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.
Can't... type... reply... too... much... outrage... head... exploding...
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
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!
For $86 million Microsoft has created an enourmous amount of chaos. There is little doubt they will make their $86M back on additional because of the FUD the SCO crap has caused.
That doesn't make it any less sneaky, underhanded and evil though.
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.
...is probably Richard Emerson.
Hmmm... I have to agree. I can't recall (or find) an email that I have received from an exec, save for the tech exec I used to work for, that did not have spelling errors.
The tech exec knew where the spell checker was and he used it.
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
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?
If they want they want to maintain the greatest market share, maybe they should compete in the market, not in the courts. I suppose you like getting screwed, though, Fishbu.
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
Yea, but this is blatant dishonesty and essentially cheating. I just read an article that says that ethical corporations do better in the long run, and this isn't a simple karma question. Be good to people and they'll be good to you. They're not just "customers" or "consumers," but people. This stuff is real, it's not a game. There aren't just rules, there are laws and morals and values. If you're an asshole now, as a person or a corporation, it will come back to get you one way or another. Microsoft and SCO may be getting what they want now, but they'll be hurting for this later.
I am feeling fat and sassy
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.
"Well I've thoroughly enjoyed this clandestined discussion. I feel so devious and evil. But for my own records, could you write down everything we've just said (especially all the bad stuff we're doing) and distribute it to all the company employees? Make sure all the new guys get it too, especially the one in cubicle 4-B that doesn't like his job. Oh, and if this gets out it could ruin our public image, so try to keep it a secret, thank you." Microsoft VIP
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I can believe that Microsoft gave $100 million to SCO. I think both Microsoft and SCO should burn in hell.
But I don't buy the memo. There are just too many "carefully placed" typos. It looks like someone engineered typos to make it LOOK authentic, but something about it's just a bit too intentional and obvious looking.
So we're supposed to trust one anonymous source (you) over another anonymous source?
Yeah, but they're not funneling money to Yugo to sue GM and it's consumers.
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
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.
I work inside SCO. Mike Anderer hasn't had anything to do with the company since June 2003. This is a clear and simple forgery. I lend it no credence. I'd suggest ignoring it.
Yeess, Darl. When you wave your hands like that I realize these are not the droids I'm looking for.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Have you ever actually gotten a message from higher-ups? Or sales people, or lawyers??
That message reads about like all of them.
You're thinking too geeky. "I'm doing something subversive. Make it clean, neat, nice... blah blah." These people don't think like that. It's just another day at the fast paced office.
Linus: Uncle Ken, Uncle Ken, there's no place like /home!
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Look, stop saying things like that, people. You're giving away the MBA secret that big business is not honourable.
OK, it's not really a secret, just a taboo topic unless you're the so-called left-loonie fringe trying to change it. The amazing thing is, so many accept this kind of underlying failure of democracy and free markets without so much as a shrug! So is MS a success story or a travesty to you?
Damn those pesky terrorists
According to the Register article, Mike Anderer is from S2 Strategic Consulting.
I don't even understand why you would think this. What we have here (regardless of the truth of the memo) is a classic case of a monpolist using its cash, market power and the legal system to maitain control of the market in order to continue its monopolistic practices. I can damned well condem this and be happy when a different company (say IBM) spends money to try to back a new product that threatens them, not because I think an IBM monopoly would be better but because I want no monopoly at all. That's consistent.
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
According to the SCO 10-K to which ESR linked, Anderer signed an agreement between SCO and S2 Strategic Consulting (his company) on August 4, 2003. Assuming the parent poster believes what he wrote, Anderer probably left SCO in June to continue performing the same functions as an independent contractor.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
"I used to think that life was unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse, if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." (Marcus on B5)
So, go Microsoft! Your unethical practises are making me feel warm inside.
The owls are not what they seem
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.
Well, from MS's viewpoint, I think any money spent on killing Linux is an investment, just indirectly.
I wonder what search criteria XFree86million would return from msn.com? A message indicating i have entered a search term that is likely to return unethical content?
Whether ESR is a zealot or not doesn't really have any bearing on this issue. If you're going to rely upon paragons of open-mindedness to leak critical information all of the time, you'll have a long time to wait, because those without opinions rarely have reasons to get involved.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, if you buy the stock, SCO doesn't get the money, the stockholders do. SCO needs the money to fund its lawsuit.
The real point though, is that MS doesn't want to own them. If MS or an MS owned subsidiary was claiming rights to IP in Linux, everyone would be screaming "Monopoly, Monopoly, Anti-Trust!". Personally, I'll doubt the veracity of this memo until it is turned up in court by a subpoena, but the reason these rumours persist is that funding this under the table would be an ideal position for MS. They get to chill the Linux market without looking like the bad guys.
BTW, Baystar got a 17.5% ownership stake in SCO for its $50M investment so they actually did buy a part of the company, not give the money away.
"Businesses other than Microsoft..."
Most businesses other than Microsoft ARE NOT MONOPOLISTS!
If I could get one thing through the thick skulls of the "Microsoft is a business" shills here on slashdot, it would be that standard business practices are often illegal for monopolists.
And as for MS not suing anyone, au contraire. MS hired SCO to hire lawyers to sue people. Perhaps you feel there's a moral distinction between a hitman and the mob boss who tells a lieutenant to dispatch the hitman, but I don't.
Microsoft doesn't care about any profits SCO makes from its lawsuit. They probably think, as we do, that those profits are insignificant to none.
What they do care about is spreading FUD. I was bored the other day and read Optimize, one of the free magazines Ziff-Davis sends me on a regular basis. I almost lost my lunch when I read a lengthly article about the legal hazards associated with open source. It was written in a way that would make any Linux-using corporation fear for its life! It was so filled with distortions and half-truths that I threw it in the trash bin where it belonged, and ignored all the solicitations asking me to continue my subscription for free.
I don't want that garbage in my company - but we should be aware that it's there, it's floating around, and it wouldn't have even a mirage of plausibility without this lawsuit.
The longer this lawsuit lingers, the more time they have to spread the FUD and use it to their advantage. So it's greatly in their interest to fund SCO.
That's Microsoft's real game.
D
Concur.
The mindset of this sort of individual will be to bleed whatever is most conveniently at hand to bleed. Including the corporate body in which they are imbedded.
Eventually this sort of behavior will get its comeuppance, but an awful lot of blood winds up on the floor before it happens. Unfortunately.
Controlling this kind of thing is what's driven political change since the days of bearskins and flint axes. Needless to say, NOBODY has come up with an effective solution to the problem in all that time. Expect no magic bullets any time soon. Or ever.
Is it fascism yet?
From a business standpoint it makes sense.
From a business standpoint the Mafia makes sense.
Ethics are very important in busyness. Let's talk about Enron etc. In the long run it is a good policy to be honorable. You can be aggresive and honorable. It is not dificult. And, I want to make business I want an honorable partner. Otherwise I won't be able to sleep. Not becouse morals dilemas but becouse he can damage my interest from the simple capitalistic point of view
Wave bye-bye to the nice whistleblower. I bet the 'typos and syntax bobbles' are part of a document tracking system. SCO will know who released this.
Yeah, that'd be real smart. Then they have a hostile witness that's willing to testify that he/she got fired for distributing a document that SCO failed to provide to IBM or Red Hat or Novell for discovery.
Or, I suppose, they can fire the person, provide a copy to the various lawyers, possibly get an nice friendly SEC visit, and generally piss off everyone that might have been involved in pushing money at them.
The only thing they can safely do is deny the whole thing... Eric's lost enough credibility lately that it might actually fly. Heck, I wouldn't be too surprised if it's just someone trolling him... It's really about time.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Thirty NCR executives were found guilty in that decision, which was subsequently overturned. See this Fortune article for an overview. As far as I can tell, T.J. Watson never served a day.
Oh, and while T.J. arguably founded the modern IBM, the company had existed for years before T.J. got there as the "Computer Tabulating Recording Company". CTR was itself a derivative of Herman Hollerith's Tabulating Machine Company, founded in 1896.
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?
Found this doing a little Googling.
Wonder if this is "the" Mike Anderer?
"It's hard to find a large corporation interested in it. Anybody with any scars in this business doesn't want to be the first to do anything," commented Mike Anderer (emphasis mine), vice president of systems integration at Ikon Office Solutions, a large international integrator. "Right now it's kind of a manufacturing and standards war. In a year or two it might be a viable product."
Was found in this story:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-200420.html
If it is "the" Mike Anderer from the e-mail, funny that Mike would have been part of Ikon, which I believe is the company Darl McBride worked at, sometime before SCO, which he sued and won some settlement for.
>big well funded companies like that tend to cover all their bases.
This is generally true, Microsoft does appear to contribute more to Replublicans, but that has shifted over time:
Of the nearly $1.2 million in PAC and soft money contributions Microsoft contributed between 1995 and 1998, 72 percent went to Republicans. But during the first 18 months of the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft, aware of the closeness of congressional races this fall, has upped its giving to Democrats. Of the $2.3 million Microsoft has given in PAC and soft money this election cycle, 55 percent has gone to Republicans
Microsoft spokesman Rick Miller told Roll Call that the company largely follows a "very basic business strategy to giving and that's a 60/40 approach - 60 percent to the party in the majority and 40 percent to the minority." Miller added, however, that while two years ago, Republicans were Microsoft's defenders, now the company is also seeing a number of Democrats take up its cause.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Not that I'm saying the memo is real; I have no idea. I'm just considering your point.
Why do most slashdotters assume that just b/c you have an MBA you must be some evil hell bent individual? Because we've actually met and worked with MBAs long enough to get to really know them, and have found few that don't fit this stereotype? Like the guy that sat on his ass for a year drawing a six figure salary because "you don't have a product for me to sell yet." Or the ex-IBM manager that thought forcing all the Unix programmers out and replacing them with kids fresh out of school at lower wages was the best way to get a product out the door, because after all people are just replacable pieces like machine tools, right? Or the guy who spent all his time hitting on the cute programmer 20 years his junior in the cubicle next to mine (yes, he was married). Or the guy whose idea of making a requirements document was to look at every competitors product, then insist that we implement the union of all our competitor's features... this same guy took code where somebody had busted his ass to meet his spec in the shortest time possible, and when it was given to him said "we've changed our mind, do it this way instead..." Three times in a row. For the same feature. Yep, we've got a low opinion of MBAs 'cause we've actually known some of them... which is not to say that their all bad.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It goes without saying that Microsoft is competent. They would not be in the position they are today without some degree of business acumen. The reason folks in this environment don't honor Microsoft for their core competency is because we tend to honor technology above business. And when technology is sacrificed for the sake of business, we tend to take a dim view.
This is a really important observation: ruining Linux's reputation has strategic importance. Microsoft has long had a strategy embodied by the phrase "cutting off their air supply." This is usually done by impacting the revenue to a product. Most competing technologies are based on a product offering that must generate a certain level of revenue (either directly or indirectly) or it is no longer justifies its continued support and development. Once support for an IT product is removed from the market, the market will eventually move to whatever competitors remain. Therefore, if one can impact the revenue stream for a product enough, one can kill a competing technology. And then reap the benefits of being the last product standing.
Linux offers a challenge to this strategy. Individual companies leverage Linux for their own profit. However, impacting the revenue of one company will simply remove a single business entity while leaving the technology itself (Linux) intact... and likely still being supported and developed by other entities. One can not bury Linux by attacking a single company's Linux-based revenue stream.
On even more simple terms, Linux is not based on hard currency. But it does run on its own currency; reputation.
Linux is enjoying an increased level of support from hardware and software developers due to its increasing popularity / reputation. Along with that comes an increased level of adoption as various entities from single users to enterprise environments deploy Linux. Which increases the demand for hardware and software offerings. And also increases the available resources to further develop of the platform. This increased demand and resources feed back to Linux's reputation. It becomes a nice regenerative loop.
It should be pretty obvious that the "cutting off their air supply" strategy is still applicable, it just has to be modified to attack a different form of currency. Instead of impacting revenue or hard currency, Microsoft will have to impact the reputation of the competing technology. It must harm Linux's reputation. Which, in turn, reduces or erodes Linux's adoption and resources.
I haven't looked at Microsoft's SFU since it's been called by that name, but their product 'Interix' which preceeded it (a purchase from Softway Systems) even came bundled with the GNU C Compiler.
Yes, that's right. Microsoft shipped a product with GCC in it. I purchased a copy at a previous employer. It's superior to Cygwin in many regards, as it's an entire new POSIX subsystem, not a kludge that rides on top of Win32, which is what Cygwin amounts to.
---
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...
include $sig;
1;
This is how it worked:
Just like in the SCO case, MS was using their Financing arm to do anti-competitive business transactions. Manipulating enemies through innocent-looking cash movements and investments while supplying cash, information and most importantly *connections* to henchmen willing to do the dirty deeds (Vector, Baystar...). IIRC there was indeed a MS connection to BayStar as well. Paul Allen as an investor?
Microsoft won't stop this sort of anti-competitive clandestine operations until authorities have thoroughly investigated what is going on within their shadowy Corporate Development and Strategy (incl. Rich Emerson and Robert Uhlaner) unit and how favors and sensitive business information gets passed around within the infamous Microsoft Old Boys' Alumni network.
Oh Please. Nobody has proven that outsourcing will create more jobs.......let alone *skilled* jobs, let alone a sufficent number of *skilled* jobs.
This ain't an academic proof (Slashdot isn't a great place for such proofs), but consider computers. In the beginning, the manufacturing, assembly, and sales of computers were almost entirely in the U.S. As the industry became larger, companies found that they could outsource the manufacturing jobs to Southeast Asia, ship the parts (or assembled computers) to the U.S., and still make a larger profit over those who made them in the U.S. Soon enough, the vast majority of computer parts were manufactured in Southeast Asia, spelling doom for anyone in the computer industry in the U.S. Only the upper managers of IBM (and the stockholders, of course) were making any money.
Or, maybe not. While moving computer manufacturing to Southeast Asia was bad for the worker trying to make a living constructing computers, it was pretty good for anyone that used a computer in their job. As they became cheaper, businesses could buy more, until you got to the point where it was common to have every employee with a computer. Whole industries were created around maintaining an office of computers (which employed huge numbers of people), and some of the largest fortunes of the modern age were made from selling computers, software, and services.
Computers got cheap enough that many American families bought them for the home. Enough people had computers (hooked up to the Internet) that businesses scrambled to find ways to make money off of these people. For a while, you could actually get a job creating web pages and web sites, just so that companies could reach consumers in new ways (either directly or through advertising).
I'd argue that outsourcing those computer manufacturing jobs to Asia directly resulted in cheaper computers and their widespread ownership, and that creates millions of jobs, many more than the hundreds to thousands that Cray ever employed in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It also made it possible for a few folks to collaborate on a free Unix clone for the (newly cheap) PC. There are people arguing that that little development will mean the end of anyone making money in software, but anyone who has worked with FreeBSD or Linux knows that there is still plenty of work to be done.
So, can I say that sending x-rays to India has created new skilled jobs? Well, I can't give their names and numbers, but there is someone who closed the deal on the dedicated bandwidth between U.S. and India, someone else who maintains the equipment that makes it cheap enough to send those images, someone in the U.S. whose job it is to interface with his Indian counterparts to negotiate rates and solve issues, etc. etc. There are companies that pay a few dollars less per employee for health care costs, and perhaps a couple of people that don't get laid off because of it. There is an emergency room doctor that can see an additional patient per hour. And on, and on, and on. And, yep, there is an x-ray technician, bitter and out of a job.
I'm sorry for you if you have been outsourced. I'm angry if the government has failed to pay benefits because the laws haven't caught up to the fact that service industry jobs are now being targeted. But I'm pretty tired of paying more for food because the government is trying to protect farmers and for paying more taxes because the government just can't close a military base that employs half a town. And, as much as it hurts, I'm tired of paying more for software because some folks thought four years of school would be enough to employ them for life.
Starting in 1922, General Motors bought up many of the nation's
electric urban and interurban light rail systems, including
the excellent streetcars that served Los Angeles, converted them
to internal combustion engines, and deliberately managed them into failure.
Before this time, good electric streetcars made an automobile
unneccessary in many urban areas.
See http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/4518
Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check
From the web page: "Post-Postscript: According to Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of CNET, SCO confirmed today (04 March) that this memo is legitimate."