Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Memo Says Microsoft Raised $86 million for SCO
badzilla and numerous others wrote in with this: "Eric S. Raymond's Open Source site has a new Halloween memo. The Halloween X memo, which ESR says he received by email from an anonymous whistleblower inside SCO, appears to confirm Microsoft's alleged funding of SCO's anti-Linux initiative. And the actual dollar amounts are much larger than previously rumored!" The consultant is discussing his fee for bringing in this business, in the first few lines of the email.
Another good reason not to buy Microsoft products... They give your money to try and prevent you from using anything else than Windows.
Assuming this is an accurate and actual letter, how is it that a company can continue to do business in this manner? This company is not in the softwrae business anymore - it's in the lawsuit business. After all the happenings with Enron and WorldCom, how is it that this company, which has no real business plan (that's evident even outside the letter) attract customers or money?
We should attach a motor to Adam Smith's grave. I'm guessing we're at about 100K RPM and climbing.
libertarianswag.com
If this turns out to be genuine (and I'm sure ESR would have gone to great lengths to validate the document before going public), I can't think of better grounds for another anti-trust case. It's already on the Register too, and Groklaw can't be far behind. Let's draw attention to this smoking gun, shall we?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Although this does smack of "unfair" business practices it is a look at how *some* business alliances are formed.
Now, if you are going to condemn it in this case you also need to condemn it when one of "the big guys" comes to the rescue of something that *you* like.
Also, if you assume that IBM, etc. had no idea that this was going on then that would be a bad assumption. They might not of known the details, but they *probably* knew something was up.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Smoking gun? Well, maybe, if you're looking at a Microsoft violation of their anti-trust agreement, but it really has not bearing on the court cases.
It's not like this is the first time one corporation has funded blatantly false muckraking efforts against another. It's just Robber Barons, Part II. They'll all have their little squabbles and the money will pass from hand to hand, and in the end the only people who win aren't the consumers, or even the corporate bigwigs - it's the lawyers. Same as it ever was.
I will concede that there has been some upheaval and surprise in the business world due to this lawsuit, but I don't call it "enormous chaos." Despite the FUD and the lawsuits and the dupe of the media, Linux is still being enhanced and improved. And most importantly, it's still being adopted.
Now, if SCO were to win, THAT would be chaos indeed.
SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
I find it amusing that the people one /., the same people who believe that one should be able to go to the source and verify the code on voting machines, seem to believe what ESR is telling them about MS and SCO w/o having access to his source.
Does anyone else see the irony in this?
I don't think these guys are _quite_ dumb enough to admit to this stuff in email. Much less on company email that is all under subpoena in the IBM litigation.
I smell a setup.
The unethicality of SCO's actions are obvious. What is not valid is that Microsoft did something wrong by funding SCO. I am open to correction on this front.
However, Microsoft's efforts could backfire badly:
If people actually start to think (I said "if" okay?) and realize that it's proprietary software that got people into legal trouble:
If any of those firms would have used 100% open source software from the start neither would have been sued.
Isn't the whole SCO-mess the biggest pro-OSS argument imaginable?
If you look at SCO: First you buy software from a seemingly honest Unix-vendor, a couple of years later their management changes and you get sued for it! SCO proves how dangerous proprietary sofware can become.
Think Linux inroads has got Msoft shitting in its pants so this comes as no surprise. If you can't beat it technologically, create FUD around it--In Malaysia and Thailand, our redmond fiend has launched a so-called Windows XP "Lite" for cheap...Y? Cos the govts "threaten" to launch desktops with Linux!
Either the author of the leaked document in question was in extreme haste, or he has lackluster grammar skills. The document is full of errors like: "The will help us a lot", "componients", "shoudl", "wjich", and so on. That isn't exactly the kind of document you send out when you are trying to convince people to do something shady. You'd think the author would at least had the initiative to spell check the thing before sending it out. Perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt, and by that, I mean deer salt licks.
Join Tor today!
So we're supposed to trust one anonymous source (you) over another anonymous source?
There's nothing indicating that this is real. "An anonymous whistleblower"? What does that mean? He got it from whistleblower392@hotmail.com from a public library IP?
I'd like to see the headers of the email. If the email originates from SCO then I believe it's authentic (judging from Received: lines rather than the From: field). If it's from a dial-up or public IP, I'm pretty sure it's fake. Of course, there's another posibility. OSI know who the whistleblower is, but they claim they don't so they can't be forced to reveal his identity in court. After all, they're the good guys.
Underholdning.info
...now that the cat's out of the bag. The FTC should be informed, IBM and Novell should demand memos, etc. Microsoft may end up wishing they'd never done this.
I wonder if anything will be done based on this leaked memo - I mean legally can anything be done?
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Yes, and if, in fact, this e-mail is real, then it will be real interesting to see what happens to SCO's revenue stream. I'm sure that MS doesn't like to be played the fool, and that about what these guys are saying here. I mean, christ...
...sure makes it seems like they think MS is an easy, endless source of money. Well, let's just wait and see what'll happen.
but there are other ways to get money from them, their partners,investment bank referrals, etc..
and
This Microsoft deal is the Ante to the poker game...We should get this done and go after several $2-3 Million deals from the expense side of their company.
Also, ~$100 mil isn't chump change, shouldn't there be some sort of public record of MS explaining this transaction, or can you "creatively account" for it?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
I realize most people are going to disagree, but of all the memos leaked before this does not look real. I could care less about the spelling, but the point of the e-mail is just sad ESPECIALLY if we are considering someone leaked the memo must have been a recipient. That's not exactly a business wide e-mail. No one that high up would go try to shoot themselves in the foot at this point.
If SCO ends up losing the case then I hope there are a large helping of fraud and racketeering charges to go around. SCO has been very reluctant to disclose exactly what has been misappropriated which to me indicates that their case is pretty tenuous. It's a bit like a department store telling the police that a specific person was a shoplifter but not being willing to tell them exactly what was stolen. A claim like that should be met with a great deal of suspicion.
Microsoft's investment in SCO at the time seemed potentially dangerous. In the short term there were probably some companies who could be swayed into deploying on Microsoft products instead of linux. In the longer term Microsoft is jeopardizing their companies reputation. If the suit is actually determined to be fraudulent and it becomes common knowledge that Microsoft helped the suit along then they'll have done damage to their name.
So Microsoft knows that the case should be valid or they were misled (which I would also thing should result in a loss of reputation - a company with as much resources as Microsoft should be difficult to mislead) or a third possibility is that they don't worry about negative outcomes.
Yep, if this SCO thing doesn't work out he can always become a slashdot editor.
AIT (assuming it's true) this is an absolutely stupid idea from the goons in Microsoft. They've got the Department of Justice and public opinion to lose and nothing to gain. [Code infringements, if they exist, can easily be re-written]. Microsoft is funding a company that runs around suing exactly the same Fortune 500 group of companies that it hopes to then do business with. How long until IBM, RedHat, Novell, AZ or Daimler find a way to really see what's behind the SCOsource strategy with the help of some good ol' 'discovery' in the courts. This house of cards is headed for a fall.
They've managed to survive fairly brutal beatings before and will again. It usually ends up something like this:
"Yes I know that Microsoft have been caught doing something wrong. They have been caught though, and punished, so that just proves that the system works. In the end we need PCs and they come with Windows on and we need that to share files with everyone else."
As far as this is concerned it won't damage Microsoft. They are much more vulnerable to increases in Viruses and Worms. These impact people directly and can make them look for alternatives.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
The question is - where is this money coming from? What department at Microsoft authorized it, and do the shareholders/gov't know?
Squashing the competition is one thing, doing it in secret is another. This was clearly done this way to avoid more scrutiny by the DOJ. THAT'S what the problem here is.
If Microsoft wants to support SCO, they should just be honest about their intentions. If this memo is true, however, it's going to look fishy to anyone with half a brain at the FTC/DOJ.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
You would think that people would start using gpg/pgp for their internal emails now. There are other solutions, but this is one case where youj _don't_ want the keys in escrow. You want them changed, regularly.
At least, that's the way I see it from SCOs perspective.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
The message wasn't sent to all SCO employees. It was probably printed out (after all, don't all PHBs print their email to read it?), then tossed in a wastebasket rather than shredded like it should have been. And the typos are all obvious likely typos, so either the person who wrote it is an expert on the kinds of errors typists make (say a professional English teacher or editor) or it's real.
SHOCKING!!!
A company convicted of monopolistic practices secretly funds an initiative to destroy it's competition.
What you mock in sarcasm may be viewed differently by those who care due to the secrecy of Microsoft's actions, not the actions themselves.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Read up on Maintenance and Champerty. These are legal torts involving funding lawsuits, especially frivilous lawsuits.
I don't happen to believe that the email is genuine, emails are too easy to forge, but no one should be so sanguine about this being in any way appropriate.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I agree. Why would one executive tell other something to the effect of
"keep in mind, MS is giving us X million dollars, and blah blah".
Too contrived, too conveniently incrimminating.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
My favorite Jesse Venture quote, or one of them: "You can't legislate stupidity".
He was talking about people riding snowmobiles on thin ice, ignoring warnings from the weatherman, and then dying from falling into freezing water.
But in this case, it would have to be the stupidity of the people who involve themselves in these meaningless pursuits of trying to immerse themselves in power.
It seems to me, anyway, that these guys corresponding are fascinated with power, not with anything else. Just power. Probably because they don't think they have enough money in their bank accounts.
Hopefully, they are in a minority - well, at least - this is not the way to be successful, and participating in this type of nonsense will only bring you and your family great misery - in the long run. Despite how successful these folks are in their own minds, their plan is just doomed to fail anyway - leak or no leak. Which means one thing... they are wasting their time, hence they are stupid. If they really cared about power and prestige and wealth, they wouldn't be wasting their time attacking Linux, which is innocent.
First off, I'm not addressing the authenticity of this specific e-mail, just the idea that such dealings would be sent by e-mail.
They are.
It's a common communication form, and I've had people where I work now think that by deleting an e-mail from their inbox, they erase if from exitance.
One of the shadiest people I met in my entire life was having problems with his computer, so the (then) network admin emptied the trash on the desktop and in Outlook as part of his cleanup. Said sales jackass was standing over his shoulder demanding an explanation of everything he was doing, and refused to believe that three years of e-mail were still readily available after he hit the "DEL" key.
"I deleted them, they're gone."
After much explanation, including my input, he finally said "It doesn't matter if only geeks can get at them."
Total idiot.
And then there was the day he found out about the backups we were doing of the mail server, and the fact that the "deleted items" were kept in our archives for 30 days.
He was not a happy man.
BTW: This is the same guy who was later fired when one of his business partners called up threatening to show up with a baseball bat and take out kneecaps.
I'm not saying the MS execs are anywhere near that level, I'm just saying that just because YOU and I wouldn't put something that incriminating into a system that could be tracked and recovered, doesn't mean other people would.
Besides, they probably never suspected the document would be leaked.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Hmmm, what are you implying? All evidence I've seen indicates that Linus has a heart, the lion's share of courage (so to speak), plenty of brains, and he's nobody's lapdog. Where does that leave us, hmmm?
if we are considering someone leaked the memo must have been a recipient.
Not necessarily. I'm not sure that this memo is legit either, but SMTP isn't exactly known for being secure. There are any number of people who could have been capturing packets in case anything interesting showed up... not to mention any sysadmins with direct access to the queue on the mailserver.
- fader
That figure doesn't seem right. Why would you give SCO 86M? Right now their Market cap is only like 170M or so, according to Yahoo Finance. If you had 86M you could just BUY a majority share in them.
Well I'm guessing it's pretty obvious. Windows doesn't want to be seen as an active participant in this lawsuit, but it's fairly apparent that they're trying to influence the court's decision. This is probably legal but highly unethical. Also, whose pocket is this 86M coming out of? The shareholders, probably.
The whole thing stinks, but I'm not completely sure this is correct information. 86M is a lot of money to be giving (and not investing) in a company. Maybe the reason they aren't investing is that they know SCO's lawsuit isn't sound?
Boom!
"You (other readers) do know that it is the *current* administration that actually lifted a finger to prosicute and jail the folks at Enron and WorldCom, yes?"
OK....I'll bite.
So you mean the same administration that met with Lay, et al. to formulate "energy policy"? What you see as righteous prosecution I see as CYA once the public outcry against corporate banditry got too loud.
The contention that DOJ or the Bush are acting out of altruism is ludicrous. This is an echo of Ambrose's statments about Nixon: he let everyone else take the hit until there was no one else left. Skilling, the WorldCom guy getting jammed this week, they are all sacrificial lambs for the Cons. They were useful allies as long as the smoke and mirrors stock bubble was cruising. Now they are liabilities.
DOJ has ended up looking like doofuses because Elliot Spitzer is doing an Elliot Ness impersonation. Spitzer is burning Wall Streeters in NY while the DOJ is hassling hospitals for abortion records. Ashcroft hasn't exactly pursued a full court press on the MSFT antitrust stuff, either.
Lifting a finger? Balls. They're cutting accomplices loose.
I work inside SCO. Mike Anderer hasn't had anything to do with the company since June 2003.
You may be right, he might not have anything to do with SCO since June 2003...but since he's a consultant that brought MS into the SCO deal, which was BEFORE June 2003...he really doesn't have to have anything to do with SCO...this memo is mainly about his fees he would garner from the deal.
So sorry, spread your FUD somewhere else.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Life is not like a television show. Chances are excellent this email is bogus.
I should check the spelling mistakes... maybe when you place all wrongly spelled letters together they form a phrase like "Hahaha I fooled you all - Billyboy".
$86 million is the sort of money Microsoft finds when they pull up their couch cushions. I suspect that they don't expect SCO to succeed at all - they just want to give the appearance that open source software is highly vulnerable to attack by random morons. If you are a PHB deciding between Linux (the new kid on the block as far as you are concerned) and Windows (I have that on my laptop! And it's shiny!) this kicks Linux down a notch. Most PHBs don't care about whose IP goes where as long as it doesn't make them vulnerable.
If Windows is found to contain someone else's unlicensed code, the rightful code owners are not going to sue end users, period. MS would either sue them into the ground or settle with them out of court to get them to shut up. The analogous thing can't happen with Linux because no one entity controls it from a legal standpoint. So, score Windows 1, Linux 0.
Like everyone else with at least one functioning neuron, I think SCO will lose. But the damage to Linux credibility has been done. Even when this is resolved, there is always the class of PHBs who will think back to this whole mess and how it could have cost them money. These feelings won't last forever or necessarily outweigh the benefits of Linux, but for Microsoft, it has been well worth the money.
Microsoft are business partners with SCO. Lots of companies are. There's nothing untoward about that.
Everyone's acting like they met up in a dark alley and handed over a fat envelope stuffed with cash and discussed how best to sabotage Linux. They didn't. It was a perfectly legitimate business deal between two companies.
People here are saying it's anti-Linux. How is that possible? Because they're paying money to SCO? If that were true, everyone who has a SCO license is "anti-Linux". Everyone who even buys a Microsoft license is "anti-Linux". If you think about it for a second, that can't possibly be the case.
It's not like Linux is this great desktop OS that's ripened into something everyone's clamouring to get hold of. Let's face it, it beats the crap out of MS products on the server side, but on the desktop front it's usable, yet not ready for prime-time just yet. There are too many disparate systems for Average Joe to figure out what they do, let alone how to fix them when they go awry/get upgraded.
When Linux is ready for the desktop, people will buy it. Microsoft can't stop that. Nothing can get between the public and good, free stuff. Not even Bill. Until then, instead of attributing Linux's relative obscurity to Microsoft's bad actions, maybe we should start attributing it to the fact end users don't want to edit .conf files to play an MP3, and work on it. After all, step #1 is identifying the problem. As long as we are all barking up the Microsoft tree, we're wasting our energies, and making the Linux community look like a bunch of jealous kids.
Again, I'm a proponent of Linux (the only one at our company :(), and I'd love to see Linux on everyone's desktop. I just think we need to work on the real problems, not the perceived ones.
The Windows source code leak has not happened by accident. Windows is using SCO as a test case. If it works (or if they set a reasonable precedent), Microsoft will then start claiming that their code ended up in Linux. Since you're not supposed to have the source code without being tagged a criminal, nobody will be able to come forward and say it is not so without opening themselves to criminal charges... But hey, if Linux "contains" Windows code, it'll be deemed illegal (at least in the US...)
My Karma is so low that even my own postings are beyond my current threshold
...do we know for certain that this isn't a faked letter? I mean, do we have any form of independent corroboration? Otherwise this is just heresay and speculation.
On the other hand, if we get some other proof (or evidence) then MS is about to get a little pissed at SCO for their antics. Perhaps that's a good thing as a previous poster indicated, without MS's $86M influx SCO would be bankrupt.
It's called spoliation of the evidence (no, that's not a a typo, that's how it's spelled). If IBM/Novell/etc can show that the evidence was destroyed, then the jury is allowed to consider that the evidence was probably damaging to SCO/MS.
Instead, they'll release enough of the emails to claim that they released them all (kind of like in a certain anti-trust action a few years ago). That way, nobody can prove anything based on the email or that SCO destroyed any email.
I think ESR probably did the right thing, because this is much more useful in the court of public opinion than in a court of law -- even if it could be proved. As the Register article points out, MS could have legitimate (from a business standpoint) reasons for investing in SCO that would be perfectly legal. But they can't do anything about how bad it looks, so they had a reason to hide it even if it were legit. So dragging it out where everyone can see it is the best course of action.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Honest to god people, look at it. Have you ever seen such painfully careful mis-spellongs? It reeks. It's a joke gone wrong. SCO will find and sue the crap out the basement dwelling prankster that wrote it, and good luck to them.
You. Have. Been. Trolled.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
So there's an idea for ESR: Correct any typos in documents received, and kill any extraneous whitespace.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
What are you talking about? The DOJ and their attorneys beat Microsoft seven ways from Sunday in court. They even satisfied the most pro-business court in the land that the company was an abusive monopolist. Had Jackson kept his damn mouth shut, all would have been fine, but he didn't, and so the penalty was vacated and a new hearing ordered.
The case was assigned to a new judge, one with virtually zero antitrust experience, and she ordered settlement talks. During that time, the Administration changed over and the DOJ went from hardcore, aggressive demands for breakup to the loving kiss with tongue and extra saliva that Judge KK ultimately accepted.
"Stinking cesspool" ? Bull. The case was a slam-dunk and the new Administration threw in the towel on Microsoft when the ref's count had reached nine and three-quarters.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
Also be advised that SCO's mission as Msft's attack dog has nothing to do with who owns what code - that's just a smokescreen to create confusion and disuade people from using Linux. The last thing they want is to have the issue settled - the more they can create an atmosphere of legal uncertainty surrounding GNU/Linux and force people into the arms of the 'safe haven', Windows.
Remember, it's not "You're using Linux, you owe us money", it's "Some people say Linux is illegal, some people say it's OK. Gee, I don't know who to believe so I'd better play it safe and get Winders."
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The grammar and spelling of this e-mail resemble that of a 16-year old with a 'D' average. This Mike Anderer is apparently a highly paid consultant, and one would assume that he has a college, if not at the least, a good secondary education. He should possess good communication skills and be able to write effectively. Those skills would be an essential part of his job.
To temper my above statement, I do not expect quick e-mail notes to have much spit-and-polish, but spell checkers are a standard feature. Just push the little icon and accept the corrections.
Frankly, I find it hard to put a lot into this, but I would like to be proven wrong. If this is authentic, then you can read a lot into why SCO is doing the stupid things they are attempting.
Would you put this guy on your payroll?
I see a lot of people taking this memo as complete and total fact. Be careful with quick assumptions from an anonymous source.
It's quite probable someone did this to FUD SCO and MS. Just saying.. Use a little sense before spouting rhetoric.
Back in my youth, IBM had a permanent law suit going against the Feds on anti-trust charges. This is where the Nazgul learned their chops. IBM is no stranger to perpetual legal cold war. However, I don't think Microsoft is.
If this funding of SCO's (IMO spurious) case is actionable, then IBM is an ideal belligerant. I believe IBM, et al. will not only win the SCO case, but win their counter-suits. Damages could easily bancrupt SCO, and after those funds are expended I'd like to see if Microsoft could chip in the difference. Or be compelled to do so by a court.
If it is not, perhaps the creative juices of the Open Source community could be redirected toward devising a class-action law suit against a Redmond Washington corporation who has knowingly distributed a complex of products which is easily compromised via computer virus. If Big Tobacco could be shaken down a decade ago, why not Microsoft? We don't *have* to wait for the DOJ do we?
If this memo gets the feds/DOJ involved in looking for/at the money trail, that's all it takes. It's pretty hard to move $86 million without leaving a trace.
Of course, I have about as much faith in the DOJ investigating this thoroughly as I have in them punishing Microsoft for any of their other infractions.
Also: remember folks, this could just be a fake memo released by Darl and co. in an effort to make us all look like chumps! I'd hesitate on blowing this up too big until further evidence is turned up.
If this is true, it illustrates the absolutely sick nature of Microsoft's upper management.
Have Eric S Raymond publish for you.
I'd like to believe it, and maybe it is plausible, but the man is a raving lunatic at the best of times. May as well have stuck it in Fortean Times.
I have a very hard time seeing the connection between a whistleblower (not sure if this reaches that level, but it's a handy label) and proprietary voting machine software. Code is not a person.. code cannot be retaliated against. In my opinion, your confusing the person or agent making information known.. and the information that "should" be known. The identity of the person isn't important.. it could be the Pope or Osama Bin Laden.. all that matters is the authenticity of the information. That can generally be determined without knowing who released it.
p
I'm not saying Kerry is it, but it sure as heck isn't the Bush Jr. administration that's going to hold Microsoft's feet to the fire. Do we HAVE to rely on the EU to do our dirty work?
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
"that's a bit too much tin-foil-hat thinking"
No, it's not. I once worked for a law firm and saw the corporate setup of a small ( $100 million valuation) company. It was printed out on a 11x17 piece of paper and looked like a map of Zork - lots of squares and lines and arrows. It showed all the corporate entities and which owned what percent of the others. Byzantine doesn't begin to approach it.
Microsoft discounting server licenses in exchange for action, a deal that involves only three corporate entities, is, by comparison, positively barbaric in its simplicity.
So you think secret meetings with what turned to be criminals to decide who Bush would pick for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was a good idea? You think its ok that only one company (consisting of criminals btw)had exclusive access to Cheney when he drafted a new energy policy while others were shut out?
You know what? Your right. There was no conflict of interest and the fact that Enron was Bush's number one supporter and closest ally since he was governor only serves to clear Bush's name. Its obvious the administration was the clean one here and was just collaborating so closely so they could get more evidence on Enron. Yea, that's the ticket. They were going to turn their evidence to the DOJ but we just didn't give them enough time...
I'll never understand how someone can become so brainwashed that they can no longer distinguish right from wrong. I feel sorry for you.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
If not, WHY NOT!
This (if truly is an email and is complete and factual) is PROOF M$ is committing an act of Antitrust. Blatant and boldfaced.
Subpoena the "anonymous" emailer from SCO(?) and get his ass on the witness stand.
Note: The originator of the email does not know how to use a spell check very well does he? I did.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but this shit is shady practices and is no different than what Enron pulled. Greedy execs jerking the system for their own gain.
There should be a law or some kind of punishment where a judge just dissolves the company aka the company can no longer legally practice business within this country.
Why don't our government officials realize that nearly everything these corporations do is scandalous and does nothing but was other people's money and tie up the courts just so a few execs can get richer? This is ridiculous.
Is this the way of the future where our system just lets these corporations constantly step over boundaries that shouldn't have been crossed in the first place? If so, let me know so I can get the hell out of this country.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Is this surprising to anyone, that Microsoft might be playing dirty pool?
We all realize this is a company that is not above using underhanded tactics to deal with the competition. And anyone with Microsoft stock loves them for it frankly!
This is neither surprising nor is it especially evil in the end, unless you consider the corporate world evil in general anyway, which might be a very fair statement!, but I digress...
Microsoft has a very tough battle to compete with Linux on merit (some would say it's an impossible battle for them, but that's another argument). They're never going to stop the Slashdot community from using Linux, but where they might have something to say is in keeping corporations way from it, and frankly this is where they stand to lose the most anyway.
So, how do you fight what has been correctly stated many times is a community and a philosophy rather than a concrete corporate competitor? You can't. But what you CAN do is try and keep any of the big players in the business world from hitching their wagon to Linux and upping the ante because, let's face it, many corporations will not use Linux if it doesn't come from someone like IBM. The fact that it's free and great for the bottom line won't make them go download the ISOs and install it everywhere because they NEED to have someone like HP to back them up.
So, Microsoft finds a puppet in SCO who can go attack IBM, HP, whoever else they view as the threats in this game, and maybe in the process get big businesses to back off the Linux train because they are worried about the whole SCO mess, whether for good reason or not.
It's a game of perception, nothing more. They aren't going to keep me from using Linux to power my home server, but big deal, I'm not their major source of income. The big businesses are. If propping up SCO helps them keep some of those companies away from Linux, Microsoft wins. And they maintain plausible deniability the whole time by claiming they are paying "licensing fees" to SCO for certain "Unix services licenses". This memo can be interpreted other ways, it's not as clear-cut as it's being made out to be (note that I am NOT diagreeing with the interpretation, just pointing out it's not so clear-cut as to be beyond reporach)
So, people are trying to make a big thing of this memo when it's just par for the course, nothing surprising at all. It doesn't even point to some massive, evil conspiracy really. It points to a company known for low tactics staying with the status quo to fight a formidable enemy to their profit margins. Businesses are SUPPOSED to make money, Microsoft is exceptionally good at it PRECISELY because they take every threat seriously and attack it with Machiavellian fervor.
Hate them for being so good at it if you want, but don't be surprised when the Zebra doesn't change it's stripes.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
Ordinarily, i'd tend to agree with the canary trap argument. Except that, unless the whistleblower was BCCed, this memo seems to have been sent only to a couple of people. I'm thinking it's more likely this was lifted from a server within SCO. And we know how easy that is to do. When will people realise that (completely unencrypted) email is *not* private? Hallowe'en X and counting...
--
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
Does anyone here actually think that SCO are not receiving funding from Microsoft for the court cases? Whether or not this alleged leaked memo is a fake. I personally am in no doubt as to where they are getting the funding from and it certainly isnt linux IP licences.
...
The only thing this "Alleged Leaked Memo" could possibly be useful, is that, if Microsoft were to declare it as a fake and use it to cover up the fact that they really are helping smudge the open source community by assist SCO. It might well be a double bluff.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
the pain of userbase backlash, in the "big bad blue" mentality that formed after years of the IBM FUD machine. So in a complete 180 they're listening to customers (rather than dictating to them).
So we wouldn't expect this out of them, as we hope they always take the high ground. Or it could be 3 strikes, your out.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
...why is everyone automatically believing an "anonymous e-mail?"
Eric himself says "I cannot certify its authenticity."
I'm sure everyone believes Microsoft has something to do with SCO (to not believe such would go against the Slashdot mindset), but this doesn't actually prove anything. Everyone's discussing it as if it's automatically true.
This doesn't look like "microsoft paid sco to fund their anti-linux efforts" as ESR would have you believe through his notes. More realisticly, here's what the memo is saying:
1. The lawyer guy, who's sending it is documenting the percent rates he's going to charge for various deals (billed separately, percents of deals as fees).
2. NOWEHERE in the document does it say "hit microsoft up for money" or anything even VAGUELY similar. The deals are ALL through VC firms, or parts of firms. Microsoft "bringing in" 86 mill through Baystar referrs to the fact that Microsoft referred sco to baystar, not that they money went microsoft -> baystar -> sco. The other deals are with the VC firms, NOT WITH MICROSOFT. The small aquisitions are getting VC funding, the amounts are small to prevent the VC firm's greater scruitiny (and possibly sec filings, but that's a different matter).
How many businesses do you have an intimate working knowledge of? SCO maybe? Only ones in the news? You have to realize, this is self selecting - you don't hear about all the companies who do nothing wrong, and treat both their customers and shareholders well, and compete fairly with their competitors.
Does having an MBA make you evil? Maybe not. Maybe people who are already evil are attracted to the MBA degree and position. Who knows.
If you work at a large institution you know who the MBAs are. You know how they talk and act. No assumptions are required.
That's a mindless overgeneralization. How many MBA's do you actually personally know? The fact that this is tolerated and actually modded insightful is stunning. Substitute any other group of people and people would condemn statements like that.
And no, I'm not an MBA.
Geezus people. Did we all forget that the Anti-trust judges can't do a damn thing unless SCO is shown to be doing something illegal? If SCO even has the slightest case, and it's showed that MS is helping them UPHOLD SCOs IP. Then please oh please tell me how MS will get punished for doing what can be viewed as not the best thing but the "right thing"?
If this was some form of extortion, then sure, send in the law!. But as long as SCO is still able to hold their place in court, MS is can continue to sitting pretty in the shadows.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
Many of us who either have or are obtaining the MBA do NOT seek power or money as an end. (Granted, some do, and those idiots have tarnished the reputation of the rest of us.) Rather, more than a few of us are interested in growing our careers in other ways than the technical track, and to learn more non-technical skills along the way. (Like, oh, the kind that keep the software engineers in a firm employed.)
Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? Why are you seeking to advance your career? You could be one of the rare exceptions (and I really hope you are) who wants to get into the managerial track to increase their sphere of influence and make a bigger difference than they can from the tech positions, but, unfortunatly, everyone I have ever known outside of an academic setting and most of those in an academic setting who aspire to "climb the ladder" are out for prestige, which is just a different metric for the same BS power and money type of succes that most slashdotters view as evil and corrupting.
Every good manager (meening morally good and effective, not just effective) who I have known was a pleasure to work with, respected by his workers, hated by his superiours, and above all else, reluctantly in the position they were in (meaning that they were managing because they felt nobody else could do the job justice).
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Two points. Is this real, and is the dollar figure correct?
If it's real, consider the source. The e-mail was not widely distributed so did someone raid an inbox for this? Was it printed out and left on the printer? In either case, the source must be close to the principals. Why hasn't more information been forthcoming from this source? Certainly this source would have been able to pick up things like, oh, what the infringing code was, who SCO is planning on suing...
Let's say the e-mail is authentic. Consider the $86M figure. From the memo:
Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar.
The poster (and many many of those leaving comments) seem to assume MS gave SCO $86M. If you read the memo, clearly that's not the case. It says MS has brought in that money, including Baystar. From the commentary, we know that Baystar provided at least $50M. MS just referred SCO to Baystar.
Take a look at Baystar's site. They invest in many companies, not all tech related. If you read the Baystar news section, you'll see this article that shows Baystar is not letting SCO have free rein and is interested in protecting its investment.
Bottom line: MS is not funnelling money to SCO via Baystar. MS introduced them but Baystar made the decision to fund, based on the best interest of its investors. Of course, the way Raymond spins it is, "If not for Microsoft, SCO would be at least $15 million in debt today." No, if not for Baystar. Sure, MS introduced them but you may as well say, "If not for the mothers of Baystar's founders giving birth to those founders..." A lot of things came together for SCO to secure the funding.
It's a lot less ominous than the excitable posters here seem to think, or certainly Raymond:
There you have it. A hundred million funnelled from Microsoft to SCO
Nonsense.
Even if it *is a document tracking system, firing the snitch would be on par with fessing up to that document being authentic. And I'm sure that IBM and RedHat and Novell would all be interested in this document, which somehow never got handed over in discovery. And the SEC may want to know why MS is funneling tens of millions of dollars through other companies to SCO, and how SCO is reporting this income. And the DOJ may want to know why MS is doing this as well, since it just may be considered anti-competitive to fund a company's attempt to exterminate your enemies.
do not read this line twice.
I note that ZDnet now has an article on this. And Design Technica and ENN have picked up (copied) the Register article.
I think we should be shouting this from rooftops. Microsoft secretly funnelled a whole lot of extra money to SCO, through intermediaries. It's a big deal, especially for a convicted monopolist.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The Appellate Court's comments on Jackson were that he knew what he was doing. I thought then and think now that they were hittin' the pipe to say that he did a good job but they were going to vacate his order for relief to avoid the always-trite "appearance of impropriety". Either he did a good job, end of story, or he didn't and they should have punted the whole shootin' match.
I was out of work for much of the trial and had the opportunity to read the hundreds of pages of Jackson's findings. He demonstrated a clear awareness of Microsoft's misdeeds and what would be an appropriate level of sanction to restore competition to the marketplace. Only the most ardent Microsoft cheerleader could claim that the KK-approved settlement has done jack to restore a marketplace twisted out of recognition by the company.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
I have received email from people with PhDs who head up university departments that have just as many typos as that message. I guess that they're in a hurry to get the message out, and don't have anyone around to proofread. The typos in the message in this case are the kind someone doing a fast hunt-and-peck without regard for the consequences might make.
And on a cynical note, I think that high-up, well-to-do people don't think enough of most of their email recipients to bother with accurate typing or grammar. They save the careful typing and sentence structure for the people who are at the same level or higher than them on the food chain. They'll even have their secrectaries proofread and recompose their email before sending it to their own superiors.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Little bit of FUD analysis here from an amateur. Feel free to discredit me as well but I think this is a sneaky posting that has sneakily been given a higher moderation.
Actually, it's their money. When you pay for gas, "your money" will eventually reach terrorists under that logic.
There is no logic in this response either. By the same mislogic buying American Flags will eventually get into the hands of people who kill babies. Spending money at all means that someone else gets to spend money and so on. The fact that oil->terrorist is a give away that this AC is stuck in some old discussion about the old anti-drug commercials. Probably a conservative shill for hire who has run out of 'gas'(Pun intended)
Anyway, objectively, and using available evidence rather than assumption, none of the "Halloween memos" have ever been confirmed as being real.
I am not sure if this is correct or not, but it is good to just say something like this as it is hard to prove whether something has been proven. This same statement can be used almost verbatim about every piece of journalism that has ever dealt with leaks, or witness accounts.
Given that the idea that MS is backing SCO has been a popular conspiracy theory since Groklaw was born, isn't assuming this is true jumping the gun a bit?
I don't want to dig around but MS has been an investor in SCO for years. There is no conspiracy theory there, it is financial relationships. Drawing Groklaw into this for no apparent reason is a bit of distraction and an attempt to sully as many targets as possible. The reality is that we aren't questioning whether or not MS has the right to give money to SCO but whether SCO has any product besides harassment law suits, and if it does not, should it's shareholders be supporting this continuous legal effort. If the entire rationale of SCO is as a hired bully for MSoft, then they have no future.
When the non-geek media went ahead and assumed that the Mydoom virus was authored by Linux zealots, without objectivity or evidence, merely because the assumption made sense, everyone cried bloody murder.
This is good. Totally off topic. It is always good to try to require individuals to operate based on no bias when you can't win an argument. Objectivity and evidence are not required in discussing any of this. We are not only allowed to use our experience, and perception, but are encouraged to do so, as that is a useful technique towards investigating matters. Until we are in a court of law we can discuss conjecture, and theories quite healthily.
----
Okay, you've lost me. How has Eric lost credibility?
ESR is a controversial guy. His recent moves of questionable success/value: asking Sun to open-source Java, picking a hacker logo that no one is actually using, writing a new kernel configuration system that no one is actually using, and revising the Jargon File so that "hacker" now implies "neo-conservative."
His continued abuse of his hacker prominence to promote assault weapons is not entirely popular.
There's some question about how much IBM is paying him to research and respond to SCO.
ESR has been claiming for about six years that cheaper PCs, anti-trust battles, improvements in GNOME, and other such things will be the death of Windows and Microsoft. He even published a timeline once.
And then there's Sex Tips for Geeks and Dancing with the Gods, both of which are more than a little bit disturbing.
Eric flaunts his hacker fame (based on what? intercal and fetchmail?) to push unrelated political-fringe causes, picks fights with everyone from Scott McNealy to RMS for fun, and thinks he channels an ancient Greek sex god. Yeah, you could make an argument that his credibility is running a little bit thin...
The problem is that when people work in groups in a corporate setting they adopt new ethical standards to match their group. The ethical standard in corporations is to do whatever you can to make money. Doing things of questionable legality is just a financial risk like anything else. In order to keep corporations from doing things we don't want we have to make either the chance of getting caught or the punishment or both so high as to make it no longer financially wise. We cannot simply rely on them do what we think is ethical because the ethics within coporations are different than the ethics in the general populations.
Not only is he a dumbass, he obviously has never had any real contact with the sorts of cretins who occupy the upper strata of corporate management these days. IP guys are probably the bottom of the corporate barrel, their chosen field being a damning admission that they themselves are incapable of producing anything and that all they can do in life is feed off the IP output of their betters. What surprises me is not the awful state of the revealed document but that there is a document at all. The parties involved probably communicate with greater comfort by means of grunts, farts and eye-pokes.