decoration decoration
Stories

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

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

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


User Functions

Username:

Password:

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

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
IBM Exhibits Show SCO Knew About SVR4 on Power in 1998
Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 02:16 AM EDT

Remember a couple of weeks ago, IBM unsealed two documents, including the Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy in Support of IBM's Opposition to SCO's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint [Docket No. 345][PDF], which had a lot of paper exhibits attached? Well, we have some of the exhibits now.

You'll remember that SCO was trying to accuse IBM [PDF] of having violated their Project Monterey contract by using SVR4 on Power. SCO told the court that it had no idea that ever happened until discovery revealed it to them in an email. Groklaw knew better than to swallow such a story in the face of facts to the contrary, and we presented a great deal of evidence to support our opinion that SCO did know or should have known years ago.

The motion was denied, the judge saying that SCO knew, or should have known, about AIX on Power:

It appears that SCO -- or its predecessor -- either knew or should have known about the conduct at issue before it filed its original Complaint. Accordingly, the court declines to permit the filing of a Third Amended Complaint.

The exhibits are IBM's proof that convinced Judge Kimball that IBM was right on this issue. The exhibit I note most particularly is a Santa Cruz presentation, DCAP and Monterey, dated 1998. If you notice page 3, it says:

Major Unix Initiative from IBM

IBM creating a single UNIX product line that spans IA-32, IA-64, and IBM Power processors.

UnixWare7 for IA 32
AIX UW7+AIX+new for IA64
(joint dev with SCO) (aka Monterey-64)

Duh. Think oldSCO knew? They wrote this presentation. Page 4 lists what each would contribute, and it says "IBM supplying SCO with AIX enterprise technologies for UnixWare7" and SCO would be "supplying IBM with UnixWare7 APIs and technologies for AIX". Funny, to hear SCO tell it in its Complaint, SCO had to lead IBM like a little child into its wonderful world of code and show it what to do. Note also pages 6, 7, and 10 mention Power. Page 14 is pretty interesting also. It says that each would retain ownership of their contributed technology, be joint owners of the "created Project Work," and "each Party or Both shall own any new 'inventions'." Page 21 is interesting too, mentioning that Monterey would add "new technology source to IA32 UnixWare base case".

Here are all the exhibits we have so far, all PDFs, most of which I haven't looked through yet, so we can do it together:

527-22 - AIX 5L Differences Guide Version 5.1 Edition
527-21 - Printing for Fun and Profit under AIX 5L
527-19 - IBM US Announcement Supplemental Information
527-18 - IBM AIX 5L Version 5.1 Advanced UNIX Operating System with Linux Affinity Delivers the Most Powerful and Flexible Choice for e-business and Enterprise Servers
527-13 - IBM Announces AIX 5L Beta - Introducing the Next Generation of AIX
527-11 - printout from AIX 5L website
527-10 - email from John Boland of Santa Cruz
527-4 - Santa Cruz presentation titled "DCAP and Monterey"
527-3 - presentation titled "genus: An IBM/SCO UNIX Project Marketing Plan Development"

All the exhibits are designed to prove that SCO knew or should have known years ago, and that their tale about IBM's alleged misdeeds was... well, bunk. And the judge agreed. But it's also our first real look deep inside Project Monterey and how each side viewed the contractual arrangement. How SCO had the nerve to tell such a story as they did is beyond me. And how any journalist could go along with the SCO story, when a little fact-checking on Google turns up so much evidence, is baffling. I guess some journalists just print things without being careful to check the facts out, unlike some bloggers.


  


IBM Exhibits Show SCO Knew About SVR4 on Power in 1998 | 191 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off topic here please
Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:19 AM EDT
For current events, legal filings and Caldera® collapses.

Please make links clickable.
Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Journalists
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:39 AM EDT
I have for a long time been convinced the "professional" journalists
are basically lazy. they take whatever is given them and publish it. The last
real investigative journalism I can remember is Watergate. It took more than a
year to get any traction.

I suggest a test proposed to me a long time ago. If you have significant
knowledge of a specific story, how accurate is it?

In my experience based on objective criteria, virtually all are significantly
flawed. What does that do to the credibility of the stories you don't know much
about?

Having just lived through Katrina with a flooded house and severely damaged a
business, I can state the the media has pretty much gotten almost all of the
stories from New Orleans about 100% backwards.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Correktions Hear
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 04:48 AM EDT
If any :)

---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM SCO try to sell Monterey 1999
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:05 AM EDT

Back in 1999 IBM and SCO held a joint presentation. I have a copy as a pdf file containing 29 slides. The file idfmontereylab.pdf is here; but please go easy, not much band width.

This SCO was the old SCO, that sold its "UNIX franchise" to Caldera. The old SCO changed its name to Tarantella, and was bought by SUN. Caldera changed its name to SCO.

There are at least three interesting points.

The first is that SCO acknowledged that IBM is contributing AIX; no claims of overall ownership here; and no claims of ownership of any useful code.

The second is that they were trying to recruit anybody who could write drivers or user space programs. The ancient UNIX systems always lacked drivers compared with modern systems.

A third thing, most damaging to SCO's recent statements; is that they realise that this must be clean code, written from scratch; no boasts about how their code can be copied to accomplish any need.

I have copied the relevant bits of the presentation below

A presentation on August 31,1999 - September 2, 1999

Given by:

Richard Hughes-Rowlands Monterey/64 Product Management representing SCO

Ahmed Chibib Senior Technical Staff Partners in Development representing IBM

There will be Consolidation of Viable UNIX Platforms Initiative to Standardize API and ABI Led By IBM, SCO, Sequent and others.
AIX, SCO technology, IBM technology, Sequent technology and UnixWare will provide the input, to make the Monterey product line for POWER IA-32 and IA-64

The below is shown as a diagram on the slides, so I can only put a sentence. AIX is shown as the main start point for code.

Project Monterey Summary AIX, SCO technology, IBM technology, Sequent technology and UnixWare will provide the input, to make the Monterey product line for POWER IA-32 and IA-64.

The UnixWare business was sold to oldSCO in 1990; but was only a franchise, Novell receives commission for every sale; Here is the announcemen t

AIX is being used as the start point, IBM are doing all the technical work. The stuff that SCO now alleges to own was of no use for Monterey. And they dream of a shrink wrapped binary can corner a large chunk of the market.

Why is Monterey important?
Tremendous Revenue Opportunity:

UNIX will go from 15% To 37% share of the $27.7Bn market

So if their figures are right, Monterey would be competing in a market worth 10 billion dollars.

Lower Costs:

Consolidation of viable UNIX platforms Initiative to standardize API and ABI led by SCO, IBM, Sequent and others
Highly reliable and scalable Shrink wrapped UNIX

Here SCO make no claims to providing useful code, it is all IBM's responsibility, they claim Intel experience only.

The Monterey Partnership SCO - UNIX leader on IA32

Intel commitment and experience
Shrink-wrap software model
Volume installed base

IBM - Enterprise Leader on RISC
64 bit ready
EPIC / RISC experience
Enterprise installed base

Sequent are shown to own NUMA; this is 1999. Since then various wild claims about its ownership have been made by SCO cohorts.

Sequent - Leader in IA-based Data Center Solutions

NUMA RAS techniques

Intel - Leader in Microprocessor Technology

Developer of IA-64 Investment in IVS fund

These are the companies that IBM and SCO are trying to recruit to do the work

Monterey OEMs

Acer
CETIA
Compaq
Bull
ICL
Samsung
Sequent Computer Systems
IBM
Netfinity Group
Unisys
IBM Netfinity Computer

This is the list of what they already have, ready to port; once again IBM are providing the technical stuff.

Monterey Endorsements
Target Key Solution Segments (RISC and IA)
Timing is Critical
Full Complement of IBM Middleware: DB2, Domino, Comm Server, Tivoli, ADSM, MQ Series, Websphere, Visual Age, Intelligent Miner, Notes, Java

Project Monterey Summary
The High Volume UNIX
AIX, SCO technology, IBM technology, Sequent technology and UnixWare will provide the input, to make the Monterey product line for POWER IA-32 and IA-64

Standards-based offering The proven UNIX advantages of Scalability, Reliability, Maintainability Single UNIX that supports "department to data center" servers
Shrink-wrap offering for low-end segment
Multiple vendor support and innovation
Leverage Monterey today for IA-32 or Power architectures

Addressing customer needs
Increased uptime through reliability and availability
Ease of use through Serviceability and Usability
Increase cost effectiveness through scalability and performance
Preserve investment, but give a path to the future

Service and Support:
Single (Binary) Product
Sold by IBM and SCO & Monterey partners

Supported by your supplier
SCO or a Monterey partner Business as usual
Synchronised release and maintenance strategy
Joint IBM and SCO developer programs

And here is the problem; they need extra people to write drivers. They have AIX code as the start point, but need more. Where are SCO's claims that their code can accomplish everything.

The "Driver Problem"
Huge matrix of drivers to develop
Finite development and support resources

Must choose porting order (target prioritization)
Some OSes and/or platforms not supported
Driver porting not core business

And SCO want people to write clean code for them.

Sign up with the Monterey program and take the next step

Develop a detailed development plan and assign resources
Begin "clean code" work ASAP

They were trying to sell a standardised, shrink-wrapped binary; this could have cornered the market if it had worked. As it turned out, the Intel chip was not too successful; and IBM got fed up with doing all the work

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Sad.... But good..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:19 AM EDT
  • You must be a nice guy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT
    • compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 01:31 PM EDT
      • compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
        • compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
          • compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 05:12 AM EST
            • compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 03:52 PM EST
        • Itanium architecture - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 06:05 AM EST
Selective successor
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:35 AM EDT
> Duh. Think oldSCO knew? They wrote this presentation.

Sorry PJ, but you don't understand. When they have to remember bad things,
newSCO isn't the successor of oldSCO. The are only successors when it comes to
good things. Ah, such positive thinkers... ;-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I still like SCO's "History of SCO" page the best
Authored by: cmc on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 01:03 PM EDT
Directly from SCO's "History of SCO" page:

"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."

I still think that that section of their page is the most undeniable proof that they knew about UNIX on Power (unless they try to say that they were referring to IBM microprocessors other than the Power processor).

cmc

[ Reply to This | # ]

I was wondering ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:12 PM EDT
To what extent is this perjury on SCO's behalf ? It's
pretty clear to me that they lied in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, I'll bite. What's a poetaster? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:41 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Itanic mentioned in 28 Oct 1999
Authored by: IMANAL on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 08:09 AM EST
The Register 28 Oct 1999: "Oh, and before I forget, special thanks go to Andrew N for referring to Itanium as Itanic™ ®"

The public perception of the then yet unspawned Itanium, back in 1999. Wonder who is Andrew N?



---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM Exhibits Show SCO Knew About SVR4 on Power in 1998
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 02:39 PM EST
"And how any journalist could go along with the SCO story, when a little
fact-checking on Google turns up so much evidence, is baffling."

Really? Does the name Judith Miller not spring immediately to mind? Someone
else, who - in a different context - simply published as "journalistic
fact" everything her "sources" told her.....and as it turned out,
the "sources" were mostly or completely wrong!

[ Reply to This | # ]

each would retain ownership of their contributed technology
Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 04:35 AM EST
This is a biggie: "each would retain ownership of their contributed
technology"

That totally scuppers any ladder theory or any such thing. I'm surprised there
doesn't seem to be much noise about it!

Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny
http://sampenny.co.uk/

[ 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 )