US car parts retailer AutoZone, based in Western Tennessee and currently the target (along with DaimlerChrysler) of a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the SCO Group, has filed various motions in the case. 

One asks the court to transfer the case from Nevada, where the company is incorporated, to Western Tennessee, where the company headquarters are situated. Another, the most important one, requests that the court stays the suit until three other SCO actions - against IBM, Novell and Red Hat - have been heard. If no stay is forthcoming, than AutoZone demands that SCO at least reveals exactly which sections of code are supposed to be in breach of copyright.

As out-law.com states very succinctly:

"The fundamental issues of whether SCO actually owns valid copyright in UNIX and whether that copyright has actually been infringed are due to be answered in the course of the Novell, IBM and Red Hat cases. AutoZone argues that there is no point in duplicating these arguments."

Groklaw's Pamela Jones summmarizes the position with her characteristic verve:

"Essentially, [AutoZone's filing tells] the court that they should be granted a stay until all the other cases are done. SCO hasn't yet established it has a copyright, so it isn't in position to sue for infringement. But if the court disagrees, AutoZone asks that SCO be required to tell them more precisely what they are alleged to have done wrong. What, exactly, they would like to know, is the code they are supposed to have infringed and exactly how? Ah, yes, the eternal quest to know what code precisely we are talking about in Linux. How large a crowd would like to have the answer to that question may be discerned by the size of this filing. I haven't read it all myself, but we can do that together. Meanwhile, AutoZone has joined the line, where they would like to remain the last to be heard."

Observers point out that since SCO must first prove that there is code that is theirs in Linux, and that was used by the AutoZone, and that they own this code, and that AutoZone was the one who did it (otherwise their problem is with the vendor of the software) it doesn't seem likely that they'll be able to show AutoZone such proofs before they have taken at least one of the prior cases to trial.