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."
BBC Article (Score:-1, Informative)
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.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Autozone shareholders (Score:3, Informative)
The symbol is AZO. As of this writing they're down $4.40, to 84.00, in pre-market trading.
Re:BBC Article (Score:0, Informative)
Re:BBC Article (Score:4, Informative)
The article [bbc.co.uk]
The best comment so far (Score:2, Informative)
Go get'em Judge Kimball and Wells!
Re:BBC Article (Score:0, Informative)
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
Autozone used to use SCO (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently the best way to get sued by SCO is to do business with them.
Re:From the original Autozone reporter (Score:2, Informative)
correct link. Maybe it has the nice side effect that groklaw won't be slashdotted
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.
Ask Jim Geer: SCO's Autozone claims FALSE (Score:3, Informative)
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, 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:I think you should get your facts straight (Score:4, Informative)
Someone should get their facts straight, and it's SCO, who were the ones who are making those claims.
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:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know how you can make a statement like this - we've just had two quarters in a row with some of the best quarterly earnings, revenue, and GDP growth in 25 years.
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.
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:not just a Linux user (Score:2, Informative)
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: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:I get to vote with my wallet ... (Score:3, Informative)
SCO chose AZ for a reason, AZ has deep pockets. Check out their 7.7 billion market cap [yahoo.com]. A new set of plugs ain't going to help where they need help.
Try grassroots growing and astroturf mowing. Hearts and minds people!
Re:Don't forget today's phone conference (Score:2, Informative)
******* CHECK IT OUT! ******
According to the AutoZone Corporate Website [corporate-ir.net]
...AutoZone is ALSO having a "2nd Quarter Fiscal 2004 Conference Call", today at 10am EST (that's very soon... about 40 minutes from now).
I highly suggest that people tune in and see if there is any mention of the lawsuit against them!
I'm not sure who is allowed to participate in asking questions, etc..., but perhaps we'll get some more tidbits about the case.
Here's the info: It's for an hour, and unfortunately only WMA and RealPlayer formats for the webcast. I'll poke around and see if there's a phone number or some alternative.
-- Q
Re:SCOX 1Q statement (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SCO Success? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Support Autozone and go and buy something! (Score:3, Informative)
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Gonna go buy (Score:2, Informative)
I think they carry Durabrand, which is higher quality stuff...
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:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:3, Informative)
Markets didnt look the other way... (Score:2, Informative)
Shame.
Currently AZO is off 5.5%.
Re:Legal Defense Fund (Score:2, Informative)
a)they will receive dividends (make money by holding it
b)someone else will buy it for more money
c)they can have control or power over a company
d)all of the above
Ideas and Hammers aren't copyrightable (Score:3, Informative)
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)
SCOX stock down 10% (Score:5, Informative)
SCOX is down 10% in early trading [yahoo.com]
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:2, Informative)
Diego Rey
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:1, Informative)
Looks like they discontinued their SCOG license.
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. :)
SCO is bleeding red ink! (Score:1, Informative)
Predicted in a comment yesterday (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Autozone shareholders (Score:2, Informative)
While a lawsuit may affect the stock price, discouraging sales reports will always affect the stock price.
Re:Jesse James (Score:5, Informative)
SCOX is owned by Mormon church. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:not just a Linux user (Score:3, Informative)
Angel Investors (Score:1, Informative)
How to facilitate Darl's Excommunication (Score:4, Informative)
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?
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.
Re:And the stock prices rise again (Score:2, Informative)
SCO stock (Score:2, Informative)
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 [reuters.com] article. It keys in on SCO strategy: no business plan, no propsects, no problem! We'll steal from, er, sue somebody!
Re:Why this is more FUD (Score:2, Informative)
JacquesItch
Re:A friend of mine works at an autozone (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Darl is evil, just plain evil... (Score:3, Informative)
SCO FUD Machine Broken At Last? (Score:3, Informative)
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?
SCO's final gift to Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Gonna go buy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Further info (Score:3, Informative)
Who's the real loser (Score:4, Informative)
Groklaw is down right now, here's the text (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:not just a Linux user (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Basis for Daimler-Chrysler suit seems odd (Score:2, Informative)
SCO's quarterly report (Score:2, Informative)
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?
"SCO System 5"?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"The court of public opinion" is a non-issue (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Excommunicate Darl! (Score:3, Informative)
WTF are you talking about? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Autozone used to run Unixware pre 1999 (Score:5, Informative)
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 [informationweek.com] (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.
Re:In Nevada? (Score:4, Informative)
Why would they do this? Usually, the venue of the forum state is applied to the dispute. If Nevada's substantive law if favorable for whatever reason, then it makes eminent sense to sue this defendant in this location. I wouldnt be surprised if the defendant was picked at least in part on the Plaintiff's ability to bring the suit in this forum.
If the suit is being brought in state court, then the answer is even easier. If the Defendant conducts business in the jurisdiction, they are subject to suit there.
Some asshole is DoSing Groklaw (Score:3, Informative)
I did read that before Groklaw went down, though. Facinating.
Uh, shut your mouth! (Score:2, Informative)
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!
Bush **IS** big business. Note the recent happenings with Clear Channel firing DJs as a n^Hripple effect of the Superbowl fiasco. Clear Channel is in bed with the Bush administration all the way. And they aren't the only ones by far.
Bush and crew - your days are numbered.
Interesting note (Score:4, Informative)
Re:AZ didn't use SCO code (Score:2, Informative)
Re:SCO's final gift to Linux (Score:5, Informative)
No Pro Forma Numbers, Just GAAP (Score:5, Informative)
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
Summary of SCO call Q&A (w/ AZ/DC suit stuff) (Score:5, Informative)
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:
What SCO is ACTUALLY sueing DaimlerChrysler for... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Here is a bittorrent (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the Deal (probably) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:2, Informative)
While they're allowed to come out with their own distribution and charge for the copies of it (as Red Hat, Mandrake, and other distributions can), they fail to realize how Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. stay in business... by adding value to their product in the field of reputation and support services.
This is why Autozone left SCO for Red Hat if I understand the Autozone developer correctly. It had nothing to do with taking SCO developed libraries and files, but more so an upgrade in Autozone's system where Red Hat was willing to offer support along with the 30+ developers at Autozone to migrate their system.
It's also funny to note that SCO is already claiming in print that they own the UNIX copyrights without the judgement in the IBM case. This is noted in their webpage for the Autozone case:
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=129
LAS VEGAS, Mar 3, 2004
I find this claim (to put it in George Bush's terms) to be "troublesome" or "ill-advised" considering that they're claiming they have a copyright that they have not been deemed entitled to carry and as a result Autozone could countersuit and argue that SCO is making claims on a copyright they have not acquired until the IBM case is over.
To me, I think that SCO is now on the warpath of former SCO customers who migrated over from SCO to other Linux distributions. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the new target for their FUD campaign. You have to think that before Autozone left SCO, they had a relationship where SCO knew how many systems Autozone had running Linux.
DCX? Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
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
SCO's complaint against AutoZone in pdf (Score:3, Informative)
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2004/AutoZoneFin alComplaint.pdf [com.com]
Re:Sweet, sweet closure (Score:3, Informative)
What was he doing on I-40 [wikipedia.org]? It doesn't come within 100 miles of Utah!
Try one of these:
I-80 [wikipedia.org]
I-84 [wikipedia.org]
I-15 [wikipedia.org]
Or better yet, kill him off on a lonely stretch of US 50 [wikipedia.org].
(Yes, I'm a road geek)
Re:Here's the Deal (probably) (Score:2, Informative)
What you probably meant is IBCS [demon.co.uk] (Intel Binary Compatibility Standard). This is a kernel module that allows SCO binaries (among others) to run on your Linux system.