SCO can't find the code

so what?

SCO can't find copied code (DUH)

Authored by: darkonc on Monday, May 03 2004 @ 09:40 PM EDT

They filed a $6Billion dollar lawsuit against IBM, They got $50million (from the Baystar deal alone) to fight that lawsuit. They've gotten millions of dollars more in terms of rising stock value. They've had the year of discovery, plus years more with the Linux code (including many of those during which they helped to develop linux). They've had years of owning Unix (so they claim) -- or at least being it's custodian. MIT teams, comparison programs and "millions of lines" of (candidate) infringing code. With incentives and opportunities like that, if they can't find any infringing code, then I'd say that there's no needle worth finding in the haystack. You can try and chaulk it up to incompetence, but to prove incompetence in that quarter, somebody else (read: disgruntled penny-stock owner) is going to have to prove that it's there and sooo easy to find. Personally, I doubt it. To have show cause for keeping the request for declaratory judgement in their countersuit, all IBM has to show is that They {have been / will be} contributing and/or distributing Linux code. They've had access to the Unix code, SCO's been threatening them with copyright violation lawsuits. That's all in SCO's own filings. IBM may, or may not get their declaratory ruling, but they certainly have the right to ask for it -- and if SCO can't come up with anything after millons of words and millions of dollars, and years of opportunity, then I think that that may be proof enough in a civil court. And as for the claim that AutoZone is better suited to fight the battle over whether IBM has infringed SCO's copyrights: If that doesn't get the judge laughing, I think nothing will (at least, not in open court). --- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | | # ]