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

[Kevin Hulse]

--- "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith at ieee.org> wrote:
> Kevin Hulse wrote:  
[deletia]
> For the Project Monterey agreement between SCO and
> IBM,
> it is _everything_.  You keep seeming to miss my
> point that
> this is about Project Monterey, because that's the
> _only_
> place where SCO has a contract with IBM.  So in the
> context
> of Project Monterey, where IBM agreed to _only_
> support
> UNIX on Power in the Non-Compete, they have violated
> it.
> 
> In _all_ the lawsuits, SCO is suing over contract
> violations.

Thats a rather specious argument. SCO is primarily
suing over PROPERTY RIGHTS. They are making certain
claims about what can or can't be done with what they
think is their property. That is why AIX is an issue.

That's considerably different than a simple
partnership agreement. There aren't the same
complexities of real or artificial property involved
in a simple partnership. There are also different
damages involved.


> 
> > The original Caldera filing spends much more space
> on
> > Unix/USL licensing issues than project Monterrey.
> 
> To further show that IBM was violating its
> Non-Compete.

If this were just about project Monterrey, or even
primarily about project Monterrey than all of the
BS about suspending IBM's right to use AIX are just
a side show.

Judges tend to not like side shows.

> They were defining how IBM was not even supporting
> UNIX/USL,
> but a competitor to it, in [GNU/]Linux.

If that were the case then SCO would not be attempting
to exercise punitive measures related to this case
based on those contracts.

[deletia]