Re: "Project Monterey" -- WAS: Does Microsoft thwart Intel

["Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@ieee.org>]

From: Tom Bruno <crweb@vwords.com>
> Honestly, do you really thing sco even knows "why" or "what"  it is
> still sueing for or claiming?

Before May 2003, SCO _had_ a case against IBM.
But once May 2003 came around, SCO got stupid ... well, maybe.

They started to make the Linux IP claim for two reasons:
1)  Immediate:  Raise their stock price,
2)  Strategic:  "Smokescreen" a ruling against IBM on contract as a
ruling against Linux IP

#1 has happened.  #2 is being assumed by about 75% of the IT media out
there.  It's a _stupid_ strategic from a legal standpoint, but it's
paying _some_ dividens right now.  Just as SCO is getting licensees who
are _not_ signing because of Linux IP concerns, but because of
_previous_ SystemV/SCO licensing, most of the IT media doesn't bother to
check the "fine print."

Same deal for about 75% of the Linux enthusiasts out there.

Understand that IBM _did_ screw SCO over, rather badly.  And SCO has a
complaint against IBM -- they _were_ clearly the "bully" against SCO. 
But SCO went off into fantasy-land.  And that's probably going to be
their demise, _despite_ the merits in the original case.

SCO has to hope that the judge rules separately on the original IBM
contract dispute from the Linux IP claim.  That seems to be what they
want, and will further their "smokescreen" to a rather ignorant IT media
(as well as people who don't know about what IBM _did_ do to SCO).  But
IBM is butting heads and forcing SCO to fess up on everything in court. 
So far, IBM has made a strong case, and is putting the GPL out in front,
forcing the whole indemification non-sense to a quick resolution outside
the courts.

> If what you say is the case, then I'm pretty sure they'd be screeming
> bloody hell about their 1 true fact, 

They _were_ in March of 2003.  But as part of the that filing, they had
to show that IBM was not only in breach of their contract by not
releasing the IA-64 port of "Project Monterey," but "helping" a
competitor in Linux.  They didn't need to prove that Linux received
anything from IBM (not an IP issue at all before May 2003), but just
that IBM helped a competitor to "Project Monterey."

Unfortunately, the backlash it generated was major from the Linux
community.  Even I was taken by it _until_ I read the _full_ filing and
then it made sense.  SCO was suing IBM for not only the breach, but
further damages for supporting a competitor.  Again, this had 0 to do
with IP at the time -- SCO and IBM had a contractual agreement to
co-develop "Project Monterey" -- for SCO on IA-64, for IBM on Power, and
a non-compete in each other's market.

To put it in clear English:
Violation 1:  IBM withheld the IA-64 port, and
Violation 2:  IBM "competed" in the IA-64 space by supporting Linux

Such agreements are _very_common_ in the IT world.

Again, SCO _had_ a case.  And they toasted it in May 2003 with the
"Linux IP" addendeum.  It will probably be their downfall, _especially_
if Red Hat gets its injunction granted this year before the SCO v. IBM
case goes to trial sometime in 2005.

> 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.

Read up on "Project Monterey."  I followed the development of the
IBM-SCO relationship for several years.  IBM was a "bully" in what it
did -- very Microsoft-like.  SCO got forced into a corner in late 2001
and by early 2003, decided to sue.

> Just the fact that the now claims and the original claims are s
> different, and so wild, is the original even true?

Oh, I agree the IP issue is total BS.  But the original is _very_true_.

What SCO _hopes_ is that a favorable ruling against IBM on the
_original_ March 2003 issues (non-IP ones) will make people think that
SCO has "proven" the May 2003 addendeum (the Linux IP stuff).  It's a
_total_smokescreen_!

Just look at the companies SCO is suing.  Has 0 to do with Linux IP.

But I'm a Libertarian.  I supported SCO's right to sue, as every
American should.  Why?  Because the private sector _always_ balances
things out.

Unfortunately, SCO now realizes this.  So as of January 2004, they
started to lobby the government, to clean up the mess _they_ created. 
Everytime someone brings in the government, they only destroy rights --
especially a company that hides behind lies and deceit like SCO is
doing, in a battle _they_ forced (_regardless_ of what IBM did to them
before).

So as of January 2004, I want SCO _destroyed_.

Why?  They are trying to claim the GPL is "bad" for the US.  What is the
"GPL"?  It's "community."  Trying to outlaw "community" is trying to
outlaw "assembly."  "Real assembly" or "digital assembly" -- same
argument.  I don't think SCO is realizing what it is doing.  Even
Microsoft has not gone that far (they have lobbied _against_ using GPL
for government-funded software development, but not outlawing it).


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
b.j.smith@ieee.org



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