I don't think this is entirely correct.
If SCO is claiming trade secret violations - then the cat is already out of the bag, the damage is done, and the secret is no longer secret.
In this case there is no longer any secret to protect and therefore no reason to not to make the evidence of its allegations public. Unless of course, it is afraid that by doing so its charges will be shown to be without merit.
Personally, I believe that SCO is afraid of a repeat of the Las Vegas debacle - that its case will be shown devoid of merit.
It is actually the idea that is patented (at least in the U.S.)
Usually the patent will describe at least one implementation of the idea, but will seek to do so in broad language so as to cover a multitude of implementations.
Those attempting to work around a patent will look for an implementation that changes enough details so as to be separately patentable or at least non-infringing.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this is entirely correct. If SCO is claiming trade secret violations - then the cat is already out of the bag, the damage is done, and the secret is no longer secret. In this case there is no longer any secret to protect and therefore no reason to not to make the evidence of its allegations public. Unless of course, it is afraid that by doing so its charges will be shown to be without merit. Personally, I believe that SCO is afraid of a repeat of the Las Vegas debacle - that its case will be shown devoid of merit.
It is actually the idea that is patented (at least in the U.S.) Usually the patent will describe at least one implementation of the idea, but will seek to do so in broad language so as to cover a multitude of implementations. Those attempting to work around a patent will look for an implementation that changes enough details so as to be separately patentable or at least non-infringing.