45. All documents concerning a Linux Lottery or the phrase the "Linux Lottery'.

Thats a new one on me, anyone have any clue where this phrase comes from or what it means..why are RH interested in it?

stowell - Unix licenses are revokable [theregister.co.uk] And this from a company insisting that the GPL is invalid whilst distributing GPL licensed software. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I am not a lawyer so maybe some people with more experience can tell me - is it usually obvious to a judge (it may be obvious to us in the case of SCO, but that's an entirely different matter) if someone is trying to stall for time, how do judges usually look upon this sort of behaviour (do they shrug their shoulders or get pissed off?) and if they do get annoyed what can they do to the stalling party?

Is there a chance that this could massively implode on SCO?

I'd wager there must have been some "UNIX" code in Linux at one time, albeit not intentionally and perhaps only small chunks for SCO to have made any claim at all.

But let's presume that RH's discovery finds the code was relatively small, inserted accidentally or under false pretenses, and not part of the current development of Linux.

Could SCO then be shown to be grossly misrepresenting their claims and mooting any licensing claims they made and perhaps open SCO's executives to claims of fraud, stock maniplation, or at least highly vulnerable to civil action from companies who could claim their misrepresentation had a chilling effect on their business?

If someone can get the man behind the curtain exposed, this could all come crashing down around the SCO guys..

When SCO get trashed in court and The Darly Gang get sent to jail for a nine-month reaming, Linux is going to hit the headlines like never before:

- LINUX WINS

- LINUX BEATS OFF THE INCUMBENTS

- LINUX... THE NEXT TERMINATOR?

I predict that the small slowdown in Linux installations over the last months will reverse into an explosion when this happens.

Overall, quite a weak showing from the Darly Gang and their friends the Redmond Boys. One would really have expected a little better.

I think it is also funny that they are concerned about "trade secrets" when everyone knows how Unix works. There is no big mystery.

Disclosure IANAL...

Don't be quite so quick to jump on this one. While I agree with you completely in principle, SCO does need to be careful in reality. Trade secrets are just that, secrets. Once they are discovered, they are no longer entitled to trade secret protection, meaning they cannot sue the releasing party if they were released illegally. Typically if there is a real trade secret, most reasonable judges will (rightly) make some accomodations for that fact.

Presumably SCO has a few trade secrets even though you are right that we basically know how all their stuff works. Just because we can figure it out, doesn't necessarily mean it isn't protected as a trade secret. So it's not surprising that they would be careful about trying to ensure they aren't unecessarily made public. Any company with proprietary assets in a legal battle would do the same. You can argue that they don't deserve such protection anymore because of what they are sueing for (and I wouldn't argue with you over it) but you should not be surprised that they are seeking trade secret protection. It's just a normal part of the legal proceedings.

Lawyers can ask for anything in the discovery phases and frequently do. This info from Red Hat is meaningless and will have little bearing on a final case, if it ever comes to that. PJ from Groklaw is showing his essential ignorance of the legal system by his breathless reporting of discovery requests; they are pretty worthless in and of themselves.

The worse that could happen is that they fold, maybe less of a loss to these guys than you think..

No, the "worst" that can happen is they get busted for running a pump and dump [sec.gov] scheme by the SEC. Not to mention corporate fraud, insider trading and god knows what else; I'm sure there are a variety of charges that could be leveled if it turns out they were intentionally misleading investors for personal gain. This is serious stuff; this is not just slap on the wrist territory. We're talking some real prison time here.

If these allegations by SCO do all turn out to be completely false (as is likely), and it does turn out that SCO knew it (50/50 - I think it's just as likely they're just totally clueless), then the SEC will have to get involved in order to send a message to the rest of the corporate world that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated. If SCO execs actually succeed in taking a failing company and turning it into a personal gain for them through fraud, there will be no end to these sorts of actions by other executives at other failing companies in the future.

SUSE has already successfully filed a suit against SCO Germany a long time ago

Indeed, and unlike Red Hat, SUSE didn't wait for a lawsuit to arrive before sucessfully going to court for their injunction. I guess that lends further credence to the maxim that the best defense is a good offense, so let's hope that the strategy pays off for the ACCC down in Oz too. ;) Still, every little bit helps with bleeding them dry. The more court cases SCO has to deal with the less chance that Darl will get his Golden Parachute for four profitable quarters in succession.

Actually, I think McBride is too small a fish for the SEC to get their panties in a knot over. Couple that with the fact that he's fighting those "Linux hippies" that the *IAA are so incensed with,

I'm not sure why people here seem to think the SEC and states' attorneys general (like good old Eliot Spitzer here in NY) will not get involved here. SCO is not fighting "Linux hippies", SCO is fighting IBM, one of the largest companies in the world, one of the Dow 30, #9 on the Fortune 500. You think any self-respecting regulator is going to allow one of the drivers of our economy to be bullied by a crap little company like SCO through fraudulent means? You're right - nobody in government cares about SCO, but they sure as hell care about IBM.

If it takes one of Spitzer's independent probes [usatoday.com] to prod the SEC along, great. Once small-time investors get screwed (as will happen once SCO's stock tanks), and IBM starts complaining to the government that they've been wrongly accused and have the court documents to back that assertion up (in the form of either a victory by IBM or capitulation by SCO that we're all sure is coming), then I fully expect to see things happen.