SCO sues AutoZone over use of Linux

[Fenris]

http://www.startribune.com/stories/789/4642048.html

AutoZone sued over use of Linux
Associated Press

Published March 3, 2004
Last updated: March 3, 2004 at 8:08 AM

NEW YORK -- The SCO Group Inc. today said it has filed a copyright suit against auto-parts company AutoZone Inc., alleging the chain runs versions of the freely distributed Linux operating system that contain code belonging to SCO.

<snip>

SCO holds the rights to key elements of the 30-year-old Unix operating system from which Linux was inspired, and claims parts of it have been incorporated in Linux. Those claims are disputed by, among others, IBM Corp. and Novell Inc. IBM and SCO have traded lawsuits over the matter.

<snip>

IBM, Intel Corp. and other have contributed to a legal fund that will help companies running Linux defray the cost of defending themselves against lawsuits.

In a statement, SCO Chief Executive Darl McBride vowed to continue suing Linux users.

[BearFlagDemocrat]

1. 2nd lawsuit

Against Daimler-Chrysler:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040303/law083_1.html

[sendero]

2. Good luck....

.... proving that. SCO is becoming the RIAA of software. And as close to extinction as well.

[Occulus]

6. The most amusing and revealing part

is that, for so long, SCO refused to exhibit the bits of code they felt they had ownership of. Why? Because they know that linux programmers, being the savvy beasts they are, would quickly rewrite the "ptoprietary" code so that it would function properly but not infringe.

SCO wanted this to go to court. Wanted it so badly they refused to let anyone fix the situation for everyone. I'm very, very angry with SCO for this. They are trying, desperately trying, to kill linux.

[MikeGalos]

11. Nice story but not true

they'd happily let you see the stolen code that's the basis for their lawsuits if you signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Funny thing is, most of the "SCO hasn't got a case" people are saying so without ever seeing the evidence and some of people who have seen the evidence have been paying SCO a license fee to keep using Linux.

But, hey, feel free to keep thinking they have no case based on wishful thinking. I just hope you got your distro of Linux from a source who'll insure you against SCO winning (as some vendors have).

[sendero]

17. Guess what....

.... if they find a bit of offending code here and there, it isn't really going to help their case much. That code will be ripped out and rewritten in DAYS.

They are flogging a dead horse but of course that is their right.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Visit www.groklaw.net liberally

And have a nice day.

[Tommy_Douglas]

19. Not true either...

Slashdot has covered this extensively and there are those that have seen the code, but can't say what since they wouldn't sign the agreement, and many of them say SCO hasn't a foot to stand on.

Its critical that the open source community win this battle. Those that have paid SCO did so to avoid the attention and problems that could arise from it. More or less. "Here's some money leave us alone..."

People have paid off the RIAA. Does that make what they do right?

[BiggJawn]

3. At least Bill Gates....

...won't sue you for using a legally-acquired version of WinDoz yet....

[Renew Deal]

4. Fuck SCO

they are a bunch of extortionists. They need the money to sue IBM. Their plan backfired. They thought IBM would just bend over and take it.

[sendero]

5. Yeah...

... they did that for Gates to their everlasting shame and regret. They are not likely to ever do it again. :)

[MikeGalos]

13. Um, wait a minute

If they needed the money to sue IBM for stealing their code and putting it into Linux then they must think they've got a case. If they do then they've also got a case for the suits you claim they're filing only as extortion to raise the money.

Either they have a valid claim of theft in which case all these suits are valid or they don't and none are.

If it IS, then it's hardly extortion to sue for damages from a thief who stole your property or anyone else who bought the stolen property. If not, they'll be out of business when they lose the first case.

[Renew Deal]

16. IBM didn't steal anything.

They do not have a valid claim. They don't own the code. Novell owns it. No one stole anything from them. They will be trounced in this case. It is extortion because they hope that Autozone will just fold on this. They are going to go after small fish to raise money for IBM. SCO isn't the first company to sue without a case. Most conmpanies don't want to deal with lawsuits so they just settle. But SCO doesn't have a case here and they will be hammered by IBM. They don't care about making useful products anymore. They just want to try to ride the waves of this BS lawsuit.

BTW, do you have any MP3's sitting on your computer?

[MikeGalos]

24. Really? And how do you know that? Seen the code?

(Oh, and I have licenses for all the intellectual property on my computer. How about you? Steal from an artist lately?)

[Occulus]

22. Here's a telling question

Why won't SCO make the offending code public to everyone?

After all, the problems would be remedied within days. There would cease to be a suit.

IOW, this isn't about the code at all. This is about money generated by this suit and others, period.

They want a suit, not a remedy. This is abuse of the system as well.


I wonder if the folks who signed the NDA could collectively remember which portions were copied code and get together in an open project to rewrite that code. They could silently insert it into the latest builds of whatever and never publicly utter a peep about it. They could, for example, diguise the remedies to the suit as "upgrades".

Any thoughts?

One final point:

"If it IS, then it's hardly extortion to sue for damages from a thief who stole your property or anyone else who bought the stolen property. If not, they'll be out of business when they lose the first case."

My understanding is that SCO itself may have released some of the code they are claiming as their own into the linux community at one point. Would such a thing invalidate their claim on that code in a suit such as this one?

[MikeGalos]

23. What magic will do that?

Are you really saying that days after SCO releases which code is illegal that every user of Linux will replace the offeding code with new modules that will miraculously do exactly the same thing, in exactly the same way with no use of anything stolen?

Or do you think that they will pay SCO for the stolen code within a few days out of a sense of personal sense of responsibilty?

More likely will be a barrage of "well, that code really isn't worth what SCO says it is so I'm going to keep using no matter what. Besides Information (that I want, only) should be free!!! So there!"

[TroglodyteScholar]

7. Pathetic

This should be funny...

[chocolateeater]

8. Does SCO even make anything anymore?

Or do they just plan on making money by suing everybody.

[david_vincent]

10. Yeah - they make enemies

[chocolateeater]

12. Yep IBM and Novell are enemies I'd want to make. n/t

[Tims]

9. SCO never made a product anyone wanted to buy

So now they have decided that there is more profit in lawsuits than in writing code. The sad thing is that all flavors of Unix, including SCO's are based on publicly available code. SCO took advantage of this to create one of the first PC compatible Unix operating systems without having to do much work themselves. The statement that SCO holds rights to "key" elements of Unix, might be a surprise to ATT and UC Berkley, not to mention, Sun and Hewlett-Packard, who had fully operating Unix systems before SCO existed. The only thing SCO could have contributed was PC related implementation details, all the "key" elements were already there.

Since the Linux distributors don't have deep pockets, they are going after the users. Sad.

[MikeGalos]

14. Which shows that you didn't do your homework

SCO owns the license for precisely the stuff from AT&T that you claim is prior art. I doubt they'd be surprised to know that the company they bought Unix from had Unix when they bought it.

(to be precise, they bought Unix from someone who bought Unix from someone who bought Unix... back to the original ownership at AT&T)

[cprise]

15. And neither do you

"SCO owns the license for precisely the stuff from AT&T that you claim is prior art."

Oh, really? Thank you for that, um, precise opinion.

Anyway this case is about SCO's suspicion that IBM copied SCO OpenServer libraries to Linux in order to help AutoZone move some custom apps to Linux. You see, SCO lost the chance to perform the transition work and now they insist the job was done too efficiently and must have used underhanded methods.

I invite you to read this comment and partake in the discussion:

I don't know whether to be pleased or angry at SCO's assertion that IBM must have assisted AutoZone's transition to Linux due to the "precision and efficiency with which the migration occurred". You see, I was a Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone, where I was an employee for over 10 years. During my tenure, I participated and led in the design, development and maintenance of many of AutoZone's store systems. More importantly, I initiated AutoZone's transition to Linux and I directed the port of their existing store software base to Linux. I personally ported all of AutoZone's internal software libraries for use under Linux. I personally developed the rules by which other AutoZone developers should make changes to their code to support both Linux and SCO's OpenServer product. I believe at one point I had as many as 35 AutoZone developers performing porting work for me, much of which was trivial, given that our code did not generally rely on SCO specific features and that the more technologically sophisticated portions of our code tended to reside in our libraries. The developers were also responsible for testing their individual applications under both SCO and Linux; I supplemented this activity by performing builds of the entire AutoZone store software base on my desktop, which I had converted to Linux.

As to the claim that SCO's shared libraries were a necessary part of the port: false. No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity.

As to the claim that IBM induced us to transition to Linux: false. It was, in fact, SCO's activities that 'greased the skids' and allowed the business case for using Linux to be made more easily. That is a story long in the telling; perhaps I'll share it another day.

One should remember the Linux business environment that existed at the time the AutoZone transition began. Several vendors - the original Caldera Linux distribution company, Red Hat, and Linuxcare - were offering support for enterprise installations of Linux. In fact, Bryan Sparks, then CEO of Caldera, flew to Memphis and met with me during my evaluation of the various distribution and support offerings. I also met and talked briefly with Dave Sifry of Linuxcare during the 1999 Linux Expo. AutoZone settled on Red Hat chiefly because of my familiarity with their distribution and the ease with which AutoZone could negotiate a support agreement with them.

I must add that SCO was eventually made aware of AutoZone's transition to Linux. They responded by offering to assist AutoZone in the porting activity. By the time of their offer, AutoZone had already completed the initial porting activity and had already installed a Linux-based version of their store system in several stores.

Finally, I'll add that I was for a time a member of SCO's Customer Advisory Board. As such, I believe I have some useful insights as to why SCO lost AutoZone's and several other large accounts' business.

Regards, Jim Greer

This was originally posted on GrokLaw, but they're inundated right now. The original link is in the Slashdot article.

[fedsron2us]

20. Will SCO be suing the Chinese government

for their use of Red Flag Linux ? Somehow, I think not. Most of Asia will continue to adopt Linux regardless of what the US courts decide. As these nations are going to be the driving force behind technical developments in the future this case says more about the problems facing the American IT industry than the future of Linux. US tech companies increasingly seem to prefer litigation to innovation. This is probably why so many of them are doomed for extinction.

[depakid]

21. They sure are setting themselves up as a target

I wonder how much they have to pay for security?