|
|
| The AutoZone Hearing - AutoZone Wins a Stay |
 |
|
Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 07:11 PM EDT
|
I have had an opportunity to listen to audio of the AutoZone hearing. The court offers copies for sale from their web site, by the way. Here is what I got from listening to the hearing. The big news is that AutoZone won the stay they asked for. IBM goes first. There was no ruling on whether to transfer the whole thing to Tennessee or Utah. The stay made that moot at this time.
The attorney for AutoZone told the judge that the motion they really cared about was the Motion to Stay. The judge has granted an indefinite stay, with 90-day status reports, just like Red Hat's judge. The reports are to be timed so that reports go to Red Hat first, because the judge expressed that the IBM and Red Hat cases should go ahead of AutoZone.
He has given SCO 30 days to convince him that they qualify for a preliminary injunction based on irreparable harm. They can do limited discovery, limited to facts pertinent to a preliminary injunction only, not, they were told, a fishing expedition, and they were told that if they know they can't qualify for a preliminary injunction, they shouldn't do any discovery at all. He doesn't know SCO as well as we do, huh? Of course they will do discovery. You can almost hear them drooling on the audio.
Here is what happened in a bit more detail:
1. Judge Jones had prepared, and he asked questions from both sides to try to get a clearer picture of what all the cases involve. He had read the briefs and he knew about the Novell issues about copyright and the IBM lawsuit. He pronounced Linux Lye-Nux. He started by saying that the issues of ownership are pending in the Novell-SCO case, and the issues of conflict are pending in the IBM-SCO case. SCO tried to alter his view, trying to show that IBM and AutoZone are distinguishable (somebody tell Judge Kimball, please) but that was basically the way he sees it, and he felt IBM and Red Hat should go first.
2. The motion to transfer to Tennessee was not decided, at this time. The stay made that moot. I didn't hear anything that seemed to preclude it from being raised again in the future, if and when the stay is lifted, if it ever is. I don't know if it would be, though, because he seemed inclined to send it to Utah, if anywhere. Of course, you could end up in worse hands than Judge Kimball's.
3. SCO clarified what it is they think AutoZone did wrong, saying this case is an illustrative case to show people who were their customers the issues that they face in migrating to Linux and how they could violate SCO's copyrights in such a migration, if they use SCO's static shared libraries. It's illustrative, all right. It illustrates that using UNIX is hazardous to your company's health. That is what they think AutoZone did. He mentioned that OpenServer uses static shared libraries. AutoZone licensed OpenServer from SCO. Linux uses dynamic libraries. To migrate to Linux and still use your old OpenServer apps requires, SCO thinks, their static shared libraries. That is their beef. They have it in their heads that AutoZone copied their static shared libraries to be able to use their old OpenServer apps on Red Hat Linux. AutoZone said they don't have any evidence of that or even a good faith basis for such a claim. SCO said that their claims against AutoZone don't necessarily have anything to do with what is "inside" Linux. Yoo hoo, media. You got suckered once again by SCO, didn't you? They told you all about Linux and pirates and uncontrolled management and copyright infringement, and now in AutoZone in the courtroom they say it is really just about end users moving from UNIX to Linux and copying their static libraries to run their applications, nothing that is inside Linux. And IBM is now just a contract case if you listen to SCO in the courtroom in Utah, not at all about copyright infringement with respect to IBM's Linux activities. Does that match what they told you for a year? Think, please, about all those stories you wrote, and how you must look now in the eyes of everyone reading about the story SCO is telling the judge. It's a cautionary tale. Linux has proven to be pure as newly fallen snow. Before acid rain existed. Just pure, pure, pure. No doubt you will write stories all about that now.
4. As a limited exception to the stay, he granted (without SCO previously asking for it) a 30-day period during which there will be allowed limited discovery, one round, meaning not the kind you would do for trial, but discovery related strictly to preparing a factual basis for a preliminary injunction. The judge told SCO that if they don't qualify for a preliminary injunction, they shouldn't do any discovery at all. What he means is that SCO can try to present to the court reasons for its assertion that a stay would cause them irreparable harm. They have 30 days to do that. Then AutoZone gets 30 to answer. That will be a stretch, proving irreparable harm, considering this is only about allegedly lost license fees. I've never heard of that qualifying as irreparable harm, because you can always get money at the end of the trial. SCO has to show something that they can't be made whole from, if it isn't brought to a stop this exact minute. AutoZone tried to point that out, but the judge said, my order is my order. He felt 30 days for brief discovery and consideration of the preliminary injunction was no big deal. SCO will also have to show that they are likely to win on the merits, to win a preliminary injunction. That seems impossible, considering that the man who did the migration for AutoZone has already stated publicly that he didn't use their stinking libraries. The parties are to consult together and come up with a decision on how many depositions will be permitted each side, and both he and the magistrate judge are available to the parties for consultation by telephone on such matters. I believe he'll live to regret that part of the ruling.
5. SCO tried to get the judge to force AutoZone to file an answer to their complaint, but the judge said that the case was stayed. Period. So they don't have to.
6. SCO's attorney made a funny argument when talking about their Most Holy IP. He said that source code is the crown jewels. Without source code, he said, you can't write applications. You can't do much that matters. Hmm. Too true. Yet, they want the world to accept Linux as binary-only. What does that tell you? SCO expressed that IBM isn't likely to win its summary judgment, because they didn't argue that there are no undisputed facts. AutoZone pointed out that if IBM wins on August 4, SCO will have no cause of action against AutoZone. AutoZone is to draw up the order. If you'd like to know a little more about Judge Robert C Jones, here is a picture and a little bit about him. He is new as this kind of judge. He was appointed by President Bush and was confirmed back in December. Here's his resume. He was a bankruptcy judge before that. He must know something about computers, because he was chosen to co-chair the Nevada Bankruptcy Court's implementation of their Case Management Electronic Case Files ("CM/ ECF") program. "Beginning in January 2005, electronic filing in the Bankruptcy Court will be mandatory for all practitioners who annually file two (2) or more papers with the Court." Here are a few cases he has handled or participated in. Do you realize that three Republican judges are deciding the SCO cases? There are no Democrats in this picture. Kimball was sponsored by Hatch Sr. and I believe I read Judge Robinson is also a Republican. And now Jones. Groklaw is neutral as to politics, but, hey, what are the odds?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 10:58 PM EDT |
---
Collaborative efforts synergise.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
| If any [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: muzza on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:13 PM EDT |
I just read about this over at Yahoo! Finance and they are reporting that the motion for a
change of venue was denied... ---
www.insubstantial.com.au [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brian on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
"AutoZone is to draw up the order"
Exactly what does that mean? I have seen it in other
documents but have no clue what it means...
B.
---
#ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MarkusQ on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Do you realize that three Republican judges are deciding the
SCO cases? There are no Democrats in this picture. Kimball was sponsored by
Hatch Sr. and I believe I read Judge Robinson is also a Republican. And now
Jones. Groklaw is neutral as to politics, but, hey, what are the
odds?
Roughtly one to eight, or 12.5%.
Why?
--
MarkusQ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another probability exercise?!?! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:24 PM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Scriptwriter on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:20 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: paul_cooke on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:50 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:44 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:12 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: pscottdv on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: CPD on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 11:06 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Greebo on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:04 AM EDT
- That's Not Right. It's Not Even Wrong. - Authored by: Simon G Best on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 06:24 AM EDT
- The odds - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Yobgod on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:37 PM EDT |
| "but hey, what are the odds?"
Well, according to This Summary out of 847 currently
appointed Federal justices, 461 were appointed by Republican presidents and 386
by Democratic presidents.
Disclaimer: I'd still like to hope that
presidents will nominate good people regardless of political agenda (or at least
used to) so this whole question may be equivalent to asking how many judges are
blonde...
Anyway, the chance of all three judges having been appointed
by Republicans should be something like (461/847) * (460/840) * (459/839) =
16.3%...
approximately 1 in 6.
Depending on the specific type of judge
we're talking about, the odds change slightly, but not significantly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
A quick tutorial on shared and static libraries, as I understand them. There is
no such thing as a "static shared library" as far as I know.
Shared libraries are .so files on Linux and Unix and .dll files on Windows. They
are executable files that can be implicitly or explicitly dynamically loaded by
a binary at run time.
Static libraries are .a files on Linux and Unix and .lib files on Windows. They
are files that contain code that is linked into a binary at compile time.
Source files are compiled invividually into .o files and then joined together by
the linker into a binary excecutable, shared library or static library. The
linker may also link in code from a static library into the executable binary.
You can run ldd on an executable or shared library to see which shared libraries
it is linked against. You can run nm or ar -t on a static library to see what's
inside.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- for non-programmers - why the allegation is silly - Authored by: gdeinsta on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- Library tutorial - Authored by: rand on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- Library tutorial - Authored by: scottm on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:43 AM EDT
- Let's just all use the excellent Wikipedia definitions ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 05:04 AM EDT
- Library tutorial: question - Authored by: MadScientist on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:15 AM EDT
- Static shared libraries makes sense to me - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 11:29 AM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: micheal on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:17 PM EDT
- Nope - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 08:39 PM EDT
- I don't understand your point - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:29 PM EDT
- Converting operating systems - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:55 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: jtsteward on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:48 PM EDT |
"He mentioned that OpenServer uses static shared libraries. AutoZone
licensed OpenServer from SCO. Linux uses dynamic libraries. To migrate to Linux
and still use your old OpenServer apps requires, SCO thinks, their static shared
libraries. That is their beef. They have it in their heads that AutoZone copied
their static shared libraries to be able to use their old OpenServer apps on Red
Hat Linux. AutoZone said they don't have any evidence of that or even a good
faith basis for such a claim. SCO said that their claims against AutoZone don't
necessarily have anything to do with what is "inside" Linux."
I gather then that this has nothing to do with Linux. This looks to be a
"you took our files out of OpenSewer" suit.
PLEASE DON'T FLAME ME!!! I AM NOT TAKING SCO'S SIDE!
But if that is the case why the stay? Let the case go to trial, and if AZ copied
the libraries then they are guilty, (I don't believe they did that) if not SCO
needs to go away.
Here is they way I see the four SCO suits:
IBM Let's scare them with a threat to yank AIX from thier customers, they will
either buy us, and we get a great big paycheck, or they will settle to make us
go a way and we just get a big paycheck, then a whole lot of little checks from
a whole lot of scared Linux users.
DC It's a trap! Let's sue a big high profile Sys V licensee who we have seen in
the trade rags has a big Linux implementation. When they certify that they are
using the Sys V code on one or two boxes we got'em for "lying" to us,
all the Linux servers have Sys V code on them, you owe us license fees and
damages for unathorized installations of our Sys V code. After that a bunch of
scared licensees who have not been sued will pay up, even without a court
victory, because a settlement is cheaper than court time.
AZ Lets scare a former UnixWare or OpenSewer customer that has migrated to
Linix. This will scare all the other customers who have migrated to Linux to pay
us, and will scare the rest from leaving us.
Novell We gotta take a shot at making the other three look real, or no one will
be scared.
---
-------------------------------------------------
Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The AutoZone Hearing - Not about Sys V at all - Authored by: mossc on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:08 AM EDT
- Re IBM: SCO still got a big paycheck - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:12 AM EDT
- The AutoZone Hearing - Not about Sys V at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:16 AM EDT
- The AutoZone Hearing - Not about Sys V at all - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:24 AM EDT
- SCO is lying - it may be about OpenServer *now* - it was NOT originally - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:26 AM EDT
- Darl needs more bullets, he keeps hitting his foot but he won't go down - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:21 AM EDT
- The AutoZone Hearing - Not about Sys V at all - Authored by: scott_R on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:16 AM EDT
- Why the stay? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 06:26 AM EDT
- The AutoZone Hearing - Not about Sys V at all - Authored by: Paul Shirley on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 06:55 AM EDT
- The incredible morphing SCO lawsuits - Authored by: be2weenthelines on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:38 AM EDT
- Perfect analogy - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, July 13 2004 @ 11:51 PM EDT |
| IMHO it is far more likely that somebody set a switch and simply rebuilt the GNU
libs probably with strict POSIX compliance. In other words, they could support
AutoZone's applications without needing re-work. What little porting work there
was could have been provided by coding the equivalent functionality into a new
lib *without having a line in common* with SCO's libs. Unless SCO perhaps wants
to sue the ISO for everybody's use of C syntax? Anyway, this is just my guess
as to what's actually going on. ---
"When we speak of free software, we
are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
The preliminary injunction thing is all bad for SCO
The point
is
1. That SCO have no chance of getting it. They can't show likelihood
of success on the merits among other things (there are 4 requirements for a
preliminary injunction).
2. To even attempt to get it, they must
specify their claims (something AZ wanted)
3. If SCO attempts to get
it, and doesn't, then they can't really argue the stay. As in this case, they
aren't suffering irreparable harm as a result of the stay - which makes it
harder to argue about the stay
4. If SCO doesn't attempt to get it,
then they've given additional support (even demonstrated) that they aren't
suffering irreparable harm as a result of they stay - which makes it harder to
argue about the stay
I think the judge has allowed the limited
discovery and briefing so that the record will show that SCO had a full
opportunity to present to the court, and prevent any alleged irreparable harm.
The judge prefers to give SCO this full opportunity, as it will make his
eventual ruling less open to challengeable (he won't have to face the SCOundrels
saying the court made an error because it didn't take into account irreparable
harm, and hadn't been briefed on this issue).
I think the ruling is
actually better than any of us could have hoped for AZ, it seems to be the best
of both worlds regarding stay and more definite statement (AZ only requested one
or the other), and AZ are not even required to answer at this point (which they
would be if AZ only got a more definite statement as opposed to a
stay).
The most hilarious part is this is now supposed to be about
libraries. If that was the case, and SCO can state it in open court, why didn't
they state in their reply brief about the definite statement/stay (where they
said they wouldn't specify the infringement until discovery).
One thing
occurs to me - is this about Open Server libraries? I got that impression from
PJ's article (I haven't listened to the audio yet). If yes, does Open Server
even appear in the copyright registrations on SCO's complaint (the copyright
registrations if I remember correctly are all Unixware, some UNIX versions and
some manuals). I'll have to check that (or somebody else might like to post a
quote, I'm going to bed soon). If OpenServer isn't on the complaint's copyright
registrations and this is about Open Server libraries, the complaint may not be
properly pled.
IANAL IMHO
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RyanEpps on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:01 AM EDT |
SCO should have no problem with this. Didn't they say the fate of the entire
economy was at stake?
RyanEpps[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Graywing on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
What are the chances of getting a Transcri[t from the hiring?
---
Ahh!! The mind what a wonderful trap.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:08 AM EDT |
So this is all about SCO's OpenServer or OpenServer libraries
Guess
what....
OpenServer (let alone OpenServer libraries) do NOT
appear on the list of copyrights that SCO includes in their complaint and which
they allege AZ to be infringing:
The only copyrights in the SCO
complaint are UnixWare, various UNIX System V versions, and various UNIX
manuals. See
here
Additionally if this was always supposedly about OpenServer
(or OpenServer libraries) why did they attach every copyright they have
except for OpenServer.
They're lying.
The complaint has
morphed
Originally the complaint must have been about something else
(one or more of the copyrights on the list presumably) - but now it's supposedly
about a copyright that is not even on the list!
Quatermass
IANAL
IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
It doesn't make sense that SCO is complaining about using OpenServer libraries
under Linux. Their complaint doesn't mention OpenServer at all.
It mentions:
"The Copyrighted Materials include protected expression of code, structure,
sequence and/or organization in many categories of UNIX System V
functionality..."
and:
"On information an belief, parts or all of the Copyrighted Material has
been copied or otherwise improperly used as the basis for creation of derivative
work software code, included one or more Linux implementations, including Linux
versions 2.4 and 2.6, without the permission of SCO."
Are they trying to somehow morph their lawsuit from copyright infringement into
a license violation so it's not covered by the IBM counterclaim and Red Hat
suit?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:39 AM EDT |
| 4. As a limited exception to the stay, he granted (without SCO previously
asking for it) a 30-day period during which there will be allowed limited
discovery, one round, meaning not the kind you would do for trial, but discovery
related strictly to preparing a factual basis for a preliminary injunction. The
judge told SCO that if they don't qualify for a preliminary injunction, they
shouldn't do any discovery at all.
I believe that SCO will not file for
a preliminary injunction. If they do and lose, they stand to lose a lot of the
FUD factor these suits were brought to create. The judge has made it abundantly
clear to SCOX that "I'm not going to stand for any horse hocky, so don't bother
me unless you really do have a pony in there somewhere." Since these suits are
all really just FUD, SCOX isn't going to risk being shot down like this.
If
they do file, I'm going to go real short on their stock just after they file.
I'm sure the judge won't take more than a week or two to come back with a ruling
against SCOX.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:39 AM EDT |
Not Necessarily in this court, but in the other courts where they reference this
case? Like if this isn't about Linux, but rather about Open Server, then this
case and the other cases wouldn't be related. You'd think that by SCO not
submitting Open Server on their copyright list that they'd get trashed for that
in this courtroom as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: n0ano on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:05 AM EDT |
If our interpretation of SCO's claims are correct then SCO is raising some
interesting questions with some rather far reaching implications. They are no
longer talking about violations with `source` code but rather `binary` code.
The issues that immediately come to mind:
1) Is binary code copyrightable? I understand how source code is expressive
but how does that apply to binary? My answer would be that binary code is
non-expressive and, therefore, not covered by copyright law at all.
2) If binary code is not covered by copyright law then what gives SCO the right
to control any aspect of AutoZone's usage of it's own binary files? The only
thing I can think of would be either contracts or OpenServer licenses. I'd have
to look at the specific contracts/licenses that AutoZone has with SCO but, in my
experience, you are free to run binaries wherever you wish. I would be
extremely surprised if OpenServer has a contract/license agreement that
specifies that you can only run binaries generated on OpenServer on OpenServer.
3) If SCO `can` restrict where binaries created on OpenServer are run, what
does that say about other binary execution environments? The immediate project
that comes to mind is Wine, the Windows Emulation[1] project for Linux. If SCO
can say that the presence of OpenServer code in a binary precludes running that
binary anywhere else than on OpenServer then does that mean that MicroSoft can
say the same thing to Wine?
4) Also, note that `static' libraries is a bit of a red herring. Even if you
use shared libraries there is some small bit of library code that is statically
linked into your program (you have to have, at minimum, the code that pulls in
the shared libraries). Given that this small bit of code came from SCO's tool
chain they can make the same argument about binaries that use shared libraries
that they are making about static binaries.
I don't have answers to any of these questions but enquiring minds do want to
know.
[1] I know that Wine stands for `Wine Is Not a cpu Emulator' but calling it an
emulator is close enough and gets the point across :-)
---
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Xenographic on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:49 AM EDT |
<blockquote>
He has given SCO 30 days to convince him that they qualify for a preliminary
injunction based on irreparable harm. They can do limited discovery, limited to
facts pertinent to a preliminary injunction only, not, they were told, a fishing
expedition, and they were told that if they know they can't qualify for a
preliminary injunction, they shouldn't do any discovery at all.
He doesn't know SCO as well as we do, huh? Of course they will do discovery. You
can almost hear them drooling on the audio.
</blockquote>
Don't be so sure he isn't at least somewhat wise to them. This would seem like
quite an opening for him to sanction them should they do the limited discovery,
while he points out later why they should not have...
I am no lawyer, but that's how I might bait a litigant like SCO... Sure, you
have a fair opportunity to prove your case, but if (when) you're unable, you're
going to have sanctions, and I warned you of them ahead of time...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:14 AM EDT |
Now it's not about Linux infringing SCO. But they just said it was about that
in another court. Can a Judge not cite them for contempt of court for running
around avering a different thing in each court? Darl in jail with Bubba is such
a charming image.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:34 AM EDT |
The issue of whether AutoZone's applications use OpenServer's shared static
libraries or Linux's shared libraries can be quickly resolved with little
effort. AutoZone could simply show, and have an independent party certify, that
running the ldd command against all AutoZone Linux application binaries lists
only Linux shared libraries needing to be loaded at run-time, and that these
Linux shared libraries provide all the functions called out in the source code
for AutoZone's applications. AutoZone could also show the build logs for all
their applications which would clearly show which libraries were being called
out during the compile and linkage steps. That should be all the discovery
needed to prove that SCO's beliefs about AutoZone using OpenServer libraries
were absolutely incorrect.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Khym Chanur on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 06:48 AM EDT |
| Now they lied, right to the judge's face, about the case that the judge
himself is hearing, not about the cases being heard before some other
judges! I mean, the judge might have a lot on his plate, and can't remember
exactly what the SCO case is about, but eventually he's going to figure
out that the complaint SCO filed was about violations with the Linux kernel, and
didn't mention anything about OpenServer... right? Is SCO going directly for the
"enrage the judge so we have an excuse for an appeal" strategy, or are they
hoping that he has Alzheimer's? What sort of sanctions can SCO get for doing
this? And if no sanctions, how badly does a lawyer have to behave to get
sanctions? ---
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but
set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from
Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 06:59 AM EDT |
This is a pretty significant loss to SCO.
First, it is a very strong setback to their "sue end users"
strategy/fantasy.
Second, it further undermines their arguments to stay the Red Hat case.
Third, they can no longer use this as an argument to dismiss IBM's counterclaim
10.
But the thing that I think of is: will their stock drop?
Something wierd has been going on with their stock. It won't really drop below
$5. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
Just to save other people searching for half an hour to read the posting made
by the person who claimed to be responsible for having ported AZs programs from
UNIXware to Linux:
This
is it
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
... I had a properly licensed SCO OS on a computer and I did the following:
1) Delete files until there's nothing left but the shared libraries and my
applications.
2) Install Linux
I now have a computer running my applications on Linux. At what step did I
violate my license agreement with SCO?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Turin on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:39 AM EDT |
They're less likely to forge an activist theory to kill OSS off as a result of
Gates' plea that "OSS kills jobs".
Unfortunately they are more likely to _buy_ that plea, so maybe it's a wash.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Huh? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:53 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Turin on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:06 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:39 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Turin on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- Huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 16 2004 @ 10:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
FreeBSD also comes with a coff/binary emulation capability. The FreeBSD
port bundles "newlib", which is a from scratch libc that is interface
compatible
with sco libc. "newlib" also was historically used with the ibcs
kernel module.
Perhaps rather than using a libc from openserver as SCO seems to believe,
autozone simply built newlib on a modern gnu/linux target and statically
linked their images against that?
The idea that SCO has that they "had" to use SCO's library because
there is no
other way to do this is clearly false.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sesostris III on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
Yet more contadictions. From PJs comments above:
"SCO said that
their claims against AutoZone don't necessarily have anything to do with what is
"inside" Linux".
From their "MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO SEPARATE OR stay, COUNTS NINE, TEN AND FOURTEEN OF THE
COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF IBM'S SECOND AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS AGAINST SCO." (http://www.gro
klaw.net/article.php?story=20040427112050356).
"The issue of
the validity of SCO's copyrights is pending in litigation in Nevada".
Will there come a point when all these contradictions need to be answered.
Should (unlikely) TSG win anything, surely they have left many avenues for
IBM/Red Hat/Autozone to appeal?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: trs on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
What was it that SCO provided Autozone and when did Autozone stop using it?
Was just an OS to run/develop their applications on or was it an OS and an
application?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: philc on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:31 AM EDT |
SCO seems to be saying: "You built your program on a legal licensed version
of OpenServer and included the static (binary) library into the program but ran
the program on an unlicensed Linux system".
When you build with static libraries they become part of the program image
(included in the program file). This is all binary. Thre is no source involved
at all. The question is can you be restricted on where the program is run? Does
it have to be run on a licensed system?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jrzagar on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
But if SCO can manage to keep the Linux copyright issues out of court, then the
issue will NOT GET RESOLVED, and they can continue to FUD and pressure people to
buy SCOsource licenses...
They also get to keep "claiming" they're relevant because they're
complaining about the potential for IP problems in Linux.
-RZ
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Okay........... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:12 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
To all who switched UNIX->Linux:
Check to make sure your shared (static or dynamic) libraries, designed to run
UNIX app's on Linux do not infringe on SCO. Don't give SCO this opening.
So far this seems to be an area we can focus on.
Message to Linux programmers:
Post specific instructions on what to look for, and what might be infringing.
Include how, where and what to do to fix it.
My view is that in switching, some users may have inadvertently put themselves
at risk, and in the frantic course of running their day-today business, never
looked back to the details of the change.
Can we have a simple test program that will tell us our status, machine by
machine?
The Linux community needs to make a concerted, effective campaign to be sure
that no one gives SCO this opening.
--------------------------
Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:15 PM EDT |
"6. SCO's attorney made a funny argument when talking about their Most Holy
IP. He said that source code is the crown jewels. Without source code, he said,
you can't write applications. You can't do much that matters. Hmm. Too true.
"
I wonder if Microsoft agree with their agents? We know its true but perhaps Big
Bad Bill doesn't want all his customers to know they are buying something
useless.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pmk on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
A computer's processor reads its instructions from the
memory system. The possible instructions and their encodings
into binary numbers are defined by the processor's instruction
set architecture.
In a modern computer system, the instructions get into memory
by being read from a filesystem object by the operating system
(after the machine has booted up). These files are called
executables, and are almost always created by a program
called the linker (or "collector", or "loader").
Many executables contain a marker that tells the operating
system that they are incomplete programs, and they contain
the name of another file that the operating system should
run, either after loading the original program or instead
of doing so. This special program is the dynamic loader.
It uses information placed into the original executable
by the linker to locate and load the other pieces of
the program from files called dynamic libraries.
Additional dynamic libraries can be loaded later under
program control, too. Like executables, dynamic libraries
are created by the linker. (Some people use the term
"shared object" or "shared library" here.)
The linker creates executables and dynamic libraries from
input files we call relocatables. Each relocatable contains
chunks of binary instructions and program data. They're
called relocatables because their contents can be placed
by the linker at arbitrary memory addresses. Relocatables
refer to the content of other unidentified relocatables
by name; each relocatable contains information about
the names of the subroutines and data objects that it
defines as well as the names of the subroutines and data
objects from other relocatables that it requires.
When the linker creates an executable that does not
need to use the dynamic linker, each of the names
referenced by the relocatable files must be defined
by (ideally) a single definition in some relocatable.
But when the linker creates an executable that does
use the dynamic linker, and when it creates a dynamic
library, some names can remain unresolved. It is the
job of the dynamic loader to match the remaining unresolved
names up with their definitions.
A collection of relocatables can be packaged into a single
file for convenience; this is called a static library, and
it is suitable only for use by the linker, not the dynamic
loader.
Relocatables are generated by programs called compilers and
assemblers. Both compilers and assemblers take human-readable
text files as input. (Some lazy compilers actually generate
textual input for an assembler and let that program create
a relocatable; other compilers generate relocatables directly.)
These human-readable text files are source files, and you
should have the sources for all the executables and libraries
on your system, I believe, so that you can fix and extend
and share them.
In many modern computer systems, the same file format is used
for relocatables, executables, and dynamic libraries.
(This note could be an order of magnitude larger if I had tried to describe all
of the variants of this general scheme
and its terminology. This is essentially how I explain my job to my mother.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fractaloon on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Does the type of case dictate what judge you get? That is, since they started
suing IBM for copyright infringment would they have gotten a copyright
specialist judge? It seems like then switching to a contract dispute could
possibly give them an advantage... or at least less of a disadvantage if the
judge is not familiar with those types of cases.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
This whole complaint bothers me.
Sometimes, it is easy for an attorney to say things that are bizarrely
unrealistic.
As far as I can tell, TSG claims that AZ used their binary libraries, not their
source code for the binary libraries.
Every case is different, of course, but that seems impossible to me.
I have participated in system upgrades and system changes in many environments.
"Never" is an easy word to use. It describes the number of times that
useful application systems went over to the new generation of OS with *no* need
to recompile to handle changes.
I have never heard of a system change (from one OS to another) where at least
some of the code did not have to be recompiled.
TSG appears to be claiming that AZ is using the binary libraries useable on a
Unix system, under Linux, with no changes, without recompiling the source code.
I do not believe it.
---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
SCO have been arguing to the IBM court (and are even still arguing with their
pending undecided motion), that IBM's 10th counterclaim should be stayed -
because the IBM and AZ issues are the same
Meanwhile, SCO is telling the AZ court, that the IBM and AZ issues are
completely different, and AZ is all about Open Server libraries (OpenServer is
no where mentioned in either the IBM or AZ complaints)
Quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, July 14 2004 @ 03:53 PM EDT |
Lots of interesting discussions here.A fine disection of the event, with plenty
of sidebar stuff to increase educational value. Just not enough puns for my
taste.
I conclude this is another furball (something even your cat gets rid of).
Similarly to the IBM case, Darl got a law firm to take on a suit based on a
half-baked suspicion. TSCOG has once again lept into the ring with only a
jockstrap and bathroom slippers.
Somebody told Darl that AZ "could" have used SCO libraries in their
port to Linux. That's all they have. The guy who did the port says they didn't
need them (POSIX anyone?) There's no one left at TSCOG who helped AZ do the
port, thanks to lay offs and other departures.
Since TSCOG management have clearly been off their prescription medication for
over a year, it's anybody's guess whether they take the judge's offer to
demonstrate irreparable harm. We'd need to see their FUD forecast for this part
of their universe.
I do take comfort in the fact that we now know what they thought they could sue
about at the time of this court appearance. Of course, that was last week's
plan, which, as several people have noted, is different from the previous
filing.
---
To The SCO Group - show us your cows.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Maserati on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
That's not actually a troll. The OP is disregarding the studies -- and cites
conflicting studies -- to make the point that the Supreme Court appointed Bush
president without the recounts happening. It's a subtle point, but that's what
those people still carrying the 'Bush was appointed' banner have been talking
about. There wouldn't still be activism about the 2000 election if they'd had
the recount and Bush had won. It's not just sour grapes, just because some
studies show Bush would have won anyway doesn't wipe out the fact that those
votes weren't (re)counted.
Personally, the blatant screening of black voters from the rolls due to very
loose name matches with a database of felons is the real crime in the Florida
elections.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kbwojo on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 02:33 AM EDT |
I think TSG would lose a motion for preliminary injuction because of the approx.
two year delay from the time AZ switched to Linux and the time TSG filed this
lawsuit. I am not 100% sure on the law, but I recall that this was discussed on
this site in detail awhile back. I have found one reference to this, but no case
law or anything else that would verify this 100%.
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are frequently denied
on the grounds that a party has not acted soon enough. Time is of the essence
and the quality of the initial presentation is also essential to winning a
preliminary injunction.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 02:35 AM EDT |
Blake Stowell, as quoted in eWeek: "If you
look at what the judge stated, it certainly opened the door for SCO to start the
discovery process and collect depositions and then, based on what we found, to
possibly file for a preliminary judgment. So, with this in mind, we welcomed the
stay based on these exceptions, and we look forward to conducting the discovery
and depositions in this case."
This is way too funny. Judge Jones
knows very well that SCO can discover and depose all they want, but they'll
never come up with anything proving that SCO is harmed by this stay. Like the
Christmas fruitcake you get from your Aunt Edna, the judge's token of good will
is purely for show, and worthless to the recipient.
Yet Stowell takes
it seriously, or at least pretends to. Now SCO is going to have to scramble to
find someone to depose, just so they can make good on Stowell's statement.
Maybe the guy who rang up my spark plugs last week knows something.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Franki on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
Of all the ongoing litigation with SCO, This is the one case that I was
expecting to end up stayed. I don't think it has been a surprise to anyone
following the case. SCO just made too many errors in cross court statements, and
were caught for it.
I am surprised that there was any leeway for discovery at all though, what
purpose would it serve?
What I don't understand, is that there is no way SCO can suffer irreperable harm
here, none at all, AZ are not a distributer of Linux and use it for internal use
only. So what possible harm can SCO come to that is allowed under law?
(certainly not the claim of lost potential income.)
Can anyone shed some light on what damage SCO can legally claim ?
regards
Franki
---
Is M$ behind Linux attacks?
http://htmlfixit.com/index.php?p=86[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
No, the supremes didn't. As I understand, they ruled that Fla needed to do a
complete recount or not at all (i.e. no cherry picking), as the standard UNDER
FLA LAW. They also ruled that, per the law governing electors, Fla had to
complete a recount by Dec 13 (date required to certify electors), or the Fla
house/senate members (per the constitution) would become the electors. Since
Fla decided they couldn't complete the recount, the vote was certified.
Even Gore conceded the election. Note that the US is not a majority democracy
- we are a a representative republic. the electoral system was put in place to
keep the northern states from overwhelming the interests of the southern states
in a presidential election. The idea was to ensure the president represented not
only a large (ideally majority) of the population, but also the majority of
regions.
Fundamentally, the US system, as originally designed, was put in place to stop
two tyrannies -
1. The minority ruling the majority (in a worst case, a dictatorship).
2. The majority ruling the minority (mob rule).
We've tampered with it (senators were originally selected by the state
legislators, now are popularly elected), but the system still fundamentally
works.
jjs
ps: note that this was NOT the first election in the US where the
rpesident-elect did not get the majority of votes. The previous cases left as
exercise to the reader.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
| Jones was previously a bankruptcy judge. So he's probably incredibly used to
sorting through conflicting stories and overblown rhetoric from people running
badly-managed companies. He's probably also used to calling bluffs, which is
what the shot at a PI may be about, since on its face the complaint alleges
irreparable harm without giving any facts in support.
The SCO lawyer sounded
seriously off-balance at the end. He was handed an unexpected shot at a PI,
tried to turn it into a fishing expedition, and failed. I detected a hint that
if SCO will be sanctioned if they try discovery knowing that there are no
possible facts which could give them the right to a PI - the judge said : "If
you don't have the right to a preliminary injunction, you shouldn't proceed to
discovery at all". Then he belatedly realised as the judge was rising
that the stay meant SCO wouldn't get an answer. So he tried to get it added to
the order, in a pleading tone : "One last thing ... they need to file an
answer ... part of the order". AZ's counsel was right onto this "... my
understanding is it's stayed ...", and the judge : "It is
stayed".
SCO are in deep trouble here : no answer; case stayed till after
IBM and RH are decided; they now look weak if they don't try for a PI, but there
may be sanctions for fishing; if they do try for a PI, they'll inevitably have
to make a more definite statement because they have to say what they want and
justify why, to a judge who isn't giving much wriggle-room.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Thursday, July 15 2004 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
| Judge Jones gave SCO 30 days to propound deposition, and then Autozone
gets 30 days to reply. After that, there will be a couple of weeks for writing
an injunction motion, replying to that, etc. If everybody takes their full time,
we won't see any injunction motion heard until sometime in
October.
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 16 2004 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
You can't short a stock below $5 (on Nasdaq), but that isn't the only
problem fiaSCO is dealing with.
Nasdaq is the
second-biggest stock exchange in the U.S., behind only the New York Stock
Exchange (which has stricter listing standards and where fewer than 2% of its
stocks are trading under $1). By continuing to list penny stocks, Nasdaq may
be laying a trap for small investors lured by the shares' sheer affordability
and by casino dreams of big payoffs. It also may be avoiding an inevitable
question: How have so many of the stocks it has listed soured so seriously, and
often so swiftly?
Five to 10 years ago sub-$1 stocks would be
pink-sheet stocks; now they're all trading on Nasdaq. Penny stocks are more
easily manipulated. Indeed, many traditional money managers have mandates
that prevent them from owning stocks under $5.
I
just read recently that fiaSCO had a share repurchase plan in effect. As I've
been following the yahoo!!!!!!!!!!!! message boards on fiaSCO, there has been a
lot of charges (without the necessary documentation most of the time) of
"painting". Just because they "see" it, it's "painting". Well, now knowing
there is a share repurchase, and any company's desire to still have its shares
tradeable by the widest possible audience, that explains the support at $5,
if the restrictions on money managers at the $5 bottom is
accurate.
imho, if I were actively trading stocks right now, and if I
had some free trades coming to me, I'd buy one share, and tell my broker to send
me the certificate, so I could use it as a wall hanger. Those certificates are
going to be collector items in less than a year. And if a large group of people
did this, it would be further financial drain on fiaSCO (they have to issue the
certificates, record the ownership, etc.). I'll leave it to the readers to
decide whether obtaining a wall hanger and draining fiaSCO's war chest is a good
thing or not. Of course, if you do decide to become a shareholder, I'd
certainly recommend calling the company to have them send you all the quarterly
reports they have available, their last yearly report available, and other
documentation that shareholders have the right to. Be sure to make space out
each request for each quarterly, and the yearly reports, and anything else you
are entitled to, far enough apart so that they aren't mailed all at once, so
efficiencies of batch mailing aren't realized (or did I mean, don't overload
your mailman?).
Owning stock carries responsibilities. If you buy a single
share of fiaSCO stock, even as a wallhanger, you should still endeavor to learn
everything you can about the company you now own a part of. That means making
sure you get as complete a set of documentation from them as is possible, within
SEC/Nasdaq rules, as an owner.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
