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 170015
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If the statement is true...
by Marcellus on Mon 9th Oct 2006 19:32 UTC
Member since:

...then the responsible person at MicroSoft acted on his own for something that MS recognized would be bad for them and so fired this Emerson accordingly.

And being Groklaw, it's no surprise the article does everything possible to discredit MS for this. I'm not sure if PJ really hates MS, but at the least she's using (and have used in the past as well) anti-MS propaganda, FUD and outright lies to gain standing among the F/OSS communities.

The FACT that is posted is interesting at times... if you can ignore biased interpretations of the facts posted.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:

Any evidence of those lies?

At least point to some articles with the FUD and outright lies.

Being against MS isn't necessarily a bad thing - nor does it make a person a hero.

PJ is one of the few that always provides links to one side and the other, so it should be easy for you to point out the lies, and provide documentation your claim.

EDIT: The moment you provide documentation, I'll mod you up.

Edited 2006-10-09 21:24

Reply Parent Score: 2

Marcellus Member since:

The article this news is about had enough FUD-slinging. And I've said before that the FACT that is posted is interesting enough. It's the additional "analysises" by PJ in which she adds FUD whenever she gets the chance to that makes me mostly ignore Groklaw.

As for lies, I am not going to go through hundreds of pages to prove that point, so ignore that point if you feel like.

I'm not interested in "mod up", so save your points for people that is better at writing and arguing.

Reply Parent Score: 1