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.
Permalink for comment 170089
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 1