Did SCO Actually Buy What it Thought?

Int27h quotes The Age saying "Just before Christmas last year, Novell announced publicly that SCO had known for some time that it did not receive all rights and ownership to UNIX technologies, despite public statements to the contrary. Novell has made public correspondence between lawyers representing both Novell and SCO." Lots of links and commentary on what continues to be one of the strangest stories in the history of Linux.

Comments

I'd like to believe...

[Cosmik]

I'd like to believe that SCO didn't exactly know what they were buying.

This would still leave me with some faith in major software corporations, whereas the view of SCO knowing what they were buying and subsequently stirring up all this crap makes me want to wince.

Then again, on second thought, why would I want to have faith in a company that can't read the fine writing? They try to get my to sign my life away each EULA I click by hiding things in the fine writing.

It's like trying to barrack for a winner between Carrot Top and Rosanne Barr. Oh the humanity!

Coyote to Air, "You're a rock, I'm not falling."

[ackthpt]

So, in the light of these Linux lawsuits, where does this leave the rest of us? Probably a little safer than we thought we were. Novell is running long and strong on detail, SCO just as long and strong on rhetoric! When one lawyer quotes details and the other is doing little more than flapping his arms, I tend to go with the details.

Effectively, SCO is maintaining it's stance that it is on firm ground, with assets well in hand, for the alternative is disaster. Deny reality as long as possible, hope stock price rises as gullible investers throw away money and sell (which SCO execs did) before reality asserts itself. Nice ploy, when you got nothing else.

Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The burden of proof is on SCO to show that Linux has SCO data.

2. They must then prove that it is data that they own, and have not authorized other companies to include in placed like Linux.

3. They must then show that it is not code that they, themselves, did not release into Linux, by revealing all of the contributions that they made.

Even then, they only have a case against whoever released it without autorization, and they can file a cease and desist to anybody who keeps distribuiting it after it is shown to be theirs.

Of course, this does not help them, because once it is known which lines of code in the Linux kernel came from SCO, it's fairly trivial to re-write those sections. Since their case depends entirely on these lines being identified and cited, I'm sure most distro companies will even be able to put out a "de-SCO" application that will bring old versions into compliance.

Re:Interesting market reaction

[StarWreck]

NOVL steadily rising since aquiring SuSE.

Novell purchasing SuSE is one of the best thing sto happen in the Linux community this year. SuSE is shaping up to be one of the best and easiest to use distros out.

Re:Obligatory

[Haeleth]

SCO Countdown.

Re:No one is taking SCO seriously anymore

[whoever57]

I'd not be too cocky until I knew for sure that the kernel is clean of any SCO data.

Ahh, but that is how SCO's plan is brilliant. It is a logical impossiblity to prove a negative. Thus, there will never be concrete proof that there are no violations of SCO's copyright in Linux.

Furthermore, you appear to have fallen for the other common trap, which is that there is SCO "data" in Linux. SCO put it there themselves. The real issue is the mythical existence of code that is somehow in violation of SCO's "IP rights".