A recently-obtained email sent directly to Darl McBride from one Michael Davidson reveals that, at least as early as 3 years ago, McBride could not have helped but know his claims against IBM (and Linux in general) were utterly without merit:

The project [a comparison of SCO's source code to that in Linux] was a result of SCO's executive management refusing to believe that it was possible for Linux and much of the GNU software to have come into existance without *someone* *somewhere* having copied pieces of proprietary UNIX source code to which SCO owned the copyright. ...

At the end, we had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence of any copyright infringement whatsoever.

I admit to a twisted sort of pleasure watching SCO dig itself a deeper and deeper hole. What I'm wondering now is whether this might be grounds for pursuing criminal charges? Seems like there has been some covering up of evidence for the purpose of misleading the court.