Slashdot Mirror
The Microsoft/SCO Connection
rocketjam writes "CNET is running a long question-and-answer format article which takes an in-depth look at the relationship between Microsoft and SCO and the financial support SCO has received both directly and indirectly from Microsoft in their ongoing litigation alleging that Linux violates the intellectual property rights they claim to hold on UNIX. The article details the money Microsoft has paid to SCO to "license" UNIX as well as the role they played in BayStar's $50 million investment in SCO in late 2003. Microsoft paid SCO $16.6 million for a UNIX license. The only other company that has come close to paying SCO that much money for a license is Sun, who paid $9.3 million to license UNIX for their Solaris operating system."
It's nice to know there is a connection, but nothing out of the blue. Corporates are known to use lawsuit to 'retard' competitors, and there are enough memos from MS that suggested they don't really like Linux. How about FUDs and some creative TCO analysis? Those are equally damaging.
Wasn't it not long ago that we see Google 'embraces' Firefox by having www.google.com/firefox? And what came with this? People started suggesting that Google would of course support anything that kills IE since MS is now attacking Google's search market.
It's almost as exciting as a lobbyist who 'invested' $xxx million in a presidential campaign so that certain laws can be passed.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
He who controls the spice... Oh, wait.
of course this is to be expected. i mean, microsoft, though they may not admit it, knows that linux is a big block in the way of their domination of the software market (how many sane people use microsoft on any kind of serious server?). it's not that M$ is evil either, they're just another capitalist corporation. just because they've been hugely sucessful doesn't make them evil. but they are ruthless and that's probably how they got to the top.
I'm against picketing but I don't know how to show it.
MSFT and SUNW have plausible deniability in that they can claim the payments were for SCOX licenses.
As deniability goes, it's not very plausible, but as far as the law is concerned, it doesn't have to be. As long as the words on the paper are there, you don't even have to keep a straight face while reading them.
It's a shame M$ feels they have to attack Linux in this way. They may actually win some support from the tech crowd if they fought the battle based on the quality of their products. I think we are more likely to see the second coming first though :o) (please don't mod me down for mentioning religion)
I can't help feeling that M$ is a company that can't decide whether they want to cater to the server market or the home market when it comes to Windows.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
By redefining the UNIX rights, Microsoft hopes to quell the growth of UNIX family operating systems, of course.
Why Microsoft doesn't just embrace the UNIX family and not fight it beats the hell out of me.
Take a Linux distribution (or BSD, or Darwin, or whatever), place a Windows GUI on it, port their apps so that anyone can buy Office (profit!), inherit stronger security from the UNIX model, and add classic Windows support with their Virtual PC/Virtual Server technology they bought from Connectix.
Perhaps they feel that are in too deep to change.
"Hear that, Mr. Gates? It is the sound of inevitability..."
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
SUN paid 9 mil for Solaris and Microsoft paid almost double that and yet MS doesn't even have a real UNIX OS product. I agree, that "licensing" money was really spent in something else.
[alk]
isn't there already some "splainin" to do seeing as they are open sourcing Solaris which supposedly they had to pay to use? I know I'm missing something but so far this translates to:
"We don't have to pay SCO, we just want to"
to me.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
In addition, SUNW doesn't have a monopoly. In US law, there are lots of things that are legal for a competitor to do, but illegal if that competitor has a monopoly (or even a majority share of the market, in some cases).
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
> ...in their ongoing litigation alleging that
> Linux violates the intellectual property rights
> they claim to hold on UNIX.
While The SCO Group has repeatedly made such allegations in the press they have never done so in any litigation. Their statements to the contrary are lies.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Not to knock slashdot, but most people who browse slashdot already have some negative feelings towards microsoft and don't necessarily feel that they practice the most responsible business practices. Its nice to see a more "mainstream" (read John Q. Public can't use a computer might read) is carring a story like this.
At least one vendor (IBM) looked around at what SCO was claiming, said "you have to be kidding" and realized that if they let SCO get away with their little extortion scheme(let's call it what it is -- i am going to sue you so that you buy my company isnt exactly a business plan) then there will be a lineup of equally baseless lawsuits.
While it is certainly true that IBM has the financial resources to cut a cheque to make SCO go away it will only encourage other bottom-feeders to line up at the trough(sorry for the mixed metaphor) and that would make for a constant distraction.
Even a company the size of IBM can be impaired by a barrage of deposition requests, email hunts, paperwork diving expeditions, etc.
Don't think that IBM defended the lawsuit because of some political stance in favour of Open Source. They defended the lawsuit for pure practical purposes. They saw that the long term costs of the lawsuit went far beyond the $100,000,000 (for sake of argument) that it would have taken to make SCO go away
We have police and jails in order to get criminals off the street and to discourage further crime. The idea is to convince your potential criminal that they are likely get caught and suffer great harm if they carry their intentions out and rob that 7/11.
In the case of Corporate crim and especially in the case MS it does not work this way. MS gets caught, found guilty but then is rewarded for their crimes by keeping the profits of their crime.
As long as the law isn't willing to punish the guilty then we should expect to see more crimes by the corporate class.
evil is as evil does