"if you are an end user and installed GNU/Linux from CDs then you created a copy on your computer's hard disk during the course of installation. If the Linux kernel has infringing code in it then a user who installs it in his or her code is an infringer. ".... no.
The person who DISTRIBUTED the CDs is the infringer. AFTER the infringement has been proven in a court of law, you may have to destroy any copies of the infringing work that you acquired in good faith, but only if the judge says so, and only in the USA, because their jurisdiction only extends that far.
Copyright Law of the United States 69
117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that
it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the
computer program should cease to be rightful.
And as Section 106 give the copyright holder the right to authorize copies (a la GPL granting permission to copy and distribute under certain circumstances)... the first step always comes back to establishing that SCO actually has the copyright they claim to have.
"Is there a valid legal argument that makes users vulnerable to litigation on the basis of copyright infringement?"
Not that I have been able to find, in an end-to-end reading of the stuff available from the copyright office: "Circular 92 : Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Ttle 17 of the United States Code." There are remedies, but only against the infringers, and ONLY after you file a complaint. Skip to chapter 5 "Copyright Infringement and Remedies" And read Section 106 in chapter 1... which details what you actually control wuhen you have a copyright:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,
and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,
and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual
images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted
work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly
by means of a digital audio transmission.
In theory, because I have copied and distributed various Linux distros, SCO could sue me for infringing on whatevre copyrights they hold on anything in Linux, IF they can get the small matter of the GPL thrown out, AND IF they file a complaint within the next two years, AND IF they can convince a court that all that stuff that says (C) Linus Torvalds, SGI, Intel, BSD, and IBM is really theirs (and show the court rulings to prove it).
" All the technology that you quote apart from satellites requires considerable infrastructure that simply doesn't work or is overloaded during an emergency. "
And they don't work after an earthquake because they get jolted off-target and have to be re-aimed.
"Um, the power was out. Interference instantly gone when hams are only really useful."
Both ends of the transmission have to be clear for an emergency broadcast to be of use. Radioing for help when the people you are calling to have such heavy interference they can't hear you is worthless.
To use a real-world example... in the Mexico city quake, sure the power was out THERE, and the satellite relays were knocked off target, and the phone lines were snapped! Mexican HAMs were making contact with HAMs in places like New Zealand, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bombay, and Amsterdam, places where the power was on, letting them know that "the big one" had hit and asking for help. Embassies were contacting their state departments in their country's capitol city, the military was contacting respourvces in other cities... places that the power was still on, and places where broadband interference would have been high.
Or a less drastic example: A lost hiker in the Superstitions outside of Phoenix... what good is to radio for help when the closest source of help is blanketed with interference?
"Often times contests require us to run on our own power, give us a limited set of hardware, and the objective is to make contacts. Hmm.. sound like an emergency drill? Hams respond quickly because in all our non-emergency downtime we get practice so jumping on the air in a moment's notice is almost second nature."
There is also the "find the transmitter" game, where you have to figure out where the mobile transmitter is and beat the other teams to it. This comes in handy when someone with a hand-held unit finds an injured hiker but can't explain how to get to them.
"SCO's position was that if end-users want to continue using Linux that they would need to buy a license. I didn't say anything about SCO wanting to retroactively charge end-users licenses or suing them."
Saying, "yes you may have acquired that months ago from RedHat or Mandrake, but you gotta pay licensing fees to us now or we'll sue you" is not retroactive? There is no provision in copyright law for changing the terms of use after something has been distributed. SCO would not only have to prevail in a copyright suit, but also convince the judge to order collection and destruction of all copies of the infringing matter within the limits of the judge's jurisdiciton (USA).
"As well, they do not need to prove their code is theirs to license anymore. They have already registered their copyright on the code." Anyone can register a copyright anything they want to for $30 and the time it takes to fill out a form, because the copyright office does NOT check for infringement... what SCO has not done is prove that what they copyrighted is actually copyrightable, and that it is being infringed on by Linux. That takes a court case, and that means they have to specifically declare what is infringing, and show what part of Linux infringes what part of SCO's copyrighted work. They could have done it months ago.
There is no provision in copyright law that provides for retroactive charging licensing fees to users or readers, nor suing them for them.
There is notcontract between SCO and most Linux usres. If SCO wants to get into the licensing business, they have to first PROVE the code is theirs to license.
"2) Copyright infringement. They say that Linux contains millions of lines of code that infringes SCO's copyright. This is the reason why they are charging Linux users a license."
Your lawyer buddy forgot to tell you that ONLY THE INFRINGER (whoever submitted the code to the kernel) can be held responsible for damages. There is no providion in patent or copyright law for collecting damages from the end user or reader. And SCO has yet ot prove that there is ANT infringing code. They have claimed a lot, but proven nothing.
"Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong."
You are soooooooo wrong. The onus is on the holder of the copyright to DEFEND it, and one of the first things they MUST do is show in a legal filing against the alleged infringer in a court with jurisdiction what they have that is copyrighted, and also show how the other work infringes on their copyright. SCO has less than two years to start filing... they have wasted months with this drama queen performance toi drive up the stock prices instead of doing what copyright holders must do to defend their copyrights.
I have been through the entire US copyright code, and several recent law school texts used in copyright courses, and they all start from the premise that the holder of the copyright has filed a complaint against the infringer, and is asking for legal relief and damages. None of them cover making threats, loudly and publically, against the end users to get them to pay for protection against some unspecified legal liability foir unspoecified violations of something SCO keeps referring to as their "intellectual property".
What Mr. Heise failed to read was section 106 of the copyright act... The OWNER of the copyright has the EXCLUSIVE right to AUTHORIZE the following... pretty damned near anything they want to...
106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
section 149 of the US Copyright Act, cited by Heise, ensures that despite the Section 106, the purchaser of software can make backup copies and such copies as are required to install and run the software.
Intel and HP have vanished from the literature... it is unclear whether Intel cancelled or if Darl is telling the truth:
"SCO CEO Darl McBride told eWEEK here on Sunday. While he was "not familiar with all the intricacies of the matter," it appears that SCO took to advertising and promoting Intel as a sponsor even before the deal was signed. As the deal never actually took place, Intel was removed as a lead sponsor of the event, he said."
If he was telling the truth, he's proving that SCO is prone to making free use of the IP of others, without checking to make sure it's OK.
BTW: I know Intel has a long lead time for sponsoring and "showing the flag" at conferences, and they have a limited budget (a BIG budget, but you have to submit requests early or you get turned down). If this SCO Summit started August 17th, the agreements would have been signed months in advance. I can't imagine Intel not reminding SCO that the agreements had not been signed and to please not use Intel's name as bait if there were no agreements.
"I think one of the most important jobs a citizen has is to review the candidates running for office and pick the best one. To that end, I do not think an email here or there about something important is a bad thing."
How about campaign emails from a city council election sent to non-residents of the city... I've recieved many campaign emails from cities I have never heard of in states I have never visited. I get political spam for congressional races in states I can't vote in. It's spam.
How about political emails sent to citizens of other countries? Was that political rah-rah letter from Brazil NOT spam? Is the Dean letter not spam wheh it's sent to a Canadian or a Finn?
Way back when I was just out of medical technology school, there was an article about the possibility of having all the lab machines hooked up to a mainframe that would control them, perhaps by the year 2000. (we had sophisticated, but pure analog eqiupment) That was just about the time Intel released the 8008, then the 8080. The first computer controlled lab equipment rolled in the door in early 1975, and by the late 1970s we were fully wired, with a network of PDP8s.
The diagnostic difficulty with cardiac arrythmias is that they are intermittent... the chances of having one show up in the cardiologist's office is slim to none.
Then they developed the "Holter" monitor... huge, battery operated thing that could be pushed around the wards by inpatients.
Then it was battery operated and in a fanny pack, and you wore electrodes for a few days, periodically hooking it to a special phone device to transmitted data. (similar device is/was used for high-risk pregnancies - they have a special belt to spot early labor contractions so mum-to-be can come in if needed)
Now it's continuous monitoring with something embedded that is smart enough to email the doc... if it can make it through all that spam. There are remote embedded defibrillators. It's apparently like being kicked by a mule when it gets activated by your heart malfunctioning.
"We had an outage for about a second but it came right back."
What you felt was probably your power grid cutting its connection to the area with the problems to save itself. During the CA blackouts - not the planned rolling blackouts, but their big unplanned ones a few years back - Arizona, Nevada and the rest of the western states popped a lot of breaker switches arund the edges of that area to prevent us from going down with them. Without the switches, it would have been like trying to short the output of Hoover Dam to ground in Long Beach... not a good idea.
"the iBot costs $29,000. Most people who would benefit from this technology cannot afford it, unfortunately."
Not true. As an approved "medical device", some to all of the cost can be paid for by insurance. And this avoids having to do extensive modifications to a home: the ramps, stair lifts, kitchen modifications, etc. can quickly add up to tens of thousands of dollars. Just its ability to go over a small curb, such as is often found between a garage and house or front entry walk and house eliminates two ramps. Standing up means the top half of a kitchen and closet is no longer useless.
The ability to 'stand up' and reach things makes much more of the world and home available to a paraplegic, and can probably give a proportion of them the ability to live without attendants or to expand their career opportunities.
They studied vegetarians, because creatine is found in animal tissue (liver and kidneys having much more than other tissues such as muscle) and meat eaters have higher levels already. They have not shown that it works in any except those who are on a low creatine diet.
PS: So with all that steak and kidney pie, why aren't the brits smarter?
PPS: Is this proof that we are meant to be meat eaters?
"It doesn't absolve anyone from past infringements"
The clock on SCO's ability to sue the infringer/s started ticking last summer, when they claim to have noticed the problem. They have under two years to file a proper infringement of copyright suit aginst any and all infringers. (3-year time limit) Undre copyright law, whoever submitted the code is the infringer, not the unknowing distributors or totally innocent user. AFTER the infringement case/s are settled, the court may, at the court's discreton, order destruction of all copies of the infringing material. But not until the whole damned thing is settled...
Distributors are much the same as book or magazine publisher: you must formally notify them of a copyright infringement by one of their authors (specifying not only that there is infringement, but EXACTLY what is infirnged (showing your proof of holding the copyright), and where (in a book you published in the last decade is not enough). You have to give them enough information to investigate and decide if it's infringing or not. Only after all this, and a court decision, if they continue to publish or distribute the infringing material, do they become actual infringers.
SCO has not even begun the processs that you have to follow to get copyright infringements cleared up. And their flat REFUSAL to identify the infringing material would certainly be held against them by a judge. Freezing downloads and quickly rewriting the offending code is what the developers not only WOULD do, it's what they legally MUST do, and SCO is preventing them from doing it...
" SCO would make a bad move to release the code before the trial under something less than a NDA."
That's why RedHat's suit is interesting, because they are asking for a fast decision based on the BS that SCO has been shoveling. If SCO refuses to prove it's claims of infringement by showing the code, and proving not only that SCO holds the copyright, but that their code predates the Linux stuff... RedHat gets not only a legal declaration that it's kernel code does not infringe, but gets damages too.
They could end up owning SCO before IBM even gets to court, which means that they would therefore be suing IBM... and I think they could settle amicably.
If IBM didn't believe them the first time and specifically denied it in their reply, and Novell told them they have no right to do it, why does SCO think repeating the same allegations in another press release make it any better.
Apparently the stock needs another shot in the arm to keep the dead stock walking until the insiders can dump enough options to make it all worthwhile.
Slashdot Mirror
The person who DISTRIBUTED the CDs is the infringer. AFTER the infringement has been proven in a court of law, you may have to destroy any copies of the infringing work that you acquired in good faith, but only if the judge says so, and only in the USA, because their jurisdiction only extends that far.
Copyright Law of the United States 69 117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.--
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
And as Section 106 give the copyright holder the right to authorize copies (a la GPL granting permission to copy and distribute under certain circumstances) ... the first step always comes back to establishing that SCO actually has the copyright they claim to have.
Not that I have been able to find, in an end-to-end reading of the stuff available from the copyright office: "Circular 92 : Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Ttle 17 of the United States Code." There are remedies, but only against the infringers, and ONLY after you file a complaint. Skip to chapter 5 "Copyright Infringement and Remedies" And read Section 106 in chapter 1 ... which details what you actually control wuhen you have a copyright:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
In theory, because I have copied and distributed various Linux distros, SCO could sue me for infringing on whatevre copyrights they hold on anything in Linux, IF they can get the small matter of the GPL thrown out, AND IF they file a complaint within the next two years, AND IF they can convince a court that all that stuff that says (C) Linus Torvalds, SGI, Intel, BSD, and IBM is really theirs (and show the court rulings to prove it).
And they don't work after an earthquake because they get jolted off-target and have to be re-aimed.
Both ends of the transmission have to be clear for an emergency broadcast to be of use. Radioing for help when the people you are calling to have such heavy interference they can't hear you is worthless.
To use a real-world example ... in the Mexico city quake, sure the power was out THERE, and the satellite relays were knocked off target, and the phone lines were snapped! Mexican HAMs were making contact with HAMs in places like New Zealand, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bombay, and Amsterdam, places where the power was on, letting them know that "the big one" had hit and asking for help. Embassies were contacting their state departments in their country's capitol city, the military was contacting respourvces in other cities ... places that the power was still on, and places where broadband interference would have been high.
Or a less drastic example: A lost hiker in the Superstitions outside of Phoenix ... what good is to radio for help when the closest source of help is blanketed with interference?
There is also the "find the transmitter" game, where you have to figure out where the mobile transmitter is and beat the other teams to it. This comes in handy when someone with a hand-held unit finds an injured hiker but can't explain how to get to them.
You only need HAM radio once in a while, but there is no substitute for it's low-tech ability to keep communicating.
Saying, "yes you may have acquired that months ago from RedHat or Mandrake, but you gotta pay licensing fees to us now or we'll sue you" is not retroactive? There is no provision in copyright law for changing the terms of use after something has been distributed. SCO would not only have to prevail in a copyright suit, but also convince the judge to order collection and destruction of all copies of the infringing matter within the limits of the judge's jurisdiciton (USA).
"As well, they do not need to prove their code is theirs to license anymore. They have already registered their copyright on the code." Anyone can register a copyright anything they want to for $30 and the time it takes to fill out a form, because the copyright office does NOT check for infringement ... what SCO has not done is prove that what they copyrighted is actually copyrightable, and that it is being infringed on by Linux. That takes a court case, and that means they have to specifically declare what is infringing, and show what part of Linux infringes what part of SCO's copyrighted work. They could have done it months ago.
There is notcontract between SCO and most Linux usres. If SCO wants to get into the licensing business, they have to first PROVE the code is theirs to license.
Your lawyer buddy forgot to tell you that ONLY THE INFRINGER (whoever submitted the code to the kernel) can be held responsible for damages. There is no providion in patent or copyright law for collecting damages from the end user or reader. And SCO has yet ot prove that there is ANT infringing code. They have claimed a lot, but proven nothing.
What NDA did the press and attendees at that conference sign to get to see that pep talk?
You are soooooooo wrong. The onus is on the holder of the copyright to DEFEND it, and one of the first things they MUST do is show in a legal filing against the alleged infringer in a court with jurisdiction what they have that is copyrighted, and also show how the other work infringes on their copyright. SCO has less than two years to start filing ... they have wasted months with this drama queen performance toi drive up the stock prices instead of doing what copyright holders must do to defend their copyrights.
I have been through the entire US copyright code, and several recent law school texts used in copyright courses, and they all start from the premise that the holder of the copyright has filed a complaint against the infringer, and is asking for legal relief and damages. None of them cover making threats, loudly and publically, against the end users to get them to pay for protection against some unspecified legal liability foir unspoecified violations of something SCO keeps referring to as their "intellectual property".
106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes,and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
section 149 of the US Copyright Act, cited by Heise, ensures that despite the Section 106, the purchaser of software can make backup copies and such copies as are required to install and run the software.
"SCO CEO Darl McBride told eWEEK here on Sunday. While he was "not familiar with all the intricacies of the matter," it appears that SCO took to advertising and promoting Intel as a sponsor even before the deal was signed. As the deal never actually took place, Intel was removed as a lead sponsor of the event, he said."
If he was telling the truth, he's proving that SCO is prone to making free use of the IP of others, without checking to make sure it's OK.
BTW: I know Intel has a long lead time for sponsoring and "showing the flag" at conferences, and they have a limited budget (a BIG budget, but you have to submit requests early or you get turned down). If this SCO Summit started August 17th, the agreements would have been signed months in advance. I can't imagine Intel not reminding SCO that the agreements had not been signed and to please not use Intel's name as bait if there were no agreements.
How about campaign emails from a city council election sent to non-residents of the city ... I've recieved many campaign emails from cities I have never heard of in states I have never visited. I get political spam for congressional races in states I can't vote in. It's spam.
How about political emails sent to citizens of other countries? Was that political rah-rah letter from Brazil NOT spam? Is the Dean letter not spam wheh it's sent to a Canadian or a Finn?
Way back when I was just out of medical technology school, there was an article about the possibility of having all the lab machines hooked up to a mainframe that would control them, perhaps by the year 2000. (we had sophisticated, but pure analog eqiupment) That was just about the time Intel released the 8008, then the 8080. The first computer controlled lab equipment rolled in the door in early 1975, and by the late 1970s we were fully wired, with a network of PDP8s.
The diagnostic difficulty with cardiac arrythmias is that they are intermittent ... the chances of having one show up in the cardiologist's office is slim to none.
Then they developed the "Holter" monitor ... huge, battery operated thing that could be pushed around the wards by inpatients.
Then it was battery operated and in a fanny pack, and you wore electrodes for a few days, periodically hooking it to a special phone device to transmitted data. (similar device is/was used for high-risk pregnancies - they have a special belt to spot early labor contractions so mum-to-be can come in if needed)
Now it's continuous monitoring with something embedded that is smart enough to email the doc ... if it can make it through all that spam. There are remote embedded defibrillators. It's apparently like being kicked by a mule when it gets activated by your heart malfunctioning.
No. "Brown-out is when you have power, but not enough, and the lights are dimmer than usual. Blackout is no electricity at all.
What you felt was probably your power grid cutting its connection to the area with the problems to save itself. During the CA blackouts - not the planned rolling blackouts, but their big unplanned ones a few years back - Arizona, Nevada and the rest of the western states popped a lot of breaker switches arund the edges of that area to prevent us from going down with them. Without the switches, it would have been like trying to short the output of Hoover Dam to ground in Long Beach ... not a good idea.
Not true. As an approved "medical device", some to all of the cost can be paid for by insurance. And this avoids having to do extensive modifications to a home: the ramps, stair lifts, kitchen modifications, etc. can quickly add up to tens of thousands of dollars. Just its ability to go over a small curb, such as is often found between a garage and house or front entry walk and house eliminates two ramps. Standing up means the top half of a kitchen and closet is no longer useless.
The ability to 'stand up' and reach things makes much more of the world and home available to a paraplegic, and can probably give a proportion of them the ability to live without attendants or to expand their career opportunities.
PS: So with all that steak and kidney pie, why aren't the brits smarter?
PPS: Is this proof that we are meant to be meat eaters?
Right now, SCO is a day-trader's dream - few outstanding shares, very volatile, and yet affordable.
The clock on SCO's ability to sue the infringer/s started ticking last summer, when they claim to have noticed the problem. They have under two years to file a proper infringement of copyright suit aginst any and all infringers. (3-year time limit) Undre copyright law, whoever submitted the code is the infringer, not the unknowing distributors or totally innocent user. AFTER the infringement case/s are settled, the court may, at the court's discreton, order destruction of all copies of the infringing material. But not until the whole damned thing is settled ...
Distributors are much the same as book or magazine publisher: you must formally notify them of a copyright infringement by one of their authors (specifying not only that there is infringement, but EXACTLY what is infirnged (showing your proof of holding the copyright), and where (in a book you published in the last decade is not enough). You have to give them enough information to investigate and decide if it's infringing or not. Only after all this, and a court decision, if they continue to publish or distribute the infringing material, do they become actual infringers.
SCO has not even begun the processs that you have to follow to get copyright infringements cleared up. And their flat REFUSAL to identify the infringing material would certainly be held against them by a judge. Freezing downloads and quickly rewriting the offending code is what the developers not only WOULD do, it's what they legally MUST do, and SCO is preventing them from doing it ...
That's why RedHat's suit is interesting, because they are asking for a fast decision based on the BS that SCO has been shoveling. If SCO refuses to prove it's claims of infringement by showing the code, and proving not only that SCO holds the copyright, but that their code predates the Linux stuff ... RedHat gets not only a legal declaration that it's kernel code does not infringe, but gets damages too.
They could end up owning SCO before IBM even gets to court, which means that they would therefore be suing IBM ... and I think they could settle amicably.
If IBM didn't believe them the first time and specifically denied it in their reply, and Novell told them they have no right to do it, why does SCO think repeating the same allegations in another press release make it any better.
Apparently the stock needs another shot in the arm to keep the dead stock walking until the insiders can dump enough options to make it all worthwhile.
I think what you want is "WebPoison" ... but seed it with the names of games, songs, artists and proprietary software.