6/6     Why is the SCO case a big deal?  If there is indeed copied
        code (which is far from certain), what prevents the linux
        community from re-writing those files?  (Assuming that it is
        only a few files, of course - all unknown still).
        \_ SCO says:  "That's like saying, 'show us the fingerprints on
        \_ SCO won't disclose affected source code w/o an NDA.
           SCO:  "That's like saying, 'show us the fingerprints on
           the gun so you can rub them off.'"
        \_ Because you can't use someone else's IP and then get caught red
           handed and then simply stop using it without penalty.
           \_ True - but this doesn't change the fact that the linux
              source code is out in public, and once the piece that was
              plagarized (if that was truly the case) is known, what is
              to stop the community from replacing it and proceeding as
              previously?
              \_ you're still ignoring the fact that you can't just say, "oh!
                 we got busted! we'll just change that bit and go on with life!
                 thanks for letting us use your IP for years at your expense!"
              \_ Nothing. But they will claim Linux's success was due in part
                 to their stolen code, therefore they can claim a percentage
                 of past and future earnings from Linux distributors. The
                 analogy is if you stole $1000 and used it to build a very
                 successful business, then you got caught. Does returning the
                 $1000 mean no crime has been committed? Does the victim have
                 any claim to the business?
                 \_ Linux distributors have no earnings.  And the analogy to
                    stealing money is a false one; most copyright cases don't
                    involve monetary damages.  The likely result is a
                    patent cross-signing agreement.  -tom
                    \_ BZZZT!  That's between real companies and this isn't a
                       patent case and what patents would IBM swap for the
                       shitty copyright on some code?  Also, they don't always
                       simply swap patents.  Sometimes it's for real and the
                       thieves owe the IP holders tens or even hundreds of
                       millions of dollars plus are not allowed to use the IP
                       in the future.  The Linux distributors certainly do
                       have earnings.  The analogy to stealing money is
                       exactly correct.  Unlike you, I've actually worked on
                       real patent and copyright cases for real lawyers in
                       real courts in the real world where the 'rules of
                       slashdot' don't apply.
                        \_ did you ACTUALLY work on REAL patents for REAL
                           lawyers?  You may be right about this but it
                           is you racking up the twink points pal.
                        \_ We greatly value your insight, O anonymous
                           coward.  -tom
                           \_ Thank goodness his anonymity completely
                              invalidates anything he has to say.      -mice
                           \_ I'm anonymous and, unlike you, still know wtf
                              I'm talking about.  Patent cross-signing when
                              it's a copyright claim?  Copyright violations
                              don't involve monetary damages?  No earnings at
                              Redhat, IBM, Dell, and other linux distributors?
                              You get a dozen twink points *and* you've again
                              proven that you're a complete idiot.