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.

Santa Cruz's CEO Knew About Project Monterey and POWER in 1999 - & Updates - Make that 1998
Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 09:40 AM EDT

At the most recent hearing in SCO v. IBM, SCO's attorney, Edward Normand tried to refute the mountain of evidence IBM's attorney, David Marriott, presented that showed that Santa Cruz certainly knew that Project Monterey was from day one supposed to run on POWER. SCO has been trying to allege that they only just discovered this, that IBM only did it after Project Monterey was ended, and that it was never authorized.

When Normand stood up to respond to the evidence IBM presented, he tried to minimize the extent of Santa Cruz's knowledge about POWER like this:

There is evidence that people at Santa Cruz might have known that as part of the Project Monterey the parties intended to allow copying to happen. . . . Santa Cruz understood that the product was to be developed. Santa Cruz understood that there would be sharing of the code as part of the project . . . . IBM then argues the issue of whether we should be imputed to have what little knowledge Santa Cruz might have had about the subject matter of the claim.

By his language, he implies that while some there might have known, not everyone knew, and anyway, they are Caldera, not Santa Cruz, so how are they supposed to know? He makes a number of other points, which I will write about when we have the transcript ready (it's long), but let's today just answer one issue: who at Santa Cruz knew about POWER and how long ago did they know?

Here's an article from November of 1999 that shows that the CEO and president of Santa Cruz, Doug Michels, definitely knew. There is no "might have known". Oracle knew too. All their combined partners had to know. For one thing, they told the world. There was a great deal of publicity about Project Monterey. SCO would like the judge to believe that this was esoteric information that maybe only a few Santa Cruz techies knew, but the truth is, everyone in the IT world knew about Project Monterey and POWER, including Santa Cruz and Caldera.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the article:

IBM and Oracle Collaborate to Advance Project Monterey

Somers 12 Nov 99 IBM and Oracle announced a comprehensive initiative in support of AIX and Monterey/64. As part of this initiative, IBM and Oracle will offer Oracle Internet Directory within AIX and Monterey/64 as a directory option to customers. Furthermore, Oracle expects to port its database and application suites, currently available on AIX, to Monterey/64.

This collaboration significantly advances Project Monterey, which is expected to provide customers with a secure and reliable UNIX platform from which to deploy their critical e-business applications.

"The integration of Oracle technology into AIX and Monterey/64 moves us toward solving several key challenges our customers face in becoming effective e-businesses," said Michael Rocha, senior vice president of Platform Technologies, Oracle Corporation. "Together, Oracle and IBM are providing a scalable, reliable solution across a broad spectrum of computing architectures that creates lasting stability, quality and reliability for our customers. This agreement helps make AIX and Monterey/64 a preferred Oracle platform for its strategic enterprise UNIX on IBM's POWER and Intel's IA-64 architectures."

"Oracle's support for Monterey/64 is a tremendous step forward in delivering the industry's leading enterprise UNIX platform for Itanium processor-based systems," said Doug Michels, SCO's CEO and president. "We are delighted to see Oracle expand its support to all Project Monterey UNIX systems as it enables ISVs to have direct access to the largest commercial UNIX systems marketplace for their applications." . . . .

Project Monterey Background

Announced in October 1998, Project Monterey is a major UNIX operating system initiative led by IBM, along with SCO and Intel. The objective of the Project Monterey initiative is to establish a 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. As part of this initiative, a volume UNIX operating system is being developed for Intel's IA-64 processors using technologies from IBM's AIX and NUMA-Q brands and SCO's UnixWare. Many leading hardware and software providers have announced support for the Project Monterey initiative.

Santa Cruz's President for SCO Asia Pacific, James Clark, knew back in 1999 too:

The Monterey-64 operating system will run on 32-bit and forthcoming 64-bit Intel Corp. Merced processors and IBM's PowerPC RISC (reduced instruction set computer) processors, and will show the results of technology sharing between SCO and IBM and their respective UnixWare 7 and AIX Unix operating systems, Clark said at a technology seminar held here today.

The entire Unix inhabited earth knew. Project Monterey involved pretty much everybody except Sun. And trust me, they knew too. Project Monterey was, after all, going after them in the marketplace, if I've understood the strategy of back then. We found that last article listed on a Sun Microsystems page entitled, "Up-to-the-minute news on Sun's rivals", so they knew, for sure.

If SCO only just found out about Project Monterey on POWER, did somebody forget to research the facts of this case before bringing it? It seems pitiable to defend your company by saying they are too dumb and out-of-the-loop to be in the IT business. Or is this all just so much phoney baloney? Groklaw has been presenting evidence of Project Monterey on POWER since July of 2003, and we know SCO reads Groklaw. It might give them hives, but they read it. Here's just one article that presents evidence of Project Monterey being intended to run on POWER and it also has evidence that Caldera knew about SVR4 code being in AIX 5L. We've run many other articles with additional evidence, which you can find in the Archives by looking for Project Monterey in the title.


Groklaw's arch_dude left the following comment, which I want to be sure is not overlooked:

Authored by: arch_dude on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 11:17 AM EDT

An Anonymous post in yesterday's article linked to oldSCO's SEC filing (anual report for year ending 9/30/1999): SEC Filing

Look at the entry for 1998 in the timeline on page 8:

1998 - SCO joined with IBM to begin developing new high-volume enterprise UNIX System for 64-bit processor servers, called "Project Monterey." This product line is designed to run on Intel IA-32, Intel IA-64 and IBM microprocessor systems that range from entry-level servers to large enterprise environments.
So, to be unaware of this newSCO would not only have had to ignore a two-year blizzard of press releases and stories about Monterey; they would also have had to purchase oldSCO's UNIX business without first examining oldSCO's most recently-available annual report.


That 1999 Santa Cruz SEC filing acknowledging Project Monterey was designed to run on POWER is priceless. If you scroll down a ways, you'll see that the board of directors of oldSCO included R. Duff Thompson, who signed a document attached to the annual report, on page 24. R. Duff Thompson is now on the Board of Directors of the SCO Group and has been since 2001. So, can Mr. Thompson be expected to know that Project Monterey was designed for POWER? Can he testify that oldSCO definitely knew?

If so, can SCO now with a straight face tell the court that they only just learned that Project Monterey was designed to run on POWER? Or that because Caldera isn't Santa Cruz, they can't be expected to know what oldSCO knew? That "some people" at oldSCO "might" have known? When a member of The SCO Group's Board was on the board of oldSCO? And when oldSCO filed an annual report, with Mr. Duff's signature attached? What? He didn't read the annual report? Did the SCO attorneys not think to ask him what he knew? When he was there? I suppose they'll tell us next they didn't know he was on the board of oldSCO? They never read oldSCO's annual reports?

No. I know. They'll find one current SCO Group employee who will give an affidavit that the first he learned that R. Duff Thompson was on the board of Santa Cruz was when he read it on Groklaw in May of 2005. Yeah. That's the ticket.


Here is the Santa Cruz 10K for the fiscal year ended September 1998. It also states the purpose of Project Monterey, and mentions it was to run on IBM microprocessors:

Also in 1998, SCO announced that it had entered into a strategic business agreement with IBM to jointly develop a UNIX system for the forthcoming Intel IA-64 processors. 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 that range from entry-level servers to large enterprise environments.

Yes, R. Duff Thompson is listed as a Board member in this document too. Alan(UK) found this one and suggests we have a contest to find the oldest admission by any oldSCO executive that they knew Project Monterey was designed to run on POWER and the oldest announcement by IBM. Hey, why not? This is fun.


Santa Cruz's CEO Knew About Project Monterey and POWER in 1999 - & Updates - Make that 1998 | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I don't see...
Authored by: dyfet on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 09:50 AM EDT
I don't see why this is even relevant to this particular case. After all, the Monteray contract clearly states that if there is a dispute between the parties, such as this, or other breach, SCO (or presumably it's successor in interest) are given a number of options, including bringing suit and have the terms of the contracts and dispute between the parties interpreted and resolved in a NY court, assuming they do so in a timely matter. I suggest if they feel this strongly about the merits of their complaint, they should do so forthwith.

Yes, sarcasm for Sunday morning :)

Perhaps IBM should even pre-emptivily take SCO to court in NY as SCO is clearly violating the terms of the original contract.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT here
Authored by: troll on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 09:52 AM EDT
Please notice, there is no need to provide example for creating clickable links
anymore. An example is on the "post a comment" page among other
allowed tags.

This is not news. Example has been there for some time. I just wanted to say
Thanks. I can finally copy and paste.

Yours truly ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: fLameDogg on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 10:01 AM EDT
"when we have the transcripts ready (it's long)"

probably should be either


or else



[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is the written authorization...
Authored by: kberrien on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT
After reading the transcript from the last hearing, and all the examples from
IBM about how SCO certainly knew about power - why didn't IBM just provide some
written evidence of permission - be it a contract, etc.

I'm not trolling here. We're talking about the IBM legal team here, who's had
all their ducks in a row. I don't give much weight to the emails, they could
just be between people out of the loop.

If we expect SCO to live by the Novell contract, should we not expect IBM to
live by theirs. Now granted, its not in the case yet. But I just find that
fact a little fishy that IBM didn't come to court with an addendum, or at least
a letter.

If there isn't any formal permission, then escoppel is certainly in effect given
all the evidence IBM & Groklaw has brought to light...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz or Caldera?
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 10:42 AM EDT
...let's today just answer one issue: who at Santa Cruz knew about POWER and how long ago did they know?

If the POWER issue is relevant at all, Santa Cruz's knowledge is all that's important. A company cannot assume the full rights to a contract without assuming ... the full rights to a contract. That is, either they're successor in interest or they're not. If they are, then they know, or should know, everything that Santa Cruz knew. They can't pick and choose.

If they were allowed to pick and choose, imagine the havoc.

Suppose the Chicago White Sox and the Atlanta Braves (two American professional baseball teams) make a trade. The Braves get the contract for Frank Thomas, and the White Sox get John Smoltz. Frank's contract says he will do A and B, and the ball club will do C. Frank has not been doing A but has been doing lots of B to make up for it.

Now comes Atlanta, with the trade, and they want to hold Frank retroactively liable for not doing A, even though the previous club knew all about it and didn't care as long as Frank did B.

What a scam.

(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz's CEO Knew About Project Monterey and POWER in 1999
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 10:52 AM EDT
>>If SCO only just found out about Project Monterey on
>>POWER, did somebody forget to research the facts of this
>>case before bringing it?

O I think they knew. I think they expected to shake up the faith in Linux, and
become such a big pain in the butt, that someone would buy them off. IBM,
Novell, and many others have a lot riding on the success of Linux now days. The
wanted to cash in on Linux too. They just wanted the fast slimey money. They
were counting on a big payoff long before presenting any proof (they don't

Not to memtion that Microsoft helped them find the financing for the whole
deal. No telling what little dirty deals were going on there. They knew exactly
what they were doing. It just backfired on them BIG TIME!

Boy were they wrong. Goodbye SCOX. Hope your parac'hoots' are packed correctly.
It is a long way down......

[ Reply to This | # ]

oldSCO Knew, and told the SEC!
Authored by: arch_dude on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 11:17 AM EDT
An Anonymous post in yesterday's article linked to oldSCO's SEC filing (anual report for year ending 9/30/1999):
S ec Filing
Look at the entry for 1998 in the timeline on page 8:
1998 - SCO joined with IBM to begin developing new high-volume enterprise UNIX System for 64-bit processor servers, called "Project Monterey." This product line is designed to run on Intel IA-32, Intel IA-64 and IBM microprocessor systems that range from entry-level servers to large enterprise environments.
So, to be unaware of this newSCO would not only have had to ignore a two-year blizzard of press releases and stories about Monterey, they would also have had to purchase oldSCO's UNIX business without first examining oldSCO's most recently-available annual report.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The beginning of the end for Monterey.
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 11:23 AM EDT

.......The IA-64 Instruction Set Architecture - published in May 1999 - applies EPIC technology to deliver massive resources with inherent scaleability not possible with previous processor architectures. For example, systems can be designed to slot in new execution units whenever an upgrade is required, similar to plugging in more memory modules on existing systems. According to Intel the IA-64 ISA represents the most significant advancement in microprocessor architecture since the introduction of its 386 chip in 1985.

IA-64 processors will have massive computing resources including 128 integer registers, 128 floating-point registers, and 64 predicate registers along with a number of special-purpose registers. Instructions will be bundled in groups for parallel execution by the various functional units. The instruction set has been optimised to address the needs of cryptography, video encoding and other functions that will be increasingly needed by the next generation of servers and workstations. Support for Intel's MMX technology and Internet Streaming SIMD Extensions is maintained and extended in IA-64 processors.

Whilst IA-64 is emphatically not a 64-bit version of Intel's 32-bit x86 architecture nor an adaption of HP's 64-bit PA-RISC architecture, it does provide investment protection for today's existing applications and software infrastructure by maintaining compatibility with the former in processor hardware and with the latter through software translation. However, one implication of ISA is the extent to which compilers will be expected to optimise instruction streams - and a consequence of this is that older software will not run at optimal speed unless it's recompiled. IA-64's handling of 32-bit software has drawn criticism from AMD whose own proposals for providing support for 64-bit code and memory addressing, codenamed "Sledgehammer", imposes no such penalties on older software.

The following diagrams illustrate the greater burden placed on compiler optimisation for two of IA-64's innovative features:................ PCtechguide

My bold.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From the Linux kernel to AIX user space
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 11:49 AM EDT

After two and a half years, though it seems longer, SCO have changed their argument from "millions of lines of Linux code" to "IBM stole our ancient user space applications". Yet their lawyers are still talking about Linux during the last hearing.

Now SCO claim to be successors of AT&T, (via Novel and the original SCO); though they have problems understanding the contract.

But the user space application for ancient UNIX were mostly developed by Universities; back when the educational licence was cheap. Though they were good back in the 1980s; they are too old now.

So all the SCO claims so far cannot be backed with any evidence; they have yet to name one concrete example of a wrongdoing. Yet this case goes on, and on, and on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Due Dilligence
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 12:58 PM EDT
I guess it is not out of character for SCO to pretend to be old sco when it
suits them and then turn around and pretend to be Caldera when pretending to be
sco is not working. It is hard to be on SCO's er Caldera, uh you know's side
when they don't know what side they are on.

Either way they can't get out of the trap about knowing. It should have been
part of their due dilligence BEFORE they bought SCO.

Now SCO should just say "hey we screwed up. We did not do our homework and
we got bit. We will now drop the whole monterey thing."

Fat chance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ransom Love's Linuxworld 2000 Keynote Speech
Authored by: Nick_UK on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 01:00 PM EDT
Found Linuxwo rld 2000 keynote speech Q&A

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

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

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

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

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

"Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

"Love: You bet.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Please stop confusing the issues with facts!
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 01:01 PM EDT
SCO has never supplied any real facts in the this case and has done everything
in it's power to prevent facts from entering the discussion. Every time SCO
starts it's claims off in a new direction, Groklaw shoots down it's claims with
facts! Why doesn't Groklaw do the same to IBM's arguments? This constant
clouding of the issues with facts just isn't fair!

(excerpt from Darl's brain cell)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Doug Michels comment
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 01:37 PM EDT
Do we know if Doug Michels has ben deposed? He has a stake in all this.
Tarentella owns about 25% of the SCO common stock. How obdective would he be
and how good will his memory be?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Troll alert!!!! this must be a SCO troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 02:32 PM EDT
This is silly. A quick Google found: Cath Everett in Santa Cruz 16 Aug 1999

But Doug Michels, SCOís 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 Intelís IA-32 architecture in the shape of an evolving Unixware 7, on its IA-64 architecture and also on IBMís Power Risc chipset.

This is even older:

BINTAN, Indonesia Friday, 30 October 1998

IBM announced on Tuesday its participation in the development of a new operating system for the US$22.8-billion UNIX market. In partnership with Santa Cruz Operation (SCO), Intel Corp. and Sequent, the initiative aims to deliver a single operating system for IA32, IA64 (a.ka. Merced chip) and IBM Power family processors that run on entry-level to large enterprise servers.

Let's have a competition - two prizes:

1) Oldest admission by senior executive of SCO that they knew.

2) Oldest public statement by IBM on the subject.


[ Reply to This | # ]

From a Caldera Press Release
Authored by: RedBarchetta on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 03:02 PM EDT
Caldera press release dated June 7, 2001 (this is just prior to Darl McBride being hired):
"OpenLinux Server 64 represents the culmination of efforts by Caldera and other members of the IA-64 Linux project to craft a 64-bit operating system for the next generation of Standard High Volume (SHV) server platforms.

Caldera's 64-bit Linux offering complements its recently announced AIX 5L TM technology - a UNIX system solution developed with IBM ģ for Itanium based systems. The combination of AIX 5L with Linux affinity feature and OpenLinux Server 64 provide the industry with the most complete suite of platforms to deploy Linux solutions on Itanium based processors. [..]"
Note the bolded "server platforms." i.e., not just Itanium-64, but other platforms (Power, etc.).

This press release may still be on Caldera's web site. In case they pulled it, I have it archived in the form of Konqueror WAR file (in case anyone wants it).

Here's something else... the Caldera press release mentions AIX 5L. Here is a web page from IBM regarding AIX 5L:
Continuing its commitment to open systems, IBM's AIX 5L for POWER V 5.2 obtained the UNIX 98 Server Brand in May 2003. AIX release 5L for POWER V5.1 is branded UNIX 98, UNIX 98 Server and UNIX 98 WorkStation. IBM helped develop the new UNIX03 standard: The Single Unix Specification, Version 3. AIX 5L expects to obtain the UNIX03 Brand with a future 5L update release.

The AIX operating system provides a consistent application binary interface (ABI) across several hardware platforms.

Collaborative efforts synergise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here is an Monterey announcement from 1998
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 03:25 PM EDT

Here is the link

IBM are contributing AIX code to project Monterey; but the SCOfacts link is broken; but then SCO have always had difficulties with facts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Even Oracle has left the SCO boat
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 05:52 PM EDT
To increase the insult to SCO, Oracle (who where boasting their montery support
in this article) never bothered to port oracle 9i / oracle 10g to any SCO os.

The only way to run a less braindamaged version of oracle was using SCO's Linux
emulation (LKP). For some odd reason, finding LKP from SCO website seems to be a
bit hard - maybe they are trying to hide the GPL's code left in there?

[ Reply to This | # ]

TSG admits they know about it (see their "History of The SCO Group")
Authored by: cmc on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 07:02 PM EDT
I posted this back on May 2, but I'll repeat it here:


Please forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but it's been hard to keep straight all of the stuff we've seen recently about Monterey and UNIX on Power. If SCO is claiming that they didn't know about Monterey's intention to put UNIX on IBM's (Power) processor, they're completely full of it. The "History of SCO" page (here) has this to say:

"1998 Project Monterey: SCO and IBM, with the support of Intel agree to develop a high-volume enterprise UNIX system for Intel IA-32 and IA-64 systems. 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."

Since that's straight from SCO's own website, it would be kind of hard for them to claim that they didn't know about it.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz's CEO Knew About Project Monterey and POWER in 1999 - & Updates
Authored by: meissner on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 09:08 PM EDT
I don't know what point you were trying to make with the ChangeLog, it is pretty
much the standard ChangeLog from the binutils release in the include/elf,
including changes that I made for instance to define the PowerPC ELF format in

As has been discussed on groklaw in the past, the official registery for magic
numbers in ELF land and the core x86 ABI is still in SCO since it is a successor
in interest to AT&T, Novel, etc., and I suspect I was one of the last people
to actually register a new machine (EM_SEP or 108) before SCO became a pariah.
It would be nice if this could be changed after SCO finishes its self

[ Reply to This | # ]

Miles Barel
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 09:52 PM EDT
Not sure if this came up earlier, but a quick googling with "power monterey" return the following link: g oogle cache
Unfortunately it's no longer available on SCO site, but google cache has this:
What's really important here is to know if I haven't told you yet, remind me to tell you that UnixWare is part of the core of Project Monterey--not something we're building Monterey from, UnixWare is part of Monterey. AIX is part of Monterey, and it all comes together to build one product line out of a couple of pieces. One product line that spans both the Intel architectures, IA32 and IA64, and the IBM Risk power architecture, based on standards. This is not a proprietary sort of thing. This is based on standards, because that's what Unix is all about.
My bold


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • More links - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 10:10 PM EDT
  • Risk -> RISC ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 03:39 PM EDT
Santa Cruz Knew about POWER in 1999
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 10:14 PM EDT
Let me see if I can string a few facts together to see if I can divine the
possible arguments SCOG could use to further their argument.

It seems clear SCO knew that IBM intended to port Monterey to Power

It seems clear that SCOG thinks they found something in discovery, which at
least implies that someone at IBM questioned whether IBM had a license to use
Sys V r4 code in AIX.

It seems that there is a Project Supplement C which if executed would have
clearly given IBM the license and the Supplement was never signed.

In evaluating these threads it seems that SCOG's only new discovery is that
someone at IBM questioned whether IBM held a valid license. Something which
nobody at SCOG had thought to do.

SCOG apparently believed IBM had the permission until they got those emails.
Apparently SCOG is relying on IBM's doubts and has put forth little independent
evidence. The doubts of a few IBM employees is hardly compelling.

To me the whole thing seems blown way out of proportion. The communications
inside IBM seem little more than a prudent investigation into the rights IBM

The question I have is what can SCOG do to show that IBM did not have a

You have, of course, the apparently unsigned Project Supplement C, but it's far
from clear that it needed to be signed by both parties. It may simply have been
a list of the stuff SCOG was contributing. It did not change the agreement but
simply memorialized what everyone already knew to be the case, much like a
letter from one person to another saying here is the stuff I promised you, call
if you need anything. Supplements A and B may have been from IBM to SCO,
indicating the stuff they were providing. I have been wondering about these
Supplements since I first read the JDA.

With regard to the license it seems clear everyone involved acted like IBM had
the license to port Monterey to Power architecture. IBM clearly had the right in
the JDA to use any SCO contributions to port Monterey to any other

The only question left is whether SCO actually contributed the SYS V r4 code to
Monterey. If SCO wrote Supplement C and sent IBM the source code, it seems
obvious the intent was to contribute it to Monterey. It was the only technology
SCO had to contribute. It seems equally clear that SCO did send IBM the code, if
not where else would IBM have gotten it?

As usual SCOG's interpretation of the situation strains the bounds of
believability. It's hard to imagine a struggling company like SCO would not be
eager to do anything possible to make this deal work. IBM was making a strategic
move against SUN but SCO was making a life and death, bet the company gamble on
their future. The stakes were as lopsided as the relative resources of the


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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question for the legal minded
Authored by: NastyGuns on Sunday, May 22 2005 @ 11:44 PM EDT

I've a question for those more legally minded than myself. We know that SCO is trying to amend their complaint for supposed Monterey contract violations. This is based off of two emails that SCO submitted but IBM claims as priviledged. Now as I see it, Judge Kimball can rule in one of the following ways:

  1. Rule SCO has brought the complaint in the wrong forum and must file any Monterey complaints in NY.
  2. Rule that SCO must return the emails because they are priviledged.
  3. Rule that the emails are admissible but SCO is stopped by estoppel from amending their complaint.
  4. Rule using 1 and 2.
  5. Rule using 2 and 3.
  6. Rule using all 3.
  7. Or rule in favor of SCO. (The various possibilities I will not list here because I doubt he will and because my questions concern the other listed items.)

My question to the legal minds is what kind of implications for the rest of the case are there if Judge Kimball rules with wording that in effect says the same as item 5 or 6?

I mean, if Judge Kimball says that SCO would be stopped by estoppel does that mean that SCO is from then on considered for the purposes of the court a predecessor in interest of Caldera? Is that kind of ruling a fact that would have to be tried in front of a jury? In what ways can this disputed fact be decided by any ruling from the court? Is it not possible? In what ways can one or the other affect the rest of the case?


"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back, please keep me here." Unknown.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Directors and Officers of SCO in 1999 all on one page.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 01:08 AM EDT
Board of Directors - Corporate Officers - Divisional Officers

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

From SCO after first system boot of Monterey Unix
Authored by: Burger on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 01:31 AM EDT
A quote from IBM press release (September 1999):

"Getting the Monterey/64 operating system up and running on real silicon enables us to get to the next level of engagement with our common ISVs and OEMs," said Mike Orr, senior vice president worldwide marketing, SCO. "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."

This is a link

[ Reply to This | # ]

Let's not forget Nostradamus
Authored by: johan on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 01:51 AM EDT
Specifically Quatrain #943

In vain, the Holy Cross claims;
Body, soul, spirit having no power,
flightless bird embodies darkness,
foe come to bleed in a long wound.
[Sorry for the poor translation, but medieval French isn't my primary skill.]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz's CEO Knew About Project Monterey and POWER in 1999 - & Updates - Make that 1998
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 05:00 AM EDT

(First post here, be gentle, ok? ;-)

Tried to Google on some of the other oldCSO officers. One person that seemed to
have the job description that should involve Monterey development is this guy:
John Bondi - Vice President, Server Product Marketing.

Googling away on his name, Power and Monterey gave a few hints. Among them a
short Development Status Report for Monterey posted in August 1999:

Samsung and Computer Associates Endorse Project Monterey.
PR Newswire, August 16, 1999

A small excerpt:
Also today Project Monterey officials delivered a technology status report
showing that system development is on schedule. Said John Bondi, vice president
of Server Product Marketing. "We are continuing to make excellent progress
and in some cases beating our initial milestones. Our progress now goes beyond
the baseline operating system to include support for some of Monterey/64's
unique features such as the UnixWare 7 IA-32 execution environment."

Here is the link (The link has been Shorlified):


[ Reply to This | # ]

Can Groklaw research still impact Judge?
Authored by: MeinZy on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 08:21 AM EDT
Rookie question: Can the excellent documentation the Groklaw community has mined still make it into the hands of Judge Wells?

It seemed to me that arguments opposing SCO's ammended complaint were already made by IBM in the hearing dated April 21. Can IBM subsequently submit the examples of prior knowledge found in these posts? Prior to Judge Wells' ruling?

Zy -- 'Square peg in a round Earth'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz's CEO Knew About Project Monterey and POWER in 1999 - & Updates - Make that 1998
Authored by: starbuck on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 09:28 AM EDT
How about this link that appears to come from SCO's own PR group in April of
1999. <a

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • HTML formatted - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 05:13 PM EDT
Santa Cruz's first IA-64 project (*not* Monterey)
Authored by: atul on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 04:54 PM EDT
Seems like a good time to remind people that Monterey wasn't SCO's first attempt at Unix on IA-64. A couple of us di d some research on their ill-fated "Summit 3D" partnership with HP back in 1996-97.

For our purposes today, here's the most relevant bit. Since this was a partnership with HP, not IBM, there's no mention of POWER, but their jointly-developed OS was supposed to run on x86, Itanium, *and* PA-RISC, *and* MIPS.

So 2 full years before they so much as said hello to IBM, OldSCO had already given a lot of thought to the matter of porting to non-Intel architectures, and decided they were OK with it. So I can't see how it would've been a bone of contention in the Monterey partnership. It certainly can't have been something that just sort of slipped past OldSCO management without them noticing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not quite everyone.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 23 2005 @ 05:41 PM EDT
I've been in "IT" since 1967, and did not hear about Project Monterey
until 2004.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO insisted on Project Monterey, and POWER?
Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, May 24 2005 @ 12:40 AM EDT
Could it be that _SCO_ insisted on Project Monterey and _IBM_ suggested to them a bonus in POWER, in case "Merced" failed. My guess is SCO took the bait and in the end almost insisted on POWER (when they saw the initial performance of Merced).

"SCO has been casting about with partners for some time in an effort to collect the required resources to move to IA-64. In 1996 and 1997, the company was in partnership with HP to develop a version of Unix for IA-64, "but the partnership broke down and they both walked away from each other,"

The quote is from h ere


IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Last nail for SCO coffin
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 24 2005 @ 09:16 AM EDT
SCO Board of Directors R. Duff Thompson has served as a member of the Company's Board of Directors since May 2001. Mr. Thompson was appointed as a director of Tarantella in December 1995.

As this is the newSCO site, they use Tarantella for oldSCO and SCO for Caldera. Thus R. Duff Thompson, who was a board member of oldSCO in 1999 along with Doug Michels (who definitely knew about POWER), has also served on the Caldera Board from its purchase of the relevant divisions from oldSCO and continues to serve on the newSCO Board.

Thanks to Brian S. for the list of "Directors and Officers of SCO in 1999 all on one page".

I think this just about winds things up.

1) IBM mentions POWER in its 1998-10-26 Monterey press release.

2) SCO mentions it in its 1998 10-K filing.

3) IBM give pre-eminance to POWER (over Intel) in the AIX 5L Technical Preview in 2000.

4) SCO mentions it on their current web-site

5) R. Duff Thompson was, successively, a Board Member of oldSCO, Caldera, and newSCO, from well before Monterey started until the present time.



[ 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 )