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.
I paid $26.4 Million for my Unix License... Now I feel like I got ripped off. Do you think I can ask for a refund?
- Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
You'll note in the article he states that this isn't quite an anti-trust violation, but rather an act of a competitor suing a competitor. That's not the case, it's more like a competitor trying to get the little company to step up to the behemoth. Looking at how this is setup, I'm confused... How is this NOT an anti-trust violation? They're attempting to 'destroy' the competition in unethical manners.
I see an automatic pistol holding a lit cigarette. . .
You are not the customer.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
He who controls the spice... Oh, wait.
...everyone knows that Microsoft is the savior of all mankind and couldn't possibly have extorted money, doctored evidence, threatened OEM's, coded bugs into Windows to lock out third party software, and other mean and nasty crap.
Without Microsoft, what would we do? Perhaps progress technology forward instead of backward?
After all of this, who could possibly believe that they would funnel money to SCO in order to destroy Linux?
of course this is to be expected. i mean, microsoft, though they may not admit it, knows that linux is a big block in the way of their domination of the software market (how many sane people use microsoft on any kind of serious server?). it's not that M$ 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.
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.
It will be interesting if (when?) Novell and Microsoft succeed in demonstrating that SCO has no clear title to "Unix." Depositions in the trial, by people who negotiated the contract between AT&T and SCO, seem to indicate that the Unix copyrights didn't change ownership. SCO just got right to copy, modify, and sell.
Perhaps this was not beyond Sun, and perhaps Sun was just trying to weaken Linux in the marketplace. After all, Linux competes with Solaris. The 9.3 million could have been intended to support the company that was trying to throttle Linux.
Still, if (when?) it comes out that SCO did not have a Unix copyright to license, then there will be some 'splainin for Sun to do, having paid SCO for a license to something SCO doesn't own.
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.
I wish there was some more references to the fragile legality many of SCO's claims are riding on.
Getting C-Net exposure is great, and the article paints an obvious picture of the Microsoft contirbution to the SCO effort...
But I just wamted the article to mention that all of SCOs claims are false, or at least unfounded...
I hope you all at least consider that MSFT paid 16.6 million for the SCO Unix license, just to avoid lawsuits from them, with no "evil plans" againstLinux whatsoever.
Yeah, we considered it. Then we laughed so hard we thought our pants would never dry.
It's pretty obvious that Microsoft doesn't like Linux. Linux is giving away what Microsoft sells. Microsoft sees an opportunity to help an enemy of an enemy ... and acts on it.
I don't see any sneaky or suspicious stuff going on here. I think Microsofts actions are underhanded and not above-the-board. But I don't think there are any smoke and mirrors/conspiracies to be uncovered.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Homer: In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women
Up front!
Except that he lied about the amounts.
Except that Microsoft lied about their involvement with Baystar.
Except that SCO has yet to produce a single line of infringing code.
Nothing about the fiaSCO has been up front.
Fact and Fiction, eh? Looks like CNet got the facts! M$ facts.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It seems Microsoft did more than just act as a reference. It's not stated what was actually said, but for it to be "shocking" in an environment where competition is normally aggressive to hostile, we can assume that it was something highly out of the ordinary and probably very unethical.
Although Microsoft seems to have been careful to not be "too" active in this lawsuit, it seems evident that they are far from innocent bystanders. If the SEC could find some guts, they really aught to be investigating this matter. If the objective is to intimidate potential Linux customers, or drain pro-Linux corporations of cash, provided the lawsuit really is without merit, and SCO & Microsoft knew this then I feel sure that there are provisions under racketeeing laws (esp. with regards to "protection rackets") that cover this situation.
This, I think, is the point that the law enforcement agencies and SEC need to remember. (This is why John Mohammed could be found guilty for murders commited by Lee Malvo. The so-called "trigger-man" hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you feel this is right or wrong, what matters is that this is the viewpoint the law in the US currently takes.)
If SCO is shown to be guilty of trying to extort money through the willful pursuit of lawsuits they knew to be without merit, then the Federal authorities have the legal right (and legal obligation) to take SCO out of business. You can't go around saying that racketeering is bad - unless it's by someone in Silicon Valley and/or a contributor to Government political funds.
If, as I think increasingly likely, Microsoft is shown to have (from the background) put SCO in a position where SCO was going to shoot, then the "triger-man" hypothesis applies, which means Microsoft would also be guilty, even if their role was totally passive. It would be no different, in the eyes of the law, than the DC shootings, insofar as distribution of responsibility was concerned.
If there's even the slightest suspicion of such a scenario, the FBI and the SEC should be all over this case, to determine who knew what, when, and how culpable that makes them.
Of course, that's not happening. The SEC can't even be pressured into enforcing the whistleblower protection laws, in relatively minor cases.
The ability of the SEC to stand back and ignore numerous laws, across the board, in spite of pressure from law enforcement, does not bode well. It does not bode well for industry, where upper management are now essentially being told they are at liberty to ignore any rules or laws they feel like. Good working practices produce good work, in good quantities. Poor working practices make things profitable in the short-term but kill the business in the long-run.
It does not bode well for law enforcement, where we can expect those pushing for enforcement to be replaced by "pro-business" opportunists.
It definitely does not bode well for Linux and *BSD. The outcome of this trial is almost irrelevent, as all Microsoft has to do is "lean" on someone else to start a new one. From Microsoft's standpoint, it makes more in a day from interest earned than it spends on propping up such lawsuits, and even if the lawsuit fails, it pretty much kills off whoever they used (and therefore a competitor). Microsoft might even pick up a little IP on the way. Linux and *BSD have to be "lucky" in every lawsuit thrown at them. Microsoft only has to be lucky once.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
When I first suggested that M$ was behind/involved in the SCO lawsuits in April based on the one of the later "Halloween" documents people seemed to suggest I was reaching and/or my medictaion dosage was wrong.
You gotta say one thing for M$ - they are predictable. And they're not subtle either but I guess they don't feel they need to be.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
MS: So, Caldera, you say you want to sue us for using your "Unix(tm) IP" in our Windows(r) Services for Unix(r)(tm) Product?
Caldera: Yeah, and we're suing other big bullies too.
MS: What if we give you $6.66 Million dollars for an "intellectual property license", Will that make the law suit go away?
Caldera: Oh yeah! Now you're talking my language.
MS: You say you want to sue other big guys too? If we give you $10 Million more, could you make it IBM and drag Linux in with them?
Caldera: Sure thing boss, where do I sign?
MS: Don't call me that. Sign here, initial here, here and here.
Yes, in blood please.
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 $100,000,000 (for sake of argument) that it would have taken to make SCO go away
It looks like they left a couple of words out of this quote in the article:
"They're very careful and concerned about not [getting caught] doing anything that's violating their DOJ agreements," Sontag said. While not commenting specifically, Microsoft didn't deny Sontag's account.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
People started suggesting that Google would of course support anything that kills IE since MS is now attacking Google's search market.
I don't think Google needs to worry about the new M$ search engine quite yet. You can tell it still has a few kinks in it when they put themselves on top for anal sex.
Aren't you all a bit hot in those tinfoil hats?
Dude, the shiny part goes on the outside!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley