Fwd: [LeapList] Re: SCO v. IBM ... is this a joke? -- where SCO _may_ have IBM ...
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. -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith@ieee.org> Reply-To: leaplist@lists.leap-cf.org To: leaplist@lists.leap-cf.org Subject: [LeapList]Re: SCO v. IBM ... is this a joke? -- where SCO _may_ have IBM ... Date: 07 Mar 2003 22:31:30 -0500 On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 22:23, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
They aren't a "software" company, they are a "software IP" company.
The only place SCO _may_ have IBM is on Monterey. I'm sure many of you have never heard of it, but I very much followed it and the "fall out" of IBM a few years after it fizzled. Monterey was supposed to be an "unified" UNIX for 64-bit on a variety of platforms. Maybe this is where SCO has a licensing agreement with IBM, and that's why IBM isn't responding yet. IBM's big, they've got money, and SCO might actually have them, and be "in the right" on something there. Actually, Monterey would explain a _lot_ of things. E.g., I have regularly questioned why IBM ported JFS to Linux from OS/2 instead of AIX, as the former lacked a lot of UNIX interfaces that the latter did have. Monterey _might_ have been the reason. So settle in. Linux is fine, but IBM might lose some money to SCO, because SCO _may_ have a case in at least one area. But I don't think $0 of it is IP or technology-related, just business/partnership issues. Intel might be next ... stay tuned! [ From the SCO litigation text ... ] Project Monterey 50. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a new 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for Intel-based processing platforms. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey. 51. Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise to run UNIX on an Intel chip and instead was confined to its Power PC chip. 52. In furtherance of Project Monterey, SCO expended substantial amounts of money and dedicated a significant portion of SCO s development team to completion of the project. 53. Specifically, plaintiff and plaintiff s predecessor provided IBM engineers with valuable information and trade secrets with respect to architecture, schematics, and design of UnixWare and the UNIX Software Code for Intel-based processors. 54. By about May 2001, all technical aspects of Project Monterey had been substantially completed. The only remaining tasks of Project Monterey involved marketing and branding tasks to be performed substantially by IBM. 55. On or about May 2001, IBM notified plaintiff that it refused to proceed with Project Monterey, and that IBM considered Project Monterey to be dead. In fact, in violation of its obligations to SCO, IBM chose to use and appropriate for its own business the proprietary information obtained from SCO. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
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. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon May 29 2006 13:22, suse@rio.vg wrote:
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.
I have done extensive research on this, especially when SCO started all this BS a couple of years ago. One, they keep changing their complaint, or endlessly trying to amend it. Two, this isn't about a product or market share, it's a pump and dump scheme - they're using all the controversy and press to pump up their stock and bank as much as they can before it turns to dust - providing there's no real positive outcome in court for SCO. They have already been on the verge of being delisted twice IIRC. Another thing to consider is that the initial claims made by SCO regarding the Linux Kernel and violating code have gone nowhere - it honestly appears to be Smoke and Mirror (for the purpose of pump and dump of the stocks). Also, considering when SCO was Caldera, they had many Caldera Kernel devs on the Linux Kernal dev team (look up on Google) and the code that SCO whines about was openly and freely submitted by Caldera (now SCO) devs. They have yet to really produce "ANY" real evidence - it's all allegations. What they're really doing is filing injunctions and motions ad nauseum. This is a stalling tactic in order to buy more time to pump and dump. The real thing is that SCO was about to tank on the market. They were about to be delisted and this is when they started all this "IP" crap. It's really about press, the market and trying to squeeze every penny out of a company you can before it goes the way of the Dodo. If by some twist of fate SCO does walk away with something from the courts (and this is highly unlikely), then it's more or less icing on the cake. At this point SCO is finally running out of options. It's "FINALLY" getting to the point where they'll have to put up or shut up (which is what the Linux community has been screaming to happen for over 2 years). To get a better insight into what is likely the real drive behind SCO take a look at who's funding it (Royal Bank of Canada, the Canopy group, license revenue from M$ and Sun, and a host of other "curious" investors, etc). Just MHO, Curtis. - -- Spammers Beware: Tresspassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again! Warning: Individuals throwing objects at the crocodiles will be asked to retrieve them! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEe2ng7CQBg4DqqCwRAkInAJsEwqIkYUZJHQanIZWPSNtjWwEizQCcCHzH LJkadXtqI4Zt0HZhAl2omUc= =hfjl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Curtis Rey wrote:
To get a better insight into what is likely the real drive behind SCO take a look at who's funding it (Royal Bank of Canada, the Canopy group, license revenue from M$ and Sun, and a host of other "curious" investors, etc).
I believe the Royal Bank bailed out, shortly after they bought in. They took a bit of a hit too, IIRC.
On Monday 29 May 2006 17:04, 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.
More relevant to the OT list. Much more.
participants (5)
-
Bryan J. Smith -
Curtis Rey -
James Knott -
suse＠rio.vg -
Vince Littler