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.
Thread beginning with comment 170000
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cycloneous
Member since:
2006-01-11

This has been known for a while that Microsoft was involved. Think about it, who stands to benefit if GNU/Linux gets a bad rap?

Microsoft would than be able to say, "you see, it is an intellectual propery nightmare;" we warned you!!!

Sun would also benefit because now their Solaris UNIX would be the new king of the server room.

The question of this whole fiaSCO is at what point did Microsoft become involved and who REALLY initiated it. I have a feeling Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have something to do with it. It is just that did all their talking via third party proxy so that they won't be caught red handed. Of course, I can't prove any of it but that is my theory.

Besides Google, Linux is Microsoft worst nightmare and the Penguin ship has left port. That ship is on a collision course with Microsoft's and their ship is about to be boarded by a bunch Penguins with GPL licenses.

Here's an article, a very good article with history about the fiaSCO.

http://www.aaxnet.com/

Edited 2006-10-09 18:59

Reply Score: 1

NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Besides Google, Linux is Microsoft worst nightmare and the Penguin ship has left port.

And its taking on water as its growth peters out when only a few years ago it was growing at 132% ... then 63% ... then 40% ... then 20% ... then 6% .... and soon to be zero.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Those wacky numbers again.

They are completely useless, and they are not even mutually comparable.

Go to bed, troll.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Shaman Member since:
2005-11-15

And its taking on water as its growth peters out when only a few years ago it was growing at 132% ... then 63% ... then 40% ... then 20% ... then 6% .... and soon to be zero.

Please provide VERY extensive and well-researched documentation that this is true. Or STFU.

Thanks in advance.

Edited 2006-10-09 21:27

Reply Parent Score: 0