Red Hat has put up "An Update for Our Partners," in which it says SCO has "never approached Red Hat concerning the claims they've made publicly" and saying they have "no knowledge of any infringing code":
Red Hat's position remains unchanged. We are not a party to any lawsuit over UNIX code. No one has established publicly or in court that any UNIX code has been infringed. . . . To the question, "Do I need to buy a SCO license?" they answer:
Red Hat's position remains unchanged. We are not a party to any lawsuit over UNIX code. No one has established publicly or in court that any UNIX code has been infringed. We will continue to communicate with our customers and partners as appropriate.
SCO has not demonstrated that any infringement exists, nor has it established that it owns derivative works in UNIX. Nothing has been proven to establish that such a license is needed. They also state that instead of losing any customers, they generated 1400 new ones in the last quarter. They say they remain committed to the open source model because, for one thing, if you can't see the code, can you know if it's really yours? They also say anyone with further questions can contact them at firstname.lastname@example.org. Don't abuse that process, naturally. It's clear they are directing this primarily at customers and partners.
My take on their statement -- and it's only a guess -- is that legal wrote or screened it, and that their position is that no copyright infringement has yet been proven. In other words, having a copyright gives you rights. But you do have to have some proof of copyright infringement to successfully go forward. Again, this is my best guess as to what this means. I have a call in to the Copyright Office to ask this very question.