|
|
| D H Brown & Associates on AIX, POWER, Project Monterey Back in 1999 |
 |
|
Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 12:45 PM EDT
|
Back in 1999, D.H. Brown Associates, Inc. (later acquired by Ideas International in 2004) wrote a guest commentary for the newsletter, "inside the New Computer Industry," on "Linux and the Future of Unix," [PDF], which was posted on lug-list on June 23, 1999.
It's dynamite. It talks all about Project Monterey and AIX on POWER and ABIs and APIs and what the project was planning. Note this is before the project died or was killed, depending on your point of view, so it's before the alleged time period when IBM, according to media reports about SCO's thinking, "misused" Unix code by inappropriately using it for POWER. This is the third article this week debunking that theory. It seems the more research I do, the more Groklaw's readers do too. Some of you may be new to this story, so for you, here is some background information. For a 1999 press release quoting a SCO VP on AIX on POWER, read this article. For more detail on Project Monterey's plans for AIX on POWER and whether it wasn't allowed to participate, check out the article just before this one. For earlier Groklaw research on whether SCO knew at the time that IBM was using SVR4 on POWER, read this one and another I wrote way back in July of 2003. I believe this D.H.Brown article puts the last nail in SCO's coffin on this subject.
The D.H. Brown piece begins by stating clearly that back in 1999, it was beginning to look like Linux was the future, and it was already capable of competing with SCO: THE HIGH LEVEL OF ACTIVITY on both the Unix “Classic” and Linux fronts during the past few weeks has, I believe, made the future direction of Unix/Linux rather clear. One of the key shifts which have occurred is that Linux has clearly established itself as a dialect of mainstream Unix. It’s also begun to look as though Linux is eventually going to be transformed into a full-fledged enterprise-class operating system, although that’s not yet a certainty. . . . It’s become pretty obvious that, barring a muck-up of truly monumental proportions, the dominant implementation of Unix for IA-64 in the near-term will be the IBM/Intel/SCO version currently known as Monterey/64.
Longer term, it now appears as though the Monterey distributions and Linux will fight it out for leadership of the Unix-on-IA market. . . .
The big loser in all of this is Microsoft, which seems likely to be faced with a more-or-less united Unix-on-IA-64 front based on AIX in the short term and Linux in the long term. . . .
The big challenge for SCO, and hence for Project Monterey, is to move the OpenServer customer base to UnixWare before they go elsewhere. It’s not Linux, which while not yet ready for the more demanding applications served by enterprise-class Unix implementations is demonstrably ready for the replicated application market which accounts for much of SCO’s business . . .
So even back in 1999, Linux was no little bicycle compared to a racing car. It was in the race, lacking some enterprise features, but already able to compete for the kind of business SCO had.
The paper also talks about whether SCO's theory of Project Monterey being only for Intel is correct:
It’s Happening in Monterey The real action on the Unix front is within Project Monterey. Last month’s status report from its organizers revealed that Monterey is not, as previously thought, the code name for the AIX-based implementation of Unix for IA64 being developed by IBM with a little help from Intel, SCO, and Sequent. Rather, it is a broadly based, single source-tree initiative encompassing POWER/PowerPC, IA-32, and IA-64, and, so far, Alpha. In reality, Project Monterey is nothing less than an across-theboard, frontal assault on NT, the 64-bit OS component of which is Monterey/64. Among second-tier suppliers, in addition to Sequent, Acer, Bull, Fujitsu/ICL, and Unisys have already signed up.
But here's more. It seems there was a deliberate effort to include API and ABI compatibility: The aforementioned update also revealed that the efforts to integrate AIX, UnixWare and Dynix/ptx (Sequent’s ccNUMA version) and port key IBM middleware for both the IA-32 and IA-64 platforms is moving right along: The first releases of UnixWare 7 (the IA-32 Monterey platform) incorporating the new features are scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year. Sequent will provide API and ABI compatibility with the UnixWare family of products and re-brand its Dynix/ptx operating system UnixWare ptx. SCO will supplement its UnixWare 7 products with initial AIX libraries and headers for application support, as well as AIX system management enhancements. These releases will be preceded by one in the third quarter incorporating Compaq’s NonStop Cluster capability. With the first IA-64 system prototype now anticipated to appear next quarter, the IA-32 market is looking increasingly attractive, and the Monterey offering is maturing rapidly. . . .
Also announced last month, with even broader support than that for Monterey itself, was a separate initiative to develop a standard Unix on-IA Developers Guide (UDG). This will result not merely in a common API but also a common ABI for the implementations from most Unix system vendors and SCO. In addition to the Project Monterey ringleaders, Compaq, HP, and Bull signed on, as did several leading ISVs. The good news (for customers and ISVs anyway) is that applications written strictly to the standard API and ABI will run under any compliant OS, not just UnixWare or Monterey/64. With IBM, HP, and Unix-on Intel market leader Compaq (with 37 percent of the Unix-on-Intel market server) already committed, the choice for Unix-on-Intel suppliers is pretty simple: endorse Monterey
or die a slow death. The specification is due to be submitted to The Open Group for fast track review around the end of next quarter. Conveniently for those wishing to provide a bridge from IA-32 and -64 to their proprietary implementations or foolish enough to continue with plans to port their proprietary implementations to IA-64 in the teeth of the Monterey gale, the Developers Guide will come in two pieces, the application-independent UDG Programming Interfaces (UDG-PI -- I trust the reason it’s not the Unix Programming Interface Guide is obvious!) and the OSindependent common OS and Driver Interface Guide (UDIG).
So, Open Group. Time to dig up that specification, methinks. I know I'm wildly interested in knowing more about those "common" ABIs and APIs, and I imagine some SCO victims might like to know more about it too. While we wait, we might as well go digging ourselves and see what we can find on this little corner of history.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
| Even as early as in 1996 it was quite possible to effectivily and successfully
sell GNU/Linux solutions against SCO in an enterprise settings. Indeed, we did
this rather well to several Federal agencies on competitive open bids, thank you
very much.
In fact, our principle problem in selling GNU/Linux back then was
not at all because of some critical lack of enterprise functionality on the
GNU/Linux part that would later somehow require some "magic" code somehow
acquired from SCO's Unix sources to fix, but entirely due to the extremely poor
reputation created for ANY x86 posix platform that was created by SCO's
products!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 12:58 PM EDT |
Remember to post in HTML format with the links coded as:
<a href="http://www.example.com"> Link text </a>[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- SCOXE - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- SCOXE - Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:20 PM EDT
- FUD from LinuxInsider - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:42 PM EDT
- Prophetic words on Itanic - Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 03:34 PM EDT
- SEC/Nasdaq filing as told by El Reg today - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 06:00 PM EDT
- Yagoohoogle - link from the Inq - you must try it :) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 07:44 PM EDT
- Legal analysis of indemnification programs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 08:53 PM EDT
- "Sun's Schwartz Beats Open-Source Drum At OSBC" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 09:22 PM EDT
- A little off topic – Forbes credibility? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 10:00 PM EDT
- IBM, Oracle and Nokia and others ask to intervene for the EU Commission against MS!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 11:05 PM EDT
- Still no PearPC news ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 11:12 PM EDT
- sco ip sco ibm - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 11:55 PM EDT
- sco ip sco ibm - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Microsoft Xenix and DOS - stolen ip ? - Authored by: dmarker on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 02:42 AM EDT
- Very OT: The General Public Cow Milking License - Authored by: swengr on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 08:58 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: DBLR on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
Please place corrections here for PJ.
Charles
---
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is
a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 01:34 PM EDT |
The article quoted makes reference to "last months status report" This
implies there was a regular reporting method to the industry press.
I wonder what nuggets might be buried in the reports wherever they are.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: markus on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:08 PM EDT |
I know of D.H. Brown & Associated as 'independent' consulting reports
comparing various Unix versions. As D. H. Brown was somewhat close to IBM AIX
got good scores. I don't think they were blatantly unfair to AIX competitors,
but an unable to really judge this fairly.
Searching with
google you'll find a typical example (1st hit) about AIX 4.3.3 from March
2000 titled 'IBMs UNIX Operating System rated number one in study'.
Some hits
down there is a study favorable to HP-UX 11 from March 2002,
also.
Markus
---
Markus Baertschi, Switzerland [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
Maybe you should start another topic because this one is not going the way you
want it to go.
Give it a rest for now.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bye BIFF[E] - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:19 PM EDT
- PJ, some friendly advice - Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- Some friendly advice - Authored by: frk3 on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- PJ, some friendly advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:27 PM EDT
- The Troll Case - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:43 PM EDT
- PJ, Atta Girl !!!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT
- Control - Authored by: Buddha Joe on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 07:07 PM EDT
- Control - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- Wow. PJ must be hitting a nerve this time. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- A new business model - Authored by: RLP on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- PJ, some friendly advice - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- I sincerely do not get this - Authored by: Fredric on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 05:36 PM EDT
- PJ, some friendly advice - Authored by: toads_for_all on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 09:53 PM EDT
- PJ, some friendly advice - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 12:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
Here is a pdf document that looks like it outlines the IBM Strategy with
regards to Monterey and Linux. It was found on the website of Datatrend
Technologies, an IBM Premier Business Partner.
There is no author
specified but it reads like someone from IBM authored it. The PDF creation date
is 3/23/2000. If it was indeed authored then, it looks like IBM was thinking
about Linux having additional capabilities in the future a full year before the
plug was pulled on Project Monterey.
AIX-Linux-M
onterey
Over time, Linux will become a viable enterprise UNIX system,
capable of running more workloads requiring high scalability and industrial
strength. We will work with the linux community to help build such an enterprise
Linux offering. This will take years, with the rate and pace being determined by
the Linux community. Operating systems evolve slowly, and it is uncertain when
Linux will have comprehensive enterprise capabilities.
...
As
Linux addresses our customers’ needs for high volume, low cost UNIX operating
systems, AIX/Monterey will continue to address our customers’ need for
industrial strength, enterprise UNIX platforms across Intel and POWER based
systems. We will build strong Linux compatibility in AIX/Monterey to help
make the deployment of Linux applications on AIX/Monterey easy as well as
facilitate the deployment of AIX/Monterey applications on future releases of
Linux. Application portability is expected to precede the maturation of
Linux, providing the foundation for customers to make this shift smoothly. In
addition, we will collaborate with the open source community to contribute
AIX/Monterey technology to Linux in an effort to help build a better
Linux.
...
As Linux continues to mature, customers will continue
to search for the most robust UNIX, one that will help them evolve to the
future. AIX/Monterey, the next evolution of IBM’s UNIX operating system, AIX*,
brings all the advantages of a highly scalable, available, industrial strength
UNIX operating system to the world of Intel-- today.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
tSCOg want to add claims about Project Monterey to their to-date rather vague
and non-specific claims of infringement / contract breach / _what-ever_ to
their lawsuit.
IBM can only counter with...
1) tSCOg was not party to the original contract with SCO
2) even if we allow "successor in interest" it's past the time alloted
for claims as written in the contract
3) clear reading of the contract gives us rights to your code and ours
4) claims are barred by estoppel of silence
5) Federal court is the wrong venue, and any claim had to be made in the State
of NY
And of course, there's lack of due diligence on tSCOg's part or they'd not even
try to claim that POWER architecture was not a legal port...
What did I miss?
...D (IANAL)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 03:04 PM EDT |
From the Monterey contract:
____________________________________________________
2.0 OWNERSHIP AND LICENSES:
(e) Source Code Sublicensing
With respect to either party's Licensed Materials and
Project Work contained in the IA-64 Product (as
described in applicable Project Supplements), both
parties rights to sublicense Source Code to third
parties under the sections (c)(2) and (d)(2) above,
shall be limited in the following manner:
When IBM sublicenses the IA-64 Product containing
Licensed SCO Materials and/or SCO Project Work in
Source Code form or when SCO sublicenses the
IA-64 Product containing Licensed IBM Materials and/or
IBM Project Work in Source Code form, the parties shall
not grant the third party the right to further grant
source sublicenses to the other party's Licensed
Materials or Project Work. Further, when licensing such
Source Code, both parties shall only grant the right to
create Derivative Works required for the following
purposes:
1. Maintenance and support;
2. Translation and localization;
3. Porting, optimization and extensions;
4. Any other Derivative Works agreed to by SCO and IBM.
_____________________________________________________
Does anyone see the "... the parties shall not grant
the third party the right to further grant source
sublicenses..." above"?
First, there is no mention of Power architecture in the
contract --- anywhere.
Second, where in Heaven's name is there a provision for
GPL'ing *anything*. The phrase "shall not grant" means
no further sublicenses *period*.
Why don't people just rip up the original contract and
re-write it as they see fit? Then send it to Judge
Kimball. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SteveS on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
Ok, hate me, but I will once again point to a list of web pages and files I came
across pertaining to this AIX - Monterey mess. I will spare you reposting the
list again though...
Review
here
the one I like best is this one:
a joint
SCO/IBM presentation from Sept 1999
PDF
slide #3 clearly has reference to POWER,IA32 and IA64
SteveS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
OLD SCO could have been willing to partner with other venders to create a
unified Unix which would work on multiple hardware platforms, and still not have
been interested in having Linux add that technology. A unified, cross-platform
Unix was an advantage to all venders, since it would have done a better job of
competing with Microsoft. Also a compatibility with Linux APPLICATIONS was an
advantage to a unified Unix since it allowed the venders to offer a lot of free
services which enhansed their software.
However, moving the features of a unified Unix INTO Linux creates competition
that SCO would not have wanted. IBM needed a cross-platform, unified Unix to
have a base operating system which works on their entire product line. They get
what they need whether it was incorporated into AIX or whether AIX was replaced
with an upgraded Linux.
While it makes sense for SCO to have released the ABI to the Open Group to
insure an application compatibility between Unix and Linux, they would not have
wanted Linux to be scalable in a way which would eventually replace their Unix.
And while they likely recognized a growing problem from Linux, the information
provided in the last few days has not shown that SCO intended to enhanse Linux
to a point where it would replace their code, nor would they have expected their
partners in the Monterey project to do this.
SCO might have known that IBM was interested in making AIX work on a variety of
hardware platforms, including POWER, and still not have expected IBM to try to
enhanse Linux to work on POWER with advanced features. AIX would not have
competed with SCO in the same way that Linux does, and if it did, license fees
could always be arranged.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
We seem to be debunking Monterey again and I wonder why.
This SCO tactic didn't work 2 years ago and it's not working now.
Is it possible we're all being sent after a red herring or did the SCO just
forget they'd used it before ?
Groklaw isn't alone in this since it was all over the SCOX board a few days
ago.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 04:46 PM EDT |
Ya can't get any more clear than this:
Panel
discussion from [SCO] Forum1999
["Tilak",from IBM (probably
supercomputer guru Tilak Agerwala*) is speaking] "Well, our goals are pretty
modest, Paul. Actually, we really aren't that modest, we intend to establish
Monterey as the leading Unix environment in the industry. Not just on Intel, but
also on Power PC. So Power PC and Intel industry leading operating systems
with the broadest distribution by OEM and resellers with the strongest portfolio
of applications on any Unix platform are going all the way from work group
servers to the largest data center super computers. So that's what we intend to
do, that's what our goal is and I think we are going to get
there." *Yes, that's Tilak Agerwala. And sittng next to him was Mike
Orr, Senior Vice-President at SCO and soon to be CEO of Tarantella. And, oh,
here's a fresh (old) reference by Mike Orr himself, speaking about
Montery on Power:"We will now see an acceleration in 64-bit hardware
design and development, and more ISVs actively porting to UnixWare 7 on IA-32
platforms and AIX on POWER platforms as they prepare for the release of
Monterey/64." Oooooh, I can't resist: But Doug Michels, SCO’s president and
chief executive, said that Monterey would be available in three separate
binary iterations, although they would all be based on the same source code. The
OS would run on Intel’s IA-32 architecture in the shape of an evolving Unixware
7, on its IA-64 architecture and also on IBM’s Power Risc
chipset.
[ PJ, I'm still alive, just haven't had time to write
;) ] ---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered by lies, only
disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 05:45 PM EDT |
As oldSCO and IBM are arm-and-arm in the searchable public record on AIX and
Power, where is the diligence due by the law firms representing tscog/SCOXE?
-- tce[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 06:49 PM EDT |
... you may be enjoying this just a teensy bit too much. :-)
It's
starting to feel like kicking 'em while they're down.
(Not that I wouldn't
love to be in a room where SCO execs and lawyers are handcuffed to chairs while
these documents are layed out in front of them, read aloud and, after each
mention of SCO/Power/UNIX/Monterey, demanding to know "Just what did you
think that meant?") [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ, I think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 07:21 PM EDT
- PJ, I think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 09:38 PM EDT
- PJ, I think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- PJ, I think... - Authored by: mrcreosote on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 09:41 PM EDT
- PJ, I think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 10:26 PM EDT
- PJ, I think... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 11:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: dmarker on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
Am providing this info as a backgrounder. I don't believe it lessens or enhances
D H Brown's reports but it is worth knowing about.
In 1990 I was pointed by IBM HQ to D H Brown as a research company I should use
in launching the RISC System/6000 and the POWER architecture in the Asia/Pacific
region.
Over the years 1990 to 1994, IBM Asia Pacific paid D H Brown for reports on how
and why POWER was superior to other competing architectures of the day (Sun
Sparc, HP PARISC, DEC etc: etc:).
I also paid for up to two analysts from D H Brown to tour particular parts of S
E Asia with my teams that were doing roadshows to IBMers in the region.
I visited D H Brown when their offices were in AXE Castle in New York. In
particular I dealt with one very good analyst named Jonathan Eunice. He really
knew what he was talking about right down to chip structures.
I was also well aware that HP (and other companies) were also paying D H Brown
to produce reports for them on their own technology.
In my opinion, D H Brown were the typical analysts for hire & were used by
several leading UNIX players that fitted into the OSF camp of the day (incl
Bull, IBM, HP, DEC). I was always very happy with their efforts and expertise.
My last involvement with them was in 1994. But I am sure other IBM programmes
managers continued to use their services.
Cheers
Doug Marker
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: globularity on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 08:04 PM EDT |
SCOXE has been pretending to be SCO since this whole scam began. It is unlikey
that people who were not even party to the monteray agreement, would be able to
know about it in great detail unless they did plenty of research, prior
observation indicate that research is not one of their strong points.
It's fun to watch PJ decimnate their claims.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Mark
---
Australia: A first world country with second rate rate leaders and 3rd world
ambitions (selling low value low tech items to buy consumer goods).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
| How many side rails?
How many bifurcations and dead ends?
How many
rungs?
Do all the rungs have both ends secured?
How tall is this
ladder?
If you try to climb it, will it fall over?
Is it quasi 2-D (like a
real ladder) or does it have more major dimensions? How many? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Tuesday, April 05 2005 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
I know I'm not the only one who's noted the increasingly desperate noises made
by the trolls. It would be interesting to do an analysis of troll type posts and
determine what draws them.
Maybe we should start a betting pool on who is actually making those posts?
1) BIFF
2) Darl McBride
3) Bill Gates
4) Ralph Yarro III
are my suggestions (LOL).
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: codswallop on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 12:09 AM EDT |
If you go to archive.org and go wayback on www.ibm.com/servers/monterey, you'll
find a whole site full of old IBM Monterey material. There's also a lot of old
SCO Monterey material, but they've blocked robot access to it.
So, IBM, if you're reading this, be sure to get this as part of your discovery.
There's a good chance that it may have something about SVR4.
As for you, SCO, what are you trying to hide?
---
IANAL This is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The mother lode - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 01:48 AM EDT
- The mother lode - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 04:21 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 01:38 AM EDT |
New document on tuxrocks - 428 - which is IBM's rpely memo in support of this: IBM'S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
ORDER LIMITING SCOPE OF
IBM'S NINTH COUNTERCLAIM
As I guessed some time ago, here and
here - SCO's opposition to this motion, is
part of their attempt to get their 3rd amended complaint (the new copyright
cause of action based on Monterey) into this case.
As I had guessed
that IBM opposed SCO's amendment as untimely, and yes IBM uses this argument.
IBM also uses the forum selection argument in the Monterey contract that others
have noticed and commented on.
...So how did SCO try to avoid these
seemingly unsurpassable obstacles? Answer, they argued that Monterey is already
in the case as part of IBM's 9th counterclaim (exactly as I guessed they would -
see the links 2 paragraphs up). This is explained in one of IBM's
footnotes.
...Interesting, SCO also try to use this very IBM motion to
argue amended pleadings should be allowed at this late stage.
We also
get arguments about:
(1) the sequence of events
(2) and the
language of the pleadings
(3) SCO try to use the fact that they have
asked IBM deponants/witnesses about Monterey, as evidence for their position
[now we *probably* know why SCO's opposition memo was sealed - it must have
included some of these transcripts]. Of course, IBM points out [in a clever
sidewise fashion[] that they were merely fufilling discovery obligations by
providing these deponants, that SCO can ask whatever questions they want, but
none of that means that IBM agrees with SCO's constructions of IBM's
pleadings.... On this issue, I would point out that it is *perhaps* a hint that
SCO is still playing games, take depositions on things which are not even part
of this case [and may never be], rather than actually pursuing the issues that
are part of this case.
Finally, I would like to point out, that IBM
explicitly points out that they don't believe they have done anything wrong with
Monterey/POWER/AIX (as I guess they would, in the same old post referenced here), and as PJ's splendid recent articles
also explain with great detail. Rather IBM, opposes the addition of Monterey to
this case because it's too late in this case, and in the wrong venue.
IBM does *NOT* oppose SCO bringing a separate Monterey case in the right venue
(New York).
In other words, according to IBM, SCO's new proposed
copyright claim based on Monterey/POWER/AIX issue is unfounded, and IBM's
opposition to adding it to this case isn't because they think they would
lose, but because SCO is not following the proper
procedures.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iraskygazer on Wednesday, April 06 2005 @ 09:47 AM EDT |
PJ,
Each time Monterey pops up, more info points to the reason why SCO has a suit
against IBM. SCO is simply attempting a behind the scene blackmail against any
entity that affected their Monterey cash cow. It is simple to see this fact. Now
your presentation of information about the 'Open Group' will clarify who has
privilege to the different branches of UNIX.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
