AutoZone sued over use of Linux
 

AutoZone sued over use of Linux
Associated Press

Published March 3, 2004
Last updated: March 3, 2004 at 8:08 AM
LIN04

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.

Over the last several months, Lindon-based SCO has sent letters to about 1,500 companies demanding they pay licensing fees of about $700 for each server running Linux or face legal action.

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.

A spokesman for AutoZone, which is based in Memphis, Tenn., was not immediately available to comment.

Unlike Unix or Microsoft Corp.'s Windows, Linux is developed by a worldwide community of programmers and is free to copy or download, making it attractive to many corporations.

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.

Also today, SCO said that after paying dividends on preferred shares, it lost $2.25 million, or 16 cents a share, in its fiscal first quarter ended Jan. 31.

It lost $724,000, or 6 cents a share, in the same quarter last year.

Revenue fell 16 percent to $11.4 million from $13.5 million.


------------------------


I hope the SCO group get their asses handed to them in court. What a pure and pathetic cash grab attempt by this company.

SCO is reaching a little bit. Why don't they go after the German government. They just signed an agreement to use Linux on all of their servers and desktops.

SCO will also sue DaimlerChrysler for the same reasons. Stupid, but I guess it's their only hope of staying afloat since they don't turn a profit doing legitimate business.

I do think it's OK to have this heard by courts of law.

It's awfully nice of Intel and IBM to contribute to the legal fund to help companies who get sued. Of course we all know that they're just doing it out of the goodness of their corporate hearts, not because there's some sort of long term financial advantage.

But anyway, I doubt that SCO will be succesful in the long term if it continues pulling this shit, nor will it get a lot of new customers this way.

Not only is this bad news for SCO, it's bad news for linux. Companies will refrain from using anything that's supposedly open-source if there's a snowball's chance in July that they're going to get sued for it.

I'm with ART on this, though. let the courts hear it. The worst that can happen is that if code belonging to SCO is found in the distribution, it will have to be removed and replaced by true open-source code. The best that can happen is that SCO will have been found to violate the open source terms of usage for Linux by including open-source code in it's so-called copyrighted segments, and they'll be forced to pay some ridiculous sum of money to Linux users everywhere.

Disclaimer: I do not now, nor have I ever, used Linux as a primary operating system on a computer personally owned by me. I am, however, tired of corporate legal fuckery.

Very,very wrong
SCO is suing both IBM and Intel for use of code that IBM placed in the public domain before selling the unix code to SCO. Basicly it's IBM saying "we sold you the portions of the code we hadn't put in the public domain"
and SCO saying "You sold it all to us and never mentioned you placed any in the public domain"
An issue for the courts to be sure.
However, SCO's lawsuit is asking a federal judge to ban the distribution of Linux for five years on the basis that SCO has lost five years of market by the public use of their code. Essentially, SCO want's a judge to give them a five year chance to get ahead in the market before linux development can continue. That's called an unfair market advantage if granted.
Think about it for a moment,
No Redhat, no Apache, No MySql, no mandrake. None of it.
It's also worth pointing out that Microsoft is picking up all of SCO's legal bills, as was disclosed in MS tax fillings this past year.

Behind every great Fuck-up, there is some asshole egging them on, saying "Seriously, do it, it'll be cool as hell"

I don't see where Apache and MySql come in...
Both are in no way connected to the supposedly infringing code.

As I understand it, it is the Linux Kernel itself that is the point of debate. Every tool built around it is not in any danger of prosecution. Plus the mentioned programs are both available for other platforms and demand and development will continue on those.

However, it will mean that for many of us, an insecure, overpriced, bloated, choice-limiting, gorilla of an OS is the only option left.

Btw, I never knew IBM sold Unix to SCO, I thought Novell did, and it was sub-licensed to IBM. (during that license period the alleged code transfer has supposedly taken place.)

In the end, I believe free software wil prevail and for as long as the hardware base doesn't change (read: they don't force Palladium/'trusted computing' on us), we as users will have control over our own systems. But this FUD-spreading is seriously damaging Linux' reputation.

The computer system that my company uses is SCO-Unix based. The licensing fees are outrageous, with separate monthly fees for each work station and printer. SCO's private parts should rot and fall off!

Ah, SCO. Gotta love the sue-everyone extortion business model...

I'm to disgusted by SCO to even bother commenting on the actual issue at hand. Suffice it to say, I signed my name on a letter to be sent to SCO of private Linux users.

Because Germany already stopped SCO in its tracks. The German courts basically told SCO they cant make any more their outrageous claims about Linux containing SCO code. They've restricted SCO to only suing their customers who they suspect of violating contracts with SCO (as I understand it: IANAL).

Without the possibility of winning its cases in the long term, SCO is fucked anyways. No one buys SCO Unix. This is what a company does on its deathbed.

Read up on the SCO case at:

http://www.groklaw.net

And you just have to love this one:

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38138.htm

Two words: Open source.

thats what the riaa is doing to... thier just following the trend

Well, who knew AutoZone & DaimlerChrysler were in SCO's bullseye?

SCO in it's continuing move to make money without actually doing anything, has decided to sue AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler for using Linux.

The Bloomberg full text.

BTW, screw the Fark link, they make one register to view the article more than once.





I don't see how they plan on running a business based on suing people.

1) This type of activity, even if they're right, generates so much negative attention it's not worth it.

2) Even if they are right, there's obviously no way that the entire open source community is going to say, "Oh shit, someone did illegally use some code? Gee, we'll all stop using Linux right this moment."

Somehow, I don't see that happening.

3) Posession is 9/10ths of the law. There are millions? of Linux distros in use all over the world. Business/personall/whole server farms...these people all have legally aquired copies of software they depend on. The law will NOT find them liable for the code, even assuming that SCO is correct that parts of it are stolen. These users had no intent or desire to use stolen software. It's kida hard to do that with Linux anyway...so, there is no REASON AT ALL to fork $$ over to SCO.

4) This case is not winnable on it's face. Whoever at SCO is persuing it is hugely stupid. The only thing SCO has a shot at is proving IBM knowingly misused SCO code. If they could prove that, they have a solid case for some damages.

5) It's too bad SCO is waaay past the point of being reasonable. At this point they've lost all credability with the end user. SCO has joined RIAA in minds accross America as a sue happy bunch of assholes.

__________________
Unapologetic American

Last edited by billege on 03-03-2004 at 02:55 PM


I suppose I should have put the thread where more people could see it, but I put it here instead.

Ha, Ha

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...lines-business

Linux may be open-source but they still used components from an operating systems that isn't open-source. How would you tell if somebody took money from you and put it toward to stock. And that person's stock gains a million bucks after a week. Would you want your money back? Plus some interest rate and some of the million buck?

Probably.

Now you see how SCO feels.

Allow me to say it again...

Business/personall/whole server farms...these people all have legally aquired copies of software they depend on. The law will NOT find them liable for the code, even assuming that SCO is correct that parts of it are stolen. These users had no intent or desire to use stolen software. There is no REASON AT ALL, especially for users, to fork $$ over to SCO.

This case is not winnable on it's face. Whoever at SCO is persuing it is hugely stupid. The only thing SCO has a shot at is proving IBM knowingly misused SCO code. If they could prove that, they have a solid case for some damages.

While were at it, there are internal emails leaking from SCO that clearly show the company is most certainly using the legal system as a means to extort money from other companies. Apparently this is a better plan than making money by providing goods and services.

Your sympathy for SCO is misplaced. They are not the wronged party just tying for justice, they are extorsionists.

Oh well, who cares anyways, just tell SCO to fuck off and find something else better to do...like actually work on bettering their products in order to make profits...

Ya gotta love them corpo mofos...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but it is even worse for SCO. As I understand it, SCO does not even have the copyright of the infringing code, only the right to sublicense it. Novell claims to still own the code, and they have no interest whatsoever at suing anybody. That said, it is even quiestionable that the license agreement which is supposedly violated here exists. The company that IBM agreed a license with, is not the SCO as we know it, but the parent company that split off.
This last piece of info is unclear to me, and details are sketchy, but it is another possible legal pitfall for SCO.

I'm all for the little guy winning from the big guy, as the little guy is usually the victim. But the way SCO is handling the case it's obvious that they are in the bully role here, and they are deservedly losing public support.

00

Here's an article on SCO's leaked memos
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1542915,00.asp

Oh, its SCO.

Move along, nothing to see here. :)

The only thing I have to say is there is a new AutoZone store going in down the street from us.

I think that the difference is that in this case, SCO also had a chance to "win a million bucks" too by bettering their product and making it appealing to the consumers. Of course there's a little more to the story and it's not quite the same but I'm not rooting for SCO.

Actually, the difference here is that Linux DIDN'T use any code that SCO owns so the comparison is irrelevant.

As Linus Torvalds pointed out at one point or another, SCO is basically playing it like the Raelians. If you don't remember, that was the group that said they cloned a baby and wouldn't provide the proof at all and when they did it was by their own panel of "experts." Likewise, SCO files lawsuit after lawsuit based on this alleged code that Linux contains, yet over and over when the courts ask to see this code they won't show it, and the courts by the way are getting pretty pissed off about this by now. Furthermore, the little bits of this alleged code that have been exposed were debunked in a matter of a couple days if that.

SCO is just Microsofts puppet. Their sole purpose of existence is to cause trouble for MSwindows competitors.

-My opinion anyways.