|
|
| What Did Caldera Know About IBM, AIX, Linux and Power? |
 |
|
Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:23 PM EDT
|
One of the tidbits we found in the transcript of the most recent hearing, held on April 21, 2005, is that SCO argued that being Caldera, not Santa Cruz, they couldn't be expected to know all that Santa Cruz knew about AIX on Power. They argued this, I gather, so they could say they only just learned of it, in response to IBM's mountain of evidence that in fact Santa Cruz knew all about it and raised no objection.
As you will recall, SCO's ability to file a 3rd amended complaint pivots in large part on whether or not they already knew a long time ago. So, here is a presentation [PDF] that David Turek, Vice President, Deep Computing and Web Servers, IBM, gave on September 13, 2000, and you will note that Caldera is listed as a partner, on page 9, and on that same page, it announces OSDL and its mission to add "enterprise capabilities to Linux." The announcement is dated August 30, 2000, and IBM, Caldera, and their other OSDL partners, it says, would be working together to encourage the uptake of Linux in the enterprise. The next few pages discuss plans to develop Linux cluster offerings, initially on IA-32, "with infusions of IBM and non-IBM hardware and software" and then over time, to appeal to "broader set of industry segments and customers." (p. 13.) The "IBM Solution Series for Linux Clusters" was announced at LinuxWorld in 2000, on August 15, it says on page 14, and then on page 15, we find this nugget: - Solution Series provides a vehicle for customers to quickly and efficiently order and install a Linux cluster
Helps to accelerate industry movement from early adopter to early and late majority stages
- Solution Series will expand to POWER and IA-64 architecture based offerings in the future.
- Worldwide Announce and delivery plans underway.
On page 23, it mentions Caldera again, and tells us that Caldera's OpenLinux eServer & eBuilder included IBM Websphere App Server. Page 24 lists the benefits for the enterprise of using Linux. Page 25, the Linux Enablement - Platforms page, lists NUMA-Q and tells us about the "technology port underway" for RS/6000, that there was "Linux API support on AIX", and that "Linux apps exploit AIX QOS" on AIX. Why were these partners, including Caldera (which was then primarily a Linux company), so eager to encourage Linux? It tells us on page 2: "Customer demand is very high and growing fast." So when SCO told the court in its complaint that prior to IBM's involvement from 2000 or so onward, Linux was a mere hobbyist's operating system, that wasn't accurate. Note the pie charts on page 2, which show that in 1998, "Combined Unix" represented 19% of the "ww server operating systems shipments (new licenses)", and Linux 16%; the following year, Combined Unix had dropped to 15% and Linux had grown to 25%. On page 4, an Information Week chart shows projected Linux use in the next 12 months. And then on page 6, IBM lists its activities in connection with its Linux focus, and it list this: Open Source
Significant code contributions and technical resources working with the open source community It lists that right underneath its partners, including Caldera. So what might a reasonable person conclude? Did Caldera know? Unless they were blind, deaf and dumb, it seems they had to know. IBM certainly told them exactly what they were doing with their AIX code with regards to Linux. I draw the conclusion that Caldera not only knew, they were helping. Oh, on page 7, it lists JFS, so IBM told the world about that too. Back in the year 2000, at least. You can also note on this list of IBM's history with Linux, an IBM Fact Sheet dated August 22, 2000, that it was back in September of 1999 that IBM announced "plans for a Linux application execution environment that will enable most Linux applications to run on RS/6000 servers with AIX 4.3.3". And Caldera was partnering with IBM regarding Linux as far back as March of 1999. Yet their complaint alleged, as I understand it, that they were in the dark about IBM's support for Linux at that time. So, did SCO tell the court the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I'll let you decide. All Groklaw does is show you the evidence.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:32 PM EDT |
If newSCO can claim they are a successor in interest to everything that they
bought from oldSCO, are they not also admitting that they must be successor in
knowledge as well?
I mean come on, if they did not do a thorough job of finding out exactly what
they were buying, that is their fault right? Let the buyer beware!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
If you don't listen to anyone except those who are saying what you want to hear,
then it's pretty easy to say, "We didn't know". If you lobotomize
your institutional memory, then you can claim "We didn't know" with a
straight face.
IANAL, but I don't think that gets you off the hook legally...
MSS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
"that SCO argued that being Caldera, not Santa Cruz, "
They are suing the wrong people, jesh! Sound like they got sold a pig-in-a-pok[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
.
---
This comment was typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- expand - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- ww server? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- ww server? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:25 PM EDT
- ww server? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 05:00 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
Ransom Love, Ralph Yarro, Doug Michels (where to serve the papers ...)
for not being diligent in enforcing Darl's contractual rights, 4 years before
Darl invented his contractual rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
| I ran into Ransom Love at SCO Forum 2000 while an
earnest IBMer was pinning an AIX 5L button on him...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
Caldera was a partner with IBM on developing Linux.
Of course it knew how important Linux was and of IBM's plans for Linux.
To claim otherwise is a bald-face lie.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:13 PM EDT |
Don't forget to make clickable links like this:
<a href="http://www.example.com/example">click here</a>
And use "HTML Formatted" as your Post Mode if you need to. Also,
preview, and make sure those links actually work.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes them soggy and hard to
light.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MyDoom attacked the SCO Website, Linux fan seeking revenge? They were wrong - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Another legal case - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 05:52 PM EDT
- Off-topic threads here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 06:11 PM EDT
- infinite # Dvoraks create... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 08:15 PM EDT
- a use for windows.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 08:21 PM EDT
- Off-topic threads here - Authored by: cricketjeff on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 09:00 PM EDT
- Great quote with insight to SCO strategy. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 09:11 PM EDT
- email "retention" (i.e. destruction) policy backfires - Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 09:13 PM EDT
- "SCO quashes SEC investigation rumor" - Authored by: gdeinsta on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 09:18 PM EDT
- I've been a pretty consistent critic of Groklaw recently - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 21 2005 @ 02:28 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
One of the tidbits we found in the transcript of the most recent
hearing, held on April 21,
2005, is that SCO argued that
being Caldera, not Santa Cruz, they couldn't be expected to
know all that Santa Cruz knew about AIX on Power. They argued this, I gather, so
they
could say they only just learned of it, in response to
IBM's mountain of evidence that in
fact Santa Cruz knew all
about it and raised no objection.
As you will
recall, SCO's ability to file a 3rd amended complaint pivots in large part
on
whether or not they already knew a long time ago.
[etc]
It reads like (I don't think this is intended, but
that's what it reads like) that if SCO/Caldera somehow forgot/lost the knowledge
of Santa Cruz's knowledge of what IBM did, then that's good enough for
SCO/Caldera to file a 3rd amended complaint (as well as not acting as a waiver
[if required] of what IBM did).
I don't think forgetting/losing info is
good enough (even if they did, which they clearly didn't as the rest of PJ's
article clearly shows).
If you are claiming to be a successor in
interest to somebody else (as SCO/Caldera are claiming to be to Santa Cruz),
when you become their successor you take on both their rights and
responsibilities, including any impairment of their rights that the predecessor
has never-had/lost/given-away/sold/etc.
Here IBM got/had certain rights
because of what Santa Cruz did. If Santa Cruz had suddenly "forgotten" that
they had given certain rights to IBM, then IBM wouldn't lose those rights as a
result of Santa Cruz's unilateral memory loss. Equally well if Santa Cruz sells
some of their assets to SCO/Caldera, and later SCO/Caldera "forgets" that IBM
had certain rights, there's no reason why SCO/Caldera's sudden unilateral memory
loss (or unilateral failure to properly research what Santa Cruz sold them),
should result in IBM losing rights.
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: meshuggeneh on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:24 PM EDT |
Linux and clusters were on everyone's lips. The writing was on the wall, and
IBM was turning its great self toward Linux in the server room.
I sat in on a phone conference with Turek at the time, when IBM was pushing some
great idea called Knowledge-Based Computing or something on the executive
management in the company I worked for. Linux and clusters were just a small
detail in it.
But for me it was an important one. IBM provided an approval for Linux I needed
to get general approval (or at least removed some roadblocks) in the executive
levels: We had an edict that "there shall be no Linux on the network"
from the MIS execs that I had been breaking for some time while assembling a
beowulf cluster in our little part of the company, and hiding behind a single IP
number.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I remember then - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: ChrisA on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't SCOs Third Amended Complaint deal with
SVR4 code in AIX? From reading the transcript of the hearing, it doesn't sound
like this complaint has anything to do with IBM & Linux.
The presentation says nothing about IBM taking the printing subsystem or the
/proc filesystem from SVR4 and putting it into AIX which, if I'm reading right,
is what the 3rd Amended Complaint is all about.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Re: OSDL<p>Wow, was it really that long ago? They're a fixture around
here.<p>
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
The key to winning a lawsuit is preparation, and if the lawsuit is complex:
meticulous preparation. It looks more and more that the only preparation SCOG
did was Darl the Snarl mouthing off prior to the lawsuit, and BOIES putting Darl
the Snarl's rants in writing.
Between SCOG's pathetic litigations, Rob Enderle's ramblings, Laura Didio's
ignorant pontificating, Maureen O'Gara's latest breach of jornalistic ethics,
etc. , I am getting the impression that our enemies operate with the deadly
(it's deadly to you if you can't stop laughing) effectiveness and efficiency of
the Keystone Kops.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:46 PM EDT |
All I can say is "Heh".
"Heh" again.
"Heh"
Nick :-D [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
Let us assume for a moment that IBM did in fact have some liability with respect
to AIX/Tarantella. Old SCO knew, and failed to act on it, thus relieving IBM of
that liability. Caldera bought the rights to the code, perhaps understanding
that IBM may have some liability, but failed to find during due diligence that
SCO had de facto released IBM's liability, and/or old SCO failed to disclose.
In such a scenario, I would expect that one of two conclusions would result:
Caldera is sent away with the old saying, "Buyer Beware."
Essentially, you failed in your due diligence, and so it's your own fault. Or,
as an alternative, the liability would be shifted to old SCO for failure to
disclose.
In either case, Caldera not knowing has zero effect on the IBM case, because the
holder of the rights at the time knew and chose not to act.
Reasonable, yes?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
While Caldera could certainly be forgiven (*ahem*) for not reading Santa Cruz's
press releases (see below), they should have at least
r
ead the financials:
The result will be a single product line
that
will run on IA-32, IA-64 and IBM microprocessor systems that range from
entry-
level servers to large enterprise environments.
Or maybe th
is one:
The
purpose of this alliance is to create a single
product line that will run on
Intel IA-32, Intel IA-64 and IBM microprocessor
systems...
This is from a press release I found on a server
in, of all places, Hungary. It was one of a number of items listed in a
post
by belzecue ,
about releases that disappeared from SCOG's site. PJ has the
address of the server, but I'm not going to post it here so it won't get
Groklawed. PS, can anyone confirm the authenticity of this
document?
SCO ANNOUNCES RECORD FISCAL1999 THIRD QUARTER
AND
NINE MONTH FINANCIAL RESULTS
Revenues, Gross Margins and Earnings
Increase
E-Commerce Revenue Grows Significantly
Project Monterey Builds
Momentum
SANTA CRUZ, CA (July 20, 1999) - SCO (NASDAQ: SCOC) today
announced
record third fiscal quarter and nine month financial results for the
period ended June 30, 1999.
For the third fiscal quarter of 1999, revenues
reached a quarterly record
of $57,060,000, compared with $25,241,000 for
the third fiscal quarter of
1998. Net profit for the quarter was $4,535,000,
or $0.13 per share, basic
and diluted, compared with a loss of
$20,969,000, or $0.59 per share, basic
and diluted, recorded in the same
period of 1998. Results for the third
quarter of 1998 were impacted by a $16
million charge for the elimination
of inventory with distributors and
resellers.
Revenues for the nine-month period ending June 30, 1999,
were
$165,504,000,
compared with $123,278,000 for the same nine-month
period in fiscal
1998.
Net profit for this nine-month period was
$11,483,000, or $0.33 per
share,
basic, and $0.32 per share,
diluted, compared with a loss of
$17,344,000,
or $0.48 per share, basic
and diluted, for the first nine months of
1998.
Doug Michels, president and CEO
of SCO, said, "The positive results
produced this quarter reflect continued
demand for the reliable,
scalable
and cost-effective server solutions achieved
by SCO OpenServer and
UnixWare
7 systems. This demand continues to be driven by
the growth of the
Internet
for commerce, communication and business computing.
The third quarter
saw
strong sales in all geographies. We are particularly
pleased to have
Abbey
National, a major UK bank, as a new SCO UnixWare customer.
Abbey
National
will use UnixWare to service 13,000 users on 1,150 servers
throughout
the
bank's network.
"Project Monterey took a major step forward with
IBM's recently
announced
acquisition of Sequent Computer Systems, a leading
high-end server
hardware
vendor and a founding member of the Project Monterey
initiative. Also,
SCO
and IBM reached an agreement enabling IBM to sell and
support SCO's
Tarantella web-enabling software to IBM's AIX customers and
partners.
Tarantella is now available on both current Monterey platforms:
UnixWare
7
and IBM AIX."
Project Monterey is a major UNIX operating system
initiative led by IBM,
SCO and Sequent with participation from Intel, as well as
major hardware
and software companies from around the world. SCO, IBM and
Sequent are
working to deliver a single, high-volume UNIX product family
that
provides
optimized support for the Intel IA32 and IA64 product lines and
the IBM
Power architecture.[emphasis added]
John W. Luhtala, senior vice
president, operations, and chief financial
officer of SCO, commented, "We are
pleased with the growth in revenues
and
earnings reported in the third quarter.
This quarter is the fourth
quarter
of sequential growth in revenues, operating
income, and earnings per
share.
Gross margins exceeded 78%, up from 77.7% and
77.5% in the second and
first
quarters of 1999, respectively. A year ago, we
generated about $500,000
in
electronic licensing revenues. This quarter, we
grew that portion of our
business to over $11,000,000. Not only has
e-commerce increased our
gross
margins, we believe it has also helped grow our
revenues. Additionally,
SCO's strong cash flow resulted in an increase in cash
and short-term
investments at the end of the period, now at approximately
$53.9
million."
Michels concluded, "The positive trends in our business are
directly
related to the increasing importance of server-based computing.
The
growth
of server-based systems such as the Internet and network computing
will
continue to drive the demand for the reliability and scalability
that
UNIX
Systems provide. These factors, combined with SCO's market strength
and
support of the Project Monterey partners, position SCO to benefit
from
the
expansion of mission-critical computing."
About SCO
SCO is the world's
number one provider of UNIX server operating systems,
and the leading provider
of network computing software that enables
clients
of all kinds - including PCs,
graphical terminals, NCs, and other
devices -
to have Webtop access to
business-critical applications running on
servers
of all kinds. SCO designed
Tarantella software, the world's first
application broker for network computing.
SCO sells and supports its
products through a worldwide network of distributors,
resellers, systems
integrators, and OEMs. For more information, see SCO's WWW
home page at
http://www.sco.com.
Note
Except for historical information
contained herein, the matters
discussed
in this release are forward-looking
statements. Investors are cautioned
that all forward-looking statements involve
risks and uncertainty,
including without limitation, uncertainty in non-U.S.
markets, the
ability
to reduce expenses, risks of dependence upon third-party
suppliers,
impact
and success of joint development projects and industry
partnerships,
timely
availability of products, market acceptance of new
products, the impact
of
competitive products, general market conditions, and
other risks
detailed
from time to time in SCO's SEC filings, including forms
10-Q and 10-K
(copies of which are available from SCO without charge in hard
copy or
online at http://www.sco.com/investor,
or
http://www.sec.gov/edgarhp.htm).
# # #
SCO, The Santa Cruz Operation, the
SCO logo, SCO OpenServer, UnixWare,
and
Tarantella are trademarks or registered
trademarks of The Santa Cruz
Operation, Inc. in the USA and other countries.
UNIX is a registered
trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other
countries.
All
other brand or product names are or may be trademarks of, and are
used
to
identify products or services of, their respective
owners.
---
The wise man is not embarrassed or angered
by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
It appears the the SCO lawyers are confused as to what Linux is. They are
referring to applications that IBM may have developed as though it is the same
thing as the kernel.
As PJ points out above the Linux system was
used on many servers from about 1995 onwards; and this attracted companies such
as IBM. IBM were known as a computer manufacturer that was looking for a good
operating system. They had lost out on the PC market to clones, their AS400
lacked a lot of applications; their 6000 series machines were great but very
expensive.
At that time there were hundreds of companies supplying
various UNIX clones; our company used machines from Fort Lauderdale, FLA; I
think they were called Enquire. But the UNIX clone market was being destroyed
by DEC alphas running OSF, and by Solaris solutions, (very
expensive).
SCO lawyers claim that their ancient SVR4 code could be
copied. This is stupid. It would be like fitting a 15 year old engine into a
new car. The old SVR6 UNIX machines were being superseded by more modern
technology about 1995. The old UNIX boxes that SCO supply were too slow, and
lacked the basic drivers and features needed back then. Five years later, in
2000, Linux 2.4 was released; Linux 2.2 having reached the peak of
stability.
There was no huge influx of features into the Linux kernel,
suddenly increasing its features; by IBM or anybody else. If you read the LKML
archives you will see steady progress, made fast by many eyes. IBM made
contributions to which we give them our thanks, but there was no "take over"
then or now.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Latesigner on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
A petty, meaningless distinction.
Given the history of computing/software start ups that "a hobbyist
operating system" is just pure nonsense.
When is someone going to call them on it?
---
The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
| BTW Ransom Love works for one of the best Linux Companies in the world now, Progeny
Ransom had worked with Darl at
Novell before and knew exactly how difficult he was.
Ransom probably came to
a point where his only response could be "if you insist".
Ralph Yarro: Darl,
I've got great news!
Darl McBride: That's fantastic! Did we find the
offending code?
Ralph Yarro: No.. I saved a bundle on my car insurance by
switching to Gieco! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: heretic on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 03:56 PM EDT |
On the basis of this article and the hearing I believe the real question that
begs an answer is: "Why did TSCOG management embark on this mad
quest?"
I believe the answer to that question will also reveal a
lot about their tactics, their FUD campaign, the badly prepared court documents,
etc.
heretic [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
| Oh fine, now they'll claim IP rights on anti-gravity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 04:41 PM EDT |
It's harder to disavow knowlege of something you distribute yourself. They
really make it too easy sometimes (but a few folks may want to grab 'em before
they disappear again):
From caldera.com:
SCO
Product Guide 99_R5 8/30/99 (PDF)
In 1998, SCO and IBM
forged a
strategic alliance to jointly develop and distribute a common UNIX System
family
designed for computers based upon both Intel and IBM
microprocessors.
Drat! I thought I had another one but it timed
out after seeminly transferring half the PDF. Luckily the Google cache is still
here. Maybe someone has the PDF or can grab the
original if it reappears.The goal of Project Monterey is to
deliver a single UNIX system product line consisting of:• UnixWare 7 for the
Intel IA-32 bit architecture
• AIX® operating system for the IBM® Power
architecture
• Monterey/64 for the new Intel IA-64 bit architecture Over
the course of 1999 and 2000, IBM and SCO are implementing common technologies in
AIX and UnixWare 7 operating systems. These technologies will also be included
in the Monterey/64 release... It seems UW7 and AIX were going to
come first, with Monterey/64 coming later. I also noticed that IA64 had
fallen to 3rd place this time!
---
The wise man is not embarrassed or
angered by lies, only disappointed. (IANAL and so forth and so on) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ChrisA on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 04:54 PM EDT |
One of the tidbits we found in the transcript of the most recent
hearing, held on April 21, 2005, is that SCO argued that being Caldera, not
Santa Cruz, they couldn't be expected to know all that Santa Cruz knew about AIX
on Power.
I believe that SCO argued that being Caldera, they
couldn't be expected to know that Santa Cruz knew about AIX using SVR4
code on POWER.
As you will recall, SCO's ability to file a 3rd
amended complaint pivots in large part on whether or not they already knew a
long time ago.
The presentation by David Turek does not address the
issue of IBM putting SVR4 code in AIX and so doesn't show that Caldera knew
anything about it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
| My Bad.
I didn't follow the links from Google, just jumped to the conclusion
that they were good.
Sorry. ---
73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi
Comments Licensed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DJNZ on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
A quick google using the terms "monterey risc" pulls up a nice list, and the
fifth page listed is
http://www
.csee.umbc.edu/help/architecture/idfmontereylab.pdf
This is a
presentation apparently given in 1999 jointly by Richard Hughes-Rowlands of the
Santa Cruz Organization and Ahmed Chibib of IBM. While the topic of the
presentation seems to be Monterey on IA64, the third slide (among others) is
particularly interesting.
- In the third slide, the presentation makes it
clear that Monterey was, at that time, intended for IA-32, IA-64 and Power
processors.
- Slide 5 points out IBM's expertise in Risc systems
- Slide 7
indicates that Risc is "key solution segment" targetted by Monterey
- Slide 8
reiterates Slide 3
- Slide 13 indicates that AIX 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 were counted
as part of Monterey, and that there was a "migration guide" from AIX to
Monterey/64
Remember, this is a presentation given jointly by IBM and
SCO, and the presentation indicates that Monterey is intended to run on
Power.
Funny that I could find this with 5 minutes of work in Google, but
TSCOG couldn't find it at all.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
---
Lew Pitcher
Master Codewright & JOAT-in-training
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 05:37 PM EDT |
I just wanna see the ruling.
How long would this still take to the end?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
| It is simply amazing what Caldera's done. When McBride came up with this
scheme, Caldera changed its name to "The SCO Group" and tried to forget that it
ever did anything with Linux. Throughout all their court documents they have
tried to blur the line between them and Santa Cruz, including saying that they
purchased UNIX from Novell in 1996 when they really acquired it in the deal with
Tarentella in 2001. They have gone so far as to use SCO in the same sentence
meaning both "The SCO Group" and "Santa Cruz Operation" in their complaint
against IBM. They have claimed that they were the ones that have worked since
the 80s on developing Unix-on-Intel and that IBM's involement with Linux has
ruined the business they have worked for 20 years to create.
NOW they would
have us believe that they are not Santa Cruz at all. They would even have us
believe they knew nothing of what Santa Cruz did prior to their purchase of
assets in 2001 and don't care.
Which way is it? If they are not Santa Cruz,
then they are Caldera, who valued the technology they bought from Tarentella at
less than $6 million back in 2001. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 08:06 PM EDT |
I have found "SCOG's" unix methods, know-how, "ways of doing things," and code
strewn all over the Interweb.
Porting SCO UNIX
Applications to Run on Compaq Tru64 UNIX
Forget that other people
did it long ago, and continue to do it. IBM must pay!
Methinks HP
should have been the target of SCOG's joke lawsuit instead of
AutoZone.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: argee on Friday, May 20 2005 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
If my memory serves me right, a few years ago there
was some big splash about the Unix Printing Subsystem
being donated to Linux. Caldera? IBM? Not sure who.
---
--
argee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 21 2005 @ 05:00 AM EDT |
When Caldera was a Linux company and oldSCO was a separate entity Caldera must
have been very very happy with IBM contributing to Linux. It is quite believable
that all this fuss was a failed spin in the litigation.
As all previous stunts.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: billmason on Saturday, May 21 2005 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
There was one point in the transcript where the SCO lawyer made it pretty clear
that the part they didn't know about until recently was the infringement. Just
because you have a license to use SVR5 code in AIX for Power doesn't mean that
you can do anything you want to with it. We don't know what, if any,
limitations that license had. SCO says they found an internal IBM email during
discovery that admits that they were infringing on the license. I doubt SCO
even knows how or why, but they saw that email, and they want to find out.
Hence their request for additional discovery on the matter.
That sealed email is out there, and can't be ignored. If they can get past the
venue and statute of limitations thorns in their case (for which they did an
impressive job at hand waving, but was still pretty clearly just that), I think
the judge will agree with them that they have the right to get to the bottom of
that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: star-dot-h on Saturday, May 21 2005 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
Just to save us time and heartache. The story far (for The Register):
We know that they knew at the time what we know now and also knew at the time.
The point is that we now know we can prove that they knew at the time.
Why do this? Because they are claiming in court that:
1. They didn't know nuffink
2. They forgot everffink
3. They're not telling anyffink
4. It's Linux wot done it.
Hope that is all clear.
---
Free software on every PC on every desk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MplsBrian on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
but that kid sure plays mean pinball!
Jokes aside, it seems like a brilliant scheme. Fail to do due dilligence on
what exactly you're buying, then sue, not the party from whom you've bought, but
a former partner of theirs! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
