hat they could have saved all that expensive (and apparently impossible) searching of IBM's AIX source repository for direct copying into Linux
My recollection of this is that since they couldn't provide ANY evidence of direct copying they adopted the "ladder theory" wherein IBM made small changes over a number of revisions that served to conceal the IP theft.
Of course this completely undermines any claim of IP infringement or direct copying since the resulting code is not the same as the alleged "stolen" code. That also makes it impossible to find and show such code since it is different from the original and, most importantly, was [actually] written by someone else. This footgun attack seems to have also given birth to the "negative knowledge" notion that IBM (or anyone they chose to cite) benefited unfairly from not going down developmental dead-ends by having the advantage of not pursuing methods that didn't work. jar jar seems to base his entire effort on tirelessly pursuing methods that don't work.
Does this do more to link him as an insider who hasn't realized this is a shortcut to failure or indicate what a dope he is that he doesn't see that it helped torpedo their case in the first place.