I am getting so much email about The Register's article about Project Monterey, I will put my response here, for economy's sake.
Andrew Orlowski is a fine journalist, whose skills I have long admired. However, in this case, he didn't understand why legally the evidence Groklaw found of Project Monterey being intended from the beginning to be used on POWER matters. It matters because SCO's proposed 3rd amended complaint apparently is claiming that IBM had no right to use the Project Monterey product on POWER and only did so after Project Monterey was killed.
If you followed the April 21st hearing, you will note that IBM's attorneys used similar evidence to argue that SCO knew about IBM's use on POWER for years [transcripts here, and note in particular Part 3, PDF, beginnning on page 2.]. In the law, there is something called waiver and estoppel, and basically if you know about a breach (if it even was one) and do nothing about it for years, you are estopped (meaning blocked) from complaining later. It's an equity, or fairness, issue. If you click on the Law.com Dictionary links, you can read up on all three words. Because of my paralegal background, I was sure the evidence Groklaw was turning up mattered legally, because of waiver and estoppel issues. The fact that IBM made that exact argument at the hearing and offered such evidence to support their argument confirms my assessment.
Groklaw covers the news from a legal viewpoint, not a market angle, and it can make a very big difference in how facts fit into a context. I see I should have explained all that more clearly, and I'll surely be more alert in the future, to make sure those with no legal background or training can follow along.
UPDATE: The story is on IT Manager's Journal now too. And here's an article by Orlowski in 2001, with Caldera saying that Linux would outstrip Unix in five years. More evidence that everyone knew by at least 1999.