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 170282
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Ah! The well-known Microsoft 180. Kiss kiss, let's do a deal. Drop dead. Well, not to try to teach Mr. Goldfarb anything, since he's the businessman, not I, but isn't life's highway littered with companies who thought it'd be remunerative to be a Microsoft partner, only to end up as roadkill?

I'm pretty sure I can't find THAT in the sworn statement.
If you bothered to read what I actually wrote I did NOT target the statement that was posted, but I targeted PJ's comments that were in the article.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah, and I asked you specifically what you targetted and you didn't want to answer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

How can it be FUD to quote a sworn statement?

Well, people don't like facts that goes against their beliefs. When that happens they will call FUD on you.

Their rule no. 1 is: Do Not Confuse Me With Facts.

Reply Parent Score: 1