"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