Here's SCO's Redacted Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on its Claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement (IBM's 10th Counterclaim [PDF] and Part 2. Yes. Loooong. And a four-part Appendix, as well, sideways on the page, which I hate, and they filed it so we need to OCR it, if anyone has the time. Here are the four parts of the Appendix:
This should be fun to read, though. So, let's have at it. I see in a quick read, and I'm only up to page 11, that they are becoming truly reckless. For example, SCO states this:
Because Santa Cruz, the owner of UNIX copyrights at the time IBM decided to embark on its Linux strategy, had no involvement with Linux, IBM could not have reasonably relied on third-party Linux activities as a basis for entering the market.
Isn't that breathtaking? SCO's Second Amended Complaint places IBM's involvement in Linux as beginning in 2000. The Caldera-Santa Cruz deal was in August of 2000. Groklaw has documented already Tigran Aivazian's contributions at least as early as 1999, while he was at Santa Cruz, and it was, he says, with his boss's knowledge and approval. And here's the 1999 CNET article Groklaw showed you earlier, about Santa Cruz adding the ability to run Linux applications on UnixWare and saying Linux was helping their business. And we know SCO's lawyers read Groklaw. So how do they dare to make such a statement? I am simply dumbfounded.
As you see statements that you can rebut, by all means do so in your comments, with urls to proof. Evidently, reminders are required.