Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
think.com!hsdndev!spdcc!spt!mdc
From: m...@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Summary: corporations are not human beings
Message-ID: <29027@spt.entity.com>
Date: 11 Sep 91 04:23:46 GMT
References: <D2150056.o4d4fu@erics.infoserv.com> <57150@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor)
Organization: Hacks 'R' Us, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 94
Xref: gmdzi comp.sys.mac.misc:63375 comp.sys.mac.system:8753

Thanks to the people of CONNECTIX for writing MODE32.

If it hadn't been for you, the management of Apple wouldn't have had
the easy out of licensing your software and thus making the lawsuits
against them harder to press.  

Your non-copy-protected software would have been the most bootlegged
piece of code around (after After Dark), and you would not have made
that much money from it.  Now you will make money, and Apple looks
like a bunch of angels!

Imagine:

They might have been forced to upgrade the dirty ROMS in their
machines. 

Now, we get to thank the people at Apple who are basking in the
afterglow of THEIR MANAGEMENT essentially doing the CHEAPEST THING
they could do to get out of a bad situation gracefully.

Think about it gang.  Technically it wouldn't be that hard to clean up
the ROMs.  Connectix seems to have found a way.  It would have been a
logistical nightmare to keep track of them though;  And after the
layoffs and all, you can imagine the staffing problems.  Of course you
can. 

If Connectix hadn't stepped in and done what must be a pretty awesome
piece of code to patch and warm boot the machine, patching just the
right routines...  Apple might have actually had to upgrade the ROMs
to do what their manuals said the machine would do. (address 128mb RAM).

Remember when...

Received: by spt.entity.com (smail2.5); 14 Jan 91 14:31:07 EST (Mon)
Received: from APPLE.COM by EDDIE.MIT.EDU with SMTP (5.61/25-eef)
	id AA12651; Mon, 14 Jan 91 14:03:00 EST
Received: by apple.com (5.61/25-eef)
	id AA07248; Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:04:27 -0800
	for m...@spt.entity.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:04:27 -0800
From: Kent Sandvik <mit-eddie!apple.com!ksand>
Message-Id: <910114190...@apple.com>
To: spt!m...@apple.com
Subject: Re: IIcx ROM Question
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac.hardware
In-Reply-To: <12...@spt.entity.com>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Cc: 

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:04:27 -0800
From: Kent Sandvik <mit-eddie!apple.com!ksand>
To: spt!m...@apple.com
Subject: Re: IIcx ROM Question
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac.hardware
In-Reply-To: <12...@spt.entity.com>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Cc: 

In article <12...@spt.entity.com> you write:
>Can someone tell me whether it will be possible to put 20 megabytes of
>physical RAM in a IIcx and have System 7 use it all properly?
>
>Will this require a ROM upgrade?
>
>Will IIci ROMs work in a IIcx for most intents and purposes?
>
>If the ROMs in a IIcx are not 32 bit clean, can they be loaded to RAM
>and patched around using the PMMU?  Has any third party company
>thought about this [the VIRTUAL people come to mind.]
>
>Can someone help with some answers?  Thanks.

Marty, I don't think you could get by without 32-bit clean roms for the
32-bit mode. I know some developers who have switched roms in the cx or
II machines in order to get 32-bit mode to work.

Eventually we should provide a developer update program for this. I have 
to check out about it.

Regards,
Kent Sandvik

-- 
Kent Sandvik, Apple Computer Inc, Developer Technical Support
NET:...@apple.com, AppleLink: KSAND  DISCLAIMER: Private mumbo-jumbo
Zippy++ says: "The ANSI C++ Standard should be an object oriented model"

-- 
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, Home of the Wrist Pad[tm] Plus, 
  Keyboard Wrist Rest, and the Mouse Paw[tm], Mouse Wrist Rest!
US Mail: P.O. Box 550, Kendall Square; Cambridge, MA 02142-0004
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046
    Net: m...@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdc

Path: gmdzi!unido!unidui!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!
qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bc
From: b...@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <57218@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 11 Sep 91 22:49:58 GMT
References: <D2150056.o4d4fu@erics.infoserv.com> <57150@apple.Apple.COM> 
<29027@spt.entity.com>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 15
Xref: gmdzi comp.sys.mac.misc:63400 comp.sys.mac.system:8779

In article <29...@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes:
|Thanks to the people of CONNECTIX for writing MODE32.
|
|If it hadn't been for you, the management of Apple wouldn't have had
|the easy out of licensing your software and thus making the lawsuits
|against them harder to press.  

So what exactly is your point?

You're getting the 32-bit issue resolved at no cost to you in a very
clean, compatible way that can be turned off if necessary.

What else is it that you wanted?

bill coderre
arguments are down the hall

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!ogicse!hsdndev!spdcc!spt!mdc
From: m...@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <29157@spt.entity.com>
Date: 12 Sep 91 22:50:49 GMT
References: <D2150056.o4d4fu@erics.infoserv.com> <57150@apple.Apple.COM> 
<29027@spt.entity.com> <57218@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor)
Organization: Hacks 'R' Us, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17
Xref: gmdzi comp.sys.mac.misc:63426 comp.sys.mac.system:8812

In article <57...@apple.Apple.COM> b...@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes:
>You're getting the 32-bit issue resolved at no cost to you in a very
>clean, compatible way that can be turned off if necessary.

In my opinion in is neither clean enough or compatible enough.

>What else is it that you wanted?

32 bit clean ROMs.  Plain and simple.  

Marty
-- 
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop, Home of the Wrist Pad[tm] Plus, 
  Keyboard Wrist Rest, and the Mouse Paw[tm], Mouse Wrist Rest!
US Mail: P.O. Box 550, Kendall Square; Cambridge, MA 02142-0004
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046
    Net: m...@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdc

Path: gmdzi!unido!math.fu-berlin.de!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
samsung!mips!apple!claris!Mike_S...@claris.com
From: Mike_S...@claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <13443@claris.com>
Date: 13 Sep 91 21:40:39 GMT
References: <D2150056.o4d4fu@erics.infoserv.com> <57150@apple.Apple.COM> 
<29027@spt.entity.com> <57218@apple.Apple.COM> <29157@spt.entity.com>
Sender: ne...@claris.com
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.misc
Organization: Claris Corporation
Lines: 18
Xref: gmdzi comp.sys.mac.misc:63456 comp.sys.mac.system:8864
Nntp-Posting-Host: steiner

In article <29...@spt.entity.com>, m...@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) 
writes:
> 
> In article <57...@apple.Apple.COM> b...@Apple.COM (bill coderre) 
> writes:
> >You're getting the 32-bit issue resolved at no cost to you in a 
> >very
> >clean, compatible way that can be turned off if necessary.
> 
> In my opinion in is neither clean enough or compatible enough.
> 
> >What else is it that you wanted?
> 
> 32 bit clean ROMs.  Plain and simple.  

Nobody promised you 32-bit clean ROMs.  With Mode/32, you have a 
32-bit-clean Macintosh.  Apple has
not only kept its promise, it has gone beyond what it had promised.

If I recall Apple's press release correctly, eventually the functions 
of Mode/32 will be rolled into
the system file.  If Apple had done that with system 7 in the first 
place, would you have complained
that there were no 32-bit-clean ROMs?

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!
yale.edu!think.com!spdcc!spt!mdc
From: m...@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <29285@spt.entity.com>
Date: 14 Sep 91 18:52:03 GMT
References: <D2150056.o4d4fu@erics.infoserv.com> <57150@apple.Apple.COM> 
<29027@spt.entity.com> <57218@apple.Apple.COM> <29157@spt.entity.com> 
<13443@claris.com>
Reply-To: mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor)
Organization: Hacks 'R' Us, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 94

In article <13...@claris.com> Mike_S...@claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:

  > Nobody promised you 32-bit clean ROMs.  

Not explicitly, to my recollection, but I argue that the implication
was fairly clear by their own documentation.  I quite simply don't
like the way they implemented the fix (patching out large chunks of
the ROM).  I think even their own engineers would agree this is a
sub-optimal solution.

  > With Mode/32, you have a 32-bit-clean Macintosh.  

This sentence is misleading.  I have a 24 bit Macintosh with patches
to make it appear that it is not.  The IIci is a 32 bit Macintosh.

  > Apple has not only kept its promise, it has gone beyond what it had
  > promised.

Apple has made a fix which I consider inappropriate.  I wish to replace
my ROMs with 32 bit capable ones.

> If I recall Apple's press release correctly, eventually the
> functions of Mode/32 will be rolled into the system file.  If Apple
> had done that with system 7 in the first place, would you have
> complained that there were no 32-bit-clean ROMs?

I probably would not have complained unless I had noticed a problem I
could attribute to their patches which provided less than a completely
32 bit clean environment.
---------------
But, the fact is that they did not.  I believe somebody seriously
underestimated how upset people would be to find out that the
expensive machine they bought last year would not do what was promised
by Apple.

Apple (I am given to understand) helped Connectix with the $169
software fix, which says to me that they knew large parts of the ROM
needed attention, and they could have done it easily enough
themselves. In software or hardware.  I am told stock IIci ROMs will
even work in a IIcx, modulo some debugger weirdness most people would
not see.

Then they had a choice.  Lots of pissed users; People hacking the
Connectix init to remove the parts that checks the network for
duplication, people posting the fixed version to bboards under a
clever new name...  Or they could put the fix in System 7.0.x along
with ATM.  But that would screw Connectix out of one of their
products...

So they license the software from Connectix so that they won't be mad
because Apple took away their market, which Apple gave them in the
first place by helping them patch the ROMs.  Then they tell everybody
that we're now doing 'the right thing'.  Connectix is happy, Apple
looks like a nice company who cares about its customers, and the users
are mostly happy.

They could *still* offer a ROM upgrade for people who want it.
Maybe even charge a nominal fee to cover overhead.  Most people will
take the software init and be happy.  Connectix still gets the
licensing fee, so they're happy.  Apple addresses the few people who
want clean ROMs, And they're happy.

It appears it may be cheaper and easier for Apple to use a software
upgrade path than to replace ROMs.  I don't argue that.  
-------------
I restate my request to Apple as follows:

   I prefer a 32 bit clean ROM upgrade to a pure software solution 
   for the "dirty ROM" problem with certain Mac II series computers.
   I believe this to be a more appropriate solution for this
   particular problem than a software upgrade.

   I would like to see this solution available (at little or no cost)
   to the owners of the above-mentioned machines.

   I suggest that both a software and a hardware option be made
   available.  A system patch for free (MODE32 or System Software
   Upgrade), or for a nominal charge, a ROM upgrade for those who 
   prefer it.
----------
If the powers that be at Apple choose not to honor my request that is
what they choose to do.  My request stands.  I think it is reasonable.

Marty

P.S. Could someone forward this to the appropriate people in Apple or
     supply and address (electronic or otherwise) where I can send
     this request?  Thanks.

-- 
Marty Connor, Marty's Computer Workshop
US Mail: P.O. Box 550, Kendall Square; Cambridge, MA 02142-0004
  Voice: (617) 491-6935, Fax: (617) 491-7046
    Net: m...@entity.com, or ...{harvard|uunet}!mit-eddie!spt!mdc

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!decwrl!pa.dec.com!flamm
From: fl...@wsl.dec.com (Jonathan E. Flamm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <1991Sep15.202148.7320@PA.dec.com>
Date: 15 Sep 91 20:21:48 GMT
References: <29157@spt.entity.com> <13443@claris.com> <29285@spt.entity.com>
Sender: ne...@PA.dec.com (News)
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab
Lines: 28

In article <29...@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes:
>
>like the way they implemented the fix (patching out large chunks of
>the ROM).  I think even their own engineers would agree this is a
>sub-optimal solution.
>
>  > With Mode/32, you have a 32-bit-clean Macintosh.  
>
>This sentence is misleading.  I have a 24 bit Macintosh with patches
>to make it appear that it is not.  The IIci is a 32 bit Macintosh.
>

Well, I don't think this is news to too many people -- but most Macintosh system
software disks do exactly this:  patch out large chunks of the ROM.  This is done
to fix bugs, add functionality etc.  All Macintoshes are 32 bit machines.  Some
simply have code that restricts use of the upper 8 bits.  MODE32 patches the 
offending code in the same way Apple fixes its own bugs.  The result to you is
no difference.  Apple is simply giving you new ROM code without the pain of having
to change the chip.  Why would Apple want to put itself and its customers through an
expensive and inconvenient ROM upgrade, when a software solution is funtionally
identically and faster and easier for everyone.  In the future (as I infer from
messages on the net) all system software will incorporate MODE32 which will make
Macs 32 bit clean out of the box i.e. there will be no way to tell the difference.

-- 
 Jonathan E. Flamm		DEC Western Software Lab, Multimedia Group
 fl...@wsl.pa.dec.com		305 Lytton Ave (UCB1), Palo Alto, CA 94301  
 				Tel:  415/688-1548

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!bc
From: b...@Apple.COM (bill coderre)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <57422@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 16 Sep 91 20:14:53 GMT
References: <29027@spt.entity.com> <57218@apple.Apple.COM> <29157@spt.entity.com>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 28
Xref: gmdzi comp.sys.mac.misc:63498 comp.sys.mac.system:8910

I wrote:
|>You're getting the 32-bit issue resolved at no cost to you in a very
|>clean, compatible way that can be turned off if necessary.

In article <29...@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes:
|In my opinion in is neither clean enough or compatible enough.

Now here's something we can talk facts about.

Tell me a few reasons why you feel the way you do.

We've already mentioned that all systems since dawn of creation (well,
maybe 1.1!) have backpatched the ROMs during boot. Although this takes
up a little memory (100K in system 6.0.7 on a MacPlus) it doesn't
influence the speed any, and any program that doesn't run, well, is a
bad program.

Are there any programs (or hardwares) that run on a "clean-ROM" Mac
that don't run on a "MODE-32" Mac?

I'm interested in making a software solution perfect for everyone,
since it's easy to turn off if you need to, it's damn cheap, and it
doesn't require a gajillion Macs to be serviced.

In your interests, you certainly got 32-bit-ness a heckuvalot faster
than taking a number at a service center!

bc

Path: gmdzi!unido!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!claris!
Mike_S...@claris.com
From: Mike_S...@claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <13449@claris.com>
Date: 16 Sep 91 20:47:29 GMT
References: <D2150056.o4d4fu@erics.infoserv.com> <57150@apple.Apple.COM> 
<29027@spt.entity.com> <57218@apple.Apple.COM> <29157@spt.entity.com> 
<13443@claris.com> <29285@spt.entity.com>
Sender: ne...@claris.com
Organization: Claris Corporation
Lines: 110
Nntp-Posting-Host: steiner

In article <29...@spt.entity.com>, m...@spt.entity.com (Marty Connor) writes:
> 
> In article <13...@claris.com> Mike_S...@claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> 
>   > Nobody promised you 32-bit clean ROMs.  
> 
> Not explicitly, to my recollection, but I argue that the implication
> was fairly clear by their own documentation.  I quite simply don't
> like the way they implemented the fix (patching out large chunks of
> the ROM).  I think even their own engineers would agree this is a
> sub-optimal solution.

A very large portion of the system consists of ROM patches.  The only 
difference with Mode/32 is that
it is an init instead of it being rolled into the system itself.
 
>   > With Mode/32, you have a 32-bit-clean Macintosh.  
> 
> This sentence is misleading.  I have a 24 bit Macintosh with patches
> to make it appear that it is not.  The IIci is a 32 bit Macintosh.

The hardware is 32 bit.  Whether the 32-bit-clean memory manager is in 
RAM or ROM is moot.

>   > Apple has not only kept its promise, it has gone beyond what it had
>   > promised.
> 
> Apple has made a fix which I consider inappropriate.  I wish to replace
> my ROMs with 32 bit capable ones.

Why?  What does that give you over a software solution?  Apple never 
promised 32-bit
clean ROMs for the IIcx or earlier models.
 
> > If I recall Apple's press release correctly, eventually the
> > functions of Mode/32 will be rolled into the system file.  If Apple
> > had done that with system 7 in the first place, would you have
> > complained that there were no 32-bit-clean ROMs?
> 
> I probably would not have complained unless I had noticed a problem I
> could attribute to their patches which provided less than a completely
> 32 bit clean environment.

Have you found any of those problems that are attributable to Mode/32?  
f you have,
what are they?

> ---------------
> But, the fact is that they did not.  I believe somebody seriously
> underestimated how upset people would be to find out that the
> expensive machine they bought last year would not do what was promised
> by Apple.
> 
> Apple (I am given to understand) helped Connectix with the $169
> software fix, which says to me that they knew large parts of the ROM
> needed attention, and they could have done it easily enough
> themselves. In software or hardware.  I am told stock IIci ROMs will
> even work in a IIcx, modulo some debugger weirdness most people would
> not see.

I haven't heard that.  Even so, what about the II, IIx, and SE/30?  
That is four
sets of ROM that Apple would have had to make.  Further, how many 
machines are
involved, and how many of their owners would want to upgrade the ROMs?  
How
much would it have cost Apple to design and make them?  That extra 
money would
either have had to be included in the cost of the ROM, or amortized 
in the cost of
future products.

> Then they had a choice.  Lots of pissed users; People hacking the
> Connectix init to remove the parts that checks the network for
> duplication, people posting the fixed version to bboards under a
> clever new name...  Or they could put the fix in System 7.0.x along
> with ATM.  But that would screw Connectix out of one of their
> products...

yes, they had a choice, and they chose the one that would work the the
most people, the easiest and least costly way.  Hacking and distributing....
that sounds like piracy to me.

> So they license the software from Connectix so that they won't be mad
> because Apple took away their market, which Apple gave them in the
> first place by helping them patch the ROMs.  Then they tell everybody
> that we're now doing 'the right thing'.  Connectix is happy, Apple
> looks like a nice company who cares about its customers, and the users
> are mostly happy.
> 
> They could *still* offer a ROM upgrade for people who want it.
> Maybe even charge a nominal fee to cover overhead.  Most people will
> take the software init and be happy.  Connectix still gets the
> licensing fee, so they're happy.  Apple addresses the few people who
> want clean ROMs, And they're happy.
> 
> It appears it may be cheaper and easier for Apple to use a software
> upgrade path than to replace ROMs.  I don't argue that.  
> -------------
> I restate my request to Apple as follows:
> 
>    I prefer a 32 bit clean ROM upgrade to a pure software solution 
>    for the "dirty ROM" problem with certain Mac II series computers.
>    I believe this to be a more appropriate solution for this
>    particular problem than a software upgrade.
> 
>    I would like to see this solution available (at little or no cost)
>    to the owners of the above-mentioned machines.
> 
>    I suggest that both a software and a hardware option be made
>    available.  A system patch for free (MODE32 or System Software
>    Upgrade), or for a nominal charge, a ROM upgrade for those who 
>    prefer it.
> ----------
> If the powers that be at Apple choose not to honor my request that is
> what they choose to do.  My request stands.  I think it is reasonable.

I think that you are asking for too much, without any regard for the economics
involved.  Their aint no such thing as a free lunch.

Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hri.com!
noc.near.net!eclectic.com!kenh
From: ke...@eclectic.com (Ken Hancock)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: Thanks CONNECTIX!!
Message-ID: <1991Sep17.195523.22830@eclectic.com>
Date: 17 Sep 91 19:55:23 GMT
References: <29027@spt.entity.com> <57218@apple.Apple.COM> 
<29157@spt.entity.com>
Organization: Isle Systems - Waltham, MA
Lines: 32
Xref: gmdzi comp.sys.mac.misc:63635 comp.sys.mac.system:9037

In article <29...@spt.entity.com> mdc@spt.UUCP (Marty Connor) writes:
>In article <57...@apple.Apple.COM> b...@Apple.COM (bill coderre) writes:
>>You're getting the 32-bit issue resolved at no cost to you in a very
>>clean, compatible way that can be turned off if necessary.
>
>In my opinion in is neither clean enough or compatible enough.
>
>>What else is it that you wanted?
>
>32 bit clean ROMs.  Plain and simple.  

Oh give me a break, Marty.  Why don't you start listing things that
aren't compatible with MODE32?  Not only that, but Apple never
promised you 32bit clean ROMs.  They promised that you would be able
to address more memory (i.e. run in 32 bit mode).  You can do that
now, just fine.

Besides, if we do it your way, Apple would still have licensed MODE32
from Connectix but just waited until they folded in the patches into
System 7.x.  Then we could all wait for more months until it was
released to the public.  If you want a 100% Apple solution, just
wait until the 7.x time...it'll be folded into the OS...

Ken



-- 
Ken Hancock             | INTERNET: ke...@eclectic.com 
Isle Systems            | Compuserve: >INTERNET: ke...@eclectic.com
Macintosh Consulting    | AOL: KHancock 
                        | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine,

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/