[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO History article -- SCO v. IBM != SCO v. Linux IP

[terry]

Kevin Hulse wrote:
> --- "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> 
>>From: Will Senn <will_senn at comcast.net>
> 
> [deletia]
> 
>>IBM customers trying to buy HP Proliant DL585
>>(quad-Opteron) servers
>>running Linux/x86-64  are feeling it right now.  IBM
> 
> 
> Odd then that an Oracle DBA interested in running RAC
> on AIX would find so much more information on how to
> deploy on Linux/x86 when searching at ibm.com. 
> 
> 
>>doesn't want Linux
>>to invade its Power/AIX5L space.  So now Linux is
>>"in its way" as well.
>>
>>There is a lesson to be learned from this. 
>>Unfortunately, too many
>>Linux bigots are missing the "big picture."  SCO v.
>>IBM is _none_ of our
>>business.  However, SCO v. Linux IP is.
>>
>>
>>>Well now, that's sort of true, but they track all
>>
>>related developments 
>>
>>>these days and the contract dispute is there as
>>
>>well.
>>
>>Of course, because SCO _stupidly_ made addendeums to
>>it about Linux IP.
>>Why?  PR.  If they can win against IBM on the
>>Monterey stuff, they
>>_hope_ the "smokescreen" they've built up will
>>causes everyone ass-u-me
>>that they have won against Linux IP.
> 
> 
>      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.
> 
>      This case has NEVER been about IBM's promised
> collaboration with SCO.
> 
>      Have they even amended their Monterrey cause of
> action even at this late date?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

Please pardon my ignorance but what is "IP"  (as in "Linux IP").
Intercessory Prayer, Interested Party  or Isolated Platform
  or....?    :)