Slashdot Mirror
AutoZone Responds To SCO
loftis writes "Groklaw is reporting that AutoZone has responded to The SCO Group's Lawsuit. Here is a link to the Groklaw community's discussion where you can find all the filings in raw form. Here is a text copy of the filing without amendments. AutoZone has pretty much said to the court, SCO has to prove 1) they own the code, and 2) that Linux infringes. Since SCO is litigating these two issues in other cases, they ought to wait until those questions are answered. Or, they say, 'If we cannot wait, we need SCO to tell us what we are infringing upon with specificity.' Since we know how SCO will answer the second question, and the court likely will too, since they amended the filings from SCO v IBM and SCO v RedHat and SCO v Novell, it seems to me (IANAL) that they should get to wait."
Pep Boys is funding SCO with cash!
Shouldn't they just send over Jesse and the boys to do some mods on the SCO folks?
Someone really needs to start a live counter of SCOs legal costs..
This is taking forever, the longer SCO drags this out, the more companies will be afraid of using Linux. When does this cross the line of being a lawsuit, to being racketeering? Am I being unreasonable? When they first went to court, why didn't SCO just put all the cards on the table? Is it because they don't have any cards to show?
CVB
free ipod and free gmail!
have you ever gone to autozone? they keep you waiting for years before someone finally decides to help you. i think SCO saw this one coming
It's about time someone asked SCO "Stop crying like a spoiled brat and tell us what your exact complaint is" -A
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
So they don't trust SCO's word? What's this world coming to when a fine outfit like SCO can't be trusted?
ask me! *raised hand*
"there are trillions even quadrillions of infringing lines in linux. all your atoms comprising our lines of code are belong to us. hence you clearly and specifically infringed on SCO's rights."
Sincerely,
Darryl
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I'm not sure linux is held in any responsibility to SCO's actions. I mean, I think people understand the legal system enough to know that people sue for whatever reason they can sometimes: disregarding whether it is justified.
A lot of people scoff at the legal system, I don't think companies would avoid a product because of one companies actions. Now, if microsoft gives similar advances to, say, ten more companies -and they decide to sue, then we got a problem.
IANAL, but I don't see SCO, alone, damaging linux too much....
After pissing off a legion of auto-philes by suing Autozone, SCO has now set their legal sights on the organizations of the NRA, the KKK, and the NY Association of the Russian Mafia for infringing on intellectual property by using Linux in their daily operations.
The module SCO is talking about is the one implemented in the AutoZone system that make sure six different colors of shifter knobs are always in stock and the simple part you need for your car never is.
And it would be even cooler if you kept a live counter on the same page of the amount of money that board members, the Canopy Group, and SCO insiders have made by selling off SCO stock since this corporate kamakaze mission began...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"Yawn".
I don't care. Nope. Not even a little.
SCO has ceased to exist in my opinion. Based on the delay of AZ's response, I had assumed they to decided to pretend SCO doesn't exist, and to just ignore them.
Nope. (Places fingers in ears and slowly rocks back and forth chanting "blah blah blah i can't hear you blay blah blah" over and over)
The only interesting part of all of this? The amusing phrasing I've seen from the various briefs and filings and fnords and amendments and so on and so forth... "Hide the eight-ball"? I don't quite know the meaning of that in normal language, can someone elaborate on its specific legal-context meaning?
it seems to me (IANAL) that they should get to wait.
Is it just me, or does IANAL sound like a code in the personal ads?
Three IPs for the Linux kings under the sky,
Seven for IBM in their halls of stone,
Nine for SGI doomed to die,
One for the dark Darl on his dark throne
In the land of Utah where the shadows lie.
One IP to rule them all, one IP to find them,
One IP to sue them all and in the courtrooms bind them,
In the land of Utah where the shadows lie.
(Yes, this has also been posted once on Groklaw. No, this isn't a karma whore - I'm the guy who posted it there. And no, I don't necessarily think that SGI is doomed to die, though things haven't been looking good for them lately...)
The problem is that it seems pretty obvious SCO isn't intending to come out of this alive. This court case has doomed SCO. The unfortunate thing is, that's the point. This entire mess was begun as a stock pump-and-dump, and kept alive by a publically documented huge donation from a certain party interested in encouraging any group that publically hurts linux. In the former case, the lawsuit was an exit strategy for SCO; in the latter case, the lawsuit is a corporate suicide bomb strapped to SCO's back.
Of course SCO is going to die; the Canopy Group and MS are using SCO as the corporate equivilent of a human shield. You don't care whether your human shield survives.
Don't fret, AutoZone, it's all safe in a briefcase in Germany...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
The value provided by GrokLaw is in that it is an excellent source for primary documents. In this case, the primary documents speak for themselves. PJ 's commentary, what that there is, is mainly there as a guide to help persons who might otherwise be blinded by the reams of legalese to interpret the primary documents.
As for PJs opinions, I believe the reason that they tend to be listened to and repeated are because they are (1) well argued and (2) usually argued in the context of specifically cited relevant law. If you disagree with an opinion stated by PJ and can show why the legal context she argues applies is incorrect, feel free to do so. This is how opinions work; PJs survive because no one has offered better counter-opinions.
Actually, when SCO stock hit $7.18, a bunch of them actually bought SCO stock. Not sure the "pump and dump" thing is playing out. Honestly, I think they are all just spoiled kiddies.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
will you please tell us exactly so, and tell us what would be correct? After all, if the opinions are so uninformed, surely you would be able to provide some sort of rebuttal. Any at all.
Oh, what's that you say? You don't have any actual rebuttal to anything Groklaw has said? You don't have any more idea about law than they do? You're bringing this up not because you take actual issue with anything Groklaw has said, but because by trashing Groklaw you get to appear snarky and clever?
Either contribute to the discussion or don't. Groklaw has provided an opinion. If you can't refute this opinion, it stands. "Yeah, well, you don't know anything." is not a refutation.
Would it add more weight to the case against SCO if IBM, Autozone, Novell and other band together with a class action lawsuit due to SCO dragging this out? It's gotta be hurting investment (thus business) for everyone involved.
Life is not for the lazy.
Or, they say, 'If we cannot wait, we need SCO to tell us what we are infringing upon with specificity.' Since we know how SCO will answer the second question, and the court likely will too, since they amended the filings from SCO v IBM and SCO v RedHat and SCO v Novell, it seems to me (IANAL) that they should get to wait."
You mean how they'll answer based on the IBM case?
SCO: "Your honor, in order to list the lines with specificity, we need a copy of AutoZone's customer database, of their parts blueprints, and of all source involved with moving away from any SCO products."
May we never see th
Most of us who read Groklaw filter postings from Anonymous Cowards so we don't get as many "noise" postings. Its amazing how much better the quality of the posted comments are once you filter this drivel.
Oh, sorry.
BTW, the setting is under the preferences link on the left side of the page once you log in. Its right under their award for "Best News Site" from OSDir so its easy to find. But of course, if you don't log in, you would never see it.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
She is, however, a paralegal. Doing legal research is her job, so I'd take her opinion over yours or Enderle's anyday. Note that I said opinion, if anyone wants legal advice, even PJ recommends you hire an attorney.
I think its funny how SCo told Autozone that they were no longer going to support their OpenServer installation and told Autozone they would have to upgrade(I use that term loosely) to System V. It seems as if Autozone was happy with their previous installation but was forced to look at another alternative as a result of SCo's actions. Sounds like a baby crying over spilled milk to me.
BTW, if you go to the user preferences section and click on the "Homepage" tab you will note a rather large table that lets you exclude stories based on topic as well as other criteria. Check the box next to Caldera. That's the "old" name for the bunch of litiguous bastards known as The SCO Group. You can then stick your head back in the sand and stories about SCO will no longer interupt your reading of slashdot. Unless that is, due to a preponderence of apathy and ignorance, SCO happens to win in which case slashdot and a lot of the net as we know it will cease to exist. But don't worry. Some of us who do care will try to stay informed and keep that from happening.
Oh, and quit whining and try to figure stuff out for yourself sometime.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Nahh they'll never take on the NRA...... Moses would just cause a local river to rush over SCO headquarters and obliterate them. Besides having the pillar of fire appearing at all the pretrial hearings would be pretty un-nerving for Darl......
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
If AutoZone wins this motion, anybody else SCO sues can just cite that, and their case will go in the queue after IBM/Novell/Red Hat. At that point, litigation against Linux users from SCO becomes an empty threat. You don't have to pay big legal fees to defend the case; you just have to have a lawyer file a motion citing AutoZone, and the case goes on hold for years, while three Fortune 1000 companies crush SCO in court.
There are some great lines in AutoZone's motion. "There is no reason for SCO to have been so obtuse in its pleading, unless SCO is intentionally trying to avoid identifying the nature and basis of its purported claims." "Rule 8 does not require the defendants in federal court lititgation to engage in such guessing games." "However, SCO's "hide-the-eight-ball" tactics in the IBM case leave AutoZone with little realistic belief that SCO will voluntarily identify the basis for its claims without this Court's intervention.".
Meanwhile, SCO stock is down to 7.05 today. There was a big runup last Thursday morning, probably due to SCO's stock buyback program. The overall effect is that the price is back to where it was a week ago. SCO is down about 60% since the beginning of the year.
Time is now against SCO. Nobody is going to pay them unless they win all those lawsuits. It looks like they'll run out of money first.
Something to think about: when SCO tanks, somebody will buy the "UNIX intellectual property". Who's likely to do that? Sun? Microsoft? Red Hat?