[Bush2000]

The question here is whether they acted in bad faith. The 2002 email says that it "probably closes this discussion [on infringing code]." Davidson, who is apparently intimately familiar with SCO's code, said the investigation was a "waste of time.".

Given that IBM's alleged infringement would have occurred after Davidson's period of investigation, the point is moot.

[antiRepublicrat]

Given that IBM's alleged infringement would have occurred after Davidson's period of investigation, the point is moot.

I told you it doesn't go so much with the IBM case because that's mainly on their derivatives theory (with SCO trying to drop the original copyright claim, and being caught by the judge for being disingenuous in doing so), but with Darl making a statement that infringement existed in the timeframe soon after this study, the statement being made not long after this memo. That shows bad faith.