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 170286
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

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

Marcellus Member since:

So I'm a FUDster because I don't have memory good enough to remember exactly what was written before and when. Good to know.

PJ's analyses have been full of FUDslinging every time she gets a chance to sling FUD around. I am not contesting the documents discussed.
FYI, I used to think groklaw was a good place to visit and read about the case... until PJ became rabid and posted comments that had no other purpose than to gain followers in the F/OSS communities. She should have stuck to simply reporting and explaining different parts of the documents.

Reply Parent Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:

So I'm a FUDster because I don't have memory good enough to remember exactly what was written before and when. Good to know.

No, but because you REFUSE to point to anything. Your refusal makes you a FUDster.

Most of the time PJ does exactly what you want her to: Reporting and explaining different parts of the documents. That's like 99% of the time. Occassionally she stabs a bit here and there - but it's quite rare, actually.

You still haven't given any pointers. If she really slings so much FUD it shouldn't take you 20 seconds to point to something. The fact you cannot do that or will not do that, proves that she doesn't sling any FUD.

It also proves you are the FUDster here.

Reply Parent Score: 1