I did not claim any of those things. I stated, correctly, that none of the Causes of Action in SCO's complaint involve copyright infringement or patents. SCO is of course free to amend its complaint, but to date SCO has not included any patent or copyright claims among its courses of action.
Nor did I claim that "only code written by IBM is the only duplicated code in Linux." I stated, correctly, that these are the items named in the lawsuit. The lawsuit is, after all, against IBM. It should not surprise any of us that claims not involving IBM are not in the IBM lawsuit. To date, SCO has not filed any other linux-related lawsuits, so it is too soon to say what they might eventually allege concerning others.
It might be worth noting that there are two "trials" going on here. One is moving slowly through the court system (I believe the first hearing is scheduled for some time in 2005), and there is a second trial taking place in the press. So far the press trial has consisted of numerous press conferences, press releases, and interviews conducted by SCO officials. They are making noise on many subjects, including copyrights, but for whatever reason not much of what they say to the press is reflected in their actual complaint filed with the court. Meanwhile their insiders continue to sell. IBM has mercifully confined itself to issuing boilerplate legalese one-liners of the "we will vigorously defend" variety. The trial in the press is therefore heavily skewed toward claims made by SCO. They are making new ones every day, and IBM seems to be taking the position that press releases do not assist with lawsuits.
It was a clear misrepresentation of the truth. Something I see in 99% of your posts regarding this or the trials and events surrounding the RIAA.