No, the bad government makes us stamp "Made in China" on the bottom of all our authentic, hand carved statues. That way they can jack up the price by claiming they're "imports". Your carved wooden elephant and antelope are authentic African design and carving.
Yes it is "illegal", but if you don't help get the money out of the country, it will be used by the evil, corrupt, baby-killing dictator.
Is it so wrong to break a law to stop a worse crime?
And no one is being hurt. The German guy died with his entire family and no relatives anywhere else in the world at all. They had all died the year before. Meteor strikes. The lot of them. A tragic coincidence.
Anyway, if you don't help get this money away from the evil, corrupt, baby-killing dictator, then you're sentencing all those poor babies to death by this evil, corrupt dictator's hands.
Wouldn't you break a little law to help save these children from the evil, corrupt dictator? Surely you don't support his corrupt, evil, baby-killing ways.
These scammers have tuned their stories for years. They know what buttons to push with the people who will fall for them.
Accidents happen and can be very tragic. I have empathy for victims.
This was pure greed from someone who STILL cannot accept that he was wrong. Even after he is shown the evidence and examples of other people who were taken with the same scams.
If the guy was retarded or something, that would be different.
Even now, even after the cops showed him the "black money" scam was SEVENTY YEARS OLD (he's only 72 years old), he STILL cannot accept the facts.
I might make a mistake by investing in Enron. But I would NOT mortgage the house, get more credit cards and run up massive debt to buy more Enron stock once I heard that Enron was having financial problems.
That is the difference between that guy and myself.
He could only see the money he was being offered. His greed blinded him. That isn't heartbreaking.
Who cares what people are saying about you? You have a job and you're getting paid.
But the latest financials from your company show that you're losing money on everything. The only growth hope you have is the lawsuit. That's hardly a "distraction". That's your paycheck.
Even your executives are dumping their stock. You now have executives who have sold ALL their stock in your company.
This isn't about the "slashdot perceptions". This is about whether you believe your company will be able to pay your salary. To do that, SCO needs income. It doesn't look like SCO is going to have much income soon.
I think that SCO will post a $2 Million loss next quarter. IBM won't let up on the counter-suit and SCO's case might be thrown out of court by the end of January (unless SCO can come up with some SPECIFIC code that was stolen that IBM cannot, instantly, refute).
Any time I try to work with a file that's larger than the available memory, Win2K will fail. It might not crash instantly (although sometimes it will), but even after I stop trying to play with the file, it will be very slow and other apps just stop responding.
I don't think Microsoft has a good handle on their swap file.
And I see the same behaviour on multiple Win2K machines so it isn't flaky hardware.
$24.3 Million Income $10.3 Million from SCOSource (MS & Sun)
The lawyers bills are $9 Million.
So, they spend $9 Million to make $10.3 Million That's not too bad.
But they still lose $1.6 Million. So, without that $1.3 Million extra from SCOSource they'd be looking at $2.9 Million loss on their $14 Million income from non-SCOSource.
Those are some seriously bad numbers.
And they'll just get WORSE next quarter. Unless they can find some way to sell another "license" to Microsoft.
This isn't high school. People will use KDE as long as KDE is the best solution for them.
Rather than worrying about losing popularity, try focusing on making KDE the best it can be.
Like I pointed out, installing KDE on UserLinux should be a single command.
apt-get install kde
As for the developers, I don't see what you're worried about. They are the ones making KDE into what they want it to be. Why would they abandon their project?
And the commercial support? Well, only time will tell for that. But the commercial support is usually pretty easy to predict. Give them the best environment for their products and they'll move to it.
If you cannot make KDE a better choice for end users, developers and commercial interests, then why not let those groups make their OWN CHOICE about what to use, develop and develop for?
"My understanding of Bruce's goal is that UserLinux will be the one distribution that all comercial software and hardware makers will chose as a point of reference."
If hardware makers support it, then, because it is just re-packaged Debian, that support will be available for any Distribution out there.
If software makers support it, then, because it is just re-packaged Debian, the KDE people can add it to KDE.
"I fear a future in which all comercial developers will only support UserLinux."
Why? It's just re-packaged Debian. What are you afraid of?
"I believe this is what the KDE developers fear also."
Most of the "why didn't he include KDE" comments I see lack the understanding of WHY he chose not to use KDE.
If it matters so much to the KDE people, then they can get Trolltech to change the licensing. And don't give me any of that crap about "you should pay if you make a profit". That's the reason Bruce chose GNOME instead of KDE so your argument is circular.
If the KDE people cannot get the license changed, then they are free to release their OWN distribution and make it even better than UserLinux.
But if you're not going to get the license changed AND you're not going to release your own version THEN STFU and stop trying to impose YOUR viewpoint on Bruce.
This is Bruce's time and effort and he is allowed to do whatever he wants with them. Whether it meets with YOUR approval or not.
The reason he is against KDE for this project is that QT requires a one time payment for commercial development.
Yes, as you've pointed out, lots of companies have paid that. So what?
Bruce is basing this distribution on his personal beliefs and agenda.
He believes that there is a lot of development that will be done in the future in countries that cannot easily afford the QT fee.
"What I don't understand is why dump the really good KDE for a not so good (IMHO) Gnome just because of toolkits."
Because of the licenses involved. Bruce made that very clear in his first paper on this. It is because of the licensing.
"My answer to the UserLinux proposal is: use KDE as desktop, support Gnome also and improve interoperability (freedesktop is already a common direction for that)."
Great. Then you can start your own distribution and I wish you well. Bruce has a different goal.
"Why not let the decision-makers at that company make that decision? The company could choose just one UI, but they could choose between KDE and GNOME. Now, Bruce Perens makes that choice for them."
No. Bruce will be officially supporting GNOME. Bruce will be shipping GNOME.
But that does NOT mean that any company will be PREVENTED from installing UserLinux and then adding KDE or even adding KDE and removing GNOME.
apt-get install
Learn it. Live it. Love it.
"Tools to do just that already exist in KDE, but they are not available for GNOME. So KDE has a clear advantage there."
Fine, now just get Trolltech to remove the fee for commercial developement and I'm sure Bruce will re-evaluate his decision.
Oh, Trolltech won't do that? Well, that's too bad. I guess Bruce's decision to base it on GNOME was the correct decision then.
Say whatever you want to, the statistics show that married guys live longer and get sick less than unmarried guys.
"If you claim that married couples are healthier and live longer... hmm let gays get married and they will most likely be more healthy and live longer. Seems the insurance companies would love that."
Ooooh, you've made another error there. I didn't say married COUPLES, I said married GUYS live longer than unmarried guys and get sick less often than unmarried guys.
I also said that the statistics for women don't change between married and unmarried.
Maybe married gays(note the "a") would live longer and be sick less than unmarried guys(note the "u"). But I'm not aware of any statistical studies about married gays yet.
"Or are you going to stand there and say that the benefit if living in a monogomous relationship is somehow limited to a male-female interaction."
I'm going to say that there haven't been any studies yet on long-term, monogamous male-male or female-female relationships.
"The point you were trying to refute was "married gay people pay an order of magnitude more than straight people while single people of either orientation pay similar amounts""
Ooooh, you've made another error. The point I was responding to, and this is a direct quote was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
In fact, I cannot find that statement you've quoted anywhere in this thread.
Ooooh, you've made a third error.
"You refuted it by saying "married people live longer and therefore SHOULD cost less""
Oooooh, a 4th error. I cannot find that quote which you claim I posted anywhere in this thread. Maybe you're thinking of a different person?
"So... by that reasoning... gay people who ARE married should cost less, right?"
Again, I am not aware of any statistical studies of those situations. You seem to have a problem understanding statistics and insurance.
"My best friend (a woman) is married (ceremony, but without legal recognition) and they have been together for almost 15 years and raised 3 kids. They pay 6x the amount of a straight couple in insurance though neither of them has made a single claim other than basic checkups since they had kids 15+ years ago. Sure it's anecdotal, but at least it's true."
Based upon the context of this discussion, I'm going to guess that you're talking about a female-female relationship there.
Now, let's see what I had previously posted about the insurance statistics on females.
"For married women, there is no difference."
I think your agenda interfering with your reading comprehension or something. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes you've used from.
The point I was responding to was: "Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
I replied with the insurance data on why it costs less to insure a man/woman couple than it costs to insure a man and a woman who are not married.
So, you respond by pointing out that two policies cost more one policy with a spouse.
DUH! That was the point that the original poster made.
DUH! That was the point that I was illustrating with the insurance data.
Congratulations. You've managed to restate a point that was made by the original poster and that was supported by my post.
I'd like to see the government as far out of religion as possible.
I'd like to see religion as far out of government as possible.
Now, all we have to do is deal with those "turdfuck rightwing ideological zealots who feel they have to force everyone into a particular belief system".
I think that a big chunk of the problem is that even the government tries to do it as a religion. I've been to a few "civil ceremonies" that still have the vows and rings and "you may kiss the bride".
It should be "Sign here and here and here, and you sign here and here and here. Both of you initial the pre-nup inclusion/exclusion statement. Now look at the camera and smile. *click* Here's your marriage license and here's your's."
When the government recognizes your "marriage", you have certain rights that others do not. The easiest one to explain is "next of kin". If your wife/husband is in an accident, the doctors will let you in to see her/him and you can sign any paperwork needed by the hospital.
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.
If there are any limitations on seeing the code, AND those limitations are upheld, then it would NOT be a wise idea to have Linus or any other ACTIVE kernel developer look at SCO's code.
That is for the same reason that Linus refused to sign the NDA from SCO when SCO was showing snippets of code.
Linus and the other developers MUST remain clean of any SCO taint OR any restrictions on what they can work on in the Linux kernel.
I'm sure that IBM's legal team can learn from groklaw and everyone else about how to trace code origins.
Given ANY chance, I believe that SCO would try to tie a developer up with a flimsy excuse for a lawsuit.
This way will take longer, but it will prevent potential future problems.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the bad government makes us stamp "Made in China" on the bottom of all our authentic, hand carved statues. That way they can jack up the price by claiming they're "imports". Your carved wooden elephant and antelope are authentic African design and carving.
Check their pitches.
Yes it is "illegal", but if you don't help get the money out of the country, it will be used by the evil, corrupt, baby-killing dictator.
Is it so wrong to break a law to stop a worse crime?
And no one is being hurt. The German guy died with his entire family and no relatives anywhere else in the world at all. They had all died the year before. Meteor strikes. The lot of them. A tragic coincidence.
Anyway, if you don't help get this money away from the evil, corrupt, baby-killing dictator, then you're sentencing all those poor babies to death by this evil, corrupt dictator's hands.
Wouldn't you break a little law to help save these children from the evil, corrupt dictator? Surely you don't support his corrupt, evil, baby-killing ways.
These scammers have tuned their stories for years. They know what buttons to push with the people who will fall for them.
Accidents happen and can be very tragic. I have empathy for victims.
This was pure greed from someone who STILL cannot accept that he was wrong. Even after he is shown the evidence and examples of other people who were taken with the same scams.
Maybe it is deteriorating mental faculties.
But his wife couldn't stop him? Does she have the same problem?
Do they have children? Couldn't the children stop him?
Friends? Do they have any friends? Are they all affected with the same deterioration?
Even after he is shown the "black money" scam is fake, he STILL believes that they were legit.
I notice they don't talk to his wife about it.
If the guy was retarded or something, that would be different.
Even now, even after the cops showed him the "black money" scam was SEVENTY YEARS OLD (he's only 72 years old), he STILL cannot accept the facts.
I might make a mistake by investing in Enron. But I would NOT mortgage the house, get more credit cards and run up massive debt to buy more Enron stock once I heard that Enron was having financial problems.
That is the difference between that guy and myself.
He could only see the money he was being offered. His greed blinded him. That isn't heartbreaking.
Who cares what people are saying about you? You have a job and you're getting paid.
But the latest financials from your company show that you're losing money on everything. The only growth hope you have is the lawsuit. That's hardly a "distraction". That's your paycheck.
Even your executives are dumping their stock. You now have executives who have sold ALL their stock in your company.
This isn't about the "slashdot perceptions". This is about whether you believe your company will be able to pay your salary. To do that, SCO needs income. It doesn't look like SCO is going to have much income soon.
I think that SCO will post a $2 Million loss next quarter. IBM won't let up on the counter-suit and SCO's case might be thrown out of court by the end of January (unless SCO can come up with some SPECIFIC code that was stolen that IBM cannot, instantly, refute).
Any time I try to work with a file that's larger than the available memory, Win2K will fail. It might not crash instantly (although sometimes it will), but even after I stop trying to play with the file, it will be very slow and other apps just stop responding.
I don't think Microsoft has a good handle on their swap file.
And I see the same behaviour on multiple Win2K machines so it isn't flaky hardware.
Linux seems to handle swapping much nicer.
$24.3 Million Income
$10.3 Million from SCOSource (MS & Sun)
The lawyers bills are $9 Million.
So, they spend $9 Million to make $10.3 Million
That's not too bad.
But they still lose $1.6 Million.
So, without that $1.3 Million extra from SCOSource they'd be looking at $2.9 Million loss on their $14 Million income from non-SCOSource.
Those are some seriously bad numbers.
And they'll just get WORSE next quarter. Unless they can find some way to sell another "license" to Microsoft.
This isn't high school. People will use KDE as long as KDE is the best solution for them.
Rather than worrying about losing popularity, try focusing on making KDE the best it can be.
Like I pointed out, installing KDE on UserLinux should be a single command.
apt-get install kde
As for the developers, I don't see what you're worried about. They are the ones making KDE into what they want it to be. Why would they abandon their project?
And the commercial support? Well, only time will tell for that. But the commercial support is usually pretty easy to predict. Give them the best environment for their products and they'll move to it.
If you cannot make KDE a better choice for end users, developers and commercial interests, then why not let those groups make their OWN CHOICE about what to use, develop and develop for?
Open Source is not about lock-in.
They've run study after study on why people use Linux.
I'm sure they can read the trade rags where people are quoted as saying that they prefer Linux because Linux is more secure and more stable.
In fact, I'm positive they read them because every so often you'll hear about another Microsoft push to increase stability or security.
When you already have the answers, but you're still asking the questions, there is something else going on.
"My understanding of Bruce's goal is that UserLinux will be the one distribution that all comercial software and hardware makers will chose as a point of reference."
If hardware makers support it, then, because it is just re-packaged Debian, that support will be available for any Distribution out there.
If software makers support it, then, because it is just re-packaged Debian, the KDE people can add it to KDE.
"I fear a future in which all comercial developers will only support UserLinux."
Why? It's just re-packaged Debian. What are you afraid of?
"I believe this is what the KDE developers fear also."
Afraid of what, SPECIFICALLY?
Most of the "why didn't he include KDE" comments I see lack the understanding of WHY he chose not to use KDE.
If it matters so much to the KDE people, then they can get Trolltech to change the licensing. And don't give me any of that crap about "you should pay if you make a profit". That's the reason Bruce chose GNOME instead of KDE so your argument is circular.
If the KDE people cannot get the license changed, then they are free to release their OWN distribution and make it even better than UserLinux.
But if you're not going to get the license changed AND you're not going to release your own version THEN STFU and stop trying to impose YOUR viewpoint on Bruce.
This is Bruce's time and effort and he is allowed to do whatever he wants with them. Whether it meets with YOUR approval or not.
The reason he is against KDE for this project is that QT requires a one time payment for commercial development.
Yes, as you've pointed out, lots of companies have paid that. So what?
Bruce is basing this distribution on his personal beliefs and agenda.
He believes that there is a lot of development that will be done in the future in countries that cannot easily afford the QT fee.
"What I don't understand is why dump the really good KDE for a not so good (IMHO) Gnome just because of toolkits."
Because of the licenses involved. Bruce made that very clear in his first paper on this. It is because of the licensing.
"My answer to the UserLinux proposal is: use KDE as desktop, support Gnome also and improve interoperability (freedesktop is already a common direction for that)."
Great. Then you can start your own distribution and I wish you well. Bruce has a different goal.
UserLinux will be based on Debian.
"Why not let the decision-makers at that company make that decision? The company could choose just one UI, but they could choose between KDE and GNOME. Now, Bruce Perens makes that choice for them."
No. Bruce will be officially supporting GNOME. Bruce will be shipping GNOME.
But that does NOT mean that any company will be PREVENTED from installing UserLinux and then adding KDE or even adding KDE and removing GNOME.
apt-get install
Learn it.
Live it.
Love it.
"Tools to do just that already exist in KDE, but they are not available for GNOME. So KDE has a clear advantage there."
Fine, now just get Trolltech to remove the fee for commercial developement and I'm sure Bruce will re-evaluate his decision.
Oh, Trolltech won't do that? Well, that's too bad. I guess Bruce's decision to base it on GNOME was the correct decision then.
Yes, KDE has a lot of stuff that GNOME does not.
But KDE also has ONE ITEM that Bruce will not accept.
With Qt, you have to pay a one time fee to do commercial development.
GNOME does not have this restriction.
Bruce has stated his criteria often enough, but the KDE fans just won't listen to him.
"That's what I was saying was rediculous."
Say whatever you want to, the statistics show that married guys live longer and get sick less than unmarried guys.
"If you claim that married couples are healthier and live longer... hmm let gays get married and they will most likely be more healthy and live longer. Seems the insurance companies would love that."
Ooooh, you've made another error there. I didn't say married COUPLES, I said married GUYS live longer than unmarried guys and get sick less often than unmarried guys.
I also said that the statistics for women don't change between married and unmarried.
Maybe married gays(note the "a") would live longer and be sick less than unmarried guys(note the "u"). But I'm not aware of any statistical studies about married gays yet.
"Or are you going to stand there and say that the benefit if living in a monogomous relationship is somehow limited to a male-female interaction."
I'm going to say that there haven't been any studies yet on long-term, monogamous male-male or female-female relationships.
"The point you were trying to refute was "married gay people pay an order of magnitude more than straight people while single people of either orientation pay similar amounts""
Ooooh, you've made another error. The point I was responding to, and this is a direct quote was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
In fact, I cannot find that statement you've quoted anywhere in this thread.
Ooooh, you've made a third error.
"You refuted it by saying "married people live longer and therefore SHOULD cost less""
Oooooh, a 4th error. I cannot find that quote which you claim I posted anywhere in this thread. Maybe you're thinking of a different person?
"So... by that reasoning... gay people who ARE married should cost less, right?"
Again, I am not aware of any statistical studies of those situations. You seem to have a problem understanding statistics and insurance.
"My best friend (a woman) is married (ceremony, but without legal recognition) and they have been together for almost 15 years and raised 3 kids. They pay 6x the amount of a straight couple in insurance though neither of them has made a single claim other than basic checkups since they had kids 15+ years ago. Sure it's anecdotal, but at least it's true."
Based upon the context of this discussion, I'm going to guess that you're talking about a female-female relationship there.
Now, let's see what I had previously posted about the insurance statistics on females.
"For married women, there is no difference."
I think your agenda interfering with your reading comprehension or something. I have no idea where you're pulling those quotes you've used from.
If you want to do commercial development with Qt, you have to pay a one time fee.
Bruce objected to that and is putting together a distribution that has NO payment requirements for commercial development.
That's his approach, that's his goal.
Whether he will succeed or not, only time will tell.
The point I was responding to was:
"Why is it that married couples can get joint health insurance that's significantly cheaper than 2 separate policies?"
I replied with the insurance data on why it costs less to insure a man/woman couple than it costs to insure a man and a woman who are not married.
So, you respond by pointing out that two policies cost more one policy with a spouse.
DUH! That was the point that the original poster made.
DUH! That was the point that I was illustrating with the insurance data.
Congratulations. You've managed to restate a point that was made by the original poster and that was supported by my post.
The insurance rates are lower because married guys live longer and get sick less often than single guys.
For married women, there is no difference.
If a single guy and a married guy have the same insurance policy, the insurance company will make more money off the married guy.
Man, I thought you were black.
I'd like to see the government as far out of religion as possible.
I'd like to see religion as far out of government as possible.
Now, all we have to do is deal with those "turdfuck rightwing ideological zealots who feel they have to force everyone into a particular belief system".
I think that a big chunk of the problem is that even the government tries to do it as a religion. I've been to a few "civil ceremonies" that still have the vows and rings and "you may kiss the bride".
It should be "Sign here and here and here, and you sign here and here and here. Both of you initial the pre-nup inclusion/exclusion statement. Now look at the camera and smile. *click* Here's your marriage license and here's your's."
When the government recognizes your "marriage", you have certain rights that others do not. The easiest one to explain is "next of kin". If your wife/husband is in an accident, the doctors will let you in to see her/him and you can sign any paperwork needed by the hospital.
The same if you die without leaving a will.
IANAL
The ISP's aren't compelled to release that information without a court order.
That doesn't mean that they can't release that information if they are asked without a court order.
If anything, those people would have to sue their ISP's for failing to protect their confidentiality, if such was every suggested.
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.
If there are any limitations on seeing the code, AND those limitations are upheld, then it would NOT be a wise idea to have Linus or any other ACTIVE kernel developer look at SCO's code.
That is for the same reason that Linus refused to sign the NDA from SCO when SCO was showing snippets of code.
Linus and the other developers MUST remain clean of any SCO taint OR any restrictions on what they can work on in the Linux kernel.
I'm sure that IBM's legal team can learn from groklaw and everyone else about how to trace code origins.
Given ANY chance, I believe that SCO would try to tie a developer up with a flimsy excuse for a lawsuit.
This way will take longer, but it will prevent potential future problems.
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.