"Just kidding around. I don't know why they do what they do. But whatever the reason, now that the judge has told them to get a move on with this case and wrap it up as opposed to waiting until the appeal in Novell is over, rather than admit they had no case, they would like to morph the complaint to be about contract breach and more about OpenServer.
"Is that not totally the SCO you've come to know?
"They presumably own whatever they developed in OpenServer on top of the code its predecessor-in-interest licensed from AT&T, so they'd like to sue about *that* now, while keeping a placeholder where the old claims are, in case they hit the jackpot on appeal in the Novell case.
"If you think about it, though, that's just another way of admitting SCO had no case originally against AutoZone. SCO's justification is that they allegedly found evidence in discovery in 2004 that they'd like to use now:
Based on the evidence it discovered in 2004, SCO seeks leave to file a First Amended Complaint to (1) expand the scope of the copyright claim to include infringement of OpenServer and related copyrights, and (2) add a single claim for breach of the agreements under which AutoZone licensed OpenServer and related materials from SCO's predecessor-in-interest."
