Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 12:04 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
At first, I trashed SCO and thought they had _no_case_ based 100% of what I read in the IT media. But within 1 day, I realized what it might be about, since I had been anticipating Monterey for the past 4 years. That's when I actually _read_ the filing. And after reading items 1-49, I came to the "summary items" in 50-55. Then it was _completely_clear_. Which is when I posted this in 7 March 2003. Something that was not only confirmed by various posting by Cox, ESR and Linux _prior_ to May 2003, but _also_ Ransom Love (formerly of Caldera at that time) in his fall 2003 eWeek article.
I've read many discovery/injunctions since.
Everytime the ignorant IT media goes, "how did SCO manage to get this discovery/injunction granted?" I go off and read the actual ruling.
And sure enough, it's 100% contract.
SCO has IBM _by_the_balls_ on Monterey. You can clearly see IBM's strategy -- be the 1,200lbs. IP gorilla with the IP, money and lawyers trying to see SCO go under before it goes to trial.
Because that's when a jury in Utah is going to smack IBM hard for what it did to Caldera-SCO -- and so they should.
And that's when the ignorant IT media will come back, "oh no, Linux IP is in danger!"
When it has *0* to do with Linux IP -- and 100% Monterey.
Here's the problem: You only read SCO's side. The basic problem comes down to one thing: Time and time again, SCO has made claims that it wasn't able to back up. You point to SCO's claim that the Monterey contract was broken, but that would depend on the wording of the contract. Have you read it? I've not seen it published anywhere. And if, as they claim, Monterey was "essentially done except for marketing", why didn't SCO go ahead with their own marketing of it? Was IBM obligated to put it's full weight behind Monterey? IBM is a business, and businesses drop projects all the time when the market shifts. I find it unlikely that IBM, with its army of lawyers would sign such a commitment. Might it not be possible that IBM isn't the evil gorilla plotting SCO's demise, but instead the company looked at the market and thought "Linux is the future, not Monterey?" While Project Monterey was under way, the market changed. Linux gained tremendous ground during that time. I don't know if it's the case, but it seems more likely than a long-term nefarious conspiracy where IBM duped SCO into joining Moneterey, putting a fairm number of dollars and workers behind it, then dumping it right at the end just so it could eliminate SCO, then it switches to Linux, which it has no control over... Did IBM screw over SCO? Sure. But I'm betting it was more a matter of the market having shifted and IBM deciding not to go with the project. I don't see IBM putting that much effort behind killing off a company that was barely a competitor. It would have been easier for them to just buy SCO outright if they felt the least bit threatened. SCO has also been claiming ALOT more than just Monterey falling through. Specifically, that IBM took Monterey code, and put it into Linux. Unfortunately for SCO, they haven't managed to find a single piece of code in the Linux kernel to point to. They're also claiming that IBM took code from when it bought Sequent and put it in Linux. Every time it has come down to "Show me the code", SCO has failed to deliver. SCO is the side that keeps demanding more time, despite some pretty crazy discovery demands like "The entire source code to every revision of AIX, including internal revisions." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20050315132709446 1. SCO's Current Allegations and What It Wants SCO's allegations have shifted as the case has progressed. Its trade secrets claim, for example, the dominant claim in its original complaint, has been dropped. It is currently asking the court to let it amend its complaint again, apparently to include allegations regarding the use of UNIX code for IBM's POWER platform. That may mean some of the current complaint's allegations might end up dropped as well, but we can't know because their Motion is sealed. However, to date this is what they are alleging in their current complaint against IBM. SCO lists 9 causes of action: * Breach of IBM Software Agreement * Breach of IBM Sublicensing Agreement * Breach of Sequent Software Agreement * Breach of Sequent Sublicensing Agreement * Copyright Infringement * Unfair Competition * Interference with Contract, regarding its customers around the world * Interference with Contract, regarding the Novell/copyright issue, alleging IBM induced Novell to breach the Asset Purchase Agreement between SCO and Novell * Interference with Business Relationships. Relief it is asking for include: * money damages * a permanent injunction requiring IBM to return or destroy all source code and binary copies of the Software Products and/or prohibiting IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source * restitution in an amount measured by the benefits conferred upon IBM by its ongoing improper use of the Software Products, including the full amount IBM receives as a result of its ongoing sales of AIX, including software, services and hardware * a permanent injunction to prohibit IBM from further contributions of the protected Software Products into open source * punitive damages * attorneys' fees and costs.