decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Tuesday, May 04 2004 @ 11:50 PM EDT

SCO, in answering IBM's 2nd Amended Counterclaims, makes a statement that it had no idea that IBM was investing in Linux during the work on Project Monterey. Is that true?

After looking at media coverage of Project Monterey at the time, I think you'll agree that unless SCO read nothing but the funny papers in the years 1999 and 2000, they had to have known. They certainly could have. Let me show you what I found. But first, let's establish the time frame we are talking about and what SCO is alleging.

Here is what IBM wrote in number 42 of its 2nd Amended Counterclaims:

"42. IBM is a participant in the open-source movement and has made a substantial investment in Linux business efforts over the last 5 years. IBM participates in a broad range of Linux projects that are important to the company and contribute to the open-source community."

Here is SCO's answer to 42, where they make the charge that they were blindsided:

"42. Admits the allegations of Paragraph 42, but alleges that SCO was unaware of IBM's Linux-related investment prior to its formal announcements thereof, and further alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey."

Unaware of IBM's Linux-related activities before and during Project Monterey? Let's see if that is true. The Project Monterey agreement was entered into between the Santa Cruz Operation and IBM in October of 1998. According to SCO's Second Amended Complaint, paragraphs 53-57, IBM told them they considered Project Monterey "dead" in approximately May of 2001. According to their complaint, they list IBM announcements about Linux dated August and December of 2000. So that is our time frame.

Remembering that SCO of today was then Caldera, not oldSCO (Santa Cruz), was Caldera unaware of IBM's investment in Linux? Was oldSCO? Was it a secret plan of IBM's they only learned about after they had already bought the Unix business from oldSCO? Let's take a look at the public record.

From this article about Project Monterey, dated August 9, 1999, note that it says that IBM had investments and an interest in Linux even then:

"IBM also has investments--I mean an interest--in Linux, and it could potentially integrate parts of the highly scalable Extreme architecture into Monterey."

If Caldera didn't know, why didn't they? Here's an article about Project Monterey and IBM in March of 2000:

"IBM Corp. is taking advantage of the rift between Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. to promote Monterey, the company's first Unix for Intel offering.

"IBM's Monterey, an enhanced version of IBM AIX for Intel's IA-64 platform, will go head-to-head against Solaris for Intel IA-64 in the Unix marketplace. Monterey is IBM's first stab at the Wintel space since its ill-fated OS/2 operating system. . . .

"IBM has also announced strong support for Linux and Windows 2000 on Intel's forthcoming platform."

Could that be any clearer? Any less of a secret? In June of 2000, the same thing was mentioned in this report, namely that IBM had plans for Linux:

"IBM is working with developers to make applications portable between 64bit Linux and its next-generation 64bit Unix operating system, codenamed Monterey/64.

"Miles Barel, IBM's program director for AIX and Monterey, said this week that Big Blue is developing interfaces that would provide binary and programming compatibility so that applications developed for 64bit Linux could work on the Monterey platform.

"IBM formed Project Monterey in October 1998 to make its AIX Unix variant source code compatible with the Santa Cruz Operation's Unixware offering before porting it to Intel's IA-64 processor. Big Blue expects to ship Monterey/64 at the same time as Intel releases its 64bit Itanium processor, which is due this autumn. . . .

"Analysts said the commitment would allow IBM to take advantage of the work of Linux developers and put it still further ahead of its competitors in embracing the open source operating system."[emphasis added]

If Caldera had any objections, or Santa Cruz, would that not have been the time to say so? Didn't they and everyone else know about Linux and IBM's plans for it? Could IBM have been more open?

For that matter, did Caldera know in time to avoid buying from oldSCO, if that was going to be a factor? According to Caldera's SEC filing in August of 2000, it was on August 1, 2000 that it made the first of the two-part acquisition from Santa Cruz Operation. SCO's current history page, in which it pretends it is oldSCO back in 1979, but Caldera in 2001, tells us the date they say they, Caldera, completed the acquisition of SCO's Server Software and Professional Services Divisions:

"2001 - Caldera Systems completes the acquisition of SCO's Server Software and Professional Services Divisions, becoming Caldera International (Caldera) and providing the world's largest Linux/UNIX channel"

Yet, as we have seen, as far back as August of 1999, IBM's investment and interest in Linux had already been reported in the media. Did SCO fail to do their due diligence?

By the way, on the subject of what killed Project Monterey, note in this article, dated August 9, 1999, referenced above, it says that the market was shifting, and Linux was already killing SCO's Unix -- and Sun -- then:

"Let's look at the facts. SCO's UnixWare had some low-end success, and it had a good story to tell in the midrange Intel market. But, for all practical purposes, it had been going absolutely nowhere because it was being unequivocally killed by Linux. . . .

"But I wonder how committed companies would be to start upgrading their data centers just for the chance to run the 64-bit Monterey. I mean, 64-bit computing has not been proven yet, except in the Nintendo 64 market. And if companies wanted 64-bit computing, why wouldn't they opt for Solaris, which is on a faster path to high-end Unix? But Sun has problems with Solaris. The company, in fact, is desperate, given its latest actions. It's being attacked in the low-end Intel market by Linux, and it's being threatened at the high end by Monterey, which, of course, isn't ready. But you have to plan ahead.

"How desperate is Sun? You might remember that Sun is now giving away Solaris to universities, whereas it used to charge students an arm and a leg for it. Sun is also toying with the idea of releasing a Linux emulator, which will make Linux apps run on Solaris boxes. In this case, 'toying' is the key word, as the technology, called lxrun, was initially developed by SCO to run Quake. And now, what's this? Sun is begging IBM to preload Solaris on its Netfinity servers. Add it all up, and Sun's Intel presence is all but dead, which is very serious indeed.

"Big question: Who's going to consider Monterey, anyway?"

It certainly does seem like every effort to blend Unix and Linux ends in doom. Companies keep trying to get folks to want it, but they don't. "Who's going to consider Monterey, anyway?" the article asks. Is it not possible that this is what killed Project Monterey? A fatal lack of interest in the market? In May of 2000, this article highlighted on LinuxToday [original] said that Monterey was already doomed, in part because of Linux, so that nobody wanted Monterey:

"IT-Director: Monterey on borrowed time
May 22, 2000, 13 :37 UTC

"Every now and then, industry observers have to stick their necks out and this is one of those occasions. No ifs, no buts - Project Monterey may be nearing its release date, but it will find that it has only a short life span. Why, oh why, I hear you ask, is the flagship OS to be left by the wayside? The answer is simple - Windows 2000 and Linux will make Monterey an irrelevance.

"...Linux has moved from academia to the mainstream, winning mindshare as the commodity operating system that Monterey had designs on becoming. The strength of Linux's position is in the fact that it has been ported not only to IA-64 but also to just about every platform under the sun. . . .

"Ultimately it will be the customer that decides, and it is here that we are already seeing the last nails in Monterey's coffin. According to the Register on Friday last, Fujitsu Siemens already has around 60 customers who are trialling 4-way Itanium servers based on the IA-64 architecture. And what about the operating systems the prospective customers are choosing? 'Most users want Windows 2000, others ask for Linux but hardly anyone is interested in Monterey,' said a source from Fujitsu Siemens."

Whatever killed Project Monterey, I think you would have to agree that anyone could have known about IBM's interests and investments in Linux at least as far back as 1999, during the time Project Monterey was being developed.

UPDATE

A reader, Tom Zak, has just sent me this press release from 1999, in which Caldera seems to know about IBM's interest and involvement with Linux, to say the least:

"CALDERA SYSTEMS AND IBM SIGN AGREEMENT TO SUPPORT OPENLINUX PLATFORM

"OpenLinux Tour, Dedicated Support Resources, and Education Agreement Will Help Resellers Capitalize on High-Growth Linux Market

"Orem, UT — June 22, 1999 — Caldera Systems, Inc. and IBM today announced a joint development, marketing and support relationship to assist resellers in delivering IBMs and Calderas solutions on the OpenLinux operating system. Through this relationship, Caldera is providing IBM with dedicated Linux development and technical support resources and education materials. The two companies are also participating in joint sales and marketing activities to recruit systems integrators, value-added resellers (VARs) and independent software vendors (ISVs) to sell IBMs and Caldera's OpenLinux solutions.

"'Caldera was the first Linux company to create a Linux VAR channel, and we are committed to continuing to offer our resellers robust, business-critical OpenLinux solutions,' said Ransom Love, CEO of Caldera Systems, Inc. 'The proven scalability and reliability of IBM's hardware and software makes them an obvious choice for our partners. That choice is confirmed by the high level of interest we're seeing from resellers in IBM and OpenLinux solutions.'

"Caldera Systems is providing dedicated developers to help IBM port and test select software to OpenLinux, including IBM's DB2* Universal Database; the industry's first Web-ready relational database management system; Lotus Domino**, the leading messaging and collaboration server; WebSphere*, which represents the industry's most complete range of Web application server environments, and IBM SecureWay*, providing integrated directory, connectivity and security between users and applications for e-business in a networked world.

"Caldera will also be providing 24x7 technical support on OpenLinux to assist IBM in supporting its Linux customers.

"IBM Learning Services will collaborate with Caldera in the Linux training arena. Caldera will provide a wide range of Linux educational courses designed to prepare customers, business partners and other attendees to pass Linux Professional Institute (LPI) certification. Caldera's multi-track educational offerings are targeted at four groups: VARs and resellers, software developers, system administrators, and end users.

"'IBM's proven software on the Linux operating system offers our e-business customers one more choice in selecting the platform that best meets their needs,' said Dick Sullivan, vice president of Integrated Solutions Marketing, IBM Software Group. 'As a recognized leader in Linux for Business solutions, Caldera has the experience and market presence to give business partners the ability to capitalize on opportunities in this exciting new space.'

"IBM is sponsoring Caldera's 'OpenLinux Tour' partner recruitment campaign as part of the two companies' joint sales and marketing activities. The 15-city campaign is targeted at system integrators, VARs, and ISVs who want to capitalize on the hardware, software and add-on services opportunities in the rapidly growing Linux marketplace. For more information, see http://www.linuxreseller.com. To learn more about IBM's Linux initiatives, visit http://www.ibm.com/linux.

"'I was very impressed by the OpenLinux tour presentation well-organized with new ideas for Linux business solutions. It's about time that businesses get new technologies and better alternatives to present to their clients,' commented Jose Veras, President, Saver Technology.

"In addition, Caldera Systems is working with IBM Netfinity servers to bring Linux to industry-standard servers with the latest technologies and record-breaking performance. Caldera OpenLinux has been certified by KeyLabs, an independent certification organization, for use on the IBM Netfinity* 3000 and 7000 servers, with additional models in the testing process.

"IBM Netfinity servers offer a reliable foundation for leading Linux-based computing, providing outstanding performance, reliability, manageability and security for core business applications, and have the power and superior scalability to handle the most extensive scientific or technical computing requirements.

"About Caldera Systems

"Caldera Systems, Inc. is the Linux for Business technology leader in designing, developing and marketing Linux-based business solutions including OpenLinux, NetWare for Linux, Linux technical training, certification and support. Caldera Systems can be reached at 888-GO-Linux (888-465-4689) or via E-mail at linux at sco.com. To become an OpenLinux reseller, please visit www.linuxreseller.com. To access the Caldera Systems Web site, please bookmark http://www.sco.com. Caldera Systems, Inc. is a Canopy Group holding under the Ray Noorda/Canopy Group Investment Company. Ray Noorda is the former CEO of Novell, Inc. (NASDAQ:NOVL)"

There is a bit more, but you get the idea. So, what do you think, gang? Was Caldera unaware of IBM's interest in Linux in 1999?

Is the Internet not wonderful? And how do you like that detail about Caldera Systems, Inc. being "a Canopy Group holding under the Ray Noorda/Canopy Group Investment Company" in 1999? I liked the Websphere touch, too. My, my. This story never gets dull, does it? Everyone is pitching in, so do check the comments for more, many more, links to even more evidence.


  


Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda | 332 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:18 AM EDT
Please record all my mistakes here. Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: inode_buddha on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:26 AM EDT
Strictly anecdotal, BUT:
ISTR from that time frame that IBM never said a peep about linux until summer 2000. They then said that they allowed people to use it internally, but they were now "officially" going to invest in it. They also commented some surprise at the number of employees who were already using it, after doing an internal head-count. Their initial investment would be up to $2 Bn. If I can find my paper copies of various trade journals from the time, I will. Linux Journal and Computerworld weekly come immediately to mind.

---
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO assumes...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:28 AM EDT

... that everyone has a short memory and won't remember these events and statements.

Unfortunately for SCO, the UNIX (and Linux) community is made up of people who have fantastic memories, people who still remember how to write assembly language for chips that haven't been made in twenty years, what programs they were working on in 1980, folks who tend to have boxes and boxes of technical journals and trade rags stored away in their basements, etc. SCO figured that something from six years ago was ancient history and forgotton by now. Oops!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:34 AM EDT
How truly desperate you have to be to try to pull a number like this! Groklaw is
watching, surely attorneys from IBM are watching. Yet they bother to try to
sneak something by that is so easy to verify.

Well I've noticed that the criminal mind does not always succeed even at easy
tasks, as it ultimately wants to get nailed.

And they sure picked a big enough executioner to get the job done right. I
wonder who else will line up with their head wanting to get it chopped off? We
already got the new CFO who looks prime for the taking. Who's next?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The mystical ABI file link??
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:38 AM EDT
"Miles Barel, IBM's program director for AIX and Monterey, said this week
that Big Blue is developing interfaces that would provide binary and programming
compatibility so that applications developed for 64bit Linux could work on the
Monterey platform."

So Monterey had been actively rewrtiten to have a common ABI/API with Linux????

So then the Monterey code has lines in ABI files that are similar to Linux.
Perhaps some lines are even identical because no sane person would consider a
bunch of DEF statements to be copyright infringement.

Darl pays his researchers money to find similarities between the UNIX code they
have and Linux code... and lo and behold there are similarities, but they got
there in the opposite direction that Darl claims!

After Darl showing the BSDi packet filter as an example of obfuscated code in
Linux, this sort of thing sounds exactly like his sort of stupidity.



[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: D. on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:40 AM EDT
My, My, My.

Yet one more mistatement. Who would have suspected?

What killed Project Monterey? Many things, that it is why Santa Cruz sold the
"Unix Busisness". Two of them were the Itanic and the Linux IA64 Port
code named "Projcet Trillium".

For more information on Trillium see this press release from one of the
participants:

http://www.caldera.com/company/press/19991213trillian.html

Ahyup, our friends who have identity problems.

D.

---
"Litigation is a machine which you go into as a pig and come out as a sausage.”

-- Ambrose Bierce (attrib.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Itanium or Itanic?
Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:45 AM EDT
There have been a number of article coming out for some time pointing out that
Intel's Itanium hasn't been the "world beater" Intel had hoped. They
have sold some but the price/capability point doesn't seem to be right. People
would rather have the scalability and redundancy of either a blade server or a
collection individual systems with some sort of load ballancing for the same
amount of money. Doesn't say they haven't sold any but I wonder if Intel is
breaking even and I wonder what SC/IBM would have had to charge for
"Monterey" to recoup their costs.

---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The original article quoted by LinuxToday
Authored by: IMANAL on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:51 AM EDT
The original article quoted by
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-05-22-002-06-PS

is here
http://www.it-director.com/article.php?articleid=827

It contains some more text than the quote by LinuxToday

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:55 AM EDT
From The end of the line for Unix? from April 8, 2000:

The move follows a crash in SCO's share price from a high of around $34 at the end of last year to only around $3 now, with analysts claiming that the company has been hit by the rapid growth of the Linux open source operating system (OS) in the commercial sector. Both compete in the Unix-on-Intel space.

...

Phil Payne, an independent analyst, said: "This implies that Monterey is being parked and merged into Trillian. It's another nail in the Monterey coffin. IBM will retain the AIX branding, but Monterey is perceived as a proprietary OS and the public wants Linux, which it sees as open. It's about mind share and public perception."

"Why does IBM need another fringe proprietary OS? Monterey faces the same application development problems as IBM did with OS/2 and can IBM succeed in that game? It hasn't in the past," he added.

Although IBM was unavailable for comment, this would appear to explain why the company - the obvious candidate to purchase SCO - chose not to do so. But what does Caldera have to gain from the purchase, apart from taking on its shoulders the prestigious role as the owner of Unix and gaining a new Unix revenue stream?

Love hinted at the company's motivation during the conference call. "The Linux business is not about lack of applications now, although we are addressing this with the acquisition. It's about expertise and we've got that now via SCO's professional services group," he said.

"Companies like a trusted partner to deploy systems in a more commercial, pervasive manner and that is now resolved. We'll bring an element of business vitality unparalleled in this segment. No other company can address high availability like us in this space," he added.

IDC's Lemon agreed. "This was not an obvious acquisition for Caldera to make, but it appears to be trying to bulk up its services with SCO. The whole OS thing is evolving very fast. At the high end, there's the big Risc vendors and Microsoft is now starting to get there too, while at the low end, it's a very low margin business so the only way to play it is to get into services," he said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Come On!
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:55 AM EDT
How about the OSDL itself!? IBM was a co-founder! The purpose of OSDL was "to speed the development and testing of enterprise-class Linux systems".
I found this article dated August 2000, confirming the fact. That is more than 6 months prior to completion of the SCO-Caldera agreement!
Liars they are!

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO knew in June 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:56 AM EDT
Just sent this to PJ:

Look at this Calderra press release from June 22, 1999
http://www.caldera.com/company/press/19990622ibm.html

They announce that Cladera is working in tandem with IBM to support Linux.

Gosh Darl is stupid. They should scrub their webservers before lying in their
court filings!

Tom Z.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM announced Linux involvement months before Caldera purchase.
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:01 AM EDT
Linux Kernel Archives, February 10, 2000
IBM releases its journaled filesystem. At LinuxWorld IBM announced that it was making its Journaled File System (JFS) available to the Linux community. Code is available now, and has been released under the GPL. It is certainly an important contribution.

Caldera bought the Unix stuff from SCO August 2, 2000!

So IBM made an annoncement at Linuxworld that it was going to commit its powerful, proprietary file system to Linux and one of the worlds largest Linux companies didn't know that IBM had an investment in Linux over six months later?

I think this counts as IBM fully disclosing "to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux during Project Monterey," even if you use "SCO" for Caldera or OldSCO (as Darl likes to do interchangably).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT
Surfing your links a little more I found this one:

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-09-30-008-04-PS
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/09/30/is_monterey_unixs_revenge/

Dated Sep 30, 1999:

"IBM currently offers three Unix systems, AIX, SCO, and Linux, and the
company's vision is of a triangle with Linux at the base, running on Netfinity
servers and mostly used for file and print, mail and collaboration. The second
layer is AIX + RS/6000 (or UnixWare + Netfinity) being used typically for
transactions such as retail and branch banking."

[ Reply to This | # ]

More evidence
Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:23 AM EDT
The SCO-Caldera deal is investigated in detail in this article, dated Aug 4, 2000 (3 days after the deal was announced).
The article contains inverviews with all the key players, e.g. Ransom Love (then CEO of Caldera), Doug Michels (then CEO of oldSCO).
The article analyzes the consequences of the deal and what this will mean for Project Monterey. Seems like the deal itself helped to kill Monterey!
Enjoy the following quotes from the article:
"SCO has been very exposed to Linux attacks and it's been hit worse by the Linux phenomenon than anyone else. The problem is that the high end of the market is going to 64bit and the low end is going to Linux....Sales of the firm's legacy Unix OS, which is now in maintenance, amounted to $11.1m in the third fiscal quarter of 2000." I.e. SCO was loosing to Linux already at the time or the deal. newSCO should have known!

Regarding Monterey:
Love appeared to confirm his commitment to the environment during the conference call. "Monterey will continue, but we'll put Linux management and compatibility in the layers above and combine our efforts with the IA64 Linux work. We have a legal obligation to IBM with Monterey and we intend to move it forward aggressively," he said.
Does that sound like "We really want Monterey" or "We do Monterey as well, because we have to"?

On new SCO "not knowing about IBMs comittment to Linux", add the following to the pile of evidence against them:
"The development of a 64bit version of Linux is taking place under the auspices of Project Trillian, an industry group which includes IBM, Red Hat, VA Linux and Caldera in its line up of members."

Finally, here is a prediction on the future of Monterey (from the same article):
Phil Payne, an independent analyst, said: "This implies that Monterey is being parked and merged into Trillian. It's another nail in the Monterey coffin. IBM will retain the AIX branding, but Monterey is perceived as a proprietary OS and the public wants Linux, which it sees as open. It's about mind share and public perception." "Why does IBM need another fringe proprietary OS? Monterey faces the same application development problems as IBM did with OS/2 and can IBM succeed in that game? It hasn't in the past," he added.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:47 AM EDT
PJ, I can't help wondering if IBM needs to bother to do any research or do they
just follow Groklaw. It strikes me that you are saving them a large deal of
work.

I just hope that when this fiaSCO is all over IBM show due recognition to you,
to your supporters and to your site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From IBM's LTC: IBM Linux Timeline back to Oct 98
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:52 AM EDT
Here's a document showing IBM's Linux timeline back to October 1998:

http://lc.linux.or.jp/lc2001/papers/keynote-IBM.pdf

The original PDF is for the Keynote from Linux Conference 2001 in Japan. IBM
and Caldera were both sponsors.

From the document:
1998: IBM joins Apache foundation, IBM open sources Jikes compiler
Oct 98: IBM Corporate Task Force kickoff to recommend Linux Strategy
Nov 98: DB2 for Linux Beta available for free download
Jan 99: IBM adopts aggressive strategy recommendation from task force
Mar 99: first IBM Linux announcements @ LinuxWorldExpo in San Jose
Jun 99: Internal LTC website online, perf and web developers on board, LTC ~3
people
Sep 99: Linux Summit I (Austin, USA)
Oct 99: NW/TR dev onboard for PCI TR LanStreamer adapter DD
Dec 99: Linux/390 patches submitted, JFS team onboard, LTC ~10 people
Feb 00: External LTC website online, debut of JFS project
Jun 00: Linux Summit II (Boeblingen, Germany), LTC ~20 headcount
Fall 00: Expansion of mission and team, Linux Summit III
Dec 00: Gerstner: "...$1 Billion investment in Linux..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Linux super computer - March 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:54 AM EDT
What was that about IBM keeping their Linux activities secret?

What was that about Linux being unable to scale prior to IBM's contributions to
Linux 2.4 and later?



http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99039.ecsuperlinux.htm

"IBM demonstrates Linux servers matching supercomputer speeds"

... "running an off-the-shelf copy of Linux matched the scalability and
performance of a Cray supercomputer"

...

"We got the Linux by walking to the local store where we bought a copy of
the book Linux Unleashed for $39.95, and in the back of the book was a copy of
Red Hat Linux," Figgatt said. "Part of the message here is we just
took Linux off the shelf -- well, Linux out of the book -- and were able to do
some very interesting clustering with it."

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the significance of this?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:54 AM EDT
"... IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey."
It seems to me that SCO is still half right in this statement - that IBM never revealed anything before Project Monterey started. Isn't that point more important here since SCO is trying to argue that IBM lured them into starting the project in order to steal from them?

Maybe I'm missing something here. Would someone please tell me what's the significance of this particular argument (about when IBM's interest in Linux began) with respect to the SCO's claims?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The wrecked car argument.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:14 AM EDT
It is pretty obvious that Caldera knew before buying
oldSCO's Unix-business (whatever that means) that IBM
was investing in Linux. But, does this matter? Can SCOX put themselves in
whoever's shoes suit the argument best and claim they didn't know "as
SCO" at that time?

Other question: If I buy a car wreck, do I become the successor in interest of
the former car owner, and can I sue the other parties involved in the accident
that wrecked the car? I mean, just because I buy the wreck?? At a fair wreck
price???

That seems pretty much what SCOX is doing here when arguing about Monterey and
what Caldera successfully did with Novell-DOS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO was Monterey, not Caldera/newSCO
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:28 AM EDT
Old article at
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-229622.html
with the news about IBM joining the Trillian/IA-64 with Caldera in August 1999.

Also contains the following comment:

"IBM's backing of Linux on IA-64 is interesting in light of Big Blue's
support of Monterey, a plan to merge its own AIX flavor of Unix with Santa Cruz
Operation's UnixWare, with a dash of Sequent's version of Unix thrown in for
good measure."

So, IBM partnered Caldera in Trillian Linux/IA-64 at the same time IBM was
working with oldSCO on Monterey. Now Caldera/newSCO is pretending to be oldSCO
and conveniently forgetting their Caldera history.

Wouldn't newSCO have a better chance sueing oldSCO for the 5 billion? Oh,
wait...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trillian Project included Caldera, IBM, Intel, RedHat, SGI, etc
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:31 AM EDT
Slides (in a PDF) from Intel Developer Forum Feb 16, 2000
State:

Cooperative effort to deliver the best code – Similar to classic Linux model – Many players contributing technology and resources – Caldera, CERN, HP, IBM, Intel, Red Hat, SGI, SuSE, TurboLinux, and VA Linux Systems.

See: IA-64 Linux Kernel -slides

Above from Slide number three.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:36 AM EDT
December 1999 RedHat Press release about Trillian Project newest members.
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/1999/press_trillian.html
December 13, 1999 — The Trillian Project, an industry initiative to port the
Linux operating system to Intel's forthcoming IA-64 server and workstation
architecture, announced today that the four leading Linux distributors —
Caldera, Red Hat, SuSE and TurboLinux — have officially joined the initiative.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:47 AM EDT
Forget trade journals. Here it is in CNN, Oct 12, 1999, "Big Blue is the
hardware vendor most aggressively offering Linux on its servers, says Stacey
Quandt, an analyst at Giga Information Group,"
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9910/12/ibm.linux.idg/
If I could find that news item in 3 minutes in 2004, Caldera shudda been able to
find it when it was on the headlines in 1999.

Wladawsky-Berger, head of the "LinuxGroup" at IBM, announcing, Feb 3,
2000, IBM's big commitment to Linux:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000203S0002

And the punchline: IBM had already licensed software TO the Caldera Linux
distribution as of Jan 31, 2000. (See the second to last paragraph) Assume it
took the lawyers a coupla months to work out the details - That means that
Caldera had direct, straight-from-the-horse's-mouth knowledge that IBM was
moving in the Linux arena by not later than October or November 1999.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5109


AdultSupervision (search and rescue underway for lost password).

[ Reply to This | # ]

a monterey tidbit
Authored by: codswallop on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 04:06 AM EDT
This is SCO claims paragraph 57:

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.”

IBM denied this paragraph without any qualification in its response. I think SCO
is going to be really taken apart by IBM on the Monterey issue. After all, IBM
probably has a lot more documents about the history of Monterey than SCO does,
as well as every public statement Ransome Love ever made on the subject, and he
made plenty. They can't really expect to slip one past IBM on this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Predating evidence?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 04:55 AM EDT
The best evidence would be to find press statements noting active involvement of
IBM with developing Linux sourcecode predating the Monterey-agreement. Could
only find these two, which are not quite of "evidence" standard but
may be a good starting point for further investigation.

According to this link, IBM was actively supporting their applications on Linux
and considering becoming a support provider for Linux back in 1998 (this could
predate the Monterey agreement!): http://lwn.net/1999/features/1998timeline/

Also, according to this slashdot post, IBM was actively deploying Linux on their
PowerPC hardware as far back as february 1999, could this mean IBM helped
develop the PowerPC port of Linux?:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/02/07/1821224.shtml

Perhaps somebody can check the Linux CVS to see if any sourcecode commits were
made by IBM prior to the Monterey-agreement (=before october 1998), possibly in
sourcefiles which Caldera employees also worked on? Perhaps Linux mailing list
conversations from IBM employees, preferably with Caldera developers prior to
the agreement?

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBMs "Data Explorer" donation
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 05:20 AM EDT
IBM also released other software into the open source (also for Linux) during that timeframe that could not have been done unnoticed. For example there is the program "Open DX" ("Data Explorer") out there that was donated by IBM on May 26, 1999:
[..] Data Explorer runs on systems ranging from UNIX**-based
supercomputers and workstations to PC's and servers running Microsoft Windows**
or Linux.** Data Explorer and its source code will be available for download
from the Deep Computing Institute Web site at
www.research.ibm.com/dci/software.html on May 26. [..]
A short history of Open DX can be found on the community homepage here.

Data Explorer is a program for visualisation of scientific data usually aquired from simulation software that runs on high performance supercomputers, e. g. numerical calculations like fluid flow analysis. Therefor this heavyweight software is most useful for aerospace and automotive companies.

Also not operating system related this shows IBMs attitude towards Open Source back in 1999.

regards, Joerg (dl1bku_at_gmx.de)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 06:01 AM EDT
SCOG engaged in identity theft when it changed its name from Caldera, with the
express purpose of appropriating for itself Old SCO's history and legitimizing
its own warped - to say the least, view of Old SCO's history.

I expect, thanks to PJ's digging, that SCOG will be redrafting the incredible
shrinking document known as its complaint for the fourth time in the near
future.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting CV
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 06:15 AM EDT
Link

If that was my CV, I'd be checking my mail every day for an IBM Subpoena :(

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT SCO lays of developers
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 06:21 AM EDT
Here on ZDnet by Stephen Shankland

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 07:30 AM EDT
Just another lie.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One BILLyun dollars!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT
I, unfortunately, can't remember what happened yesterday relative to what happened last week.

However, I do remember it a a significant moment when IBM first announced that it was investing a billion dollars in Linux for the coming year.

Anybody have the date on THAT?

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: interview with Brian Behlendorf
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 08:01 AM EDT
Interview

Including the great quote:

"I suspect the claims that the GPL "violates the U.S. Constitution" will get recorded in some historical analysis of corporate Tourette's syndrome."

Brian Behlendorf co-founded the Apache Web Server Project

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 08:09 AM EDT
Ok, now I'm really confused. Can someone help me here. I mean this last
statement by SCO is glaringly obviously a lie. Isn't it like a criminal offense
to lie before a court? I mean aren't these arguments they are making considered
under oath? How can the judge allow this to happen? Why aren't these guys under
investigation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another evidence from Oct 1998
Authored by: Marc Duflot on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 08:20 AM EDT
Server Makers Cast An Eye Toward Linux
By Carmen Nobel, PC Week Online
October 5, 1998 9:00 AM ET

Gateway is not alone in its plans for Linux on servers. IBM and Dell Computer Corp. have installed Linux for several clients on a custom basis. Officials at both companies said that if enough customers want it, they'll likely ship Linux servers in bulk.

link on archive.org

This article was linked to the main page of www.calderasystems.com. See again archive.org .

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What Caldera Knew
Authored by: mud_guppy on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 08:22 AM EDT
So looking through web archive, I found these links:
2000 - IBM has alliance with Caldera Systems
1999 - Calder has on thier website that IBM launchs linux lineup
I am sure there is more. That was just a glance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Two Tings Killed Project Monterey
Authored by: Ruidh on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 08:30 AM EDT
The Linux port to IA-86 was released coincedent with the chip and without the
assistance of IBM. It was a high quality piece of software because most of the
work necessary to make Linux 64-bit capable had already been done and because
Linus plans ahead.

The second stake troug Monteray's heart was the chip itself. It was a dog. It
performed slower than a similarly clocked P III. To date, very few IA-64s have
been sold. Only people with a desperate need for a 64-bit address space even
bother with it.

IBM didn't kill Project Monteray, it, like an ER doctor, just noted the time of
death -- PM was stillborn.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: raybellis on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 08:41 AM EDT

TSG now

"...alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey."
So, which SCO was that then? Prior to the Caldera purchase the current SCO wasn't a party to Project Monterey.

In the second amended complaint (para 56) they also allege:

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.”
When precisely did the purchase complete? As mentioned elsewhere, TSG's website just says 2001.

It makes me wonder whether the "plaintiff" that IBM notified was in fact Santa Cruz Operation and not TSG.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - Knew vs "knew"
Authored by: Flyer on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 09:08 AM EDT
In most of the teaming arrangements/joint projects, &c., I have worked on,
there has been a paragraph buried deep in the agreement that says, to the
effect, "Company A will not make any press release, announcement, <and
so on>.... regarding this project without notifying Company B <insert time
limits/methods/approval rights/&c>."

SCO may be stretching the definition of "knew", but in this game of
pre-trial tennis, they are denying they were told (officially/properly) and thus
may well be forcing IBM to rebut and find the letter/message/memo that informed
them of these press releases, or other documentation to prove it.

If these press releases brought up by the bright minds and good memories on
Groklaw do show up as part of the litigation, we will get to watch how a press
release is valid in their case v. Novell, and has no bearing v. IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Once again, NewSCO claims to be OldSCO
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 09:27 AM EDT
So it seems they were party to the Monterrey Project. How do they keep this all
straight?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: DaveF on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 09:52 AM EDT
Interesting quote from SCOG's complaint:
"SCO ... alleges that IBM secretly and improperly failed to disclose"
So, let's drop the "and improperly", just for a sec, and we're left with
"SCO ... alleges that IBM secretly failed to disclose"
As far as my understanding of the English language extends, the statement by SCO is complete nonsense and cannot be parsed in English. Did IBM secretly fail to disclose and what does that mean? How does one secretly fail at something? It appears they mean to say that IBM failed to disclose but adding the word "secretly" in there, in my mind, renders the entire statement meaningless. Maybe they mean that "IBM kept secret and failed to disclose". If that's what they mean, then, why didn't they say that? Is this just an attempt by SCOG to make meaningless statements that can then, later, be more easily twisted and denied with "Well, what we meant when we said that was... Now, I am a native speaker of English but I'm not from Utah. Perhaps someone can enlighten me on how one is supposed to parse this statement in its entirety?

---
Imbibio, ergo sum

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: AntiFUD on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 10:05 AM EDT
Unfortunately there is no law, AFAIK, anywhere in the world, that requires
anyone to 'say what they mean AND mean what they say'.

On the plus side, if everyone was to be held to such a law, then there would be
no discussion and no reason for Groklaw either.

Oh, I know that you will think that in court, the witnesses and the lawyers, and
their submissions to the court, are required to 'tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth', but in my experience nothing could be
further from the truth. People make statements that they consider, as their
firmly held 'opinion', to be the truth as they see it. The fact that the rest
of the world does not agree with that opinion does not 'on the face of it' make
such statement a lie. What their opposition has to do, to prove 'perjury', is
to prove that the person making the statement knew (or perhaps should have
known) that the statement, when made, was false. This is where Groklaw and its
contributors and researchers really shine. And having been a reader for about a
month now, I think that Groklaw is having an amazing effect on the filings made
by SCO. Their lawyers, may initially, have been justified in believing that
their client's statements were true at the time of making any of the original
filings, but as we have seen: as Groklaw unearths (or should that be unWebs) the
real truth behind each and every false allegation, the lawyers, as officers of
the court, are required to retract any unfounded or false allegations.

As in the case in this 'story', the question of whether or not IBM was under any
obligation to tell SCOnew anything is obviously in dispute, but to my mind, not
really relevant. Whether, SCOnew (or Caldera, as it started out) has or ever
had any 'interest' in Project Monterey, again appears IMO to be totally
irrelevant to their claims against IBM. Likewise, IBM's decision to terminate
their 'investment' in Monterey, has, IMO, no bearing on SCO's remaining claims,
and their involvement (both parties) only goes to argue against their
allegations in 42. [And there was me thinking all along that 42 was the meaning
of life, the universe and everything - obviously I must have been mistaken!]

IANAL - so please correct me if I am wrong.
I do however hold that Terrorists should never get to court ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

newSCO==Darl & Co
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 10:28 AM EDT
i think that newSCO's position is based on the fact that today, SCO==Darl &

Co, and back in 1999-2000, Darl himself wasn't aware of IBM's involvement
with Linux, because he was in Japan, working for Novell...

[ Reply to This | # ]

One more smoking suitcase
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 10:33 AM EDT
Been waiting for this. I did not yet expect to see it however. I have been
half-expecting that some of the alleged code contributions to Linux were in fact
contributed by Caldera. I expected that eventually these would be disclosed to
IBM during discovery, but not publicly released.

From this press release, it appears now that every last single line of code that
may contain any TSG-Unix derivative content was intentionally and purposely
added to Linux by TSG/Caldera. Let me restate so that this is clear: when
TSG/Caldera released their Linux distributions, including my copy of
CalderaLite, they knew the sources of all the code, and intended that the code
be released under the GPL. This was not an accidental release of code because
TSG/Caldera did not realize their own code was in their Linux distributions.

It is not material that some of these contributions were jointly made with IBM,
and some were not.

Organizational stupidity is not a good excuse here. This is a lawsuit.
Statements and claims are required to be made in good faith. Everyone other
than the party (i.e. IBM, the judge, and the public) should be able to rely on a
party's due diligence in investigating claims before making them. Initial
pleadings get a wide latitude because they are often prepared in partial
ignorance and because there is time to correct them once the facts come out.
This late in this suit is a poor time to make this magnitude of a blunder.

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's A Blatant Lie
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 10:37 AM EDT
Simultaneous to Project Monterey Caldera and IBM were working on IA-64 Linux
(later renamed the Trillian Project):
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=113&mode=print
It's beyond laughable that the Santa Cruz Operation didn't know about this
either.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 10:55 AM EDT
I just saw this SCO did some minor layoffs of personnel.
How many and who was laid off?

link http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1584520,00.asp

ken king

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT
Just a side not.... IBM was a gold sponsor and in attendance of Red Hat's Linux
Expo clear back in May of 1999, an Expo that was also attended by Caldera (and
if I recall correctly, their booths were caddy corner from each other). I've not
searched out the press releases as of yet for this, but I think that would be a
pretty good indicator that IBM had a good sized interest in Linux prior to May
of 1999, and funny that Caldera/SCO seems to have amnesia of this event.

[ Reply to This | # ]

You know....
Authored by: RLP on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT
The more I look at these threads, the sillier this whole thing seems. It appears
to me (and IANAL) that without a bill of sale showing what they at least thought
they bought from Santa Cruz SCOX has no standing to sue anyone over UNIX
contracts (between the users and Old SCO, AT&T or Novell) or copyrights (if
they are even valid) regardless of whatever Novell sold Old SCO, what anyone put
into Linux or anything that may have been done with libraries in the privacy of
someones own data center. Until they produce that, they are successors to
nothing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - SCO layoffs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 11:26 AM EDT
It's been announced the SCO has laid of some
of its personnel (including developers).

I think groklaw should invite one of the newly
unemployed to give us the scoop on what it's
like to be at SCO and their take on the litigation
business.

Maybe all employees have had to sign NDAs, but
even that would be interesting info.

Any one at SCO feel a little freer to comment
this morning?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pretzel logic
Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 11:39 AM EDT
This is nuts.

I can't see how Caldera could claim ignorance of IBM's interest in Linux.
Caldera was a Linux developer and distributor, and they worked with IBM on
Trillium. They surely knew about IBM contributing JFS to Linux well in advance
of the oldSCO/NewSCO deal.

The only way Caldera/NewSCO can claim ignorance is by putting on the hat of
their predecessor-in-interest OldSCO. They might be able to make a case that
OldSCO was unaware of IBM's Linux involvement.

But wait, OldSCO was able to sell the allegedly-damaged Unix goods, so how was
OldSCO harmed by their ignorance? If they had known, should they have charged a
lesser price? Was OldSCO harmed by getting more money than they should have?

If there was harm, it would have to be claimed by NewSCO, but NewSCO knew in
advance that IBM was interested in Linux when they cut the deal with OldSCO.
They also knew about IBM's contribution of JFS to Linux, which happened long
before the OldSCO/NewSCO deal.

The "harm" that NewSCO is claiming appears to be a completly synthetic
artifact of NewSCO playing the "SCO" identity shell game.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Occam's razor time
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT
There's a lot of "they're lying; how could they not know" comments
here. Actually, I think it's a combo of two factors:

1. TSCOG record keeping is pretty lousy, going back as far as the Novell deal,
and everything since. This isn't surprising with the number of mergers,
transfers, and so on. There's probably filing cabinets full of old
Tarantella/SCO/Cadera 1 2 3 stuff stuck somewhere, but nobody's really had the
time or need to go into it (till discovery).

2. Darl et al up at the top don't have the whole-hearted support of the rank and
file in this scam.

Basically, the executives are probably getting only exactly what they ask for,
if it still exists, and can be easily found. Plus, things like the Anderer memo
popping up suggest some internal disagreement with the current business model
(sue everyone you can think of and say anything that pops into your head).

So, the realistic answer to most of this is incompetence by Darl, Chris, Kevin,
aggravated by Darl's rush to make his mark (dishonestly) early on.

On the upside these execs are so stupid that even Batstar, Enderle and DiDiot
are starting to notice.


[ Reply to This | # ]

A bit OT but important news
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:02 PM EDT
Microsoft has just announced that they are giving up on the Pallandium aka "Next-Generation Secure Computing Base" project to control computers at the hardware level. Congratulations to every body that exposed this project to the light of day. But its not all going away.
    "We're evaluating how these NGSCB capabilities should be integrated into Longhorn, but we don't know exactly how it'll be manifested. A lot of decisions have yet to be made," said Mario Juarez, product manager in Microsoft's Security and Technology Business Unit. "We're going to come out later this year with a complete story."

Why did they give up? According to them, neither customers nor developers were interested.

    Juarez said the project is being shelved because customers and ISV partners didn't want to rewrite their applications using the NGSCB API set.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Way to prove this: GCC logs.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:18 PM EDT
IBM's been making improvements to GCC for years now - someone more
competent could run a script across the changelogs etc.

I assume something similar happens with the other parts. One of the other
aspects of 'open'. :D

[ Reply to This | # ]

What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- IBM shipping linux in late 1998
Authored by: AMc on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:20 PM EDT
PJ's article jogged my memory about a visit from an IBM rep back in late 1998.
An emeritus wanted to replace an older IBM with something new running Redhat 6.
The campus sales rep went to great measures to talk up their linux work.

So I did a little digging. IBM has been selling linux (usually in the form of
Redhat) since around 1998. It's listed as a certified OS on both their X-series
and M-series machines. According to their OS table, it was certified along with
NT4, Win 2k, Netware 4.2 & 5.1, and Unixware 7.1.1. Based on release dates
and preshipping testing, this would have meant that IBM could have been testing
and developing drivers as early as late 1997.

http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/eserver/xseries/serverguide/compatnos.html

That IBM was shipping linux as an option is also born out by their Bulletins
archive, which catalogs security and update information for shipping and
supported software/hardware. The archive shows entries for Redhat 6 during
1999.

http://www-1.ibm.com/services/continuity/recover1.nsf/mss/OAR-1999

Further doubt on SCO's claims is cast by the IBM ServeRAID family of drivers.
Release cycle 3.50.20 to 3.60.21 add the first support for a number of things:

- Active hotplug support for NT 4
- First Windows 2000 series driver
- Netware 5 support
- A new driver for Redhat Linux 6.0

Based on release dates, that could put the supported ServeRAID linux driver in
the 1997-98 development timeframe. Starting with the 3.60.21 to 4.0.0 release
cycle, the driver is certified for Redhat Linux 6.1 AND OpenServer 5.05
support.

http://www-307.ibm.com/pc/support/site.wss/document.do?lndocid=MIGR-4QDMES

I'd wager that if anyone has a map or pictures of the IBM booth at Comdex in
1998, you'd find UnixWare/OpenServer on a pedestel right next to one with a
Redhat machine on it. A product brochure for any of the hardware IBM sold circa
1997-99 would list both Redhat and OpenServer. Likely so would have Caldera's
own press release/product fliers. I'd wager a search of the linux dev's lists
would find some of the Caldera and IBM dev's discussing support for the hardware
as OpenServer seemed to have several critical problems early on.

SCOG either has severe internal communications issues, or they are working on a
complete revisionist history of the *nix on x86 world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Project Monterey - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:36 PM EDT
"Is the Internet not wonderful?"

SCO, you can run all you want to, but there's no place you can hide.

---
What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Relevance - What SCO Knew and When It Knew It -- Or Coulda, Shoulda
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:43 PM EDT
Why is the fact the SCO didn't know what IBM was doing even relevant?

Clearly a company as large and diverse as IBM could have several potentially
competing intitatives going at once. SCO probably even had several projects
going at that time.

It is only relevant if IBM really was trying to hide it, but if they were trying
to hide their Linux involvement they were doing a very poor job.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ransom Love's Linuxworld 2000 Keynote Speech
Authored by: NZheretic on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:44 PM EDT
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast.

In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote (44:30 minutes into the videostream), Love was asked about the possible confict over Monterey and Linux AI-64
( A mp3 capture of the transcribed portion )

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the IA-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

O.T. Longhorn (tm) Must wait; No current hardware to support it :-) (nt)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 12:47 PM EDT
jog

[ Reply to This | # ]

monterey != first unix on Intel
Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:04 PM EDT

There is a factual error in one of the quoted articles:

IBM Corp. is taking advantage of the rift between Intel Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. to promote Monterey, the company's first Unix for Intel offering. [emhasis mine]

IBM had an AIX for intel as early as 1992, see this link. A quote:

IBM AIX PS/2 Operating System Version 1.3

NUMBER 
  292-528
DATE      920921
CATEGORY  WS00, WS20, WS25
TYPE     
Programming

TITLE     IBM AIX PS/2 OPERATING SYSTEM VERSION 1.3 AND RELATED
LICENSED
          PROGRAMS

ABSTRACT
IBM reaffirms its commitment to open
systems by announcing AIX (R) PS/2 (R) Version 1.3, its entry level member of
the AIX family.

AIX PS/2 Operating System Version 1.3 and associated licensed
programs provide full hardware support and exploitation for all models of PS/2
system units based on the 32-bit Intel (1) 386sx-16MHz up through the Intel
486DX2-66MHz, utilizing Micro Channel (R) or AT (R)-Bus architectures. AIX PS/2
Operating System Version 1.3 offers support for selected OEM hardware
configurations, certifying them on a per-bid basis.

---
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Point by Point
Authored by: dracoverdi on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 01:33 PM EDT
What would be nice for things like this would be a sort side-by-side refutaion
of each of SCO's points. Of course, a lot of times SCO is wrong for many -
sometimes nested - reasons, but a "Why SCO is Wrong" page would be an
almost irresistable resource. Groklaw already provides this for people who've
been following the story - it is like a sort of text based web comic - but when
I refer friends here they have trouble catching up fast enough to enjoy the
current episode.

---
Pizza is an acceptable breakfast.
Just think of it as a large pepperoni danish

[ Reply to This | # ]

Baffle Them With Bull
Authored by: Eeyore on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT

"alleges that SCO was unaware of IBM's Linux-related investment prior to its formal announcements... with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey."

Errrr.... considering that SCO (as they exist today) did not exist before Project Monterey this is probably a marginally true if totally irrelevant statement.

I guess if SCO can't use logic then "baffle them with bull" is as good a position as they can hope for.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Clarifing their positions?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:01 PM EDT
With all of the ammended filings counter claims and arguments, its very
difficult to follow what SCO is actually saying.

I'm sure the judge and the IBM team are as confused and some of the rest of us.

What are the chances that the judge will call on the parties to restate their
cases, including all of the current claims and state what specific actions the
other party is alleged to have taken which were improper?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is silliness S.O.P. in Utah courts?
Authored by: AllParadox on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 03:56 PM EDT
The more I look at these threads, the sillier this whole thing seems (plagarized
from an earlier post. It was appropriate.)

P.J. has been very patient with my rants in support of judges and courtroom
procedures, but I have my limits. I am embarassed for the legal profession,
that this appears to be routine conduct, standard-operating-procedure.

This is not an ordinary case. Every single filing in this case is dissected to
a degree that is not known elsewhere, even in law schools. Nerds all over the
world are following every step of this process, with a Groklaw microscope. Most
of us are not lawyers. However, we all have friends and neighbors that are
practicing attorneys. We are discussing the Groklaw-exposed antics with our
lawyer friends.

Worldwide, the reputation for practitioners of law in Utah is being rapidly
eroded.

I never had an occasion to appear in a Utah courtroom, so I cannot speak from
experience.

Is there anyone that practices law in Utah reading Groklaw?

If so, would you please answer this question? Is the standard of practice in
Utah courts typically as silly as the things that we have seen posted in
Groklaw?

---
All is paradox: I no longer practice law, so this is just another layman's
opinion. For a Real Legal Opinion, buy one from a licensed Attorney

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell developing Linux in 1994?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 05:29 PM EDT
Did anybody catch this article on Slashdot:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tgmCp43Dr.51w%40netcom.com

If Novell (and Noorda) thought developing Linux back when they owned UNIX made
good business sense, then how can a "successor in interest" (if they
are) claim otherwise? Also, if Novell was doing both UNIX and Linux work in
1994, how can TSG be sure of anything with regards to "their" code?

By the way, if memory serves, I believe the "off-site warehouse" where
this Linux development was happening eventually became Caldera when Ray Noorda
left Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO in twilight zone!
Authored by: Fredric on Wednesday, May 05 2004 @ 05:50 PM EDT
The answer from SCO seems downright silly to me.

Look at the part: ".....but alleges that SCO was unaware...."

How to the know that "SCO was unaware"? How does a corporation, a
legal entity, "know" anything at all? It is possibly that the
employees and owners where unaware but that is not really the point, is it?

The point is: was the information available? Was it known to the public? SCO may
claim that IBM did hide it's Linux involvement (which they didn't) but they can
not use ignorance as a defense.

Am I missing something here? Can you really use ignorance as a defense in the
court?

---
/Fredric Fredricson

What doesn't kill me hurts...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Curiouser and Curiouser - or Who Darl will sue next
Authored by: major_figjam on Thursday, May 06 2004 @ 03:55 AM EDT
We know Darl is real hot on the subject of selective enforcement of IP rights.


IBM's involvement in Trillian was responsible for the demise of Monterey, on
which oldSCO (now Tarantella) was pinning its hopes for Unix. If he's after IBM
for being involved in Trillian, he's going to go after the others real soon.

It so happens that one of the key players in Trillian was Caldera (now newSCO).
I bet they secretly and improperly did not tell oldSCO about their involvement
either, even as they were busy buying their UNIX business.

So, Darl will shortly be announcing that newSCO (formerly Caldera) will be suing
Caldera (now newSCO).

I guess its a logical progression from sueing you former employer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

1999 Links to what SCO Shoulda known
Authored by: stevem on Thursday, May 06 2004 @ 06:32 PM EDT
A few links to older press releases etc I managed to stumble across:

I noticed this tidbit on the opensource history page:
17 February 1999:
IBM announces Linux support on its hardware, a Lotus port for Linux, and a
partnership with Red Hat.
See bottom of the page here:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php

From RedHat's press archive I've found the following from 1999:
*********
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/1999/press_speech.html
SOMERS, NY -- April 26,1999 -- IBM today announced its award-winning ViaVoice
speech recognition technology is available for the Linux operating environment.
*********
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/1999/press_ibm.html
RESEARCH TRIANGLE, NC, February 18, 1999, Red Hatฎ Software, Inc. announced
today that it has entered an alliance with IBM...


Forbes had a article from the same period as well:
http://www.forbes.com/1999/02/18/mu7.html
IBM-Linux: It's all about services, stupid
Om Malik, 02.18.99, 5:15 PM ET

"Ever wonder why International Business Machines ibm (nyse: ibm - news -
people), the Armonk, N.Y.-based computer behemoth, is selling its machines with
Linux operating system software from Linux distributor Red Hat Software?"



One of the guys at work used to be a member of the Perth LUG and recalls that
the local IBM office brought along some PowerPC h/w to their first installfest
in 1998.
Unfortunately we have not been able to find any records of the event to back up
his memory.


- SteveM

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )