The SCO news is just popping up all over. First, SCO set up AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler the bomb by filing copyright infringement lawsuits against them for their use of Linux. I've always been a bit puzzled by the idea of end-user suits here. It's been my understanding that by reading The Wind Done Gone or listening to the Grey Album, I don't commit copyright infringement, even if these works had been created in violation of copyright.
So what makes Linux different? Is this an issue of source code (so that the putative infringement consists in rebuilding your kernel)? Is it a problem of copying the code onto new computers? Is there some other aspect of what it means to "use" software that I'm forgetting? Help out a poor confused law student here, okay?
Anyway, moving back to the main ring of the circus that SCO has created, there was also a significant ruling in the discovery standoff between SCO and IBM. The magistrate judge (i.e. the junior federal judge who handles the administrative pre-trial parts of many cases) once again ordered SCO to identify the exact lines of code that infringe its copyrights.
In related news, Eric Raymond has unveiled the tenth in his series of Halloween Documents. This one purports to be an internal SCO email that indicates Microsoft has funneled $100 million to SCO by way of Baystar Capital, a VC firm. Too bad that the old common-law rules about maintainance, barratry, and champerty are going the way of the dodo.