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..
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.
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.
The truth is coming to light (thanks in large part to Groklaw) even outside the geek community.
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.
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.
Previous reply was pretty much correct. When playing eight ball, the goal is to sink all of one's balls, then make the eight ball to win. If you are in an impossible position (i.e. you can't make any of your own balls), the best strategy is to "hide the 8-ball" so that your opponent can't win either.
However, there is no "stalemate" in pool, so your goal in hiding the eight-ball is to allow you (or force your opponent) to move your balls into better positions so that you might win.
Perfect analogy.
CV
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.