SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
The company has also announced its first end-user victim. The lucky winner is AutoZone. The inevitable conference call is at 11:00 US/Eastern time today.
Groklaw has some
additional information about AutoZone from SCO's filings in the IBM
suit. It seems AutoZone switched from SCO's products to Linux, and SCO is
claiming that its user-space shared libraries were improperly used on
Linux.
Posted Mar 3, 2004 13:36 UTC (Wed)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 3, 2004 13:45 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
The Groklaw link has, among other things, a comment from somebody who claims to have been the engineer overseeing AutoZone's transition to Linux. He states no SCO libraries were used on Linux.
Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:20 UTC (Wed)
by dcoutts (guest, #5387)
[Link]
SCO want you to think it's about the big Linux issue so they can use it to persuade other companies to liscence 'their IP'. Suppose for sake of argument that AutoZone did use the SCO libs and that SCO wins the case on that basis; this doesn't set a precedent for normal Linux users but you can just imagine the joyful press releases from SCO if that happened saying they've been vindicated and now we all have to pay up. It's like watching a magic trick, it's all sleight of hand and misdirection.
Posted Mar 3, 2004 13:51 UTC (Wed)
by Duncan (guest, #6647)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 3, 2004 15:45 UTC (Wed)
by djabsolut (guest, #12799)
[Link]
Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:09 UTC (Wed)
by pjs (guest, #10927)
[Link] (7 responses)
Too bad for SCO it's simply not true. Here is a comment
from the former Sr. Technical Advisor at AutoZone who directed the porting and personally ported much of the code. There's a first hand account that AutoZone did NOT actually copy SCO's shared libraries as part of the porting process.
SCO's only "evidence" that AutoZone copied their shared libraries is:
Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:39 UTC (Wed)
by QuisUtDeus (guest, #14854)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 3, 2004 15:13 UTC (Wed)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link] (1 responses)
In a wider perception, this must do material damage to Linux adoption, and if that was the ultimate goal, they win. There is an AP article on the subject, and if you read that as a user who doesn't know much about OS's, the conclusion must be that this Linux thing is pretty dodgy. Unfortunately, this is the news that will get carried by our local newspapers.
Posted Mar 3, 2004 18:45 UTC (Wed)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link]
Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:44 UTC (Wed)
by ccchips (subscriber, #3222)
[Link] (2 responses)
Too busy to provide a link. I'm dealing with the incredible onslaught of Microsoft-based viruses hitting my network. Which is probably part of the reason for this yapping-dog crap from SCO--to disctract people from the fact that their biggest backer can't code its way out of a paper bag. My favorite quote from a Microsoft rep: "In the 1970's, we used to be able to leave our keys in the car, but now we have to be careful about that...." ...doesn't it seem like an odd co-incidence that the press is spending so much time on SCO, and not nearly enough time on Microsoft?
Posted Mar 3, 2004 14:59 UTC (Wed)
by bajw (guest, #11712)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 3, 2004 15:21 UTC (Wed)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link]
Posted Mar 3, 2004 16:07 UTC (Wed)
by hconnellan (subscriber, #231)
[Link]
What I find amazing is that newSCO don't realise that Linux's SCO binary interface is only required for using SCO compiled binaries where you don't have the original source code. If you do have the source then a port should be relatively simple.
Posted Mar 3, 2004 21:05 UTC (Wed)
by a_hippie (guest, #34)
[Link]
Posted Mar 4, 2004 7:34 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
Notice how, until now, every single one of their court-cases have been against people who signed contracts with them. In not a single case have they sued someone who didn't. But then again; "Contracts are what you use against your customers." it seems that, somewhat surprisingly, for once, Darl was telling the truth. Prospective customers take note.
So this new lawsuit has nothing to do with "SCO IP" in Linux, and they are hoping no one will notice this little fact.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
I intend to attempt to ask them about this at the teleconference. Of course, that's a safe thing to say, since they never actually take my questions...
Libraries only?
It's just like SCO's amended complaint against IBM about copyright infringement - that SCO touts in it's press releases - but then on closer inspection it's not a copyright infringement complaint related to Linux, only IBM's continued distribution of AIX.Common SCO PR tactic
Well, if it had to be someone, I'm glad it's someone I can express support for. SCO targets AutoZone
There's an AutoZone just down the street, that this suit now ensures I shop in
even more than before! <g>
Wouldn't it be interesting if anyone SCO decides to sue gets a measurable
increase in business?! <g> (It appears that the announced SCO licensee is
already loosing customers based on that fact. =:^)
Duncan
If anybody needed confirmation that SCO is no longer in the software business, this is it. Attacking AutoZone basically says this to any prospective customer for SCO's products: if you ever stop using them,SCO targets AutoZone
we will sue you.
SCO's would like the dupe the media into believing they're suing AutoZone over their use of Linux. But in truth, the case really revolves around SCO's belief that AutoZone copied SCO's shared libraries to their new linux systems. That is what SCO is really suing over, despite the dishonest spin.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
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. Among other things, this was a breach of the Autozone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software beyond the scope of the license.
They are back to their "It's too good to be honest" logic.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
I worked the first time. It will work now. SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
Sure, it convinced reporters but the judge has been less than impressed soIt worked with reporters, not the courts
far. She told SCO that they needed to provide more proof (otherwise they
would have had no ground for filing the complaint in the first place). But
instead of giving more specific information SCO just dropped the claims and
replaced them with the copyright claims against AIX people mentioned above.
The funny thing about those claims is that the license cancellation depended
on the original complaint being valid. So SCO hasn't really fixed their
problem, just delayed it.
They already are. Go take a look at news.com.SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
Wow. The 1970's they remember were *nothing* like the 1970's I lived through.
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
They are probably quoting a Microsoft rep. who wasn't even born yet in the 1970's. I agree, we didn't let our keys in the car even then!
SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
Good summary.SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
Groklaw's web servers must be getting pounded on. None of the links at SCO announces quarterly results, first user target
Groklaw work at the moment. Do we need a Groklaw mirror.. Better yet, is
there a Groklaw mirror?
Wishing you well.
What this all confirms, for the awake reader is that signing a contract, ANY contract with SCO is a dangerous thing to do. If you at any later point do something they don't 100% approve of, they'll come sue you.SCO announces quarterly results, first user target