SCO Names.... AutoZone. Press Pounces, Everyone Yawns
from the wrong-place,-wrong-time dept
It seems like the further along this whole thing goes, the deeper a hole SCO is digging for themselves. While they made a big stink Monday by announcing one
incredibly gullible Linux licensee, they've now officially announced their
publicity stunt lawsuit against randomly chosen AutoZone (with plans to name a bigger company later). The only reason they're doing it today, of course, is because today is earnings day, and there's been quite a bit of evidence, that all this ridiculousness has been timed for the purpose of selling stock. Both stories seem like SCO is acting a bit prematurely. They're asking people to pay for something where there's serious doubt as to whether or not SCO actually owns what they're trying to sell. There are some troubling legal issues here. The basis of both of these stories is that the companies still would have bought the same number of Linux licenses at the SCO-induced higher prices - something that basic economics tells you is likely to be untrue. However, by assuming that's the case, then the business strategy just about any software company should take would be to gain some intellectual property protection over something but keep it fairly quiet. Then go out and figure out a way to push some software that uses that intellectual property as far as possible by giving it away free. Then, once it's established, run around and bill everyone for it. That seems somewhere between bait and switch and extortion. Hopefully a court will step in and tell SCO they can't sue companies until the intellectual property claims with IBM and others are settled. At the same time, I'm also wondering why ZDNet is
publishing SCO FUD as if it's a news story by itself? Darl McBride's letter to Congress is so laughably bad, however, that you wonder how this guy can actually keep a straight face when he tries to portray a world that simply doesn't exist. It's unfortunate for AutoZone, who is basically just being caught in the line of fire from a suicidal company trying to take down random innocent bystanders.
Update: They've now
named the second company: DaimlerChrysler. What's with the auto focus?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toss it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
To the other commenter: malicious prosecution is a charge leveled against prosecutors who abuse their power. There is no such equivalent in the private sector. You can sue anyone you like as often as you like. What a country!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Malicious prosecution IS a civil action
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Malicious prosecution IS a civil action
In the similarly rare category is a civil case for racketeering. The RIAA has triggered one such action, and SCO could find themselves staring one down if they continue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Azpeople
[ link to this | view in chronology ]