Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (5130 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [SLE] Re: Meta-discussion on the IP issues of GPUs and 3D -- 90+% of the Linux community is too ignorant for legal issues
  • From: Boyd Lynn Gerber <gerberb@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 07:53:12 -0600
  • Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0605280743270.15495@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 14:42 +0200, Orn E. Hansen wrote:
> > As I stated in my earlier statement, all of SCO's claim is based on the same
> > existance as M$ is. An attitude of "monopoly", something that is forbidden
> > in the buisness world.
>
> Microsoft is a 800lbs. gorilla.
> IBM is a 1200lbs. gorilla.
>
> IBM was the "monopoly" when it came to Calera! IBM was the "big bully"
> that had the money, IP and lawyers to "outlast" Caldera.
>
> No one gives Caldera credit (except for ex-Caldera employees) for
> spending 2 years trying to weather the fact that they had _no_ 64-bit
> UNIX when IBM withheld the Monterey source, and started competing in the
> Linux space.
>
> IBM created the monster we now have in SCO. Caldera was an outstanding
> Linux company, and Caldera-SCO would have been very profitable with a
> split Linux-UNIX strategy -- with all UNIX proceeds feeding back into
> Linux.
>
> IBM couldn't have that, because Intel Monterey sales would take away
> from Power Monterey sales. AIX5L (Power Monterey) has been a _great_
> success -- and SCO _definitely_ has a _sound_ argument there.
>
> > We can discuss to the end of time, how on earth this "clause" did come into
> > the Unix world,
>
> It's a _contract_ dispute!
>
> IBM and SCO decided to build a strategic alliance on 64-bit UNIX.
> IBM on Power, SCO on IA-64 and any subsequent 64-bit PC.
> The contract was Project Monterey.
>
> Caldera bought SCO because of Monterey. IBM withheld the Intel Monterey
> source 20 days after Caldera bought them, yet continued to work on their
> own Power Monterey -- which became AIX5L.
>
> SCO's, now Caldera's, future rode on Intel Monterey. IBM killed it,
> which was _clearly_ the 1200lbs. gorilla being a "monopoly."
>
> > or how on earth AT/T managed to get it there. It doesn't matter, as
> > it's not a decent practice.
>
> The "Non-Compete" was designed to _protect_ SCO (then Caldera) from
> _exactly_ what IBM did! It is a _very_common_ practice! Why?
>
> Because it protects small companies from large ones, like SCO (then
> Caldera) against IBM! IBM is the "monopoly" here, _not_ SCO!

Yes, this is true. SCO(Caldera) wanted to opensource the PC side of the
64 bit stuff for Linux. IBM put a big cabash on it. For exactly the
reasons stated. This point is what every one misses. IBM really was the
bad guy. Linux would have been really further/farther ahead had IBM not
been the Monopilist. Sadly this is what allowed the current situation to
come about.

> > And the Linux world did very well in interpreting the status.
>
> As of May 2003? Sort of.
> But as of March 2003? No!
>
> In Ransom Love's 2003 fall interview with eWeek, he pegged it 100% like
> I, Cox, ESR and even Linus himself _knew_.
>
> IBM _killed_ a _very_ pro-Linux company. Why?
> Because they were going to take away from their non-Linux sales.
>
> Sun is next.
> HP is after that.
> Red Hat's eventually going to get it too.

I agree 100%. I fear we have not heard the last from this IBM Gorilla. I
only hope that the larger force of change will show IBM the error of their
ways and let the pro OSS attitude make headway inside IBM to the upper
echolongs that allowed this to happen.

> > If SCO wins, which they may well do, it will be a death blow against
> > the "corporate" state of Linux.
>
> *BECAUSE* people like yourself have related the SCO v. IBM _contract_
> lawsuit to Linux IP. The March 2003 filing had _nothing_ to do with
> Linux IP -- but 100% contract, including the Non-Compete.
>
> But because 90+% of the Linux community, and then 100% of the IT media
> off of that, assumed that SCO v. IBM was about Linux IP _before_ the May
> 2003 augmentation of the lawsuit (after IBM didn't settle). If the
> community would have _stopped_ and _listened_ to Cox, ESR, Linux, etc...
> and realized it was a 100% _contract_ lawsuit, then SCO probably
> wouldn't have been able to put up the "smokescreen" May on-ward.
>
> Trust me, I've been in Fortune 20 companies and have gone through this
> with lawyers and executives. Getting them to recognize the liability
> (or lack thereof) has _nothing_ to do with the lawsuit.
>
> Unless they sign an agreement with SCO.

+1

- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@xxxxxxxxx>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD4DBQFEeatXVtBjDid73eYRAlOdAJivnhdhSK1IFgcT/BIcc6Qh4BnxAJ0fuJTg
UWpmhGS9kbWRAJcc428NBQ==
=jbny
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

< Previous Next >