By even saying there is a "cloud" over IBM is to assume that SCO is right. If you really want to provide fair analysis, why would you take any side's claims as fact? Read the IBM countersuit, it says that they have an irrevocable license. Should you not give that claim equal weight? Otherwise why even discuss this? I wonder how is it that you could come to the conclusion that "someone over there really messed up" if you are equally weighing both company's claims? (and other facts of the case which are detrimental to SCO's case) How about SCO being negligent in releasing it all under the GPL? How can anyone try to claim damages that stem from their own negligence? That's preposterous, and would appear to wipe out SCO's case. But if you are unwilling to consider that (which is not a claim at all, but a fact), what is the point of even discussing it?