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 170068
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: If the statement is true...
by dylansmrjones on Mon 9th Oct 2006 21:23 UTC in reply to "If the statement is true..."
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

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:
2005-08-26

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

hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//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.//

Amazing.

This is a link to an article which quotes a sworn statement to the effect that MS high-up management promised to underwrite BayStar investment in the faux SCOG case against Linux.

Yet people still come on OSNews and defend Microsoft and call FUD. What reason could they possibly have to be so blind and biased? Why defend an already proven monopolist antitrust abuser when there is direct evidence they are doing it again?

How can it be FUD to quote a sworn statement?

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

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.

So basically, you want to spread all the FUD you can about Groklaw and PJ, and when confronted about it, you don't want to point to anything at all...

[sarcasm]Waaauuuwww... Very intelligent...[/sarcasm]

So far PJ's analysises have been pretty acurate, so it doesn't matter if you don't like it. She provides links to the information she analyses, so you can just make your own analyse on it.

But considering you don't want to point to anything, I sincerely doubt your analysises can be considered valid at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1