one-time benefit of $3.8 million related to a "change in fair value" of the derivative associated with its series A convertible preferred stock. Without this credit, the loss on operations would have amounted to over $0.37 per share. (Now we know why the maxim, "Earnings are an opinion." makes sense.)
It's my opinion that SCO is doing everything wrong. In addition to the horrific, self-inflicted damage to its reputation, the licensing-lawsuit strategy is delivering a one-two punch to SCO's bottom line. Efforts to license Linux cost SCO $3.4 million in Q1. That's right, one-third of total revenue was wiped out. The payback? $20,000. That's not a typo. I know guys who make that much mowing lawns for a summer. Moreover, the balance sheet already currently lists $8 million in liabilities to legal firms. That number is likely to increase with the firm's new lawsuit against AutoZone (NYSE: AZO).
With declining revenues, increasing losses, plus an expensive and damaging litigation policy, SCO looks like one of the best short candidates I've seen in a while.
Got Linux questions? Consult the experts in the Fool's Linux User's Group.
Fool contributor Seth Jayson wonders how much SCO would charge him for a Linux license on his home-built PCs. He has no stake in any of the companies mentioned here.