SCO vs IBM.... and intel?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Dave - Dave.net.nz, Feb 2, 2005.

    1. Advertising

  1. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    thing Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759


    gets interesting.....I wonder what IBM wants to get off Intel, also
    there is one for a compnay that had ex-MIT people, quite possibly the
    ones who SCO claimed had deep dived into lInux found unix code...........

    What I also interesting was the bias in that some journalists reports
    SCO's "win" on getting 50% of the code yet failed to mention these
    counter points from IBM, which could be far more damaging to SCO's case
    than yet more AIX code.....

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:35:43 +1300, thing wrote:

    > Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759

    >
    > gets interesting.....I wonder what IBM wants to get off Intel, also there
    > is one for a compnay that had ex-MIT people, quite possibly the ones who
    > SCO claimed had deep dived into lInux found unix code...........


    Intel being the 3rd major player in Project Monterey (along with SCO and
    IBM), maybe IBM wants access to communication between SCO and Intel.

    SCO reckons that without IBM accessing it's Unix IP during Monterey, they
    never could have come up with that stuff to contribute to Linux.

    <opinion>

    After all this whole mess basically stems from Monterey falling over when
    IBM decided the Itanium wasn't going anywhere and continued development of
    the Power line was a better idea. SCO was pissed at IBM and spent a few
    years figuring out some way of getting back at them.

    </opinion>

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Feb 2, 2005
    #3
  3. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Chris Hope Guest

    AD. wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:35:43 +1300, thing wrote:
    >
    >> Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759

    >>
    >> gets interesting.....I wonder what IBM wants to get off Intel, also
    >> there is one for a compnay that had ex-MIT people, quite possibly the
    >> ones who SCO claimed had deep dived into lInux found unix
    >> code...........

    >
    > Intel being the 3rd major player in Project Monterey (along with SCO
    > and IBM), maybe IBM wants access to communication between SCO and
    > Intel.
    >
    > SCO reckons that without IBM accessing it's Unix IP during Monterey,
    > they never could have come up with that stuff to contribute to Linux.
    >
    > <opinion>
    >
    > After all this whole mess basically stems from Monterey falling over
    > when IBM decided the Itanium wasn't going anywhere and continued
    > development of the Power line was a better idea. SCO was pissed at IBM
    > and spent a few years figuring out some way of getting back at them.
    >
    > </opinion>


    And don't forget that the company involved with Monterey wasn't even The
    SCO Group - it was the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera bought the UNIX
    stuff from Santa Cruz and then later renamed themselves The SCO Group.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Feb 2, 2005
    #4
  4. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    thing Guest

    AD. wrote:
    > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:35:43 +1300, thing wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:
    >>
    >>>http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759

    >>
    >>gets interesting.....I wonder what IBM wants to get off Intel, also there
    >>is one for a compnay that had ex-MIT people, quite possibly the ones who
    >>SCO claimed had deep dived into lInux found unix code...........

    >
    >
    > Intel being the 3rd major player in Project Monterey (along with SCO and
    > IBM), maybe IBM wants access to communication between SCO and Intel.
    >
    > SCO reckons that without IBM accessing it's Unix IP during Monterey, they
    > never could have come up with that stuff to contribute to Linux.
    >
    > <opinion>
    >
    > After all this whole mess basically stems from Monterey falling over when
    > IBM decided the Itanium wasn't going anywhere and continued development of
    > the Power line was a better idea. SCO was pissed at IBM and spent a few
    > years figuring out some way of getting back at them.
    >
    > </opinion>
    >


    The management of SCO has changed since then, I think it more likely the
    new management was employed by the likes of canopy as front men for a
    high risk pillage expedition (everything else is smoke). But the
    greedies did not and do not understand the FOSS community so it
    backfired. What was expected was a nice expensive buy-out at the least,
    instead IBM dug its feet in and decided to slog it out, its reputation
    inside FOSS was worth more than straight $ added to a case of virtually
    zero merit.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 2, 2005
    #5
  5. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:57:15 +1300, Chris Hope wrote:

    > And don't forget that the company involved with Monterey wasn't even The
    > SCO Group - it was the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera bought the UNIX stuff
    > from Santa Cruz and then later renamed themselves The SCO Group.


    Yeah, IBM might be looking for evidence that the original SCO knew how
    much trouble Itanium was in, but that the new owners of SCOG didn't do
    enough due dilligence before buying in - instead blaming IBM for something
    they should have known was coming.

    That would be strange though - it was all over the press :)

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Feb 2, 2005
    #6
  6. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    Chris Hope Guest

    AD. wrote:

    > On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:57:15 +1300, Chris Hope wrote:
    >
    >> And don't forget that the company involved with Monterey wasn't even
    >> The SCO Group - it was the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera bought the
    >> UNIX stuff from Santa Cruz and then later renamed themselves The SCO
    >> Group.

    >
    > Yeah, IBM might be looking for evidence that the original SCO knew how
    > much trouble Itanium was in, but that the new owners of SCOG didn't do
    > enough due dilligence before buying in - instead blaming IBM for
    > something they should have known was coming.
    >
    > That would be strange though - it was all over the press :)


    SCOG are grasping at any straws they can. A fairly common opinion (and
    one that I share) is that they never expected it to go to trial and
    thought they'd get a nice fat buyout by IBM. They also never reckoned
    with a force such as Groklaw appearing; they've certainly helped
    diffuse a lot of FUD spread by SCOG.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Feb 2, 2005
    #7
  7. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 07:05:28 +1300, thing wrote:

    > The management of SCO has changed since then, I think it more likely the
    > new management was employed by the likes of canopy as front men for a high
    > risk pillage expedition (everything else is smoke). But the greedies did
    > not and do not understand the FOSS community so it backfired. What was
    > expected was a nice expensive buy-out at the least, instead IBM dug its
    > feet in and decided to slog it out, its reputation inside FOSS was worth
    > more than straight $ added to a case of virtually zero merit.


    In my (uneducated) opinion, I think that was the secondary result of the
    initial contract dispute with IBM over the IP of the Monterey project.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Feb 2, 2005
    #8
  8. Dave - Dave.net.nz

    thing Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:
    > AD. wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 20:57:15 +1300, Chris Hope wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>And don't forget that the company involved with Monterey wasn't even
    >>>The SCO Group - it was the Santa Cruz Operation. Caldera bought the
    >>>UNIX stuff from Santa Cruz and then later renamed themselves The SCO
    >>>Group.

    >>
    >>Yeah, IBM might be looking for evidence that the original SCO knew how
    >>much trouble Itanium was in, but that the new owners of SCOG didn't do
    >>enough due dilligence before buying in - instead blaming IBM for
    >>something they should have known was coming.
    >>
    >>That would be strange though - it was all over the press :)

    >
    >
    > SCOG are grasping at any straws they can. A fairly common opinion (and
    > one that I share) is that they never expected it to go to trial and
    > thought they'd get a nice fat buyout by IBM. They also never reckoned
    > with a force such as Groklaw appearing; they've certainly helped
    > diffuse a lot of FUD spread by SCOG.
    >


    I think Groklaw is and will be a force in the future to be "feared" by
    those who wish to hide. Where before the likes of Canopy could litigate
    behind the scenes we now see them and their tactics being exposed. Add
    in Groklaw's detailed technical and legal research and its an
    interesting site.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Feb 3, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Buck Rogers

    IBM Counter-sues SCO

    Buck Rogers, Aug 8, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    768
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Aug 11, 2003
  2. Howard

    SCO giving up on IBM?

    Howard, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    369
    Howard
    Aug 11, 2003
  3. The Flash
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    534
    T.N.O.
    Aug 27, 2003
  4. harry

    SCO, IBM battle heats up

    harry, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    342
    Lennier
    Nov 15, 2003
  5. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    623
    Bling-Bling
    Aug 13, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page