Slashdot Mirror
SCO Code to be Protected in Closed Court
An anonymous reader writes "SCO public relations director Blake Stowell today said that the company had secured permission to present the code alleged to have found its way into Linux to a closed court. Once again SCO is refusing to tell Linux users just what code they claim is infringing on their IP rights, while still threatening to sue corporations running Linux."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IBM kill this when they feel so inclined, so just pretend SCO doesn't exist.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
So they're afraid that releasing the code could encourage other people to take it and integrate into their own OSes? Yeah, there's a good idea. I wouldn't touch anything SCO-code-related with a 20-foot pole.
If they are proved to be wrong, the code will come out anyway.
If they are right, their valuable source code will be released on the internet and lose all its value if it is open court.
A court case shouldn't be allowed to trample over people's rights. It's quite normal for commercially secretive cases to be held in camera (but only for the sensitive bits) - such as trade secrets, and other similar issues.
I'm just quoting from memory, but an old press release said something like,
"Open source leaders have refused to take action [and remove the code]".
And then a few sentences later,
"We don't want them to take out the code because then we can't sue them".
Stupid bitches.
What prevents someone who's being sued for having SCO code from saying, in closed court, of course, "OK, we'll replace it"? And then, perhaps, release their changed code to the public, not necessarily identifying the SCO code but just showing possible replacements inside Linux that people could place?
I just wait for them to sue a Linux end-user... should be fun.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
...published on the Internet by way of the alleged inclusions into Linux. It's no longer a Trade Secret and prior precedents say as much. I have trouble believing Blake Stowell's clams and I would have even more trouble with the court letting that one go down.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"We can't just open this up to the public. The minute we open it up we have in fact opened it up to the public and we can't restrict it in the future from a proprietary standpoint," said SCO CEO Darl McBride at conference in August this year.
The fact that I have seen your code does not make it part of the public domain. This is just silly.
What exactly is Darl trying to say here...I can no longer read around his incredibly twisted language. I think the only reason why they can't open the "offending" code up to the community is because they don't want Linux to be fixed, they want it to die. If all they wanted was money, they wouldn't have bothered to keep the code a closely guarded secret.
Another reason, ofcourse, is that there is NO offending code, and they want to prevent a public hue and cry over bits and pieces of for and while loops.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
This is not a good sign for the Linux community. If they were going to publicly state what code has been infringed on, then it would be easier for everyone to go through it. But, SCO only has to disclose the code that they think has been stolen in a private court, then only the people who are involved with the trial will have the opportunity to go through the evidence. It just puts more work on Linus and co.
Probably not - I bet the agreement hinges on IBM not being able to divulge any of the information during the court proceedings.
Don't get me wrong - it isn't a big deal. SCO's claims, alleged evidence, and legal arguments have increasingly been shown to be one big wad of suckypoo, so no worries.
smd4985
As several sources, including Bruce Perens' fine analysis of code fragments thus far disclosed, have indicated, some of what SCO is claiming as their IP in fact stems from material that were in the public domain as far back as the 70's. If this can be established beyond the shadow of a doubt in court, then they should have no right to keep private that which is already public and the codes can ultimately be disclosed.
It's somewhat similar to my attempting to keep the contents of "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" secret by claiming IP rights, only to realize later that I never owned it, do not own it, and will never own it. Therefore, I would have no right to keep it confidential since my original claim of ownership is debunked.
Do you think that the court can be made to understand that the only reason SCO doesn't want anyone to know what code is infringing is that two hours later, nobody is going to be using that particular code any more and therefore won't owe SCO anything?
Technoli
What really blows me away about this whole debacle is the value of SCOX. At around $15/share, this same time last year it was only a few bucks per share. Someone's buying this crap and someone's going to get raped. People better check to see their mutual fund managers aren't taking them for a ride. All these shady court arrangements are only prolonging the inevitable decline of SCO, and when that happens a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. I hope the SEC is looking into the stock dealings.
Judge Damon J. Keith, in the Cincinnati ruling, opined that "Democracies die behind closed doors."
Little surprise, Darl figures SCO will survive behind closed doors.
And it is true that SCO will survive only as long as it is behind closed doors. Open the doors, let the light shine, and let people pore over the code .... SCO is then as good as dead ....
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
I think people are confusing this case with an open-source v. open-source fight.
While I appreciate the "community-nature" of open-source and Linux, the average user does not have a right to see the infringing code just because he or she feels personally affronted by SCO. If you were personally named in the lawsuit, then you should be able to see the code.
Assuming SCO has any valid case, it is going to be determined in a Court of Law, not the Court of Slashdot. If SCO happens to win its case against IBM, et al., then the "proprietary code" in which it claims Linux infringed would no longer be "proprietary" if SCO released its source to every Joe Linux-User who asked for it. You can't expect a company to shoot itself in the foot just to prove a case in a Court of Law (though I guess Slashdotters might expect it from SCO).
Let IBM's goggle of lawyers fight this out. My sense is that they have half-a-clue as to what amounts to infringing code. Anyway, with IBM on its side, it's like having Daddy Sawbuck's pay the Open Source community's legal fees!
-A
I'll be curious to see what, if any, gag order the judge will place on IBM. The judge has not placed an injuction on IBM developing or selling the code in question so it would be unlikely They'd place further restriction on IBM disclosing or modifying "their" code after seeing "SCO's" code.
That said, it's unlikely IBM will do anything like that. They have little to gain by pissing off the judge by violating the spirity of the "closed court" rulling. They also have little to gain by changing the code and re-releasing because it will make them look like they're guilty.
Whatevery happens, it'll be fun to watch.
TW
If not before, then when they've lost their case, their market and their reputation and the shareholders agree to give what's left of SCO to ESR in return for his VA Linux stock ;-)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
There is no good reason for the code to not be publicly shown. There can't possibly be trade secret status for it, as it's already in the kernel which is viewable by the world, and by copyright law the copyright holder has to let you know what you're doing wrong so you can fix it, IIRC. SCO is doing this for two reasons:
1. They don't want the open source people to tear thier case to shreds like they did with the first snippet of code they saw.
2. If there is actual stolen code, they don't want the open source people removing it so that SCO can't collect a fee on Linux.
It's bullshit, and it stinks. The restriction must be lifted and the code shown in open court.
Um, yeah. That's life in America. We're so dumb.
While the closed proceeding is disappointing to Linux advocates, it is not as much as a set back as one might think. After all, IBM still will get access to the code. With IBM's resources, I'm sure they can skillfully analyze and debunk SCO's claims. While we cannot do so, our analyses would not have mattered to the court anyway. Those who may have been invovled the the "alleged" code might be ready to receive some inquiries from IBM. Namely the two former SCO/Caldera employees, Linus, etc.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
if the GPL is an amalgamation of individual copyrights collected together, then SCO's code needs to be delineated for the end users. If the GPL is an umbrella copyright, then all of the developers need to know what is infringing so that it can be removed.
The secret is going to be out. Whether it happens now, when the accused is standing in court, or later when the judgement is handed down and something has to be done about the infringement, it is going to be out. The only way the secret could stay a secret is if the judge threw the bums out. Not a bad option, in my opinion.
At this point, a well-timed "leak" is in order. Those silly IBM lawyers and their unsecured FTP servers.
Hey... Isn't this what Freenet was made for?
The ______ Agenda
Under the terms of discovery, the discloser may
label certain parts "confidential." If challenged
the onus is on the discloser to justify the
confidentiality.
The transcript of the court session is public and
this standard protective order is the only thing
mentioned. I am quite certain there was no
further side-deal with the magistrate.
While I would not put it past SCO to label
everything confidential, that would be an abuse
of the process. I doubt the magistrate would
allow it.
Stowell's announcement is just SCO's usual
disingeniuty in reporting the facts. Remember
that this is the person who claimed the judge
"flipped a coin" in deciding to rule in favour of
IBM's motion to compel discovery.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I realize that this is civil and not criminal court, but doesn't IBM have a right to see the evidence against it so they can mount a defense. SCO would have to present a section of code, then IBM would have to rush to produce documentation of the lineage of that section, whether it came from "Ancient" (pre-V7/32V) AT&T UNIX, CSRG/Berkley/BSD, SysV or minix/linux/*BSD and whether the code is "known" (ie Lion's book, Pre-92 BSD sources, K&R, et al). Such a proceedure would cause a very slow, stop/start trial that could carry on forever.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
If they do in fact have code which is protected by copyright, then they have nothing to fear. Copyright still protects things that have been seen by the public -- it's called publication. It seems to me that the only reason copyright exists in the first place is to encourage people to publish their works by allowing them to still own a work once it is in the open.
If, on the other hand, SCO believes that it's control over the code is only based on its status as a trade secret, then they have no recourse against the Linux community, only (theoretically) IBM. Keeping any infringing code secret wouldn't help.
It seems to me that there are only a few possible reasons that SCO wants to keep all this secret, which are unrelated to their stated reasons:
1) They need Linux to continue infringing as long as possible. My guess is that the length of infringement, which will stop 24 hours or so after public disclosure, will directly affect any increase the damages paid by IBM.
2) They want to catch IBM in a contempt of court charge. If the code is sealed by the court, and it becomes suddenly removed before being made public, then SCO can say that IBM leaked information, and so is in contempt of the secrecy order. This makes IBM look very bad, and gives SCO a strong argument that IBM has clearly shown itself to be untrustworthy with information. It's an interesting gambit, relying on the fact that the information will need to be widely available within IBM for its defense, and bets that at least one of those people will spill the beans.
3) They have no idea who actually contributed the code in question. If they open it up to the public, there's always the possibility that some expert in the field will stand up and say, "No, I wrote that code, not IBM, and I have never seen SCO's code". Opening the code suddenly gives IBM a very large army of people who will study and scour the code SCO releases to find any evidence in IBM's favor whatsoever. With it secret, the burden is entirely on IBM, and so the process will take longer and evidence may be missed. This also plays into #2 above.
4) There is no code. SCO's allegations have been a delicate web of half-truths and bravado, exposure of which will mean certain death to the company. It will lose its case, it will not be purchased, and its lawyers will not be paid.
"disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets"
So, the fact that SCO themselves publicly released the entirety of the Linux source code for many years is going to be quietly swept under the table? No, there are no trade secrets in the Linux source code. SCO's position on making their allegations public makes no sense except as a way to prevent people from replacing bits of code that might actually be infringing. But since SCO has been releasing Linux Code themselves for years the best that they could reasonably hope for in terms of a settlement would be an injunction on versions of linux containing the code that they hold the copyright to.
SCO will never get enough money out of their claims to even pay their lawyers, only ill will.
This all assumes they really do have good instances of infringement to disclose to IBM.
... something. If they come up with anything at all, it is likely to be shot down fast and hard by IBM.
... exactly nothing?
Pretty much only SCO and a few suckemup analysts believe that.
Pretty much the rest of the world doesn't believe it.
They have 30 days to come up with
And then, who cares if it is public or not?
What if they come up with
Infuriate left and right
I think the point of the parent post is that this whole case is getting stale.
Just get some legal ruling and lets move on to the next step.
1. Court rules SCO has a case. Lets move to the next step.
2. Court rules SCO has no case. Lets move to the next step.
In the end this case is just one step in many before we get to a conclusion.
This day-time soap opera is getting old.
In the end, the OpenSource hordes will go to any extremes, including re-programming the whole thing in some pre-alphas version of Microsoft LISP, to kill off SCO claims.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
In Soviet Russia, corporations obey courts.
Someone needs to explain to the judge that SCO's claim is ridiculous as a matter of law. Assuming SCO proves their claim, as a matter of law IBM must be allowed to remove the infringing code. The code for Linux containing SCO's code is already available to the public, and the now-clean code will be available to the public per the terms of the GPL (which IBM would still have to abide by). A simple diff of the two will reveal exactly the code SCO's trying to keep unrevealed. The only way to prevent this would be to either prohibit IBM from curing the infringement (not legal) or to pull in every other Linux contributor and take away their right to license their own intellectual property (the parts that don't belong to SCO) under terms they find agreeable (again not legal, remedy doesn't extend that far beyond the plaintiff's own IP).
According to the lawyer who gave a lecture about intellectual property rights, patents and trade secrets etc., trade secrets have no protection. If you can develop the formula for Coca Cola on your own, they can't stop you from selling it, as long as you don't infringe on their copyrights or trademarks. There is also a chance that someone could patent it before you do if they develop it around the same time, in which case you could be infringing on a patent if you can't prove you came up with the idea on your own.
goates
But I believe you are correct about trade secrets and parallel development.
SCO might have a case IF they could show that SCO showed IBM the trade secrets SCO was using under contract and that IBM then released those to Linux.
So, SCO has to identify the code they claim is a "trade secret". For some reason, SCO has been very, Very, VERY reluctant to do so in court.
Then SCO has to show that there was a contract covering that code signed with IBM (or one of the companies that IBM now owns and that the contract was still binding when ownership changed) and that IBM had access to that code PRIOR to that code being added to Linux.
IF (and that's a big IF) both of those items are met, then IBM needs to show that the person/team that submitted that code to Linux did not have access to the SCO code.
Trade secrets have a problem in that it is up to the company with those secrets to protect them and take REASONABLE precautions against them leaking out.
Now, if SCO shows the code and the contracts and IBM cannot show that the code was clean, IBM can still come back and say that since no one in the Linux kernel developers' community can IDENTIFY THE SCO CODE, the "trade secret" is still a secret.
Folks,
.... So, in the USA, Linux would have underground dealers and eventually the FBI and ATFS (Alien Technology Free Software) agents would be arresting folks like me and you. The prison sentences will be comparable with cocaine and heroin dealers ... (I know, but ...) look at PA-1+2, DMCA, HDA, ... directions (forget the US Constitution protecting US citizens). In other words, SCO is already in their grave the world community will not allow this frivolous BS to invade their sovereign nations. As for the USA ... we wait to see ...?
(1) SCO is hiding their lies. Legal wrangling by SCO to find a favorable (technology incompetent) court is a waste of corporate financial resources and burdens the recourses of interested others. SCO is the only party in any possible case that does not want to resolve these problems ASAP. Rather than a rush to court by SCO, it appears SCO is in a rush to scam and defraud businesses internationally. SCO needs to withdraw from the game they are playing, or play and lose, before some State Attorney General initiates a criminal investigation.
(2) SCO could win in a USA court and lay-claim to Linux. SCO would never win in a Canada, EU, China, India, French, Russian, British, Irish, Scot, German,
The USA FLAG waived proud and high, as the USA Constitution ideals died in Congress.
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Plutocratic Capitalist perverts subverting Pluralistic Democracy and Open Economy are as clueless as Marie Antoinette and King Louis XVI (1755-1793).
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
" 24 hours after the data is released there will be a new Linux distribution with the fragments eliminated."
Code shouldn't be necessarily removed, for2 reasons:
1) It can turn out that whatever they show was coming from a common source (BSD) or was already public knowledge.
2) Even if it turns out, that the code in Linux derives from SCO's SystemV code, we shouldn't abandon the issues with the GPL. Of course, they would plead ignorance, but I believe it would be difficult to convince the judge given their one time slogan of 'bringing unix and linux closer' - or something like that. Not to mention their LKP and already known contributions to the linux kernel.
The difficult part of this decicion is that yes, you can clear out any code that SCO claims is infringing, but doing so, you acknowledge that there was merit to their claims, and you also acknowledge a weakness in the GPL. SCO used the work of thousands of developers when making money selling linux under the GPL. They should not get off that easily (oh, but we didn't know! what? didn't read the licence? didn't know what your employees were doing? didn't know what you were selling?)
IANAL, but I think that you said it well.
It strikes me that the other thing missing here. is that SCO will have to convince a court that they have the primary rights on code that was not developed by them. I am thinking primarly of the NUMA code. That had nothing to do with SCO, so the primary copyright on that was held by Sequent, now IBM. SCO is simply muddying the waters (and with MS and SUN help, very effectively), but I am guessing that this will be a contract issue in the end and all else will become secondary or possibly disappear.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In lawsuits in federal district courts (and most state courts as well), the rules of discovery provide that opposing parties can get the other side to produce any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1). This means that litigants have some leeway. They are not limited to asking for evidence that is admissible in court but rather can get ANY information that would LEAD to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, litigants do not get free, unfettered access to each others' files, but can go on limited "fishing expeditions" so long as they can show that they have some reasonable expectation of finding fish where they are fishing.
That said, assume (as the judge must at this stage of the litigation) that SCO actually does have some trade secret or confidentiality interests to protect in its source code. That secret or confidential status would be forever lost if disclosed to the world. SCO should not lose any valid rights it has simply because it sued to enforce those rights. (Take it easy flamers - we're making assumptions here still - keep reading!).
Obviously there are tensions among the right of a party to get information from an adversary to defend itself, the right of an opposing party to protect its trade secrets or confidential information, and the public's right to have judicial proceedings in the open. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure balance these interests in Rule 26(c) which proivides for protective orders. Such orders are issued to keep confidential information from becoming public. There are several features which ensure that the use of such orders is not too problematic:
-
The material produced under such an order must still be produced to the other side (and potentially the court if the litigation goes that far. In this case, I think everyone agrees that IBM has a substantial interest in gettin gthe information to defend itself. I also think most Slashdot readers would agree that in this case, IBM's interests are closely aligned with those of the Open Source community.
- The information claimed to be confidential must actually be confidential. That means that information which is not truly confidential cannot be made confidential because a party produces the information under the terms of a protective order.
-
The judge is free to reveal anything he determines is not confidential. A protective order is called an interlocutory order, meaning that it is one of those types of orders issued to keep the suit moving forward and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Basically, it is the way the Court manages litigation. Because these orders do not (usually) determine the rights of parties, the judge is free to modify or revoke those orders at any time.
Now for all those who want desperately to see SCO's source code, I ask this: WHY do you want to see it so badly? If you enjoy reading source so much that you just HAVE to see SCO's code, then I suggest you sign SCO's nondisclosure and get it. If however, you want to do your own comparison to Linux code, then I submit that the community as a whole has no need to see what SCO has. IBM will adequately protect the community becuse its interests are so closely aligned with those of the community. If your burning desire to do a comparison is to prove that SCO's claims have no merit, again, IBM will do this job just fine. Sit back, be patient, and trust that IBM will defend itself (and the community) vigorously.Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
This thing about SCO wanting to keep the code a secret is a non-issue at the moment. In actuality, if you think about it, it makes perfect sense for SCO to want to do this.
Look at it this way: You have some code you claim is proprietary and you sue someone for using it. Now, if you can keep the code a secret save for the courtroom, and you lose the case, then you still can keep that code proprietary and continue to charge licenses from people who obtain it directly from you.
But say instead you're forced to reveal the code to the public and you lose the case. Now you're up shit's creek because you have this code that was proven not to be infringing, but you can't claim it to be proprietary anymore because now everyone can see it. Personally, I'd be more worried if SCO went the other way and was more than happy to show the public. They would not do that unless they thought they had the case all sewn up. The fact that they will not reveal it to the public means they're hedging their bets and want the opportunity to continue using the code if they lose the case (assuming there is anything left the company afterward, but that's another story).
So don't worry about this quite yet. The code WILL be shown to the party that needs to know, namely IBM. IBM is not stupid. The splendid conduct they have shown before and during these proceedings shows that they know what they are doing. They can shoot holes in SCO's argument almost as good as the FOSS community can. And if they need help, they can rightly argue that they should be allowed to have outside experts view the code (read: Linux kernel maintainers). And in the unlikely case that SCO wins, they will be forced to reveal the code, as it is the ONLY way that it can be removed from the offending software.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
There are two "big deals" involved.
First, if I as a kernel hacker sign an NDA with SCO, the odds are good that I will have to quit the project. Having seen SCO's code, I could open myself up to a lawsuit if my name came up attached to something they claimed was theirs.
Second, if I as anyone sign an NDA, I wouldn't be able to tell exactly what was infringing. I'd just be able to say, "Yep, it looks like SCO is right" or "Nope, SCO is full of it" but not have any basis for my claims that I could reveal to anyone. So what's the point?
Better this should come out in discovery where it will eventually be part of the court record.
Someone you trust is one of us.
You are correct in what SCO has filed and that is all that matters at this point.
:)
It might have been a non-compete, or it might have been some other restriction.
Until SCO identifies the code, we won't know what contracts, if any, cover that code.
As for SCO's claims that pre-existing code was added to Linux, SCO did claim that in their NDA presentations.
SCO has filed ONE lawsuit against IBM for contract violations. What those specific violations are will have to wait for the specific code to be identified so the specific provisions of those specific contracts covering that specific code can be specified.
That is what the judge just ordered.
But, SCO has made lots of public statements about copyrights, patents, trade secrets and implied other things under "Intellectual Property". That crap is what gets reported by all the "journalists" and "analysts" out there.
I think it is good to have each of the possible scenarios discussed and what would happen under each of them.
More importantly, we could look at past cases to see what the standards were and what the legal outcome was.
Its just that SCO finds that even they don't fully know which lines it is either. Its embarrassing for them so they have resorted to a closed court.
If it takes a closed court for IBM to discover what the hell SCO are going on about then so be it but fact remains that NO ONE wants the SCO code if it compromises the freedoms that the GPL affords us with respect to the Linux kernel.
I'm happy to pay good money for a product or service but all I want to know is what exactly am I paying my money for ? Its REAL simple SCO: simply tell me what I am getting for my money. I'll show you my money if you show me your code. Deal ?.
Then I can make a call if I want it or not. Always wanted to look at OpenBSD/FreeBSD but its the freedoms of the GPL that keep me with Linux.
If SCO wins, we'll be faced with a situation in which a government perfectly campable of overriding public opinion (as they did in the case of H-1b in which 85% of the public opposed expansion and the Senatate supported expansion 96-1) is making major decisions that impact the lives of a lot of people giving no clear explaination. There is this matter of governments rule by "consent of the governed". This isn't want folks like Jefferson intended.
I do believe SCO's code should be private.
Linux however is very public and always has been.
If SCO can prove it owns some Linux code in court, Linux developers will remove it, if SCO asks and specifies the code.
End of story.
SCO does not pass go, or get to collect 200 dollars.
Just because SCO is incompetent to run a software busines does not mean anyone owes them money.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
The IBM case is a contract dispute. The SCO vs. IBM issues are different from the copyright issues SCO raises in the press and which will eventually be litigated in Red Hat vs. SCO.
Wouldn't it follow then that IBM is the only party that could be "punished" for distributing the trade secret.
If SCO actually does have a court order to block IBM from disclosing their claimed infringement (which I seriously doubt BTW) then we can still get around it.
IBM simply needs to remove any files that SCO has identified and issue a distro. A diff against the latest release will clearly show what SCO is claiming.
It is totally perposterous for SCO to take this position. The code has already been released. It already IS published.
So how can IBM be barred from publishing everything EXCEPT what SCO claims infringes? No doubt SCO will try though. The silly fools.
In any event - a distro devoid of the claimed infringing code will allow every developer in the world who has worked on Linux to note the absence of their code and they can then come forth with the evidence that IBM needs.
This ploy will go nowhere IMHO
SCO was going under. They own the rights to Unix as I understand it. They figured IBM would buy them out if they go under. They figured a lawsuit against IBM would likely end quietly in a settlement where IBM just bought SCO and made the SCO execs a lot of money.
IBM decided to fight. SCO is doing damage control. They know that even if the court finds that code was stolen from System V Unix and put in Linux they have maybe a one in a million chance that the court will actually order that Linux will be essentially turned over to SCO to sell.
Basically SCO is in a lawsuit lottery right now. They have nothing better to do since they don't really have a business left. They are gambling 50-100 million in legal fees and operating expenses for the next few years on a very very slim chance that they could end up effectively monopolizing linux and the potential trillion dollar payoff that would lead to.
They will most likely loose and possibly end up being seized by IBM when they countersue for their legal fees which will be 10-20 million and by that point, that is all that SCO will be worth.
Even if they win at trial, they will not be permitted to control linux. The offending source code (if any) will simply be removed by developers.
Asking for sealed procedings is unfortunatly an all to common move in american justice nowdays, especially in divorce trials. The misapplication of this power is particularlably worrisome because it strikes at the heart of our open system of justice. If the people cannot see the miscarridge of justice they can't correct it.
While I doubt SCO is particularly worried about (by themselves) rousing congress to a leglislative remedy for computer copyright law (though they could be part of a larger trend that does so) they are worried about too many public eyes.
Look at how effective publicity and the internet have been in finding examples of prior art in software patent cases. Asking for closed procedings forces IBM to track down every potential witness individually by themselves. No doubt SCO is hoping that with an open source product with developers spread across the globe IBM won't be able to find the relevant people if they can't publisize their claim.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
...but you are an idiot. Disclosing code in court will not assign copyrights to the public domain. The owner of the copyright still owns those copyrights. These rights cannot arbitrarily be reassigned. Also secrets aren't secret if everyone knows them. Unix has been widely published on a massive scale, what could possibly be secret in Unix V, and besides, the real secrets to Unix are in its processes, specifications and patents which SCO doesn't own for the most part, and are also widely known or even public domain and aren't even slightly secretive. The particular code is just the implementation of the spec. which is copyrighted but isn't a 'secret' if everyone knows how it is made. Secrets are like Kentucky Fried Chicken, ring laser gyros and Coca Cola, once you tell everyone how to make it, it isn't a secret any more, and anyone will know how to make it.
What kind of dumbass would tell me to sit back and relax while someone tries to violate my rights. That is bullshit. I don't trust IBM to watch out for my interests, they would just as soon fuck me up the ass as help me out, and I would like to do my own due dilligence, very much thank you, because I do not like to get buggered.
Squeel like a pig? Hell no!