[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.

[Bush2000]

... 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.

You and I aren't privy to any other investigations and/or discussions that SCO was conducting with its attorneys simultaneously; so, it's probably not possible to make such a conclusion without additional information. Likewise, it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit.