SCO Names 1st Lawsuit Target: AutoZone [Updated]

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

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

Let's hope AutoZone countersues the living daylights out of SCO.

Would this qualify as extortion or racketeering? =)

Re:not just a Linux user

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...

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

Re:not just a Linux user

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."

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

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

"The court of public opinion" does not ware a black robe with "Judge" embroidered on it.

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

In either case, SCO will lose, and bad.

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:"The court of public opinion" is a non-issue

No, the "court of public opinion" instead wears a green robe with dollar signs embroidered on it.

Actually, that would be Rod Roddy. former announcer for The Price Is Right. He was always a little flamboyant with his clothes [buzzgrinder.com].

Re:"The court of public opinion" is a non-issue

What you say maybe true, but if it is, then there are some judges out there that are not worth 10 cents.

My sister was an expert witness on an embezzlement case. The Judge prot em acting as binding arbiter admitted that he did not Know how to turn on a computer

The judge could not understand how she could retrieve data from a computer when the files were "deleted". My sister explained that information was kept in multiple files, and the just "deleting a file is like taking the tabs off the folder, but the files are still there".

The judge said "How do I know you're not just making that up?" and decided for the embezzler.

Re:Prime Time Judges rule America?

O.J.Simpson lost the "court of public opinion" and he is still walking around a free man.

Yeh, he's free, but remeber how O.J. Simpson used to be do lots of television commercials for major corporations at one time? Now he's basically shunned by everyone. I don't think that's the future free software supporters are hoping for for Linux.

Calm down and stop frothing. Think it through.

Sorry, but I don't really give a rats ass if SCO wins or loses any of these lawsuits.

Well you should, if as you say you care "what the rest of the public thinks about Linux". If SCO wins, neither you nor very many people at all will be using Linux for awhile. Pull your head out of your ass and stop blathering. If SCO wins, they will, as you say, "destroy the public perception of free-software and Linux." Therefor, you should care if SCO wins or loses.

Re:"The court of public opinion" is a non-issue

Absolutely true, but the damage to be done by public opinion is not in the courts, but rather in the IT spending budgets.

Fortunately for some of us, we have management that will actually listen to us. My boss trusts me that we have nothing to fear. Of course, we are a public school district, so we wouldn't exactly be first on their list. Companies suing school districts leaves a bad taste in the public's mouth. Microsoft is big enough to do it. SCO is not.

Hey SCO! I use Linux at work! Sue me! Children are exposed to Linux here! Sue me!

Re:Calm down and stop frothing. Think it through.

Actually I do give a rats ass -- I was trying to empathize my primary point -- whatever SCO's goals are (did they really think IBM would roll over?) there are larger forces at work here. Do you think the boys at MS care one way or another about the outcome of the SCO case? They probably do -- bet I'd bet a million bucks they are following the FUD war much more closely.

Every bit of FUD, everytime a corporate PHB refuses to let the IT group use Linux (what's the other option? Windows), everytime the SCO site gets DDoS'ed and the Linux community is blamed (right or wrong) is a small victory for Microsoft.

The whole point being that the FUD wars (the so-called "Court of Public opinion" that you spit on) is just as important then the legal case. If they win the FUD wars then Linux will be set back just as badly (if not more so) then it would have been if we lost the legal case.

Blowing off this latest lawsuit is also dangerous. There is probably just enough truth in what they are saying to actually allow it to go to trial (if it was completely bogus then it would likely be dismissed -- Autozone's lawyers aren't going to be idiots either). A public trial will give SCO a nice forum to spew more FUD -- win or lose.

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

Re:not just a Linux user

Um, a confidentiality clause will not prevent clueless media organizations from headlining the story however they would like, and as has been seen in the past, the more inflammatory the headline the better.

Re:not just a Linux user

Yeah but a confidentiality clause won't keep everything quiet. The headline will still read "AutoZone settles lawsuit with SCO for an undisclosed amount." The fact that they settled will be public information.

So why doesn't SCO offer to settle for 1$ - they get what they want out of it.

It's hard to see what they're (SCO) thinking: these new lawsuits mean that they will be fighting three - THREE - fortune 500 companies at the same time. Forget right or wrong, that's just nuts - each of these companies probably has a legal department bigger than all of SCO... /t

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

Groklaw is down right now, here's the text

[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

Great info on AutoZone

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

Re:Great info on AutoZone

SCO Reponse: Damn... now they're using free speech against us! What shall we do?

Re:Great info on AutoZone

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

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:Great info on AutoZone

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".

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

Re:SCO's final gift to Linux

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.

Summary of SCO call Q&A (w/ AZ/DC suit stuff)

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:

Re:not just a Linux user

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.

Re:not just a Linux user

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 :=)

How to litigate...

...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!

Re:not just a Linux user

Yes, but we have no idea what they are running behind the firewall or webserver.

Re:not just a Linux user

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?

Re:not just a Linux user

If their web site doesn't run Linux, I wonder how SCO determined that Autozone is a Linux user

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

This is why the Fortune 500 company for whom I work has adopted a new Linux strategy:

We don't talk about Linux to the press.

Re:not just a Linux user

Thanks for the information. Our lawyers will be contacting your company by Friday.

Sincerly,
Darl

Re:not just a Linux user

Never did the name "anonymous coward" seem more appropriate.

Fight Club...

The first rule of Linux is... you do not talk about Linux.

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:Fight Club...

Third rule of Linux: when SCO yells "stop", goes limp, taps out, the fight is over.

Screw that, if it's SCO then you better keep choking them, hitting the, or at least get a stake through the heart. They deserve no mercy.

no, that's not it either...

when the SCO body's has no pulse, videotape the dismemberment and ship the body parts to be incinerated. If you have the money, ship the ashes into space; barring that, place them in a lead-lined container and drop them in the deep Pacific.

SCO should looked at like Carthage; not only should they be annhilated, but the ground out of which they sprung should be salted over so that nothing else will ever come from it again. The more companies that think that SCO's business plan is a good idea, the less legitimate companies with legitimate claims will be able to seek relief, while more companies will be inhibited from doing useful saleable work. Nuke 'em till they glow, and then nuke 'em again, just to be sure.

Re:not just a Linux user

You have just fullfilled Microsoft's goal in this suit. If they can obscure the growing use of Linux, they may yet survive...

Re:not just a Linux user

You have just fullfilled Microsoft's goal in this suit. If they can obscure the growing use of Linux, they may yet survive...

Maybe.

But consider the analogy of growing stealth Linux deployments in the enterprise, gnawing away at Microsoft's empire.

It bears an eerie similarity to the stealth PC deployments on the enterprise desktop back in the early 1980s, gnawing away at the mainframe's empire.

In that sense, Linux could succeed using the very same pattern that Microsoft used to succeeded 20 years ago.

p

Re:not just a Linux user

As others have said, keeping quiet about Linux may not be a good thing, as it helps Microsoft.

However, if every Linux-using company publically says that they're using it, SCO will have 20 zillion lawsuits to file.