This is suicide by cop[1].

Or it's something similarly twisted. SCO is simply dead. The back \r\nstory may be interesting though.

The news.com story notes that SCO may be pissed over the failure of \r\nProject Monterey, which was aimed at reimplementing GNU/Linux as a \r\nproprietary Unix for the Itanic (that's just so wrong so many ways I \r\nwon't even start).

Just a few off-the-cuff observations.

\r\n\r\n
• You don't launch a land war in Asia.
\r\n\r\n
• Similarly: you don't launch a billion-dollar patent battle with\r\nIBM, if your strategy is in fact to win that battle.
\r\n\r\n
• Corrolary of the above is that you're either trying to lose, you're\r\nnot calling the shots, or you're aiming to win another battle. \r\nThese are not mutually exclusive, though options 2 & 3 are the most\r\nlikely pairing.
\r\n\r\n
• Aside: IBM generates over $1b (approaching 1.5b IIRC) annually in \r\npatent licensing revenues. Their patent portfolio numbers over\r\n22,000. IBM is the single largest holder and recipient of US patent\r\ngrants.
\r\n\r\n
• Theory: somebody's trying to sow patent problems for IBM, and/or \r\ntie up IBM legal in a suit, while somebody else pulls a fast one.
\r\n\r\n
• Theory: Caldera wants to prod IBM into reviving the DR-DOS suit (or\r\nsomething similar) against Microsoft (or other parties). I find \r\nthis unlikely, but mention it for completeness.
\r\n\r\n
• Theory: Caldera's management is trying to avoid breach-of-\r\nfiduciary-interest or other similar charges, while disposing of the\r\ncompany while putatively pursuing a fiduciary interest of the\r\ncompany.
\r\n\r\n
• Theory: This is Wang v. Netscape again. In that case, Microsoft \r\nbought a significant interest in the dying Wang corporation, and \r\nWang pursued patent suits against Netscape. The patent was \r\neventually invalidated, but such battles are costly.
\r\n\r\n
• Theory: (left field variety) LFP or similar[2] have corraled \r\nCaldera into making a blatent demonstration of just how broken the \r\npatent system is by going after its (the patent system's) largest \r\nbeneficiary.
\r\n\r\n

Watch this space. Interesting.

________________________________________

\r\n
1. If you're not familiar with the term: a perp assaults a police\r\nofficer, in such a way that the cop has to use deadly force. This being\r\nthe apparently desired outcome of the perp.
\r\n
2. LPF: League for Programming Freedom, an anti-patent group\r\nassociated with Richard M. Stallman.
\r\n

Trade secrets certainly seem to be the bulk of the claim. However,\r\ncopyright may or may not be included. The complaint is vague\r\n(deliberately IMO) on this point.

Note that SCO may well have abandoned it trade secrets status by\r\ndistributing the same Linux kernel code itself.

Don't worry, just a link.

You'll find most of the 120k bytes [link|http://lists.alt.org/pipermail/fsl-discuss/2003-March/000763.html|here].

Capsule:

\r\n
• Gross misrepresentation of SCO's market significance. That a\r\nhas-been bit-player with annual revenues of several tens of millions of\r\ndollars can claim $1b damanges is ludicrous.
\r\n\r\n
• A funhouse-mirror timeline, accuracy not improved by lack of\r\ntimestamps. In this and other details, the complaint is deliberately\r\nvague in a way that's almost comical.
\r\n\r\n
• A gross lack of attention to factors mitigating the value of SCO's Unix\r\ncopyright and trade secrets value, including several well known\r\nwholesale publications of code, several standards based on Unix and\r\nPOSIX, and wholesale independent implementations.
\r\n\r\n
• To say nothing of an unfathomably broad implied definition of what\r\nthe "SOFTWARE WORK" IBM licensed from IBM in 1985 was.
\r\n\r\n
• Yet another gross mispreresentation of SCO's direct involvment in\r\nUnix development (is it just me or do others have to catch themselves\r\nand not write "Linux" for "Unix"?). The one major direct investment SCO\r\ndid make was a foolhardy IA64 port in 1998. Five years later,\r\nneither the port, nor the chip, are at market.
\r\n\r\n
• Much handwaving and little specificity in wailing allegations of\r\ncopyright infringement. Which may have occured, it's conceivable. But\r\nnot with the implications SCO would have one believe. Apparently\r\nlimited to printer drivers (the IBM Omni print drivers?) and unspecified\r\nkernel-level improvements.
\r\n\r\n
• A hugely insulting slandar of the abilities and accomplishments of\r\nLinux and other free software developers capabilities and\r\naccomplishments.
\r\n\r\n

But you really want to read the whole thing. So do. And comment.\r\nAnd help fill in the blanks.

Thanks. Be interested to see what the lawyers have to say. The\r\ncontract and copyright aspects in particular would be interesting to get\r\nlegal gloss on.

Regards forwarding this elsewhere: I've already been contacted by\r\nNewsForge who are offering to run a cleaned-up version of this, likely\r\ntomorrow if I can clean it up tonight. Which is about right. The main\r\nplace I'd like to get this is to IBM -- I think there are a few insights\r\nwhich might help them (I'm vain that way). SCO may be interested in\r\ngiving it a read as well -- if they can be convinced to quit while\r\nthey're well behind, so much the better.