It started a few months back, when SCO made claims that IBM had violated the terms of it’s Unix contract by releasing some technologies into the free operating system known as Linux. Naturally IBM has stated that they have in no way violated their contractual obligations.

Before I continue any further, I should disclose that I was once an IBM employee and while I certainly don’t regret being a former employee I don’t really have any ill will towards them. I do think that they are one of the few companies investing in the future and offering real innovation in an industry where it’s easier to copy than to invent. IBM is a company that lives on the strength of it’s research and development and they file a tremendous number of patents every year. I find it very hard to believe that IBM would intentionally or even accidentally abuse the intellectual property of another company.

Now that’s out of the way, why on earth would I bother to write about the squabbles between corporate entities? Well if you must have it in a nutshell, it has to do with corporate ethics. The executives of any corporation should be concerned with the welfare of that corporation. I’m going to be so bold as to say SCO’s execs are only trying to increase the size of their personal fortunes.

SCO has made some wild claims in the last few months, and they just keep getting better. At first it was just a contract dispute that IBM had released SCO technology into Linux, but it didin’t stay there for long. SCO has gone so far as to state that it in fact owns Linux and that any corporation or individual who is running a version of Linux must pay a licensing fee in order to legally run the software. Just how did they come to own something that was started by a university student in another country who has never been employed by SCO? Something stinks here.

Naturally when the claims started flying that Linux was in violation of someone’s intellectual property, the community behind it was a little bit upset. One of the things that makes Linux unique is that absolutely anyone can have a look at the program code behind it. Nothing is kept secret. So when SCO raised it’s allegations there were calls for SCO to point out the offending code. They have to date refused to do this in public. Did I mention that something stinks here?

Things got even more interesting when SCO started making noises about Linux users being in violation of SCO intellectual property. In the country of Germany they have an interesting legal system. Linux Tag, a German Linux advocacy group, recieved an injunction against SCO in the German court system. Essentially they told SCO to “put up, or shut up.” SCO in Germany shut up. Elsewhere in the world, the stench lingers.

In the last few months, the price of SCO on the open market has jumped considerably. No doubt making SCO investors happy people. However I wonder if the investors are aware that the senior staff of the company are selling off their shares just as fast as they legally can? Here’s a hypothesis for you, the ship is sinking and the rats are leaving.

IBM has not caved into SCO’s demands, which would seem to indicate that they are confident they can win a legal battle. What’s more, IBM has filed a counter claim. So where does this leave Linux? Actually, Linux is better off than SCO wants anyone to believe. If SCO wins the case, the infringing code becomes public knowledge and it’s a safe bet that Linux will have alternative code within weeks, if not days.

What’s more, whether they win or lose, they have made claims that all Linux users owe them money. There are quite literally hundreds (if not thousands) of copyright owners who have contributed to Linux. I think they might have something to say about SCO charging for a product it has already agreed to, and in fact has already given away. That’s right, SCO’s already agreed to give it away. They distributed their own version of Linux, and in so doing agreed to abide by the GPL. The license by which Linux is propagated basically states that if you modify the existing code, you must license your code under the GPL as well. Companies are allowed to retain copyright to their work, but if they sell a product with those changes, they have to make them public. This is all very altruistic, but so far it’s worked.

The conclusion? SCO is full of it. Their executives are saying what ever it takes to keep their stock price artificially elevated while they dump it. You know what? This smells so bad it wouldn’t surprise me if the SEC were to take notice. Perhaps when the lawsuites are over and SCO finally folds, the remaining shareholders will see that they’ve been betrayed.

Before I leave, I have to pose this one to the Magic 8-Ball, just to confirm the outcome: Is SCO going down in a great big ball of flaming shit? “Without a doubt.”