Rob, Im surprised the issue of SCOs own behavior pre-lawsuit hasnt been raised...even putting aside the GPL. For a company to be selling a product it specializes in (whether it be operating systems or shaving cream) to claim they didnt know what was in the product they sold is legally a non-starter. Caldera sold its own linux product with the supposed violating source code for almost two years after it purchased the rights to system v unix. If you accept the GPL argument... They sold that product under a license they freely accepted for almost two years while they owned system v. For a company to have that level of expertise(according to their own claims), and not know is gross negligence or it is deliberate. Considering Calderas own attempt to "unify unix and linux", any claim they didnt know what was going on...seems to fail the "giggle test". If so much code was "stolen" a simple text comparison of the two source codes, would suffice. You wouldnt need expert computer teams. The expert computer teams baloney is designed to "dazzle with bs" these non technically adept analysts. If Caldera had given away someone elses linux for free then I might agree with you. However they themselves were contributors to the source code and selling the product as well. In the end SCO as seller of both the violating product and the competing product so they must meet a higher standard of behavior than usual to make a claim of innocence. They had a reasonable duty to their customers and their partners(such as unitedlinux) to ensure the products they sold didnt violate IP (including their own), they failed in that duty.