Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Oct 2006 14:48 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Microsoft has denied allegations that it offered to guarantee an investment made in The SCO Group, a software company embroiled in a long-standing intellectual property dispute with IBM. "Microsoft has no financial relationship with BayStar and never agreed to guarantee any of BayStar's USD 50 million investment in SCO," a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement on Monday.
Order by: Score:
no kidding
by Flatline on Wed 11th Oct 2006 15:14 UTC
Flatline
Member since:
2006-03-06

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that they released the statement. There's no paper trail, so they have plausible deniability (is that a word?). They would have been stupid to *not* release a statement.

Reply Score: 2

RE: no kidding
by DittoBox on Wed 11th Oct 2006 17:11 UTC in reply to "no kidding"
DittoBox Member since:
2005-07-08

No, it's not a word. It's a phrase. ;)

Plausible Deniability is more about higher-ups (mouth pieces) simply not being "in the loop". That way, when they're asked whether or not they knew anything about a rather unpopular and secret campaign or assassination they can deny it without flat out lying (or when under oath, committing perjury). It has less to do with paper trails than with keeping key people from knowing too much, even though they already have some vague clues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability

Reply Score: 1

And what else would they do???
by bnolsen on Wed 11th Oct 2006 15:22 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

They must deny it or likely face very damaging consequences from lots of different governments world wide.

Of course Microsoft could have avoided the whole situation by just doing business and not trying to unethically (possibly illegally) sabatoge their competition by funelling money through a front company.

Or all the other antics they've pulled in their quest to "wage war" on their competition. Shady business practices alwaysl leads to trouble.

Doing business with a view to help your customers at least will allow you to sleep at night and enables you to exist long term.

Reply Score: 2

RE: And what else would they do???
by TomB7 on Wed 11th Oct 2006 16:50 UTC in reply to "And what else would they do???"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

"Of course Microsoft could have avoided the whole situation by just doing business and not trying to unethically (possibly illegally) sabatoge their competition"

To do that, MSFT would actually need some products-- ANY products-- that are genuinely better than the competition. They have none. Maybe "Age of Empires" or "halo".....

Reply Score: 0

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

To do that, MSFT would actually need some products-- ANY products-- that are genuinely better than the competition.

Exchange
SQL Server
Visual Studio (good enough to steal - mono)
Office 2003
Windows Server 2003 / R2
Windows Media Center Edition 2005
Internet Information Services 6 (more secure than Apache and Apaches only good for parked domains)
ISA Server 2004/2006 (an excellent Firewall and more)
Biztalk
Sharepoint

and more ... http://www.microsoft.com/servers/default.mspx

Edited 2006-10-11 17:09

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

mono and Visual Studio are not the same kind of products.

Visual Studio is a development tool, while mono is a .net implementation. Visual Studio is more akin to Delphi and Lazarus and Borland C++ Builder.

Office 2003 is no better than it's competitors, Exchange is hilarious, and SQL Server is a crappy product compared with postgreSQL.

Windows 2003 Server is good though. What I'm running right now at this very moment.

WMCE2005 is stupid, as all media centers (incl. linux variations).

IIS6 is less secure than Apache and less advanced.

None of the other products are especially good.

But Windows 2003 Server definitely has something going for it. Unfortunately it's way too expensive for most persons - except for us lucky enough to have access to MSDN AA.

Reply Score: 4

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Office 2003 is no better than it's competitors, Exchange is hilarious, and SQL Server is a crappy product compared with postgreSQL."


Why is Exchange hilarious? It has many more features then any of the OSS groupware servers, such as being able to easily have on address book for a whole company, instead of each person having a local copy that gets borked, being able to invite people to conferences/meetings by sending an email and they accept and it automatically gets onto the calendar, etc. Looking at this is for groupware, so remember that before you flame please.

Reply Score: 1

linux-it Member since:
2006-07-13

Looking at exchange's performance and implementation of basic stuff, it's hilarious yes.

it's also not exactly cheap for what it does. The only thing it does 'well' is the integration and that's also one of the worst things you can think of. The company I also work for has quite soe work to keep exchange running with all that kind of hoopla most people won't even use. And we're only talking about approx 28k users. If my ISP would have so many outages, I definitely would ditch them. On a per seat base, you seriously don't want to know what the cost is.

So it's hilarous yes. It may work for you though.

Reply Score: 1

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"The only thing it does 'well' is the integration and that's also one of the worst things you can think of."

I don't know why the integration is a bad thing, but then the most users I have ever had on Exchange is 500, so no where near the 28K you have. I can see where that could have an impact. Personally I appreciate that it integrates so well and just wortks. Maintaining it has never been an issue, and the down time is minimal, maybe 2 outages a year for scheduled maintenance at most.

Reply Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

such as being able to easily have on address book for a whole company

Sweet jebuzz. Are you kidding me? I can't imagine a solitary office groupware server that didn't have this functionality. Even the PHP groupware products (which of course have some limitations because of their nature) have shared calendar. TWIG had it in the last century on PHP2.

Reply Score: 4

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Sweet jebuzz. Are you kidding me? I can't imagine a solitary office groupware server that didn't have this functionality. Even the PHP groupware products (which of course have some limitations because of their nature) have shared calendar. TWIG had it in the last century on PHP2."

They have this if you use strictly web based for the shared calendar, with no email integration. Relying on people remembering to add items to their calendar is comical, as it won't happen. The cost is between $35-$50 USD per user per year to get that functionality is more expensive then Exchange. The products I am looking at is Novell OpenGroupware, and Zimbra. With Exchange I have the one time expense for the CAL's, which last for years, not just a single year. I am more then happy to entertain other suggestions as in actuality I am trying to migrate away from MS products where I work, just finding equivalents that do most things well is hard to find.

Reply Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

They have this if you use strictly web based for the shared calendar, with no email integration.

Every product I know has email integration. But maybe I don't understand what you're describing.

Anyway, if you want monolithic-style apps rather than web apps (not that I am blaming you), then look at Kontact on KDE. It's inexpensive (free actually) and supports what you are looking for, if I read you correctly. You'll want to use KoLab or another back end for the groupware server, though you could just use a shared IMAP4 folder IIRC.

Wikipedia on Kolab: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolab

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

IIS6 is less secure than Apache

Wait.. what? What are you basing that on?

Exchange is hilarious

Hilariously useful.

Reply Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07

IIS6 is less secure than Apache

Wait.. what? What are you basing that on?

Exchange is hilarious

Hilariously useful.


Not really (at least until SP2 and even now all my clients would qualify as enterprise)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/exchange/guides/E2k3Te...

(: size does matter ;)

Reply Score: 1

somebody Member since:
2005-07-07


...
Internet Information Services 6 (more secure than Apache and Apaches only good for parked domains)
...


If it wasn't a post from NotParker it would maybe even deserve disputing.

Except Office2003 and WS2003 (which do serve as good products if need for features they have is posed) I don't see one that would qualify as viable as answer to the parents claims.

Reply Score: 1

The Devil denies wrong doing!!!
by cycloneous on Wed 11th Oct 2006 15:37 UTC
cycloneous
Member since:
2006-01-11

Not for nothing for Microsoft, but these are the same idiots that deceive you in attempting to have dead people send letters to congressman in support of Microsoft has no ill will towards any company. Remember, this the same company wants to convince you that you need a heater in the middle of the summer.

These are the same folks that perjured themselves saying MS Internet Explorer and MS Windows are inseparable and a few years later. . .poof. . .MS Internet Explorer and MS Windows are separate products. Coincidence? These are the same folks who screwed Sendo, Spyglass and other companies.

Basically it comes down to this, someone in Microsoft hid their paper trail very well. They used a third party proxy to deliver messages back and forth. Not only that, they destroyed probably any documentation that any communication existed. So that if SEC or the Feds come to investigate there is no paper trail. To bad name Linux and if people buy into, the only company that truly stands to gain is Microsoft. My take, Microsoft is involved, it is a matter of when did they become involved.

But I theorize this, someone must have left some trail, small or big! Some one must have a insurance card to hold either Baystar, Microsoft or SCO at bay if something should go south very quickly. But hey, this is just an assumption.

Reply Score: 3

Proof
by CPUGuy on Wed 11th Oct 2006 15:49 UTC
CPUGuy
Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow, you all are so biased.

I won't deny that this it is possible that Microsoft has been doing this, but I'm not going to go out and flat out say that they did it either.

Until there is actual proof one way or another, you simply can NOT say one way or the other.

The US is based on innocent until proven guilty, and yet here we have several people acting like mindless drones. Truely sickening.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Proof
by Flatline on Wed 11th Oct 2006 15:53 UTC in reply to "Proof"
Flatline Member since:
2006-03-06

I agree. Without actual proof of some kind I will not assume that Microsoft is guilty. However, it does seem relatively likely that Microsoft could have been involved because of their shady dealings in the past. I am not going to mentally "convict" them without proof, but it would not surprise me in the least if the gentleman at Baystar were shown to be telling the truth.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Proof
by CPUGuy on Wed 11th Oct 2006 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Proof"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

Exactly.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Proof
by TechGeek on Wed 11th Oct 2006 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proof"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Well lets see here. We have motive. That is a very important aspect of any crime and must be established in court. Then we have the actual fact that BayStar did invest $50 million in SCO, which given there business's health at the time, seems absurd. Then we have clear proof of communications between BayStar and MSFT around the time of the deal. Not to mention Baystar trying to back out of the deal as soon as the press cries foul. While all this is circumstantial, together it is a pretty convincing case. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence.

Edited 2006-10-11 18:57

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Proof
by sappyvcv on Thu 12th Oct 2006 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proof"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You're ok with convicting Microsoft based on "communications between BayStar and Microsoft around the time of the deal"? Is there even proof for THAT? Guilty by association is a terrible thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Proof
by 2fargone on Wed 11th Oct 2006 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Proof"
2fargone Member since:
2006-02-20

There is Goldfarb's testimony. To me, it doesn't seem likely a person in Goldfarb's position would want to tell a lie like that about a entity that has as much power as Microsoft.

I know next to nothing about the man, but I can't imagine he would risk his reputation by going against MS. You'd have to expect that he knew his life was going to get investigated because MS is going to have to discredit him so his testimony won't carry as much weight as to convict them.

And that's only what MS would do in court. I seem to remember there was an IT guy from Mass. and a European Minister who both got their reputations questioned in the press and later it was found out MS was behind it. So you would have to expect an orchistrated public discrediting as well.

I believe there needs to be ethics in business, and honestly, I don't believe Microsoft is an honorable company. I think because of MS's past and present behaviors, I think MS is very likely to have had involvement as described by Mr. Goldfarb with Baystar concerning SCO. But I'm willing to give them a chance to prove otherwise.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Proof
by h3rman on Wed 11th Oct 2006 18:35 UTC in reply to "Proof"
h3rman Member since:
2006-08-09

>>The US is based on innocent until proven guilty...

It is not.
Anyone ever heard of Guantanamo Bay concentration camp?

Reply Score: 5

v RE[2]: Proof
by DrillSgt on Wed 11th Oct 2006 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Proof"
v RE[3]: Proof
by bnolsen on Wed 11th Oct 2006 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proof"
v RE[4]: Proof
by hamster on Wed 11th Oct 2006 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proof"
[OT] They weren't actually all caught in the act
by robilad on Wed 11th Oct 2006 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Proof"
robilad Member since:
2006-01-02

Some of the people that were so far released from the Guantanamo facility have not been engaged in hostilities against US forces. Rather then being caught in the act, they were delivered to US forces through allied forces, like the case of <a "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3868-2005Mar26.html"... Kurnaz, who was kidnapped in Pakistan, and spent five years being held captive by the US forces in Guantanamo Bay.

Since the Hamdan vs Rumsfeld decision, the combatant status review tribunal has determined that around thirty people held in Guanatamo Bay as enemy combatants are no such thing. Many of them have since been released.

Given that the tribunal reviewed around 550 cases, a margin of error of more than five percent is quite significant.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Proof
by mjones on Wed 11th Oct 2006 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Proof"
mjones Member since:
2006-06-14

> Yep, that is where the terrorists that are caught
> are being held. Murderers that they are, they
> should not even get a trial.

How do you know they are terrorists/murderers without having a trial. I hope you are never arrested for a serious crime and thrown in jail (for life) without a trial.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Proof
by Moulinneuf on Wed 11th Oct 2006 19:09 UTC in reply to "Proof"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"Wow, you all are so biased. "

No , some of us ( ME ) are more into information and accuracy than bias.

"I won't deny that ... that they did it either. "

Why do you have this fantaisie that people will whant to hear what you think of Microsoft , when those news are all based on recent court discovery finding and court declaration by a Baystar manager directly involved ?

"Until there is actual proof one way or another,"

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39283921,00.htm

Microsoft played a key role in encouraging SCO's ongoing legal campaign around the Linux operating system vendors and users, according to court papers filed recently.

An executive at BayStar called Larry Goldfarb stated in a court declaration that Microsoft's vice president of corporate development and strategy, Richard Emerson, had offered to underwrite BayStar's own investment in SCO.

"Mr Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop', or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO," claimed Goldfarb, according to legal Web site Groklaw.

BayStar invested $20m in SCO in 2003, after SCO had launched its case in which it alleges that Linux violates Unix intellectual property. SCO sued Linux user AutoZone, Unix licensee DaimlerChrysler and Linux advocate IBM. It is also embroiled in a court battle with Novell, which claims that it never sold its Unix copyright to SCO.

The investment from BayStar and a $30m injection from the Royal Bank of Canada boosted SCO's funds from $6m to $60m. This helped the company finance its various legal actions.

BayStar's relationship with SCO floundered, though. It wanted SCO to focus totally on litigation, while SCO insisted on continuing its Unix business. By mid-2004 the two companies had parted.

In his Declaration, Goldfarb said that BayStar had sold its stake back to SCO because SCO's stock price was falling, and because the company was rapidly spending its cash pile. He also indicated that Microsoft had cooled on its earlier offer of support.

"Microsoft stopped returning my phone calls and emails," said Goldfarb. Emerson left Microsoft in 2003.

Goldfarb's claims may substantiate rumours that Microsoft was behind SCO's legal activities. BayStar admitted in March 2004 that it had been introduced to SCO by Microsoft, after a leaked email appeared to reveal that Microsoft was responsible for $86m of funding received by SCO.

"Microsoft will have brought in $86m for us including BayStar," stated the email, sent by Michael Anderer, chief executive of Salt Lake City venture firm S2 Partners, to SCO vice president Chris Sontag and chief financial officer Robert Bench.

Linux advocate Eric Raymond claimed the email was a "smoking gun" that linked Microsoft to SCO's activities. SCO, though, dismissed it as "simply a misunderstanding" and denied that Microsoft was involved in the BayStar transaction.

The case between IBM and SCO is being heard at the District Court of Utah, where IBM has asked for summary judgement against SCO's claims.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Proof
by Moulinneuf on Wed 11th Oct 2006 19:12 UTC in reply to "Proof"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

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

The Goldfarb Declaration - Updated: MS Statement
Monday, October 09 2006 @ 03:27 PM EDT

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. Update: Oct. 9, 2006, 5:25 PM - I see Mr. Emerson is now on the board of directors of Clearwire. And LinkedIn shows Ellawala currently with Microsoft. Its summary says "Leads Corproate Development activities accross the internet, media and wireless spaces at Microsoft. Memeber of 3-person Corporate Development leadership team responsible for all M&A, Strategic Investments and Joint Venture discussions at Microsoft."

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Proof
by glarepate on Wed 11th Oct 2006 22:03 UTC in reply to "Proof"
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

Wow, you all are so biased.

Don't you just hate it when everyone else is out of step with you?

Perhaps you could point "us all" to some source of information that is not biased. Remember though, indeterminate does not equal unbiased. It only means equivocal.

Until there is actual proof one way or another, you simply can NOT say one way or the other.

Sworn testimony by the man who financed the SCO PIPE deal may not qualify as "actual" proof to you. However a judge's decision can be, and often is, based on how believable one or more witnesses are. And a legal decision can be based on that. If MS had never lied about any of its business dealings then you might have a point (that you could then express clearly instead of in vague abstractions which seem inapplicable/miscontrued to me).

Perhaps if you define what actual proof consists of [in your opinion] then I could say what I see to be the case within that framework. You might then disagree if you wish but your ability to see or decide on what I can say lies within you. It is not imposed on me from the outside except to the degree that I work within the confines of your definition.

The US is based on innocent until proven guilty, and yet here we have several people acting like mindless drones.

[Ronald_Reagan_voice]
There you go again claiming the whole world exists inside your grain of sand Mr. Guy!
[/Ronald_Reagan_voice]

The "US" is based on a number of things but innocent until proven guilty isn't the only one. So, your assertion fails by being insufficiently supported by your stated premise.

Remember the Puritans? When they were banished to North America were they innocent or guilty? Of what and where? How about destroying the aboriginal culture? Was that an innocent act or a guilty one? The indentured servitude that allowed a viable economy to develop here. Some of those servants were declared guilty prior to being shipped over here, some simply took on the contract in order to have a chance at something they saw as unavailable in England. How about slaves? Innocent or guilty? Those are just a couple of randomly selected things (based on my biases) that the US sprang from and wouldn't exist in its current form without.

Of course, US legal decisions are based on the principle that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Might the innocent still arrested, jailed and subjected to other restrictions until the jury decides (and the judge in the case rules) that they should be released? Am I allowed to have and express an opinion on that either?

One other principle that the US has adopted in its founding documents is that, within certain limits, I actually can say what I think to be the case. You are also allowed to say, for instance, that you can't decide what the actual situation may be. But that doesn't constitute proof of innocence either, although it would appear that you wish us to accept it as such.

On the other hand I perceive that making declarations based on lack of understanding of the principles "actually" involved and claiming that anyone who disagrees must be wrong is more of a mindless drone activity. However, your existence as a hymenopteral consort may vary. (o;

Truely [sic] sickening.

I agree with that notion from the opposite viewpoint. i.e. Will MS be allowed to get away with even more stuff like this given their history of legal going against them and their woeful lack of compliancw with the legal remedies so far? You can say, or just imply, that people expressing their opinions is un-American. But don't expect everyone to just fold and say "Oh yeah, sorry."

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Proof
by Phloptical on Thu 12th Oct 2006 00:02 UTC in reply to "Proof"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

"The US is based on innocent until proven guilty"

- Oh yeah? I thought it was based on 1)Who your friends are, and 2) How much money you have. That's the true meaning of capitalism.

Reply Score: 3

No more smoking guns allowed at MS
by elsewhere on Wed 11th Oct 2006 16:01 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

There's no way Microsoft would have left a trail via Baystar, they learned their lesson during the anti-trust trial, I doubt the execs even use email any more. They probably meet in a big open field somewhere outside of Redmond and discuss things in whispered pig latin with their hands covering their mouths. So there's no point wasting time looking for it.

Instead, if they really wanted to covertly fund SCO in their anti-linux battle, they could simply have written another big fat cheque to SCO for additional "license fees" on top of the $17M or so they already paid.

I imagine it will be bittersweet for MS watching the courts order that "license fee" payment to SCO be handed over to Novell. Who would have thought Microsoft would ever covertly fund a linux company?

Reply Score: 3

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Re: "I imagine it will be bittersweet for MS watching the courts order that "license fee" payment to SCO be handed over to Novell. Who would have thought Microsoft would ever covertly fund a linux company?"

The funds were originally claimed to be for a license fee for Microsoft to have access to UNIX services not Linux. Trying to say the two are the same would mean you're agreeing with SCO that Linux has UNIX code which SCO has continually failed to prove in court. Anyway, the point being that if the allegations are proven that Microsoft secretly funded SCO in the legal case against the Linux community (ie: Novell, Red Hat, etc) then that could be bad for Microsoft. Especially considering the company is under strict guidelines since their anti-trust case.

Reply Score: 1

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Re: "I imagine it will be bittersweet for MS watching the courts order that "license fee" payment to SCO be handed over to Novell. Who would have thought Microsoft would ever covertly fund a linux company?"

The funds were originally claimed to be for a license fee for Microsoft to have access to UNIX services not Linux. Trying to say the two are the same would mean you're agreeing with SCO that Linux has UNIX code which SCO has continually failed to prove in court. Anyway, the point being that if the allegations are proven that Microsoft secretly funded SCO in the legal case against the Linux community (ie: Novell, Red Hat, etc) then that could be bad for Microsoft. Especially considering the company is under strict guidelines since their anti-trust case.


In this case, that would be just a fortunate coincidence since Novell, despite being currently one of the biggest Linux proponents, most likely is also the real owner of some (all?) of that UNIX IP that SCO used to claim was theirs. In this context, MS would be funding further Linux development indeed whether they like it or not. ;)

Reply Score: 2

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

In this context, MS would be funding further Linux development indeed whether they like it or not. ;)

Yep, that was the point I was making, it will be poetic justice.

Reply Score: 2

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//The funds were originally claimed to be for a license fee for Microsoft to have access to UNIX services not Linux.//

Yes. Novell owns the copyrights to Unix. SCO owes Novell 95% of whatever licensing fees it collects for Unix licenses. This is the money that Novell is claiming back from SCO.

//Trying to say the two are the same would mean you're agreeing with SCO that Linux has UNIX code which SCO has continually failed to prove in court.//

Bzzzt. This is a total non-sequitur. Novell owns the copyrights to Unix and has a buisness deal with SCO where SCO collects license fees from Unix licensess, pays that money to Novell, and Novell gives SCO back 5%.

Novell also happens to own a Linux distribution called SuSe.

The fact that Novell owns Unix copyrights does not mean that Linux has Unix code. You made a huge disconnect there.

Reply Score: 5

eMagius Member since:
2005-07-06

They probably meet in a big open field somewhere outside of Redmond and discuss things in whispered pig latin with their hands covering their mouths. So there's no point wasting time looking for it.

It's worse then the Salem witch trials in here: "There's no evidence because the accused is too crafty! Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!"

Reply Score: 2

I hope baystar has a paper trail ...
by jerryn on Wed 11th Oct 2006 17:00 UTC
jerryn
Member since:
2006-03-03

I hope baystar has all the records required to lead to Microsoft. It's about time.

Reply Score: 2

Its more about Goldfarbs stupidity
by NotParker on Wed 11th Oct 2006 17:25 UTC
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

Goldfarbs (Baystar) deposition is contadictory.

First he claims he was worried that SCO would just be an IP firm that only sues people and then when he meets the head of SCO all they talk about is SCO suing people so he goes ahead and invests 50 million.

Duh!!! Not believable.

This reminds me of the Enron testimony with incompetent or crooked executives making up stuff.

No one invests 50 million unless they think they'll get a return on it.

The Microsoft haters just lap up such stupidity ... but they are pretty gullible to start with. Most of them believe any conspiracy theory that comes along as long as it gives them a chance to spew venom and vitriol at Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

v 28K?
by TDavis on Wed 11th Oct 2006 19:30 UTC
v interpretation
by TDavis on Wed 11th Oct 2006 19:49 UTC
There is no contradiction here
by hal2k1 on Wed 11th Oct 2006 23:44 UTC
hal2k1
Member since:
2005-11-11

Microsoft: '"Microsoft has no financial relationship with BayStar and never agreed to guarantee any of BayStar's USD 50 million investment in SCO," a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement on Monday.'

BayStar: In the submission by BayStar founder Lawrence Goldfarb, he states that this investment followed discussions with senior Microsoft staff, including managing director of intellectual property Kenneth Lustig. Informal promises were made that MS would guarantee BayStar's SCO investment. Likewise, SCO's chief executive Darl McBride and lawyer David Boies said IBM would settle quickly.

Armed with these assurances, Goldfarb says, BayStar made the investment. Some time later, having seen no evidence that the court case would end successfully and after Microsoft had stopped returning calls, Baystar bailed losing tens of millions of dollars on the deal. Microsoft says merely that it had no investment in BayStar and that it gave no guarantee neither of which contradicts the statement.


(quoted from): http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,39020682,39283980,00.htm

There is no real contradiction in these two statements. Both statements say Microsoft never formally guaranteed to back the BayStar investment in SCO.

It is just that Microsoft says "never agreed to guarantee" and BayStar effectively says Microsoft renegged on their verbal assurances.

Reply Score: 1