So why would SCO want to be sowing all that weirdness and confusion?
Could it be for the same reason that SCO has had such trouble coming up with convincing examples of copyright infringement? And credible evidence of IBM contract violations? And a viable defense against the lawsuit Red Hat filed against SCO last August?
After all the success SCO's management has had using legal threats to pump up the stock price from less than $1 per share to more than $20 late last year, could it be that SCO's executives -- or at least its lawyers -- figured out months ago that SCO hasn't got a case against Linux?
Could it be that they keep piling on the lawsuits and the rhetoric for fear that if they stop now, SCO's stock price will collapse and they'll be buried by shareholder lawsuits and an SEC investigation?
He lays out why their latest suit is so odd pretty well, I thought - although, not being a lawyer, what do I know? Either way, I like his summary. It seems very plausible to me