--"but my gut reaction is that SCO is right and will prevail in the end if IBM has copied UNIX and put it in AIX."
That's the problem, this is incredibly unlikely. IBM is very good about this sort of thing, and has more experience than probably anyone else in the field at dealing with copyright issues like this. Their linux and AIX teams are completely seperate (as are several other teams they've got internally). This is so strict that even if one group finds a bug in a project that both are working on (say, one being a clean-room implementation), they can't tell the other group about it.
--"SCO did not start any of this until Microsoft gave it a big infusion of cash."
I think their initial push was before that, and was either an attempt to get IBM to buy them out or part of a pump-and-dump stock scheme. Microsoft was quick to take advantage of their actions, however.
--"some individuals (correctly) labelled this FUD to be a pump-and-dump scheme."
They've been doing a lot more than just, this though. A number of people have been commenting on someone "painting" the stock (inflating the price just before close or after open to make the stock look better in the papers than it's really doing), and it's really interesting to see what kind of bonuses the execs are getting. Not to mention their stock sales (which started after they started all this lawsuit business).
--"SCO allegations:"
No, people have been digging on this for a while. There's only one interpretation that really makes sense.
A while ago IBM bought a company called Sequent. This company developed some of the multi-processor code (I think most of the stuff SCO ever specifies). This was apparently developed to run on SYSV, but was not part of the SYSV package that Novell bought (ie. independent development on the kernel). SCO seem to believe, for some reason, that anything developed for SYSV belongs to them, even if they never had a hand in developing the new code. This seems to be the only thing they've got going for them, and needless to say, IBM disagrees with this interpretation of their contract.
--"When Novell transferred its UNIX business SCO, it apparently retained only the copyrights and patents."
No, Novell retained a number of other rights. SCO was simply acting as a middleman on the licensing issues; they got a percentage of the license fees, but it was still up to Novell to say yes or no. Novell also retained the right to block SCO from revoking licenses, something they did after SCO tried pulling IBM's license (note that they had been telling SCO before then that they, Novell, would allow SCO to pull this stunt).
--"It appears that IBM is in a world of hurt. "
IBM is fine. SCO is about to become a smoking crater in the ground. The Canopy Group may well be close to this fate as well. IBM's countersuit is digging into the various funding and FUDding SCO has been getting and spouting. There's a lot of potential collateral damage here.
Note for those actually interested in this case, there's a very good resource called Groklaw that covers this trail in great detail.
Wraith
"Hello. My $NAME is ~inigo-montoya. You killed my process. Prepare to vi."
-- The Unix's Bride
That's the problem, this is incredibly unlikely. IBM is very good about this sort of thing, and has more experience than probably anyone else in the field at dealing with copyright issues like this. Their linux and AIX teams are completely seperate (as are several other teams they've got internally). This is so strict that even if one group finds a bug in a project that both are working on (say, one being a clean-room implementation), they can't tell the other group about it.
--"SCO did not start any of this until Microsoft gave it a big infusion of cash."
I think their initial push was before that, and was either an attempt to get IBM to buy them out or part of a pump-and-dump stock scheme. Microsoft was quick to take advantage of their actions, however.
--"some individuals (correctly) labelled this FUD to be a pump-and-dump scheme."
They've been doing a lot more than just, this though. A number of people have been commenting on someone "painting" the stock (inflating the price just before close or after open to make the stock look better in the papers than it's really doing), and it's really interesting to see what kind of bonuses the execs are getting. Not to mention their stock sales (which started after they started all this lawsuit business).
--"SCO allegations:"
No, people have been digging on this for a while. There's only one interpretation that really makes sense.
A while ago IBM bought a company called Sequent. This company developed some of the multi-processor code (I think most of the stuff SCO ever specifies). This was apparently developed to run on SYSV, but was not part of the SYSV package that Novell bought (ie. independent development on the kernel). SCO seem to believe, for some reason, that anything developed for SYSV belongs to them, even if they never had a hand in developing the new code. This seems to be the only thing they've got going for them, and needless to say, IBM disagrees with this interpretation of their contract.
--"When Novell transferred its UNIX business SCO, it apparently retained only the copyrights and patents."
No, Novell retained a number of other rights. SCO was simply acting as a middleman on the licensing issues; they got a percentage of the license fees, but it was still up to Novell to say yes or no. Novell also retained the right to block SCO from revoking licenses, something they did after SCO tried pulling IBM's license (note that they had been telling SCO before then that they, Novell, would allow SCO to pull this stunt).
--"It appears that IBM is in a world of hurt. "

Note for those actually interested in this case, there's a very good resource called Groklaw that covers this trail in great detail.
Wraith
"Hello. My $NAME is ~inigo-montoya. You killed my process. Prepare to vi."
-- The Unix's Bride
Comment