As I posted elsewhere earlier...
Now that I have finally managed to stop laughing, let me see if I understood this correctly.
SCO had such a strong case and so much evidence of "millions of lines of code", and "truckloads" of code from their "deep dive" proving that "the DNA of Linux is comming from UNIX", etc. that they were "ready for trial" in 2003 and they "don't need any discovery".
SCO needs all versions of AIX. Not only that, but they also need every unreleased internal iteration of code from CMVC, all programmer's notes, etc., at great expense.
SCO could not disclose specific code for M&C because they couldn't know what code was in the minds of IBM engineers when IBM disclosed the M&C.
IBM destroyed the evidence. So SCO cannot show what code, or M&C was copied. This, even though SCO has access to ALL of the code, and Linux code is publicly available.
No doubt, it must somehow be IBM's doing that SCO is unable to answer IBM's interrogatory asking for SCO to identify lines of Linux code that SCO claims to own rights in.
So in the end...
- Linux code is out in the open
- SCO cannot point to _anything_ specific in Linux
- Some vague nebulous blob of M&C was disclosed
Of the vague nebulous blob of M&C...
- It must be in Linux...somewhere (trust us on this)
- It must be IBM that disclosed it (because they have deep pockets)
- The disclosure (by whoever, however) must have been improper, somehow (otherwise how will we make a profit?)
Because of IBM's unfair, unethical and illegal actions, SCO is unable to...
- describe exactly what the M&C is
- point to where it is
- identify where it came from
- show that it has been disclosed
- show how (or who) disclosed it
- prove ownership of it
So in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of this fine Utah jury, IBM is guilty. They did it. Trust us. Now do the right thing. Award Billions in damages to the plaintiff please.