Fri, Dec 19, 2014, 1:55 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 35 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

SCO GRP INC (THE) Message Board

  • day5done day5done Jun 24, 2005 10:45 AM Flag

    Wallace replys to FSF

    Pacer has Wallace's answer to FSF's Motion to Dismiss.

    That sure was a quick answer.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Is it of any significance to your ( well appreciated ) remarks that we are talking about OpenServer and not say Unixware here?

    • which part of below do you not understand?
      >>
      The relevant OpenServer agreements between SCO and AutoZone ... are still in place and do not include any prohibitions on AutoZone's use of OpenServer compiled code on Linux machines. Accordingly, most of the OpenServer compiled code discussed above is properly licensed, and AutoZone is under no legal obligation to delete or recompile the code. <<

    • Yeah whatever dude. You are full of big talk. But nothing more. Eat shit and die.

    • by October 26, 2004 already?

      And what was all the fuzz about before?
      When did AutoZone intend to go check? If ever?

    • http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/AZ/AZ-53.pdf ( II. D. )

      Where AutoZone tells about the utterly failed objective of a SCO libraries clean migration when completed.
      Which was just a dream, never a fact, for Jim Greer. And completely unreasonable for SCO to take offense when Jimmy, "a third party with no interest in this migration, uh ... litigation", reported on Groklaw his dream had come true. What did the poor fellow know?

      Anyway, it puts in perspective "The speed and
      efficiency with which Linux was deployed was a direct result of J.Greers work, followed by the work that myself and a few others did."
      - reportedly anonymous AutoZone employee

    • >>>> Yes, probably because of what AutoZone reluctantly did "in addition": voluntarily deleting all SCO compiled code from its servers. <<<<


      I can't wait to see BSF go to court on that basis. "Your Honor, we found serious infringements by AutoZone. SCOX compiled code on their servers that AutoZone had valid licenses for. Code that was absolutely critical to their infrastructure. Code that was so critical that when AutoZone deleted anything infected with any trace of SCOX, ABSOLUTELY nothing happened to their infrastructure. Clearly they owe us a billion dollars in damages. No your honor seriously."

    • >> Yes, probably because of what AutoZone reluctantly did "in addition": voluntarily deleting all SCO compiled code from its servers. When caught with its pants down and as an accomodation to SCO. Making any claim for preliminary injunction moot. <<

      So you are *admitting* that SCOX didn't sue Autozone for using SCOX IP in Linux? That's not what Darl said.

      I wonder what your superiors in Lindon and Hades will have to say about *that* admission.

    • >>Yes, probably because of what AutoZone reluctantly did "in addition": voluntarily deleting all SCO compiled code from its servers.<<

      I think the explaination you were looking for and must have missed in all the excitement was this:

      "AutoZone's ... "Spirit" server had some OpenServer compiled programs on it because of a recent restoration of the server after a crash. ... All of the files ... were loaded back onto the machine during the recovery process.... All of these programs (1,130) were removed from the server by October 26, 2004, after copies and backups were made ... The relevant OpenServer agreements between SCO and AutoZone ... are still in place and do not include any prohibitions on AutoZone's use of OpenServer compiled code on Linux machines. Accordingly, most of the OpenServer compiled code discussed above is properly licensed, and AutoZone is under no legal obligation to delete or recompile the code. Nevertheless, because AutoZone does not need the code to be compiled under OpenServer to serve its purposes (or in some cases, because AutoZone no longer needs the code at all), AutoZone has removed or recompiled the code as a courtesy to your client and to avoid any further issue regarding these files in this litigation."

      Based on these actions by AutoZone, SCO did not file a preliminary injunction. I'm sure that's what you meant to say Biff. So glad I could refresh your memory and help clear up your misunderstanding. :)

    • >>When caught with its pants down and as an accomodation to SCO.<<

      1) You seem to have an obsession here, Biff.

      2) Kind of how the industry feels about SCO's lawsuits.

    • << SCOX did discovery. SCOX didn't file for a PI.>>

      Yes, probably because of what AutoZone reluctantly did "in addition": voluntarily deleting all SCO compiled code from its servers. When caught with its pants down and as an accomodation to SCO. Making any claim for preliminary injunction moot.
      http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/AZ/AZ-53.pdf ( III Conclusion )

      Under AutoZone logic "In addition" means "not because SCO didn't find anything through permitted, limited, specific discovery permitting a claim for preliminry injunction but because it didn't and wasn't allowed so outside that scope".

    • View More Messages
 
SCOXQ
0.020.00(0.00%)May 23 10:22 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.