SCO Sues Autozone

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-03 01:15pm

Cnet wrote:SCO Group is targeting lawsuits at auto parts retailer AutoZone and automaker DaimlerChrysler in its continuing legal battle over the Unix and Linux operating systems.

The software company alleges that 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," according to a statement from the company Wednesday.

Later Wednesday, SCO plans to file suit against DaimlerChrysler in Michigan's Oakland County Circuit for alleged violations of the automotive company's Unix software agreement with SCO.

DaimlerChrysler, based in Stuttgart, Germany, and with U.S. offices in Auburn Hills, Mich., was not immediately available for comment.

Memphis, Tenn.-based AutoZone has about 3,000 stores nationwide. Company representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.

The AutoZone 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.

SCO's demands in the DaimlerChrysler case are similar.

Separately, the company announced Wednesday a wider loss for its fiscal first quarter. The company said its net loss, after paying preferred dividends, was $2.25 million, or 16 cents per share, compared with a loss of $724,000, or 6 cents per share, a year earlier.

Revenue for the quarter, which ended Jan. 31, fell to $11.4 million from $13.5 million in the same period a year ago.

One analyst--the only one listed at First Call, which surveys financial expectations--had predicted that SCO would turn in a loss of 22 cents per share for the quarter. Revenue projections for SCO from a pair of analysts were for $10 million and $14.4 million.

SCO said it will further discuss the AutoZone lawsuit Wednesday as part of its earnings call.

may file other suits. On Tuesday, a company representative said there was a "high possibility" that the company would announce two suits on Wednesday.

Lawsuits have long been expected. SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride announced on Monday plans to file a suit, but he didn't identify the company. SCO threatened in November to sue Linux users, although it missed a self-imposed mid-February deadline to do so.

SCO, which owns a disputed amount of Unix intellectual property, inherited the agreements by which inventor AT&T and its successors licensed the operating system to IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Silicon Graphics, numerous universities and others. SCO has sued IBM for more than $5 billion in damages, alleging Big Blue violated its Unix contract by moving Unix technology to Linux that it should have kept secret.

IBM denies wrongdoing and has countersued SCO for patent infringement. Meanwhile, Novell, a previous Unix owner, claims it owns Unix copyrights, forcing SCO to sue to establish ownership. And Linux seller Red Hat has sued SCO to try to establish that Linux doesn't violate SCO copyrights or trade secrets.

SCO argues that companies must pay for a SCO intellectual property license to use Linux and thus avoid legal action--a license that costs $699 for a single-processor server. On Monday, EV1Servers.net became the first company to acknowledge signing up for the program.

I have to say that this latest little fiasco just takes the cake. Aparently they were actually serious when they said they had plans to sue actual Linux users.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-03 01:41pm

I think SCO probably just entered into the battle that could end their little war against Open Source Software. I don't see any way the litigious sons of bitches will come out of this one in as good a condition as they're sailing in.

God, if You exist, I would like to be heard. Please reserve a special place in Hell for that blasphemous whore known as Darl McBride and his little friends at SCO. They are an Affront to All that is Good in the Universe and must be Punished. May flights of fiery Helldemons escort the Damned to their Eternal Unrest...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-03 03:39pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I think SCO probably just entered into the battle that could end their little war against Open Source Software. I don't see any way the litigious sons of bitches will come out of this one in as good a condition as they're sailing in.

Or not. The IBM/SCO battle is far more important.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-03-03 06:12pm

I can't think of anytone they could sue that would further lower my opinion of them.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-03 06:30pm

Some people have actually paid them to use Linux

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-03-03 08:01pm

Symmetry wrote:I can't think of anytone they could sue that would further lower my opinion of them.

Oh really? What if SCO decided to sue a hospital or a university?

How much money does SCO have, anyway? How the fuck can they afford all of these lawsuits>

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-03 08:20pm

As of 31 October 2003, they had about $64 million in cash (and cash equivilants). You can read the annual report for FY03 here.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-03 08:25pm

SCO is now suing DaimlerChrysler.

Jawawithagun · Post by **Jawawithagun** » 2004-03-03 08:38pm

Defiant wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I can't think of anytone they could sue that would further lower my opinion of them.
Oh really? What if SCO decided to sue a hospital or a university?

How much money does SCO have, anyway? How the fuck can they afford all of these lawsuits>

SCO is owned by the Canopy Group (46%).
some info, some more and a NY Times article for those of you who are registered there.

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2004-03-04 04:42am

there are no words to express this crap. I thought they were shut down by Novell in the last case?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-04 05:04am

You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right? The whole thing was most likely planned as a convoluted way of destroying Linux and the open-source movement.

Intellectual property is supposed to encourage innovation, but in the current environment it is having the opposite effect in many situations. The application of IP law to computers has to be seriously revamped.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-03-04 05:10am

Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right?

I also heard that, do you have any links or other stuff to that? Or is it still a rumour? (A believable rumour but still)

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-04 07:33am

Faram wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right?
I also heard that, do you have any links or other stuff to that? Or is it still a rumour? (A believable rumour but still)

Microsoft funding a little war. Can't say it's surprising, but it seems having a monopoly isn't enough for MS.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-04 08:11am

Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right? The whole thing was most likely planned as a convoluted way of destroying Linux and the open-source movement.

Intellectual property is supposed to encourage innovation, but in the current environment it is having the opposite effect in many situations. The application of IP law to computers has to be seriously revamped.

Then it should make you feel better to know that IBM and Intel have jointly created a fund that would offer full legal protection to anyone SCO tries to sue.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-04 08:54am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Faram wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right?
I also heard that, do you have any links or other stuff to that? Or is it still a rumour? (A believable rumour but still)
Microsoft funding a little war. Can't say it's surprising, but it seems having a monopoly isn't enough for MS.

Thats only $8 million, and they actually use that in their now freeware Unix Services for Windows 3.5.

$8 million really isnt a significant figure, the most significant bit about it is it might validate it some peoples eyes that SCO has a case.

This is strickly pocket change for Microsoft, and similar sized companies.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-03-04 08:59am

But it's their money all the same, that shows intent so I still don't like it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » 2004-03-04 08:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right? The whole thing was most likely planned as a convoluted way of destroying Linux and the open-source movement.

Intellectual property is supposed to encourage innovation, but in the current environment it is having the opposite effect in many situations. The application of IP law to computers has to be seriously revamped.

Of course. Microsoft doesn't realize that it may end up biting them in the ass.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2004-03-05 05:08pm

Defiant wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right? The whole thing was most likely planned as a convoluted way of destroying Linux and the open-source movement.

Intellectual property is supposed to encourage innovation, but in the current environment it is having the opposite effect in many situations. The application of IP law to computers has to be seriously revamped.
Of course. Microsoft doesn't realize that it may end up biting them in the ass.

I hope it does. Heck, this whole thing reminds me of the Rambus fiasco a few years back.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-05 05:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:You guys do know that Microsoft paid off SCO to take this action, right? The whole thing was most likely planned as a convoluted way of destroying Linux and the open-source movement.

Intellectual property is supposed to encourage innovation, but in the current environment it is having the opposite effect in many situations. The application of IP law to computers has to be seriously revamped.

Common Knowledge, Lord Wong. I still think MS put half of their security holes in on purpose for kickbacks from Gator/Claria, Lop.com, CWS, et al...

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-05 07:34pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Common Knowledge, Lord Wong. I still think MS put half of their security holes in on purpose for kickbacks from Gator/Claria, Lop.com, CWS, et al...

I believe a varient of Hanlon's Razor applies here: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-03-05 07:44pm

phongn wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Common Knowledge, Lord Wong. I still think MS put half of their security holes in on purpose for kickbacks from Gator/Claria, Lop.com, CWS, et al...

I believe a varient of Hanlon's Razor applies here: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

Excellent point. Although sometimes the sheer amount and severity of MS's 'incompetence' really does seem to push the boundaries of what can be considered 'adequate explanation' at times...

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-03-05 11:51pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote: Excellent point. Although sometimes the sheer amount and severity of MS's 'incompetence' really does seem to push the boundaries of what can be considered 'adequate explanation' at times...

Blame the human nature.

Quantity of features sold more than Quality of features. And stability & security were a far distant 3rd & 4th respectfully.

Include crazy levels of backwards compatibility, and its a wonder it isnt more buggy.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-03-06 12:26am

So now windows has "crazy levels of backwards compatiblity" does it? THen why can't i run dos, or windows 3.1 programs on it? Why is it then that alot of programs for 95 flat out refuse to run even in compatibility mode? Sheer idiocy that's fucking why. Wouldn't need such "crazy levels of backwards compatibility" if they didn't completely change how the system worked with each new release.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-03-06 12:39am

darthdavid wrote:So now windows has "crazy levels of backwards compatiblity" does it?

Yes. It has Win16 code left it in just so older apps will run. Not all, but many.

THen why can't i run dos, or windows 3.1 programs on it? Why is it then that alot of programs for 95 flat out refuse to run even in compatibility mode? Sheer idiocy that's fucking why.

Well, a lot of programs were not well coded, so they rely on certain assumptions that maybe Windows 95 provided, but not future versions.

Wouldn't need such "crazy levels of backwards compatibility" if they didn't completely change how the system worked with each new release.

If you would prefer to use a 16-bit operating system on the original version of the FAT filesystem, have segmented memory (conventional, high, UMB, etc.), be my guest.