|
IBM Exhibits Show SCO Knew About SVR4 on Power in 1998 |
![](http://www.groklaw.net/images/speck.gif) |
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.
|
|
Authored by: fudisbad on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
For current events, legal filings and Caldera® collapses.
Please make links clickable.
Example: <a href="http://example.com">Click here</a>
---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft Research OS Singularity - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:46 AM EDT
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:56 AM EDT
- huh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 04:24 AM EDT
- What has he done that deserves this? - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:55 AM EDT
- Troll Alert - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- Troll Alert - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 08:06 AM EST
- Troll Alert - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 08:44 AM EST
- Actually very interesting..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:05 AM EDT
- Microsoft Research OS Singularity - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:28 AM EDT
- I don't think your a troll, because the only trolling comment was the last line. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:06 AM EDT
- Microsoft Research OS Singularity - Authored by: dkpatrick on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 09:53 AM EDT
- Intellectual Property Theft - Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 12:05 PM EDT
- Interesting article - some "facts" inaccurate - Authored by: rharvey46 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 02:41 PM EDT
- Looks like QNX - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:32 PM EDT
- Microsoft Research OS Singularity - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 03:06 AM EST
- Microsoft Research OS Singularity - Authored by: analyzer on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 02:45 AM EST
- Even more interesting - Petition to Microsoft - Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 06:37 PM EST
- Attack of the Blogs, My Take - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:19 AM EDT
- Daniel Lyons: "Groklaw! Shut up, or else!!!" - Authored by: wjaguar on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:43 AM EDT
- A frighteningly realistic windows skit. Smashing. - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:59 AM EDT
- ummmm, so what happened yesterday - Authored by: pfusco on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 12:00 PM EDT
- Reminder and some suggestions for Monday's hearings (from previous post) - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 04:17 PM EDT
- Rim licenses JPEG. . . ? - Authored by: wvhillbilly on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 09:35 PM EDT
- Who is SCO's fight with? - Authored by: GLJason on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 01:23 AM EST
- Off topic here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 06:54 AM EST
- Clickable Link - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 09:43 AM EST
- Research on ODF - Authored by: tredman on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 12:39 PM EST
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:39 AM EDT |
I have for a long time been convinced the "professional" journalists
are basically lazy. they take whatever is given them and publish it. The last
real investigative journalism I can remember is Watergate. It took more than a
year to get any traction.
I suggest a test proposed to me a long time ago. If you have significant
knowledge of a specific story, how accurate is it?
In my experience based on objective criteria, virtually all are significantly
flawed. What does that do to the credibility of the stories you don't know much
about?
Having just lived through Katrina with a flooded house and severely damaged a
business, I can state the the media has pretty much gotten almost all of the
stories from New Orleans about 100% backwards.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:05 AM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 10:26 AM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: rweiler on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 05:34 PM EST
- Carl Bernstein comments - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 11:41 AM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: dnl on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 03:54 PM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: Tyro on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:28 PM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 09:06 PM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: BuggyFunBunny on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 12:04 AM EDT
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 11:00 AM EST
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 02:56 AM EST
- That is the reason - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 04:46 AM EST
- Journalists - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 12:28 AM EST
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 04:48 AM EDT |
If any :)
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
Back in 1999 IBM and SCO held a joint presentation. I have a copy as a pdf
file containing 29 slides. The file idfmontereylab.pdf is here; but please go
easy, not much band width.
This SCO was the old SCO, that sold its
"UNIX franchise" to Caldera. The old SCO changed its name to Tarantella, and
was bought by SUN. Caldera changed its name to SCO.
There are at
least three interesting points.
The first is that SCO acknowledged
that IBM is contributing AIX; no claims of overall ownership here; and no claims
of ownership of any useful code.
The second is that they were trying
to recruit anybody who could write drivers or user space programs. The ancient
UNIX systems always lacked drivers compared with modern systems.
A
third thing, most damaging to SCO's recent statements; is that they realise that
this must be clean code, written from scratch; no boasts about how their code
can be copied to accomplish any need.
I have copied the relevant bits
of the presentation below
A presentation on August
31,1999 - September 2, 1999
Given by:
Richard Hughes-Rowlands
Monterey/64 Product Management representing SCO
Ahmed Chibib Senior
Technical Staff Partners in Development representing IBM
There will
be Consolidation of Viable UNIX Platforms Initiative to Standardize API and ABI
Led By IBM, SCO, Sequent and others.
AIX, SCO technology, IBM technology,
Sequent technology and UnixWare will provide the input, to make the Monterey
product line for POWER IA-32 and IA-64
The below is
shown as a diagram on the slides, so I can only put a sentence. AIX is shown as
the main start point for code.
Project Monterey
Summary
AIX, SCO technology, IBM technology, Sequent technology and UnixWare
will provide the input, to make the Monterey product line for POWER IA-32 and
IA-64.
The UnixWare business was sold to oldSCO in 1990;
but was only a franchise, Novell receives commission for every sale; Here is the
announcemen
t
AIX is being used as the start point, IBM are doing all the
technical work. The stuff that SCO now alleges to own was of no use for
Monterey. And they dream of a shrink wrapped binary can corner a large chunk of
the market.
Why is Monterey
important?
Tremendous Revenue Opportunity:
UNIX will go
from 15% To 37% share of the $27.7Bn
market
So if their figures are right,
Monterey would be competing in a market worth 10 billion
dollars.
Lower Costs:
Consolidation of viable
UNIX platforms
Initiative to standardize API and ABI led by SCO, IBM, Sequent
and others
Highly reliable and scalable
Shrink wrapped
UNIX
Here SCO make no claims to providing useful code, it
is all IBM's responsibility, they claim Intel experience
only.
The Monterey Partnership
SCO - UNIX leader on
IA32
Intel commitment and experience
Shrink-wrap software
model
Volume installed base
IBM - Enterprise Leader on
RISC
64 bit ready
EPIC / RISC experience
Enterprise
installed base
Sequent are shown to own
NUMA; this is 1999. Since then various wild claims about its ownership have
been made by SCO cohorts.
Sequent - Leader in IA-based
Data Center Solutions
NUMA
RAS
techniques
Intel - Leader in Microprocessor
Technology
Developer of IA-64
Investment in IVS
fund
These are the companies that IBM
and SCO are trying to recruit to do the
work
Monterey
OEMs
Acer
CETIA
Compaq
Bull
ICL
Samsung
Sequent Computer
Systems
IBM
Netfinity Group
Unisys
IBM Netfinity
Computer
This is the list of what they
already have, ready to port; once again IBM are providing the technical
stuff.
Monterey Endorsements
Target Key Solution
Segments (RISC and IA)
Timing is Critical
Full Complement of IBM
Middleware: DB2, Domino, Comm Server, Tivoli, ADSM, MQ Series, Websphere, Visual
Age, Intelligent Miner, Notes, Java
Project Monterey
Summary
The High Volume UNIX
AIX, SCO technology, IBM technology,
Sequent technology and UnixWare will provide the input, to make the Monterey
product line for POWER IA-32 and IA-64
Standards-based offering
The proven UNIX advantages of Scalability, Reliability, Maintainability
Single UNIX that supports "department to data center" servers
Shrink-wrap
offering for low-end segment
Multiple vendor support and
innovation
Leverage Monterey today for IA-32 or Power
architectures
Addressing customer
needs
Increased uptime through reliability and availability
Ease of
use through Serviceability and Usability
Increase cost effectiveness
through scalability and performance
Preserve investment, but give a path
to the future
Service and Support:
Single (Binary)
Product
Sold by IBM and SCO & Monterey
partners
Supported by your supplier
SCO or a Monterey
partner Business as usual
Synchronised release and maintenance
strategy
Joint IBM and SCO developer
programs
And here is the problem; they need extra people
to write drivers. They have AIX code as the start point, but need more. Where
are SCO's claims that their code can accomplish
everything.
The "Driver Problem"
Huge matrix of
drivers to develop
Finite development and support
resources
Must choose porting order (target
prioritization)
Some OSes and/or platforms not supported
Driver
porting not core business
And SCO want
people to write clean code for them.
Sign up with the
Monterey program and take the next step
Develop a detailed
development plan and assign resources
Begin "clean code" work
ASAP
They were trying to sell a standardised,
shrink-wrapped binary; this could have cornered the market if it had worked. As
it turned out, the Intel chip was not too successful; and IBM got fed up with
doing all the work
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Sad.... But good..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:19 AM EDT
- You must be a nice guy - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:55 AM EDT
- compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:32 PM EDT
- compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 05:12 AM EST
- compilers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 03:52 PM EST
- Itanium architecture - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 06:05 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
> Duh. Think oldSCO knew? They wrote this presentation.
Sorry PJ, but you don't understand. When they have to remember bad things,
newSCO isn't the successor of oldSCO. The are only successors when it comes to
good things. Ah, such positive thinkers... ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cmc on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 01:03 PM EDT |
Directly from SCO's "History of
SCO" page:
"1998 Project Monterey: SCO and IBM, with the support
of Intel agree to develop a high-volume enterprise UNIX system for Intel IA-32
and IA-64 systems. The result will be a single product line that will run on
IA-32, IA-64 and IBM microprocessor systems that range from entry-level servers
to large enterprise environments."
I still think that that section of
their page is the most undeniable proof that they knew about UNIX on Power
(unless they try to say that they were referring to IBM microprocessors other
than the Power processor).
cmc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
To what extent is this perjury on SCO's behalf ? It's
pretty clear to me that they lied in court. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 29 2005 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL on Sunday, October 30 2005 @ 08:09 AM EST |
The Register 28 Oct
1999:
"Oh, and before I forget, special thanks go to Andrew N for referring
to Itanium as Itanic™ ®"
The public perception of the then yet
unspawned Itanium, back in 1999. Wonder who is Andrew
N?
--- --------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 31 2005 @ 02:39 PM EST |
"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."
Really? Does the name Judith Miller not spring immediately to mind? Someone
else, who - in a different context - simply published as "journalistic
fact" everything her "sources" told her.....and as it turned out,
the "sources" were mostly or completely wrong![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Tuesday, November 01 2005 @ 04:35 AM EST |
This is a biggie: "each would retain ownership of their contributed
technology"
That totally scuppers any ladder theory or any such thing. I'm surprised there
doesn't seem to be much noise about it!
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny
http://sampenny.co.uk/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|