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.


To read comments to this article, go here
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.

UPDATE:

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.

2nd UPDATE:

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.

3rd UPDATE:

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.


  View Printable Version


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 )