decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
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



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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence
Friday, April 08 2005 @ 11:58 PM EDT

I don't see how it can get much clearer that one of Project Monterey's goals was to include AIX on POWER and that SCO knew all about it at the time. The more I research, the clearer it gets. This is the third article just on this subject that Groklaw has published within a week (cf. this article and this one, both from April 4. See also this article on SVR4). Not only that, I now see that one other goal of Project Monterey was to have a UNIX that could run Linux applications, so that the eventual transfer to Linux, which is what IBM expected was the future for ebusiness, would be easy for businesses to make, when Linux was mature enough. The L in AIX 5L stands for Linux.

Needless to say, that pulls the rug out from under SCO in two ways. First, it has claimed it had no idea IBM was investing in Linux until around 2000. And it has apparently claimed that IBM had no right to use AIX on POWER, that IBM only did that after Project Monterey was declared dead in 2001. My research has convinced me that isn't the case. But, as usual, don't go by my opinion. I'll lay out the research we've done, and you can reach your own conclusions. I've marked the parts I think are most significant in red. Let's start by reviewing what SCO claims in its Second Amended Complaint about Project Monterey and IBM's Linux involvement.

Here's how SCO defined the purpose of Project Monterey in its Complaint:

Project Monterey

53. As SCO was poised and ready to expand its market and market share for UnixWare targeted to high-performance enterprise customers, IBM approached SCO to jointly develop a 64-bit UNIX-based operating system for a new 64-bit Intel platform. This joint development effort was widely known as Project Monterey. . . .

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.”

That IA/64 effort was only one part of Project Monterey, the part SCO was involved in, but as I have discovered in my research, there was a lot more to Project Monterey than the part SCO told us about. Here's how IBM, SCO and Sequent described the project in a joint press release dated April of 1999, just five months after Project Monterey began:

IBM, SCO and Sequent today said they have successfully completed initial tests of the Project Monterey operating system running on the Merced simulator for the Intel IA-64 architecture. Project Monterey is a high-volume, enterprise-class, commercial UNIX operating system initiative launched last October.

The participants in Project Monterey declared that in less than five months of development, the prototype for the UNIX operating system for IA-64 is up and running. The testing, conducted at a development center in the United States, marked the first development milestone in Project Monterey.

Also unveiled today were broad software vendor support, accelerated product roadmaps through 2001 and the launch of a comprehensive developer program

The goal for Project Monterey is to establish a high-volume, enterprise-class UNIX product line that runs across Intel IA-32 and IA-64 processors and IBM's Power processors in systems that range from departmental to large data center servers. In addition, UNIX vendors conforming to the UNIX Developer's Guide-Programming Interfaces (UDG-PI) specifications are supported by the Project Monterey family.

As part of the Project Monterey initiative, a UNIX operating system is being developed for Intel's IA-64 architecture using IBM's AIX operating system's enterprise capabilities complemented with technology from SCO's UnixWare operating system and Sequent's enterprise technologies. In addition, IBM will license AIX technology to SCO for inclusion in UnixWare and promote this offering to the IA-32 market. . . .

The Project Monterey developer program will include porting guides and a common set of APIs for IA-32, IA-64 and IBM Power processor platforms. Developers also will be able to leverage an extensive set of enterprise middleware from IBM and other software vendors who participate. Project Monterey will offer key developers access to porting centers worldwide, as well as ongoing developer events hosted by IBM, SCO and Intel throughout the year. The porting centers will provide developers with technical support, porting/enablement, performance testing and technical education on the new UNIX operating system on IA-64. Later this year, the IBM Solution Partnership Center in Waltham, Mass., is expected to extend its capabilities to support UNIX development on the Intel platforms.

Doug Michels, president and CEO of SCO, said, "We've not only completed the initial port to Merced in record time, but we've also set up an integrated product road map and developer program to guide our business partners in deploying this exciting high-volume UNIX system to businesses of all sizes. The Project Monterey partners already drive a huge portion of a worldwide UNIX System business that totals billions of dollars every year, and our momentum continues to increase as other OEMs and ISVs join Project Monterey.". . .

Unix Developer's Guide- Programming Interface

In a separate initiative, a group of industry leaders, including IBM, SCO, Sequent, Compaq and Intel, recently announced the UNIX Developer's Guide - Programming Interfaces. The UDG-PI is a collaborative effort to develop and publish guidelines that software developers and system manufacturers can use for UNIX operating systems running on the Intel microprocessor architecture. These guidelines are designed to help reduce development, maintenance and test costs for software developers and system manufacturers.

So, did SCO know about POWER? They obviously did. Doug Michels, then CEO of SCO (Santa Cruz) is quoted in the press release that mentions it as a project goal. It also refers to the programming interfaces that SCO helped to provide. So they knew. They helped. Obviously, oldSCO didn't think there was a license issue regarding AIX on POWER.

Here's another press release from March of 2000 from Lawson Software, and it also defines the goals of Project Monterey:

ST. PAUL, March 14, 2000 - Lawson Software, the Enterprise behind the Internet, today announced that it has joined Project Monterey, a UNIX operating system (OS) initiative led by IBM, along with SCO, Intel, Compaq and other industry leaders. Lawson also announced that it is "Monterey-ready," meeting the criteria to port its applications to the Project Monterey UNIX operating system for Intel IA-64 processors (code-named Monterey/64). . . .

"We feel IBM's Monterey initiative plays a key role in extending enterprise-ready e-business applications into the volume UNIX marketplace on PowerPC and Intel platforms," said Bill Keatts, vice president, Research and Development, Lawson Software. "As an early adopter of open systems, Lawson knows from experience the vitality and benefits of open platform computing. Our n-tier, component-based software architecture is ideally suited for the kind of flexibility Project Monterey is designed to support. Our customers will gain additional options for deploying their Lawson e-business solutions and the reassurance of quality from our close association with other top e-business vendors."

As part of Monterey/64, an enterprise-volume, shrink-wrapped, UNIX operating system is being developed for Intel's Itanium (IA-64) processors. The OS uses technologies from the IBM AIX operating system, SCO UnixWare operating system and NUMA-Q's Dynix/ptx enterprise technology.

"We are committed to providing our customers with world-class enterprise e-business solutions on UNIX," said Dr. Tilak Agerwala, vice president, UNIX marketing and product management, IBM Enterprise Systems Group, IBM. "Lawson's commitment to Monterey/64 demonstrates its position as an open computing e-business leader. Our customers will get significantly better flexibility to deploy enterprise e-business solutions on IBM POWER and Intel UNIX platforms"

The objective of the Project Monterey initiative is to establish an enterprise-volume UNIX product line that runs across Intel IA-32 and IA-64 processors (Monterey/64) and IBM's Power processors in systems that range from departmental to large data center servers. Project Monterey has garnered widespread support from major ISVs in the e-business, business intelligence and enterprise resource planning (ERP) market segments. Additional information on IBM and UNIX can be found at More information on Monterey/64 is available on the Web at;; and . . .

Here's a May 2000 press release by VERITAS:

VERITAS* Software Corporation (Nasdaq: VRTS), the leading enterprise-class application storage management software provider, today announced a business agreement with IBM in support of AIX/Monterey*. As part of the agreement, VERITAS Software will be porting and optimizing its complete set of storage management solutions, including VERITAS Volume Manager and VERITAS File System, to AIX/Monterey for IBM POWER and Intel IA-64 processor-based systems.. . .

AIX/Monterey is a code name that refers to both AIX for the IBM POWER processors as well as the future delivery of the UNIX operating system for Intel's IA-64 Itanium processor-based systems.

So POWER was no afterthought that IBM came up with post the death of Project Monterey, was it? SCO wasn't involved in that aspect of the project, because it wasn't involved in the POWER platform, only Intel, but Project Monterey was designed for POWER every bit as much as for Intel. Here's the part that SCO was involved in, according to a blurb on IBM's Project Monterey Participants page:

SCO - UnixWare 7

SCO, the market share volume leader of UNIX operating systems (and developer of UnixWare 7), and IBM will collaborate to accelerate enhancement for IA-32. Also, SCO and IBM will work together to co-develop and market this UNIX for the IA-64 based market.

The link to the SCO page is now blocked by robots.txt by SCO, so Wayback doesn't have it.

What about Linux? Was SCO in the dark about IBM's interest in Linux or its plans for the future? It shouldn't have been. Here is a February 1999 announcement by IBM and Red Hat that they were in an alliance to offer IBM systems running Red Hat Linux. SCO, in its Second Amended Complaint, implies that it wasn't until 2000 that SCO realized IBM was getting involved in Linux:

89. On or about August 17, 2000, IBM and Red Hat Inc., the leading Linux distributor, issued a joint press release through M2 Presswire announcing, inter alia, as follows:

IBM today announced a global agreement that enables Red Hat, Inc. to bundle IBM’s Linux-based software.

IBM said it would contribute more than 100 printer drivers to the open source community. With these announcements, IBM is making it easier for customers to deploy e-business applications on Linux using a growing selection of hardware and software to meet their needs. The announcements are the latest initiative in IBM’s continuing strategy to embrace Linux across its entire product and services portfolio.

Helping build the open standard, IBM has been working closely with the open source community, contributing technologies and resources.

This 1999 announcement, however, shows that 2000 is a misleading date. The 2000 press release SCO quotes even says that it was "the *latest* initiative in IBM's continuing strategy to embrace Linux," implying that there were earlier initiatives. So SCO had plenty of notice. In fact, according to this IBM paper from May of 2000, their involvement dates back two years, to 1998, which I believe would predate Project Monterey, if they mean May of 1998. Project Monterey began in October of that year.

Not only that, Caldera was participating with IBM in a project, Project Trillian, "formed early in 1999 to port the Linux operating system to the Intel IA-64 architecture", so SCO's apparent pretense that it didn't know is just that, unless they "forgot". Or could it be that the SCO of today doesn't really know what oldSCO, Santa Cruz, was doing, because they are two different companies? Here's the info on IBM's earlier Linux involvement, including Project Trillian with Caldera, which now calls itself SCO:

IBM is further embracing Linux and open source software as key components in taking e-business to the next level. Linux is evolving toward an industry standard. Along with other open standards, such as HTTP, XML and TCP, we view Linux as playing a pivotal role in bringing interoperability to disparate server platforms and providing customers with an open, integrated e-business structure. IBM continues to work with the Linux and open source communities to support this evolution and support critical standards across its servers.

IBM believes that Linux will help drive the long-term growth of the Internet by providing an open application platform that can harness leading-edge technologies and simplify customer choice. The common application platform will help ensure software interoperability across heterogeneous servers. IBM is an active participant in the open source community, not only embracing its software, but also contributing significant skills, technology and resources where appropriate.


While IBM is further strengthening its commitment to Linux and open source software, IBM's participation actually dates back two years. . . .

Open Source

IBM is actively participating in the following established open source projects:

* Apache -- a working group that has created the de facto standard HTTP server used in most Web servers worldwide;

* Jakarta -- a working group dedicated to providing Java-based Servlet and JavaServer Pages implementation for the Apache Web Server;

* Mozilla -- a working group building an open source browser; and

* Trillian -- The Trillian Project also was formed early in 1999 to port the Linux operating system to the Intel IA-64 architecture. The project currently includes Caldera, CERN, Cygnus Solutions, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Red Hat, SGI, SuSE, TurboLinux and VA Linux Systems.

Finally, and most tellingly, here's the first three pages of a paper [PDF] from March of 2000 in which IBM explains why it thought Linux was going to replace Unix eventually as the inevitable choice for business and what its motivations and goals were for Project Monterey. It's called, "Why Linux? What About AIX/Monterey? And Why IBM?" The date the paper was posted by DataTrend Technologies is listed in the url as being March 20, 2000, more than a year before IBM declared Project Monterey dead, according to SCO's account, and five months before the first date SCO lists in its litany of complaints about IBM's contributions to Linux. But what it describes is why IBM started Project Monterey to begin with. This paper shows me that SCO's claims do not match the evidence I am finding:

Why Linux? What About AIX/Monterey? And Why IBM?

Why Linux:

The evolution of e-business is presenting customers with a new set of challenges:

  • Integrating multiple applications and data across a spectrum of operating systems, running on multiple servers, each with unique management requirements, distributed geographically, and crossing company borders.

  • Responding to the business impacts of delivering performance and availability in environments where peak demands and business growth may be difficult to predict

Customers choose platforms based upon application availability, frequently making compromises and adapting their business to specific technologies. Should they outgrow the capabilities of their current platforms, implementing changes necessary to grow can be extremely disruptive to their businesses.

Linux is becoming a rallying point for the industry, one that will drive the evolution of the next generation of e-business. Linux is not just another operating system. It represents a collaboration of the best programmers in the industry coming together to create an operating system that works on any hardware platform. This industry change will address many of the new problems that organizations face today, allowing companies to adapt technology to their business, rather than having to change their businesses to fit technology.

As an operating system, Linux is already the fastest growing member of the UNIX** family. Linux is most popular on small to midsize, Intel based PC servers, as well as clusters of such servers. It is very popular as a platform for modest sized web and commerce servers, ISP/ASP applications, dedicated networking functions (such as web-infrastructure, file/print, LAN, firewall, DNS, e-mail...), supercomputing clusters, as an embedded operating system for new server and client application appliances, as well as the development platform for many innovative “next generation” applications.

As a technology, we expect that Linux, over time, will develop into the standard application development platform for the spectrum of applications that comprise our customers’ e-business solutions. By driving standardization of programming interfaces, Linux will do for applications what standards, such as TCP/IP and the Internet, have done for networking. Linux is uniquely positioned to create an environment where applications can be developed once and deployed across a broad range of servers and environments. This application portability is essential if customers are to be able to adjust to the dynamic nature of e-business.

The impact of Linux is that customers will be able to independently select: 1) the applications that are best suited to their business needs; 2) platforms matched to their performance and capacity requirements and 3) operating environments that impart critical characteristics upon the applications.

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.

What About AIX/Monterey?

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.

AIX has been recognized year after year as the #1 UNIX for customers’ critical applications 1. With the rapid growth our customers face resulting from the evolution of e-business, the industrial strength capabilities of AIX are becoming even more important. The next release of AIX will be AIX/Monterey (which will soon be re-branded). AIX/Monterey is the result of a major UNIX operating system initiative, led by IBM, along with SCO and Intel, with support from leading industry software and system vendors. AIX/Monterey is a volume, enterprise-class, UNIX operating system that today runs across Intel’s 32-bit architecture (IA-32) and across the POWER architecture. It will be extended to IA-64, Intel’s 64-bit architecture, later this year. AIX/Monterey supports systems that range from departmental to large data center servers. AIX/Monterey will incorporate the best of AIX as well as IBM’s DYNIX/ptx, the operating system from Sequent that runs NUMA-Q; and SCO’s UnixWare, the UNIX operating system that runs on today’s volume Intel platforms. Later this year, IBM will deliver AIX/Monterey/64 2 offering customers who prefer systems based on Intel’s 64-bit Itanium 3 processors the same capabilities provided by AIX on the RS/6000*.

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.

No other UNIX vendor is as well positioned to help customers adapt to the Linux evolution. Customers who invest in AIX/Monterey today can do so confident in the knowledge that IBM plans to make applications that run on this powerful new operating system migrate easily to Linux in the future, helping to protect their investments in hardware, applications, data, processes and skills.

Why IBM: As customers today invest in IBM AIX/Monterey, they will be uniquely positioned to take advantage of Linux solutions as they emerge.

Here’s why:

1. IBM’s UNIX/Linux strategy is to provide a high degree of application portability across system and software environments.

Proof points:

  • Monterey/64 provides a growth path for 32-bit Intel based solutions on DYNIX/ptx and UnixWare to Intel’s IA-64 (Itanium) environment and provides the flexibility for today’s AIX solutions to be deployed on systems using both IBM Power and Intel microprocessors.

  • The introduction of the Linux Application Execution Environment later this year is intended to provide both binary compatibility for many Linux binaries on AIX and Monterey/64 and source compatibility allowing Linux applications to be recompiled for native execution on AIX and Monterey/64.

  • IBM continues to contribute enterprise technologies to the open source community. This contribution also will narrow the gap between our Linux products and UNIX, further increasing application portability.

2. As Linux becomes more mature as an operating system, customers will be able to begin to use their existing servers, applications, data, skills and business processes with little to no change.

Could IBM have been more forthright and open about its plans and its reasons? Project Monterey was the stopgap, in a way, I gather. It worked for the enterprise right away, and it was a path to smoothly move to Linux as it matured. And the benefits of Linux are clear as far as customers are concerned. You can run it on any hardware. Interoperability is the goal in a networked world, and Linux is perfect for that. So while proprietary Unix companies might not like it, the simple truth is, customers do and they did. They adopted Linux so fast, Project Monterey was dead before it was fully born. The market did that. Intel didn't help, I gather. But where is there any IBM deception or dirty tricks? I can't see any here.

What about SCO? How could they not know all this? Unless we attribute bad motives, which I am reluctant to do without clear proof, the only explanation I can come up with is that newSCO hadn't got a clear picture of what oldSCO was doing, and when it read some IBM emails in discovery, it misinterpreted, leaping to conclusions maybe. It's not hard to do that when you want something very much. And yet, as Caldera, then a Linux company, it certainly knew about Project Trillian, so what's the deal with that lapse of memory, if that is the problem? Everyone back then knew that Linux mattered, the evidence indicates, and they all were trying to help Linux mature. That includes oldSCO (Santa Cruz), and it includes Caldera, now calling itself SCO. Revisionism has reared its head, and the stories being told now are different. But what does the evidence indicate to you?

If we wish to be kind, let's say that newSCO didn't have a clear picture of what oldSCO was doing in Project Monterey before. It does now.


More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence | 178 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here, please
Authored by: darksepulcher on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 12:16 AM EDT
Just to make PJ's life easier.

Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Threads here, please
Authored by: darksepulcher on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 12:19 AM EDT
So we can keep the clutter in nice, neat little stacks. That means it can't be
called clutter anymore, of course, but you know what I mean.

Had I but time--As this fell Sergeant, Death
Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--
But let it be.
(Hamlet, Act V Scene 2)

[ Reply to This | # ]

It does now, indeed.
Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 12:47 AM EDT
Perhaps generosity in attributing motive to the CEO of newSCO is possible,
Pamela. Perhaps.

imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold.
-+++->> Have you donated to Groklaw this month?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is SCOX(E) responsible for knowing all about Caldera and oldSCO?
Authored by: jdg on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 01:02 AM EDT
It is my understanding [IANAL]that whether or not it is convenient, SCOX(E) (aka
new SCO/Caldera) is responsible for knowing what both Caldera and oldSCO did as
it regards "knowledge" for the lawsuits. Is this a correct
understanding? Are there subtle aspects to this issue?
Webster/Codswallop/AllParadox/PJ/others invited to reply.

SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 01:03 AM EDT
Today it is difficult see the position that IA64 held in the mind of the
industry when Project Monterey was implemented. W/Intel was seen as the FUTURE.
No one saw Intel stumbling.

If anyone was going to challenge Microsoft it was Intel. IBM had been
embarrassed in the OS/2 debacle.

Who else was there?

A wide array of Unix vendors?

Billions were spent and wasted, it was a part of the dot com bust.

IBM, still a formidable, competitor decided to fight back. One option was their
Power Architecture, but the Reference Platform never materialized and Apple was
the only other vendor to adopt the processor.

IBM was looking to spread their risks and if they adopted the IA64 architecture
the could leapfrog Microsoft.

The only option was to get there first and to challenge Intel on the low end and
Sun on the high end with Merced. Merced was to be Intel's answer to the RISC
challenge. In fact Merced was not up to the challenge and is still not
commercially successful.


"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

So what was in it for oldSCO/Caldera
Authored by: thorpie on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 01:16 AM EDT

I still wonder why oldSCO/Caldera would go along with this intitiative as described if the end result was to be the redundancy of Unixware.

Any enlightment on this aspect would be appreciated.

The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is there any possiblity....
Authored by: whoever57 on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 01:50 AM EDT
that the third amended complaint is somehow about Monterey, but not the use of
code from Monterey on Power?

Could it be that Darl and Co. have used MoG to put out some false information to
lead investigators off the trail? Remember that MoG was not actually at the
hearing where parts of the email were read out.... she is relying on other
people's accounts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Commercial sabotage
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 01:56 AM EDT
It's pretty clear to any reasonable person who has followed this saga that
SCOXE's claims are baseless & only intenede as commercial sabotage. Why a
sinking row boat would attack a supercarrier....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Old SCO was also working on Linux, a Repost from the DH Brown topic
Authored by: veatnik on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 02:01 AM EDT

PJ, Thanks for the great series of articles. I suspect there could be room for another as well...

The following is reposted from my reply to a "D H Brown and Associates" comment. This was a reply to a suggestion that (old) SCO would not have wanted Linux to progress (in order to avoid competition). It seemed more relevent here then there...

Your assertions do seem logical for a company in SCOs position but there was actually more going on at the time. You say that SCO would not have wanted to add features to Linux. How do you know this? (I suspect it is educated speculation rather then personal knowledge.)

I knew one engineer at SCO during this period of time. (Obviously this does not make me an expert or privy to the inner workings and motivations of (old)SCO.) I remember him describing improvements he (and others he worked with) made to Linux as a SCO internal project. From this my impression at the time was that SCO was hedging its bet with Linux work. I am certain there must be some evidence of this within the kernel mailing list and in kernel credits (If any substantial work was done).

In short, if SCO was active (and hedging) with Linux work they certainly knew IBM was also involved with Linux and also knew why. In any case even a slight contact with those inside SCO and IBM at that time makes various SCOX claims stand out as revisionist in the extream. (As can be seen in PJs well constructed reports.)

This also may explain why they sold off the thing that had been the core SCO business. Remember that when Caldera bought the 'Unix' business from them it was primarily to gain the marketing leverage and customer base. (See Ransom Loves comments at the time.)

As to the value of Unix in the market, (despite comments from McBride and other about its huge value), look at the difference in price paid for 'Unix' as it changed hands each time. 1. To Novell 2. To SCO 3. To Caldera. (Anyone have the figures handy? I think #1 was around $100M-$200M and #3 was about $10M but my memory is pretty bad.) Also transfer #3 came with the added bonus of the SCO VARS and partners. It seems pretty obvious that the value of the Unix IP had dropped significantly. To some fraction of either 5% or 10%.

Regards to all

Sorry I have not had time to do any research to support this from publicly available sources. I'll see if I can dig anything up other the weekend.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doesn't this just about blow the whole of SCOG's case out of the water?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 02:41 AM EDT

If you accept the documents which PJ has uncovered, then surely even if SVR4 code were somehow to be found in Linux, there would be little wrong with it being there? OldSCO probably did it.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Monterey claims and a surprise
Authored by: codswallop on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 03:00 AM EDT
When I saw this article, I wanted to write something about SCO's claims under Monterey. Since they're really Caldera, this isn't as straightforward as it might be. As I see it, they can make claims in the following roles, some of which are more useful than others.

1) They were damaged by IBM's actions after the merger other than any alleged infringement. The problem here is whether they have standing under the Monterey agreement to be damaged as a successor (as opposed to as a successor to damage claims). We don't know whether the agreement was officially cancelled.

2) They were damaged during the course of the merger (from Aug 2000 through May 2001). This has problems, as well. If I go to an antique shop and agree to buy a set of dishes for $1000, and before I can pay for them, another customer breaks one, making the set incomplete, do I have a case against the Customer? My recourse is to either renegotiate a cheaper price or cancel the transaction. Of course if I buy the antique shop, I can make claim 4 below.

3) They were damaged by IBM's infringement in using SVR4 outside of the license agreement. They don't need to be a successor in interest to the Monterey agreement, if they hold the copyrights, though, of course, they're bound honor any license terms that SCO gave IBM under it. They also have to show IBM's breach was a violation of a condition of the license and not a covenant of the contract, or it's not infringement, but rather breach of contract (see Gemisys v. Phoenix American, or Graham v. James, the favorite of GPL trolls).

4) Santa Cruz was damaged before the completion of the merger and Caldera is the successor in interest to Santa Cruz's claims. This appears to be a valid claim, but most of the damages that IBM's behavior caused (failure to go through with the marketing plan) occurred after the merger. If the contract was cancelled, It's hard to see that SCO has standing.

Anyway, I found the answer to whether Caldera is a successor to whatever claims Santa Cruz had, and I also discovered that Caldera probably can show they acquired whatever copyrights Santa Cruz had by means of a generic weasel conveyance. It's tricky to find things, because there are a series of contract amendments, and there's no merged version anywhere.

In section 2.22, the Caldera - Santa Cruz agreement says concerning the assets transferred to Caldera (newco):

The Group Assets transferred to Newco constitute all assets, properties, rights, contracts and Intellectual Property Rights that are necessary or required for the Conduct of the Group Business as currently conducted, without

(i) the need to purchase, license or acquire any other material asset or property; (ii) violating any contractual rights of any third party; or (iii) infringing, misappropriating or misusing any software or Intellectual Property Rights of any third party, except for such assets, properties, rights, contracts, software and Intellectual Property Rights, the absence of which, individually or in the aggregate, would not have a Material Adverse Effect on the Group Business. Title to all Group Assets is freely transferable to and, with respect to the Contributed Assets and Contributed Stock, will be transferred to Newco free and clear of all Encumbrances, other than Group Permitted Encumbrances. Such transfer of the Contributed Assets and Contributed Stock can occur without obtaining the consent or approval of any person, except where the failure to transfer the Group Asset would not have a Material Adverse Effect on Newco. At the Closing, the Contributing Companies will contribute, transfer and deliver to Newco all right, title and interest in and to all Contributed Assets and Contributed Stock, free and clear of all Encumbrances, other than Group Permitted Encumbrances.

The third amendment to the Santa Cruz Caldera agreement dated Feb. 9 2001 redefines intellectual property rights to be:
"Intellectual Property Rights" means, collectively, all of the following worldwide intangible legal rights including those existing or acquired by ownership, license or other legal operation, whether or not filed, perfected, registered or recorded and whether now or hereafter existing, filed, issued or acquired: (i) patents, patent applications, and patent rights, including any and all continuations, continuations-in-part, divisions, reissues, reexaminations or extensions thereof; (ii) inventions (whether patentable or not in any country), invention disclosures, industrial designs, improvements, trade secrets, proprietary information, know-how, technology and technical data; (iii) rights associated with works of authorship (including without limitation audiovisual works), including without limitation copyrights, copyright applications and copyright registrations, moral rights, database rights, mask work rights, mask work applications and mask work registrations; (iv) rights in trade secrets (including without limitation rights in industrial property, customer, vendor and prospect lists and all associated information or databases and other confidential or proprietary information), and all rights relating to the protection of the same including without limitation rights under nondisclosure agreements; (v) any other proprietary rights in technology, including software, all source and object code, algorithms, architecture, structure, display screens, layouts, inventions, development tools and all documentation and media constituting, describing or relating to the above, including, without limitation, manuals, memoranda, records, business information, or trade marks, trade dress or names, anywhere in the world; (vi) any rights analogous to those set forth in the preceding clauses and any other proprietary rights relating to intangible property, including without limitation brand names, trademarks, service marks, domain names, trademark and service mark registrations and applications therefor, trade names, rights in trade dress and packaging and all goodwill associated with the same; and (vii) all rights to sue or make any claims for any past, present or future infringement, misappropriation or unauthorized use of any of the foregoing rights and the right to all income, royalties, damages and other payments that are now or may hereafter become due or payable with respect to any of the foregoing rights, including without limitation damages for past, present or future infringement, misappropriation or unauthorized use thereof; and (viii) rights under license agreements for the foregoing.

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 | # ]

But SCO actually doesn't know what SCO knew
Authored by: so23 on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:30 AM EDT
because SCO isn't SCO, it is Caldera.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's It All About?
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 05:48 AM EDT
We still don't know what is in the proposed and sealed third amended complaint.
But, with PJ's help, we are all guessing. In the article, PJ quotes from SCO's
Second Amended Complaint. I looked up IBM's replies which are as follows,

53. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 53.

55. States that it is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments of paragraph 55, except admits that IBM and The Santa
Cruz Operation, Inc. (a California corporation now known as Tarantella, Inc.,
which is not affiliated with SCO), entered into an agreement to develop a UNIX
operating system for a 64-bit processing platform that was being developed by
Intel and that the project was known as Project Monterey.

57. Denies the averments of paragraph 57 as they relate to IBM, admits that The
Santa Cruz Operation, Inc., provided information to IBM concerning UnixWare and
certain software, and states that IBM is without information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the averments as they relate to any other person or

So, the court has been told that the plaintif was not a party to Monterey even
though they claim as much in their complaint. I have looked through the legal
documents and have not found any SCO rebuttle of that point.

It looks as though SCO's Third Amended Complaint maintains that IBM have
violated SCO's copyrights (yes, I know, I know) by porting AIX to the Power
platform. This was a violation of the licence before SCO terminated it. I assume
that IBM in their sealed response maintained that they had a contractual
agreement by way of the Monterey contract to port AIX to both IA64 and PPC and
that the plaintif has no standing with respect to that non-transferable,
terminated contract which nevertheless, still gave IBM perpetual rights to sell

SCO tried to strongarm IBM into permitting the Third Amended Complaint by saying
they would deliberately misconstrue the scope of IBM's 9th counterclaim unless
IBM gave way.

What do you think?

Ian Al

[ Reply to This | # ]

Weirder and weirder
Authored by: eskild on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:42 AM EDT
'The Trillian Project also was formed early in 1999 to port the Linux operating
system to the Intel IA-64 architecture. The project currently includes Caldera,
CERN, Cygnus Solutions, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Red Hat, SGI, SuSE,
TurboLinux and VA Linux Systems'

SCOXE might not be in a position to know what Old-SCO did or knew, but as they
really are Caldera - they should at least know this.

It seem that Darl&Co when they arrived as the 'new management' they didn't
bother to look into what either SCO had been doing except for litigation


[ Reply to This | # ]

Obviously, SUN and Microsoft were not invited into the working group(s) for Monterey, were they?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:25 AM EDT
Sun and Microsoft were not part of this move to unify UNIX.

I wonder where SUN was, and what was SUN thinking of at this time? Was Sun
still in Solaris land, an island unto it'self.

We know that Microsoft does not join anything that it can not ebrace and extend
for Microsoft's OWN needs and greeds.

I wonder what SUN and Microsoft were thinking with all these folks joining hands
in the Monterey and Linux camps. Caldera, who became SCOxe, was a pure LINUX
company at the time with it's own coders, contributing code to the LINUX kernel
with the full approval of Management.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 07:32 AM EDT
Here's another link on an article from 1998 about UNIX-Ware on PowerPC LINK and a link to a sample list of links about SCO and Monterey LINK< /a> Paul

[ Reply to This | # ]

More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 08:52 AM EDT
Just for background--why _did_ IBM pull the plug on Monterey? And were the other
players in consensus? Just wondering...

[ Reply to This | # ]

More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence
Authored by: bobn on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:04 AM EDT
I thought the allegation was that AIX/PPC couldn't include the SVr4 code once Monterey was dead, only Svr3 - that only Monterey allowed SVr4 in AIX/PPC and once IBM killed Moterey, that was no longer in force.

Or is that jsut more TSCG crap I failed to decode?

IRC: irc://
the groklaw channels in IRC are not affiliated with, and not endorsed by, either or PJ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Intel architecture and compatibles"
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 09:41 AM EDT
Is the IBM Power an Intel architecture compatible?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SOT: SCOG admits UNIX/ABI/iABI/iABI+... are standards
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 11:37 AM EDT
Click here before it goes POOF!

Including UNIX®95 X/Open UNIX 95 Brand (Single UNIX Specification) and much more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is this leading us ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 11:47 AM EDT
I don't understand the relevance of all this extraneous "evidence".

The Monterey contract states:

22.19 Entire Agreement

The provisions of this Agreement, including any attachments, appendices,
exhibits, and the agreements expressly incorporated herein by reference,
constitute the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all
prior intentions, proposals, understandings, communications and
agreements, oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this
Agreement. This Agreement will not be binding upon the parties until it
has been signed by each party's authorized representative.

What is the point of all this extrinsic stuff about AIX and POWER?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Austin Statesman Article
Authored by: stats_for_all on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 11:54 AM EDT
The Austin American Statesman ran a feature, 4/17/00, "IBM plays the Unix game," article describing 2000 IBM Austin developers working day and night to complete the AIX OS. A Y! SCOXE poster "b5jds" reprints substantial portions from a retitled article: "IBM Releases Newly Developed Computer Technology Amid Fierce Competition" he located on EBSCO Host. Source: Msg: 239647 posted 2/23/05
First, Project Monterey is on schedule. The project to create a dominant Unix operating system that runs on both Intel Corp.'s next generation processor and IBM's Power processor, has been an 18-month-long obsession for hundreds of IBM employees in Austin.


Announced in October 1998, Project Monterey is a joint effort between IBM and SCO, the Santa Cruz, Calif.-based leader in Unix shipments, and Intel. The goal is to combine the best of AIX and UnixWare, SCO's version of Unix, for a hybrid version that runs on Intel's forthcoming 64-bit processors and IBM's Power chips.


All three companies have specific payoffs in mind. To SCO, which was one of the first companies to offer Unix on Intel chips, Project Monterey is an opportunity to move upstream on IBM's coattails to more lucrative enterprise markets. IBM gains access to the growing segment of customers that want to build networks based on Intel chips. That is an acknowledgement that Intel's chips, or compatible versions from AMD Corp., are likely to become the standard processors for the mid- level enterprise market, just as they have for desktop and portable computers.

A yahoeuvre search for "Monterey" within the TTLA board reveals some interesting discussion and references to news reports. The Monterey project was still born as of the 2/ 29/00 beta release, and widely viewed as on lifesupport before 8/2/00 oldSCO > Caldera sale. A Register article has good history.

A TTLA message board poster with engineering knowledge and animosity toward oldSCO executives discussed Monterey in msg 23750 on TTLA (7/28/ 00). He wrote:

"2. AIX 4.3.* is the foundation technology of Monterey 64. Actually some IBM engineers consider Monterey 64 the AIX on IA64 project - which it pretty much is."


"4. SCO was providing minor features to Monterey 64 and is no longer investing R&D money in Monterey 64. I believe at no point that SCO was contributing more than 10-15 engineering to Monterey 64."

An earlier msg 1698 TTLA (08/26/99) by another nym, also with engineering background, says essentially the same thing.

>>Monterey IS AIX." Don't forget AIX has been 64-bit for a while - all it needed from SCO (as I guess you know) was Intel experience (MMU and boot). The rest was already in place.

An interesting feature of these knowledgeable posts is the documentation of the extreme asymetry between the IBM engineering effort (>2000 developers> and the TTLA contribution .

[ Reply to This | # ]

Evidence is irrelevant to a jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 12:06 PM EDT

Now we know why SCO desperately wants to get this before a jury. A jury is free
to ignore the evidence and vote for the side with the cutest lawyer or the best
clothes or the funniest jokes.

Don't bore me with facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

POWER + AIX = 1990.
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 12:28 PM EDT
I personally used AIX on a POWER architecture machine by at least 1993.
Cursory interaction with IBM's non-PC divisions in that era, even just
salesgeeks, leads to hearing 'AIX' and 'POWER'.

The 'adding Linux' bit is the new bit, but any complaints 'We didn't authorize
AIX for _that_' are completely nuts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 12:50 PM EDT
I know, but SCOG is claiming to be the successor in interest; thus, as far as
I'm concerned, it might as well be a SCOG admission.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewSCO / OldSCO - Research Suggestion
Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, April 09 2005 @ 06:38 PM EDT

As in many other previous articles, PJ discusses in this one the difference in
"position" or "knowledge" held between "OldSCO"
and "NewSCO".

We've seen discussions concerning Tarantella, Canopy and the like.

One way that we might be able to understand the transfer of knowledge and
experience between the various SCO companies involves quite a lot of research...
Would it be possible for Groklaw to do some digging here. I'm thinking of
something along the lines of drawing up a map of the employee base of OldSCO,
another for NewSCO and the like.

These companies must have had legal counsel; they must have had an R&D
Director and Team; there must have been people in finance, support and the like.

One of the interesting intangibles in this case revolves around the fact that
NewSCO are claiming to own rights for which they believe they are the
successor-in-interest to. OK. On what grounds? Where's the paper trail? Which
employees [if any] with knowledge of purchased rights, transferred from one
company to another? If none with the appropriate knowledge, what documentation
would have changed hands?

This kind of data might be confidential; it might become material evidence in
the IBM case.

I'm betting, however, that it ought to be possible for the Groklaw Community to
be able to do some basic research; to look at filings, press releases, old
company brochures and the like. Maybe we could find recruitment companies with
adverts that are public record. Trade journals or magazines with articles.

Somewhere in this community there must be enough information for us to put
together a reasonably detailed picture of the movements of all the key employees
of these various companies, plus the IP, rights, entitlements and other assets
that changed hands down through the years.

We've seen and heard a lot from SCO to date about their position that they own
this right or that right or this code or that IP. Fine. How? From where?

Seems to me that, to date, we're simply reviewing evidence brought up either by
SCO or Novell here. What else has been going on? Who else is a player in this

Maybe I'm dreaming here... but some little instinct is telling me that there is
a piece of unexplored territory here. That same something tells me that the
Groklaw Community can explore it better than anyone else...

Thoughts anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

More AIX/POWER/Project Monterey Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 07:51 AM EDT
Here's an AIX on POWER manual.

It was not new then; roughly 1988, from memory.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM and Linux since 1998
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 10:47 AM EDT
Note that IBM starting looking at Linux by late 1998 as an article by Maya Stodte dated 01 Jun 2001 :
IBM Linux Technology Center
Quote: The roots of the LTC go back to the Fall of 1998 when IBM kicked off a corporate task force to investigate Linux technology and open source and to articulate a strategy for IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM licenses AIX to SCO?
Authored by: Jaywalk on Monday, April 11 2005 @ 02:38 PM EDT
IBM will license AIX technology to SCO for inclusion in UnixWare and promote this offering to the IA-32 market.
Huh? What's with this? Isn't SCO's basic argument that their contract gives SCO rights to AIX in its entirety? If that's the case, why do they need to license AIX technology from IBM for use in UnixWare for Monterrey?

Doesn't this blow SCO's main case right out of the water?

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ 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 )