Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Behind SCO Cash Investment?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the conspiracy-theory dept.

An anonymous reader writes "eWEEK has got a story up suggesting Microsoft may be behind yesterday's $50mil cash investment in SCO. 'As an investment firm, BayStar leads, creates and participates in a number of PIPEs (Private Investments in Public Equity). Many of these deals involve investment money from other companies, including Microsoft.'"

6 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Everybody Should Have Invested In SCO by bersl2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    [Y]ou shouldn't take slashdot seriously for financial news or advice.

    You're right. You shouldn't use us for such advice. You should listen to us for advice on code issues. And based on this advice, we can tell you that SCO is full of crap.

    I also respect your right to believe in salvation through corporation. It's just that most of us here do not.

    Also, if you have a gargantuan trying to kill you---one who has a history of obliterating competition through less-than-licit means---such as Microsoft, you'd be paranoid, scared, and hateful too! After all, we're just humans.

  2. Get out the tinfoil hats kids... by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, this is about as stupid as anything /. has EVER posted. It's pure conspiracy theory, and has been flatly refuted by everyone involved. Hell, the eWeek article only gets by at all by saying, "some in the open source community suspect..."

    It's not happening. Get over it.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  3. If MS was smart they'd transfer everything to SCO by Progman3K · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and when other investors, who are only after a bottom line see SCO's stock going up like a rocket, they'll dive in and it'll create a run on SCO stock, pumping it so high that it will start a rally.

    In the end MS will have "bought" mainstream acceptance of SCO's slander on Linux by artificially creating a return for the market investors.

    Microsoft effectively OWNING Linux simply by progressively changing their name to SCO.

    What's the last step? Simple:
    Microsoft shelves Linux by making it illegal for anyone to run Linux.

    That way MS can keep selling yearly Windows licenses.

    Eventually the licenses will be by month.

    After that, they'll be like cellular phone minutes.

    If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  4. Re:If MS was smart they'd transfer everything to S by RdsArts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.

    Your right. With MS controlling the Linux IP, the "common man" would lose access to Free/Open/NetBSD, ReactOS, OpenBe, GNU/HURD, FreeDos, and all the other countless free OSes out there that aren't Linux. It's all make sense to me now...

    This comment could also have read:

    Your right. MS will use this to kill Linux. How? Through changing their name from that of the biggest software house in the world to that of the smallest litigation house. Of course. It was so obvious, how could I have missed it? It's not like they'd just buy SCO or something. I mean, that'd be crazy talk. And that's assuming there is any merit to the lawsuit, and that it can prove anything more than that IBM broke a contract, if that.

    By this time 2050, after all the lawsuits would be done, MS could easily own Linux. It all makes sense to me now.....

  5. Re:Another biased Slashdot article by RoLi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Isn't it funny that the Microsoft bootlick- sorry advocates have that extreme double standard going on?

    They have no trouble pretending to believe that SCO's claims are true, even though every single bit of "evidence" turned out to be just hot air. But on the other hand they demand evidence of everything Microsoft does but refuses to admit.

    Microsoft has already given SCO money publicly (for their "Unix"-license), then "an anonymous company" gave SCO money for their "Linux-antidote" license, wonder what company that was... - and now again an anonymous company pays SCO money through a fund in which Microsoft and Microsoft-related Vulcan are big players.

    Why all this secrecy? Why doesn't SCO show their evidence? Why does every investor in SCO want to remain anonymous?

    Questions "Overly Critical Guy" surely can't answer.

  6. An interesting quote (The obvious) by GrimReality · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I found interesting was a quote from the aritcle [http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1356730,00.a sp] by an un-named source:

    SCO is not a good growth company and is in fact on life-support. A solid company that's been in business as long as SCO has should be making it's money from product/services and not donations and lawsuits.

    Why wouldn't anyone see something as obvious as this?

    At my school everyone (even the well informed) are saying 'Linux is in great trouble.' and 'Linux has an invalid license.'.

    Thank you
    GrimReality
    2003-10-18 15:06:03 UTC (2003-10-18 11:06:03 EDT)