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 170004
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Groklaw?
by deb2006 on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:07 UTC in reply to "Groklaw?"
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

May I kindly ask why I shouldn't trust an article on Groklaw? You don't offer any substantial reason and therefore your posting seems to be more FUD than anything else.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Groklaw?
by TaterSalad on Mon 9th Oct 2006 14:20 in reply to "RE: Groklaw?"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Because PJ is not much of a journalist and has a strong bias against Microsoft. These are the reaons I do not visit Groklaw.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by jakesdad on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
jakesdad Member since:
2005-12-28

You dont have to like "PJ"... the library of legal/ezine/articles of data they have compiled on groklaw vastly outweighs any slant "PJ" might have.

I dont like PJ either (her blind devotion to the FSF really irks me)... But Groklaw stands without "her".

You still didnt offer anything to rebut any information on groklaw.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by Milo_Hoffman on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
Milo_Hoffman Member since:
2005-07-06

translation: I am a microsoft hack and can't handle the truth

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Oct 2006 21:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Oh LOL.

Yes, she is biased. And she's being VERY honest about it. But what is MORE important, is that she provide LINKS to articles, so you can see it for yourself.

Being biased is not bad, _IF_ you're honest about it, and your bias stems from _objective_ reasons. PJ's bias stems from objective reasons - the articles she links to, proves that.

And she doesn't hide, she is writing HER view on the subjects, so she is also honest. That's more than you can say about most others, incl. Redhat and Microsoft (both are twisting the truth in their ads).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Groklaw?
by hal2k1 on Tue 10th Oct 2006 00:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Because PJ is not much of a journalist and has a strong bias against Microsoft. These are the reaons I do not visit Groklaw.//

So you are saying that you prefer the "head in the sand, hands on ears, la la la la I can't hear you" approach?

Groklaw quotes from legal documents. This is not a bias.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Groklaw?
by NotParker on Mon 9th Oct 2006 20:28 in reply to "RE: Groklaw?"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

May I kindly ask why I shouldn't trust an article on Groklaw?

Pamela Jones (a pseudonym I think) the founder of Groklaw "took a job as director of litigation risk research at indemnification firm Open Source Risk Management in February 2004, but resigned in November 2004 after a speaker at a SCO road show in the UK suggested there was a conflict of interest in an anti-SCO campaigner working for a Linux indemnification firm."

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=91D095F4-556D-4EB7-8...

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Groklaw?
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Oct 2006 21:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Groklaw?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

PJ is her real name, and no pseudonym.

Have you any thing that indicates it's a pseudonym or are you just trolling again, as usual?

All your posts are biased and DIShonest at the same time. That makes you so sleazy that I have to give you the "Bo Warming"-mark (search google on him).

PJ have already months ago handled the OSRM-issue and didn't hide anything.

The mere fact she stepped back, proves she has quite a bit of credibility.

She may be biased, but she always provides links so you can see for yourself. I don't follow her all the way on the FSF-issue (the FSF-agenda tends to be slightly disturbing to me), but she's doing quite a good job on digging up information.

Reply Parent Score: 2