Re: Does Microsoft thwart Intel initiatives? -- Don't confuse

[Tom Bruno <crweb@vwords.com>]

> Okay, this is the problem with 90% of the Linux enthusiasts right now.
> 
> They cannot separate the contract which IBM _did_ break with SCO, and
> what SCO _originally_ sued regarding in March of 2003 from the "Linux
> IP" claims SCO _added_ to the lawsuit in May of 2003.
> 
> Yes, the "Linux IP" claims are bogus.  It's a "smokescreen" SCO put up
> when it was clear IBM was not going to settle.  And the rest is history.
> 
> _But_ SCO's _original_ claims against IBM "breaking control" _clearly_
> have merit.  IBM withheld the IA-64 port of "Project Monterey," which
> SCO was entitled to as part of their contract with IBM.
> 
> In a nutshell, IBM screwed SCO first.  There was no reason why IBM
> needed to withhold the IA-64 port of their joint effort.  IBM shipped
> "Project Monterey" for Power in AIX 5L, while SCO had _nothing_ -- even
> though they _were_ guaranteed a license to the same source, by contract.
> 
> That was why the _original_ lawsuit in March 2003 was filed, 2 years
> after IBM broke it.  SCO had to use Linux as a "competitor" in its
> original filing, to further support its stance (from a legal
> perspective, showing IBM withheld the code, and then turned around and
> supported a "competitor").  And that's when the community went ape.
> 
> It actually was _not_ until May 2003 when SCO started the "Linux IP"
> smokescreen.  And yes, that is all BS.  Because "Project Monterey" has
> 0% to do with Linux.
> 
> But because 90% of Linux enthusiasts do not stop and think to read these
> details, SCO has successfully "smokescreened" the whole ordeal.  Most
> people think it's all about "Linux IP."  If you look at _all_ of the
> actions SCO has taken, it's been about non-Linux contracts and dealings.
> 
> Because even _they_ realize their "Linux IP" has _no_ legal merit.
> 

Honestly, do you really thing sco even knows "why" or "what"  it is
still sueing for or claiming?   If what you say is the case, then I'm
pretty sure they'd be screeming bloody hell about their 1 true fact, 
cause they really haven't got anymore real claims to make. but i have
read and stayed uptodate on both sides, and havn't heard anything about
the IA-64 issue you have stated.  Makes me wonder about the vadility of
even that contract breach.  Just the fact that the now claims and the
original claims are so different, and so wild, is the original even
true?


-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.