Why SCO didn't and doesn't need a discovery phase

Posted Fri, 2004-05-21 11:45 by geekwisdom
I don't think SCO needed a discovery phase in the Linux portion of their IBM case and probably their AutoZone case either. If SCO says that IBM has infringed on their, alleged, UNIX copyright through IBM's aid in the further development of Linux, I submit that SCO has had all the information they need to prove such a case (if one exists) since before they filed any legal paperwork. If their position is that they own the copyright to UNIX then they would have the source code for it, right? Since Linux is open source, they can easily optain that code as well. If their claim is that code in Linux was stolen from UNIX then they've had both sets of code all along. Why has it taken them over a year and still no ability to produce the actual infringing code? Because, in reality, there is no code.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Who is stealing the code?

by Anonymous - 2004-08-25 17:19
With all these accusations about stolen code flying around, how can we be sure that any of the closed source software (SCO, Microsoft, etc.) hasn't been stolen/inspired/planted from open sources? I can't see how, even after taking a year to 'discover' similarities between two chunks of code, you can prove innocence and guilt without making the original sources available for independant assessment.