There are many of us (linuxen) who have never said it is ok to steal. However, if someone says your car is theirs, you wouldn't turn it over without them showing some proof now would you? This is what SCO has NOT done. The IBM countersuit was launched 28 days after IBM requested details of infringements. SCO failed to reply to IBM, instead courting the media. This does not give IBM the chance to rectify any problems. (like the car guy charging you $70 a day for car rental as he claims you've got his car, but he won't show you the evidence that would enable you to agree/disagree with him). It turned out none of the code SCO showed in their SCOworld actually belonged too them. Apparently one bit had been stolen by SCO from BSD and the licence ripped from the top. Others were derivatives of BSD code and book examples. (as derivative works, they don't own copyright). SCO also refuses to stop selling Linux even though the copyright owners (kernel code contributors) claim SCO are in breach of the licence and therefore must stop using their code. Apparently much Linux code has also been stolen by SCO for use in Linuxware, released under an in-compatible licence (er that's theft). In addition to all the above, some of the code SCO claims is stolen SCO employees submitted to the kernel as part of the job SCO were employing them to do. Apparently this code was only ever used on 0.01% of systems (old alphas or something), and doesn't get used by X86s at all. If an employee of a company in their official role sold a company car, and all the appropriate paperwork was signed and so on, could the company later claim the person who bought the car had stolen it? I wouldn't have thought so. You should be balanced in your view.