Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the to-an-independant-analyst dept.
cheesybagel writes "In this EETimes article SCO claims to have shown their evidence to our independent analyst friends from the Aberdeen Group. The evidence, all 80 lines of it, allegedly even has identical comments."
How can 80 lines be worth 1 billion ?
by
phre4k
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I made a small perl script to count the lines of c code in the linux source (as shipped by redhat)
#!/usr/bin/perl
use File::Find;
find(\&wanted, ".");
sub wanted {
next unless/\.c$/;
open C, $_;
while () {$c++; }
}
print "$c\n";
There are about 3 million lines of code in the linux source. 80 lines are 0,003%. For SCO's sake i hope they have more evidence than these 80 lines - and that they can prove that the didn't rip them off them selves - either from linux or BSD.
/Esben
-- "Nobody really checks their email any more. They just delete their spam"
SCO owns the Unix copyright afterall
by
doe
·
· Score: 1, Informative
It seems that Novell now admits that it has transfered the Unix copyright to SCO according to this article.
They still claim to own the patents so the SCO case appears to be solely about the Unix copyrights.
80 lines Come on
by
Unleashd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
A couple of years ago SCO worked with the linux community on trying to bring together Unix and Linux... who is to say that their own programmers didn't insert this code durring that process?!?!
-- We don't need no stinking sig!
There is an audit trail, you know
by
b1t+r0t
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Every version of the linux kernel and the diffs between it and the previous version is available. If SCO wouldn't be so cagey about the allegedly stolen code, someone could trace down the history of kernel changes and find out exactly when the code first appeared, and who submitted it.
This isn't like the Cisco/Huawei case, where IOS has been proprietary for years, without an open source equivalent forked out of it in the distant past, and without various companies working with both codebases. In that case, there's nothing to cross-pollinate with, and copied code could clearly go in only one direction.
And if it's not in the kernel, then it's not in Linux, is it? Linux is the kernel and the kernel alone. Everything else is GNU and other third-party utilities, and distro-specific stuff.
Of course SCO wants to make it difficult because what they really want is to muscle someone (primarily IBM) into buying them out. If they made it easy for people to investigate, the truth would be found in a week, and their case would vanish. And people would also be working to replace the code in question, just as they did in the days of the BSD/AT&T debacle. I'm surprised they've let anybody see it yet.
--
-- "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
It's The Canopy Group
by
vandan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"The global demand for Linux-based Internet solutions is not only staggering â" but skyrocketing," said Ralph Yarro, president of the Canopy Group Investment Company. "Major solutions providers are under a great deal of pressure to provide a full range of Linux-based Internet solutions ranging from hand held devices to enterprise level connectivity. Leveraging the strength of Lineo in the embedded market will allow OpenLinux to scale to meet the needs of all business customers."
Also from the same page the chairman of the Canopy Group Investment Company, Ray Noorda is a former Novell CEO.
What do you think the chances are that Novell knew of the code copying (if it occured that is) but chose to not pursue it, and this Ray Noorda tipped The Canopy Group off as to the potential litigation value in it, so they bought it up, and drummed up a bit of support for it so they could turn around later and hit all the 'skyrocketing' growth potential Ralph Yarro was talking about?
Re:Sarcasm mode on
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
I guess, you didn't read the article. It didn't say they showed all the code, but the some examples. Of those examples, up to 80 lines were the same. The way this is written implies there are more parts.
"Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments. "
Re:Does Linus et al keep track of code submitters
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
First, all code is attributed in the changelog.
Second, Linus most of the time ignores code which does not come from his trusted lieutnants. They, too, do proper attribution.
Third, most code isn't accepted unless it's obviously correct (like small fixes) or has had some testing on the list first. Which means that the patch can probably be found in LKML.
Re:Mac OSX based on Linux?
by
DaBj
·
· Score: 2, Informative
RTFA, the both of you =)
That quote is from the "Linux more insecure than Windows, Aberdeen claims" article (second link in the main post) and has nothing to do with the SCO-IBM lawsuit as such.
-- "GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
Re:Has anybody considered
by
Gnulix
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.
First of all, have you considered that this might be 80 lines from something that is based on a reference implementation? Stuff like tcp/ip stacks, device drivers and so on are often based on reference source released by device manufacturers or standard groups. br
Secondly, 80 lines isn't much and considering how bad some programmers are at writing comments, I'm not surprised if there are similiar comments:-)
Re:Lawyer
by
jenkin+sear
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Boies was (IIRC) the leader of the successful antitrust prosecution against IBM, back in the eighties- this was the first big high-tech antitrust case, and was clearly pretty successful.
-- What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
OSX port
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
#!/bin/bash
for ((i=0; i<10; i+=1)) do
curl -s http://sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_poster files.zip >/dev/null & done
Re:Things are getting worse for Linux.
by
^Case^
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The courts in the US, unfortunately, have the same view. If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof will always be on the non-corporation...[snip]
I believe both SCO and IBM would be categorized as corporations by the court. Not quite sure what non-corps you suggest could be sued?
Re:Has anybody considered
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
There is no way they can keep the code secret. They cannot compel Linux distro companies or end users to continue to pay fees to license their code indefinitely. They must tell the people who they allege are in violation exactly what they are licensing and give them an opportinuty to cease the infringement by removing the code. They cannot force users to completely drop the Linux kernel source tree because a tiny fraction of a percent of the code violates their IP rights.
Once Red Hat or another distro company (who are end users of Linux themselves and therefore liable) patches the code to replace it in their kernel and is compelled by the GPL to distribute the patched kernel source tree, it's a simple matter of diffing the source to see what code was replaced.
I think the fact that the kernel in Caldera Linux that is licensed under the GPL (and they continued to knowingly distribute it under the GPL after they were aware of the code) likely has this code, eliminates any claims they may think they have against Linux users. Then there's also the Lindows.com contract which may have effectively laundered their code through the GPL.
And of course they have to prove that the code wasn't previously released under the BSD license and was intended only for Unix. Unless they have the author of the code testify under oath, I think they will have a hard time proving that.
Re:Has anybody considered
by
Datafage
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Except you have to take all steps you can to reduce ongoing damages - being aware of infringement and preventing people from ending it is illegal.
There is an excellent article by Bob Cringely (of PBS) describing how SCO's Linux team may have added UnixWare and OpenServer code to Linux.
Check it out at:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2003060 5. html
Re:Things are getting worse for Linux.
by
TheFrood
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is a lengthy prediction, and I'll probably get modded down for it,
Nothing like a good bit of karma-martyring, eh?
However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so. They're going to stay away from Linux in droves and are already feeling personally betrayed by the people who make Linux, just on the strength of the FUD and accusations. They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters.
It's natural for them to take this view so easily because they've been conditioned all their lives to believe that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" and after years of business training they're suspect of anything (even family matters) that don't emphasize the "bottom line" above all else. They were very reluctant to consider Linux in the first instance for these reasons and it took years of badgering on technical grounds and tempting on cost grounds from technical underlings to stop them from seeing Linux as some kind of a scam in the first place.
Your argument, like so many others I've seen along these lines, seems to be predicated on the assumption that the people who make it into management are blithering idiots. I've seen no evidence to support this notion. Yes, they do think differently from tech people. Yes, occasionally a single management type will make a bad decision as a result of misunderstanding a technical issue. But to label these people as a class as idiots is a major error.
Aside from that, you make numerous other unsupported claims in the above two paragraphs. (e.g., "They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters." Really? How do you know this?)
The courts in the US, unfortunately, have the same view. If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof will always be on the non-corporation, regardless of what the "law" may say, and in many cases, it's impossible for the non-coproration to win a case; the court will simply rule for the corporation even if it's patently obvious that the law doesn't support such a ruling. They'll do it with a backhanded wink and a nod and the belief that to hurt business and "the economy" is far worse that to hurt any non-business entity or group of individuals.
Well, assuming that this assertion you make is true (again, you provide no supporting evidence, so it's rather difficult to evaluate, but assuming for the moment that it is true) then Linux is safe because IBM is a much bigger corporation than SCO, and upholding SCO's claims would do far more damage to the economy than a ruling in favor of IBM.
TheFrood
-- If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
The world's oldest profession
by
rifftide
·
· Score: 2, Informative
.. is IT market research.
Aberdeen, and "open source expert" Bill Claybrook in particular, have issued nothing but nasty reports about Linux and its supposedly inferior security, high TCO, and low market penetration for the past several years. They've been doing a similar bag job on Sun. This article explains why.
With friends like Mr. Claybrook, who needs SCO?
Re:What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + G
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
That blog entry was talking only about limits to financial damages for copyright infringement that happened prior to registration. Earlier entries discuss other aspects. You can always ask for a judge to shut down a copyright infringement, even if you haven't registered.
Think DMCA. Because SCO has already compared Linux users to pirates and told us frankly that they plan on using RIAA tactics, I think money from a copyright infringement lawsuit may not be the big stick they plan on using or at least not the only stick. What they might be thinking of, judging only from their public remarks, is to claim that anyone offering Linux for sale or download is offering stolen goods and users are using stolen goods, followed by a simple notice of copyright infringement to ISPs to get them to shut down the Linux sites.
Meanwhile, they register the copyright and then start suing anyone who continues to offer it and use it. This is on top of the license they hope to then be charging all those who were foolish enough to license through SCO and are now scared enough to pay up rather than get sued. And then maybe they start criminal actions under the copyright law, a la RIAA, against particular "offenders".
Perhaps they will never do any of these things, and they would first have to prove their allegations against IBM, but the point is that they could at least try them if they have copyright rights and can prove their "IP" is in Linux, and their remarks make it conceivable that they may be planning something along these lines eventually. The real solution is to just get any disputed code out of there, I would think, which they seem to know too, and I think that is why they won't really show anything that would make it possible to do exactly that in a timely fashion. Disclaimer: IANAL. I'm a paralegal. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.
A fact by fact recount....
by
borgheron
·
· Score: 2, Informative
All,
Here are the facts, which are not in dispute:
1) SCOs claim on the UNIX codebase is tenuous given:
a) the recent claim made by Novell (despite the recent location of an amendment to that agreement) and
b) the 1993 ruling in the AT&T vs BSD case.
2) In the words of Ransom Love (former CEO), SCO was "Combining Linux and UNIX for business". So, their own advertising campaign suggests that they were doing this themselves.
3) SCO was a Linux Distributor and is still a member of the United Linux Consortium.
4) While acting as a Linux Distributor SCO released this code under the terms of the GPL.
5) SCO has not bothered in years to pursue this, so why now? Obviously to save their own necks due to the fact the SCOs UNIX derivatives have been selling very poorly.
With all of these indisputable facts weighing against them, SCO's case in the court is by no means certain.
GJC
-- Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:Has anybody considered
by
73939133
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It would be pretty pointless to change the code overnight.
It wouldn't be "pointless" at all. The goal is not to hide past infringement, it is to avoid future infringement. It would mean that Linux users could use the next release of the kernel without worrying about future violations of SCO's copyrights or patents.
If the code is there, it will be found.
Nobody is trying to hide anything. People would still be liable for past violations, but they would be liable for that anyway.
If you unknowingly violate someone's copyright and you take quick steps to fix it, you are probably going to get off easily. SCO is trying to create a situation where they are informing everybody that they are violating their copyright but not permitting them to fix it (other than by buying SCO's software), and that's just sleazy. It probably won't fly either. Once the source files are identified, they will get rewritten from scratch, and their claims will be history.
I believe the code they are referencing has been part of their Unix OS since long before Linux was started.
In case you're right, which you could well be, the next question is "who copied it from Unix to Linux"... Maybe not IBM, why would they:-). Could it have been Caldera in the time they were trying to create their "Unified Unix" or whatever it was called? Read Cringely's column of this week about the topic!! Refreshing.....
In other words, it's one thing to show that wrong was done, it's another to prove who did that wrong.....
-- Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
Whatever the module in question, I'm sure that SCO has access to the changelogs. What's going to hurt their campaign to go after end users will be that the community would be more than happy to scrap and recode any offending code. The BSD lawsuit years ago proved that to be the case. So instead of minimizing damages and going after the bad actors here, SCO is trying to maximize claimed damages and go after the widest net of infringers.
Slashdot Mirror
I made a small perl script to count the lines of c code in the linux source (as shipped by redhat)
/\.c$/;
/Esben
#!/usr/bin/perl
use File::Find;
find(\&wanted, ".");
sub wanted {
next unless
open C, $_;
while () {$c++; }
}
print "$c\n";
There are about 3 million lines of code in the linux source. 80 lines are 0,003%. For SCO's sake i hope they have more evidence than these 80 lines - and that they can prove that the didn't rip them off them selves - either from linux or BSD.
"Nobody really checks their email any more. They just delete their spam"
It seems that Novell now admits that it has transfered the Unix copyright to SCO according to this article.
They still claim to own the patents so the SCO case appears to be solely about the Unix copyrights.
A couple of years ago SCO worked with the linux community on trying to bring together Unix and Linux ... who is to say that their own programmers didn't insert this code durring that process?!?!
We don't need no stinking sig!
This isn't like the Cisco/Huawei case, where IOS has been proprietary for years, without an open source equivalent forked out of it in the distant past, and without various companies working with both codebases. In that case, there's nothing to cross-pollinate with, and copied code could clearly go in only one direction.
And if it's not in the kernel, then it's not in Linux, is it? Linux is the kernel and the kernel alone. Everything else is GNU and other third-party utilities, and distro-specific stuff.
Of course SCO wants to make it difficult because what they really want is to muscle someone (primarily IBM) into buying them out. If they made it easy for people to investigate, the truth would be found in a week, and their case would vanish. And people would also be working to replace the code in question, just as they did in the days of the BSD/AT&T debacle. I'm surprised they've let anybody see it yet.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
eg:
Also from the same page the chairman of the Canopy Group Investment Company, Ray Noorda is a former Novell CEO.
What do you think the chances are that Novell knew of the code copying (if it occured that is) but chose to not pursue it, and this Ray Noorda tipped The Canopy Group off as to the potential litigation value in it, so they bought it up, and drummed up a bit of support for it so they could turn around later and hit all the 'skyrocketing' growth potential Ralph Yarro was talking about?
I guess, you didn't read the article. It didn't say they showed all the code, but the some examples. Of those examples, up to 80 lines were the same. The way this is written implies there are more parts.
"Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments. "
First, all code is attributed in the changelog.
Second, Linus most of the time ignores code which does not come from his trusted lieutnants. They, too, do proper attribution.
Third, most code isn't accepted unless it's obviously correct (like small fixes) or has had some testing on the list first. Which means that the patch can probably be found in LKML.
RTFA, the both of you =)
That quote is from the "Linux more insecure than Windows, Aberdeen claims" article (second link in the main post) and has nothing to do with the SCO-IBM lawsuit as such.
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
Especially as we have 80 lines of identical code including comments which is the real kicker.
:-)
First of all, have you considered that this might be 80 lines from something that is based on a reference implementation? Stuff like tcp/ip stacks, device drivers and so on are often based on reference source released by device manufacturers or standard groups.
br Secondly, 80 lines isn't much and considering how bad some programmers are at writing comments, I'm not surprised if there are similiar comments
Boies was (IIRC) the leader of the successful antitrust prosecution against IBM, back in the eighties- this was the first big high-tech antitrust case, and was clearly pretty successful.
What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
#!/bin/bash
r files.zip > /dev/null &
for ((i=0; i<10; i+=1))
do
curl -s http://sco.com/images/pdf/education/SCO_AEP_poste
done
I believe both SCO and IBM would be categorized as corporations by the court. Not quite sure what non-corps you suggest could be sued?
There is no way they can keep the code secret. They cannot compel Linux distro companies or end users to continue to pay fees to license their code indefinitely. They must tell the people who they allege are in violation exactly what they are licensing and give them an opportinuty to cease the infringement by removing the code. They cannot force users to completely drop the Linux kernel source tree because a tiny fraction of a percent of the code violates their IP rights.
Once Red Hat or another distro company (who are end users of Linux themselves and therefore liable) patches the code to replace it in their kernel and is compelled by the GPL to distribute the patched kernel source tree, it's a simple matter of diffing the source to see what code was replaced.
I think the fact that the kernel in Caldera Linux that is licensed under the GPL (and they continued to knowingly distribute it under the GPL after they were aware of the code) likely has this code, eliminates any claims they may think they have against Linux users. Then there's also the Lindows.com contract which may have effectively laundered their code through the GPL.
And of course they have to prove that the code wasn't previously released under the BSD license and was intended only for Unix. Unless they have the author of the code testify under oath, I think they will have a hard time proving that.
Except you have to take all steps you can to reduce ongoing damages - being aware of infringement and preventing people from ending it is illegal.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
There is an excellent article by Bob Cringely (of PBS) describing how SCO's Linux team may have added UnixWare and OpenServer code to Linux.
0 5. html
Check it out at:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200306
This is a lengthy prediction, and I'll probably get modded down for it,
Nothing like a good bit of karma-martyring, eh?
However, very few people in business are going to understand this. Management are scared idiots, American management doubly so. They're going to stay away from Linux in droves and are already feeling personally betrayed by the people who make Linux, just on the strength of the FUD and accusations. They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters.
It's natural for them to take this view so easily because they've been conditioned all their lives to believe that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" and after years of business training they're suspect of anything (even family matters) that don't emphasize the "bottom line" above all else. They were very reluctant to consider Linux in the first instance for these reasons and it took years of badgering on technical grounds and tempting on cost grounds from technical underlings to stop them from seeing Linux as some kind of a scam in the first place.
Your argument, like so many others I've seen along these lines, seems to be predicated on the assumption that the people who make it into management are blithering idiots. I've seen no evidence to support this notion. Yes, they do think differently from tech people. Yes, occasionally a single management type will make a bad decision as a result of misunderstanding a technical issue. But to label these people as a class as idiots is a major error.
Aside from that, you make numerous other unsupported claims in the above two paragraphs. (e.g., "They're already at home telling the wife how big a mistake Linux was and how they should have listened to the doubters." Really? How do you know this?)
The courts in the US, unfortunately, have the same view. If it's corporation versus non-corporation, the corporation will always get the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof will always be on the non-corporation, regardless of what the "law" may say, and in many cases, it's impossible for the non-coproration to win a case; the court will simply rule for the corporation even if it's patently obvious that the law doesn't support such a ruling. They'll do it with a backhanded wink and a nod and the belief that to hurt business and "the economy" is far worse that to hurt any non-business entity or group of individuals.
Well, assuming that this assertion you make is true (again, you provide no supporting evidence, so it's rather difficult to evaluate, but assuming for the moment that it is true) then Linux is safe because IBM is a much bigger corporation than SCO, and upholding SCO's claims would do far more damage to the economy than a ruling in favor of IBM.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Aberdeen, and "open source expert" Bill Claybrook in particular, have issued nothing but nasty reports about Linux and its supposedly inferior security, high TCO, and low market penetration for the past several years. They've been doing a similar bag job on Sun. This article explains why.
With friends like Mr. Claybrook, who needs SCO?
Think DMCA. Because SCO has already compared Linux users to pirates and told us frankly that they plan on using RIAA tactics, I think money from a copyright infringement lawsuit may not be the big stick they plan on using or at least not the only stick. What they might be thinking of, judging only from their public remarks, is to claim that anyone offering Linux for sale or download is offering stolen goods and users are using stolen goods, followed by a simple notice of copyright infringement to ISPs to get them to shut down the Linux sites.
Meanwhile, they register the copyright and then start suing anyone who continues to offer it and use it. This is on top of the license they hope to then be charging all those who were foolish enough to license through SCO and are now scared enough to pay up rather than get sued. And then maybe they start criminal actions under the copyright law, a la RIAA, against particular "offenders".
Perhaps they will never do any of these things, and they would first have to prove their allegations against IBM, but the point is that they could at least try them if they have copyright rights and can prove their "IP" is in Linux, and their remarks make it conceivable that they may be planning something along these lines eventually. The real solution is to just get any disputed code out of there, I would think, which they seem to know too, and I think that is why they won't really show anything that would make it possible to do exactly that in a timely fashion. Disclaimer: IANAL. I'm a paralegal. Posting as AC because I don't have an account.
All,
Here are the facts, which are not in dispute:
1) SCOs claim on the UNIX codebase is tenuous given:
a) the recent claim made by Novell (despite the recent location of an amendment to that agreement) and
b) the 1993 ruling in the AT&T vs BSD case.
2) In the words of Ransom Love (former CEO), SCO was "Combining Linux and UNIX for business". So, their own advertising campaign suggests that they were doing this themselves.
3) SCO was a Linux Distributor and is still a member of the United Linux Consortium.
4) While acting as a Linux Distributor SCO released this code under the terms of the GPL.
5) SCO has not bothered in years to pursue this, so why now? Obviously to save their own necks due to the fact the SCOs UNIX derivatives have been selling very poorly.
With all of these indisputable facts weighing against them, SCO's case in the court is by no means certain.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It would be pretty pointless to change the code overnight.
It wouldn't be "pointless" at all. The goal is not to hide past infringement, it is to avoid future infringement. It would mean that Linux users could use the next release of the kernel without worrying about future violations of SCO's copyrights or patents.
If the code is there, it will be found.
Nobody is trying to hide anything. People would still be liable for past violations, but they would be liable for that anyway.
If you unknowingly violate someone's copyright and you take quick steps to fix it, you are probably going to get off easily. SCO is trying to create a situation where they are informing everybody that they are violating their copyright but not permitting them to fix it (other than by buying SCO's software), and that's just sleazy. It probably won't fly either. Once the source files are identified, they will get rewritten from scratch, and their claims will be history.
I believe the code they are referencing has been part of their Unix OS since long before Linux was started.
:-). Could it have been Caldera in the time they were trying to create their "Unified Unix" or whatever it was called? Read Cringely's column of this week about the topic!! Refreshing.....
.....
In case you're right, which you could well be, the next question is "who copied it from Unix to Linux"... Maybe not IBM, why would they
In other words, it's one thing to show that wrong was done, it's another to prove who did that wrong
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
Whatever the module in question, I'm sure that SCO has access to the changelogs. What's going to hurt their campaign to go after end users will be that the community would be more than happy to scrap and recode any offending code. The BSD lawsuit years ago proved that to be the case. So instead of minimizing damages and going after the bad actors here, SCO is trying to maximize claimed damages and go after the widest net of infringers.
That's not going to sit well with most juries.