Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 22:32 UTC, submitted by aaronb
Permalink for comment 416269
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 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-04-10
MS' taking a license from SCO was just a way of giving SCO some legitimate cash to encourage them in their anti-Linux activities.
MS' arranging a date for Baystar and SCO was another channel of indirect funding.
Maybe someone not unconnected with MS just casually happened to drop the idea that suing over Unix IP might be a cool idea into Darl's ear and his greed did the rest.
MS knew that SCO would probably crash and burn eventually but they didn't care - they got a full 7 years of Linux FUD out of it and cost IBM, Red Hat and other Linux companies a pretty penny in legal fees and lost sales.
Like I said, slick.
Mac