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 170011
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Groklaw?
by TaterSalad on Mon 9th Oct 2006 14:20 UTC 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[5]: Groklaw?
by eggman on Tue 10th Oct 2006 03:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Groklaw?"
eggman Member since:
2006-05-09

Groklaw quotes from legal documents.

Groklaw selectively quotes snippets out of context from mostly debunked legal documents while mixing in plenty of misleading and blantantly false "analysis", yes.

Kind of like how FOX News pretends that Rep. Foley is a Democrat.

Reply Parent Score: 1