Microsoft Behind SCO Cash Investment? 395
An anonymous reader writes "eWEEK has got a story up suggesting Microsoft may be behind yesterday's $50mil cash investment in SCO. 'As an investment firm, BayStar leads, creates and participates in a number of PIPEs (Private Investments in Public Equity). Many of these deals involve investment money from other companies, including Microsoft.'"
Re:Everybody Should Have Invested In SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
You're right. You shouldn't use us for such advice. You should listen to us for advice on code issues. And based on this advice, we can tell you that SCO is full of crap.
I also respect your right to believe in salvation through corporation. It's just that most of us here do not.
Also, if you have a gargantuan trying to kill you---one who has a history of obliterating competition through less-than-licit means---such as Microsoft, you'd be paranoid, scared, and hateful too! After all, we're just humans.
Get out the tinfoil hats kids... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not happening. Get over it.
Biil Gates donation in evil way (Score:1, Interesting)
He donates 2 million to India to fight Aids
He donates 50 million to SCO to fight GPL in spreading fud.
Re:Love letter from Bill Gates to McBride (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously, W2K+3 is a decent product, everything else considered. I look forward to the day I can recommend putting out $1K+ towards Linux and not have strange stares.....
If MS was smart they'd transfer everything to SCO (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end MS will have "bought" mainstream acceptance of SCO's slander on Linux by artificially creating a return for the market investors.
Microsoft effectively OWNING Linux simply by progressively changing their name to SCO.
What's the last step? Simple:
Microsoft shelves Linux by making it illegal for anyone to run Linux.
That way MS can keep selling yearly Windows licenses.
Eventually the licenses will be by month.
After that, they'll be like cellular phone minutes.
If they succeed in taking control of the intellectual property that Linux represents, it'll be our worst nightmare: the average man will no longer be allowed to see how technology works, and it will cast us into a dark age.
Re:If MS was smart they'd transfer everything to S (Score:3, Interesting)
Your right. With MS controlling the Linux IP, the "common man" would lose access to Free/Open/NetBSD, ReactOS, OpenBe, GNU/HURD, FreeDos, and all the other countless free OSes out there that aren't Linux. It's all make sense to me now...
This comment could also have read:
Your right. MS will use this to kill Linux. How? Through changing their name from that of the biggest software house in the world to that of the smallest litigation house. Of course. It was so obvious, how could I have missed it? It's not like they'd just buy SCO or something. I mean, that'd be crazy talk. And that's assuming there is any merit to the lawsuit, and that it can prove anything more than that IBM broke a contract, if that.
By this time 2050, after all the lawsuits would be done, MS could easily own Linux. It all makes sense to me now.....
Re:Another biased Slashdot article (Score:4, Interesting)
They have no trouble pretending to believe that SCO's claims are true, even though every single bit of "evidence" turned out to be just hot air. But on the other hand they demand evidence of everything Microsoft does but refuses to admit.
Microsoft has already given SCO money publicly (for their "Unix"-license), then "an anonymous company" gave SCO money for their "Linux-antidote" license, wonder what company that was... - and now again an anonymous company pays SCO money through a fund in which Microsoft and Microsoft-related Vulcan are big players.
Why all this secrecy? Why doesn't SCO show their evidence? Why does every investor in SCO want to remain anonymous?
Questions "Overly Critical Guy" surely can't answer.
An interesting quote (The obvious) (Score:4, Interesting)
I found interesting was a quote from the aritcle [http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1356730,00.a sp]
by an un-named source:
Why wouldn't anyone see something as obvious as this?
At my school everyone (even the well informed) are saying 'Linux is in great trouble.' and 'Linux has an invalid license.'.
Thank you
GrimReality
2003-10-18 15:06:03 UTC (2003-10-18 11:06:03 EDT)
Re:Another biased Slashdot article (Score:3, Interesting)
How am I a Microsoft bootlicker? Because I correctly point out that people already speculated this in the last article, and the link in the summary is also more speculation? It's a completely pointless article.
They have no trouble pretending to believe that SCO's claims are true, even though every single bit of "evidence" turned out to be just hot air.
Who is "they?" I think SCO is full of shit. Yes, kid, the world is not black and white. I call them like I see it.
But on the other hand they demand evidence of everything Microsoft does but refuses to admit.
Heaven forbid I demand evidence of a claim. Right.
Microsoft has already given SCO money publicly (for their "Unix"-license), then "an anonymous company" gave SCO money for their "Linux-antidote" license, wonder what company that was...
Everyone on Slashdot pointed to HP.
- and now again an anonymous company pays SCO money through a fund in which Microsoft and Microsoft-related Vulcan are big players.
Among many. It wasn't an anonymous company, it was BayStar. They just happen to have dealings with Microsoft. The jump from that to "M$ IS FUNDING SCO!" is pretty vague.
Why all this secrecy? Why doesn't SCO show their evidence? Why does every investor in SCO want to remain anonymous?
Not that this has ANYTHING to do with the topic of this thread, but it's because SCO's revenue is based on litigation. They won't show their evidence because it is weak and baseless. This has been shown to be the case time after time.
Questions "Overly Critical Guy" surely can't answer.
I'm very pleased to have proven you flat wrong.
Re:Surprise? Hardly (Score:3, Interesting)
As I said, it depends on which party controls the White House (and thus the Department of Justice).
The Democrats would be happy to split a megacorp into heavily-regulated fragments. The Republicans wouldn't think of it.
The school-donation incident you are referring to happened in 2002, and is an example of the easy treatment Microsoft can expect to recieve IF Bush is re-elected.