The SCO Group has filed its first lawsuits against
enterprise Linux users, targeting DaimlerChrysler and vehicle parts
retailer AutoZone.
That lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler alleged that the carmaker
had violated its software licensing agreement with SCO by refusing
to provide a requested "certification of compliance" as part of a
software audit.
The suit asked the court to bar DaimlerChrysler permanently from
further violations of the software agreement and seeks an
injunction requiring it to "remedy the effects of its past
violations" of the agreement.
The suit seeks undetermined damages.
SCO's suit against AutoZone alleged the retailer violated SCO's
Unix copyrights through its use of Linux, charging that AutoZone is
"running versions of the Linux operating system that contain code,
structure, sequence and/or organization from SCO's proprietary Unix
System V code in violation of SCO's copyrights".
Ray Pohlman, a spokesman for Memphis-based AutoZone, said the
company had not yet seen the lawsuit so he could not comment.
"It is our understanding, however, that SCO has sent letters to
hundreds of companies, making similar allegations," he said.
Pohlman would not discuss how AutoZone uses Linux inside its
business.
AutoZone was an SCO customer as recently as 2002 and once ran
SCO Unix on point-of-sale systems in its approximately 500 stores
around the country.
Mary Gauthier, a spokeswoman for DaimlerChrysler, declined to
comment because the company had not received the lawsuit. But
information on IBM's website indicated that DaimlerChrysler has
been using Linux and a 108-node IBM server cluster for vehicle
crash analysis and simulation since 2002.
SCO sued IBM last March in a suit that now seeks at least $5bn
in damages, alleging IBM illegally contributed some of SCO's System
V Unix code to the Linux open-source project. IBM has
countersued.
AutoZone is an IBM customer, using IBM's content management and
DB2 database applications, and a former Red Hat Linux customer,
having used Red Hat Linux for its in-store intranet system.
Red Hat spokeswoman Leigh Cantrell Day acknowledged that
AutoZone had been a Red Hat customer until "several months
ago".
The lawsuit seeks undisclosed damages and a court injunction to
prevent AutoZone from continuing to use or copy any part of SCO's
copyrighted materials.
AutoZone had been a SCO customer as recently as 2002, and once
ran SCO Unix on point-of-sale systems in its stores around the US,
which are around 500.
In response to AutoZone lawsuit, the non-profit Open Source
Development Labs reiterated its standing offer of help to the car
parts company and any future targets of lawsuits from SCO through
its open-source legal defence fund, which was established in
January.
"The entire Linux ecosystem, including OSDL and its 35-plus
member organisations, will stand firm against any legal actions
against Linux end users made by the SCO Group," said OSDL chief
executive officer Stuart Cohen.
"SCO's decision to move forward with its end-user lawsuit is
unfortunate, but due to the questionable merits of the case, we see
no reason why this case will have an impact on the growth of Linux
in the enterprise."
The defence fund has collected more than $3m towards its goal of
$10m.
SCO chief executive and president Darl McBride said the lawsuits
were filed because the two companies failed to respond adequately
to SCO’s warnings that violations of its intellectual property
would no longer be tolerated.
"DaimlerChrysler is one of thousands of companies that have
source code and or source reference licensing agreements with SCO,"
McBride said.
"These agreements ... describe the terms under which the
licensee may use Unix System V, as well as the derivative works. At
the beginning of December last year, SCO notified thousands of
these licensees [by letter] of their obligations under these
agreements. Some companies responded appropriately and certified
their compliance with the terms of the agreements. Some companies,
including DaimlerChrysler, have failed to respond
appropriately."
McBride said he saw "similarities" to SCO’s IP concerns and
those of the music recording industry, which has been pursuing
lawsuits against individual users for allegedly violating the IP
rights of recording companies.
"We believe that the legal actions that we have taken and will
continue to take will have a similar impact on end users of Unix
and Linux," he said.
McBride added that SCO’s copyright claims in these cases "relate
to core operating system functionality of essential root structure
and sequences of Unix System V that was used in the design of
Linux".
On Monday, SCO announced that server hosting company
EV1Servers.net in Houston had signed an IP licensing agreement to
shelter the hosting provider's customers from any future Unix or
Linux IP claims. McBride said he expected similar deals to follow
yesterday's lawsuits.
"If people would prefer to work through the court system, then
we’ll file a complaint and we’ll work through the court system," he
said. "Depending on which way customers want to go, we’ll
accommodate their desires."
McBride did not respond directly when asked if SCO would
eventually refund any licensing fees if his company lost its
case.
Financial analyst Dion Cornett at Decatur Jones Equity Partners
in Chicago said that the two new cases will be difficult for SCO to
prove.
"They discussed potentially AutoZone’s use of some specific
types of files or shared source libraries," but AutoZone claims
they do not use those files, Cornett said.
"Without knowing what building blocks AutoZone is using, the
claim looks something like a fishing expedition."
Bill Claybrook, an analyst at Harvard Research Group, said that
while SCO is now carrying out its threats to go after enterprise
Linux users in court, the ultimate success of the effort remains to
be seen.
"I don’t think they’re going to get anywhere," Claybrook said.
"They have actually struck with some good-sized customers here. But
I don’t think anybody’s going to rush out and buy a licence for
it.
"It’s basically another attempt to wrangle money out of
people."
He added that the whole scenario could backfire if the target
companies file countersuits at SCO, which would be very costly for
the company. "I don’t see how they can afford it."
Todd R Weiss writes for Computerworld