Slashdot Mirror


More on IBM's Project Monterey and SCO

karvind writes "Groklaw has posted another interesting article about AIX/Monterey/POWER research. The primary purpose of Project Monterey was to provide a stepping stone to Linux. IBM clearly stated this in promotional and technical materials, some of which SCO participated in publishing. It was always the plan that Project Monterey would be for POWER and SCO knew about IBM using SVR4 on POWER as far back as 2001. The article asks (and answers) some interesting questions: 'Where is the monetary damage to SCO? Where is there copyright infringement? Was SCO fully aware how quickly Linux would develop, that it would replace Unix, or did it take them by surprise?'"

9 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Monterey by bryan986 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds cheesy doesnt it

    --
    There is no sig
  2. SCO and IBM by UlfGabe · · Score: 5, Funny

    looks like ibm got the better of SCO

    data... check
    supporting information...check
    patents...gotta wait till the courts are out on this one
    copyright...check
    liscensing...check

    having lots of high priced lawyers.....priceless.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
  3. Wrong, my friend by Urusai · · Score: 2, Funny
    There is a line of SCO code in the Linux kernel, which is clearly in violation. I reproduce it here at risk to life and limb:
    }
    Case closed.
  4. Re:For the clueless, here are some answers... by wardk · · Score: 2, Funny

    The issue is really quite simple. IBM was supposed to use SCO's code to develop Monterey, and instead, they apparently used it to enhance Linux. Everything else being said about this case is just rehashing of religious fervor and procedural issues.


    Wow, Deja vu. IBM paid MS to code OS/2, and they instead worked on NT. maybe IBM just figured if it worked once...

  5. Re:Are we still maintaining the polite pretense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    SCO turned out to be little better than shakedown artists.

    In what way do you think they're better than shakedown artists?

  6. Re:Are we still maintaining the polite pretense... by ites · · Score: 2, Funny

    SCO kept us amused for years! What stamina and tenacity. Most shakedown artists get tired after a kneecap and a broken finger or two but SCO just go the whole nine yards.

    Also, it was really enjoyable watching SCOX. Sure, all my other stocks went down as well, but when SCOX fell, I knew Microsoft were feeling the pain, and that made everything OK again.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  7. Re:You give SCO of '98 too much credit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Shit, a broken boot-loader for a 6502 would've been a threat to 'SCO at the time'.

  8. Re:Timeline by sik0fewl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here is a timeline of people posting timelines:

    • 16:18 - Virtual Karma posts timeline for SCO vs IBM and Linux
    • 16:28 - RealProgrammer posts a more complete, searchable timeline
    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  9. OK, it's time to come clean about SCO by couch_warrior · · Score: 2, Funny

    Al right, enough already. This SCO suit has become so absurd that no one is buying it anymore. It's time to drop the act, and admit the truth.
    The whole SCO fiasco was just an attempt to cover up the true origins of Linux. If we could create the rumor that Linux was a pirated version of AT&T UNIX, then we wouldn't have to admit that it was really reverse engineered from the computers aboard alien spacecraft under study by project BlueBook in Area 51 of the Nellis Airforce base in Groome Lake, NV.
    So there, now the secret is out!
    Wait, who are those men in black suits on my front lawn? Wait, stop, what does that thing do?
    ****FLASH***** ... so as I was saying, Linux is clearly a pirated version of SCO UNIX....

    --
    "Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"