Microsoft's "hit" on LInux

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    Looks like there is now evidence in a court of law that Microsoft funded the
    attempt by Baystar to do a hit on Linux by finding SCO's legal activities
    with respect to software licensing.

    Microsoft-funded Baystar got annoyed when SCO refused to ONLY litigate and
    wanted to also continue its Unix business.

    It's all here:

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39283921,00.htm

    ..............

    Microsoft played a key role in encouraging SCO's ongoing legal campaign
    around the Linux operating system vendors and users, according to court
    papers filed recently.

    An executive at BayStar called Larry Goldfarb stated in a court declaration
    that Microsoft's vice president of corporate development and strategy,
    Richard Emerson, had offered to underwrite BayStar's own investment in SCO.

    "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," claimed Goldfarb, according to legal Web site
    Groklaw.

    BayStar invested $20m in SCO in 2003, after SCO had launched its case in
    which it alleges that Linux violates Unix intellectual property. SCO sued
    Linux user AutoZone, Unix licensee DaimlerChrysler and Linux advocate IBM.
    It is also embroiled in a court battle with Novell, which claims that it
    never sold its Unix copyright to SCO.

    The investment from BayStar and a $30m injection from the Royal Bank of
    Canada boosted SCO's funds from $6m to $60m. This helped the company
    finance its various legal actions.

    BayStar's relationship with SCO floundered, though. It wanted SCO to focus
    totally on litigation, while SCO insisted on continuing its Unix business.
    By mid-2004 the two companies had parted.

    .....rest is on the web site..........
     
    steve, Oct 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. steve

    thingy Guest

    It would "appear" more like there was a errant exec at MS. Looks like
    the wayward chap "promised" Baystar support he should not have promised
    and MS's legal team realizing he had over stepped the mark, got him
    sacked....

    Such a promise IMHO would have led MS open to counter suits by IBM etc
    after SCO lost....ie a malicious damaging of IBM's reputation was
    actively funded by MS.....so after SCO goes bankrupt where is IBM to go
    seeking damages and restoration? answer, whatever company bankrolled
    SCO.....such a strong link back to MS would have been enough.....to see
    MS liable for Millions and a huge damage to its reputation....anti-trust....

    Now this does not mean Beloved Bill and eSteemed Steve would not have
    wanted to....just means their legal council was awake enough to reign
    them in and close the door by sacking the exec long before it came to
    light....

    Now the interesting bit that could re-open that door would be that
    Exec's version.....but I bet they paid him off very well and got him
    well employed elsewhere so he has no reason to ever share his version....

    You know how it goes, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest".....

    regards

    Thing


    steve wrote:
    > Looks like there is now evidence in a court of law that Microsoft funded the
    > attempt by Baystar to do a hit on Linux by finding SCO's legal activities
    > with respect to software licensing.
    >
    > Microsoft-funded Baystar got annoyed when SCO refused to ONLY litigate and
    > wanted to also continue its Unix business.
    >
    > It's all here:
    >
    > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39283921,00.htm
    >
    > .............
    >
    > Microsoft played a key role in encouraging SCO's ongoing legal campaign
    > around the Linux operating system vendors and users, according to court
    > papers filed recently.
    >
    > An executive at BayStar called Larry Goldfarb stated in a court declaration
    > that Microsoft's vice president of corporate development and strategy,
    > Richard Emerson, had offered to underwrite BayStar's own investment in SCO.
    >
    > "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," claimed Goldfarb, according to legal Web site
    > Groklaw.
    >
    > BayStar invested $20m in SCO in 2003, after SCO had launched its case in
    > which it alleges that Linux violates Unix intellectual property. SCO sued
    > Linux user AutoZone, Unix licensee DaimlerChrysler and Linux advocate IBM.
    > It is also embroiled in a court battle with Novell, which claims that it
    > never sold its Unix copyright to SCO.
    >
    > The investment from BayStar and a $30m injection from the Royal Bank of
    > Canada boosted SCO's funds from $6m to $60m. This helped the company
    > finance its various legal actions.
    >
    > BayStar's relationship with SCO floundered, though. It wanted SCO to focus
    > totally on litigation, while SCO insisted on continuing its Unix business.
    > By mid-2004 the two companies had parted.
    >
    > ....rest is on the web site..........
     
    thingy, Oct 11, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    MaHogany Guest

    On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:15:58 +1300, thingy wrote:

    >
    > It would "appear" more like there was a errant exec at MS. Looks like
    > the wayward chap "promised" Baystar support he should not have promised
    > and MS's legal team realizing he had over stepped the mark, got him
    > sacked....


    What you need to consider, IMHO, is M$'s history when it comes to how it
    handles it's staff. MS is on record of having lied to its staff.

    Why would M$ be on record for telling outright lies to it's staff and yet
    not mislead an employee into doing something only to get them sacked?


    > Such a promise IMHO would have led MS open to counter suits by IBM etc
    > after SCO lost....ie a malicious damaging of IBM's reputation was
    > actively funded by MS.....so after SCO goes bankrupt where is IBM to go
    > seeking damages and restoration? answer, whatever company bankrolled
    > SCO.....such a strong link back to MS would have been enough.....to see
    > MS liable for Millions and a huge damage to its reputation....anti-trust....
    >
    > Now this does not mean Beloved Bill and eSteemed Steve would not have
    > wanted to....just means their legal council was awake enough to reign
    > them in and close the door by sacking the exec long before it came to
    > light....
    >
    > Now the interesting bit that could re-open that door would be that
    > Exec's version.....but I bet they paid him off very well and got him
    > well employed elsewhere so he has no reason to ever share his version....
    >
    > You know how it goes, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest".....


    Indeed!


    Ma Hogany

    --
    "The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
    fries with that, if prompted."
     
    MaHogany, Oct 11, 2006
    #3
  4. steve

    thingy Guest

    MaHogany wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:15:58 +1300, thingy wrote:
    >
    >> It would "appear" more like there was a errant exec at MS. Looks like
    >> the wayward chap "promised" Baystar support he should not have promised
    >> and MS's legal team realizing he had over stepped the mark, got him
    >> sacked....

    >
    > What you need to consider, IMHO, is M$'s history when it comes to how it
    > handles it's staff. MS is on record of having lied to its staff.
    >
    > Why would M$ be on record for telling outright lies to it's staff and yet
    > not mislead an employee into doing something only to get them sacked?


    Think of it this way...IBM is into Millions lost in Lawyers fees
    defending itself, so is Novell and is Redhat (though maybe only 100's of
    Thousands so far)....,the damage to their reputation and business. Now
    my limited understanding of law and things like Libel and slander is it
    can be applied to malicious use of the US court system to harass and
    abuse an innocent party....

    So, given the poor state of SCOs case; the fact that a party is not to
    use discovery as a fishing expedition to look for info to press a case
    (ie they should have a decent case and evidence before discovery
    commences) the Judge's comments on lack of significant or even any
    evidence, the public comments by Darl and the SCO PR machine.....all
    damaging IBM....Novell, RH, Linus, Linux developers, ex-SCO customers.

    I suspect that when SCOs case collapses IBM will have a good cause to
    get its costs (at least) back from SCO from defending itself.....(if IBM
    can prove malicious misuse of the court system maybe even triple damages)

    So SCO will be bankrupt....so where is IBM to go? SCO's backers that's
    where.....potentially Baystar and MS and Sun to name but three....

    An example would be in the UK back in the early 90's a
    Conservative/National MP sued a 3rd party claiming they had liabled him
    with untruths....basically used the court system to bully and attempt to
    shut the party up, but the party successfully defended themselves and
    proved it was the truth. The judge in the case then in describing the
    false claim for liable as malicous awarded court and defense costs to
    that party....but of course the MP was bankrupt BUT he had gone to some
    Right wing mates to get them to bank roll him in the case.....the judge
    held these bankrollers liable for the costs and they had to pay up....

    Now I believe similar is possible with the US court system.

    So if I was MS and I had not sacked that Exec I would be deeply
    worried.....because they could be into damages worth 10's of Millions.....

    Now the fun bit is a deposition of that Exec, if he sings, or admits
    enough of Senior People wanted him to do what he did, MS could still
    find itself in dire straights....now for me if there was enough of a
    case based on what that exec said and I was IBM, I'd drag MS into
    court....even if they won little the damage to MS would be huge......

    The aftermath of the SCO V IBM case could actually be even more
    interesting....

    As I said,

    >> You know how it goes, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest".....

    >
    > Indeed!
    >
    >
    > Ma Hogany
    >


    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Oct 12, 2006
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Au79

    Microsoft hit by another unpatched IE flaw

    Au79, Apr 7, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    375
  2. Au79

    Linux a BIG hit in India

    Au79, Apr 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    321
  3. Au79

    Linux a BIG hit in India

    Au79, Apr 9, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    379
  4. Au79

    Microsoft hit by more patching problems

    Au79, Apr 23, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    407
  5. Au79
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    457
    Maximum Dog
    Feb 27, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page