[antiRepublicrat]

This "investigation" dates back to 1999. And, as we know, IBM's move to "invest" $1B in Linux didn't happen until December, 2000. Result: none of this is conclusive of anything.

As far as this case goes, that is a very good point. However, Darl McBride has publicly claimed Linux was tainted as of "early 2000."

[TechJunkYard]

Darl McBride has publicly claimed Linux was tainted as of "early 2000."

Darl's big mouth won't matter until we get to the countersuits. However, SCO's official position, as documented in paragraph 5 of its Second Amended Complaint is:

.. Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x and the development kernel, 2.5.x, are replete with protected technology. As such, the Linux 2.4.x, Linux 2.5.x and 2.6.x kernels are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.