IBM Puts Pressure On SCO 395
inode_buddha writes "An article at Groklaw shows IBM's legal team dissecting the whole SCO thing professionally and thoroughly. I'm almost willing to bet the case gets dropped with extreme prejudice, especially now that Novell is getting involved. Is anyone taking bets as to when the case actually closes and how?" I suggest the MIT Technology Review add this one to their markets.
I bet ... (Score:2, Funny)
now give me my $699, you insensitive clod !
Re:I bet ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I bet ... (Score:2)
Slashdot Poll #987 [slashdot.org]
Re:I bet ... (Score:5, Funny)
Is anyone taking bets?
Are you blind man? The reason that SCOX is trading at $17.50 (that's American dollars, not Italian Lire or EverQuest gold pieces, that's American dollars my man!) is that a whole bunch of people are betting!
When a stock goes from 78 cents (that's pennies, that's less than the cheapest Slurpy at 7-11) to $22.29 in the latest 52 weeks, that's not investing, that's gambling, pure and simple.
And when the stock moves based on SCO's assertion that AT&T ultimately sold them the One Ring to rule all unix-like Oses, well... then, SCOX is Utah's Vegas, Atlantic City, and Churchill Downs all rolled into one!
"Who can take a crap SCOX/
Sprinkle it with lies/
Cover it in Boies and a GPL theft or two?/
The MacBride Man!/
The MacBride Man can/
The MacBride Man can 'cause he mixes it with FUD/
And makes the crap taste good"
(to the tune of "The Candyman Can")
Re:I bet ... (Score:3, Interesting)
NO!! It means that a few people are betting a LOT of money. And you don't exactly know WHY they are betting on SCO. It's entire possible that they expect to lose their bet on SCO but to recoup the money in other places.
For example, I happen to believe that MS and probably also Sun are happy to fund SC
Re:I bet ... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: MIT Technology Futures. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: MIT Technology Futures. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: MIT Technology Futures. (Score:3, Funny)
N.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Rolling, rolling, rolling (Score:5, Funny)
I can just picture the trucks full of paper rolling toward SCO's lawyers...
Bad courtroom theme music... (Score:4, Funny)
"I bring the courts attention to document 3,002,345 where it plainly indicates that Darl McBride had an intimate relationship with Bill Gates. Darl, could you please read the message you sent Bill Gates?"
"<ahem> I don't recall composing that message."
"Please read the message for the court"
"The message says 'I love you'"
"It is also plain that you sent many similar messages to Bill Gates, including instructions as to how he can enlarge his anatomy, is this true?"
Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fraud (Score:2)
Re:Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fraud (Score:2)
Martha got done - really - for lying to the Feds and shredding evidence.
If she'd kept schtum, she would have walked away.
Party On! (Score:3, Insightful)
Martha Stewart is a Democrat (or at least has donated a pile of money to democrats over the years).
Re:Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO announces a lot of things to the public. It doesn't make any of them true. Ever heard directly from any of the MIT mathematicians who found all those millions of lines of infringing code?
Have you received your invoice yet, and paid your $699 into the program that SCO said got an "adequate" response?
Do you think any investors are still waiting for SCO to bring up it's copyright claims in court, since it hasn't been able to shut up about them in the media? For some reason SCO has decided to make it's IBM lawsuit entirely about contracts and "methods and ways of doing things" instead, and to claim in it's Red Hat defense that the only controversy between them and Linux will be settled by the IBM suit.
Wouldn't it be nice to take a look at that "copied" code, too, especially if you decided to buy SCO stock based on those NDA'd reports and made your purchase before it turned out they were just hyping up public domain Unix32V and independently cloned BSD code?
There are a lot of things that SCO has said in public that are outright lies, and just because you or I can do enough research to determine that doesn't mean every stockholder should be forced to.
Re:Fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
Nope. But after SCO's case is dropped and SCO's remains are divided up between the IBM and Red Hat countersuits, then it might be a good time to take another look at the millions of dollars of SCO stock that it's executives [yahoo.com] and majority owners [computerworld.com] have been selling, at prices which have been inflated thousands of percent by their own hype. The SCO/Canopy plan, "Fraudulently squeeze as much money out of investors as possible while destroying the company's long term viability" shouldn't even be legal, much less encouraged financially like it has been so far.
SCO will of course be sued by their stockholders.
Or their major investors, if RBC and Deutsch aren't smart enough to get out before the bubble pops, and if the "they're front men for Microsoft!" conspiracy theories are baseless (which I think they are - Microsoft has already been pumping millions of dollars into SCO publically, so apparantly they don't feel they need to keep such funding a secret).
Re:Fraud (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fraud (Score:3, Informative)
The code they pointed to as violating their copyright suggests that they didn't do any research on the history of that code, they simply saw something similar and jumped. However,
Re:Fraud (Score:2)
SCO's legal team is doing everything possible to drag this out as long as possible. The pump & dump can just be a side-action which has the effect of distracting people from the actual goal. Any costs and/or fines from this point on will still be quite minuscule compared to MS's bank.
How about that. Legalese for the layman (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm wondering though, it seems IBM is just trying to get the case dismissed here on the basis that SCO refuses to show just what it is they did wrong. Say the judge goes with IBM and dismisses the case, then what?
Given the recent slashdot article about paying Boies for his work, how much do they stand to gain if it came to this?
Thanks to Groklaw for keeping close tabs on the trial. I wish general media would be equally forthcoming rather than just spit out whatever drivel SCO shoves their way.
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman (Score:5, Interesting)
Then the IBM countersuit goes forward. Oh, SCO will still have some explaining to do.
Re:How about that. Legalese for the layman (Score:5, Insightful)
SC0 desperately does not want the alleged stolen code to enter the public record because we all know it will be 3.2 seconds before any code is re-written in the kernel even if it's IBM doing the re-write.
This however is a great thing. SC0's case should be dismissed but not IBM's countersuit, which if found to be true will force SC0 to stop distributing Linux and probably their Linux personality kit too. It is IBM's countersuit which squarely applies to the GPL and it is also where the GPL will receive it's vidication.
Sorry if that was brusque (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming there's anything in there, right. But by "rewrite" I hope you mean a complete cleanroom implementation, because otherwise it really is illegal. From what I'm told, there's nothing left in 2.5 (and I think 2.4) that was even remotely SCO (even that via old BSD).
I'm also sorry that modding is an issue for you. I participat
Re:With extreme prejudice? (Score:3, Informative)
When a case is dismissed "with prejudice," it means the matter is considered decided, and the suit can't be filed again (although an appeal to a higher court might be possible).
Dismissal "without prejudice" means that the matter is not decided, but some un-met condition (procedural or otherwise) prevents the suit from going forward. A suit dismissed without prejudice may be re-filed at a later date when conditions allow.
IAAL, but I've never heard the term "extreme prejudice" outside of jokes and movies
Re:With extreme prejudice? (Score:4, Funny)
So clearly, dismissing with "extreme prejudice" means they can't bring suit again,
and judge orders the bailiff to shoot them.
2/1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2/1 (Score:5, Insightful)
And the fools who bought SCO stock thinking they were going to get rich, but didn't quite dump the stock before the inevitable crash when the case collapses. I can't say I'm feeling sympathetic though.
Re:2/1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2/1 (Score:3, Interesting)
The trick, of course, is knowing the difference between a smart bet and a big one. This is why day traders go broke: to them, it's no longer investing, it's gambling.
Re:2/1 (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO investors stand the most to lose--the dummies that just paid top $$$ for inflated SCO stock prices.
Re:2/1 (Score:2)
People who actually did some research (and therefore decided not to buy stock in this company) would then be safe.
You'd think that
N.
Re:2/1 (Score:2)
Uh, now you're forgetting about the other two cases. SCO is not out of the crosshairs just by their own case being thrown out...
SCO gets taken over or closed for good.
IBM vs. SCO has potential to nuke the company into oblivion.
Re:2/1 (Score:2, Informative)
And now, the hammer falls... (Score:5, Funny)
At this point, Darl's lawyer turns to him and says, "You don't think IBM has run diffs on the source tree yet, do you? Because if they have and are ready to respond, we're probably pretty much screwed".
I pity the legal associates for IBM who have had to trace the provenance of every line in the source, but their pain will be worth it when SCO releases their first specifics and are nailed to the wall.
Re:And now, the hammer falls... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice to see that the lawyers themselves understand this suit is nothing more than a way to harass a large company into paying off.
Re:And now, the hammer falls... (Score:2)
Re:And now, the hammer falls... (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, they get 20% of any equity financing deals that come along during the suit and up to an additional $1mm and 400K in options (see the Oct 17 8-K filing with the SEC here [yahoo.com].) And note, they got $50mm in equity financing right around that time. So, Boise & co. could alrady have (or have commited to the) $11mm cash and $7mm worth
What if... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.
Re:What if... (Score:2, Funny)
Where's that candle?!? Stupid bloody darkness!!!
Re:What if... (Score:3, Informative)
Good or bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, if the judge comes back with "SCO is lying through their teeth, there's nothing here, SCO bugger off, sorry about all the trouble IBM", then it will neatly tie up the FUD machine and probably bring an end to SCO right quick. Yes, there IS such a thing as bad PR, and we don't want any more of it.
On the other hand, a dismissal would not allow for a vetting of the GPL in court. Of all the possible tests of the GPL, this is perhaps the most pro-GPL case we could hope for. (Not SCO's accusations, but IBM's responses that SCO is in GPL violation.) For a judge to formally declare theat the GPL is indeed valid and legally binding would be a very good thing, but won't happen before 2005 at the earliest the way this case is going. That's a lot of FUD time.
I really can't decide which to root for.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:5, Informative)
suit != countersuit (Score:2, Insightful)
Dismissal of SCO's suit doesn't mean dismissal of IBM's countersuit.
In IBM's countersuit they accuse SCO of copyright violations and GPL violations. The GPL will have it's day in court. There is nothing SCO can do about that now.
GPL in court (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/34553.htm [linuxworld.com]
Specifically, In the process, a federal judge deemed the GPL enforceable and binding.
Sorry, but no (Score:4, Informative)
Dissecting (Score:3, Funny)
And people say that animal testing should be banned...
Re:Dissecting (Score:2, Funny)
I for one am uncondicionally pro testing in telemarketers, McBride and spammers...
but there are thousands of lines of copied code... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code (Score:4, Interesting)
If that is worth a billion, then is Linux worth 100 billions? Linus is then richer than Bill.
Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code (Score:2, Insightful)
You're suggesting the Linux kernel alone has 30,000,000 lines of code in it? I don't think you and I are looking at the same kernel. It would be closer to say that 300,000 lines of code is 10% of the Linux kernel, which would take some substantial rewriting, and makes your last comment stupid.
Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code (Score:5, Informative)
First point -- on the assumption that the case will continue, which I believe, it may be some time before anyone knows which lines are "tainted". For example, SCO points at the source files for JFS and says "These may be tainted." IBM says, "Which lines?" SCO responds with, "Any lines which you developed under AIX. Which are those?" SCO's legal theory seems to be that any features of AIX which were transfered to Linux are a violation, unless IBM can prove that the code given to Linux was developed as part of a non-AIX operating system, then ported to Linux directly from that non-AIX system. IBM is using the obvious tactic of providing a mountain of raw information, then demanding that SCO sift through it and identify the lines that are in question -- make it too EXPENSIVE for SCO to continue the case.
Second point -- on the assumption that SCO wins, which I don't believe will happen, generating cleanroom specs may well be a problem. As I understand it, the contract forbids revealing the methods as well as the source code. IBM would be in the position of having to say to the Linux community, "The code and documentation that we revealed to you, and on which your specs are based, were trade secrets that we did not have the right to reveal." ANY use of that information -- such as writing specs -- could be deemed improper by a court. However, if SCO wins and gets a large settlement from IBM, I would expect the judge to rule that SCO has now been compensated for the loss of their trade secrets, and that the Linux community is free to make use of those "secrets".
SCO appears to have (although IANAL) a simple case that is at least arguable. I have to believe that all of the public posturing, much if not all of which is irrelevant, is intended to run the share price up so that the executives can cash out.
Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, IBM will have to provide
Re:but there are thousands of lines of copied code (Score:2)
#include <stdlib.h>
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
i++;
else
return;
No, there are 368665 such violations (Score:5, Funny)
$ cd
$ grep -riE "break;|}" * | wc
368665 1011575 14615858
At a dollar per violation, that's a better return than my lotto investments...
Re:No, there are 368665 such violations (Score:3, Informative)
Your regular expression finds any line that contains a } not just any line that is a }.
Try this, it is any line that is just a break; or a } except for leading and trailing white space:
$ grep -rE '^[ \t]*(break;|})[ \t]*$' "/usr/src/linux" | wc -l
109614
That finds about 3 times fewer instances, but still a good chunk of change.
Read just the CAPITALS in the article; (Score:3, Funny)
No need to read the threads here, the summary of feeling is already in the original article :-)
Move along, nothing new to see here...
When thieves fall out... (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got to wonder what Dave's ex-partners currently make of all this. I guess initially they might have been somewhat anxious, thinking 'Oh no, one of our own coming after us. He'll be tuned in to all our cunning strategies and will use them against us.'
Now though, they must be laughing their asses off, thinking 'Good job that dummy left before he did any real damage to our reputation.'
On the other hand, given his twenty percent of all new investment in SCO, Boies has already had one decent payday, but you've got to wonder whether that will be sufficient to compensate for the damage to his firm's reputation that their handling of this case must have done to date?
Re:When thieves fall out... (Score:2)
No, they're probably laughing on their cell phones to their mothers, saying, "and you wanted me to be a doctor..."
Lawyers almost always benefit, no matter which side of a case they're on.
Re:When thieves fall out... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an unfortunate side effect of how the US constitution has been interpreted (by lawyers, I may add). Having the right to councel is interpreted as the right to the best councel your money can buy. It's apparently not unconstitutional, though, to have one side with a court-appointed $500 overworked defense lawyer who hasn't even had time to talk to you before the trial, while the other side has a $5 million staff of dedicated experts. That's considered a fair trial...
What would be more fair was if both sides paid what they thought the case was worth to a common pool, who was then split equally between court-appointed attorneys. Then you're entitled to as good a defense as your adversary, and if you're in the right, and contributed enough to cover basic fact-finding for both parties, that should mean you will win, right?
Oh, but the lawyers would lose...
Regards,
--
*Art
Or another idea (Score:4, Insightful)
There has to be some minimum, of course, it makes no sense to expect a corporate lawyer to only spend $100 on a case. But no banks of several lawyers deponing hundreds of witnesses just to put the fear of McD in people.
Another aspect would be an escape clause
This would apply in all cases, criminal or civil. No more state DAs spending a fortune on sending some illiterate scumbag to the death chamber because his public dedfender only had $300 to spend.
Anyway, I like my scheme
Re:Or another idea (Score:3, Insightful)
THAT'S NOT THE POINT (Score:4, Insightful)
Who ares which way the legal action goes.. That is not the point. The idea is to spread enough confusion and uncertainty that corporate entities will be more likely to use perceived 'legal' and 'safe' versions of unix that don't have any licensing issues.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt contribute to the bottom line when it comes to conservative decisions about technology platforms. And let's face facts how many people read below the headline with its exagerrated emphasis on legal uncertainty and disarray.
No company wants to risk their technology decisions being upset by later unbudgeted licensing, legal and technical problems when the quiet life of a standard product from a multinational is on the shelf next to it...
Re:THAT'S NOT THE POINT (Score:2)
And in the case of clear verdict in IBM's favor, that'll have a positive FUD-breaking ripple effect for Linux (just as a verdict in SCO's favor would have a negative FUD-enforcing ripple effect). IBM winning the case would send a very solid message of "Linux is safe - look at what happened when it got challenged". It sure makes future challenges less likely to happen when IBM very visibly c
You mean... (Score:2)
Unixes like AIX? Oh, wait... The thing is, the way SCO is claiming that any Unix is a derivate of their Unix, and that any technology put into it by third parties is now controlled by SCO, there is no "safe unix". Btw, how's that for viral licencing, it m
Re:THAT'S NOT THE POINT (Score:3, Insightful)
Why then, do that almost all use Microsoft Windows??
It gets better! (Score:4, Informative)
There will be no lawsuit ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Timeline (Score:5, Informative)
Alien Autopsy (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you usually only dissect something when it's dead? Yeah, that sounds about right--but stick the fork in to be sure. Pass the popcorn...
Re:Alien Autopsy (Score:2)
Re:Alien Autopsy (Score:2)
Clarity of response (Score:5, Insightful)
What is also noticable is that IBM is bringing SCO's public behaviour into the case, finally. SCO is finally being called to account for it's disgusting public behaviour, and I'm pretty sure that IBM is going to use Darl, Chris and Mike's statements against them in court. I think those boys are probably too fucking stupid to realise that what they're said amounts to public record and is admissable in court. I hope they end up being as poor as I am. I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.
Re:Clarity of response (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but IAAPW (I am a professional writer) and IBM's filings are superbly written. they have a good final edit team at work. Compared to them, the SCO lawyers are handing in the sort of incoherent work typical of term papers done at the last minute with the help of large amounts of caffeine.
This could easily be used in a "legal writing" course as "how to" and "how not to" write briefs, motions and memorandums.
Re:Clarity of response (Score:3, Insightful)
In IBM's response to discovery, it actually lists substantive complaints and gives SCO a reasonable amount of material for discovery (e.g. the sources to several AIX & Dynix versions). They could, perhaps, have given SCO a bit more, but they may already be working on that and much of what SCO asks for is irrelevant. SCO's complaints about IBM not producing enough in discovery strike me as whiney. Th
Re:Clarity of response (Score:3, Funny)
Freudian typo! I ment Mormon! My apologies to the Mormon faithful. I am very sorry.
I hope Darl and co get sued individually by hordes of Linux contributors for damaging Linux business and end up poverty stricken on the street corner begging for booze money in Salt Lake City.
A devout Mormon begging for alcohol in the Mormon capitol. Now, thats an imaginative penance. I second.
Insiders are making bets (Score:5, Interesting)
Insiders are all selling. Keep in mind that they have complete and perfect information about their firm, and its future prospects.
Insider selling is usually a sign that management feels the shares they hold are over, not under, valued.
So are IBM... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh wait, both selling patterns are pretty similar. This isn't really news it just means that people have set up automatic sales and these have to be done well in-advance. What will be news is when senior execs sell large amounts of stock automatically as the price DROPS.
If I was a SCO exec I'd be putting my sell price as a drop below 15 or a rise above 25, the drop price is the important one though as it will tell us how confident they are, the lower the
Re:So are IBM... (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you say that a 47.0% change in "Institutional Shares Held" Vs a 1.1% is similar.
Those SCO execs are pulling the "yellow handles" hard and fast yelling "eject! eject! eject!".
Re:Insiders are making bets (Score:2)
That doesn't mean some of these guys aren't raking in some nice money, but it's just not a massive amount.
Supporting IBM and Linux (Score:4, Funny)
stock shorting (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone run us through how we would get rich by shorting this stock (SCOX)?
If IBM gets their case dismissed, the stock is going to drop to $Worthless. Ive never actually done a short -- what are the details?
Re:stock shorting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:stock shorting (Score:3, Informative)
Now since you have borrowed stock, someday you have to pay back the loan (borrowed stock). Since you have sold the borrowed stock, you have to acquire shares (at a later date) to repay your debt. There are two scenarios here
1) Stock price appreciates markedly; since you have to pay back the debt by purchasing (more expensive) sh
Re:stock shorting (Score:2, Informative)
Suppose that the stock of company FooBar is worth $80 today.
I buy the *option* of selling that stock at $80 in one weeks time (this of course cost me something since there is a risk involved for the entity that I buy this option from).
Let's say that priviledge costs me $1 (since everybody considers company FooBars stock prices to be quite stable).
Now, one week later IBM has barbecued company FooBar royally, the stock has plunged to $40.
The option of selling one stock at $80 i
Re:stock shorting (Score:3, Informative)
From what I hear the current situation is truely twisted. #1 There are a huge number of people already trying to short SCOX. #2 You need a supply of shares trading on the market to cover the short. #3 The vast majority of SCOX is being held by a handful of people tying up the market. Because of #3 there aren't enough shares trading on the market to cover #2 which is actually driving the price UP.
Yes, the price of SCOX is going UP because a lot of people
What about UNIX? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about UNIX? (Score:3, Interesting)
It was for sale and Novell stepped up to the plate. Sun didn't want it. IBM didn't want it. HP didn't want it. They knew what a
Nyah nyah nyah at $1000/hr billable (Score:3, Funny)
20. IBM objects to plaintiffs definition of the terms "IBM", "Defendant", "you", "your", and "any synonym thereof" on the grounds that they are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
PR Newswire: "No Free Lunch - Or Free Linux" (Score:3, Informative)
---
Darl McBride, SCO Group CEO, to Deliver CDXPO Keynote Titled 'There's No Free Lunch - Or Free Linux'
08:32 EST Wednesday, Nov 05, 2003
LINDON, Utah, Nov. 5
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
In his address titled "There's No Free Lunch -- Or Free Linux," McBride will present his perspectives on the prospects of free industries, SCO's suit against IBM, and why intellectual property must be protected in a digital age.
"The Internet created -- and creatively destroyed -- great wealth. It also created a culture legitimizing intellectual property theft," said McBride. "When you defend intellectual property, you speak an unpleasant truth. People don't like to hear unpleasant truths. The alternative to this fight, however, is the death of an industry and thousands of jobs lost."
McBride will also explore how the information technology industry - software, hardware, networking and services -- depends on money passing from one hand to another, asserting that the livelihood of engineers and developers rests on paid models, even as those developers donate time to free projects such as Linux. McBride will lay out his assertion that without paid software, there would be little or no free software. At the conclusion of his keynote, McBride will be available for media questions.
McBride's keynote will be followed by a Town Hall discussion moderated by Jack Powers, conference chairman of Enterprise IT Week and director of the International Informatics Institute.
This is great..... (Score:4, Funny)
They've claimed, retracted, changed their terms of reference, claimed IP, dropped IP and gone for "contractual terms", reclaimed IP etc. I mean this is the sort of thing judges hate i.e. being pissed around by claimants who know not the difference twixt arse and elbow.
I can't wait for the press release that reads:
It all started when a guy in the legal department started having traumatic flashbacks to a Vietnam movie he watched in 1991. This may or may not have had something to do with the half pound of red leb he'd been smoking while watching 'cos he was still at law school at the time. The resulting hysteria was like, infectious, and spread to the management, and like, before anyone realised what was happening we'd turned charlie into evil commie open source developers that had to be wiped out at any cost.
By the time anyone came round and realised that no-one was taking notice of anything we said it was too late. Our customers had migrated to Linux and mailed us telling us to piss off and it took 3 days to stop the management squatting on the roof and howling at the moon.
I mean, what happened man?......
Case dismissed, SCO doesn't stop (Score:3, Insightful)
It ain't over for a looooong time yet.
IBM says show us YOUR CODE.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Interrogatory No. 1 asks for the identification of files and lines of code from Unix that SCO contends IBM has misappropriated. It is Unix software, after all, not Linux software, that IBM is alleged to have misappropriated.
IBM is basically saying, show us "your" Unix code that you think we took. This makes more sense then the arguement I've been hearing by the Linux community of show us the Linux code that you think infringes, although the Linux community has no real right to see the SCO Unix code, IBM should have that right as a member of the lawsuit. That would make things even harder as SCO may not be able to turn up such code as it probably does not exist. From a legal standpoint, it makes asks SCO to prove infringment of their code in that manner and takes away thier shotgun approach of ifs, coulds, and resembles.
The codes SCO shown is actually owned by FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
Re:this is (Score:3, Insightful)
Got one thanks. (Score:2)