The SCO Group currently holds the copyright to Unix, originally developed by AT&T.

Even after the .com collapse Linux remains a formidable challenger to Microsoft.  Having no central location and no single point of failure Linux has made the open source operating system seemingly invincible.  The one weak point that Linux may have is the potential that some of its code was, in fact, stolen from Unix.

The SCO Group, Inc., the company that currently holds the rights to the proprietary Unix platform, in 2003 began challenging several large Linux vendors including IBM.  SCO claims that entire sections of code in Linux were lifted from the source code of proprietary Unix.  Additionally SCO claims that Linux source code was developed using Unix and as result Linux the property of SCO. 

Microsoft, who stands to lose the most should Linux and open source solutions continue to rise in popularity, launched a public relations assault on Linux coinciding with the lawsuits.  The software giant claimed that its products provide indemnification for its users but Linux solutions, which are seemingly less expensive, can cost much more in potential liability as a result of the pending litigation.  According to Microsoft companies who use Linux solutions run the risk of being liable for damages to SCO as a result of using allegedly stolen software.  In a Web site entitled “Get the Facts on Windows and Linux,” Microsoft guarantees intellectual property indemnification policy for end-user customers, something that it says “cannot be said for Linux and open source vendors.”

Publicly SCO has denied that Microsoft is backing litigation against Linux vendors and end-users.  Recently, however, Microsoft disclosed a purchase of  $21 million worth of Unix licenses from SCO.  Funds which the failing SCO have likely used toward mounting legal fees.  A representative from SCO, who refused to be identified for this report, claims that the sole reason for purchase was for Microsoft’s own interest in cross-platform support for Unix in Windows.

“It allows them to gain greater compatibility (between) Unix and Windows,” explained the SCO employee.  “Some of our detractors have tried to say that it was designed to try help us fight our legal case (against Linux vendors and users), however nothing could be further from the truth.”

The SCO case received a major blow early in 2004 when an AT&T newsletter published in 1985 surfaced  (AT&T developed Unix but since transferred ownership).  The article laid out the terms for derivative works saying that it wished “to assure licensees that AT&T would claim no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T.”

Open source definition author Bruce Perens is so confident that the SCO suit lacks merit that he sits on the board of directors for Open Source Risk Management, a company that insures corporations against liability.

“My opinion is that the entire SCO case is a deliberate act of intellectual property fraud,” said Perens.  “(SCO) understands perfectly well that they do not have any rights regarding the software they assert rights to.”

Additionally SCO has challenged corporate Linux users.  AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler are among the group that SCO claims is infringing on its copyright through deployment of Linux solutions within the corporations.

The debate is still on about whether the SCO suits have had a negative effect on Linux sales.  Reports show Linux numbers steadily climbing while SCO’s stock hovers under $4.00 per share, recovering from an all-time low of $2.76 less than a year ago.