The Nevada court where SCO Group has filed a lawsuit against US retailer AutoZone could itself theoretically be subject to legal proceedings because the court is using Linux to run its Web site. SCO is suing AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler as part of its claim that its Unix intellectual property is contained in Linux.
SCO, which owns a disputed amount of Unix intellectual property and claims some of the code was improperly used in Linux, threatened in November to sue Linux users, although it missed a self-imposed mid-February deadline to file such lawsuits. On Monday, SCO chief executive Darl McBride said the company was planning on announcing two legal targets shortly before announcing its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004. On Wednesday, the company announced the AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler lawsuits.
According to Internet services company Netcraft, the US District Court, District of Nevada's Web site has been using Linux with a Lotus Domino database since November 2002 -- after it switched over from Windows NT4.
SCO's lawsuit, filed in the same court, requests injunctive relief against AutoZone's further use or copying of any part of SCO's copyrighted materials and also requests damages as a result of AutoZone's infringement in an amount to be proven at trial.
The official Web sites of the White House and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are also powered by the open-source operating system, according to Netcraft.
Talkback
Ziff Davis has been fooled. Read the lawsuit submission carefully. SCO is *not* suing AutoZone for using Linux, they are suing AutoZone for (supposedly) violating their SCO Unix license. This has NOTHING to do with their seperate, unsubstantiated claim that Linux contains source code from their Unix products. SCO is an extremely adept at confusing the press about exactly what their lawsuits are about. I think it is time for Ziff Davis to hire an intellectual property lawyer to examine the whole issue and report on it correctly, rather than relying on the usual spate of techie reporters.
So far, all SCOG has told us about why they sued Autozone is: "The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared libraries to run legacy applications on Linux."
A few weeks ago Jim Greer, who was a Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone, and headed the project there to switch to Linux, posted to Groklaw. Here is the link.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040215015800694#c78161
He said: "No SCO libraries were involved in the porting activity."
As usual, SCOG has not named any specific SCOG shared library that Autozone used at any specific place in its programs. If they run true to form, they will defy court orders compelling them to provide this information.
When SCO said that they were going to sue a Linux user one would have expected them to sue over Linux.
But instead, they sue two of their own customers over EUALA violations of SCO-only porducts in the hope the amazingly ignorant journalists of press will have headlines like "SCO sues Linux user".
It is evident that the best way to avoid SCO lawsuits is to not under any circumstances become a customer of theirs.
One can not but wonder what the outcome of this will be if, much as is being reported by many sites today, it is found to be true that Microsoft has actually, directly or indirectly bank rolled this whole SCO saga.
Would this be judged to be and act in the pursuit of fair competition. Would we have another "x" years of discussions of unfair practices and litigations and articles....
Jeez... The process is just too long... "Enough already... Many of us have jobs to do"....