Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I thought IBM and Intel were friends? Wierd legal manoeuvres abound:

IBM wants Intel in court
http://69.56.255.194/?article=21031

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought IBM and Intel were friends?

They may yet be. There are reasons why Intel might
prefer that IBM do it this way.

> Wierd legal manoeuvres abound:

See the full text of the subpoena at:
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759>
along with the usual informed and underinformed
speculation.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 1 Feb 2005 07:46:59 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>I thought IBM and Intel were friends? Wierd legal manoeuvres abound:
>
>IBM wants Intel in court
>http://69.56.255.194/?article=21031
>
> Yousuf Khan

Yousuf, you surprise me. To quote Lyndon Johnson, if you want a
friend in Washington, get a dog.

Intel would make "friends" with the Lord of Darkness if they thought
it was useful to maintaining their preeminence in a line of business
they deemed to be important.

In this case, though, I'll guess that the subpoena is about Monterey
and Itanium, as suggested on slashdot:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/02/ [...] 118&tid=17

post by bstadil (Hogwash!).

Intel will be deposed as to just how badly they called it on Itanium,
and (more darkly) a serious discrepancy between what they told
investors and what they told IBM. The AMD fanboys are just going to
love this.

RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:

>Intel would make "friends" with the Lord of Darkness

Just call him Bill.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 13:19:08 -0500, Robert Myers wrote:

> On 1 Feb 2005 07:46:59 -0800, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I thought IBM and Intel were friends? Wierd legal manoeuvres abound:
>>
>>IBM wants Intel in court
>>http://69.56.255.194/?article=21031
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
> Yousuf, you surprise me. To quote Lyndon Johnson, if you want a
> friend in Washington, get a dog.

I wuz sorta wondering where Yousuf was coming from here too. IBM and AMD
have been life-long buddies. Intel? Ok in the early 80's IBM floated
'em. Since?

This will be an interesting story to watch though.

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:47:02 -0600, Bob Niland <email4rjn@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> YKhan <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought IBM and Intel were friends?
>
>They may yet be. There are reasons why Intel might
>prefer that IBM do it this way.
>
>> Wierd legal manoeuvres abound:
>
>See the full text of the subpoena at:
><http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759>
>along with the usual informed and underinformed
>speculation.

Hmm, so now we have IBM, Intel, SCO and Microsoft involved. Any
chances that this will turn into the "Mother Of All Lawsuits" for the
decade?

--
L.Angel: I'm looking for web design work.
If you need basic to med complexity webpages at affordable rates, email me
Standard HTML, SHTML, MySQL + PHP or ASP, Javascript.
If you really want, FrontPage & DreamWeaver too.
But keep in mind you pay extra bandwidth for their bloated code

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:
> I wuz sorta wondering where Yousuf was coming from here too. IBM and AMD
> have been life-long buddies. Intel? Ok in the early 80's IBM floated
> 'em. Since?

Well, only certain parts of IBM are buddies with AMD, which is the
chip-making side. The server-making, and until recently, the PC/laptop
making sides were pure Intel, with a few AMD's tucked away in a corner
out of sight.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> Intel will be deposed as to just how badly they called it on Itanium,
> and (more darkly) a serious discrepancy between what they told
> investors and what they told IBM. The AMD fanboys are just going to
> love this.

What would that have anything to do with Linux?

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

In article <LH4Md.9019$Ck1.1183770@news20.bellglobal.com>, bbbl67
@ezrs.com says...
> keith wrote:
> > I wuz sorta wondering where Yousuf was coming from here too. IBM and AMD
> > have been life-long buddies. Intel? Ok in the early 80's IBM floated
> > 'em. Since?
>
> Well, only certain parts of IBM are buddies with AMD, which is the
> chip-making side. The server-making, and until recently, the PC/laptop
> making sides were pure Intel, with a few AMD's tucked away in a corner
> out of sight.

Perhaps you've forgotten why and how AMD got into the x86 biz?

--
Keith

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:24:45 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Robert Myers wrote:
>> Intel will be deposed as to just how badly they called it on Itanium,
>> and (more darkly) a serious discrepancy between what they told
>> investors and what they told IBM. The AMD fanboys are just going to
>> love this.
>
>What would that have anything to do with Linux?
>

You're messing with my head, right?

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/c [...] 520,00.htm

Monterey was an IBM-SCO Unix-ware project for IBM, cancelled by IBM.
SCO claims IBM wanted the project only as a stalking horse for SCO IP.

The slashdot post I cited earlier

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/02/ [...] 118&tid=17

speculates that IBM wants Intel to 'fess up to the fact that it warned
IBM that Itanium wasn't going to arrive on schedule, and that that's
why IBM cancelled Monterey, not so that they could dump SCO-Unix in
favor of Linux.

RM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>> See the full text of the subpoena at:
>> <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050130142654759>
>> along with the usual informed and underinformed
>> speculation.

> The little lost angel <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote:
> Hmm, so now we have IBM, Intel, SCO and Microsoft involved.
> Any chances that this will turn into the "Mother Of All
> Lawsuits" for the decade?

It would, if IBM can drag MS fully into this. Although
Novell is after MS, whether IBM thinks MS is the invisible
hand behind SCO is just guessing at this point.

If you look at the IBM-SCO Timeline/document-log at:
<http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20031016162215566>
you'll see that the word "microsoft" appears nowhere ...

.... yet.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:24:45 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
> >What would that have anything to do with Linux?
> >
>
> You're messing with my head, right?

Not at all, until this message, you hadn't yet connected all of the
dots.

> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/c [...] 520,00.htm
>
> Monterey was an IBM-SCO Unix-ware project for IBM, cancelled by IBM.
> SCO claims IBM wanted the project only as a stalking horse for SCO
IP.
>
> The slashdot post I cited earlier
>
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/02/ [...] 118&tid=17
>
> speculates that IBM wants Intel to 'fess up to the fact that it
warned
> IBM that Itanium wasn't going to arrive on schedule, and that that's
> why IBM cancelled Monterey, not so that they could dump SCO-Unix in
> favor of Linux.

Ah, now I see what you're talking about. Now the dots are connected.

Actually, I hadn't even thought about Monterrey in a long time. This is
the first time I'm seeing Monterrey mentioned in conjunction with
Linux.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Robert Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:24:45 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
> wrote:
> >What would that have anything to do with Linux?
> >
>
> You're messing with my head, right?

Not at all, until this message, you hadn't yet connected all of the
dots.

> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/c [...] 520,00.htm
>
> Monterey was an IBM-SCO Unix-ware project for IBM, cancelled by IBM.
> SCO claims IBM wanted the project only as a stalking horse for SCO
IP.
>
> The slashdot post I cited earlier
>
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/02/ [...] 118&tid=17
>
> speculates that IBM wants Intel to 'fess up to the fact that it
warned
> IBM that Itanium wasn't going to arrive on schedule, and that that's
> why IBM cancelled Monterey, not so that they could dump SCO-Unix in
> favor of Linux.

Ah, now I see what you're talking about. Now the dots are connected.

Actually, I hadn't even thought about Monterrey in a long time. This is
the first time I'm seeing Monterrey mentioned in conjunction with
Linux.

Yousuf Khan

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Actually, I hadn't even thought about Monterrey in a long time. This is
> the first time I'm seeing Monterrey mentioned in conjunction with
> Linux.

I could be wrong, but I believe SCO claimed IP was transferred from
Monterey to Linux way back when they filed their lawsuit against IBM.
They certainly brought it up early in the process, and have been
claiming it ever since.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer