[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO History article -- Items #50-55 in SCO March 2003 filing ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

From: Kevin Hulse <hulse_kevin at yahoo.com>
> You must have some VERY selective memory. SCO has
> been claiming that IBM contaminated the Linux kernel
> from DAY ONE. This slanders both IBM and the Linux
> community in a manner than neither can tolerate. The
> "crime" is just to egregious to allow the accusation
> to be taken lightly.

SCO made claims in the March 2003 filing of IBM's transfer of knowledge
to Linux, but they made _no_ specific IP claims.  This was to,
referreing to my original response:  
http://ntlug.org/pipermail/discuss/Week-of-Mon-20040621/021321.html

"Project Monterey was a two-fold agreement:  
- Unifed 64-bit UNIX:  Power/UNIX64 for IBM, IA-64/UNIX64 for SCO
- Non-compete, Power and IA-64 were designed to address difference
  market segments."

SCO had to show that IBM was supporting Linux in violation of the
Non-Compete clause of Project Monterey.  These statements were then
"summed up" in various items -- largely those around #50-55 -- of the
March 2003 filing.

I provide a copy of them at the bottom of this March 2003 post to
LEAP:  
http://lists.leap-cf.org/pipermail/leaplist/2003-March/028456.html

> This case has NEVER been about IBM's promised
> collaboration with SCO.

It has _everything_ to do with it.  I stated that shortly after the
filing, and interviews like those with Ransom Love confirmed it.

If you read the filing, and then top off the Project Monterey details,
that explains it 100%.  Especially #51:  

  "51.         Prior to this time, IBM had not developed any expertise
to
  run UNIX on an Intel chip and instead was confined to its Power PC
 chip."

> Have they even amended their Monterrey cause of
> action even at this late date?

Again, it's the _foundation_ of their original filing!
Read it, Items #50-55.

SCO wasn't out to prove IP transfer from IBM to Linux.  It was out to
prove that IBM supported Linux, a competitor in violation of the
Non-Compete of the Project Monterey agreement, and that required SCO to
name specifics.

The claims that IBM tranferred _SCO's_ IP to Linux came in May of 2003,
with an addendeum to the original March 2003 filing.  That was the
result of IBM not settling like SCO thought it would, resulting in the
current mess we now have.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- b.j.smith at ieee.org