Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:30 UTC, submitted by JCooper
SCO, Caldera, Unixware A declaration by SCO's backer, BayStar has revealed that the software Giant Microsoft had more links to the anti-Linux bad-boy. The declaration made by from BayStar general partner Larry Goldfarb has turned up as part of IBM's evidence to the court. Goldfarb says that Baystar had been chucking USD 50 million at SCO despite concerns that it had a high cash burn rate. He also claims that former Microsoft senior VP for corporate development and strategy Richard Emerson discussed "a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop', or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment". Thanks to The Inq for the summary.
Order by: Score:
Ouch
by Flatline on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:38 UTC
Flatline
Member since:
2006-03-06

Anyhow, after the investment was made, Goldfarb says, "Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Emerson was fired from Microsoft."

That's gotta suck. Talk about getting stuck out on a limb.

Reply Score: 2

I suppose it makes sense
by zambizzi on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:38 UTC
zambizzi
Member since:
2006-04-23

...if they would have appeared to be involved directly somehow, it might have warranted unwanted attention from the gov't.

Not to mention their increasingly diminishing public image.

Reply Score: 2

Nothing new
by stephanem on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:41 UTC
stephanem
Member since:
2006-01-11

We already knew about MS's involvment.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nothing new
by Flatline on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:44 UTC in reply to "Nothing new"
Flatline Member since:
2006-03-06

True, but what was made public was that Microsoft facilitated Baystar's backing of SCO, not that they actually promised to bankroll it themselves (as far as I can remember, anyway...if I'm wrong about that, I'm sure I will be corrected promptly). The real twist is that they apparently told Baystar not to worry about the 50 million! dollars and then basically weaseled out of it. Sounds like something an old college roommate of mine would have done (the jerk).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Nothing new
by gustl on Mon 9th Oct 2006 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Nothing new"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

That should make everyone who is about to make a deal with Microsoft think twice and bring up a contract which is as waterproof as possible.

Because I would be at loss to name even one business partner of Microsoft who did not either get swallowed or hoodwinked.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nothing new
by sbergman27 on Mon 9th Oct 2006 18:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nothing new"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, if I were a professional venture capital firm getting ready to invest 50 million, based upon one company's recommendation, into another company that looked a bit shaky to to me, and the first company was talking about guaranteeing the investment in some way... I think it would have occurred to me to get something in writing.

Something smells a bit fishy, here... and I despise MS.

Reply Score: 1

OMG!!!
by twenex on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:44 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Like, shock! horror!

What I want to know is, what about NotParker's involvement?!

Reply Score: 1

RE: OMG!!!
by sbergman27 on Mon 9th Oct 2006 18:19 UTC in reply to "OMG!!!"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""What I want to know is, what about NotParker's involvement?!"""

Nah... he has an iron-clad alabi. He was here posting anti-Linux trolls, as per usual, at the time of these transactions. ;-)

Edited 2006-10-09 18:23

Reply Score: 3

we knew this years ago
by viator on Mon 9th Oct 2006 17:45 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

When we were saying this years they called us "conspiracy theorists" The truth ALWAYS comes out.

Reply Score: 3

RE: we knew this years ago
by Jody on Tue 10th Oct 2006 12:14 UTC in reply to "we knew this years ago"
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

Well, Microsofts backing of SCO via BayStar as proxy actually WAS known years ago. This just offers a few more details on it.

Reply Score: 2

v Groklaw?
by NotParker on Mon 9th Oct 2006 18:24 UTC
RE: Groklaw?
by deb2006 on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:07 UTC in reply to "Groklaw?"
deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

May I kindly ask why I shouldn't trust an article on Groklaw? You don't offer any substantial reason and therefore your posting seems to be more FUD than anything else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Groklaw?
by TaterSalad on Mon 9th Oct 2006 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Groklaw?"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Because PJ is not much of a journalist and has a strong bias against Microsoft. These are the reaons I do not visit Groklaw.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by jakesdad on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

You dont have to like "PJ"... the library of legal/ezine/articles of data they have compiled on groklaw vastly outweighs any slant "PJ" might have.

I dont like PJ either (her blind devotion to the FSF really irks me)... But Groklaw stands without "her".

You still didnt offer anything to rebut any information on groklaw.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

translation: I am a microsoft hack and can't handle the truth

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Oct 2006 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Oh LOL.

Yes, she is biased. And she's being VERY honest about it. But what is MORE important, is that she provide LINKS to articles, so you can see it for yourself.

Being biased is not bad, _IF_ you're honest about it, and your bias stems from _objective_ reasons. PJ's bias stems from objective reasons - the articles she links to, proves that.

And she doesn't hide, she is writing HER view on the subjects, so she is also honest. That's more than you can say about most others, incl. Redhat and Microsoft (both are twisting the truth in their ads).

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Groklaw?
by hal2k1 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Because PJ is not much of a journalist and has a strong bias against Microsoft. These are the reaons I do not visit Groklaw.//

So you are saying that you prefer the "head in the sand, hands on ears, la la la la I can't hear you" approach?

Groklaw quotes from legal documents. This is not a bias.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Groklaw?
by eggman on Tue 10th Oct 2006 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Groklaw?"
eggman Member since:
2006-05-09

Groklaw quotes from legal documents.

Groklaw selectively quotes snippets out of context from mostly debunked legal documents while mixing in plenty of misleading and blantantly false "analysis", yes.

Kind of like how FOX News pretends that Rep. Foley is a Democrat.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Groklaw?
by borker on Tue 10th Oct 2006 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Groklaw?"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

"mostly debunked"

?? prove it. Show one "debunked" legal document. PJ picks her quotes to illustrate points, but the entire documents are available and always linked to from the articles.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Groklaw?
by NotParker on Mon 9th Oct 2006 20:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Groklaw?"
RE[3]: Groklaw?
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Oct 2006 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

PJ is her real name, and no pseudonym.

Have you any thing that indicates it's a pseudonym or are you just trolling again, as usual?

All your posts are biased and DIShonest at the same time. That makes you so sleazy that I have to give you the "Bo Warming"-mark (search google on him).

PJ have already months ago handled the OSRM-issue and didn't hide anything.

The mere fact she stepped back, proves she has quite a bit of credibility.

She may be biased, but she always provides links so you can see for yourself. I don't follow her all the way on the FSF-issue (the FSF-agenda tends to be slightly disturbing to me), but she's doing quite a good job on digging up information.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Groklaw?
by grat on Mon 9th Oct 2006 22:54 UTC in reply to "Groklaw?"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Groklaw? You trust an article on Groklaw?

Very funny!


Yeah, 'cuz all Groklaw's got to go on is legal documents filed with the courts.

And in this case, it's just a sworn declaration of someone deposed by IBM.

Can't trust that at all.

Idiot.

Reply Score: 0

Oh no.
by ma_d on Mon 9th Oct 2006 18:43 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

You tell conspiracy theorists they're right once and they'll hold it over you for years to come!
Now we'll hear about this everytime the word "Linux" and "bad" are in the same sentence of a study (not that we didn't already).

</humor>

I expected to hear this eventually as well.

Reply Score: 2

cycloneous
Member since:
2006-01-11

This has been known for a while that Microsoft was involved. Think about it, who stands to benefit if GNU/Linux gets a bad rap?

Microsoft would than be able to say, "you see, it is an intellectual propery nightmare;" we warned you!!!

Sun would also benefit because now their Solaris UNIX would be the new king of the server room.

The question of this whole fiaSCO is at what point did Microsoft become involved and who REALLY initiated it. I have a feeling Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have something to do with it. It is just that did all their talking via third party proxy so that they won't be caught red handed. Of course, I can't prove any of it but that is my theory.

Besides Google, Linux is Microsoft worst nightmare and the Penguin ship has left port. That ship is on a collision course with Microsoft's and their ship is about to be boarded by a bunch Penguins with GPL licenses.

Here's an article, a very good article with history about the fiaSCO.

http://www.aaxnet.com/

Edited 2006-10-09 18:59

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Besides Google, Linux is Microsoft worst nightmare and the Penguin ship has left port.

And its taking on water as its growth peters out when only a few years ago it was growing at 132% ... then 63% ... then 40% ... then 20% ... then 6% .... and soon to be zero.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Those wacky numbers again.

They are completely useless, and they are not even mutually comparable.

Go to bed, troll.

Reply Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

And its taking on water as its growth peters out when only a few years ago it was growing at 132% ... then 63% ... then 40% ... then 20% ... then 6% .... and soon to be zero.

Please provide VERY extensive and well-researched documentation that this is true. Or STFU.

Thanks in advance.

Edited 2006-10-09 21:27

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Oh LOL.

Those numbers have been debunked several times already. One is quarterly, and of course the worst possible quarter each year.

Salenumbers are especially low in Europe - possibly due to the increased adoption of free (gratis) Linux distributions. But then, Linux usage is somewhat larger in Europe than in USA. But of course, you've already stated that USA is the no.1 computer user (with no data to backup your claim), so the rest of the world doesn't matter to you, right?

Linux usage is increasing step by step. As the growth continues the relative market increase will naturally be smaller. No surprise about that. But it doesn't mean it's losing steam, or tanking or dying off.. just that the relative growth is getting smaller.

Windows usage is getting smaller in absolute numbers.. now that's true dying off ;)

Reply Score: 2

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Those numbers have been debunked several times already. One is quarterly, and of course the worst possible quarter each year.

Never debunked.

The numbers I posted were "year over year". Do you understand what that means?

"After 15 consecutive quarters of double-digit, year-over-year revenue growth, IDC reported that spending on Linux servers "moderated significantly", growing 6.1 per cent to $1.5bn when compared with the second quarter of 2005."

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2162847/demand-linux-servers-slow...

Translation for the brain dead Linux supporters: From Q2 2005 to Q2 2006 (a whole year) growth in sales of servers that run or will be running Linux slowed all the way to 6.1%.

3 years ago:

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/News/Hardware/20031126074316506

"Linux Server Growth is Nearly 50% Year-Over-Year

Linux server platforms posted a 49.8% growth in factory revenues, year-over-year, while unit shipments grew 51.4% year-over-year."

Edited 2006-10-10 03:54

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Oh dear, why bother?

You cannot possible count sales for a operating system with a cost of 0 $. There are NO SALES.

Comparing absolute numbers shows that Linux usage on the desktop has risen 10% relatively from september 2005 to september 2006 - that would be from Q3 2005 to Q3 2006, while Windows usage has declined with 1,5% relatively in the same period.

May be that the selling of more commercial linux distributions are flattening out, but that does not mean declining, but merely a flattened out increase, which is better than the declining windows sales.

You cannot subtract Carlsberg "beer" from a Microbreweri Honey Ale... it's like subtracting apples from bananas. If you've ever been in first grade, you should know that - (or have ever tasted a Honey Ale) ;)

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

You cannot possible count sales for a operating system with a cost of 0 $. There are NO SALES.

Are you saying no one is using Linux? Or are you saying no one is buying a server with the intention of running Linux on it?

You can argue with IDC about their methodology if you wish. Here is the webpage to start with: http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P348

Linux is petering out. Live with it.

"After 15 consecutive quarters of double-digit, year-over-year revenue growth, IDC reported that spending on Linux servers "moderated significantly", growing 6.1 per cent to $1.5bn when compared with the second quarter of 2005."

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2162847/demand-linux-servers-slow.....

Translation for the brain dead Linux supporters: From Q2 2005 to Q2 2006 (a whole year) growth in sales of servers that run or will be running Linux slowed all the way to 6.1%.

2003?

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/News/Hardware/20031126074316506

"Linux Server Growth is Nearly 50% Year-Over-Year

Linux server platforms posted a 49.8% growth in factory revenues, year-over-year, while unit shipments grew 51.4% year-over-year."

Compared to 2004 and 2005 this massive drop to 6.1% shows Linux server growth is petering out ... losing steam ... tanking.

2004?

"Year-over-year, Linux servers showed 56.9 percent growth with a 46.4 percent unit shipment rate increase."

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/34199.html

2005?

"Linux servers posted their 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with year-over-year revenue growth of 45.1% and unit shipments up 32.1%. Customers continue to expand the role of Linux servers into an ever increasing array of workloads in both the commercial and technical segments of the market."

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00223005

Edited 2006-10-10 15:43

Reply Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

I already have. Several times. Thats why the OSS fanatics dislike me so!

No, they dislike you because you are a dull tool.

Linux server sub-market accounted for only $1.5 billion in sales

Sales being the notable word. SALES. Of a FREE operating system. This does not in any way indicate the growth or current use of Linux. Any study based on sales figures with respect to Linux is utter tripe of the worst sort, at best. Much like all the rest of your posts. I'll bet they are also ignoring ONGOING service contracts and concentrating strictly on sales.

Why not apologize little miss STFU?

Oh my. Was that an insult? Such cutting wit!

And twenex ... the numbers mean exactly what they mean. Linux growth is petering out. Running out of steam. Tanking. Dying off.

In your fantasy world, this is surely true. In the real world, any study showing Linux market penetration based strictly on Linux package sales (even the very best ones) is complete, utter, useless fallacy - at best. Again, like most of your posts.

You should stop arguing with people smarter than you. Which rules out almost everybody on OSNews, and that's not necessarily a complement to them.

Edited 2006-10-10 00:18

Reply Score: 2

The real question is.
by cyclops on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:05 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

Is Baystar going to go after Microsoft. Either Legally or by blackening their name, and stirring up Legal problems elsewhere.

If Microsoft isn't going to make good, through the front or the back door. They had better that there are no more "smoking guns" around.

Reply Score: 2

Some people love Bill Gates. I don't...
by buff on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:06 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

It is funny how different people's perceptions of MS are and Bill Gates. I was thinking of my boss saying how great Gates was since he gives so much money to charities now. What a swell guy... I was going to say something but I bit my tongue instead. Gates might be feeling philanthropic now giving away lots of money to charities and such but how many companies with great ideas were driven into the ground by unethical business practices by Gate's management. For example funding a company to keep Linux locked into legal FUD. How ethical and philanthropic is that? How about all the companies that were strong armed into doing it the way MS wants or losing their contracts. Used to happen all the time, probably still does. If I was working for a charity I might not accept money from MS on the grounds that a portion of it is dirty money.

Edited 2006-10-09 19:07

Reply Score: 4

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

Gates might be feeling philanthropic now giving away lots of money to charities and such but how many companies with great ideas were driven into the ground by unethical business practices by Gate's management

Oh, have no fear. Gates hasn't changed the colour of his feathers. He gives computers loaded with Windows to teaching institutions (lock-in, tax sheltering; prevents toehold of other OS) and he provides billions in funds for African medicine while accepting shares from the medical companies in a joint bid to prevent the Africans from starting up their own drug plants. Gates gets richer, the medical companies get richer, the Africans get medicine... all good, right? Can't have those Africans making inexpensive drugs for their own people, or working paying jobs, that's not in the interests of anybody, right?

Yeah. He's a real humanitarian.

...then the responsible person at MicroSoft acted on his own for something that MS recognized would be bad for them and so fired this Emerson accordingly

Oh please. You've got more blinders on than a Budweiser wagon parade.

Edited 2006-10-09 20:26

Reply Score: 5

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

He's a real humanitarian.

Yes he is.

and he provides billions in funds for African medicine while accepting shares from the medical companies in a joint bid to prevent the Africans from starting up their own drug plants.

The Truth Seekers ... spinning moronic conspiracy theories to justify the usual OSS hate-mongering.

What has Linus or Stalman ever given away to charity?

Zero?

"To further its work, the foundation currently has just over $30 billion in assets, a purse built up from Bill and Melinda Gates' gifts of $26 billion and appreciation in its broadly diversified investments (which at the moment contain no Microsoft).

The $30 billion, of course, does not include the $8 billion in gifts that the foundation has made since 1994. Last year it gave $1.36 billion, and this year it expects to spend around $1.5 billion.

Now it will be Buffett and the Gateses building up the foundation together. Bill and Melinda have said that almost all their fortune will go to charity, and right now they still have an estimated net worth of $50 billion.

The foundation works heavily through partners (nongovernmental organizations, usually) and has focused on big causes. Its original giving was directed at providing U.S. libraries free online access - and today more than 99% are hooked up.

The foundation then broadened its efforts to global health, on which it now spends around 60% of its funds. Much of that is beamed at what Bill Gates calls "the Big Three diseases": malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis."

Reply Score: 2

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

The Truth Seekers ... spinning moronic conspiracy theories to justify the usual OSS hate-mongering. What has Linus or Stalman ever given away to charity?

What's a business decision made between Gates and the drug companies he now owns stock in got to do with charity?

What has Linus or Stalman ever given away to charity?

You may have heard about Linux, the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and GNU?

The $30 billion, of course, does not include the $8 billion in gifts that the foundation has made since 1994. Last year it gave $1.36 billion, and this year it expects to spend around $1.5 billion.

Bill, is that you?

Now it will be Buffett and the Gateses building up the foundation together. Bill and Melinda have said that almost all their fortune will go to charity, and right now they still have an estimated net worth of $50 billion.

I await their humanitarian efforts. Those not tied to some corporation's agenda, that is.

The foundation works heavily through partners (nongovernmental organizations, usually) and has focused on big causes. Its original giving was directed at providing U.S. libraries free online access - and today more than 99% are hooked up.

Sounds great. Provide references? Do you suppose that those libraries were provided with MSN propaganda and all the computers run Microsoft Windows only, rather than services, equipment; software of their choosing? Just a little guess: they took what they got and will have to like it.

The foundation then broadened its efforts to global health, on which it now spends around 60% of its funds. Much of that is beamed at what Bill Gates calls "the Big Three diseases": malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis."

I don't suppose you could provide me with documentation showing that money went into building plants in those affected countries? I can tell you that it didn't. Dirty money, indeed.

Reply Score: 2

Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Sounds great. Provide references? Do you suppose that those libraries were provided with MSN propaganda and all the computers run Microsoft Windows only, rather than services, equipment; software of their choosing? Just a little guess: they took what they got and will have to like it.

Yes I'm sure it was horrible to have free hardware/software and support provided on the computing platform that love it hate it, runs on the vast majority of desktops.

Do you honestly think the public library system actually knew what kind of infastructure they wanted?

I highly doubt it went as deep as "We want solaris on the backside and we'd like Macintosh machines for the workstations" or any other combo.

It was probably more like "We'd like to offer the internet for free to people but cannot afford it"

I don't suppose you could provide me with documentation showing that money went into building plants in those affected countries? I can tell you that it didn't. Dirty money, indeed.

What do propose they make at these plants? Vaccines that are the culmination of billions of dollars of research done by big drug companies? I'm sure the people who spent billions developing these drugs will let that happen!

If a charitable organization such as the gates foundation wants the help of medicine companies then yes you can expect the companies that do the research will be involved with end product of the medicine.

Its a charity to fund developments for some hard hitting disease and its aim is to provide needed drugs to people who are suffering and in many cases can't afford the drugs.

Its not a job fair or employment agency.

Reply Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

Yes I'm sure it was horrible to have free hardware/software and support provided on the computing platform that love it hate it, runs on the vast majority of desktops.

How to get a massive tax break:

a) Source cheap product. If it's your product or partially your product, make a special run at cheapest possible price. Get partners to commit to lowered price or possible donation on their part to get their own massive tax break.

b) Declare value of product (the donation) at maximum possible value. Hopefully this will be 20x or more than what you sourced the donation's specifics for.

c) Make donation in best possible place to promote your company, hopefully in a place where new potential customers will become familiar with it.

d) Save a bundle on your taxes and promote your product at the same time!!!

This is a tax refuge for companies with very deep pockets and usually for monopolies. Those with a *real* humanitarian agenda give the money to the end consumer and let them decide how to spend it (usually with some constraints to be sure it isn't squandered or stolen).

I like your version of the world where there are such altruistic donations. However, that's not the vision of the world which Microsoft or Bill Gates has ever seen a part of.

Do you honestly think the public library system actually knew what kind of infastructure they wanted?

Do you actually think that there couldn't have been a bidding process to determine the best match of cost vs. benefit? Hint: there wasn't one.

I highly doubt it went as deep as "We want solaris on the backside and we'd like Macintosh machines for the workstations" or any other combo.

I can practically guarantee that what most of the libraries wanted was the Mac. Spend any time in the real world and you will find that the Mac is popular primarily with teachers, librarians and the like. Macs are easier to use, harder to mess up and generally less trouble to maintain. Ease of use is a huge subject when it comes to libraries.

It was probably more like "We'd like to offer the internet for free to people but cannot afford it"

For sure. Everyone knows that the Internet is so expensive these days, and books are so cheap.

I doubt that you will understand my sarcasm. You seem a bit dim.

What do propose they make at these plants? Vaccines that are the culmination of billions of dollars of research done by big drug companies? I'm sure the people who spent billions developing these drugs will let that happen!

You apparently know nothing of licensing technologies or products. Or about the morality of making technologies or products discovered by others when your people are dying by the millions and you are not governed by U.S. patent or copyright laws. They knew, which is why Gates "donated" the medicine to quash the African efforts.

If a charitable organization such as the gates foundation wants the help of medicine companies then yes you can expect the companies that do the research will be involved with end product of the medicine.

Help is a relative term. Apparently you can't see quite that far.

Its a charity to fund developments for some hard hitting disease and its aim is to provide needed drugs to people who are suffering and in many cases can't afford the drugs.

So what you're saying is that it made better sense to give them Africans expensive drugs at precisely the right time to quash the efforts being made to manufacture the drugs locally in a way that would provide jobs for the people as well as drugs to hand out either free or for a fraction of the price. Once the donations run out, what then? Expensive American drugs!

I'm aware that it's a tricky situation where giving money to the African government is unlikey to reach its destination. But surely, finding a way to license the drugs cheaply and then manufacturing plants on local soil was the way to go forward. A true humanitarian effort would have been structured so that it would have been sustainable. Any fool (but perhaps not a complete idiot) can see that.

Its not a job fair or employment agency.

Do they make you wear a hockey helmet when you use the computer, or only in the lunch room? Just curious.

Edited 2006-10-09 21:58

Reply Score: 1

blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Gotto agree with Shaman on this one. Would you think the Gates Foundation would have bothered doing the same for South America as they are with Africa?

No, wait, that's right half the Governments in South America have told the US to shove their medical patents up their ass and gone about producing their own versions of patented American drugs.

There is nothing Philanthropic about the Gates Foundation, no more than say Bush and Rumsfield picking up a rifle and going on patrol in Bagdad for the good of the Iraqi People.

Must admit, I liked the closing comment even if it was an insult.

Reply Score: 2

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is a charitable foundation. It doesn't pay taxes. Idiot.

The money came from Gates and his pals. Idiot.

Reply Score: 1

Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

This is a tax refuge for companies with very deep pockets and usually for monopolies.

I'm not going to debate that and I don't exactly see a problem with it. I donate for tax breaks as an individual.

I doubt that you will understand my sarcasm. You seem a bit dim.

Ah and now the personal attacks start, had to vote you down on that one boss and it makes it a bit hard to take you seriously from here on out.

You apparently know nothing of licensing technologies or products. Or about the morality of making technologies or products discovered by others when your people are dying by the millions and you are not governed by U.S. patent or copyright laws. They knew, which is why Gates "donated" the medicine to quash the African efforts.

Gates knew these people were in need and the foundation helped. You can twist it around all you want but it dosen't change the fact that thousands of people are right now getting the medicine they need.

So what you're saying is that it made better sense to give them Africans expensive drugs at precisely the right time to quash the efforts being made to manufacture the drugs locally in a way that would provide jobs for the people as well as drugs to hand out either free or for a fraction of the price. Once the donations run out, what then? Expensive American drugs!

More donations! Its a global epidemic and yes I expect charities and companies to keep on giving.

You can't really sell a product when there is no market, hence the stuff being donated.

I'm aware that it's a tricky situation where giving money to the African government is unlikey to reach its destination. But surely, finding a way to license the drugs cheaply and then manufacturing plants on local soil was the way to go forward.

I agree it would be a great thing to see happen but I don't think any charity will get the cooperation of the drug companies if they persure it from this angle, and that will just set the efforts back longer and more people will die as everyone debates about how to make it work.

true humanitarian effort would have been structured so that it would have been sustainable. Any fool (but perhaps not a complete idiot) can see that.

Attempts are being made to help these people over the long haul, but mostly its been from an educational standpoint.

Take a look at "living with aids" from the BBC sometime, it really opened my eyes.

Do they make you wear a hockey helmet when you use the computer, or only in the lunch room? Just curious.

Grow up.

Edited 2006-10-10 01:32

Reply Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

Grow up.

Grow a skin. And learn to speak out against things you don't like, such as corporations that will kill millions of people to protect their intellectual property. Apathy is how we got here after 40 years of government corruption.

Edited 2006-10-10 03:18

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

*LOL*

You really worship your Lord... kneel serf.. kneel! HAHA ...

The charity work is so small in reality, and only works as to give more MS-users in the coming years.

If Bill Gates meant it seriously he would fight patents and copyrights on medicine, and make it possible for africans to produce cheap medicine. It would give MS fewer benefits (being in opposition to the republicans then), but would also safe many more africans.

Reply Score: 3

If the statement is true...
by Marcellus on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:32 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

...then the responsible person at MicroSoft acted on his own for something that MS recognized would be bad for them and so fired this Emerson accordingly.

And being Groklaw, it's no surprise the article does everything possible to discredit MS for this. I'm not sure if PJ really hates MS, but at the least she's using (and have used in the past as well) anti-MS propaganda, FUD and outright lies to gain standing among the F/OSS communities.

The FACT that is posted is interesting at times... if you can ignore biased interpretations of the facts posted.

Reply Score: 2

RE: If the statement is true...
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Oct 2006 21:23 UTC in reply to "If the statement is true..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Any evidence of those lies?

At least point to some articles with the FUD and outright lies.

Being against MS isn't necessarily a bad thing - nor does it make a person a hero.

PJ is one of the few that always provides links to one side and the other, so it should be easy for you to point out the lies, and provide documentation your claim.

EDIT: The moment you provide documentation, I'll mod you up.

Edited 2006-10-09 21:24

Reply Score: 2

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

The article this news is about had enough FUD-slinging. And I've said before that the FACT that is posted is interesting enough. It's the additional "analysises" by PJ in which she adds FUD whenever she gets the chance to that makes me mostly ignore Groklaw.

As for lies, I am not going to go through hundreds of pages to prove that point, so ignore that point if you feel like.

I'm not interested in "mod up", so save your points for people that is better at writing and arguing.

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The article this news is about had enough FUD-slinging. And I've said before that the FACT that is posted is interesting enough. It's the additional "analysises" by PJ in which she adds FUD whenever she gets the chance to that makes me mostly ignore Groklaw.

As for lies, I am not going to go through hundreds of pages to prove that point, so ignore that point if you feel like.//

Amazing.

This is a link to an article which quotes a sworn statement to the effect that MS high-up management promised to underwrite BayStar investment in the faux SCOG case against Linux.

Yet people still come on OSNews and defend Microsoft and call FUD. What reason could they possibly have to be so blind and biased? Why defend an already proven monopolist antitrust abuser when there is direct evidence they are doing it again?

How can it be FUD to quote a sworn statement?

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Ah! The well-known Microsoft 180. Kiss kiss, let's do a deal. Drop dead. Well, not to try to teach Mr. Goldfarb anything, since he's the businessman, not I, but isn't life's highway littered with companies who thought it'd be remunerative to be a Microsoft partner, only to end up as roadkill?

I'm pretty sure I can't find THAT in the sworn statement.
If you bothered to read what I actually wrote I did NOT target the statement that was posted, but I targeted PJ's comments that were in the article.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah, and I asked you specifically what you targetted and you didn't want to answer.

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

I apologize for assuming you had reading and comprehension abilities and therefore thought it was enough to point to the article for FUD example.

What I didn't feel like doing was dig up the example of PJ outright lying.
Something I did comment on when I used to visit groklaw regularly, under a different name, and left for good when the only responses were from PJ fanbois who had nothing to say.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I apologize for assuming you had reading and comprehension abilities and therefore thought it was enough to point to the article for FUD example.

Oh, I have those all right. I can also see her bias in her analysises, but that bias does not make it FUD. It only makes it a biased analysis.

FUD != bias.

What I didn't feel like doing was dig up the example of PJ outright lying.

Now it sounds like there was only one incident of lying, while earlier you claimed there were out right lies EVERYWHERE on Groklaw. It's easy enough to find out right lies if they are everywhere, but now even you admit this is not the case.

So basically, you're withdrawing your earlier statement. If you don't want to spend time backing up your withdrawn claim, then of course neither will I.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

How can it be FUD to quote a sworn statement?

Well, people don't like facts that goes against their beliefs. When that happens they will call FUD on you.

Their rule no. 1 is: Do Not Confuse Me With Facts.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

As for lies, I am not going to go through hundreds of pages to prove that point, so ignore that point if you feel like.

So basically, you want to spread all the FUD you can about Groklaw and PJ, and when confronted about it, you don't want to point to anything at all...

[sarcasm]Waaauuuwww... Very intelligent...[/sarcasm]

So far PJ's analysises have been pretty acurate, so it doesn't matter if you don't like it. She provides links to the information she analyses, so you can just make your own analyse on it.

But considering you don't want to point to anything, I sincerely doubt your analysises can be considered valid at all.

Reply Score: 1

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

So I'm a FUDster because I don't have memory good enough to remember exactly what was written before and when. Good to know.

PJ's analyses have been full of FUDslinging every time she gets a chance to sling FUD around. I am not contesting the documents discussed.
FYI, I used to think groklaw was a good place to visit and read about the case... until PJ became rabid and posted comments that had no other purpose than to gain followers in the F/OSS communities. She should have stuck to simply reporting and explaining different parts of the documents.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

So I'm a FUDster because I don't have memory good enough to remember exactly what was written before and when. Good to know.

No, but because you REFUSE to point to anything. Your refusal makes you a FUDster.

Most of the time PJ does exactly what you want her to: Reporting and explaining different parts of the documents. That's like 99% of the time. Occassionally she stabs a bit here and there - but it's quite rare, actually.

You still haven't given any pointers. If she really slings so much FUD it shouldn't take you 20 seconds to point to something. The fact you cannot do that or will not do that, proves that she doesn't sling any FUD.

It also proves you are the FUDster here.

Reply Score: 1

M$: The Bush Administration of the computer
by yakirz on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:52 UTC
yakirz
Member since:
2006-05-11

industry.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Huh?

Out right genocide?
Persecuting minorities?

Woot?

WTF are you talking about? I know of no single call for out right genocide or laws persecuting minorities... not a single one. I know of laws that protect minorities - even to the extend that these laws are persecuting the majorities, but not a single law to persecute minorities. Actually there have been several additions to the European Human Rights Convention in order to battle any kind of discrimination of minorities.

Even when it means discriminating native population and therefore persecuting the majorities.

Reply Score: 1

eggman Member since:
2006-05-09

I know of no single call for out right genocide or laws persecuting minorities... not a single one.

Your words sound like what a "good" German would say during the Holocaust.

Did you miss the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi parties seizing control of the governments of north/western Europe? The anti-Turkish laws enacted by the governments of France, Denmark Germany, and Norway? Britain's illegal shootings of brown-skinned peoples? The list goes on and on.

Reply Score: 0

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Did you miss the self-proclaimed neo-Nazi parties seizing control of the governments of north/western Europe?

Woot? What self-proclaimed neo-Nazi parties? Are you talking about the swedish Moderates or the danish Conservatives or the dutch Conservatives or what?

You must have some documentation to backup your wild accusations. There are no countries in Europe with nazi-parties in the government. And in no northern country is there any nazi-parties in the parlament.

Denmark has definitely NO anti-turkish laws at all. Nor has Germany and France. And Norway has most surely no such laws. Where do you get such wild ideas from? Al-Jazeera?

There are no shootings in Britain of brown-skinned people. That is such a hilarious claim. At the very least back it up with documentation.

Reply Score: 1

eggman Member since:
2006-05-09

And don't forget Britain and France's current persecution of immigrants from their former colonies (South Asia and North Africa, respectively).

And the eastern EU's just as bad. You've got the Russians assassinating their own reports to keep reports of atrocities in Chechnya under wraps and Serbia's barely moved away from its "ethnic cleansing" program.

Any of these things would be unthinkable in the US, but they're commonplace in the EU, where the only two political parties are the Communists and the Fascists.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Wooot?

Please give some documentation for your wild accusations (well, not for that in Russia, we already have evidence of that).

But the ethnic cleansing in Serbia ended years ago. Britain and France are persecuting immigrants from their former colonies. Please come with documentation.

Are there only Communists and Fascists in Europe? Well well... I admit they exist, but the Fascists are not powerfull, and the Communists are on the rebound. Socialdemokrats (more or less akin to Democrats) and Conservatives (more or less akin to republicans) and Liberals (European that is) are most powerful.

Personally I'm a Libertarian and very opposed to Fascism, Communism and Nazism and all religions that do not respect the individual (that would be one religion in particular - and a few others, though less so).

Reply Score: 1

New story up on Grok
by Shaman on Mon 9th Oct 2006 22:12 UTC
Shaman
Member since:
2005-11-15

Excerpt:

"I now have the Larry Goldfarb Declaration, and now that I've had a chance to read it in full, what he says is actually a great deal more damaging, if established, than the part IBM highlighted in its Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on SCO's Interference Claims. According to the Declaration, Richard Emerson was not the only Microsoft employee Goldfarb was dealing with in connection with the BayStar investment in SCO. He mentions by name two others, from two other departments. He says, "I had discussions with Kenneth Lustig, Microsoft's managing director of intellectual property and Tivanka Ellawala, from Microsoft's corporate development department regarding the SCO deal." If true, that would seem to rule out Mr. Emerson being on some kind of rogue mission. You can see Mr. Lustig on this Directions on Microsoft chart of executives, showing him reporting to Marshall Phelps, who in turn is under Brad Smith, the Microsoft General Counsel and Secretary.
Goldfarb recounts conversations with David Boies as well, and Goldfarb, then considering investing in SCO back in 2003, says Boies told him that he thought IBM was going to settle quickly. Obviously that didn't happen. Later, when Goldfarb asked to see the evidence against IBM, so his consultants could evaluate the strength of SCO's claims, he says that Boies said he'd provide it but he never did. Eventually Boies stopped taking Goldfarb's phone calls, the Declaration relates. I'm wondering now if Mr. Boies will end up a witness in this case, if IBM's motion is denied and SCO gets to proceed with its interference claims. I'd venture a guess that SCO wishes it had never accused IBM of interfering with SCO's business relationship with BayStar. But let's let Goldfarb tell his own story and I'll get the PDF up as soon as I can. This is just one of more than 500 exhibits that IBM has provided the court in support of its various motions for summary judgment. It's number 165. I'll have the exhibits list up as text shortly as well."

Go see it... http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061009152706664

So much for the "rogue Microsoft employee" defense.

Edited 2006-10-09 22:13

Reply Score: 0

v The deposition is a joke ... right?
by NotParker on Mon 9th Oct 2006 23:24 UTC
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

By the way, whats in Section 13 that PJ censored?

Huh? Where do you find that? In the PDF or what? AFAIK nothing is censored, unless it's done so by the Court.

Please point me to it - I'd like to see that.

Reply Score: 1

biteydog Member since:
2005-10-06

By the way, whats in Section 13 that PJ censored?

PJ didn't censor it. It was marked in the Groklaw article as "redacted", a court term. Presumably IBM don't want the contents of this made public until they introduce it in court, and have (with the court's consent) had it "redacted". We'll find out - eventually!

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's what I expected. I'm used to that, but I would have liked NotParker the Troll to admit so himself...

. o O ( ahh the Naivity of Engineers ;) )

Reply Score: 1

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Presumably IBM don't want the contents of this made public until they introduce it in court, and have (with the court's consent) had it "redacted". We'll find out - eventually!//

It can also be redacted because it contains information that was originally redacted by SCO.

In any event, PJ is not censoring anything, she is quoting the court document.

It is the copy of the court document which is available to the public which itself says "REDACTED". PJ just quotes it verbatim.

Edited 2006-10-10 11:20

Reply Score: 1

I'm shocked!
by bornagainenguin on Mon 9th Oct 2006 23:35 UTC
bornagainenguin
Member since:
2005-08-07

Microsoft had something to do with an extortion and FUD attempt on Linux? Say it isn't so, Joe!

--bornagainpenguin

Reply Score: 2

This makes perfect sence.
by case on Mon 9th Oct 2006 23:41 UTC
case
Member since:
2005-06-29

It's kinda tough to be known as the evil empire if your not out doing evil things.
The Microsoft powers that be are just being true to their vision of domination of each individuals computing experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by llanitedave on Tue 10th Oct 2006 03:50 UTC
llanitedave
Member since:
2005-07-24

<"Because PJ is not much of a journalist and has a strong bias against Microsoft. These are the reaons I do not visit Groklaw.">

PJ is more of an analyst than a journalist, and bias or no, her insights have proved correct far more often than not. In addition, the membership boasts some other fine minds -- the power of Groklaw is not simply Pamela herself, but the entire synthesis provided by the "many eyes" concept applied to the legal side.

True, there's a lot of noise sometimes obscuring the signal, but when you make the effort to read the signal, you learn a lot.

I think Groklaw has been valuable as well in digging up information that lawyers could use. Why else would Darl McBride and his hired goons be so obsessed with PJ?

Without Groklaw, SCO's FUD attack would have been far more successful than it was, even though ultimately they would probably still have lost the case.(cases)

Reply Score: 1

RE: The deposition is a joke ... right?
by llanitedave on Tue 10th Oct 2006 04:00 UTC
llanitedave
Member since:
2005-07-24

You wish!

Reply Score: 1

2004? 2005?
by NotParker on Tue 10th Oct 2006 04:09 UTC
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

Compared to 2004 and 2005 this massive drop to 6.1% shows Linux server growth is petering out ... losing steam ... tanking.

2004?

"Year-over-year, Linux servers showed 56.9 percent growth with a 46.4 percent unit shipment rate increase."

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/34199.html

2005?

"Linux servers posted their 12th consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with year-over-year revenue growth of 45.1% and unit shipments up 32.1%. Customers continue to expand the role of Linux servers into an ever increasing array of workloads in both the commercial and technical segments of the market."

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS00223005

Edited 2006-10-10 04:10

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Groklaw?
by llanitedave on Tue 10th Oct 2006 04:10 UTC
llanitedave
Member since:
2005-07-24

"<"Groklaw selectively quotes snippets out of context from mostly debunked legal documents while mixing in plenty of misleading and blantantly false "analysis", yes.">

Debunked? Only if SCO saying "Is not!" constitutes debunking.

The court record speaks for itself. SCO filed a lawsuit with no evidence, hoping for a settlement or buyout from IBM. Now they're getting their heads handed to them.

It doesn't look to me like judges Wells and Kimball consider the documents "debunked".

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Groklaw?
by dylansmrjones on Tue 10th Oct 2006 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Groklaw?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

A legal document has been debunked?

*LOL*

Reply Score: 1

v notparker
by Shaman on Tue 10th Oct 2006 04:51 UTC
v RE: notparker
by NotParker on Tue 10th Oct 2006 06:20 UTC in reply to "notparker"
RE[2]: notparker
by dylansmrjones on Tue 10th Oct 2006 12:16 UTC in reply to "RE: notparker"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You haven't come up with one single fact so far.

And your twisted behaviour is probably why you're getting modded down.

Reply Score: 1

Its only a claim?
by stabilep on Tue 10th Oct 2006 17:48 UTC
stabilep
Member since:
2006-04-02

I don't know why everyone is getting so worked up the orginal article even said that the guy is only claiming this is what happened. It doesn't mean its absolute truth. Instead of saying "MS Involvement revealed" it may be better to say somethign like "BayStar claims MS involvement" I still hopelessly believe in the innocent until proven guilty system but thats just me.

Reply Score: 1

@dylansmrjones
by eggman on Wed 11th Oct 2006 21:36 UTC
eggman
Member since:
2006-05-09

Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. It's the state you're in every day as you put on that Schutzstaffel uniform every morning and wonder why the inferior races aren't getting down on their knees to please you.

Reply Score: 1