Well, that's really embarrassing when you have to admit in court that you haven't actually compared the current sources, but instead rely on an internal study from 1999 - not a bunch of experts constantly combing through the sources. All that time wasted and in the end you had to admit you did nothing. Embarrassing, very embarrassing. But the "we need help" from SCO is really amusing. Sorry folks, but nobody can help you anymore
Also amusing is the fact that Kernel 2.4, which SCO was particularly targeting, was only started in 1999 - and wasn't available until 2001. In 1999, 2.2 had just been released, so SCO could hardly have had access to the 2.4 kernel back then. Yet they claim that precisely 2.4 and 2.6 are problematic - even though according to their own statement they never compared the sources.