Users and analysts have poured scorn on SCO's claim that it owns so much of the code in Linux that to remove it would cause the operating system to collapse.

Speaking at the company's SCOForum in Las Vegas, chief executive Darl McBride said: "Taking out that code would be like trying to take out the middle 30 floors of a 60-storey building."

But Mike Davis, senior researcher at Butler Group, responded: "This is totally fatuous. Linux is not analogous to a building. The code only crumbles when it's being run, not while it's being written or compiled."

Davis noted that McBride had only mentioned about 100 lines of code being identical in Linux and Unix System V. And while other code may look similar, he said that there are "only so many ways of writing 2+2=4".

Unilever, a major Linux user, declared that it still has no intention of buying a licence, even though SCO has appointed Gregory Blepp as head of licensing in Europe, with a remit to push UnixWare licences to Linux users.

Martin Armitage, senior vice president at Unilever's global information organisation, suggested that SCO is focused more on the court case than on developing its software.

"As far as I'm concerned it's an issue between SCO and IBM, and I expect that IBM's resources will win the day," he told vnunet.com. "SCO has very little grounds for going after Linux users. We are in a good position."

Unilever is one of the original 1,500 companies that received a letter from SCO warning about Linux licensing. But it had heard nothing since and had no intention of buying a licence.

"[SCO] keeps the GPL licence on its website which anyone can access and has not taken steps to keep its code confidential. So how can it claim breach of confidentiality?" asked Armitage.

Adrian James, IT director at fellow Linux user Mutual Reliance, was equally unconcerned. "As far as we're concerned we're just sitting back and waiting for the outcome," he said.

And Eddie Bleasdale, managing director of Linux systems supplier Netproject, pointed out that, even though SCO had identified the general areas of 'infringing code', it had not actually disclosed the code.

"Let it carry on. It is getting all sorts of ridicule by doing this," he said.