Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Caldera News

AutoZone Granted Limited Stay in SCO Copyright Case 149

Posted by CowboyNeal from the win-some-lose-some dept.
michael path writes "From Yahoo: Judge Robert C. Jones on Monday denied AutoZone's request to transfer its copyright case with The SCO Group from Nevada to a Tennessee court, but also granted a limited stay to the auto parts chain."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AutoZone Granted Limited Stay in SCO Copyright Case More

AutoZone Granted Limited Stay in SCO Copyright Case

Comments Filter:

  • And on and on and on.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by TheShadowHawk ( 789754 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:22PM (#9712976) Homepage

    Man.. this is getting all so boring. It will just drags out for years. Wake me up just before SCO get crushed.

  • Yawn... must be a slow geek news day. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:24PM (#9712984)
    The "stay" has very little power to it. It basically says that there will be no more major courtroom events for the next 90 days, meanwhile the discovery phase of the case is still ongoing and SCO can still try to peer into AutoZone's operations through that process. All we know for sure now is that it won't be going to trial nor be dismissed in the next 90 days, unless the judge doubles back on his own ruling which is also possible so... uhm, what does this tell us?

    This is not any ruling on the merits of the case, nor a firm concurance with AutoZone's agreement with SCO's own request that the case be delayed until IBM v. SCO is settled. There's really not much news in this... but this is Slashdot where any action in the SCO lawsuit is reported.

    Wake me when it's over...

    • Re:Yawn... must be a slow geek news day. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:40PM (#9713077)
      This isn't exactly correct. SCO *only* gets to do discovery related to a preliminary injunction. The judge told them not to bother with the discovery if they're not going to try for a preliminary injuction - which sets a trap for them. If they pursue an injuction then they have to go forth and try to prove that the stay would cause them massive harm. The stay will continue unless SCO decides to admit to more than they have been prepared to.
      • SCO *only* gets to do discovery related to a preliminary injunction.
        For the most part, that's a distinction without a difference... to win a preliminary injunction you need to prove that 1. There'd be an ongoing harm and 2. that your case has at least some merit. Since SCO is still looking for it's first shred of merit...

        The judge told them not to bother with the discovery if they're not going to try for a preliminary injuction - which sets a trap for them.
        Only if SCO forgets to hand in their legal home
        • There is a difference though. The amount of discovery will be significantly more limited. It won't be the all out protracted fishing expedition that SCO has been trying to do with IBM. Now, SCO might try anyway - and probably will given their history - but they'll probably be slammed by the judge if they do.

      • Re:Yawn... must be a slow geek news day. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by gi-tux ( 309771 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:58PM (#9713430) Homepage
        "SCO's principal argument in opposition to AutoZone's motion is that it will suffer irreparable harm if the case is stayed."
        I believe that the key words were irreparable harm. And it is obvious that a stay will cause irreparable harm to SCO. After all if they don't win this one before they lose to IBM, then they can't win this one. Thus a lose to SCO that can't possible be recovered :-)

        I am giving all the business that I can to AutoZone. Seems like they are always getting picked on. I remember when they used to be named Auto Shack, until Radio Shack sued them over their name.

        • I prefere AutoZone over Murray's any chance I get. However, Murrays does tend to have the parts I need on-hand more often.
      • Oh, thank You! That summary was better than the whole Yahoo article.

        One could tell from the self-contradictions that they'd garbled something important, but finding the actual Order to read it seemed like ... well ... work.
    • well, besides the discovery being limited to facts related to the injunction SCO is requesting only, and they're told to do NO discovery if they know they won't qualify for said. And that the motion to transfer wasn't denied, nothing was done with it. And it's not held for 90 days, but every 90 days they're to report before the judge and give them a status report. Giving SCO the right to limited discovery may be questionable, but if the judge sees them overreaching, he'll just smack them around.
    • This is completely wrong. It says that SCO's complaints will not be dealt with by the court until the IBM and Redhat suits are over, with two tiny exceptions:

      If SCO are sure they can show irreparable harm (that is, Autozone is continuing to do "something" that causes SCO to lose "something" that can't be compensated by monetary damages) they can do limited discovery specifically for a motion for a preliminary injunction. Nothing more. The judged specifically made a point that this is not a fishing license

  • SCO's argument (Score:5, Funny)

    by iMaple ( 769378 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:25PM (#9712993)
    SCO's principal argument in opposition to AutoZone's motion is that it will suffer irreparable harm if the case is stayed.

    Well I thought they loved that .... From the track record they have of suing people. And isnt it impossible for an almost dead company to suffer more harm ? Oh..I get it .. The SCO executives when looking for new jobs say "We almost won, but the court stayed the case and we suffered irreparable harm"

    • Re:SCO's argument (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They aren't going to need new jobs -- they earned more than enough selling their stock when the price was high.

    • Re:SCO's argument (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Vthornheart ( 745224 )
      Hey, what happens if they go out of business before the court cases clear up? Would they be thrown out of court?

      • Re:SCO's argument (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pediddle ( 592795 )
        Companies never *really* go out of business. SCO still has creditors, and the creditors will want to be paid. So bankruptcy courts will need to auction off SCO's assets, which right now consists of their supposed intellectual property in the form of UNIX. If AutoZone really is infringing on SCO's copyright, then the creditors would still have a right and necessity to continue to enforce it.
      • This is something I've pondered. Although I admit IANAL, I figure what'll happen is the following:

        *First, the Bankrupcy Trustee files a petition to put all of these lawsuits on hold, & has one of the Trustee's own lawyers review what cards SCO actually is holding in their hand. In other words, is there any point to actually continuing with the case?

        *Based on that, the Trustee will attempt either to sell the intellectual property connnected with these lawsuits to another party, or settle. The Trustee's
        • "Selling IP connected to one or more of these lawsuits to another party (say Microsoft) means the lawsuit goes on in some form."

          Unless IBM makes the best offer. SCOX may be worth more dead than alive.

    • Re:SCO's argument (Score:5, Informative)

      by Macadamizer ( 194404 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:43PM (#9713088)
      "SCO's principal argument in opposition to AutoZone's motion is that it will suffer irreparable harm if the case is stayed."

      The reason for this language is because "irreperable harm" is the standard for granting or denying an injunction, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It's a legal term of art. Nothing more than that.

      It's like when you go to the doctor -- when they write up their reports, they say "patient complained of..." So, even if you aren't a whiner, they say you are a complainer -- not to put you down, but because it is a term of art...
      • The reason for this language is because "irreperable harm" is the standard for granting or denying an injunction, depending on which side of the fence you are on. It's a legal term of art. Nothing more than that.

        I beg to differ.

        While the law does have specific meanigns for words, they don't by and large have empty words. When the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", that's exactly what they mean--and there are tens of thousands of additional words to help explain what those four words mean.

        "Irreper
        • Right. And purely monetary damage isn't considered irreparable, since it can be fixed with. . .money.

          What's funny is that "in a way" SCO is being irreparably harmed by the injunction, as they now have a lot less power to threaten other companies. Their power to threaten and intimidate, which was based on smoke and mirrors anyway, is being irreparably harmed.
          • What's funny is that "in a way" SCO is being irreparably harmed by the injunction, as they now have a lot less power to threaten other companies. Their power to threaten and intimidate, which was based on smoke and mirrors anyway, is being irreparably harmed.

            We could say that this already happened when they filed their lawsuit against IBM in the first place, then basically just trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel finding WMDs... err... evidence. So it can be argued they already did the irreparable
          • What harmed SCO was filing lawsuits its IP couldn't cash. Of course, it made certain people plenty of money...
      • It's like when you go to the doctor -- when they write up their reports, they say "patient complained of..." So, even if you aren't a whiner, they say you are a complainer -- not to put you down, but because it is a term of art...

        This happened in my wife's office. I don't consider it confidential because the woman involved was screaming the details for anyone and everyone to hear.

        My wife was taking the medical history of a patient, and in due course asked whether the patient use tobacco, drank alcohol,

  • I wonder (Score:5, Funny)

    by AVryhof ( 142320 ) <amos@vry[ ]research.com ['hof' in gap]> on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:26PM (#9712999) Homepage
    You can SCO to hell, SCO to hell and die!

    Honestly, I think they are jumping the gun suing before the courts have ruled on their copyrights. I imagine AutoZone could countersue for extortion if SCO loses the copyright case. They should start the procedings now, maybe it would keep SCO in their place for awhile.

    • Re:I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
      IANAL, but extortion, abuse of process and malicious prosecution all come to mind.

      LK

    • Re:I wonder (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mog007 ( 677810 )
      That's too good a fate for SCO. I hope during the IBM case the judge finds some way to sentence Darl to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, even though it's a civil suit.

      Better yet, just get IBM to use their vast legal money to bankrupt SCO before they get a chance to pick on anybody else.

      *Disclaimer*
      This message brought to you by a self-proclaimed mortal enemy of SCO.
    • Hmm, I saw something interesting reading between your words:
      Honestly, I think they are jumping the gun suing before the courts have ruled on their copyrights.

      Doesn't that sound like their next step? ( Can you sue a judge? "He didn't cooperate with out extor-- um, revenue plan!")

    • I'm only half ass following this SCO stuff but I'm pretty sure that the SCO vs Autozone thing has nothing to do with SCO vs IBM/LINUX thing. Someone will be along shortly to correct me if I'm wrong I'm sure :P

  • tantrum? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:26PM (#9713003)
    AutoZone had used SCO's OpenServer Unix until 2001, when it started to switch over to Red Hat Linux. AutoZone completed its migration to Linux in 2002.
    it kind of seems like this lawsuit is really just a way for SCO to punish AutoZone for no longer using SCO's product.

    • Re:tantrum? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:30PM (#9713302)
      Let's be very clear on SCO's motives. They're being a puppet to cast FUD on Linux while getting money from Microsoft to stay afloat. In the meantime, their executives are trying to rape the company for golden parachutes, salary, and sales of stock options. Extending the lawsuits is *good* for SCO, because the purpose of the lawsuits at this point is not to win: the grounds of their lawsuits are frankly too weak to actually win in court. Failing in any way that discredits the suits or reduces the cost or risk of the lawsuits to their chosen targets is *BAD* for SCO, because it reduces the effectiveness of their lawsuits and reduces the likelihood of an out of court settlement and reduces Microsoft's willingness to continue funding them.
      • I would love to hear that McBride will be siting next cell to Ken Lay in the pound in the butt state prison
      • Executives raping the company may not be accurate.

        From what I understand of their revenue plan, they are no longer selling any products, nor supporting any products, nor making any real money anywhere else. Why do they still have ANY employees?

        Executives won't fire themselves, but it seems to me they have to have cut most of their staff loose by now...

        If people know differently, please grace us with your wisdom?
    • So if I switch from Colgate to Crest, will Colgate sue me for copyright violations for toothpaste?

  • Denied AutoZone's request to transfer? Not quite. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:32PM (#9713035) Homepage
    From Yahoo: Judge Robert C. Jones on Monday denied AutoZone's request to transfer its copyright case with The SCO Group from Nevada to a Tennessee court

    According to Groklaw, this [groklaw.net] is not true. They say the issue of transfer is undecided. That is different than denied AutoZone's request to transfer.

  • Whew that was close (Score:3, Funny)

    by spektricide ( 749293 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:34PM (#9713050) Journal
    I can't believe Auto Zone wanted to drag them to Tennessee. Next thing you know they'll be suing cause they got the patent on country music. Only $600 to unlock all your DRM files from your favorite country artits

    SCO-I hope they die...I hope they rot.

  • like the article mentions this all happened at the beginning of this week, groklaw had it on tuesday autozone stay [groklaw.net] pj commented all this with a somewhat different point of view but why not read it for yourself (in case you still care).
    me, I still enjoy the show, watching them drown slowly...

  • SCO investors *everywhere* catch on... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by diagnosis ( 38691 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:45PM (#9713099) Homepage
    As Geeks have known ever since this whole SCO debacle started, SCO's claims are bunk. But up until relatively recently, SCO has had artificially high stock valuation as a result of their insane Linux ownership claims.

    About 1 year ago I tried to get approval for an options trading account so I could sell SCO short (ie make money when their stock drops). Unfortunately I didn't have sufficient liquid assets to get options trading approval from my trading company.

    Well, now the rest of the world has caught on, sort of; SCO is still up about 150% from two years ago, but down about 75% from its high. I think there is still a ways to fall...they certainly deserve it.

    ---------------------
    Freedom or Evil: Freevil.net [freevil.net]
    G. W. Bush says, "You decide!"

    • Re:SCO investors *everywhere* catch on... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ptbarnett ( 159784 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:45PM (#9713361)
      About 1 year ago I tried to get approval for an options trading account so I could sell SCO short (ie make money when their stock drops). Unfortunately I didn't have sufficient liquid assets to get options trading approval from my trading company.

      You may not have asked for the right thing.

      There are no options written for SCOX, and there never have been. See here [cboe.com] for yourself. Had there been PUT options available, you could have bought those to make money when SCO's stock price crashed. The good thing about options: if you simply buy calls and puts, your loss is limited to your original investment.

      Selling short does not involve option trading. It is effectively borrowing stock from holders of SCO at your brokerage and selling it, with the hope that you will be able to buy it back at a lower price to close out the position. If the stock price skyrockets, your potential loss is limited only by how high the price rises. There's a phenomena known as a "short squeeze", where short sellers try to close out their position by buying the stock, which only pushes the price higher.

      In order to sell short, you must have a margin account. Depending on the brokerage and the specific stock, margin requirements are different. At mine (Fidelity), the margin requirement for SCOX is 60%, which means you would have to put up $6,000 in cash or marginable equities to short $10,000 of SCOX stock. They also have a minimum account balance.

      50% is the initial Federal requirement (at the time of the short sell). Fidelity normally allows the margin requirement to drop to 35% (after the initial short) before issuing a margin call -- which requires you to deposit more cash or close out the position. The 60% margin requirement for SCOX indicates a significantly higher risks.

      Part of your problem may have been your lack of knowledge about the terminology and being able to accurately articulate what you wanted to do. The SEC requires brokerages to assess whether clients understand the risks of option trading. I don't know if they are required to do the same for margin trading.

      • The assessment boils down to filling out a form and saying you know what you're talking about, though. I used to have a options and margin enabled account before I switched brokers (haven't bothered asking from the new one, as I haven't had any need), and all I had to do to get it was tick a few boxes.

        There are a few key things to look out for to get an account option trading enabled: You should state that you have a reasonable amount of liquid assets. Your investment goal should be growth/aggressive grow

  • SCO anti-gravity gun holding up stock price? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shanen ( 462549 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:48PM (#9713112) Homepage Journal
    What I still can't understand is what is holding their stock price up? It's just refusing to stay below the $5 point. Natural floor value, my @ss!

    Seriously, are there some big boys playing games here to keep them alive at the $5 level? For someone like Microsoft the amount of money required would be negligible, but if SCOX hits it's natural penny stock level, the lawsuit and company will be gone.

  • Wow! (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Sebby ( 238625 )
    First SCO news since the summer (at least I think so...)

  • A more interesting article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CaptainCarrot ( 84625 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:01PM (#9713175)
    Geez, /. is behind the curve on this one. Groklaw had it two days ago.

    Back on Saturday there was a far more interesting Groklaw article discussing Red Hat's letter [groklaw.net] to the judge in their case. They lay out in clear detail the contradictory stories SCO has been telling in the different courtrooms across the country in an effort to convince her to lift the stay and let them smoosh SCO's Linux copyright claims into the mud. This, I think, is probably where we'll want to be paying some attention next.

    • This, I think, is probably where we'll want to be paying some attention next.

      You accuse Slashdot of being "behind the curve" but don't get too uppity. The "research" on Groklaw is always post event and mostly consists of repetition and highlighting of what the real protagonists - the lawyers - have already argued days or even weeks before.

      Groklaw is little more than a news site with a very limited scope. Useful to us, because we can stay informed, but don't big note its role. The commentary does not

      • Of course Groklaw's articles are post-event. All reporting and analysis of events happen after the fact. Don't be silly. No one can research a document that doesn't exist yet.

        You've confused the pronouns. "This" is the Red Hat case, not the Groklaw site. It may well be that SCO's Linux copyright claims will first be ajudicated there, not in the IBM or Auto Zone cases.

        • Of course Groklaw's articles are post-event. All reporting and analysis of events happen after the fact. Don't be silly. No one can research a document that doesn't exist yet.

          I didn't claim that anybody was researching documents that don't exist yet. I was pointing out there's no difference between Groklaw and Slashdot in terms of influence on these cases. The previous poster was denigrating Slashdot for no good reason.

          • I was the previous poster, and I was doing nothing more than pointing out that /. was 2 days behind Groklaw on this story. Period. Who said anything about influence?

            • I was the previous poster, and I was doing nothing more than pointing out that /. was 2 days behind Groklaw on this story. Period.

              The way you said it was denigrating. If I had said "Geez, you sure don't think much of yourself, other people made much better comments than yours less than 5 minutes ago" it would also have been a pointless insult.

              You could have just said "Groklaw also had an article about this, here is the link".

              Who said anything about influence?

              My interpretation of your comment

              • I explained exactly what I meant two responses up. I was talking about the Red Hat case. Not Groklaw.
                • I explained exactly what I meant two responses up. I was talking about the Red Hat case. Not Groklaw.

                  I saw your comment earlier where you claimed I "confused the pronouns". I did no such thing. I knew precisely that you meant "Red Hat case" when you wrote "this" and my comment is unchanged by your "clarification". You are trying to evade the question.

    • 'nuff said :-P

  • No, it's an indefinite stay, pending IBM vs. SCO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:24PM (#9713269) Homepage
    The judge granted AutoZone an indefinite stay, with 90 day reports, pending the resolution of the copyright claims in the SCO vs. IBM case. Just like SCO has in the Red Hat case. All SCO gets to do is try to show that AutoZone should be temoorarily enjoined against something. (But what?) And the judge told SCO's lawyers not to try going on a fishing expedition with discovery.

    This is a big loss for SCO. Any case they bring against a Linux user is going to end up on hold like this. This totally derails their licensing strategy, because their threat to sue is now empty.

    SCO may try harassiing AutoZone with discovery, but it won't work.

    Of course, IBM might win its summary judgement on the copyright issue on August 8th. If that happens, the AutoZone and Red Hat cases will be unstayed. Those parties will presumably file for summary judgement and win..

  • "Limited Stay" - I don't think so (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gvc ( 167165 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @10:02PM (#9713446)
    The press have screwed this one up, and Slashdot is parroting their line.

    The judged stayed the proceedings. The only "limit" is that SCO were invited to file for a preliminary injunction while the stay is pending. Many read the invitation as "put up or shut up." It is a major reach to put any SCO-positive spin on this ruling.

    I'd like to remind readers that USL vs BSDI was resolved when the court denied a motion for preliminary injunction.

  • MP3 of the hearing (Score:5, Informative)

    by petrofsky ( 702225 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @10:27PM (#9713544)

    A recording of the hearing (30 minutes, 29 MB) is at sco.petrofsky.org/autozone-2004-07-12.mp3 [petrofsky.org] and www.users.cloud9.net/~terrapn/Courtroom%207D%20-%2 012-07-2004.mp3 [cloud9.net]

    I know the first URL won't survive much of a slashdotting, not sure about the second. Please mirror it somewhere better if you're so inclined. (No, this is not a bootleg recording. I obtained it from the clerk on Tuesday.)

    Below are the notes I wrote on Monday after attending the hearing. One correction: at the hearing, the judge did not actually make any order on either motion, but my understanding was that in the aftermath of the hearing he would issue orders denying the motion to transfer venue and granting the motion to stay (with, as an exception to the stay, an opportunity for SCO to move for a preliminary injunction, and to conduct one round of discovery to attempt to support such an injuction).

    No orders have yet been issued, so it's impossible to say *exactly* what they will be. The official minutes of the hearing were written on Wednesday, and are not yet available either, but the heavily abbreviated caption to the minutes is now showing on the court's (subscription-only) docket access site and reads like so:

    dtd 7/12/04: CT Recorder: Lilia Abarca De Carter: Re: Hrg on mtn for stay (#10) & mtn to transfer (#9), ORD case is stayed for 90 dys, Ptys will be allowed disc as to issue of prelim injunct. Cnsl directed to prepare ord for CT sign. cpys dist

    It appears that the court may be neither officially granting nor denying the venue change at this time. It appears that all the activity contemplated at the hearing (the preliminary injunction process and the submitting of letters every 90 days) will occur in the Nevada district, so my understanding is that the venue change has in effect been denied for now, but the court may revisit it when the stay is lifted, without the motion having to be made again.

    Here are my initial notes, posted Monday at finance.messages.yahoo.com [yahoo.com]

    Subject: Venue change denied, stay mostly granted

    AutoZone's motion for a change of venue (to Tennessee) was denied. The case will stay in Nevada.

    Judge Jones said he will follow Judge Robinson's lead and stay the case indefinitely, like the Red Hat case was, with the parties to send him updates on all the other actions every 90 days.

    However, he will give SCO a chance to file a motion for a preliminary injunction to be in effect during the stay, and he will allow one round of discovery to facilitate such a motion.

    That is, if SCO believes that it will be irreparably harmed during the stay, it may ask for an order that, during the stay, AutoZone is not to engage in whatever the harmful activity is. SCO will have thirty days to propound any discovery requests (interrogatories, document requests, or depositions) that are necessary for its preliminary injunction motion, and AutoZone will have thirty days to respond to them.

    The case will be stayed indefinitely, pending other cases, regardless of the outcome of SCO's request (should it decide to make one) for a preliminary injunction, which would just describe what things (if any) AutoZone needs to refrain from doing until the stay is ended.

    AutoZone asked the judge to reconsider the part about the preliminary injunction, pointing out that SCO has never sought a preliminary injunction (which has quite stringent requirements) against anyone, and that it's very difficult to imagine that SCO could show sufficient grounds for a preliminary injunction, because the only thing SCO wants with respect to the infringing conduct i

  • (stay)^8988 (Score:2, Funny)

    by f00zy ( 783212 )
    i can't read the word "stay" anymore. it hurts.

  • new busines model (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    hey here is an idea - one of our former customers has started using a better product than ours.

    Instead of trying to make a better product lets just sue them.

    We are geniuses - wuaaahhhahahahhh!

    -Darl & Bill

Slashdot Top Deals

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Close