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...
...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
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.
Because they have no other choice once microsoft decides to look at them?
Your ad could be here!
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
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
Except for the fact that Goldfarb was under oath, meaning he goes to jail if he gets caught lying.
Oh, and the documentary evidence that already corroborated this story.
Mike Anderer (the person behind SCO's ludicrous claims that 'spectral analysis' showed that there was lots of Unix code in Linux) was drunk late one night and fired off a stroppy, and semi-literate, email to his paymasters complaining that HE was the person who convinced Microsoft to tell Baystar to pump SCO full of cash, and that he deserved a bonus for it. This email ended up on Eric S Raymond's desk, back when our Eric was the hotline for disgruntled Microsofties with incriminating internal documents to share.
Read all about it here
If only. You have to admit, outside of the benifits for *nix and friends, a public-domain of EVERY Microsoft product would be a kickass thing. Free and open MS office, all the dev tools, DirectX (practically falling out of the chair thinking of that being completely open), windows itself, and the ENTIRE WINDOWS DRIVER STACK. no more fighting with crappy vendors, ndiswrapper-like functionality for all!
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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
Is that so?
Nevertheless, if you lie in court you can certainly be done for perjury.
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
It's probably worth noting that individual traders in financial services companies often have a shocking degree of independence, to the point that the lack of oversight has to be classified as negligent on the part of the company. There are several centuries-old banks which have gone under due to the irresponsible trades by a single trader who managed to aquire star status on the inside, usually by getting away with a couple of extremely risky trades in the first place.
It's not at all impossible that someone star-strucked by Microsoft and tempted by the potential of getting a risk-free deal may have accepted some bogus handwaving that they don't want a paper trail or whatnot, or simply might have been too intimidated to push.
I'd like to know what was up with the Royal Bank of Canada in all this too.
They invested $30M in Baystar.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33529.html
I am not a lawyer, and if I were involved in a fender-bender, the last lawyer I'd want is some shyster from a VC firm. I'd want a lawyer with integrity, instead, Mr. Astroturf, P.A. If you went to Groklaw to RTFA, you would have found a link to IBM's memo in pdf format, not "just" a paralegal's (or "just" anyone else's interpretations), Mr Anonymous Arrogant Shyster. Some of those who post on Groklaw are lawyers, only honest ones.
If you went, and didn't see the link to the pdf of IBM's memo, you are incompetent. If you went and found it and checked it out, then you are mis-representing IBM's memo as Pamela Jones' interpretation of the case, which is false (who wants a liar for a lawyer? VCs, I guess.) If you didn't go to check, then you are not only arrogant, but grossly negligent and your VC clients deserve you. So are you (a) incompetent, (b) dishonest, or (c) negligent? Please go volunteer your services to MS and SCO or maybe get into patent law.
By the way, isn't VC treatable with penicillin?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
It's simple really. They are ripping code from Linux. This is DOS all over again. And the IBM/SCO debacle is just the iciing on the cake, a smoke screen really. When someone cuts into the center of Vista code (and they eventually will), you will find all kinds of code which M$ 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.