Editing SCO Group (section)

=== Views on infringement claims ===
In the keynote address at its SCO Forum conference in August 2003, held at the [[MGM Grand Las Vegas]], the SCO Group made an expansive defense of its legal actions.<ref name="nw-forum03">{{cite news | url=https://www.networkworld.com/article/2336557/sco-makes-legal-case-to-its-resellers.html | title=SCO makes legal case to its resellers | author-first=Robert | author-last=McMillan | magazine=Network World | date=August 18, 2003}}</ref> Framed by licensed-from-MGM [[Production of the James Bond films|James Bond music and film clips]], McBride portrayed SCO as a valiant warrior for the continuance of [[proprietary software]], saying they were in "a huge raging battle around the globe", that the [[GNU General Public License]] that Linux was based on was "about destroying value", and saying that like Bond, they would be thrown into many battles but come out the victor in the end.<ref name="nw-forum03"/>

Linux advocates had repeatedly asked SCO to enumerate and show the specific areas of code in Linux that SCO thought were infringing on Unix.<ref name="nyt-myclip-2003"/><ref name="iw-if-3"/>  An analyst for [[International Data Corporation|IDC]] said that if SCO were more forthcoming on the details, "the whole discussion might take a different tone."<ref name="nyt-myclip-2003"/>  However, SCO was reluctant to show any such code in public, preferring to keep it {{nowrap|secret{{px2}}{{mdash}}{{px2}}}}a strategy that was commonly adopted in intellectual property litigation.<ref name="iw-if-3">{{cite news | title=Oh So Slowly, SCO Makes Its Case | author-first=Tom | author-last=Yager | magazine=InfoWorld | date=September 22, 2003 | pages=42&ndash;43}}<!-- see also online version with correction addendum https://www.infoworld.com/article/2679098/sco-stays-in-the-game.html --></ref>

However, during the company's Forum conference, SCO did publicly show several alleged examples of illegal copying of copyright code in Linux. Until that time, these examples had only been available to people who signed a [[non-disclosure agreement]], which had prohibited them from revealing the information shown to them. SCO claimed the infringements were divided into four separate categories: literal copying, [[Obfuscation (software)|obfuscation]], derivative works, and non-literal transfers.  The example used by SCO to demonstrate literal copying became known as the ''[[atemalloc]]'' example. While the name of the original contributor was not revealed by SCO, quick analysis of the code in question pointed to [[Silicon Graphics|SGI]]. At this time it was also revealed that the code had already been removed from the Linux kernel, because it duplicated already existing functions.

By early 2004, the small amount of evidence that had been presented publicly was viewed as inconclusive by lawyers and software professionals who were not partisan to either side.<ref name="bw-hated"/>  As ''Businessweek'' wrote, "While there are similarities between some code that SCO claims it owns and material in Linux, it's not clear to software experts that there's a violation."<ref name="bw-hated"/>  The legal considerations involved were complex, and resolved around subtleties such as how the notion of [[derivative work]]s should be applied.<ref name="fortune-2004"/>  Furthermore, Novell's argument that it had never transferred copyrights to the Santa Cruz Operation placed a cloud over the SCO Group's legal campaign.<ref name="bw-hated"/>  Most, but not all, industry observers felt that SCO was unlikely to win.<ref name="bw-hated"/><ref name="fortune-2004"/><ref name="iw-if-5"/>  ''InfoWorld'' drily noted that Las Vegas bookmakers were not giving odds on the battle, but the three analysts it polled gave odds of 6-to-4 against SCO, 200-to-1 against SCO, and 6-to-4 for SCO.<ref name="iw-if-5">{{cite news | title=The Latest Line on SCO |magazine=InfoWorld | date=September 22, 2003 | page=45}}</ref>

In any case, while Linux customers may not have been happy about the concerns and threats that the SCO Group was raising, it was unclear whether that was slowing their adoption of Linux; some business media reports indicated that it was,<ref name="cnn-mydoom"/> or that it might,<ref name="fortune-2003"/> while others indicated that it was not.<ref name="bw-hated"/>