Slashdot Mirror
Domain: paulallen.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to paulallen.com.
Comments · 18
-
Come on slashdot
Seriously? You're linking to a computerworld blog post that discusses the actual blog post ?
-
Re:Go Google> Brin hasn't decided to finance his own airospace company YET...
But Paul Allen has...
-
His hompagehttp://www.paulallen.com/
It runs on IIS. What are the odds?
-
Where's Paul Allen?
He seems to be missing from the group... "Sir" Richard Branson is also a no show.
-
Re:And baystar got the money from...
Usually when someone on slashdot makes a claim like that, they provide a link.Sure thing. It's on page three of this white paper-- the same page, incidentally, where they list as one of the advantages of their PIPEs "the ability to conduct transactions confidentially".
I hit Baystar and have yet to find anything about Paul Allen.
Ah. You do know that Vulcan Ventures == Paul Allen, right?
-- MarkusQ
-
Ironic.Look: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:- Three of the eight directors [vasoftware.com] at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures [paulallen.com].
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. [sec.gov] This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, i -
first posting completedLook: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
- Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
-
Slashdot = Microsoft BitchLook: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
- Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
-
first post!Look: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
- Three of the eight directors
at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company
Vulcan Ventures.
-
Will this affect Slashdot?Look: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again. - Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
-
Ironic.Look: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
- Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
-
the Slashdot/MS connectionListen: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has received from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again. - Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
-
Slashdot and Microsoft: Connecting the DotsLook: as a Linux user and open source developer, I like to bash Microsoft just as much as anyone. Their business practices are at best unethical, and at worst, flagrantly illegal. Over the past few years I have come to rely (in part) on Slashdot for its irreverant and challenging views on the Microsoft Monopoly. Say what you will about Slashdot's editors (poor spelling and grammar, blatant editorializing on a so-called news site, etc), but I really have come to believe that Slashdot represents an important and much-needed voice among today's corporate hype-driven media.
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
- Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
- Most (>80%) of Murberry's funding, including compensation for its directors, comes directly from Microsoft Corporation.
- In 1998, VA Software (parent company of OSDN, which is the parent company of Slashdot) receieved an investement of $3.8M from Murberry-Slocomb.
- The 1998 annual report for VA Software actually mentions this, and goes on in detail about how this infusion of capital has helpled them maintain and operate OSDN.
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has receved from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again. - Three of the eight directors at VA Software also sit on the board of a privately-held company called Murberry-Slocomb, which as far as I can tell is some kind of stealth incubator/VC firm. Murberry Slocomb was founded in 1996 by none other than Paul Allen, and is a subsidiary of Allen's company Vulcan Ventures.
-
Yeah, simh is great
if your into that sort of thing. Having cut my teeth on a real Altair/BASIC (haha) I enjoyed getting the Z80 emulator running (on linux), mounting a floppy disk (which I never could afford then) and running old Startrek type games. Then just last Jan. got into getting the ORIGINAL Colassal Cave adventure in genuine FORTRAN running on the PDP10 emulator running TOPS10. Guess who provides a prebuilt TOPS10 bootable system disk? Paul Allen. The hardest part was figuring out how DEC handled tape mounting, and finding a utility to convert files into a tape format to get them 'into' the emulator. Not only that, but once you have the PDP10 running, you can attach the terminal server to a port and have time share terminals accessable over the network, thru firewalls, etc. It was a great insight into how medium size businesses and a great many college campus computer centers were run in the late 60's to mid 70's. You can boot up Unix v5, 6, 7 - I could only get v5 running but there's a nifty chess game in
-
Re:big problem with that
I don't see any references to Paul Allen on the Transmeta web site. However, at Paul Allen's own site, he says that he remains on the Microsoft board, though of course he is no longer an employee there (hasn't been since 1983). At the web site of his investment company, Vulcan (Flash-y), Transmeta is listed in the portfolio, but considering all of his other holdings, the fact that it isn't listed very prominently on his personal site, and he isn't on the board, I doubt that he identifies as much with Transmeta as he does with MS.
It does confuse one, though, to imagine Paul Allen and Linus Torvalds involved in the same company, doesn't it?
-
Re:Profit
In conclusion, I don't want Deja, and anyone who does want it will either be A) A zealot we admire but secretly resent; or B) A big businessman with a stupid business plan and no soul.
Paul Allen!
-jon -
Re:Outdated thinking
No hardware companies, no deep infrastructure, just stuff to keep people busy and happy.
Perhaps you remember the third member of the triad: Bill, Steve, and Paul. You DO remember what Paul Allen has been buying for the last 5 years or so, right? (hint: it's called cable)
-- -
My 2 cents
My $.02 on Cable service, @Home, and other stuff that came to mind when reading the summery:
Around here I hate the cable company. And I have a good reason why. Cable modems around here really stinks since Charter+ Earthlink caps the upload at 56 KBPS *AND* download rate at 256 KBPS unless you pay more. See the cable section on http://www.earthlink.net for more information on this or click here. Suddenly @Home doesn't look as bad. Well, I guess that's what you get when your cable system is owned by the cofounder of Micro$oft AKA Paul Allen. I wonder what the cable system would be like if it was run by the Woz. Well, that's my $.02. Thanks for listening!
-Luther Sloan (Mkennedy3@SPAMTRAP.aol.com)
P.S. Remove the SPAMTRAP from my address to E-Mail.