Replies

... 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.

You and I aren't privy to any other investigations and/or discussions that SCO was conducting with its attorneys simultaneously;

You mean like Sandeep Gupta's investigation? The one that was completely trashed by Brian Kernighan? Hmmm, who to believe, some SCO guy with a little UNIX experience, or an independent, world-renowned computer scientist who's been involved with UNIX since it was invented?

it's probably not possible to make such a conclusion without additional information.

Are you talking about the information that Judge Kimball said is completely absent?

I'm a skeptic at heart. Show me the evidence, then I will accept. I've heard claims of a "million lines of code," yet I, and apparently the judge, have yet to see one. I will give SCO weasel room if you consider the software that IBM wrote to belong to SCO.

Likewise, it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit.

Quite probable. He was hired to do this lawsuit, so he wouldn't want anything like the facts standing in his way.

it's entirely possible that McBride simply rejected the conclusions of Davidson's audit

That in itself would be a show of bad faith. For example, if I hired a surveyor to find my property line, he found it to be between my house and my neighbor's house, and I then "simply rejected the conclusions" and sued my neighbor for building his house on my property, I'd get slam-dunked -- just like Darl & Co.