Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Microsoft Proven to Have Financed SCO's Bogus Anti-Linux Lawsuits

  • Subject: Re: Microsoft Proven to Have Financed SCO's Bogus Anti-Linux Lawsuits
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:01:34 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / ISBE, Manchester University / ITS / Netscape / MCC
  • References: <1160345876.364959.125800@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1160377041.160637.280770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Monday 09 October 2006 07:57 \__

> newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> IBM's Memo in Support of its Motion for SJ on SCO's Interference Claims
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | BayStar, Goldfarb testifies, dumped SCO because its stock price,
>> | financial performance and the viability of its UNIX products
>> | all appeared to be in decline, and he "was also very concerned
>> | about SCO's high cash burn rate." Pure financial animals get
>> | nervous when that happens. But the kicker was he began to
>> | realize that Microsoft, whose senior VP of corporate
>> | development and strategy had promised that Microsoft would in
>> | some way guarantee the SCO investment, started showing signs
>> | it might not do that after all:
>> |
>> |     "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."
>> |
>> | Let me interrupt my narrative to quickly ask, Why ever would
>> | Microsoft guarantee BayStar's investment in SCO? What would be
>> | the business purpose here? What would Microsoft's benefit or
>> | payback be? What were they hoping for as the return on the
>> | investment? And why didn't they wish to invest directly? Pray
>> | do explain. Joke. Joke. Anyhow, after the investment was
>> | made, Goldfarb says, "Microsoft stopped returning my phone
>> | calls and emails, and to the best of my knowledge, Mr.
>> | Emerson was fired from Microsoft."
>> |
> Ah, there you go again, posting Microsoft news that obviously has no
> relation to Linux!  (Or so countless trolls constantly complain.)
> Perhaps IBM has a case against Microsoft for this.

I sure hope so. About 3 months ago they requested (through the courtroom) a
Microsoft subpoena. What I dread is the thought of IBM suing Microsoft for
money (or settling coupons _once again_, as they did last year).

How does one get a company jailed? A few executives handcuffed would be not a
sufficiently effective punishment because they are replaceable. I just
really, really hope that public becomes aware of this and begins boycotting
Microsoft, even as a matter of principle. Letting this animal be out in the
wild means that more victims are yet to be targetted and become easy prey,
especially now that the animal struggles for its survival while it has sharp
teeth and a big belly (deep pockets).

Looking at the big(ger) picture, the legal system is either broken or flaws
if it permits corruption of this kind go unnoticed and for companies to just
say "oops" and carry on. That's what Microsoft has done with Netscape,
Real... and soon it could be Firefox. First fight using merits (if any are a
possibility). Failing that, move to FUD. Failing that, move to outmuscling
the rival by prebundling, fraud, or whatever seems like the best trick /du
jour/. That latter is Microsoft's mastery.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon
http://Schestowitz.com  |  GNU is Not UNIX  |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy      pts/6                         Sun Oct  8 21:08 - 21:17  (00:09)    
      http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index