Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2008 07:02 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 297425
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-02
I see many comments about SCO but none about Microsoft. Remember that the real reason why SCO embarked in that is that Microsoft paid them to (then of course McBride is stupid to have accepted, I don't deny that).
The short version is that Microsoft gave SCO at least $50 million (some sources say $85 million) to sue.
The more detailed version is that in order to cover its tracks (since even Microsoft leaders could realize this is dirty) Microsoft did not pay SCO directly, they used an investment company named Baystar.
Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+baystar+sco
Some results:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/100906-baystar-exec-says-micr...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061008-7932.html
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2004/tc20040311_8...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5172426.html
http://www.linux.com/feature/34722
http://www.news.com/Investor-outlines-SCO-Microsoft-link/2100-7344_...
So believe me, Microsoft is getting away with it just too easily.