On the IWC / Unitas controversy, my view is that Unitas used IWC movement layout, not the opposite.
Explanation: Both calibres also 'coincide' when overlaid.
But: IWC cal 97 and 98 traces their roots back to the 1930's (actually 1930 for the 97 and 1936 for the 98).
The Unitas 6497 was born in 1950.
So, if one borrowed to the other, then that would be Unitas.
Furthermore, IWC has demonstrated its ability to produce its calibre 98 in its 'old form (the typical 5 bridges design) up to 1993. So, it doesn't seem extraordinary that they still have the tools and skills to produce a 98-based Jones version in-house.
On the other hand, giving that Cal 98 and the 6497 'fit' together, it could be envisaged that IWC would indeed modify Unitas calibres (or buy the Unitas gear trains) to make their modern Jones. I don't know if it is the case (I have not visited the factory), but even if that was the case (which I don't think, because they have proven their ability to build the cal 98 before), IWC would still be the 'designer' of the movement, not Unitas. And that's wahat it's all about in the JLC case: the paternity of the design (i KNOW they manufacture the 751 in house, I have never said otherwise)
Anyway, cal 98 and 6497 are so much simple compared to the FP1185 / JLC 751. I don't think that 'placing' 37 jewels and multiple levers semi-randomly and having two design correspond exactly is an open possibility. So, back to the 'paternity' question. Again