SCO doesn't own UNIX, at least not yet. The actual "ownership" and copyright to UNIX is a very complicated issue. All this court decision did was "reverse material aspects" of the earlier verdict from 2007 that found Novell to be the rightful copyright owner. Now there's going to be yet another trial case to determine whether SCO does in fact own the copyright. I don't think anybody seriously gives a shit about System V UNIX, UnixWare or any of SCO's other crappy, outdated products. But a company like SCO, which has been in bankruptcy for over 2 years, has virtually no market share and appears to exist these days only for the purpose of suing other companies, might well gain legal ownership of the original System V UNIX code. In other words: they might gain a legal "leg to stand on" and cause more trouble for OSS creators and vendors. For years, SCO has been bitching that Linux infringes on a copyright for the original UNIX code that it assumes it holds. They have sued companies like IBM and Novell which produce Linux-based software and distribute Linux as an OEM OS. They have disseminated propaganda to Linux users, accusing them of copyright infringement and alleging they could be liable for damages simply by running Linux. They have sued their own (former) customers who switched from using their products to using Linux. SCO is also known to have received financial backing from other, far more powerful interests whose goal is to ruin the open source software movement by any means possible. At this point, SCO clearly has nothing to lose, and Microsoft doesn't have to dirty their hands or risk hurting their own public image by attacking open source developers in court. Microsoft can just sit back and bash the OSS movement in the press, allege IP infringements, negotiate cross-licensing agreements and provide financial support to companies like SCO to file anti-OSS suits. This may not be a potent threat to the very existence of Linux, but it could definitely harm Linux in the business market and lead to some very bad precedents regarding OSS and software copyright/patents in general. BTW, I'm not the one who voted down your post. It's an interesting bit of news on a case I haven't really followed in awhile. Thanks for posting it.