Megan ('Jane Galt') McArdle says that the SCO lawsuit will damage Linux regardless of how it comes out, because it creates a potential liability for any Linux user with deep pockets.

I think you'll see corporations taking a pass on open source software. Because for corporations, the real problem with this lawsuit is not a few lines of stolen computer code, which is why HP's attempt to stop the damage by indemnifying its Linux customers against SCO is unlikely to work. The real problem is this: if you're an IT manager deciding whether or not to purchase a Linux machine, how can you be sure that those stolen lines are the only ones?

Corporations simply can't afford the risk of a lawsuit, even if the cost of a non-open-source OS is several hundred dollars higher. At the corporate level, lawsuits are expensive and distracting, even if you win. And at the IT manager level, telling the board that your hot new installation just embroiled the company in a legal battle is a career killer.

I think that of all the pros and cons of open source, this legal threat is the most unfair. In fact, my general feeling is that lawsuits are rarely a tool for achieving justice. I do not think that the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit had any potential for public benefit (although it certainly had the potential to benefit Microsoft's competitors), and I feel even more strongly that the Linux lawsuit has no potential for public benefit.