Been a while since I've pointed you to SCO articles. If you're not familiar with this, about three years ago SCO claimed loudly in the press that the Linux kernel violated a significant number of SCO copyrights. Several company executives bragged about how they were so going to win this, that they had mountains of evidence, etc., etc. They wanted to charge royalties on distributors and users of Linux. They filed multiple lawsuits to that effect, against (most notably) IBM, Diamler-Chrysler, and AutoZone. The DC case got thrown out because DC hadn't used Unix in years and so couldn't have been breaking their license agreement as SCO claimed when they switched to Linux. The AutoZone case is, I believe, on hold, as is one suit by Red Hat against SCO seeking a declaration that they aren't infringing on anything of SCO's. Another suit by Novell is making progress along with the IBM case, as noted here.
SCO's attorney Stuart Singer also told the court at the hearing on April 14th ... that with methods and concepts, code is not required to be specified....
Oh? Is that so? Then I'd say SCO has some 'splainin' to do, as they say. Groklaw member sk43 noticed that when it was SCO looking for discovery, when it came to methods and concepts, SCO in fact required detailed specificity from IBM.
As you can see in SCO's very First Request for Production of Documents [PDF], ... SCO demanded specificity...
From
SCO v IBM
If this SUSE gambit works, I'd say it's pretty much curtains for SCO as far as any copyright claims are concerned, even if they have any rights to any copyrights, which Novell says they don't.
From
Novell V SCO. (heh heh She said "Gambit"
)
