SCO is violating the law if, and only if, their claim against IBM is bogus. Therefore, the SEC would wait until after the IBM suit is decided.
If the court throws the case out (for example, if SCO fails to comply satisfactoraly with the motion to compel discovery), the SEC would move in.
If SCO does indeed own much of Linux, what they're doing is not extorsion. The SEC cannot rule on this - that's the court's job. Once that's done, it's SEC's job to prosecure the fraudsters.
So the SEC will act, eventually. Don't hold your breath, folks.
Slashdot Mirror
To whomever has access to the Windows source (via their "shared source" channel or any other _legitimate_ way): please check their source.
He's right: The Windows app stack is deeper: OS + DB + app server (of sorts)
Linux does not compete with that.
But you can get Linux + Oracle + WebLogic or Linux + mySQL + JBoss (if you want to be Open Source all the way). And that is equivalent.
So Linux on its own is no competition for Windows. But it was never intended to be.
Do NOT underestimate the significance of this!
This is a major loss for Microsoft, as they have been coerced by Mass. (and others, probably) to loose one of their major lock-in mechanisms.
Sure, they have ot GPLed Window$, and Bill has not waved the white flag. But it's a big big move in the right direction.
IBM is more like your 300 pound ex-SEAL bodybuiding black-belt splaterer (bouncer++) neighbour
SCO is violating the law if, and only if, their claim against IBM is bogus. Therefore, the SEC would wait until after the IBM suit is decided.
If the court throws the case out (for example, if SCO fails to comply satisfactoraly with the motion to compel discovery), the SEC would move in.
If SCO does indeed own much of Linux, what they're doing is not extorsion. The SEC cannot rule on this - that's the court's job. Once that's done, it's SEC's job to prosecure the fraudsters.
So the SEC will act, eventually. Don't hold your breath, folks.