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

[Kevin Hulse]

--- "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> 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

Contemplate those numbers. That's 5 bullet point out
of a 136 bullet-point list that starts with:

 4.              As set forth in more detail below,
IBM has breached its own obligations to SCO, induced
and encouraged others to breach their obligations to
SCO, interfered with SCO’s business, and engaged in
unfair competition with SCO, including by

a)       misusing and misappropriating SCO’s
proprietary software;

b)      inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to
misuse and misappropriate SCO’s proprietary software;
and

c)       incorporating (and inducing, encouraging, and
enabling others to incorporate) SCO’s proprietary
software into open source software offerings.

SCO's writings on the matter of Monterrey are more
reasonably explained via that "throw everything and
hope something sticks" theory of legal filing. The
problem with your theory is that judge and jury are
just as likely to overlook Monterrey as the rest of
us.

People will ignore the jaywalking charge in favor of
the manslaughter charge.

> 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

As US courts demonstrate, a selective presentation 
of the facts quite often obscures the truth.

> 
> > 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."

...which is factually wrong of course.

Nevermind the whole notion that Unix in general
is meant to be as hardware agnostic as possible.
Perhaps this should be labeled as the Toqueville
Fallacy. <snicker>

> 
> > 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.

I reviewed the whole document actually. I didn't 
just concentrate on the < 5% that you provided to
support your thesis.

The original Caldera filing spends much more
space on Unix/USL licensing issues than 
project Monterrey.

That filing spent more space on defaming Linux 
as id does covering the Monterrey claims.

> 
> 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,

No, they were in the original filing along with 
their defamation of Linux and it's developers.

> 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.