|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
The complaint ends mid-sentance on page 16 and then continues with the
appendices, so it looks like someone needs to go to the utah courthouse as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT |
For the benefit of any transcriber-types out there,
looks like the new material is in pages 1 through 20
of the PDF. All the rest is AutoZone's Exhibits, which
are just reprints of material we already know about.
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Mike B on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
Again, to prove a case against a defendant accused of infringing their
copyrights, SCO MUST PROVE:
1. There is code that is theirs in Linux, that was used by the defendant.
2. That they OWN this code.
3. That the defendant was the one who did it, otherwise their problem is with
the vendor of the software.
They have to show AutoZone proof of this before they can get a trial.
We all know this wont' happen, because this proof doesn't exist (outside a
mythical suitcase). Why does this "copied code" not exist?
Simple. There is no bettter evidence than SCO's own actions. They ALWAYS seek
to delay. They always seek to obfuscate, move "goal posts", and do
anything BUT prove their claims.
Why would a company that is dying on life support DELAY getting their $billions
from suing Dog+World?
---
Disclaimer: Former IBM employee (I worked as a Q/A tester in their server
division, qualifying prerelease products with IBM supported Network Operating
Systems,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Autozone,
Maybe you should contact your state attorney general and see if SCO's attack on
you qualifies for the state to go after SCO as well...
I will leave the reasons to be listed in the following comments... Let's tell em
folks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:08 PM EDT |
sco has Autozone really confused. They're not sure if they copied a book or
source code at this point. That's fairly amusing.
Several of Autozone quotes were verbatim from "Unix in a Nutshell"
(O'Reilly and Associates). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:10 PM EDT |
Seams everyone is asking for the same thing. Proof? How long will SCO be able to
stall without coughing up some details about where exactly they thing there
code is? What ever happen to the March 19 deadline?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tlk nnr on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
How common are such huge motions?
To me as a non-lawyer, it looks like a
threat:
Either transfer the case or you'll have to read through that novel.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: kbwojo on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
I am curious, Baystar stated they want SCO to just concentrate on the IP issues
and sideline their products. It looks like this is prohibited in section 4.18 of
the asset purchase agreement. If SCO followed Baystars advice and failed to meet
the obligation stated in the APA what would happen. It seems like a breach of
contract, but I have not found anything myself in the contract that seems to
explain the consequences of this breach. Does anyone have an idea what would
happen if SCO breached this element of the contract? In other words would it
void the contract and give Novell all assets back or would it be something with
a monetary fine involved? I have no clue and I welcome all Guesses, opinions,
and informed answers.
4.18 Development of Merged Product. Following
the Closing, Buyer shall diligently and vigorously market, sell and promote the
Business. In addition, Buyer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts
to complete the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed
Operating agreement) by a date not later than December 31, 1997 to be agreed
upon by Buyer and Seller. Buyer shall be entitled to modify the specifications
of the Merged Product provided that any modification is previously reviewed by
the Architecture Board described in Section 3(a) of the proposed Operating
agreement, and (i) does not impact upon the anticipated migration of Seller's
Product to the White Box Product (as such term is defined in the proposed
Operating agreement). Notwithstanding the foregoing without the prior written
approval of the Architecture Board, Buyer shall not change the specifications of
the Merged Product such that the Merged Product will not include the "NetWare
Services" specification set forth on Exhibit A of the proposed Operating
agreement.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
This is a beautiful one-liner from the motion, talking about SCO's vagueness in
what exactly AutoZone infringed:
There is no reason for SCO to be so obtuse in its pleading, unless SCO is
intentionally trying to avoid the nature and basis of its purported claims.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jog on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Old SCO had an AT&T license that they used for OpenServer.
When they bought whatever from Novell; were they still
obliged to pay Novell for their AT&T license? And subsequently, did Caldera
pay Novell for the AT&T license
used in OpenServer?
SCO only has copyrights to the additions that they made to
the AT&T code in OpenServer.
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Budgreen on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
"As plaintiff, SCO certainly will have no objection to the prospect of
getting to trial more quickly on its claims."
little do they know >:) bwahhhahhahhaaaa
---
Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hersay and conjecture, those are
*kinds* of evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
This is taken from line 19 on page 16 of Autozone's motion to stay ...
"There is no reason for SCO to have been so obtuse in its pleading. Unless
SCO is intentionally trying to avoid identifying the nature and basis of its
purported claims. The Linux code is freely available to anyone to examine, and
SCO has been in possession of the code for years. Indeed, SCO was a distributor
and developer of Linux code until after it filed its lawsuit against IBM last
year. ..."
Why did it have to stop when it was just getting really interesting ??
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: crs17 on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
It seems oddly appropriate that Autozone uses Clinton v. Jones to back up an
obvious point they make at the beginning of their Argument.
This
court possesses the inherent discretion to stay this case. Clinton v.
Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) ("The district court has broad disceretion
to stay proceedings as an incident to control its own
docket")
Clinton v. Jones is of course Bill Clinton and Paula
Jones. I imagine they could have picked any of thousands of cases to establish
this point. The attorneys must have been laughing their heads off by talking
about Clinton v. Jones and "discretion" in the same sentence. Not to mention
that they found a case that was just as sleazy as SCO v. Autozone or any other
of the SCO cases.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT |
| From the motion to change venue "...the Western District
of Tennnessee's
caseload is lighter that the caseload of
this district. The case will therefore
more likely get to
trial more quickly in memphis that in this district .
As
plaintiff, SCO certainly will have no objection to
the prospect of getting to
trial more quickly on their
claims."
Are they being nieve or have they
been watching and
decided to exercise a sense of humour ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
"I must warn you that one of the filings is huge, because they added as
exhibits all the prior legal actions ..."
A filing that's huge? That sounds like a shot across the bow to SCOG about the
kind of court battle it will have to fight against poor, helpless, little
Autozone which, according to Forbes: "... For the 24 weeks ended 2/14/04,
net sales rose 4% to $2.44B. Net income rose 16% to $213.4M."
Shall we say that SCOG had best expect a long, drawn out, dirty and ugly hair
pulling, nose biting, private parts crushing, eye gouging legal donnybrook
before the unsatisfatory conclusion (to SCOG, that is)? It goes without saying
that I and every member of the groklaw community will queue up to go to bat for
SCOG like the true blue friends of SCOG that we are - to take yet another swing
at SCOG, of course.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
As you may recall, PJ wants the language on groklaw to be "kid safe".
I am a New Yorker, and "kid safe" for me means a foul mouthed, street
wise, 13-year old punk junior who is about to get kicked out of his sixth foster
home in four weeks. I somehow suspect that PJ would crack down on me like a ton
of bricks, if I tried to run that definition of "kid safe" past her.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: GLJason on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
Why can't AutoZone move for dismissal on the grounds that they purchased their
product under a license from RedHat. Each file contains a copyright attribution
and is released under the GNU Public License. If SCO is saying Autozone is
misusing "errno.h", can't Autozone say "Why are you suing me? I have a proper
license to use this code from the author, Linux Trivolds. If you wish to sue me
over this, you must take Linus to court and prove that he copied the code from
you."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
Footnote on page 8 reads:
The 45 day time period for SCO to comply with the court's order expired on April
19, 2004. AutoZone does not know what, if any, additional documents or
information SCO produced to IBM. However, if SCO's production mirrored its
prior productions, IBM still does not have an identification from SCO of the
specific lines of UNIX System V code that SCO claims to be at issue in that
case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
Shouldn't the Daimler-Chrysler reply be due about now? Anyone know the status of
that one?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Retep Vosnul on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:16 PM EDT |
Well well well, SCO is in a fix here !.
Not sueing a tech company is going to make it hard to repeat there every day
retorical nonsence.
What could they possibly say to this ?
" ehh judge, first AutoZone must obey to a discovery on how exactly they
distribute brakepads for ford station wagons
because only then we can show what they did." ??
This is not just a extortion letter like the one the Australian HQ of SCO send
to some people ( with a similar response ), This is the company they are
actively sueing.
Does this mean the question AutoZone asked is the first in the series of many
that has to be answers trough the US legal system ?. Namely, WHAT CODE ?
Retep Vosnul, ( pardon my spelling ).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Thomas Frayne on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
No exhibits yet.
What impressed me most was the summary of the history of all SCOG's court cases.
It was good to see all this in one place.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: bilby on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:35 PM EDT |
I thought that SCO was to reply to IBM's amended counterclaims on 4/23. Why
haven't we seen those yet? Could it be that SCO missed a court imposed
deadline?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
On pdf page 11, Autozone cites several cases in support of the point that the
plaintiff must prove that they own a valid copyright to win an infringement
case. One of the cited cases (at about line 7) is:
"[...]; see also Unix Sys Labs.,1993 WL 414724, at *12("In order to
prevail{on claims of copyright infringement], Plaintiff must prove that it has a
valid copyright in the UNIX [source] code.") "[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: js on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:39 PM EDT |
Acrobat Reader displays them nicely but GS 7.07.1 (SuSE
9.0) fails. Can someone confirm that this is a Ghostscript
bug? Anyone having tried a newer version?
BTW kghostview, ghostview and gv all use Gostscript to
render PS/PDF files.
-js [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
Autozone: Which copyrights are we alleged to be infringing?
Predicted SCO answer: Discover is just beginning
Autozone: SCO is currently attempting to establish it does own the copyrights in
its litigation with Novell
Predicted SCO answer: SCO owns the copyrights. SCO's litigiation against Novell
is merely about Novell's Slander Of [SCO's' Title.
Autozone: We should change court
Predicted SCO answer: We shouldn't. We filed the case, and this venue is
appropriate. It is up to us to decide where to file as plaintiff, subject of
course to law and court procedures.
Autozone: We use RedHat Linux. This litigation should be stayed pending the
outcome of the RedHat case
Predicted SCO answer: It shouldn't. I can't guess the reason, maybe because Red
Hat is not a party to this suit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 06:44 PM EDT |
I don't know if this story has been posted or not, but on CNET's News.com is
this story by Stephen Shankland and Scott Ard;
Hidden text shows
SCO prepped lawsuit against Bank of America
The SCO Group filed lawsuits
this week against DaimlerChrysler and AutoZone, but the Unix
seller's attorneys
also had prepared a complaint against Bank of America, according to a
document.
A Microsoft Word document of SCO's suit against DaimlerChrysler, seen
by CNET News.com, originally
identified Bank of America as the defendant instead
of the automaker. This revision and others in
the document can be seen through
powerful but often forgotten features in Microsoft Word known as
invisible
electronic ink.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- links - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 07:02 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: js on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 07:48 PM EDT |
| AZ-10.pdf, p. 14:
"SCO begins its Complaint by listing copyright
registrations it purports to own for thirty reference
manuals, programmers'
guides, and other written
documentation related to UNIX. Compl. 15. The
Complaint
therefore appears to be headed in the direction of
alleging that
AutoZone has somehow infringed these written
materials. [...] Why these
written materials are
referenced at all is a mystery that cannot be unraveled
from reviewing the allegations of the Complaint itself.
I can hardly
imagine a lawyer being so stupid to claim
copyright to the Linux kernel by
listing man pages as
being infringed. The list contains all the stuff from
the amendment of the APA with Novell.
Maybe M$ is involved, but
another story is what the
lawyers are doing. Seemingly they try to cash in as
much
as possible from the most stupid management in the world.
I imagine DMB
walking into Boise's office saying "Hi,
we've just got $ 6E07 ("%E4.0") in
the bank. Wanna play?"
What else could Boise do but play? It looks like SCO is
on
the losing side. Losing against IBM, Novell, Red Hat, DC,
AutoZone,
BayStar, Boise, Heise, Young.
I pity the poor SCO engineers.
—js [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darkonc on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 09:10 PM EDT |
I've put the motion to transfer
venue on my webpage.
Given that the motion to stay has already been
converted to text, I'm not going to translate it.
If you want to transcribe,
then stake your claim here.
---
Powerful, committed communication.
Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PeteS on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
The attorneys for AutoZone have been reading Groklaw. All it would take is an
attorney for Red Hat to call (on a personal relationship basis, of course) and
simply mention that the best research on this entire fiasco is to be found at
http://www.groklaw.net
The rest, as they say, is history.
---
Today's subliminal thought is:
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sorry... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 10:22 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 26 2004 @ 10:10 PM EDT |
| I found it interesting that in the history of Unix, no mention of GNU was made.
Only that Linus came along and then, poof, there was Linux. RMS had better not
read this support of motion or he'll have a cow. BTW, in the history of
"title" to Unix recited in the document, don't AutoZone confuse the
SCO's? Their lawyer(s) couldn't have been spending much time here. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 27 2004 @ 05:09 PM EDT |
Hello!
I'm not the original volunteer, but I'm in Michigan, and in the same county as
DaimlerChrysler, so the court shoud be around here somewhere... ;) I have free
time tomorrow: where can I go?
If you need to send me more info, please drop me an e-mail at t_m as_sey_a t_
_ina_me.com (removing all _ and spaces) and I'd be happy to pick up the
documents!
Tim Massey
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
