Do you really want to hear the latest in the SCO-IBM case?
I long ago lost interest in SCO's claim it "owns" Unix and can force everyone to "license" Linux for its benefit.
At this point I believe SCO is basically a law firm, specifically the law firm of Boies, Schiller and Flexner LLP of New York. Four of its partners signed the latest filing, along with SCO's local Salt Lake City counsel, Brent Hatch and Mark James of James, Hatch & Dodge.
To me the most interesting aspect of the latest filing, the cover letter of which was sent to me by SCO's PR officer, Blake Stowell, is the listing of partners who worked on the sealed enclosure, which claims to detail which specific pieces of Linux IBM allegedly "stole" from SCO's Unix. There are two partners who work in Armonk, which is IBM's headquarters, one from Ft. Lauderdale and one from Miami. Missing is the "name" partner, David Boies, he of U.S. vs. Microsoft fame. (The BS&F partners are, for the record, Robert Silver, Edward Normand, Stuart Singer, and Stephen Zack. Good lawyers no doubt, but none with their name on the door.)
The details at this point are unimportant. They're a means to the ultimate end, a determination of whether SCO ever "owned" anything IBM could have "stolen." That's a decision for the Judge, Dale Kimball.
Kimball has, in the past, expressed skepticism about the merits of SCO's case from the bench. He could, once discovery is over, submit a judgement. SCO has promised a final report on its examination of IBM's documents December 22. Perhaps by Christmas we can put this story into the past, where it belongs.