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.

To read comments to this article, go here
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.

  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 )