Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Shown Involved with Baystar and SCO
baryon351 writes "Back a few years ago, when SCO looked like it was hemorrhaging cash, a surprise investment came out of the blue from venture capitalists Baystar. They invested $20 million in SCO and aided their anti-Linux cause, enabling McBride & co. to continue with (now shown incorrect) claims of line-by-line code copying of SCO IP in Linux. Now one of IBM's submissions to the court reveals Microsoft was behind it after all. Baystar's manager says about Microsoft's Richard Emerson: 'Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would backstop, or guarantee in some way, Baystar's investment ... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO.' Despite the denials about their involvement, Microsoft helped SCO continue this charade — and on top of that halted all contact with Baystar after the investment, reneging on their guarantee."
I could almost stereotype Microsoft...
I just can't believe such vile and shameful accusations against Microsoft! Surely no company would sink this deep to protect it's monopoly. Oh wait...
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
When people suggested that this could be the case at the time others complained that the Open Source crowd were just finding another reason to drag Microsoft's name through the mud.
Funnily enough, Microsoft isn't as clean-cut as it likes to make out. Shocking stuff.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
I almost fell out my chair from the suprise.
The wired is really the same thing as the real world.
Suspicions confirmed.
I remember MS butt-boys flaming me for suggesting MS was financing this a long time ago.
Microsoft screwed over a business partner by agreeing to do something and then backing out after the partner upheld their end of the deal? Wow, is it Sunday again already?
I have to admit to being curious why any company would get involved in a business deal with Microsoft. I can understand being their customer, but willingly partnering with a company that stabs partners in the back on a regular basis just seems crazy. "Yes, just step over those corpses on the way into the conference room -- pay no attention to the ghost of Stacker rattling those noisey chains, I assure you this is a win-win situation!"
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
DUH!
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Except to all of BillG's towel boyz: told ya so. The only thing that Microsoft innovates is corruption.
we will end no whine before its time
There doesn't seem to be anything in writing. Just some claims about wink-wink, nod-nod "agreements" from a guy who has subsequently been fired by Microsoft? You don't think this Goldfarb fellow *knows* most people are pre-disposed to believe anything about Microsoft and figured he could tap into that ill-will? He made a really bad $20M investment and now he's trying to cover his behind. This smacks of pure fiction, with perhaps a dollup of libel.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
...it's nice to finally have some concrete back-up from those directly involved, instead of just having to piece things together from what leaked out around the edges.
No matter if SCO loses as they should, the millions of dollars their phony lawsuits cost others, the doubt they cast over all of 'free' software, and the delays in some companies considering a move to Linux until Vista could finally be made (allegedly) viable, definately helped Microsoft.
Hopefully there will be enough of a tie-in for Microsoft to be pursued for their part in the charade.
--
Tomas
Oh, Baystar? Nevermind.
hands up who saw it coming! fud, more fud, and even more fud about competitors is the modern way to do business :-(
Im not shocked that Microsoft was behind it, im shocked they didnt even try to hide it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I run a hosting and Web services firm. If there's one thing this whole debacle has taught us, it is to avoid dealing with software vendors as much as is possible. Our solution has been to use FreeBSD and NetBSD for our operating system needs. Apache and lighttpd are excellent Web servers. Python is our scripting language of choice.
While we now know that the claims involving the Linux kernel source code origins were likely baseless, there was a point when there was much uncertainty. Thankfully, we avoided that via our use of FreeBSD and NetBSD.
Likewise, we now see that Microsoft had wasted money with these shenanigans, money that could have been used to improve their software products. We would never even consider using their products.
Had we been a UnixWare and OpenServer shop, we'd likely be facing much uncertainty right now.
We have found that using community-developed software is often our safest bet. And best of all, we can contribute back the modifications we make.
If MS is THAT terrified of Linux, it's because MS can't keep up...
HAHA! Seriously though, this was done while they were still under the antitrust agreement with the Justice Dept. This is in direct violation and if the court shows this, I'd suspect IBM, Redhat, Novell and others to go after Microsoft; worst case, it could be a class action on behalf of all businesses and Linux distros. This coupled with their shaky OS launch should make for an interesting 2007 for Microsoft.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Some of us said as much at the time. It was rather obvious.
IBM wouldn't have submitted it unless there was something to back it all up with (This is something
submitted as testimony/evidence in a Civil Trial- IBM is not wont, unlike MS and SCO to fabricate
things for the court (Both of the latter mentioned companies are VERY guilty of that!)...they don't
HAVE to...). A paper trail.
We see glimpses of it floating about on the Internet, if you know where to look. Not as much
of a libel or fiction as you'd like to believe.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Microsoft (and the vast majority of modern corporations) seems to be following Machiavelli's adage of "Men ought either to be well treated or crushed" where MS is in crush mode. IBM seems to be in well-treated mode ;)
There's nothing feel good about it - this is business and unless a government steps in and regulates the industry, well, it's all about the benjamins.
Shh.
I can see a lot of "duh" reaction, and while I agree on the "feigned" shock, I would like to see something more of substance. Is this illegal for MS to do that or not ? IANAL , but it does not seems to be.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
IBM wouldn't have fielded this as part of their filings unless they were laying the groundwork
for going after each and every party involved with this charade for it's worth. I'm hoping so
myself- it'd be nice to see all the people responsible for this whole lame affair being pilloried
for their efforts.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This would fall under something prohibited by the Antitrust Acts. Since they have been found to
be an effective monopoly under those acts in a Findings of Fact from a prior Antitrust Trial, with
really no change in the circumstances, they're at violating the law again. (Small surprise that-
with nothing but slaps on the wrist, they really don't have any incentive to NOT do it again and
again, with more flagrant violations of the law being done over time.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
New Vocabulary Word: "Allegedly."
It's a good word. I highly recommend it.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Up until this filing, we only had peripheral snippets that showed this was the case.
Enough for someone mounting a case to have enough traction to start discovery, but not
enough to carry the case forward. Now, we've got testimony with some backing behind it
that indicates that MS IS as guilty as a cat caught in a goldfish bowl of trying to
knife a competitor in the back by funding a nonexistent lawsuit through intermediaries
to do their dirty work.
If IBM has any more, it's not going to be pretty for Baystar, RCB, or Microsoft.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I hope when SCO loses IBM, Novell, and others can pierce the corporate veil and go after the SCOmbags personally. Then the SCOmbags will make a deal and testify against Microsoft to protect their own skin.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Micro$oft shouldn't be broken up, they should be barred worldwide from doing any kind of business, all of their assetts should be liquidated and used to fund all open source projects. After that all of their trade secrets and patents need to be placed in the public domain.
register.com timing out from Europe?
Even though it is illegal people do commit perjury. In my case against Star Marketing Group they lied under oath in a declaraction. Mason Stedman claimed that it was the only officer in the company and since he was out of town, he did not receive the summons and complaint. If you look at company's web page shows that that is a lie.
In another case, I had a spammer claim that there is no "affiliate program", both their own corporate web page made reference to it.
Even if caught, these liars will not likely be jailed for it -- such a shame.
Fight Spammers!
They need their corporate charter pulled, the execs thrown in jail, their buildings and office equipment and computers auctioned off, their precious "IP" made public property, and to hell with the stockholders, let them eat it raw for backing that mob in criminal acts and not giving a crap who they screwed over or how. Microsoft is just a pure rank evil corporation.
They make the enron bozos look like petty street muggers.
Please do not speculate the outcome of a pending trial by statingthe it has been proven. It has not yet been done so and the judge and or jury might disagree with your possible erroneous statement that it has been proven.
I am not a layer but I recon that a sly outfit like SCO could use statements like this as possibly influincing a jury and give grounds for a possible appeal against a verdict that goes against them.
I know that in UK Law making statements in any media like this could put you in contempt of court. The TV, Radio and Press are very careful not to make statement presuming the possible guilt of a person or company before a verdict has been reached.
Nah,
They were Daleks. All they could say was
"Exterminate Exterminate..."
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
I'm not a Microsoft lover by any means (jilted OS/2 user here - last Windows version used was "for Workgroups", cancelled all my Mastercards when they announced a business relationship with M$ (shttp:// IIRC)) but I can certainly applaud Microsoft for the things that it does right, or its efforts in that direction.
Microsoft, generally, hates the software patent landscape [see Eolas] and anything they do to suck the money out of these "IP" patent holding companies and their lawyer leeches is a-ok by me. "Yeah, give them 20 mil for their doomed case - we got ya back" and then turn around and screw them over. If Microsoft's goal is to sink all these non-productive litigious get-rich-quick fools, I say hip-hip!
Sadly, the lawyers (enablers) never lose.
The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit has done quite a bit for open source.
The SCO lawsuit has validated open source and the GPL. We don't have to worry about that problem any more.
You've hit the nail on the head.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...but IBM wouldn't have fielded this unless they had some proof of Goldfarb's claims to back
them up in court. This means there's very definitely more lurking, waiting to be fielded.
As to when, your guess is as good as mine. But, this is definitely NOT a spurious thing (IBM's
lawyers subpoenaed everyone touching this SCO thing, looking for dirty hands outside of SCO.
It wouldn't surprise me if there's more to come over the next 4-6 months... One case at a time though-
only the desperate or a fool wages a war on more than one front if they can help it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
That evidence was one man talking about "discussions" -- I'm biased against Microsoft, but I want to see more evidence. Money exchanging hands. A relative given a highly-paid job. Something.
At no cost to MS, they fooled baystar into wasting a lot of money on a stupid investment, and all the money went to hassle MS enemy #1.
My 7 year old daughter promises a lollypop to her younger brother if he will go and kick someone she is mad at. When he comes to collect, she tells him "No".
Well done Microsoft, and shame on Baystar for falling for such a cheap plot.
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
You mean a sworn affidavit in a court of law, at the risk of perjury, in front of a judge and council is not good enough for you.
evil is as evil does
One of the many reasons SCOG changed names was to cause confusion in the market as well as the court room and it worked based on what you posted (with the exception of your last sentence). The SCO Group != Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). The name changed after they filed as can be seen from http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/IBM/complaint3.06.03. html when they filed as Caldera. The whole idea was to cause as much confusion as possible making their claims seem more plausible. Just keep in mind, the SCO Group exists only for litigation from start to finish.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Its Sunday Evening where the poster comes from so he/she has probably had a couple of bevvies inside him/her so a small typo can be forgiven.
The spelling of some of our American cousing leaves much to be desired at times.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
So somewhere some invester claims that a manager at MS made some vaguely worded gaurantee. And of course this is accepted as gospel on slashdot because it bashes MS.
Now, I am an engineer, not a businessman by trade, but this just seems horribly unlikely to me. Do businessmen really accept vaugely worded oral promises on a regular basis? Sorry, this is even less concrete than SCO's case. I get the impression that a lot of people who read this are making a big fuss because they want to find a smoking gun that incriminates MS. Shouldnt there be at least a little skepticism? There is a crapton of money in the tech industry and people make wild accusations all the time because they want a piece of it. There is the possibility that this guy is telling the truth, but dont believe him just because you want to slam MS.
Sometimes I think that if I threw up some post on my blog tomorrow about how Bill Gates has a kiddie porn dungeon in that super expensive house of his with no evidence to back up my claim it would get linked to on slashdot and regarded as absolute truth.
Because of the general anti-corporate, far left attitude of the website, this story is not the "bombshell" that it should be.
Slashdot has frittered away valuable street cred by acting as a mouthpiece for all things liberal. Now this story becomes "just another rant from the angry left".
Nothing to see here, move along....
Actually, I think Microsoft is scared of everyone.
Well, yeah. I mean, they're standing atop the marketshare hill -- they have to be scared of everyone. There's no place to go but down; it's not a question of winning anymore, it's a question of hanging on to the top spot for as long as they can. History has shown that such situations don't last forever, but they're going to try and play it for all it's worth. (As anyone in their situation would.) To survive, Microsoft has to constantly be looking for the new competitor that's going to unseat them.
IBM, Kodak, Standard Oil, U.S. Steel -- all of these companies were once the untouchable masters of their respective domains, but all fell from grace eventually. Microsoft knows that it too shall fail eventually, but it's going to prolong it as best it can, and that means they have to be paranoid of everyone and everything that could possibly, at any point in the future, harm their position.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
... is anyone still going to buy an XBox 360?
C'mon guys, you crucified Sony for less.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I am truly shocked.
Although, I did think that is was already established that Microsoft was behind it.
Can IBM sue Microsoft for slander? Paying a company to dirty the name of their product through litigation, as they *knew* it was false.
eh eh eh?
Kill Bill.
please type the word in this image: stones
verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
Microsoft issued an relatively unusual press release in mid-September 2003, announcing that Emerson was leaving to "spend more time with his family". The announcement got published in the New York Times, and Emerson's supposed end date was August 31, 2003. He would consult on "complicated transactions".
Emerson's position as "SVP Corporate Development" reporting directly to Steve Ballmer was abolished on his resignation, and the Corp Development division demoted to supervision by the CFO. After a period, Brian Roberts, Emerson's long time deputy was promoted to run the division. Robert's left Microsoft in 2005 to work with Emerson at his new position at Evercore Partners. Roberts and Emerson have been associated since running telecomunications portfolio in the dot-com days at the investment bank Lazard-Freres.
Emerson made political contributions to the Bush re-election campaign in mid-September 2003, and listed his occupation as Microsoft Executive, so his August 2003 resignation is a bit atmospheric or conveniently backdated.
Emerson had been given a 12 Million dollar loan as a signing bonus to MSFT in 2000. A mid-September 2003 proxy noted that he was paying the loan back with vested stock options. The options were underwater, but had a positive Black-Scholes valuation based on their future potential to be profitable. Emerson used this positive valuation to retire the loan on a cash free basis.
Emerson had little public trace through most of 2004, and then acquired a position at Evercore Partners, a mergers and acquisitions investment advisor. Evercore has since IPO'd, and is traded as EVR.
Emerson and a Baystar principal Andrew Farkas were both listed as advisors/investors in a NYC Venture, I-Hatch Partners. A Farkas relative (Younger brother, I believe) is the fund executive. This is good evidence that the Baystar and Emerson relationship had alternative means of communication, and unreturned phone calls from MSFT headquarters should be considered a convenient fiction.
Emerson and deputy Roberts also show up in July 2003 SEC documents as the signatory for the Microsoft investment in IMMR (Immersion) that had patent suits against Sony and MSFT. The MSFT stock investment in IMMR ended the Microsoft portion of the suit (for game controllers) while ensuring the suit against arch-rival Sony would continue. This "investment in a strategic lawsuit" has echoes in the Baystar Pipe deal occuring just months later. We can conclude that the IMMR and SCOX investments are implementations of a similar strategic idea. Sources:1 19312503051346/ddef14a.htm 0 3E6DB103AF933A1575AC0A9659C8B63 t y=SEATTLE&st=WA&;last=EMerson&first=RICHARD
http://news.com.com/2100-1022_3-5079594.html
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/789019/000
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=95
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?ci
"Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." - traditional proverb
"Pay peanuts, get monkeys, catch fleas." - neotraditional proverb
"Trust Microsoft, get screwed." - Baystar, SCO, IBM...
--
make install -not war
>> it's not a EULA. It's simply a contract
The FSF begs to differ on the latter.
Prof Eben Moglen is the Free Software Foundation's attorney, and of course is strongly involved in framing the GPL's legal content. And in the detailed article "The GPL Is a License, not a Contract", Prof Moglen says very clearly that:
" The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor."
It really doesn't get much clearer than that. Read the whole article though for Pamela Jones' typically detailed explanation. Even some lawyers on Slashdot seem to be getting that point wrong.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Say that about Ken Lay's testimony at his trial.
IF you are going to be pedantic learn to use a spell checker/learn to speeeeel.
I think every user, developer, and customer of Linux, Free Software, and Open Source is owed financial compensation for all these tears of legal harrassment by Microsoft. Also the suppression of our free speech rights in Internet forums by the paid army of Microsoft Astroturfers. When's the last time we could enjoy free speech without having to shout over the constant white noise of MS flamage?
High above GNU-ville sittle aloft,
Behind a curtain, lurked Bill Microsoft.
SCO only moved like a puppet on string,
To the whimsy of Bill, and Microsoft ching.
Bill stayed hidden and stolen from view,
To appear far removed from the hulabaloo.
But all the GNUs knew from historical past,
That Bill had a hand straight up SCOs ass.
By flexing his fingers, and wiggling his hand,
The edict came down, "Destroy GNU land!"
Through speech and rhetoric, lip service and FUD,
Bill through SCO would drag GNU through the mud.
"The code is stolen and not bona-fide!"
Proclaimed talking-head, Darrell McBride
"The license is fake, a black, viral plague!"
Cried head number 2, Chris Sontag
But way down below in the din of it all,
GNU-ville and others brought proof to the brawl.
"Your talking of Code public, and free"
"Released in the year of '73"
"Your claims are wrong, and your proof is weak"
"show us more code, your case is bleak"
"You are inflating your stock with all your FUD"
"To simply sell your worthless crud"
This the reply that SCO did not like,
They turned to Bill for a monetary spike.
Bill went to the bank - Canada, RB and C,
to invest some cash into the melee.
Still not enough, a telephone call,
He made to Baystar Capital.
"I need some cash, I'll rub your feet"
"If you deliver to SCO, this capital treat"
So then it was done, SCO had some cash,
To spread their FUD like an insipid rash.
yapping and blathering to the whims of Bill,
SCO rained more FUD in the town of GNU-ville.
But the GNUs mouths watered, for they knew at least,
They would all get a slice, ala SCO, roast beast.
That must've been some conversation!
I'd like to know what was up with the Royal Bank of Canada in all this too.
They invested $30M in Baystar.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33529.html
To bastardize an old saying about lawyers ...
"99% of what Microsoft does seems to be giving the other 1% a bad reputation."
Hope you also posted this on Groklaw...
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
If MS has shown an interest in your product there are two likely options, one they buy you, or two they compete with you.
Since MS is the 800lb gorilla, going into competition with them is likely to be a losing stratagem. That leaves the "take the cash and run" option, which at least may result in some money heading your way... Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. There are a few companies whose exec's have made money that way.
Disclaimer, I'm not even anti-Windows as such, but still:
1. The model capitalism was based on was #1 not #2. The ideal (19th century-style) capitalism idea is basically that of a market of commodities: all products are interchangeable, and a perfectly informed market decides which one offers the best bang/buck.
It's not just an ideological point of view. The role capitalism was supposed to serve was that of, well, basically the ultimate optimizer. Think, sort of, genetic algorithms. If the market needs X at all, there'll be tens or hundreds of competing entities trying to offer the best X at the best price possible. Each will make their own X1 variation at the best price they can manage, and the market will decide on the variant which fits the demand the best.
That was the strength of the western block over, say, the Soviet Union. That in the time the USSR planners decided always too late on what to produce and how much and in what way, the capitalist market could try a hundred ways and let the market choose the best one. That unless deciding "ok, we'll produce Volgas" which may be right or wrong, you can let a hundred people try a hundred different things, and end up with the Ford T1 model which was better and cheaper for most people.
Letting a corporation compete on how "toxic" they can be instead of competing on raw product merits is subverting that whole idea. It's, in fact, no better than the Soviet system. There too how "toxic" and subversive one could be (e.g., having high placed friends in the Party, or _being_ a party official who can send the opponents to Siberia) was most often what decided which model got produced and what got scrapped. We already know how well that went.
2. I wonder and worry about MS. (Or their managers, before someone accuses me of anthropomorphising... human managers.) Their whole history and practices shows that they're just not playing the same game we expect everyone else to play. And which, again, is the whole foundation of capitalism. Again and again, they seem more interested in just killing as many opponents as they can, as opposed to offering a better product or whatever.
Let me explain that better: it seems not even being toxic for survival reasons, but just being toxic for the hell of killing someone. Regardless of whether it's even a survival advantage or not. MS will even gladly take a huge loss (e.g., their XBox strategy) just to try to put someone else out of business. It's stuff that isn't even a survival advantage (making a loss never is), but just the sheer fun of killing someone just because they can.
Basically it's like watching a football game, where one of the players isn't even as much interested in playing the same game or even winning the game, as such, but just in kneecapping as many opponents as he can. Even winning (or losing) is merely a side-effect of killing or crippling everyone in the other team, rather than the goal and purpose of the exercise.
3. And I seriously worry about -- and am disgusted of -- the current US government's bending over to that kind of behaviour. Yes, that being toxic instead of competitive is an option for MS, is pretty obvious. But why tolerate such an entity? Not only it's condoning a major subversion of the very idea of capitalism, but... for _what_? MS is actually contributing very little to the US economy.
Microsoft is employing a grand total of 71,553 employees in 102 countries and regions as of July 2006. Total. Most of them actually support and sales/marketting and management people, and probably more than half off-shore anyway. Even at the scale of IT jobs, it's a spit in the bucket. Out of _millions_ of IT jobs, even after the exodus to India, we're talking maybe half a percent. At the scale of the economy, a helluva lot less.
So, while, yes, a government's priority should be keeping unemployment in check, MS is a spit in the bucket in that aspect. The effect of MS upon unemployment in the US is negligi
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You would sell your soul for a 9 pin serial plug? Some people have odd fetishes I suppose. Here - have some old computer mice and keep your distance.
Hey, the evil karma is finally going to bite Microsoft in the ASS! Way back in the late 80s I wrote a sound driver for windows, this is back when windows with multimedia extensions was a dog, popping noises, and long delays. Well it was due to windows being too damn slow at servicing interrupts so I wrote a sound driver that would take care of all that. An NDA was drawn up between myself and Microsoft. I was going to get a wopping 1 1/2 cents per copy of Windows sold. Well... that never came to be, I got screwed. From then on I promoted alternate operating systems. Before Linux came to be I was creating Information Servers with Datatel boards and
OS/2. And then Linux, I've been using Linux ever since. When Microsoft screwed me I never thought of suing, I figured what goes around comes around. From the sound of this latest newsbyte, judgement time is a comming.
'That evidence was one man talking about "discussions"'
And by itself perhaps there would be skepticism, on the other hand, considering the MO of the convicted criminal management at Microsoft this is business as usual. To take the edge off your own doubt perhaps you should read the US DOJ Finding of Facts from the antitrust case against Microsoft, then you will see how Goldfarb's description of the questionable activities fits Microsoft's methods and tactics.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Scum bags through and through. Reason enough to not do business with these clowns in any way.
burnin
I have a major problem preventing me from being a lawyer, dealing with liars. I can't stand liars.
Maybe that is why I am a software engineer, I am used to the truth.
Fight Spammers!
Say that about Ken Lay's testimony at his trial.
At the risk of being modded off-topic, let me answer this. Ken Lay did not have anything to loose by committing perjury. He was already in deep shit. If he did not commit perjury, he will have to plead guilty to the charges laid - which amounts to the same. I don't think these two are similar.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
Am I the only one who thinks the SCO Logo looks like a giant Mickey Mouse head on a red globe?
... did Billy, "spiz or sollowz?"
... spitz!
Billy
I guess that the taste of Darl McBride's cum was a bit sour.
Toodles.
I'm a lawyer and the fact that you not only read but actually *believe* some paralegal's interpretation of complicated case law (the jumbo posted on Groklaw) is fundamentally shocking to me. Please please please make better decisions in the rest of your life - I would hate to be the person who has a fender bender with the person who actually believes what they read on Groklaw. The depth of misunderstanding and just simple disinformation on Groklaw is astounding. I practice in the Valley, work for a VC firm, and I laugh every time someone 'references' Groklaw to me as some sort of legal voice I should respect. Comical, just comical.
Microsoft reneging on their guarantees? Impossible!
Signed,
Gary Chow, Former President, Stac Electronics
It's simple really. They are ripping code from Linux. This is DOS all over again. And the IBM/SCO debacle is just the iciing on the cake, a smoke screen really. When someone cuts into the center of Vista code (and they eventually will), you will find all kinds of code which M$ will say they own and then let the lawsuits begin. M$ has the money, they have the lawyers, and they have the license from SCO to show that they own it and every other improvement that was "created" in Vista. Yes, yes, the GPL says they have to share the code so it can be rolled back into the kernal and other open source projects. But make no mistake, M$ will say they own whatever code they wrote and then the contest of who owns Linux will really begin. I got 5 bucks on this. heheheheh. Anyone wanna take me up on this bet? (rhetorical bet)
btw, even those of us who aren't conspiracy nuts knew that M$ had to have a hand in this somewhere. I just don't like where that hand might end up.
I am not a lawyer, and if I were involved in a fender-bender, the last lawyer I'd want is some shyster from a VC firm. I'd want a lawyer with integrity, instead, Mr. Astroturf, P.A. If you went to Groklaw to RTFA, you would have found a link to IBM's memo in pdf format, not "just" a paralegal's (or "just" anyone else's interpretations), Mr Anonymous Arrogant Shyster. Some of those who post on Groklaw are lawyers, only honest ones.
If you went, and didn't see the link to the pdf of IBM's memo, you are incompetent. If you went and found it and checked it out, then you are mis-representing IBM's memo as Pamela Jones' interpretation of the case, which is false (who wants a liar for a lawyer? VCs, I guess.) If you didn't go to check, then you are not only arrogant, but grossly negligent and your VC clients deserve you. So are you (a) incompetent, (b) dishonest, or (c) negligent? Please go volunteer your services to MS and SCO or maybe get into patent law.
By the way, isn't VC treatable with penicillin?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
It's simple really. They are ripping code from Linux. This is DOS all over again. And the IBM/SCO debacle is just the iciing on the cake, a smoke screen really. When someone cuts into the center of Vista code (and they eventually will), you will find all kinds of code which M$ will say they own and then let the lawsuits begin. M$ has the money, they have the lawyers, and they have the license from SCO to show that they own it and every other improvement that was "created" in Vista. Yes, yes, the GPL says they have to share the code so it can be rolled back into the kernal and other open source projects. But make no mistake, M$ will say they own whatever code they wrote and then the contest of who owns Linux will really begin. I got 5 bucks on this. heheheheh. Anyone wanna take me up on this bet? (rhetorical bet) btw, even those of us who aren't conspiracy nuts knew that M$ had to have a hand in this somewhere. I just don't like where that hand might end up.
You're thinking VD. VC were the guys in black pajamas shooting at my classmates back in The Day.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Wow, someone who read the article and realizes it's just another set of suppositions without any proof whatsoever...
Some of those who post on Groklaw are lawyers, only honest ones.
What exactly are the odds that somehow this one website has accumulated all the honest lawyers? I they may not be zero, but something tells me they're not one either. Newsflash fanboy: the crew at groklaw also have an agenda, it just happens to coincide with yours at this moment in time. That's the most you can ever hope to get from a lawyer, and don't be surprised if the very same "honest" lawyers you're defending some day have an agenda that's diametrically opposite to yours. Lawyers are mercenaries, their loyalty is only to their current client. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.
I think you mean VD . . .
So... I am not a lawyer... but my wife a paralegal... thinks they could be in deep trouble for that... any lawyers out there that have an opinion?
... considering the MO of the convicted criminal management at Microsoft this is business as usual.
Sorry, what criminal conviction is there against management at Microsoft? I've missed this somewhere along the line.
This article opens with points against an individual at Microsoft but beyond those four, relatively short, paragraphs there's nothing more than the accusations against an individual. It srikes me as a case of somebody trying to make a name for themself and overstepping a boundary, being asked to leave and the external party (Goldfarb) being treated like a pariah by those trying to clean up. Yes, they were concealing potentially illegal behaviour but potentially they were remedying it not initiating it.
Unless there is more evidence produced on this, conclusions shouldn't be drawn on guilt even if we dislike (or hate in some cases) Microsoft.
Groklaw has a name on its posts (even names, some of whom are lawyers). Anonymous Cowards have something to hide - by definition. Your post, sir, is sickening, just sickening - for its innate dishonesty if for no other reason. Being a lawyer is no definition of respectability in itself - rather the reverse. It is the morality and responsability of the person exercising the profession which makes for respectability .... or utter contemptibility.
It uplifts the ego to hide on the side-lines and laugh at the work of others - but this only applies to certain type of ego. You've no obligation to read Groklaw if you don't want to, and I'd be obliged if you'd keep your ideas regarding the decisions I may make in my life as quiet as your obviously over-inflated opinion of yourself will allow.
This said, sir, please, please allow me to wish you a really good day
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
Yet another case of an ms apologist getting modded up.
.. may have accepted some bogus handwaving .. or simply might have been too intimidated to push."
"It's not at all impossible that someone star-strucked
"Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment.... Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO."
That's an agreement between Larry Goldfarb, managing general partner at BayStar and Richard Emerson, senior VP of corporate development at Microsoft and not some bogus irresponsible star-strucked handwaverer.
Re:Suspicions Confirmed (Score:4, Informative)
davecb5620@gmail.com
There's nothing in the linked article to indicate that Microsoft has actually done anything. What we have is someone about to get nailed for frivilous lawsuits shifting the blame to someone who doesn't even work at Microsoft anymore (was fired) with no actual evidence. I'm sorry but a guy losing a frivilous lawsuit is not exactly the most credible person in the world, and all we have is his statement.
> Some of those who post on Groklaw are lawyers, only honest ones.
You mean *both* of them post on Groklaw? What are the odds?
Now it's all nice of groklaw to interpret the first paragraph for us, but I have to wonder about the naivete of believing the legal statement given in the first paragraph. It's like being accused of manipulating Oil supply by "investing" in oil "prices", paying double or triple what the oil is "really worth", then claiming you did it because someone from "OPEC Corp" said their company would back the investment.
So a shiek from "OPEC Corp", claiming to represent the leadership of OPEC, says they will guarantee your investment in 20 billion, triple-priced barrels. "Here, let's shake on it" he says. Now are you going to believe him? While OPEC Corp would never be caught investing in such market manipulation, they will guarantee your investment if you invest your money. Sure...I'd believe that, wouldn't you?
Do we really believe anyone in "OPEC Corp's" leadership would really support such a plan? Or that Baystar would then simply invest large sums of money on the "say-so" of some dime-a-dozen "VP" from Microsoft with no signed agreement?
Then you made your investment and the sheik disappeared? Uh huh... Abducted by aliens, eh?...
And "we" believe MS would really back such a plan?
Hey! Did I tell you about a bridge you can invest in...as a V.P. in Acme Bridge Corp (ABC), let me tell you about our investment guarantee plan....
;^)
You misunderstand the purpose of this discussion. Evidence is not needed, an accusation is all that is required. You must be new here so let me sum it up for you...Open Souce Good!... Microsoft Bad! No variation is wanted or accepted. There are sites designed for open minded discussion, this is not one of them.
What planet are you from?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
Really you should at least read some of the filings in the case against Microsoft yourself then you too will see what a pack of morally challenged scheming criminals they are.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
That's a civil action not a criminal conviction. Can you cite actual criminal convictions? Or are you just venting on Microsoft? That doesn't help the cause.
"That's a civil action not a criminal conviction."
:P
That's funny, okay so technically speaking they are just convicts. Better?
So now we can add money laundering as well as monopolistic practices to MS's rap sheet. Nice!
There are certainly lots of honest lawyers with no interest in any of this. And, no I don't jolly myself along about lawyers' interests. The truth is, when you need a lawyer, you need a lawyer. I have needed a lawyer myself: e.g. two failed marriages. Point me to a VC-lawyer web site with better coverage of the SCO farce & I'll tell you what I think--if you give a sh*t. Meanwhile, Groklaw has put up a link to Goldfarb's deposition here although there is not yet as link to the pdf version. Interesting, particularly Godfarb's assertion that Boies assured him that IBM would settle quickly. If I recall correctly, Boies was at one time going to accept a big pile of SCO stock in lieu of, or in addition to his fee. Oops.
Finally, the remark about penecillin, was a cheap shot that I shouldn't have taken. I owe the original poster an apology, you, if that was you. Post in [angry] haste, repent at leisure. I hate having to apologize, but what is right is right.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
There's actually MORE to the story as innitially thought. Groklaw has some cracking new stuff: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200610091 52706664
is they know their core market (windows/office) is at risk* and in any case it is no longer really a growth market (once your a virtual monopoly your sales are capped by the overall size of the market). They have been desperately trying to diversify but often not doing a very good job of it (partly because they can't do anything that jeapodises windows/office).
*yes its slow but it will crumble eventually, when some of the european governments go through with there anti MS plans then EU corps will surely start to follow at least for the government facing parts of thier staff team. Linux is ready for the desktop of the corporate peon and MS knows it.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
One guy accuses another who doesn't even work there any more. Yeah right.