[NTLUG:Discuss] SCO History article -- Non-Compete: "Linux sucked until IBM came along"

[Kevin Hulse]

--- Kelledin <kelledin+NTLUG at skarpsey.dyndns.org>
wrote:
> On Friday 25 June 2004 08:38 pm, Bryan J. Smith
> wrote:
> > > SCO's writings on the matter of Monterrey are
> more
> > > reasonably explained via that "throw everything
> and
> > > hope something sticks" theory of legal filing.
> >
> > As I have stated repeatedly, SCO had to show that
> IBM
> > was supported Linux as a violation of the Project
> Monterey.
> > That's what the previous items were regarding, how
> IBM
> > has transferred IP from itself to Linux, how that
> has
> > improved Linux, and how that now harms SCO, in
> violation
> > of the Non-Compete clause of the Project Monterey
> contract.
> 
> I kept wondering where Monterey was going to come
> into play.  It 
> was brought up in the original complaint, but it
> seems to have 
> faded very much into the background since then.

Not quite. The original SCO filling begins by 
attempting to establish SCO's ownership of "Unix"
and quickly claims that IBM misappropriated that
property.

Compared to that, Monterrey is a footnote something
added on to ensure that they are able to plead it
later if they so desire.

[deletia]

Judges tend not to appreciate the sort of carnival
you're describing. It's a poor legal/PR strategy
if this is indeed what SCO intends.