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 170180
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 1