idiocy

[Kurt Wall]

An unnamed Administration source, Matthew Carpenter, wrote:
% While I am very upset with this move, I would not be inclined to dismiss the
% teeth of these allegations.
% SCO owns code which was licensed to IBM for use in AIX.
% IBM has been sinking HUGE assets and time and "mind-share" into Linux,
% obviously hurting SCO in their "big-hitters".

So? That doesn't translate into misappropriating trade secrets. 

% It will probably be tough to prove that IBM has not misappropriated their
% personnel such that people who have seen the code for certain Unix libraries
% have worked on the betterment of Linux... in a way that violates their
% license.

Uh, here in America, you have to prove guilt, not innocence. It's up to
SCO to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what they allege _did_ happen;
it's not up to IBM to prove that SCO's allegations are false. Moreover,
SCO's filing carefully avoids *any* discussion of BSD Unix, and it is 
hardly a secret that AT&T and BSD *xen have borrowed heavily from each
other over the years. SCO's filing also conveniently ignores the USL v.
Cal Berkeley and BSDi lawsuit, and the fact that it was settled in Berkeley's
and BSDi's favor. Finally, SCO talks about "trade secrets," not about
copyrighted code or patented algorithms.

SCO has perniciously misstated Unix and Linux history, and the history
of their own company. It was Caldera that gave Alan Cox the SMP machine
he used to develop SMP support for Linux, for example.

% Scoff at the management of SCO for being so incredibly idiotic and childish,
% but their lawsuit will no doubt make IBM stand up and take notice.

Of course the lawsuit will make IBM notice - if someone filed a frivolous
billion dollar lawsuit against me, I'd certainly notice. That said, this
has turned into a PR nightmare for SCO, and it ain't over yet. It's only
going to get worse.

Kurt
-- 
The trouble with being punctual is that nobody's there to appreciate
it.
		-- Franklin P. Jones