On Friday 15 August 2003 2:03 pm, ismgr wrote:

> I was reading about the SCO deal and to be quite honest, I don't really
> understand the argument.

> That said, and not to cause a flame war, could one of you that is much
> more familiar with this issue enlighten me?

SCO (once the Santa Cruiz Operation, a UNIX spin-off), claims to own the IP 
rights to portions of Unix code.  The group currently operating under that 
name purchased whatever they own of Unix from Novell, who have stated that 
they retain the IP rights in question.

SCO has accused IBM in a lawsuit claiming that IBM is responsible for 
incorporating the code in question into the Linux kernel.  They have further 
stated that this entitles them to demand license fees from all Linux users.  

They have not stated what specific code they claim to own the rights to, and 
as above Novell disputes that claim.  However, by making the claim publicly 
and staging a high-profile suit against IBM, they hope to either a) 
intimidate some companies into paying them license fees to avoid the cost of 
being sued and possibly loosing a judgement, and b) to discourage businesses 
from adopting a product (Linux) which might make them liable for fees or 
judgements in the future.  They hope that licensed copies their own version 
of Unix will be used in some of those cases.

Microsoft, ever the evil empire, has purchsed "licenses" of SCO's products for 
a large sum of money in order to support this enterprise, as anything that 
makes people reluctant to implement Linux is good for Microsoft.  No-one is 
quite sure what Microsoft needs Unix licenses for.

SCO has been hoping for some time that some large company will buy it up and 
put it out of it's misery, as they really do not have terribly good 
Intelectual Property resources in their inventory.  Everything they sell is 
pretty much sub-licensed from other sources, which can or could compete with 
them.  

One speculation is that they were hoping IBM would eliminate the nusiance of 
the lawsuit by buying SCO, but IBM denies that there's any basis for the 
suit, and IBM has the corporate legal staff to handle the claim.