Technology Review
Insiders at both companies say that it has much to do with Sun's intellectual property.
After weeks of private negotiations, IBM was poised to buy rival Sun Microsystems for a reported $7 billion. Negotiations apparently broke down on Sunday when Sun's board rejected a reduced offer. But beyond allowing IBM to reclaim from Hewlett-Packard the title of world's biggest computer company, why would the company even want Sun, a sprawling Unix vendor that has struggled for years to even show a profit? The answer, according to insiders at both companies, lies in Sun's intellectual property.
Not only would Sun be IBM's largest acquisition ever, but the buy is out of character for the staid mainframe company, which has for several years worked to streamline itself and become a very profitable vendor of computer and Internet services. But sometimes a deal comes along that's simply too good to pass up. Despite years of losses, Sun has continued to spend an average of $3 billion per year on research and development. Sun also has a huge patent portfolio that might have unique value to IBM, the world's largest and arguably most aggressive licensers of technical IP, according to experts in IP licensing.
The parts of Sun that have most value to IBM are the Java programming language, Solaris (Sun's version of the Unix operating system), the MySQL open-source database, and certain virtualization and cloud-computing components.
IBM has already made a huge commitment to Java, a language that it doesn't control. Now almost 15 years old, Java has come into its own as a platform for mobile computing and server applications. "As a high-level language, Java is ideal for applications that are intended to run for weeks and months at a time without having to restart," says Paul Tyma, former senior developer of server software at Google and now chief technical officer at Home-Account, an Internet startup in San Francisco. "Compared to older languages like C++, Java is ideal for large enterprise applications," he adds. "The longer it runs, the better it runs."
Java is also the dominant development environment for applications running on more than one billion mobile phones--an area of computing that is not only growing like crazy, but, with mobile devices being replaced every 18 months, evolving like crazy. Now IBM will have a crucial piece of that new business.
IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
Recently, Rob Enderle wrote:
"There is some speculation that Solaris is the source of many of the core components in the current generations of Linux, and that IBM's acquisition could prevent another SCO event in the future, should someone less friendly acquire Sun instead." See http://tinyurl.com/dz6gza
Some of the rationale behind the speculation has been exposed at http://tinyurl.com/c9nzuu (see comments in the bottom of the main article).
If the speculation proves correct, IBM will have to pay Sun's asking price.
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
Right the comments (baseless accusations, really) from you. Again, as I said above, provide proof. Linux code is available, to include all previous versions (see kernel.org). Provide proof of copying (not imitation - copyright protects the words, not the inspiration).
This is a technology magazine, sponsored by MIT, a science university. Science has a process, that starts with facts. Feel free to present your FACTS - if you have any proof of the linux authors copying Sun code, or IBM putting newSCO code into linux, feel free to post it.
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
I welcome you to obtain a copy of Solaris 8 source code as it was released by Sun in late 2000. See http://goo.gl/gx7rh
Solaris 8 source code was available for download on the Web until sometime in 2002. There might be some copies at MIT.
Then compare against Linux kernel versions 2.4.17 and later, all 2.5 tests and early 2.6 versions.
Do your comparisons in the following kernel areas: task scheduling, virtual memory management (VM), communication device drivers, TCP/IP, storage device drivers, web server, kernel locking, kernel preemptibility (SMP only), buffer cache management, IPC (semaphores, shared memory, message queues, and pipes).
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
I'm not the one making accusations. You post the Linux code you claim is violating copyright.
Regarding your statement that PJ is making factually incorrect statements - care to lay out the incorrect facts in the article mentioned above? Esp since she sites (to include pointers to the Linux code and the authors of the code) the data behind her analysis. IBM owned the RCU patent, newSCO (per the court case findings) does NOT have any claim to the code.
Regarding Linus's "carelessness" with the kernel - yes he didn't use revision control, but all revisions were (and ARE) publicly posted. Please point out the code in the kernel that violates either newSCO's or Sun's copyrights. It's there, all you have to do is post it (if it exists). You're making the accusations, the burden of proof is on you.
Regarding the move of groklaw - she moved it to ibiblio due to the overwhelming demand on the servers. I've read the "accusations" - based on conjecture.
Finally, have you ever heard of "argumentum ad hominem" - basically attacking the person, not the message. PJ posts all the source documents. Feel free (since you're making the accusations) to post exactly where she's wrong. Esp post any Linux source code that you feel violates either newSCO or Sun copyright (since you're making the accusation).
Regarding the sites you suggest to go to - I have and while it's full of innuendo, there is no PROOF that PJ ever worked for Medabiliti Software, or that she has an anti-newSCO bias (although the case has not worked to newSCO's favor) Given the LEGAL FINDINGS of a US Court Judge vs innuendo of some blogger, I'll take the legal findings. Which are basically that newSCO's suit had no merit.
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
"... there is no PROOF that PJ ever worked for Medabiliti Software..."
That was exactly Medabiliti Software's strategy.
For better 'credibility' on its PR campaign against SCO, Medabiliti Software needed to distance itself from Groklaw.
There are a few bytes of information that relates Pamela Jones of Groklaw to Pamela Jones of Medabiliti. See http://goo.gl/koui8
Another reason for Medabiliti to distance itself from Groklaw was XM Network, written on open source software and never shared back to the community. See http://goo.gl/b78Gw
In regard to Solaris 8 source code in Linux, there'll be plenty of time in the near future to prove the speculation.
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
"And They Call Linus Careless"
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=66
"SCO's Amended Complaint attacks Linus for allegedly being careless, allowing code in without checking for IP problems first."
On November 2, 2001, Alan Cox announced "Marcelo Tosatti will be the head maintainer over the 2.4 stable kernel tree", see http://www.advogato.org/article/370.html and http://tinyurl.com/cbtlez .
Did Marcelo Tosatti had the age and the experience to discern if code added to the Linux kernel was free of copyright infringement? For an answer, see http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://marcelothewonderpenguin.com
A few weeks after Tosatti was named the new Linux 2.4 kernel maintainer, an e-mail message was transmitted over the Internet. The subject of the message was "2.4.16 & OOM killer screw up".
A well-known Linux kernel developer wrote "The VM code lacks comments, and nobody except yourself understands what it is supposed to be doing."
Another Linux kernel developer wrote "Andrea, it seems -aa is not the holy grail VM-wise. If you want to merge your good stuff with marcelo, please do it in the 'one patch with explanation per problem' style marcelo asked."
The 'author' of the VM code responded "it's not true that I'm the only one who understands it. For istance Linus understand it completly, I am 100% sure."
All the "2.4.16 & OOM killer screw up" messages have been gathered in one single URL, see http://goo.gl/F6m9R . Nevertheless, copies of the entire electronic exchange are available in the Web in different locations.
Allowing a young and inexperienced Brazilian programmer to maintain Linux kernel version 2.4.16 and later 2.4 releases was indeed a careless decision by Linus Torvalds. Or was the decision intentional?
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
1. Look at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pamela+jones&btnG=Search - a number of "Pamela Jones" show up - just because a company employs someone with that name doesn't mean it's the same person.
2. You claim the Sun code is in Linux. Prove it. Don't just accuse people (such as Tosatti) - if there is Sun code in Linux, post the Linux code that violates it. You've provided pointers to the Sun code, you can download the Linux code. You made the accusation - back it up.
Re: IBM's future is indeed tied to Sun's acquisition
Did you see the TV program "Triumph of The Nerds" by our good friend Bob Cringely (ok I know that's not his real name)?
It was an outstanding recollection of events on the development of the personal computer. I enjoyed the part in which ex-IBMers explained how Gary Kildall missed the deal of the century.
Well, I think the best person to look at the last 2 issues you raised is indeed Bob Cringely.
I've already provided hints on where to look for information about the Pamela Jones issue and the Solaris 8 source code - Linux source code speculation. I'm sure both issues are outstanding content for a TV program or a book.
So enjoy the TV program or the book in the near future. Ciao.
Robert X Cringely's quote, not mine
It was Robert X Cringely who wrote "While IBM has the upper hand in the SCO suit, which has been ongoing since 2003, it has become clear that some code commingling has taken place, which could hurt future copyright and intellectual-property claims over software developed for Linux and AIX."
Now that Oracle has formally made a deal with Sun, it's definitely IBM's loss. Very similar to Cringely's narration on how Gary Kildall sent IBM away.
In this case, it was IBM's turn to send Sun away.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
jjs
81 Comments
Does Cringley even follow the SCO lawsuit
Recommend Cringley check out Groklaw.net before he accuses IBM of tainting Linux.
IBM won on all pre-trial motions, the only thing left are IBM's counter-claims. There was NO commingling proven (newSCO presented no evidence of any of THEIR code commingled - what they presented was code that others (who had copyright to the code) had contributed, including that contributed by Caldera, now known as newSCO. Some of the claimed code was, in fact IBM's. But since newSCO didn't have rights to that code, there was no commingling.
IBM has, and never had any worries on this score - IBM's integrity (something key to their business) and procedures have protected their investments. They don't need Sun's code because it's "clean" - IBM's code is clean.
Reply
anonymous-insider
11 Comments
Re: Does Cringley even follow the SCO lawsuit
Probably Cringley knows about Groklaw's private agenda.
Reply
jjs
81 Comments
Re: Does Cringley even follow the SCO lawsuit
Care to lay out this "private" agenda? Esp since groklaw.net posts EVERY document in the court cases, as well as many related documents (the BSD settlement, press releases from newSCO and IBM [not many of the latter, since IBM understands you keep your mouth shut during a court case], SEC submissions from IBM, Novell, newSCO, and others, etc). If you doubt the analysis, PJ has provided all the source material for you to do your own analysis and provide your own analysis to the web.
Reply
anonymous-insider
11 Comments
Re: Does Cringley even follow the SCO lawsuit
According to documents available on the Internet, it appears as if Groklaw's anti-SCO efforts began in 2003 at http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ as a PR campaign by Pamela Jones for her company Medabiliti Software Inc.
Medabiliti Software Inc had just written for Exemplar International -known today as Examinetics- a Web application named XM Network. XM Network run on Linux and was written on open source software.
Medabiliti Software Inc needed a PR campaign to convince its clients, including Exemplar International, SCO's suit against IBM had no merits. A timeline of Medabiliti Software is found at http://goo.gl/6Zpab .
While Medabiliti Software ceased operations in 2004, Groklaw's private agenda continues to be a PR campaign against SCO.
Reply
jjs
81 Comments
Re: Does Cringley even follow the SCO lawsuit
1. your "facts" are wrong - PJ is a paralegal who started blogging to learn blogging (see groklaw.net).
2. Regardless - groklaw.net posts ALL the original documents. The courts ruled against newSCO, newSCO presented NO evidence of copying. You can read the original documents in at least two places: a) PACER (the US court system site for downloading rulings and court documents) b) groklaw.net, which posts all the documents (taken from PACER). Feel free to post any evidence of IBM copying newSCO - they couldn't.
Regardless of the "reasons" you think for starting groklaw, EVERY SINGLE SOURCE DOCUMENT IS POSTED FOR YOU TO DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS (sorry for shouting, but you're throwing accusations without proof, as has cringley - proof available via the US court system, and republished on groklaw.net).
Reply
anonymous-insider
11 Comments
Re: Does Cringley even follow the SCO lawsuit
Pamela Jones began to write at http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ .
Later in 2003, she stopped writing at http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ and moved to http://www.groklaw.net/ . See the note 'We Have Moved Permanently' at http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/ .
Some of Pamela Jones writings were factually wrong due to her anti-SCO agenda. The article 'And They Call Linus Careless' found at http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=66 is an example of such a writing.
Linus Torvalds was indeed careless on Linux kernel source code management. See the paper 'Kernel comparison: Improvements in kernel development from 2.4 to 2.6' at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-dev26/ .
Groklaw is mainly read by fanatics that blindly follow Pamela Jones' agenda. Still, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions with content found at http://goo.gl/koui8 and http://goo.gl/6Zpab
Reply
bugme
29 Comments
JJS, you're a brave man
This psychopath has been spamming his baseless accusations on the InvestorVillage SCOX message board a short while ago, until someone there noted that his website (that he's trying to hide behind TinyURL links here) is full of AdSense links, and his posts here, at IV, and in other high-traffic blogs and commentary areas, are designed to drive traffic back to his pages, thereby generating revenue for himself. He's since been kicked out for his egregious spamming behaviour. That's why he's popped up here. He's a complete and total nutter - on par with the Timecube guy - and no matter what proof you post, he steadfastly refuses to accept it; he lives in his own reality, and you will never be able to change his feeble mind. How he got to this stage is beyond human comprehension...
Besides all that, ANYONE who relies on Rob Enderle to prove their case is nothing more than a lying, scheming, and worthless shill in the pocket of Microsoft.
Reply
anonymous-insider
11 Comments
Re: Anonymous Insider
"This psychopath has been spamming his baseless accusations on the InvestorVillage SCOX message board a short while ago, until someone there noted that his website (that he's trying to hide behind TinyURL links here) is full of AdSense links, and his posts here, at IV, and in other high-traffic blogs and commentary areas, are designed to drive traffic back to his pages, thereby generating revenue for himself."
Please show the Web site that apparently is full of AdSense links. A link to that Web site would be just fine. Thank you.
"He's since been kicked out for his egregious spamming behaviour."
InvestorVillage SCOX apparently has been hijacked by anti-SCO advocates with no other purpose than to help dry SCO finances. Any comment pro SCO at InvestorVillage SCOX is deliberately attacked by these anti-SCO advocates.
See http://tinyurl.com/dbxzno
"That's why he's popped up here."
Pamela Jones made a link to this article in her Web site.
She recently wrote: "I thought I'd repeat that now, since it's been a while, and someone just published what I'd call a FUD article claiming that there was some commingling of code. All signs, however, point to no, as I read them, at least not the way SCO tells it. And certainly, given the above, the burden would be on someone claiming there was to be specific with some evidence of such a claim."
See http://tinyurl.com/cuqqwb
Unlike Pamela Jones, I'm more interested on areas of the Linux kernel such as task scheduling, virtual memory management (VM), communication device drivers, TCP/IP, storage device drivers, web server, kernel locking, kernel preemptibility (SMP only), buffer cache management, IPC (semaphores, shared memory, message queues, and pipes).
And yes, I do monitor Groklaw.
"He's a complete and total nutter - on par with the Timecube guy - and no matter what proof you post, he steadfastly refuses to accept it; he lives in his own reality, and you will never be able to change his feeble mind. How he got to this stage is beyond human comprehension..."
Sorry, it's easy not to accept points of view from Groklaw fanatics.
"Besides all that, ANYONE who relies on Rob Enderle to prove their case is nothing more than a lying, scheming, and worthless shill in the pocket of Microsoft."
Robert X. Cringley wrote "While IBM has the upper hand in the SCO suit, which has been ongoing since 2003, it has become clear that some code commingling has taken place, which could hurt future copyright and intellectual-property claims over software developed for Linux and AIX."
Is Cringley now "a lying, scheming, and worthless shill in the pocket of Microsoft"?
Please know I have great respect for Cringley. As I mentioned before, I really enjoyed "Triumph of The Nerds".
Reply
jjs
81 Comments
Re: Anonymous Insider
Last post on this:
YOU claim Linux is contaminated - not us. You have access to the source code for Linux. Post the pieces that are contaminated. I again point out, that, given the choice between cringely and a US judge (Judge Dale A. Kimball), I'll go with the judge, who has seen all the evidence. And his findings of law contradict your accusations. Same with Sun - you make accusations, now (as per scientific principals and standard court procedures, not to mention standard rules of debate) - it is up to you to provide evidence. Same demand given to newSCO when they brought these accusations. They failed to post any, can you? Either put up or shut up.
BTW: PJ put up the link on groklaw AFTER you started posting here, not before.
Reply
anonymous-insider
11 Comments
Re: Anonymous Insider
In regard to Kimball, I'll use the same words written by Paul Murphy:
"So here’s a bet - and if you want to accept the bet just put a note to that effect in the comments here. If this court [ http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2009/03/07/4038711.htm ] or one directed by it does not overturn Judge Kimball’s ruling and I’m still writing this blog [ http://www.anonymous-insider.net/ ] the week after it happens, I will dedicate a Saturday entry entirely to lines that look like this: Dear XX - I’m sorry, I was wrong about the appeal court’s response on SCO’s ownership of the copyrights."
See http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=1562
Groklaw's intent to influence Kimball's decision is clear.
See http://www.anonymous-insider.net/groklaw/index.html
Then, the speculation on Solaris 8 source code and methods on Linux arises on how easy it was for Linux kernel developers to obtain third party source code.
See http://www.skytel.co.cr/unix-source-code/research/2002/0331.html
As Paul Murphy said, "the corpse is still twitching". The corpse might go to court again...
Finally, you'll find a note by Pamela Jones at http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php about Cringely's article:
"[PJ: For what it's worth, my guess is that SCO has absolutely nothing to do with it. For one thing, while Cringely says "some mingling" has taken place, the allegations SCO has still on the table are essentially none. Here's what SCO and IBM each filed, telling the judge what each believes survived the decision in SCO v. Novell that Novell owns the copyrights and that Novell has the right to tell SCO not to sue IBM. Unless SCO is able to overturn that decision on appeal and then win before a jury after a trial, which I consider unlikely, personally, there is nothing dogging IBM about any SCO allegations about copyrights. Even if that could happen, and SCO were named the owner of the copyrights, the code that SCO finally presented before the court's ruling was more or less nothing at all, with multiple defenses at hand even if they were not laughed out of court, to the extent they were known publicly. So whatever the proposed deal was about, I don't believe IBM is worried about SCO v. IBM. And the fact that IBM apparently just walked away from the deal indicates whether I am right in my supposings or not.]"
That's the note that sent me here.
Your original pro-Groklaw comment motivated me to argue with you.
Ciao.
Reply