Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone [Updated]

Posted by timothy on Wed Mar 03, 2004 08:42 AM
from the suddenly-I-need-auto-parts dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2 | 3 | 4
  • not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:42AM (#8451037)
    (http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/)
    According to Netcraft, Autozone.com runs on Solaris, using an IBM-modified version of Apache. I wonder if their "disloyalty" to SCO's Unix (in addition to using Linux) factored into their choice of which customer to sue.

    Or perhaps SCO hopes to take on Sun as well?

    • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CrudPuppy (33870) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:44AM (#8451053)
      (http://www.userfriendly.org)
      Let's hope AutoZone countersues the living daylights out of SCO.

      Would this qualify as extortion or racketeering? =)
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TopShelf (92521) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:50AM (#8451124)
        (http://forechecker.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 07, @08:16PM)
        The most likely course of action, I would think, is that AutoZone will get both the injunction and the rest of the lawsuit put on hold pending the outcome of the IBM/SCO wrangle. In the meantime, it will merely act as a potential financial risk of minimal severity.

        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...
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Informative)

          by arkanes (521690) <arkanes&gmail,com> on Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:04AM (#8451270)
          (http://slashdot.org/)
          The AutoZone case, at least from what we've seen so far, doesn't have anything to do with the IBM case. They aren't claiming the use of Linux infringes, they're claiming that AutoZone (with the help of IBM) ported it's inventory/kiosk applications from OpenServer (or was it UnixWare?) to Linux, and that they did so in part by using SCO shared libraries that AutoZone didn't have the rights to move off of the OpenServer systems.
          [ Parent ]
          • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)

            by mistered (28404) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:27AM (#8451481)
            Of course the unfortunate thing is if this case is as you suggest, it may just have merit. And if SCO wins in court or AutoZone settles, does anyone think the press will note the distinction? I can see a headline of "SCO wins suit against company for using Linux."

            [ Parent ]
            • Re:not just a Linux user by cayenne8 (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:41AM
            • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)

              by fritz1968 (569074) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:43AM (#8451619)
              And if SCO wins in court or AutoZone settles, does anyone think the press will note the distinction?

              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.
              [ Parent ]
            • And if SCO wins in court or AutoZone settles, does anyone think the press will note the distinction? I can see a headline of "SCO wins suit against company for using Linux."
              Unlikely. A settlement will most likely include a confidentiality clause.
              [ Parent ]
            • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)

              by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:57AM (#8451762)
              (http://www.pjrc.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 27 2002, @04:31PM)
              if this case is as you suggest, it may just have merit

              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.

              [ Parent ]
              • Re:not just a Linux user by ZoneGray (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:54AM
              • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03 2004, @11:45AM (#8452800)
                [Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring]

                Supplemental No. 8: AutoZone claims are false
                Authored by: jbgreer on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST

                I don't know whether to be pleased or angry at SCO's assertion that IBM must have assisted AutoZone's transition to Linux due to the "precision and efficiency with which the migration occurred". You see, I was a Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone, where I was an employee for over 10 years. During my tenure, I participated and led in the design, development and maintenance of many of AutoZone's store systems. More importantly, I initiated AutoZone's transition to Linux and I directed the port of their existing store software base to Linux. I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. I believe at one point I had as many as 35 AutoZone developers performing porting work for me, much of which was trivial, given that our code did not generally rely on SCO specific features and that the more technologically sophisticated portions of our code tended to reside in our libraries. The developers were also responsible for testing their individual applications under both SCO and Linux; I supplemented this activity by performing builds of the entire AutoZone store software base on my desktop, which I had converted to Linux.

                As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity.

                As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false. It was, in fact, SCO's activities that 'greased the skids' and allowed the business case for using Linux to be made more easily. That is a story long in the telling; perhaps I'll share it another day.

                One should remember the Linux business environment that existed at the time the AutoZone transition began. Several vendors - the original Caldera Linux distribution company, Red Hat, and Linuxcare - were offering support for enterprise installations of Linux. In fact, Bryan Sparks, then CEO of Caldera, flew to Memphis and met with me during my evaluation of the various distribution and support offerings. I also met and talked briefly with Dave Sifry of Linuxcare during the 1999 Linux Expo. AutoZone settled on Red Hat chiefly because of my familiarity with their distribution and the ease with which AutoZone could negotiate a support agreement with them.

                I must add that SCO was eventually made aware of AutoZone's transition to Linux. They responded by offering to assist AutoZone in the porting activity. By the time of their offer, AutoZone had already completed the initial porting activity and had already installed a Linux-based version of their store system in several stores.

                Finally, I'll add that I was for a time a member of SCO's Customer Advisory Board. As such, I believe I have some useful insights as to why SCO lost AutoZone's and several other large accounts' business.

                Regards, Jim Greer
                [ Parent ]
              • NO NO NO! by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:12PM
              • Re:not just a Linux user by thisgooroo (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @07:15PM
              • Novell thinks they cheated? by Ohreally_factor (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @11:17AM
              • Re:not just a Linux user by Curtman (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:03PM
              • Again, no evidence of intelligent life at SCO by Winkhorst (Score:3) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:24PM
              • Re:Groklaw is down right now, here's the text by NotTheNickIWanted (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @01:00PM
              • Re:Novell thinks they cheated? by flint (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @03:31PM
              • Re:Again, no evidence of intelligent life at SCO by Eunuchswear (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @06:24PM
              • Re:Novell thinks they cheated? by shamino0 (Score:1) Thursday March 04 2004, @11:29AM
              • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
            • I think it DOES have merit. by StarKruzr (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @01:41PM
            • Re:not just a Linux user by InfiniteZero (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @05:55PM
            • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
          • Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:45AM (#8451650)
            This [groklaw.net] comment on GrokLaw speaks for itself:

            Supplemental No. 8: AutoZone claims are false
            Authored by: jbgreer on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:00 AM EST

            I don't know whether to be pleased or angry at SCO's assertion that IBM must have assisted AutoZone's transition to Linux due to the "precision and efficiency with which the migration occurred". You see, I was a Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone, where I was an employee for over 10 years. During my tenure, I participated and led in the design, development and maintenance of many of AutoZone's store systems. More importantly, I initiated AutoZone's transition to Linux and I directed the port of their existing store software base to Linux. I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. I believe at one point I had as many as 35 AutoZone developers performing porting work for me, much of which was trivial, given that our code did not generally rely on SCO specific features and that the more technologically sophisticated portions of our code tended to reside in our libraries. The developers were also responsible for testing their individual applications under both SCO and Linux; I supplemented this activity by performing builds of the entire AutoZone store software base on my desktop, which I had converted to Linux.

            As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity.

            As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false. It was, in fact, SCO's activities that 'greased the skids' and allowed the business case for using Linux to be made more easily. That is a story long in the telling; perhaps I'll share it another day.

            One should remember the Linux business environment that existed at the time the AutoZone transition began. Several vendors - the original Caldera Linux distribution company, Red Hat, and Linuxcare - were offering support for enterprise installations of Linux. In fact, Bryan Sparks, then CEO of Caldera, flew to Memphis and met with me during my evaluation of the various distribution and support offerings. I also met and talked briefly with Dave Sifry of Linuxcare during the 1999 Linux Expo. AutoZone settled on Red Hat chiefly because of my familiarity with their distribution and the ease with which AutoZone could negotiate a support agreement with them.

            I must add that SCO was eventually made aware of AutoZone's transition to Linux. They responded by offering to assist AutoZone in the porting activity. By the time of their offer, AutoZone had already completed the initial porting activity and had already installed a Linux-based version of their store system in several stores.

            Finally, I'll add that I was for a time a member of SCO's Customer Advisory Board. As such, I believe I have some useful insights as to why SCO lost AutoZone's and several other large accounts' business.

            Regards, Jim Greer

            [ Parent ]
            • SCO Reponse: Damn... now they're using free speech against us! What shall we do?
              [ Parent ]
            • Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:14AM (#8451922)

              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

              [ Parent ]
              • Choice? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @03:33PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
            • Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:20AM (#8451973)

              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?

              [ Parent ]
            • Predicted in a comment yesterday by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:28AM
            • Re:Great info on AutoZone by MrLint (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:57AM
            • Re:Great info on AutoZone (Score:5, Funny)

              by purdue_thor (260386) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @11:17AM (#8452539)
              I'm so lost. How is it possible that someone from Caldera -- which is now The Sco Group, came out to pitch his Linux products, and then after they go with someone else, sues them. But they didn't sue them for something illegitimate in the bidding or choosing of RedHat, but that the product (the same one they tried to sell to you) is "illegal".

              I think crack dealers should use this strategy... "If you buy from someone other than me, I'll turn you into the cops for buying drugs".
              [ Parent ]
          • Re:not just a Linux user by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:50AM
          • Re:not just a Linux user by FireFury03 (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:57AM
          • Re:not just a Linux user by drinkypoo (Score:3) Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:35AM
          • Re:not just a Linux user by netglen (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:46AM
          • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Makarakalax (658810) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:49AM (#8452259)
            (http://www.methylblue.com/)
            So does that mean SCO wouldn't be suing AutoZone if they'd never used proprietry software in the first place? Sounds like an excellent argument for staying clear of software with restricted licenses to me.
            [ Parent ]
          • SCO's final gift to Linux by Doc Ruby (Score:3) Wednesday March 03 2004, @11:20AM
            • Re:SCO's final gift to Linux (Score:5, Informative)

              by fishbonez (177041) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @01:09PM (#8453732)
              SCO has no proof that any of its libraries were used. In fact, it is pure speculation on their part. In their suplemental response to interogatory #8 in SCO vs IBM they 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.
              SCO's lawsuit is based upon the belief that AutoZone's conversion to Linux could not have occurred without using SCO's libraries. They have no facts to support this belief and plainly state that it is speculation using the phrase "which suggests". As if SCO doesn't have enough weak ass lawsuits already. I expect AutoZone to go for a quick dismissal of the case provided they are not using the libraries. They only have to prove they are not using SCO's libraries, which could be done quite easily.
              [ Parent ]
          • by Rorgg (673851) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @01:19PM (#8453858)
            BWAHHH! The call was freakin' BRUTAL on SCO. Let me see if I can recap the Q&A

            Q1: So, what's the basis for the AutoZone suit? I read the guy who did the conversion says IBM wasn't involved, nor did they use any of your code. [This was on Groklaw]
            A: Third party sites are really just shills for IBM. But sorry, Wells [judge in the IBM case] told us not to get into specifics. This is about our IP though blah blah protectrightscakes. We'll leave it for the courtroom.

            Q2 [Skiba]: Is the $3.4 mil you spent on legal expenses expected to cover the new suits too?
            A: Yes

            Q3 [Boston Globe]: So what does the Daimler suit have to do with Linux?
            A: It's actually about them not answering the letter we sent them ordering them to state they're not illegally running any of our stuff, as they should of done, since we had a contract.
            Follow Up Q: So, this doesn't have anything to do with Linux per se?
            A: Well, we don't have any proof, but they haven't said that they're NOT infringing, so we'll sue and see what happens.

            Q4: Why AutoZone and Daimler?
            A: AZ's using our IP and DC hasn't answered our letter.

            Q5 [E-Week]: Clarify on AutoZone... is it about the conversion libraries?
            A: It's an issue, but it's not the core of the copyright claim.

            Q6 [Computerworld]: So what happens if companies continue to not pay?
            A: We'll sue them too.
            FUQ: Will you return the money if you lose the relevant cases, and it's found that you have no IP rights in Linux?
            A: We revealed some code last summer and Linux people admitted our code was erroneously in Linux. We're very confident that infringement is occuring. [Totally ducks the question]

            Q7: So you're not actually claiming any infringement on Daimler?
            A: No.

            Q8: Don't these two new suits hinge on you winning vs. Novell to show who actually owns the IP?
            A: No, because we own the IP. We have a filed copyright for it.

            Q9: Are you planning to take this litigation strategy abroad?
            A: Yes, we're looking into Asia and Europe right now.

            Q10 [Investors Business Daily]: Aren't you afraid of sending the message you're going after your own customers first? When are you going to sue Linux users who AREN'T your customers?
            A: AutoZone and Daimler aren't CURRENT SCO customers, they haven't paid us for a while. But they're still bound by our licenses and contracts, so we're suing them.

            Q11: How's this timeline for the new cases going to be affected by the IBM and Novell cases?
            A: It's impossible to predict the future, neither of these are relevant to the IBM case, and the Daimler suit is s astate case, so it will proceed more quickly.

            Q12: Any upcoming suits in the UK, say in the next few months?
            A: Not going to discuss that today. We're working on IP enforcement in Europe and Japan, but they're a bit behind.
            FUQ: Can you comment on the Australian case? [A group called CyberKnights have filed complaints with the Australian CCC (like the FTC in the US) that's similar to the RedHat v. SCO suit].
            A: Nobody's suing us in Australia.
            FUQ: You're not familiar with CyberKnights?
            A: No.

            Q13: So we've seen SCOsource have one customer [EV1]. How do you count that revenue?
            A: As we receive the money. Some are one time, some are over time. EV1 is paying over time, but we can't go into specifics.

            Q14: You said before the Novell suit has no bearing on these cases, but it seems like it has a lot of bearing on any copyright suit.
            A: Well, they said they had it, then backed off, then came back. We've always said the copyright is ours.
            FUQ: But both of you have registered the copyright. Don't you have to prove you own it?
            A: That's for the court to decide.
            FUQ: Why's you file in Nevada for AutoZone?
            A: That's where they are.
            FUQ: Back to the bit about suing ex-/customers, don't you think that'll scare off potential customers?
            A: Our current customers love us, they're cheering us on for protecting their rights.
            FUQ: I mean FUTURE customers.
            A:
            [ Parent ]
          • Re:not just a Linux user by decoder (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @02:00PM
          • Re:not just a Linux user by Enahs (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @04:10PM
          • Re:not just a Linux user by Stephen Samuel (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @05:56PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:not just a Linux user by A_Wandering_Nomad (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @10:40AM
        • Re:not just a Linux user by RubberJohnny (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @11:55AM
        • Re:not just a Linux user by Zeinfeld (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:12PM
        • Re:not just a Linux user by JawFunk (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @03:08PM
        • A response from AutoZones (former) head geek by Stephen Samuel (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @04:13PM
      • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Funny)

        by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:58AM (#8451212)
        (http://www.grub.net/blog/index.html | Last Journal: Wednesday June 27, @08:48AM)

        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.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:not just a Linux user by drxyzzy (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @09:40AM
        • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)

          I think that to be fair to Lawyers in general we should recall that many of them took up law studies because of an aptitude and interest in the interpretation and application of Law. Much as a nuclear scientist is motivated by an interest in physics and then may go on to work on weapons or medical fields.

          If we choose to employ lawyers in dubious disputes it is their paymasters we should be criticising and not automatically the lawyers themselves.

          At the end of the day it is the politicians job to create the framework under which the law operates and we should remind ourselves that through the operation of democracy we can change the politicians.

          Of course you can argue that an individual can choose to work for different causes and that greed often motivates the choice but you can vote for social engineering through the tax system or other mechanisms.

          I dont have any particular political alliegance but I have a strong suspicion that there is undue influence on the political process by pressure groups with a lot of money. Removing undue influence by money applies as much to politics as it does to lawyers.

          Soviet style systems are a dead duck but I see serious cracks in the US too, however there doesnt seem to be a candidate guiding principal to improve the situation at the momment. Maybe society is so complicated now that a single guiding principal isnt enough, we could sure do with something to rally round and believe in these days. Penguin power perhaps is one of them :=)
          [ Parent ]
        • To Sue or Not to Sue, that is no longer a question by cbelt3 (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:34PM
      • Re:not just a Linux user by RevDobbs (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:15PM
      • Re:not just a Linux user by ductormalef (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:55PM
      • Re:not just a Linux user by *no comment* (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @01:05PM
      • Re:not just a Linux user by mcpkaaos (Score:1) Wednesday March 03 2004, @01:11PM
      • NOW I see what they're doing! by Chordonblue (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @05:33PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • How to litigate... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rexz (724700) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:45AM (#8451065)
      ...for fun and profit. I hope those of you considering startups are paying very close attention to SCO's revolutionary example. One day all business will be like this!
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SwissCheese (571510) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:45AM (#8451067)
      Yes, but we have no idea what they are running behind the firewall or webserver.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:not just a Linux user by nathanhart (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:46AM
    • Re:not just a Linux user by TruffleGuy (Score:2) Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:46AM
    • Re:not just a Linux user (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AndroidCat (229562) on Wednesday March 03 2004, @08:47AM (#8451095)
      (http://home.primus.ca/~ronsharp/tororg.html)
      If their web site doesn't run Linux, I wonder how SCO determined that Autozone is a Linux user. (I imagine that SCO will have to show that specific machines are running Linux.) Did SCO port-probe Autozone's IP space? Is Darl a skript-kiddie?
      [ Parent ]