SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone [Updated] 1252
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."
not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)
Or perhaps SCO hopes to take on Sun as well?
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)
Would this qualify as extortion or racketeering? =)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like this is a company using Linux to derive their core revenue (like a hosting company, for example) - they are using it more as an operational tool. For them, this is an annoyance, not a critical business threat...
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
The press probably will not note the distinction. However, a court of law would. The future ruling/settlement would have nothing to do with the IBM, Novell or Red Hat cases.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to state the obvious but the court of public opinion here is just as important (if not more so?) then the courts of law. If SCO wins with their FUD then we are all screwed.
I can imagine a future where anybody using Linux is automatically labeled a "hacker" or some other such label by ignorant congresscritters/others in power who have bought into the SCO FUD -- "What? Your using Linux? Why? Do you share movies or something?"
The best thing that could happen here is for SCO to lose and be exposed as the money grubbing litigious bastards that they are. Microsoft's (alleged) involvement being exposed wouldn't hurt either -- shitty software/security aside it'd be nice to expose their ruthless backstabbing business practices to John Q. Public.
However if SCO wins this (or any other lawsuit for that matter) -- and I'm sure they picked something with at least a little bit of merit (they aren't stupid) we could be in serious trouble. You think the FUD and the public perception (DoS attacks against SCO's website don't help us here any) is bad now? Just wait and see how bad it gets if they win one of these...
Re:"The court of public opinion" is a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"The court of public opinion" is a non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
To have merit, SCO's "belief" that AutoZone copied their shared libs to Linux would need to be proven true.
But it is indeed not true [groklaw.net]. AutoZone did not use SCO's shared libraries. So not only is the case not really about companies simply using Linux being at risk, but the wrongdoing AutoZone is accused of is merely speculation on SCO's part.
But this case should be a wake-up call for anyone who has actually copied SCO's shared libs.... to either replace them with the GPL's alternative, or do a true port and make a clean break away from anything remoting having to do with compatibility with OpenServer and UnixWare.
Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Interesting)
I must add that SCO was eventually made aware of AutoZone's transition to Linux. They responded by offering to assist AutoZone in the porting activity.
If there's a God in Heaven, and he's listening...please let Jim Greer find his documentation for this!
C'mon Slashdot - let's spend real karma for this! Bow your head and join me in a quick silent prayer to the Deity of your choice....
Weaselmancer
Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Insightful)
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 know this is off-topic, but I've seen this quite a bit. Now that Redhat have discontinued their end-user distribution, how many large contracts will they miss out on because the department head is familiar with some other distribution instead?
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Funny)
Would this qualify as extortion or racketeering?
Neither. Being that it's part of SCO's pump and dump scam I'd call it fraud.
How to litigate... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
That is very easy. It is not about their internet site, but rather their intranet. Check this [redhat.com] redhat announcement.
(i got this link from www.groklaw.net)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't talk about Linux to the press.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Funny)
Sincerly,
Darl
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Funny)
Fight Club... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if every Linux-using company publically says that they're using it, SCO will have 20 zillion lawsuits to file.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Take out RedHat allies at the knees. A long-time buyer of RedHat (Enterprise?) technologies coming down hard might scare away other buyers, for fear of the same thing happening to them. Just like a fascist regime.
'Fear will keep the local systems in line - fear of this battlestation!'
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
It's mentioned in the IBM lawsuit:
Autozone switched from SCO to Linux [groklaw.net]. Is well known. The core of this issue is that SCO claims that they were using SCO shared libraries even after switching to Linux.
They had to do something to keep their stock from tanking on the financial results, I guess. Now IBM and RedHat lawyers will have more to work on.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got yet another question. If AutoZone WAS using SCO, then presumably they have or had a SCO license, right? They "bought" the software to run on their machines. As long as that license didn't expire, didn't they have the right to take portions of that software and keep it running on those machines, under another OS? Why is it automatically assumed that using shared libraries which AutoZone had the right to would be infringement? What exactly were the terms of SCO's license, anyway?
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
This is one of the problems the GPL was designed to deal with, BTW. The GPL gives you porting permission. :)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Screw that, they have to first prove what parts of linux are allegedly "stolen"
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
They claimed exactly that.
They're claiming that the shared libraries that come with SCO's UNIX weren copied onto LINUX machines contrary to the license in order to provide a binary environment for their third party applications to continue running.
That would be a moderately plausible thing to claim, but it's not what SCO is saying. Quote:
That very clearly alleges that Linux itself contains SCO code, not that SCO code is running hosted by or on top of Linux, as within an application.
However, that quote just comes from the press release, not the court filing. Maybe they claimed one thing to the media, and another in court. That could be a sleight-of-hand, so that winning a lawsuit on a different issue might be publicly interpreted as winning against Linux itself. Yet another way to hold off admitting that've got no claim to Linux itself.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
Assume Windows licenses are under a subscription model. You decide to switch to Linux, but need to run your Windows apps. So, you copy
THIS IS WHAT SCO IS CLAIMING, not necessarily what happened. If it did, it's the first time SCO has a strong case. However, one of the people behind the conversion has spoken on Groklaw, and said that they did not copy SCO libs.
Lets hope they didn't use Nmap (Score:5, Funny)
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?)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Funny)
Not in Slashdotland they don't!
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, except for companies that do most of their business in ecommerce (still a real minority) it's only the throw-away boxes that are facing outward.
A friend of mine works at an autozone (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:A friend of mine works at an autozone (Score:5, Informative)
Lowe's runs CDE on their terminals. They have them locked down pretty tight too - my wife works in their main corporate office, and we got to play with one at one of their retail stores recently.
In fact, the funny thing is that the CEO of my company is an E&Y alumni - he said that he knows a lot of the people over at Lowes and we'll just say they aren't the brightest of the bunch. From what I have seen of a lot of their internal ops, I would have to agree.
And I think I'll just check this post anonymously button...
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
Why this is more FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [groklaw.net]. 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.
Re:Why this is more FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
So? They paid for the original licenses, they can do anything the want with the libraries except re-sell them or reverse engineer them with an intent to reveal the information for profit. SCO would only have a case if AZ was paying a maintenance license, and let it expire.
You gotta be kidding me! This isn't an intellectual property issue, it's a EULA-violation issue. I'd be laughing my ass off if it wasn't for the fact that I'm seriously pissed off about Auto Zone (long time customer).
Bush and crew, if you want re-election, look here: Barratry is bad for business! Tell Ashcroft to stop worrying about abortion doctors and start protecting American jobs and investors!
Uh Oh (Score:5, Funny)
They are going to get flamed to death for not using "GNU/Linux"....
Poor litigious bastards!
Re:Why this is more FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at the headlines in the news articles about this case on google news [google.com.au]
All along the lines of "SCO Sues AutoZone Over Use of Linux"
The case IS NOT ABOUT LINUX. It is about using SCO claiming that autozone are using SCO SHARED LIBRARIES IN A WAY THEY'RE NOT LICENSED TO.
As has already been shown by Jim Geer's comments, they aren't doing so, but even if they were... it wouldn't matter WHICH os they were now using SCO shared libraries under. It could be using them on a Commodore 64 and it would be an identical case!
But, the press being what they are have soaked up the meme of "SCO is against linux" and repeated it back in the essence of their headlines, making the world at a casual glimpse think this case is about SCO code in Linux in general.
That makes me sad.
Re:Why this is more FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the reason they all get away with such loose journalism is that nobody challenges it. I've already emailed four. Their stories seem basically correct but still carry the SCO party line as an undertone, and especially in headlines
Re:Why this is more FUD (Score:5, Funny)
I see a pattern here.
*rim-shot*
Re:Ask Jim Geer: SCO's Autozone claims FALSE (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ask Jim Geer: SCO's Autozone claims FALSE (Score:5, Funny)
I see. Mr. Greer, meet Mr. Subpoena. Mr. Subpoena, Mr. Greer.
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.
Yeah, yeah...tell it to the judge, Jim.
Mr. Subpoena (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Legal Defense Fund (Score:5, Interesting)
--G
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Your best assistance would be to go to http://finance.yahoo.com under the stock symbol AZO. Go to the messageboards and reassure the stock holders reading the messageboard there that this is just part of SCO's continuing practice and the lawsuit should be taken lightly.
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:5, Interesting)
Correction: Any of us who used to use SCO Unix and is migrating to Linux could be next. If you don't have a contract with SCO and aren't a distributor of Unix or Linux, i.e., if you are normal end user, there is nothing they could possibly get you for.
Besides, if the allegations aren't true, and no SCO libraries are being used, it should be easy to prove and this case will be dropped very quickly (at least quick for the judicial system).
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:5, Funny)
They even have a website [autozone.com] where you can do the same thing. Send in some money, help Autozone defeat the evil SCO, get a free prize to boot!
Donate your $$ today!
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:5, Insightful)
--G"
Well, the easiest way to help AutoZone would be to actively purchase your auto parts needs there. Photocopy your receipt and write a letter to their CEO stating that you are in support of them against the SCO and you exercise your dollars based upon your beliefs (and I don't mean religious). If everyone did that, and people signed that they gave permission to the CEO to use the letters as how he or she felt fit to, that would help them out. Or, someone could create an AutoZone share purchasing club online...bring media attention to the whole debate.
Autozone???? Not quite expected (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Autozone???? Not quite expected (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I'm just waiting for "F*** SCO" to appear on the body of a NASCAR racing machine.
Re:Autozone???? Not quite expected (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a strategic campaign to install fear in the hearts and minds of corporate CEO's who lack IT skills. Google could laugh the SCO case off and continue with their Linux tinkerings, but if SCO continues to sue companies lacking IT at their core, then this will create FUD amongst other corporations and perhaps SCO thinks they'll actually increase their customer base. Probably the exact opposite will happen, but it will be a bumpy ride for the meantime.
Newwire (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Don't forget today's phone conference (Score:5, Informative)
Further info (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I posted this over on Groklaw... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Autozone? Seriously, that's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
/. readers predict the future ;-) (Score:5, Insightful)
After just reading this thread [slashdot.org] 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 :)
I predict ... (Score:5, Funny)
SCOX 1Q statement (Score:5, Informative)
LINDON, Utah, Mar 3, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX/ -- The SCO Group, Inc. (SCOX [slashdot.org], Trade [slashdot.org]), 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
SCO, y'all suck! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope AutoZone countersues them into the ground in a most genteel, southernly manner.
Now off for my morning bowl of hot grits.
Just my luck.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is a distraction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
info on Autozone's Linux uses (Score:5, Informative)
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.
AutoZone not using SCO's shared libs (Score:5, Informative)
Yet again, the facts aren't in SCO's favor. Read this comment from the former Sr Technical Advisor at AutoZone [groklaw.net], 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.
I get to vote with my wallet ... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
an old groklaw comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Jim Greer had a good comment on groklaw [groklaw.net] a few weeks ago about Autozone and the details of their linux transition.
Supplemental No. 8: AutoZone claims are false (Score:5, Informative)
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.
If you want to help AutoZone out... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [autozone.com]
Even if SCO succeeds, AutoZone will be able to pay them off via air freshener sales to thoughtful Linux users.
Cheers,
Re:If you want to help AutoZone out... (Score:5, Funny)
...and let the poor guys running AutoZone's webserver decipher the symbolism of being sued by SCO and watching their store locator database server catch on fire in the same morning. Very subtle!
Why its not odd... (Score:5, Informative)
(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.
Re:Why its not odd... (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't consider AutoZone "technologicallly weak." You make the mistake of underestimating AZO possibly because it's not a hard-core tech company. One of AZO's divisions, Alldata, is heavily involved with the the digital distribution of automotive information. Their distribution system is considered an industry model for efficiency and automation. It's my belief that AZO will crush SCOX. AZO isn't likely to simply roll over -- they've invested way too much in their infrastructure.
Please, do some research on AZO. I think you'll discover that AZO shareholders are more technologically adept than you give them credit for.
SCOsource licensing revenue (Score:5, Funny)
This is great news! (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Reasons SCO is suing AutoZone (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [microsoft.com]--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.
If SCO is bought, the terrorists win (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
From a competitor... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Probably picked the wrong target (Score:5, Funny)
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".
This may not be so random... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Next week on Monster Garage... (Score:5, Funny)
-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.
SCOX stock down 10% (Score:5, Informative)
SCOX is down 10% in early trading [yahoo.com]
Big legal loophole being abused by SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Lowe's or Home Depot might be next... (Score:5, Interesting)
My prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It must have been a delicate decision (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Does SCO has an evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Autozone Success? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Autozone Success? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesse James (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Jesse James (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO Success? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing to do with Linux. (Score:5, Interesting)
From the SCO filing (thank you groklaw):
"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."
So their only evidence for suing is that Autozone managed the transition well. Sounds like a fishing expedition to me. Aren't they illegal?
Re:Excommunicate Darl! (Score:5, Informative)
There are several important doctrines in Mormonism that make such wielding of "IP" distasteful as well, such as the idea that all truth and knowledge comes from one source: the Savior Jesus Christ. By extension, it is somewhat blasphemous to claim exclusive ownership of ideas. Darl's land-grab for all of Unix is in direct conflict with this doctrine (that alone is not grounds for discipline, but his actions certainly could be).
I'd also like to note that excommunication in the Mormon Church does not condemn a person to hell for all of eternity. Excommunication is a means of 1) helping the excommunicated repent by dealing with the consequences of their misdeeds and 2) making sure the name of the Church of Jesus Christ is not sullied by those misdeeds, especially when carried out under the guise of faith (as I think Darl keeps alluding to in his self-righteous crusade to "save" capitalism from Linux).
What that means is that once Darl gets excommunicated, he could be readmitted back into the Church through baptism, if he repents, which in Mormonism entails changing his ways and abandoning his sins (not just confessing them). So his readmittance might be contingent on making amends to the Linux community, reimbursing those businesses he hurt through his deception and lies, etc.