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/
This will be quite a telling point in SCO's recent history.. whether they fail or succeed..
Let's just hope the judge looks at the merits of the case, and gets it thrown out. Precedent is a scary thing when it's involving IT cases.
Well, I hope we can all give them their support anyway.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
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.
A case of oil, some new tools, anything else it looks like I might need in the forseable future.
Usually I hate paying for this stuff, but it will be a little sweeter knowing that at least some of it will go towards fighting off SCO.
Anyone out there setting up a legal defense fund so we can chip in to help these guys fight the good fight? If we don't help out SCO targets today, any of us could be next.
--G
If I've gotten this thing right, the claimed SCO source is in some specific versions of the Linux kernel... how exactly does SCO find out which version a company is using?
Out of all of the companies that use Linux, I think they choose the most random company.
Is there a way to DDoS Darl's car? Hmmm...
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
...for fun and profit. I hope those of you considering startups are paying very close attention to SCO's revolutionary example. One day all business will be like this!
Autozone? This is way out of the typical "tech sphere"; I would have expected suits against other tech companies.
Now SCO is going to provoke the wrath of the automotive industry and enthusiasts; an entire new group of people to learn to hate SCO.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Perhaps they chose Autozone as an easy target? Cars aren't normally associated with computers that much so... perhaps they expect a non-tech based company to just get scared and settle for cash or maybe just do a bad job defending itself? This could just be their way of trying to stab at a large and noticeable, but "weak" target.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, requests injunctive relief against AutoZone's further use or copying of any part of SCO's copyrighted materials and also requests damages as a result of AutoZone's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
The company will discuss this announcement as part of its regularly scheduled conference call related to first quarter earnings, scheduled for Wednesday, March 3 at 11:00 a.m. Eastern time. To participate on the call, individuals may dial 1-800-818-5264 or 1-913-981-4910 and use the confirmation code: 141144. Alternatively, a listen-only live web cast is available at http://ir.sco.com/medialist.cfm. Call participants are encouraged to dial in 15 minutes before the scheduled start time.
SCO is having a phone conference today at 9:00am MST (11:00am EST), remember?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Here is an interesting GrokLaw post from the man at AutoZone who helped them transition from UnixWare to Linux, blowing apart most of these claims.
Bearing in mind that this post is over 2 weeks old, you'd think someone at SCO would have noticed that their claims are basically debunked.
PS : SCO quarterly losses up to $2.25 million for fiscal Q1. Ouch.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
And hang them on your Linux box!
Lawsuit Zone!
The Linux(R) Kernel Personality (LKP) for UnixWare 7.1.3 provides Linux environment hosted on the UnixWare kernel. This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the RPMs needed to run most Linux applications. By invoking the UnixWare kernel to run the Linux application, the application gets all of the performance and scalability advantages that UnixWare delivers. Linux applications that are disk or database intensive, or require support for a large number of users, typically perform with greater stability, reliability, and scalability when deployed on the UnixWare LKP environment.
Access to the Linux and UNIX environments is provided for both applications and the user. Common system files, such as password files, are automatically updated between environments.
SCO understands that customers are looking for alternatives to Linux. But making changes always introduces risk. LKP is an easy and low risk tool to help the migration from Linux to UnixWare. The benefits of LKP are:
Yeah SCO... you /really/ understand alright!
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.
Why would SCO not take on a more easily defeatable company, i.e. a software company? Autozone has thousands if not millions of loyal blue-collar customers that could care less what o/s Autozone is running. If SCO wanted to make a point by suing someone, it should be RedHat or some such company that is distributing the systems. You can't blame Autozone for buying a product, but you can blame the company that sold it to them.
stuff |
So now SCO's sleazy game extends to Autozone shareholders.
The symbol is AZO. As of this writing they're down $4.40, to 84.00, in pre-market trading.
SCO: you stole our stuff! ... like, our stuff. ...er? we need more info than that.
Autozone: what stuff?
SCO: you know
Autozone:
SCO: I could tell you but then i would have to kill you!
Psh... Linux, Unix, whatever. They should just be sued on the grounds that they encourage "ricing out" cars and have that terrible CG tire and jingle in their cable commercials.
Get in the zone... Aww - tow - zone! (We have lightbars for your shitty Honda Civic!)
A bunch of geeks from SCO and their lawyers (IAAL - we're all pencil-necked geeks, too) are taking on a bunch of greaser/gearheads who can call on their new spokesman biker/builder Monster Garage host Jesse James for help.
Those tatooed knuckles and huge guns of his could make short work of this fight.
After just reading this thread and Groklaw afterwards... I think that SCO should give /. more credit, especially after the "the ranting and dribble that takes place on Slashdot" comment...
Now then Ye Prophets of SlashDot, what more predictions can we get from our 'crystal balls' (LCD screens will do) today :)
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
Mod parent down, the link is mislinked.
The article
is from a reader on Groklaw. He believed that SCO filed suit in Nevada to avoid the judges in Utah because if they had brought this crap before them, the judges in Utah would have whacked SCO so hard on the pee-pee that Darl's grandkids would be sterile.
Go get'em Judge Kimball and Wells!
The meat of SCO's case will not be the IP Infringment. They are also trying to catch AutoZone for a contract violation in the contract they signed when they bought SCO Unix. They might be able to win a breach of contract suit. The problem is that they will do their best to spin it to the press as a Linux IP infringement suit. Just another pump and dump scheme.
LINDON, Utah, Mar 3, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX, Trade), owner of the UNIX operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today reported revenue of $11,392,000 for the quarter ended January 31, 2004. In the comparable quarter of the prior year, the Company generated revenue of $13,540,000. Revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2004 was in line with the Company's expectations, and was comprised of $11,372,000 from UNIX products and services and $20,000 from SCOsource initiatives.
For the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the Company reported a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $2,253,000, or $0.16 per diluted common share. The Company reported a net loss applicable to common stockholders of $724,000, or $0.06 per diluted common share, in the comparable quarter of the prior year. The net loss applicable to common stockholders for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was reduced by $3,624,000 of income resulting from the change in fair value of the derivative associated with the Company's previously issued Series A Convertible Preferred Stock. The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was $5,169,000 compared to a loss of $738,000 for the comparable quarter in the prior year. The loss from operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 includes costs of $3,440,000 related to the Company's SCOsource licensing initiatives. These initiatives had not yet commenced in the comparable quarter of the prior year.
"Our revenue and results of operations for the first quarter were consistent with our expectations," said Darl McBride, President and CEO. "In coming quarters, we will continue to expand our SCOsource initiatives, with an ongoing campaign to defend and protect SCO's intellectual property assets, which will include continued end-user lawsuits and negotiations regarding intellectual property licenses. At the same time, we are committed to supporting our extensive UNIX customer base and leveraging our UNIX business for future growth opportunities. Over time, these two efforts are expected to yield positive long-term results for our stockholders."
Financial Outlook
The following financial outlook reflects expected contributions from the Company's two business lines, SCOsource and UNIX products and services. These statements are forward looking and actual results may differ materially. See the discussion of certain risks and uncertainties related to this financial outlook at the end of this release under "Forward-Looking Statements."
For its second fiscal quarter ending April 30, 2004, the Company currently expects total revenue to be in the range of $10,000,000 to $14,000,000. Revenue from the Company's SCOsource initiatives remains difficult to predict in the short-term due to the nature of these licensing transactions and the variability of the timing of revenue recognition. However, the Company anticipates revenue from its SCOsource initiatives will increase in future periods.
Operating expenses relating to the Company's UNIX business for the next three quarters are anticipated to decrease from the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 and comparable quarters of the prior year as the Company's worldwide operations continue to become more efficient. Expenses associated with SCOsource initiatives for the next three quarters are expected to remain consistent with expenses incurred in the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 as the Company continues its legal strategy to enforce and protect its UNIX intellectual property.
Conference Call
As previously announced, the Company will host a conference call at 11:00 a.m. EST today, March 3, 2004, to discuss its first quarter 2004 results. To participate in the teleconference, please call (800) 818-5264 or (913) 981-4910, confirmation code 141144, approximately five minutes prior to the time stated abo
Apart from checking a publicly accessibly box (i.e. web server), How can you legally prove that company X is running linux - aside from entering the premises and logging in.
And unless the login prompt says "Welcome to company Y's Linux system" how do you prove that such system is running linux - a version of linux that has your "IP".
I don't think that X/Gnome/KDE login screens give the version of linux that you're running either.
I'm not sure if even the version will suffice. The version one admin is running mightn't even have the parts that SCO claim are theirs. Where does that leave you ?
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
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.
The day after I get a job offer from AutoZone, they get sued by SCO. Great. Just fuckin' great.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
It probably just means they run a WebSphere product as an app server. I'm willing to bet their website had nothing at all to do with the decision to litigate. Odds are, they run in-store or warehousing systems, etc. on Linux servers.
There's more than webservers in life, kids.
They must believe that these guys will fold without taking this all the way to trial.
Even though the claims are crap, this has to hurt Autozone in the stock market, where perception is more important than reality.Is there not some kind of law against frivolous lawsuits soley for the purpose of slander?
It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of backdoor dealing going on to get a settelment out of this or another case that SCO can waive around to continue the FUD. It would be illegal, but since when has that stopped anyone. Ken Lay got away with it, why not Darl?Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
From their press release, it seems like the AutoZone suit is not particularly related to "SCO IP in Linux," but to some SCO libraries that AutoZone may or may not have used it improperly.
But it does not matter. Could we discuss AutoZone tomorrow, please?
This is only a distraction from a bleak quarterly report. A rather blantantly obvious diversion. And Timothy, you should know better than this. This story should have been titled "SCO losses double for Q1 2004," or something like that. You should not be helping SCO manipulate the press.
As soon as I seen they were filing suit against a former customer who had dumped their OS for linux I knew SCO's going down. They just want to slap a couple people on their way out of the building. I mean might as well it's not like it's their money in the stocks.
... just not sure what yet ..
Instead of a golden parachute the CEOs of SCO have opted for a semi-bronze boxing glove.
I'm buying something tonight from Autozone
*DrugCheese rants*
Apparently the best way to get sued by SCO is to do business with them.
ups, sorry, the url morphed into something silly (don't ask me how i did that), here is the :-)
correct link. Maybe it has the nice side effect that groklaw won't be slashdotted
1. Autozone used to use SCO products, and their whole system relied on them
Autozone used to be a totally SCO shop for all of their point of sale systems.
2. Autozone converted to Linux, and IBM made them do so
IBM had nothing to do with their switching to linux. It was solely based on the fact SCO did not support Autozon in the way and for the cost Autozone felt they should be handled. THus Autozone decided to go with a cheaper alternative as SCO's support was crap.
So, if you wish to tell a story as a member of The linux user group here in Memphis (Autozone's corporate Headquaters,) Learned a great deal and are supported by autozone and allow us to utilize their meeting rooms to benefit the Linux community. And in this has been a pretty big topic and was expectted.
Essentially, Sco had a choice a long time ago, start making more advanced products that can compete. When this did not occur they lost their market share. Now they are calling foul when they are not able to compete.
For those of you that have been in an autozone, you notice they have the dumb terminals at the parts counter. If you notice this dumb terminal runs a text based interface where you pu tin the year, car make, model, engine size, etc to look up parts. I was in an Autozone once and the server for the dumb terminals happened to lock up. This was 2 or 3 years ago when it happened. I watched the dumb terminal display as it rebooted and came up with some version of redhat (or another distro, I don't really remember too well) and had kernel 2.3 on it.
Responding to the other replies of this article, just because a company doesn't run Linux on their web server to the world, doesn't mean they don't use Linux for other things.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Yet again, the facts aren't in SCO's favor. Read this comment from the former Sr Technical Advisor at AutoZone, who directed the migration and personally ported much of the code.
SCO's only arguement that AutoZone has copied their shared libs to linux is:
Once more, SCO's making a lot of noise, but the facts are clearly against them.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Get in the Zone, AutoZone.
You can email autozone's investor relations here:
investor.relations@autozone.com
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.
Imagine Autozone converted to away from SCO UNIX and over to MacOSX or BeOS or OS/2 or Windows instead of Linux
It would be exactly the same case - an SCO ex client moving from UNIX to must have used SCO shared libraries as part of the solution because it went so smoothly.
So really this case has nothing to do with Linux at all, looked at in that manner.
Apparently their strategy is to sue their own former and defecting customers. This is a worst-case scenario for SCO customers. Autozone was cited in the complaint against IBM as an example of a licensed Openserver client whom had been lured away to the Linux dark side by IBM, If you know of anyone who is considering signing their company into any SCO contract of any sort, especially an "intellectual property license", THIS SHOULD SERVE AS A WARNING OF WHAT TO EXPECT. All SCO appears to be offering is a license to be sued, and here's the proof.
Jim Greer had a good comment on groklaw a few weeks ago about Autozone and the details of their linux transition.
I'm assuming here that AutoZone is in fact not using SCOs shared libraries, based on the Groklaw post referenced in several other places. If they ARE, then thats also trivially provable, and AutoZone will either settle or claim that they're entitled to use the libraries this way. Either way, this case will not be about what SCO is pretending it's about.
I used to laugh at SCO but now they stopped being funny.
/. jokes, but I smiled. A little. At the beginning. ;-)), but now they're just not funny anymore.
Before they sued that company, they were just a dying corp making a big PR splash with a lot of FUD and horseshit to drive their stock price up and make a lot of money. Unethical, dishonest, but no big deal. Now that they're actually suing Fortune 500 Linux-using companie(s), they could actually hurt the OS. Suits will be much more wary about switching if legal tells them they could get sued for it, no matter how much bullshit the lawsuit actually is. At first I laughed at the verbose arguments, the OSS community's cinglant responses and the Slashdot jokes (okay, maybe I didn't laugh at the
They've gone from evil, but ridiculous and harmless, to evil and actually dangerous. The OSS community is a great, grand thing, and now that they're actually starting to get dangerous we should be able to mobilize the power to squash them out of relevance/existence. Couldn't an org like the FSF or a big player like IBM countersue?
The how doesn't matter. What matters is that I've stopped laughing at SCO and I now consider them as a danger.
Jesse James, Autozone's new spokesman. They will probably find all their tires slashed and the doors to SCO headquarters welded shut tomorrow morning.
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Their terminals are Linux terminals...
Well, either that or true dumb terminals dumping into a linux server. Whatever the setup, they use alot of linux at autozone.
It's always interesting to see someone roll out a linux box. Incidently, does anyone know what Lowe's is using? (Its IBM hardware... and I can't tell if thats CDE or something goofy)
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Oh, so you have "SCO derivitave works" that were illegally used on Linux, too?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Man o Man...
They are going to get flamed to death for not using "GNU/Linux"....
Poor litigious bastards!
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
--From a GrokLaw.net post--
I know Mr. Greer, although not well, as I was hired at the time of his leaving.
Everything he said is verifiably true.
I am still employed by said company, and there is very little truth in SCOs
statement at all. I am one of the ones who helped engineer the method by which
we moved store systems over to Linux, and *I* was almost solely responsible for
it happening as quickly as it did.
We did not, and do not, employ IBM for assisstance with Linux. We do not use a
distribution from IBM, nor have we in the past. The only company who has given
us Linux "services" is RedHat, and that was a support agreement which
did us no good, since they were unable to help us with the migration (they
basically told us that what we wanted to do was impossible). The speed and
efficiency with which Linux was deployed was a direct result of J.Greers work,
followed by the work that myself and a few others did.
By the way, I have patented the method of walking whereby you place one foot in
front of the other.
Anyone walking from now on, is using a derivative work of mine, and you owe me
money by not properly licensing my system of locomotion from me. Also, you
cannot teach anyone else to walk, either by example or description.
Kiss my a$$ SCO.
As a symbolic gesture, I suggest people go to AutoZone and buy an air freshener.. Symbolically, it'll help clear out the stink that SCO's making. Total cost to you: $1-$3.
Put your money where your mouth is: AutoZone Reigonal Store Locator
Even if SCO succeeds, AutoZone will be able to pay them off via air freshener sales to thoughtful Linux users.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
They wanted someone: (a) large enough to have $, (b) large enough to get noticed, (c) with a documented relationship with IBM, (d) AND a documented relationship with SCO but (e) non-technical enough so that they are more easily intimidated.
(c) is important so that they can have something concrete to tie it in to IBM. (d) is important so that they can always try the breach of contract claim if the IP dispute is dismissed. Keeping the breach claim around gives them extra time to try to keep the case around.
With (e) I think their effort here is to pick a technologically weak company with shareholders who have less of a technical education. This allows them to file, the AutoZone shareholders see the suit, panic (because they have less of a technical background than, say, RedHat) and hope tha AZ will settle quickly to make the suit go away.
I don't think it will work, but I can see the logic for picking this particular target for their thug-like tactics.
I would expect something to distinguish the second target so that they couldn't consolidate the two cases.
contain code, structure, sequence and/or organization
Is this *really* copyrightable? How can you copyright an organization? Perhaps you can patent a method of organizing something, but copyright? I had thought that copyright applies only to a tangible, set of information, such as lines of code, a written document, a work of art.
The first attempts to scare us centered around "infringing code". Now are they trying to say that "Your Linux looks too much like our Unix?" As far as I'm concerend, Looks like and IS are two different things.
Apologies to Ronnie and the Daytonas and their "GTO" song:
"Little SCO, youre really lookin fine
Three lawsuits and a make me pay $699
Listen to Darl yackin up now, listen to Darl why-ee-eye-ine
Cmon and turn it on, wind it up, blow it out SCO"
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
..watch out the next time you need a small fix for your car. Might be safer to buy a new one.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Gee, I wonder which of them will be next?
I can just see it in the courtroom:
AutoZone: How do you know what we are running?
SCO: Ummmm
AutoZone: Shall I repeat?
SCO: Umm....Magic?
-Charlie
(Note: I know that isn't exactly what Nmap is for, but I thought it was funny and topical)
(Note2: Isn't is sad that disclaimers like this must exist on Slashdot for the sarcasm impared?)
But here's a link to a yahoo news report filed this morning at 8:21am re: this law suit.
;)? (Still $20,000 too much if you ask me!).
An interesting part is a few paragraphs down;
"Total revenue fell to $11.4 million from $13.5 million, though the most recent period included $20,000 in licensing revenue from Linux users."
Does that settle the argument over how much EV1 paid for their licenses
SCO is going to do a lot to promote linux by
spotlighting companies that use it. My boss will
never again be able to say "no serious company
trusts kiddie software like Linux for anything
critical"
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
I have to admit, choosing AutoZone was a good move on his part in order to spread his FUD about Linux...
...
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada, requests injunctive relief against AutoZone's further use or copying of
AutoZone uses Linux in their stores, if they were to get this injuction they would effectively shut AutoZone down, a huge chain of stores that effects millions of both geeks and computer illiterate alike. And they (M$ and SCO) would obviously spin it as "See, look what using Linux gets you...."
Hi!
There are a couple of reasons to sue AutoZone. Neither have much to do with AutoZone's tech savvy or their understanding of the different *nix kernels. They're both about business.
Let's talk microeconomics
The cost of any good is measured in currency and utility. Put simply, you'll buy a product if a) it contains what you want, and b) you want it badly enough. That's why people routinely pay $1.09 in a convenience store for bottles of water--they realize that the water is worth pennies (at best), but the convenience of the bottle (and the refrigeration) make the purchase worthwhile. Similarly, utility can be expressed as "reputation," "quality," "resale value," and similar terms. The reason you drive a Honda, rather than a substantially less-expensive Chrysler, is the utility cost of the car. Key point: utility is a significant factor in the price of a good.
The point of this lawsuit isn't to punish AutoZone themselves. It is to raise the utility cost of using Linux in the eyes of other businesses. Probably the single biggest utility cost that managers evaluate is risk. The great marketplace advantage of Linux is that a company can download a copy for free. (They could care less about "free as in speech." They're only interested in "free as in beer.") Microsoft has argued that Linux has a higher TCO--which is effectively asserting a utility cost. SCO is now raising another kind of utility cost: the likelihood of being sued.
The impact will be substantial, and immediate: auto parts retailers run thousands of POS systems. Any company using a Unix-based POS system (and there are tens of thousands of them across the U.S.) who has even been contemplating moving to a Linux-based system is having meetings this morning to assure senior management (or just try to assure senior management) that SCO is bluffing. This afternoon those same senior managers will be talking to lawyers, who will likely tell them that while SCO probably is bluffing, SCO can bluff in court for a long time, and who wants to be lawsuit #2? The effect of this lawsuit is to dramatically raise the ultimate cost of any Linux-based solution.
The other reason: making SCO look more attractive to IBM
Remember that SCO is primarily focused on litigation with IBM. SCO claims that IBM is the reason that Unix code "leaked" into Linux--many observers in the financial markets believe that SCO is really angling to get bought by IBM in a new dot-com form of greenmail. IBM was involved in developing AutoZone's new POS system--but evidently did not indemnify AutoZone against claims of infringement (a common practice in licensing these kinds of systems). AutoZone has liability insurance to cover this kind of claim (any company does). But that coverage almost certainly requires that the insurance company have the "free and unfettered right to conduct a defense". Because the suit is based on actions by IBM, the insurance company will instantly seek to force IBM to indemnify AutoZone. If IBM declines, the insurance company will sue IBM on AutoZone's behalf. That instantly creates a bunch of costs (legal costs, outside counsel costs, etc.) for IBM. And, since it's likely that IBM's own insurors will respond to the claim from AutoZone's insurors, sooner or later somebody will say, "hey--it's cheaper to just buy these jerks out." Which is precisely what SCO wants.
This isn't about free software.
Darl and his investors aren't doing this out of a noble belief in the goodness of their cause--or due to a bad case of technomegalomania. They're doing it because they expect an significant return on their investment. They use a legal claim that has enough merit to at least get them into court, and they leverage that claim to make enough of a nuisance that IBM buys them out at a premium. They make a couple of million, and move on. It's about money.
Wonder how long it will be before companies are asking SCO to sue them, just for the marketing boost.....
The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, ...
What a sweet testimonial to the ease of migration to Linux! I hope all the Linux companies will make use of SCO's public opinion in their marketing materials.
Thanks, SCO!... that I will continue to talk out of my ass about things which I have no real knowledge of, and I will certainly not RTFA. This, however, will not affect any moderation.
you're all figments of my deranged imagination
So, Mr CEO Marsh, do you feel *more* protected from scox now that you have a contract with scox?
Remember the words of scox's cfo, chriss sontag: "contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
What you have bought, for your $1M+, Mr Marsh? Now your company is much more at risk of a lawsuit from scox. Plus, you've alienated the linux community. Last I read, about 28% of your linux users are threatening to take their business elsewhere. What does it take to get a job like yours, Mr Marsh? An IQ below 80?
Please be Disney...
Please be Disney....
Please be Disney....
I hope Autozone files a countersuit. I wonder how many charges they could stack up. Racketeering? Extortion? SLAPP (I believe Utah has SLAPP laws)? They could go get the AT&T vs the Regents of the University of California case unsealed, prove that the original UNIX copyrights are all but unenforcable (Didn't Caldera GPL them anyway?) and have SCO owing them the $3 Billion that SCO's trying to get from IBM before that case is even done.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I work for one of AutoZone's competitors (of sorts...we do more wholesale than retail business).
I'm largely a counterpart to Mr. Greer from AutoZone.
We use an ASP-type approach. All of our software is text-based, with our primary servers running in our datacenter, with a large frame-relay network for connectivity. Each and everyone of our stores has a Linux system sitting in it, handling the terminals, printers, desktop (Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc.), and back-office networking.
Our application servers in our datacenter still run on SCO, with Sybase running under W2K (at our vendor's request, at the time).
We're looking at doing the same thing as AutoZone sometime soon--a port to Linux server-side as well, moving to our app servers running Linux, and our database under Linux as well.
Here's one for hoping AutoZone pulls this one off right! The last thing I need is someone here getting into a panic over this crap!
The first rule of Linux is... you do not talk about Linux.
The second rule of Linux is... you DO NOT talk about Linux!!!
Third rule of Linux: when SCO yells "stop", goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.
It's a one time opportunity to be worthy of a "I got sued by SCO" T-shirt
xb0x
Think about it, in it's own way its brilliant...
/.'s, just think of the spin (M$ and SCO) would put on this if they were able to get an injuction against AutoZone from using Linux, effectively shutting down their stores - millions of people, that have nothing to do with the tech industry would be effected. It would be all over the news - and why? They used Linux... I would have no doubt that one of either SCO or M$ would spin this so that everything is blamed on soley using Linux it self, and in effect while the tech world loves her - the rest of the world would despise and only view Legal as very illegal, consequently staying very far away from it...
Autozone has thousands if not millions of loyal blue-collar customers...
These customers, are for the majority are computer illiterate in comparison to us
They have how much in the bank, and are losing how much a quarter? Lets toss out a few pseudo-facts. Ambulance chasers will take a case if there is money backing it or they know they have a decent shot at prevailing. No one in their right mind will invest in SCO any more.
Those things said, some simple math will tell you when they will 'give up' due to lack of funds. Some more complex math, basically interpolating based on increasing quarterly losses put them at 'giving up' a few quarters earlier. If you were an SCO customer right now, would you renew your support contracts based on the fact that they will be there to answer the phone in a year?
Smart money says this lawsuit will make the few remaining clients they have run to the hills, and they will go away quite quickly.
-Charlie
Yeah, it's inevitable he'll have to be deposed or testify if the case goes to trial, but his testimony (and/or Autozone's paper trail for the process) will kill the case dead, so it may well be worth the inconvenience (that's easy for ME to say...).
Of course, unless SCO can provide evidence with their complaint that their libraries WERE used, it may well not get to trial (remember that plaintiffs have to already have evidence of wrongdoing to sue, they cannot simply go discovery-fishing for it). For example, a sworn deposition and paper trail showing no improper use of SCO libraries could well result in a summary dismissal, if SCO does not show any reasonable prospect of prevailing on the merits. I think that is likely in this case.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
SCO wants Linux users to buy licenses from them. So far, everyone SCO has sued has had a contract/license with them. SCO has said that contracts are tools to use AGAINST your business partners. Autozone was just one of the few companies that had a SCO Unix license (not a SCO Linux as far as I know). They will run out of SCO Unix customers to sue in short order. If you read the SCO Linux license you can see that it is very strict and easy to break (binary only, ie. can't compile your own kernel). Obviously they just want to sell Linux licenses so you can violate them. How many Linux users never compile the kernel from source? I bet not many. Looks to me that they just want to sell Linux licenses to get a bigger pool of companies to sue.
Let them know at the cash that you are buying your automotive needs from them because SCO is suing them, and that this is part of showing support for Autozone against SCO. You don't have to spend a lot of money, but make sure they know why you are buying it there rather than at PepBoys or your local gas station.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
You cannot test the GPL without someone sueing someone else... it may suck for the defendants, but you can't prove yourself without a challenge.
meh
This comment on GrokLaw speaks for itself:
Supplemental No. 8: AutoZone claims are false
Authored by: jbgreer on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST
I don't know whether to be pleased or angry at SCO's assertion that IBM must have assisted AutoZone's transition to Linux due to the "precision and efficiency with which the migration occurred". You see, I was a Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone, where I was an employee for over 10 years. During my tenure, I participated and led in the design, development and maintenance of many of AutoZone's store systems. More importantly, I initiated AutoZone's transition to Linux and I directed the port of their existing store software base to Linux. I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. I believe at one point I had as many as 35 AutoZone developers performing porting work for me, much of which was trivial, given that our code did not generally rely on SCO specific features and that the more technologically sophisticated portions of our code tended to reside in our libraries. The developers were also responsible for testing their individual applications under both SCO and Linux; I supplemented this activity by performing builds of the entire AutoZone store software base on my desktop, which I had converted to Linux.
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.
One should remember the Linux business environment that existed at the time the AutoZone transition began. Several vendors - the original Caldera Linux distribution company, Red Hat, and Linuxcare - were offering support for enterprise installations of Linux. In fact, Bryan Sparks, then CEO of Caldera, flew to Memphis and met with me during my evaluation of the various distribution and support offerings. I also met and talked briefly with Dave Sifry of Linuxcare during the 1999 Linux Expo. AutoZone settled on Red Hat chiefly because of my familiarity with their distribution and the ease with which AutoZone could negotiate a support agreement with them.
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. By the time of their offer, AutoZone had already completed the initial porting activity and had already installed a Linux-based version of their store system in several stores.
Finally, I'll add that I was for a time a member of SCO's Customer Advisory Board. As such, I believe I have some useful insights as to why SCO lost AutoZone's and several other large accounts' business.
Regards, Jim Greer
Isn't Jesse James pimping for them now?
Can you imagine him in this new ad campaign?
"I use RedHat Enterprise Linux 3 at West Coast Choppers... because it's just wrong."
Followed by him driving away in his jet powered Toyota Supra, dragging a server behind him.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
This lawsuit is only a PR stunt in order to distract attention from today's SCOX 1Q statement. So let me post a short summary:
The SCOX 1Q seems to be highly correlated with SCOX IQ --- i.e. it totally scox.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Well looks like the market didnt look the other way. SCO is down 10%.
Shame.
Currently AZO is off 5.5%.
Here's the scheme:
- Darl McBride is a Mormon, and this fact has been commented on.
- He is engaged in clearly fraudulent behavior, and holding Mormonism up for scorn.
- The LDS has been known to kick people out for giving the church a bad rap (e.g. Alice Cooper was excommunicated.)
- So... Let's start petitioning to have Darl excommunicated!
Think about it - sending him to hell for eternal damnation is much better than sending him to some Federal love-feast prison for stock fraud. Believe me, Hell is a real pound-you-in-the-&*(*&# kind of place.(No, I'm not a Mormon, and am not seriously proposing this - but if I were a Mormon, I would consider raising the issue. There are any number of articles out there pointing out the Mormon influence in SCOgroup/Caldera. This kind of fraudulent and misleading nonsense does nothing to promote the Mormons' nice-to-little-old-ladies-and-family-values PR campaigns.)
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
So AutoZone broke the EUALA of UnixWare and put some binaray UnixWare .so files into some other OS (that happened to be Linux) without permission from SCO. If they had used a Linux only solution they would have bin fine.
Well, if this is the case, I hate to admit that I really think SCO should be compensated. After all if you have an agrement both parties are supposed to honer it. Just like SCO are supposed to honer GPL for their contributions to Linux.
This just shows that you should not under any circumstances do business with SCO.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Yes, in the short term, an IBM buyout of SCO would settle all this. However, in the long run this makes "claiming to own a peice of the Linux pie, making outrageos self-contradictory statements, and suing everyone" a VERY attractive business model.
That idea is the reason governments and large companies will not pay a ransom if one of their executives is kidnapped. In the short term you may get the exec back, but in the long term you make them and all your other employees attractive targets for future kidnappings.
The only way for this to really end is for SCO's claims to be defeated in court and have SCO forced into bankruptcy. Any buyout offer opens the door for Sun or HP or Microsoft or someone we've never heard of to claim that they "own Linux" and start issuing lawsuits.
0 1 - just my two bits
Rule number one - if you're going to make an example of a company for your petty little war, don't pick the company that will be selling you brake pads and brake lines next month:
Clerk : Will that be all, sir? Just this replacement brake master cylinder?
Darl : Yes, thank you.
Clerk : May I have your name, sir?
Darl : Darl McBride
Clerk : [typing] Oh... Uh huh... Actually this isn't the right part sir. We do happen to have this special one for you right here, which is EXACTLY what you need.
Darl : Good. Because I really want my brakes to work well.
Clerk : Oh yes sir, this will really do the trick.
On our next episode of "You Picked the Wrong Target", SCO's legal team picks Allied Colonoscope Corporation to make their next example.
And in two weeks on a very special edition of "Wrong Target", Darl suffers a heart attack and discovers and mutters the immortal line "I didn't know defibrillators ran on Linux".
I've been thinking about this whole SCO/Unix crap, and realized that, in all likelihood, SCO is going to lose because of a court case that dealt with a similar cloning incident.
The case was IBM's suit against Compaq for creating a clone of their IBM PC.
IBM lost primarily because the courts were ignorant at the time to the concepts of intellectual property that are commonplace now in the tech world. In my interpretation, the courts said that a "computer was a computer" and made little distinction between the uniqueness of the IBM PC and the ubiquity of the firmware and operating system it needed. In simpler terms, SCO may have an uphill battle because (1) Unix has been genericized by all the compatible versions and clones, and (2) SCO has waited too long to resolve this, and (3) remedies that SCO would desire through the courts would have grave financial and operational ramifications that could very well undermine the country's businesses' ability to conduct business if they had to drop what they are using, just to use an SCO product. (Never mind the monopolistic intent of SCO in this matter.)
Compare the PC clone wars to the Unix argument. If you as a development see (as in read) a piece of copyrighted Unix code, then whip out your computer and write up code that handles the same task as what you read without actually creating a copy of what you read, but only the ideas spawned from it, then you haven't violated a thing.
SCO must show that their code was truly and unmistakably copied (as in plagiarized) from their actual code base.
SCO will likely be unable to provide this proof because look and feel is not the argument, but the code's true origin is. In other words, just because some software looks like SCO's duck and walks like SCO's duck doesn't mean that it was created from any of SCO duck's DNA. The actual code to make a program is copyrightable, but as any book publisher can tell you, the idea of making the code is NOT copyrightable.
Unix design standards are like the design of the hammer. It is genericized enough now that copyright of the OS will be very hard to prove.
(IANAL)
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
It is quite pleasant to see that at least two major business news services have their headlines right. Both Reuters and Dow Jones Business News have articles with headlines that mention the doubling of SCO's losses before their lawsuit against AutoZone. The articles are more focused on the massive financial losses SCO has generated and seem to mention the AutoZone suit as more of a side note.
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 really ARE against any from of "do it yourself", aren't they?
"Your Honor, these dirty hippies are using software that was designed to subvert and destroy the good capitalist software companies in America to sell parts to other dirty hippies that use them to fix their own cars. This deprives the good capitalist auto repair industry of money they are entitled to"
Finkployd
Next week's monster garage project will feature host (and autozone spokesman) Jesse James building a "Monster Car Crusher."
-Use of a "family owned" New Jersey Junkyard: 500.00
-2003 BMW with strange smell coming from the trunk and "l337SCO" California Plates: Freebee
Monster garage factoid: We swear our new sponsor deal with autozone had nothing to do with the making of this episode. we swear.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Apparently investors are none too thrilled about this announcement:
SCOX is down 10% in early trading
It gives them the impression of being more important than they really are. The issue moves from being an obscure geek-tech issue to involving a major company that does business with the average person.
Personally, I think a briliant move would be for IBM to cover AutoZone's legal fees. AZ doesn't need any help paying their fees; but I think it would be a HUGE public relations boost for IBM. It would be cool to see IBM step up and tell AutoZone that as a show of support, and to back up their assurances that they did nothing wrong during the Linux conversion, they will pay the legal fees.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
What will happen is that they will NOT get an injuction, the judge will find that that would cause undue grievous harm to AutoZone. So what then? Well, SCOX will be locked in another costly long term litigation game with a giant, litigation that will only cost them money and give nothing in return. Oh, they'll try to get good PR, but it'll fail.
I love SCO, they're so fucking clueless.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
As has been shown in Germany, where an injunction effectively nipped their entire FUD campaign in the bud and they are forbidden from making statements they cannot prove without showing evidence, there is a big legal loophole in the US. The fact that SCO can make any wild claim that they want, sue anyone they want on the wildest of baseless claims, and get awaya with not having to produce actual evidence in order to go to court is a real problem.
Many companies who are frightened of getting sued by these bastards have little other legal options. Not many, apart from badly researched ZDNet trashmag articles, believe that SCo has the slightest chance of success, but what about the financial damage to companies that are getting sued from loss in stock value, and the fact that there is no way in hell that SCO could really afford to pay for the damages once IBM, RedHat and Novell have finished with them.
What is to stop the next POS crap company that is going down from sueing everybody left right and centre?
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.
Because SCO has no intention of showing us their complete lack of proof, this case WILL settle out of court. SCO will make AutoZone a nominal settlement offer. AutoZone will take it. The parties will have the file sealed.
Then SCO will claim in the press that it won the lawsuit with the implicit threat that everyone else running Linux had better start paying.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Autozone was predicted in a comment made on yesterday's story along with a link to that very groklaw comment.
The thing is, every lazy journo out there will assume the copyright violations are in the Linux codebase .
So, /.ers, here's the plan: every clueless tech-journo needs to be put right as soon as - if not before - they report SCO's (and whoever *cough*microsoft*cough is behind them) misleading PR as fact and the whole movement looks like it may be dodgy.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
SCOX is largly owned by canopy, and canopy is largely owned by a shadowy group called "Angel Investors." Angel Invesors is *very* closely associated with the church of LDS.
choosing a victim with the correct pocket depth...
To implicate all of Mormonism into some sort of pro-SCO conspiracy is distasteful, but beyond that, rather unbelievable. SCO is fighting for exactly the opposite of the Mormon ideal.
Well, they may have just received a Very Good Deal on their Windows machines from a little company called Microsoft. <wink>
Perhaps this is payback? It certainly isn't 'protecting our customers against lawsuits' as Marsh has lie^H^H^Hsaid, because the customers rent the use of the boxes, rather than purchase them and have them hosted.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Often, such councils are postponed if a civil or criminal trial is already underway, and the council will then take into consideration the outcomes of such legal trials. Since there are no civil or criminal trials in process against Darl, maybe a good Mormon in Darl's home town can point us to the name of his Bishop or Stake President so that we can start the process ourselves?
They're a major chain, with a large number of real world employees. Jessie James does TV spot for them. Think Radio Shack, but for car stuff.
Having every Linux nerd in the world upset with you is one thing, but every car nerd, that's considerably more dangerous.
With luck, the lawyers (on both sides) will have SCO bled dry in short order and we can stop hearing about all this.
Perhaps u might wanna look here and judge again. At he moment of this writing, they dropped 12%.
NEWS FLASH: Slashdot user AuT0Z0NE seen posting threatening messages daily including hot topics such as "Darl spanks his monkey" and "Darl, BRING IT ON, Sue me!" has had his identity revealed. Turns out he actually WAS CEO of Autozone. Stay tuned!
Mod +5 Drunk
SCOX share prices are taking a hit today, down almost 12% as of twenty minutes ago. It's a good thing the SCO executives have been bailing out when they have. They really could have taken a hit today.
You'd think they planned that or something!
I love the headline of the Reuters article. It keys in on SCO strategy: no business plan, no propsects, no problem! We'll steal from, er, sue somebody!
This seems a great time to remind you that it's like this everywhere. When reading news articles in fields you aren't intimately familiar with, make sure to take them all with the same grain of salt you're reading SCO stories with. Because they are all of roughly similar accuracy.
IANAL, but I would expect a preliminary injunction against the use of the software is very unlikely. It would destroy AutoZone, which is a strong no-no, and continued use creates no new damage, technically, and certainly nothing that can't be adequately addressed via a larger fine in the end. I wouldn't expect SCO to get any injunctions at all against AutoZone.
No, the "court of public opinion" instead wears a green robe with dollar signs embroidered on it.
The Judge, if he / she is worth 10 cents of what it cost to go to law school, will consider the facts, not "the court of public opinion."
Absolutely true, but the damage to be done by public opinion is not in the courts, but rather in the IT spending budgets. A shutdown of spending on Linux due to misperception of the facts is nearly as deadly as SCO winning their suit against IBM.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Sorry, but I don't really give a rats ass if SCO wins or loses any of these lawsuits. It's not like I'm going to be losing my money over it -- I don't have any stock in Autozone, SCO, or IBM.
What I do care about (and what you obviously didn't pay attention to) is what the rest of the public thinks about Linux. If the rest of the public sees us as a bunch of file-sharing, website DoSing, ignorant hippies who think everything should be free then it doesn't matter if SCO wins or loses any of these lawsuits. If they destroy the public perception of free-software and Linux (not that the over-zealot members of the free-software community doesn't do their own fair share of damage to our cause) then they and Microsoft and have won. Are you too ignorant to see that or do you just not care?
The Judge, if he / she is worth 10 cents of what it cost to go to law school, will consider the facts, not "the court of public opinion."
You've obviously never lived somewhere where judges are elected to fixed terms and need to run for reelection have you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The upshot of all of this is that SCOX is getting slammed at the moment (9am MST) in heavy trading, 50% over the normal daily volume already, and down 12%.
It climbed the previous two days, no doubt in anticipation of the lawsuit. Perhaps after seeing what SCO are actually suing over, investors are realizing they're the last rats on the ship. And the fire is nearing the ammo hold....
A sign of long-overdue investor sanity?
Just released, DaimlerChrysler is the second target. Note to mods: in the event the post is updated, this comment is before that.
-no broken link
That sounds to me, if it is accurate, like a victory for Linux either way this AutoZone case is decided. If AZ wins, it's status quo (Linux on top), SCO wasted their money attacking a company that could afford to defend itself. If AZ loses, with the court finding that their OpenServer license did not entitle them to incorporate OpenServer libraries in a separate product (homegrown app, Linux based, or otherwise), that is a precedent protecting any Linux libraries distributed with the same "derived work" types of restrictions. So what if SCO wins, even collects damages, while paying for court enforcement of strategic Linux technology protections: SCO will not survive their inevitable loss of the actual case against IBM, that actually threatens Linux (unless SCO has paid off the dumbest liar in the Senate, Orrin Hatch R-UT, but that's another story). Meanwhile, they're spending their money to increase the value of Linux to developers, by proving that Linux can't be stolen by people who don't abide by the GPL, using the same logic that does protect even scalawags like SCO. We should be the first to welcome Linux's new GPL-defending overlords, as their pretention to the throne is by autoregicide.
--
make install -not war
sco, meet jesse james, autozone media darling.
jesse, meet sco, guys who wanna take money away from you.
sick em jesse. yer in the 'zone.
It looks like their next lawsuit is against DaimlerChrysler. Check out http://ir.sco.com.
SCO Reponse: Damn... now they're using free speech against us! What shall we do?
:-)
Same we do every night, McBride: claim that it's outside the U.S. Constitution!
No, the "court of public opinion" instead wears a green robe with dollar signs embroidered on it.
Actually, that would be Rod Roddy. former announcer for The Price Is Right. He was always a little flamboyant with his clothes.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Stock Charts for Companies Du Jour
According to cnet, the second company that SCO is going after is DaimlerChrysler. I really think that they have now spread themselves too thin. These are companies with large legal departments that do not generally settle hen frivoulous lawsuits are brought against them.
Let us hope that both of them do not settle, as it would indeed be a bad precedent.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
the joke news headline:
"Man Sticks Out Tongue between the bars of Wolf Cage at Local Zoo - bloody mess ensues".
Religion is the opium of the people. Evolution is the opium of scientists.
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.
[Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring]
Supplemental No. 8: AutoZone claims are false
Authored by: jbgreer on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST
I don't know whether to be pleased or angry at SCO's assertion that IBM must have assisted AutoZone's transition to Linux due to the "precision and efficiency with which the migration occurred". You see, I was a Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone, where I was an employee for over 10 years. During my tenure, I participated and led in the design, development and maintenance of many of AutoZone's store systems. More importantly, I initiated AutoZone's transition to Linux and I directed the port of their existing store software base to Linux. I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. I believe at one point I had as many as 35 AutoZone developers performing porting work for me, much of which was trivial, given that our code did not generally rely on SCO specific features and that the more technologically sophisticated portions of our code tended to reside in our libraries. The developers were also responsible for testing their individual applications under both SCO and Linux; I supplemented this activity by performing builds of the entire AutoZone store software base on my desktop, which I had converted to Linux.
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.
One should remember the Linux business environment that existed at the time the AutoZone transition began. Several vendors - the original Caldera Linux distribution company, Red Hat, and Linuxcare - were offering support for enterprise installations of Linux. In fact, Bryan Sparks, then CEO of Caldera, flew to Memphis and met with me during my evaluation of the various distribution and support offerings. I also met and talked briefly with Dave Sifry of Linuxcare during the 1999 Linux Expo. AutoZone settled on Red Hat chiefly because of my familiarity with their distribution and the ease with which AutoZone could negotiate a support agreement with them.
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. By the time of their offer, AutoZone had already completed the initial porting activity and had already installed a Linux-based version of their store system in several stores.
Finally, I'll add that I was for a time a member of SCO's Customer Advisory Board. As such, I believe I have some useful insights as to why SCO lost AutoZone's and several other large accounts' business.
Regards, Jim Greer
when the SCO body's has no pulse, videotape the dismemberment and ship the body parts to be incinerated. If you have the money, ship the ashes into space; barring that, place them in a lead-lined container and drop them in the deep Pacific.
SCO should looked at like Carthage; not only should they be annhilated, but the ground out of which they sprung should be salted over so that nothing else will ever come from it again. The more companies that think that SCO's business plan is a good idea, the less legitimate companies with legitimate claims will be able to seek relief, while more companies will be inhibited from doing useful saleable work. Nuke 'em till they glow, and then nuke 'em again, just to be sure.
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.
No, I don't think so. "The court of public opinion" does not ware a black robe with "Judge" embroidered on it. The Judge, if he / she is worth 10 cents of what it cost to go to law school, will consider the facts, not "the court of public opinion." In either case, SCO will lose, and bad.
*If* their case doesn't have merit, but if you read the ancestor posts in this thread, there's a glimmer of a possibility that it does.
And if they win the case, that will be extremely damaging to the Linux community, as people will in general draw erroneous conclusions about all the other FUD that SCO has spewed over the past several months.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
O.J.Simpson lost the "court of public opinion" and he is still walking around a free man.
Yeh, he's free, but remeber how O.J. Simpson used to be do lots of television commercials for major corporations at one time? Now he's basically shunned by everyone. I don't think that's the future free software supporters are hoping for for Linux.
If SCO wins this one, I can't think of a better profession in this world.
What other job can you make claims like this at this hell hole of an economy and be profitable... while getting global attention from slashdot etc. Only lawyers can do this.
I'll probably get modded down for this.... the richer the lawyer, the bigger the scum bag.
I think crack dealers should use this strategy... "If you buy from someone other than me, I'll turn you into the cops for buying drugs".
Don't give SCO any more business ideas. I hear they're stocking some powerful shit. Though I guess they're too busy stealing from their own inventory to actually sell something.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...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."...
In other news, Darl McBride, CEO of SCO, was unexpectedly killed yesterday when his vehicle's braking system inexplicably malfunctioned on I-40 yesterday...
May we never see th
When I first read this, I wasn't familiar with who Auto Zone are. I assumed they were some low level parts company susceptible to being blackmailed by SCO. When I realised they were a major player/Fortune 500 company, I just shook my head. These guys keep picking on the biggest gorillas they can find, and you think they aren't stupid? Unless of course Billy Boy is funding them, in which case SCO is just acting as a front organization and it doesn't matter how dumb they are since it's M$'s nearly infinite resources at risk here. Someone really does need to do a RICO investigation here.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
I'm baffled...
o fdesign/MA.CO URSE/09/LCH.htmlt lc-faq.htm#2.10
Is SCO still attempting to scare businesses into buying licenses? Even if they are I believe they are taking an egregious chance by attempting to fight on far too many fronts simultaneously. The gambit could be lucrative if (and only if I believe) Autozone and Chrylser settle out of court. Is this thinking completely incorrect? If the Chinese have a hell devoted to legal suberfuge, obfuscation, and litigation we're in it....
Other Chinese hells: (unrelated but intresting)
http://www.adh.brighton.ac.uk/school
http://www.wingkong.net/files/b
Will the German ownership (and subsequent court actions in Germany against SCO) of Chrysler play a part stateside?
I'm smart as a showbox, (empty one at that) so can someone please explain (and have relevant linkage to support said explainations)?
Revenue from operations appears to be shrinking fast, down from $13.5 m to $11.4 m in a single quarter, resulting in a $5 m operational loss.
I'm presuming their operations are, in the long run, toast. Why, then, do they still have significant marketing and R&D expenses? Why not go into "harvest" mode? They do, however, say their expenses will drop in the future as they become "more efficient", so maybe this is just what they have in mind.
They also list $3.7 m in "Other Income, Net". What the hell is this? Linux Licensings fees?
Their "war chest" (that is, cash) dropped from $64 m to $57 m, giving a burn rate of more than $2 m / month. One would expect this burn rate to increase as they open up new litigation fronts with AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler, and the rest of western civilization. Even so, they should be good for at least a year, and maybe two, of litigation.
The number of shares increased by about 2.5 million. Obviously they made good use of the high stock price. Without a cash flow statement, though, I'm having a little trouble seeing where the money went, and what their true litigation expenses are. Perhaps their burn rate is far greater than the last paragraph estimated.
I notice they list over $9 million in "Goodwill and intangibles". Who says accountants don't have a sense of humour?
Funny, I thought it was "AT&T Unix System V, as licensed to Novell, as sublicensed to Caldera, which changed it's name to SCO". But I guess just calling it "SCO System 5" is shorter, if not entirely historically accurate.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Tired of not being able to read the best resource on this whole fiasco.
If you do link, please also link to their paypal account link.
Maybe if 1 out of 1000 of you slashdotters who hit groklaw and see it got hosed will go back when it is up and donate a couple bucks, they can add a server or two.
TIA,
Dave
(BTW, I've donated already, twice)
Well you should, if as you say you care "what the rest of the public thinks about Linux". If SCO wins, neither you nor very many people at all will be using Linux for awhile. Pull your head out of your ass and stop blathering. If SCO wins, they will, as you say, "destroy the public perception of free-software and Linux." Therefor, you should care if SCO wins or loses.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
and as of 12:10 (EST) today has dropped 11% - significantly more than the rest of the market has dropped today (less than 1%). If this is a statistical refelction of the "green judges" then I think it's a safe assumption the public thinks SCO is biting off more than it can chew.
Please give your mod points to others, Im at the cap. They will appreciate it more
This kind of detailed refutation, obviously easily obtainable by any serious person truly concerned with the theft of their intellectual property, continues to astound me and reinforce in the most blatant manner my conclusion and that of many, many others that the true motive of said SCO Corp. is strictly the destruction of the open source movement in the West and that it is being funded by the usual gang of suspects.
What those "suspects" don't realise is that such an outcome will leave the field open to a complete Far Eastern takeover of open source in the form of that other major player in this area, the various TRONs running on more devices worldwide than either Linux or Windows and will ultimately lead to the demise of Billy Boy and his evil empire. Not a silver lining but a just come-uppance none the less.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
My favourite parts:
.... If It happened within the last 12 hours, I wouldn't be aware of it.... next question!"
Some guy: "Sooner or later this case will be decided upon by a court, and what will happen if at the end of all this it turns out you are wrong? there will be a lot of angry customers. Will you refund their money?"
Darl: "Well, errrr, we wo... umm, the way I see it is that, errr, well, "
and:
Some person: "Can you comment on the outstanding lawsuit against you"
Darl: "There are currently no lawsuits against SCO..."
Some Person: "One sec.... Australian company.... called CyberNight/Night... I have the information here."
Darl: "uhhh, ermm, ahhh, ermm
First of all, shyster is what you call a lawyer, not a judge. Get your terminology right. A corrupt judge is called a corrupt judge. A biased court, in which the outcome is predetermined for whatever reason, is called a Kangaroo Court.
Nevertheless, all indications and evidence are contrary to your assertions that Kimball and Wells are corrupt judges. As far as anyone reasonable can tell, they are competent and ethical judges. There is absolutely nothing that could offer even a suspicion that they are corrupt.
Such a comment as you made shows that you're very careless in what you say. You don't even offer a hint support for your allegations.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
What's up with that? Doesn't the legal system kind of frown on shopping for the friendliest jurisdiction? Isn't the first move going to be to transfer jurisdiction to someplace sane? (Not a comment on Nevada's sanity, just that as a jurisdiction for this trial, Nevada makes no sense).
So, doesn't filing this in Nevada just serve to stall? Is this another SCO "we want the publicity from having done something, but we don't ever want anything to get resolved" move? Or have I missed something, and Nevada actually makes sense for some reason?
In the late 90's, SCO was promoting the Autozone/SCO relationship publically for a while. I remember this well, because it was one of my introductions to how effective a few Unix servers could be when connected to 2000 dumb terminals.
I remember that Autozone used to run a bunch of Unixware servers with dumb terminals at all of the stores. They had some other Un*xes to run various applications such as the Database, but I remember SCO touting Unixware as the system that integrated a bunch of disparate Unix and NT systems.
Here's an article about Autozone & SCO (Actually, it's an article about IBM and SCO cooperating on a new project, but Autozone was going to be one of the first new customers to use the project, or something).
Around 1999, Autozone switched to RedHat. Rumor was that the decision was apparently very contraversial within SCO, as it was a real sign of things to come--- people switching from expensive SCO systems to cheaper Linux.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
I'm somewhat amazed that nobody sees the apparent transparency here by the SCO (Sue Corporations Optimistically) legal team. I had expected them to sue some poor little corporation into non-existence, and then trumpet their 'success'. But they went after larger corporations with (theoretically) bigger legal guns. The goal with Autozone is to get a cheapo settlement from someone with only licensing fees at stake, then use that in their PR machine. The Damiler goal is something else- get embedded software licensing fees ($699 per car, bitte), and then using that on everyone (Yo NASA- fork over for each of those rovers !). I see Autozone folding. I see Damiler fighting them like IBM will.
Sheesh...SCO is not just burning their bridges, they are nuking them and spreading radioactive cobalt behind them. Who in their right mind would now EVER contemplate doing ANY business with SCO? I mean, even Microsoft tries to hold on to customers, but SCO is just light years beyond idiocy in their most recent moves of litigating against CUSTOMERS.
Darl: Good morning. My name is Napol^H^H^H^H^HDarl Bonap^H^H^H^H^HMcBride and I'll be your host this morning. First order of business, we're going to be Invad^H^H^H^H^HSuing everyone in sight....
That's what I was thinking too. Plus, can they *actually* expect to just shut down a multi-billion dollar national chain store just like that, especially when their own statements make it clear that hey have no concrete evidence? And we all know how quick SCO is to find offending code...
do not read this line twice.
You can't read it now -- someone's apparently DoSing Groklaw at the moment, according to the message that comes up on their website. I assume that there's probably a competent IT type or two trying to track down whoever's doing it.
:-)
I did read that before Groklaw went down, though. Facinating.
May we never see th
As of right now, SCOX is down $1.55. They are slowly going down the drain, and this has been a trend for...what, 2 weeks now?
This sig no verb.
The guy that did the port says he didn't use SCOG libraries.
SCOX off by 12.82% at this time for the day. Great job guys even stock holders are starting to think you are insane for taking on 3 multi-billion dollar companies at the same time.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
I wouldn't want Bush to be re-elected even if he agreed to send me his twin daughters, a Guinness truck, Natalie Portman and a truckload of grits!
Gee, hmmm, I don't know. That's a tough bargain to beat, all for just a single vote. Would that truck be fully stocked, or are we talking about just the truck?
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Isn't that a recipe for some serious stuff coming back at them from the other side of the Atlantic?
SCO has to know that DC won't just keel over (they have lawyers too, better ones then SCO does) and buy licences, or SCO itself. DC is one of the largest corperations on earth. SCO is an insignificant mosqueto in comparison. Why does SCO believe that that it won't be slapped?
Hmm, DC is big enought that they could try for a private prosicution of SCO for fraud charges. That would be intresting to watch.
...as posted on the Yahoo SCOX board by stdsoft0... (link below)
.16.
.27 per share.
t io n=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=1 01762
Announced results are simply lies. SCO has ALWAYS announced Pro Forma results to the public in the past. Today, they conveniently elected to announce GAAP results.
-
Make no mistake, on a Pro Forma basis SCO lost 0.43 per share, not
-
Anybody else notice that SCO is conveniently parading the GAAP numbers? They are saying nothing about Pro Forma results. Why? Because Pro Forma EPS results are much worse than the (0.16) GAAP numbers. The GAAP results take into account the one-time addition of $3.76MM in income due to derivative accounting on the PIPE deal. The deal was restructured to eliminate this from the Income Statement. As it should be, SCO will not record any future benefit from a falling stock price.
Meanwhile, Pro Forma results cannot include this income, which means that SCO actually lost another
Just another thing for the SEC to look at.
-
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&ac
BWAHHH! The call was freakin' BRUTAL on SCO. Let me see if I can recap the Q&A
Q1: So, what's the basis for the AutoZone suit? I read the guy who did the conversion says IBM wasn't involved, nor did they use any of your code. [This was on Groklaw]
A: Third party sites are really just shills for IBM. But sorry, Wells [judge in the IBM case] told us not to get into specifics. This is about our IP though blah blah protectrightscakes. We'll leave it for the courtroom.
Q2 [Skiba]: Is the $3.4 mil you spent on legal expenses expected to cover the new suits too?
A: Yes
Q3 [Boston Globe]: So what does the Daimler suit have to do with Linux?
A: It's actually about them not answering the letter we sent them ordering them to state they're not illegally running any of our stuff, as they should of done, since we had a contract.
Follow Up Q: So, this doesn't have anything to do with Linux per se?
A: Well, we don't have any proof, but they haven't said that they're NOT infringing, so we'll sue and see what happens.
Q4: Why AutoZone and Daimler?
A: AZ's using our IP and DC hasn't answered our letter.
Q5 [E-Week]: Clarify on AutoZone... is it about the conversion libraries?
A: It's an issue, but it's not the core of the copyright claim.
Q6 [Computerworld]: So what happens if companies continue to not pay?
A: We'll sue them too.
FUQ: Will you return the money if you lose the relevant cases, and it's found that you have no IP rights in Linux?
A: We revealed some code last summer and Linux people admitted our code was erroneously in Linux. We're very confident that infringement is occuring. [Totally ducks the question]
Q7: So you're not actually claiming any infringement on Daimler?
A: No.
Q8: Don't these two new suits hinge on you winning vs. Novell to show who actually owns the IP?
A: No, because we own the IP. We have a filed copyright for it.
Q9: Are you planning to take this litigation strategy abroad?
A: Yes, we're looking into Asia and Europe right now.
Q10 [Investors Business Daily]: Aren't you afraid of sending the message you're going after your own customers first? When are you going to sue Linux users who AREN'T your customers?
A: AutoZone and Daimler aren't CURRENT SCO customers, they haven't paid us for a while. But they're still bound by our licenses and contracts, so we're suing them.
Q11: How's this timeline for the new cases going to be affected by the IBM and Novell cases?
A: It's impossible to predict the future, neither of these are relevant to the IBM case, and the Daimler suit is s astate case, so it will proceed more quickly.
Q12: Any upcoming suits in the UK, say in the next few months?
A: Not going to discuss that today. We're working on IP enforcement in Europe and Japan, but they're a bit behind.
FUQ: Can you comment on the Australian case? [A group called CyberKnights have filed complaints with the Australian CCC (like the FTC in the US) that's similar to the RedHat v. SCO suit].
A: Nobody's suing us in Australia.
FUQ: You're not familiar with CyberKnights?
A: No.
Q13: So we've seen SCOsource have one customer [EV1]. How do you count that revenue?
A: As we receive the money. Some are one time, some are over time. EV1 is paying over time, but we can't go into specifics.
Q14: You said before the Novell suit has no bearing on these cases, but it seems like it has a lot of bearing on any copyright suit.
A: Well, they said they had it, then backed off, then came back. We've always said the copyright is ours.
FUQ: But both of you have registered the copyright. Don't you have to prove you own it?
A: That's for the court to decide.
FUQ: Why's you file in Nevada for AutoZone?
A: That's where they are.
FUQ: Back to the bit about suing ex-/customers, don't you think that'll scare off potential customers?
A: Our current customers love us, they're cheering us on for protecting their rights.
FUQ: I mean FUTURE customers.
A:
In the call (at about 16 minutes), Darl directly compares SCO suing end users to the RIAA suing p2p users. Gee, I thought only slashdotters made this connection :)
Enter Darl McBride in his 2003 Jeep Cherokee. He's needing brakes and his monthly checkup:
Service: Well, well. MrMcBride. Why how are you? What can I do for you today?
Darl: Uh, I need brakes and my engine starts off sluggish. Whats your schedule like today?
Service: Hmmmm let me see . Yeah, we can fit you in right now. Hows that?
Darl Fine. Brakes gonna be a problem?
Service: Why, no problem at all. We'll just pop over to the AutoZone across the street and get their... Managers _Special_ Brakes.
Darl: Uhhh Ummmm ok, I guess. What about the engine? Need a tune up or something?
Service: Hmmmmmm . Looks as though you are not using original Jeep parts either. Cracked block. Warped camshaft. Mr. McBride, have you been putting any Alternative Parts on here?
Darl: Uhhhhh, no why do you ask?
Service: No matter. We have just the parts for you. See you at... six (6 6) Darl.
Just then dark clouds appear and we see a fade away shot of frightened Darl against a blood red sky, the serviceman transforming slowly into a minion of Satan. Swirls of orange and red light piercing through an ominous sky.
One more day in the life of Lindon UT -- the day Hell came to town.
The Twilight Zone.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Poor taste aside, whenever I put on my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie, I find myself wondering if SCO's executives haven't got some sort of backroom deal with certain large anti-linux companies to commit a metaphorical corporate "suicide 'bombing'(litigation)"...
Is the intended end result that SCO goes completely bankrupt in a flashy manner trying to sue as many large alleged 'infringers', such that they hope to leave a cloud of 'legal uncertainty' over Linux due to the lawsuits being left unfinished when SCO ceases to exist?
("There was so much infringement that we went broke before we could have those Linux miscreants punished! Oh, woe is us! Thankfully, due to my job experience dealing with the horrible illegalities that we allege in Linux, Microsoft has gladly offered me a new job on the newly-created Linux Legal Issues department, where I can continue to spread my warnings...")
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
According to ZDNET, "The Nevada court where SCO has filed a lawsuit against AutoZone over its use of Linux is itself a user of the open-source software." Apparently the court has its own web site running on Linux. If SCO loses they can appeal based on a conflict of interest.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
SCO has filed suit against DaimlerChrysler for not responding to letters sent to Unix licencees demanding they perform a software audit proving they are complying with the confidentiality provisions and other terms of the software licence.
SCO is seeking an injunction to bar DaimlerChrysler from further violations of that licence, to fix past violations and be awarded damages to be decided in court as well as costs.
However, the violation in question is simply that of not responding to the audit request, rather than any misappropriation of trade secrets or use of Linux as with other litigation SCO is pursuing.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Ahem - here in the United States, even judges don't wear black robes with "Judge" embroidered on it :-b
However, a few judges do wear orange jumpsuits with the word
on itRedundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
Here is a bittorrent of a mp3 of the call today from SCO at http://sco.penguinman.com
First of all, we have to wonder: why AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler? When the AutoZone lawsuit was announced, I figured they were chosen because they were a large company, but not a huge company, and they may just settle out of court instead of risk litigous waters. However, DaimlerChrysler is a giant with hordes of corporate lawyers. These lawsuits were not chosen out of weakness of the defendants. Which brings me to a second point. I can't imagine ANY corporate lawyers, how stupid SCO's may be, advising a company to file two HUGE, high profile lawsuits if the suits have no legal ground to stand on. With all this PR generated, to have the suits thrown out of court would just be stupid. Which brings me to wonder: Do Darl and the gang have an ace in the hole? There has to be a reason that they believe that these cases will go through, or be settled. And unfortunately, if they do, we may be in for a bigger battle than we imagined.
Skill is successfully walking a tightrope over Niagara Falls. Intelligence is not trying. -- Anonymous
A while back, there was a utility called ipcs, which could take core SCO UNIX libraries, and make them available under linux for programs compiled to run under SCO OpenServer.
Almost all of AutoZone's store inventory and pick machines used to be Wyse terminals connected to an X86 SCO server in the back room, running a Progress application for the front-end.
In order to have a clean migration path away from what was at the time viewed as a dying technology, they probably used IPCS, along with the libraries from their previously purchased SCO servers for new Progress rollouts under linux.
Eventually, Progress Corporation got bright enough to natively support glibc, and Autozone could hopefully do away with all of the SCO hybrids in place. Unfortunately, SCO licensing has always been on a per-user basis, so they're going to hit up AutoZone for proof that they didn't have 500 users connected to libraries that were stripped from a server licensed for five users.
WTF any of this has to do with their lawsuit against IBM is up for debate, but this looks like a bait and switch.
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
(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.
She could have proved it to the judge by dragging in some computer, deleting some files, and then showing how she could retrieve the "deleted" files again. It sounds like the judge should have recused himself from the case given his total lack of expertise in computer technology (any technogology?).
Autozone has been relatively high-profile in their support of linux. Not only do they use(and pay RedHat for) linux, they host the meetings of the Memphis, Tennessee user's group(GOLUM) at their corporate headquarters in downtown Memphis! I believe Jim Greer, the guy that's being quoted a lot in this thread, is the former secretary of Golum.
So I HIGHLY suspect that this lawsuit has more to do with "punishing" a customer for their vocal support of linux instead of any real damages done to SCO.
If you live in the Memphis, TN area, please think about going to Golum to show your support! Their next meeting is tommorow, March 4th on 7:30pm at AutoZone HQ. Directions and map here. Parking is free, you just pull into their driveway in front of their HQ and park in the garage.
'til ol' McBride has a problem with his vehicle. He goes to Auto Zone:
"Well, if it ain't Mr. McBride. What can I do fer ya today?"
"I need some parts."
"Well, we can offer ya some parts, but ya gotta sign this here license agreement saying that you will not go to any other parts provider, and that you give us written proof that you never have. Otherwise, we'll sue you fer using our store."
The Penguin Producer
There are some interesting parallels. First off, they both treat their customers like criminals, assuming that they have stolen from them, then wonder why their sales are down. Second, they both are completely ignorant of how hated they are by their peers. Third, they both employ high powered attorneys who would rather sue then negotiate anything. Finally, both seem completely clueless regarding the fact that technology has made them obsolete. Rather then embracing the new frontier, they both seem to want to sue it out of existance. This last reason is why both will ultimately fail.....
Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. It takes a complete moron to fight a war on 5 fronts.
- Londo Molari
(Paraphrased a little). So SCO is now suing Novell, RedHat, IBM, AutoZone, and Chrysler. Then there's this matter of that Austrailian company suing SCO. Not to mention the German court case. These SCO boys are real f'd up.
Fortunately for some of us, we have management that will actually listen to us. My boss trusts me that we have nothing to fear. Of course, we are a public school district, so we wouldn't exactly be first on their list. Companies suing school districts leaves a bad taste in the public's mouth. Microsoft is big enough to do it. SCO is not.
Hey SCO! I use Linux at work! Sue me! Children are exposed to Linux here! Sue me!
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
Actually the ignorant hippies comment referred to some of the more radical people in the free-software movement that seem to think all intellectual property is bad and it's evil to have closed-source software and charge money for it.
While I'd tend to agree with the principal of free-software I think (and most people probably agree with me) there is room for both to co-exist. I don't see the gaming industry going anywhere anytime soon.
It doesn't help our cause any if John Q. Public thinks that we are all a bunch of computer geeks that think software should be "free". In fact if the community as a whole had been thinking more like a corporate PR-type person and less like the geeks that we all are, we probably should never have called it "free" software in the first place.
Of course I'm rambling but I think it's a valid point to consider.
We need a spinmeister extraordinaire.
Yeah that's basically what I'm trying to say boiled down into one sentence ;) Where's the PR department for OSS? Let's get some headhunters and find some guys :P
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I used to work for DaimlerChrysler IS/ITM up until fairly recently.
DISCLAIMER: It's a big company. I couldn't possibly have been aware of everything going on there.
That being said... SCO targeting DCX makes zero sense, as not only was there not much SCO product there, there's not much Linux there either.
I was there for 7 years, and I saw exactly ONE SCO server in that whole time - and it was a legacy deal running some service that was due to go away soon. Maybe there was some more in the plants (plants always seem to have strange things going on) but certainly there wasn't much in the core ops.
DCX, at least the Chrysler half, runs mostly on IBM mainframes. 3270 green-screen stuff. While the amount of UNIX use was growing, THAT was mostly Solaris with a few IBM AIX boxes mixed in to keep things interesting.
There were a few people investigating Linux (and I know we had at least one running instance of Linux-on-a-mainframe) but I'm not aware of any production Linux deployments. If they existed, they were very low-key and not widespread.
I had a Linux box as one of my workstations, but I did that on my own.
If there was any signifigant SCO deployments in the plants, they would probably have been replaced by Solaris or AIX boxes, not Linux. SCO just wasn't taken seriously as a UNIX.
Why SCO picked DCX to target is beyond me.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
So true. Which spawns a new idea in my head.... Now, we all know that our dear friend Darl will never have to answer for his dirty little deeds because of the way corporate leaders are protected in the US. So what are we going to do? We're going to launch a class action lawsuit against the one and only Darl Mcbride for defamation... You can't get a date? It's not cause you're a geek, it's not cause you're a nerd, it's all because you use linux and she heard Darl say linux users are jerks. You're wife/gf left you? It's not cause you spent too much time on slashdot, or spent the grocery money on that FX-51, it's cause you're a linux user and she heard Darl say slashdot readers are part of the Evil Empire... Getting the idea here? Everything wrong that happens from here on out in your life is Darl's fault... And he will pay, PAY i tell you! There. that'll get him.
Is "we think they used our libraries" really sufficient grounds for a lawsuit? Aren't they required to use due diligence first, before filing? Something along the lines of 1) sending a letter to AutoZone stating "We beleive you are using our libraries contrary to our contract with you. Please cease and desist." 2) Receive a reponse from AutoZone stating "No we are not. Kindly fuck off." 3) Sending another letter stating "We think you are lying. When may we audit you?" 4) Receiving a response from AutoZone stating "We have given our security guards orders to shoot on sight anyone identifying themselves as representing SCO." Then maybe they would have grounds for a lawsuit -- or maybe if AutoZone never bothered responding to their C&D letter, as apparently Daimler-Chrysler never did. What due diligence actions did SCO take before hauling AutoZone into court?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Darl Mcbride to start amateur boxing career. His first opponents will be Mike Tyson, George Forman and Evander Holyfield.
When asked if he would honestly fight against these opponents, mr. McBride responded "Yes, after speaking with my counsels, the lawyers at Boies, we've determinated that these opponent would be perfect for me to initially test my skills. I applied my strategic expertise to the world of boxing, and these were natural matches, considering that these boxers are retired and I've been working out for 6 weeks".
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/AutoZoneFin alComplaint.pdf
Not only have you angered open source people, then IBM (general computer people), but now you have angered people in the automotive industry.
This means that you have also angered people from some of the most powerful political lobbyists and poeple who now see you as possible problems to their job security (UNIONS).....
--
Time is on my side
It's loaded with grits, obviously.