SCO Responds to AutoZone - They Won't Specify Code Until Discovery; Request Utah, if Not Nevada

Tuesday, May 25 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT

Contributed by: PJ

SCO has filed its response to AutoZone's two motions, requesting a stay, a change of venue to Tennessee, or a clue from SCO on what it is talking about.

That's English. Here it is in legalese: PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT AUTOZONE'S MOTIONS TO (1) TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AND (2) STAY THIS ACTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT.

They spend a great deal of time arguing as only lawyers can, but they never address the real issue, which is that AutoZone can't possibly establish who owns the copyright. If it is Novell, SCO has no business suing them, because you can't prevail in a copyright infringement action unless you own the copyright, and yet SCO argues, this case should go first.

The chances of them going first must seem slim, and they request that instead of changing the place where the trial is held to Tennessee, as requested by AutoZone, they'd like to go to Utah, if they have to go away from Nevada. Considering AutoZone said Nevada was not convenient for them, it's hard to see how Utah would be any more so. Of course, SCO doesn't care. At this point, it is a farce, and they are playing their cards as best they can. Delay, delay, delay. Of course, AutoZone filed two motions, and they asked the court to hear the motion to change venue first. Then, if that motion was granted, the court in Tennessee would do the rest. In footnote 1 of their Motion to Stay or, in the Alternative, For a More Definite Statement, AutoZone wrote:

"As the record in this matter reflects, AutoZone has filed concurrently with the present Motion a Motion to Transfer Venue. AutoZone respectfully requests the Court to initially consider AutoZone's Motion to Transfer Venue and then, if the Court deems it appropriate, consider the present Motion. In the event the Court grants AutoZone's Motion to Transfer Venue, the Court may defer the present Motion to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee."

AutoZone's Motion to Transfer Venue is here as PDF. SCO answers both motions at once, in one document. I bet they think they are mighty clever. However, as you saw in the Novell hearing, even if the judge hears both at the same time, and that is kind of unusual anyway, the judge will still rule on the venue question first.

Remarkably they even tell the court that they should *not* have to provide a more definite statement. It was plenty definite enough, they say, and AutoZone, they wax indignant, is improperly trying to obtain discovery. Then they allege that they have fully complied with discovery in the IBM case, and the judge even gave them a "good faith" rating. They don't mention that there was more discovery after that point in time, which IBM in its papers says SCO hasn't fully complied with. Telling them what lines, files or organization of Linux code is the subject of the litigation is a question for discovery, they state. AutoZone will find out later.

I don't think it would be prudent for AutoZone to hold their breath.

You are, what? Surprised? SCO doesn't want to show the code in public. The rest is blah, blah and more blah.

I haven't finished reading it, partly because I didn't want you to have to wait, and partly because it started to turn my stomach. I should be used to them by now, but I am not.

I think I'm developing an allergy to SCO.

290 comments



http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040525212954492