Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Microsoft Shown Involved with Baystar and SCO 269

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Shown Involved with Baystar and SCO

Comments Filter:
  • Surprise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mazin07 ( 999269 )
    I could almost stereotype Microsoft...
  • by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @01:41PM (#16355955)
    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...
  • 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.
  • by xs650 ( 741277 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @01:46PM (#16355991)
    Suspicions confirmed.

    I remember MS butt-boys flaming me for suggesting MS was financing this a long time ago.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KarmaMB84 ( 743001 )
      According to the article, Microsoft didn't fund anything. They allegedly (no contract, no proof?) guaranteed BayStar's investment in SCO and backed out. I find it hilarious that someone took a for-profit corporation at their word with no contract (if they had one, I'd imagine they'd sue for breach of contract).
      • by Aim Here ( 765712 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:42PM (#16356421)
        "According to the article, Microsoft didn't fund anything. "

        You mean the article doesn't say that Microsoft funded anything. At almost the same time as the Baystar deal, Microsoft and Sun both paid SCO large amounts, totalling something like $20-30 million between them, apparently for Unix licenses of some kind. Sun obviously needed a Unix license to put out Solaris. What Microsoft did with whatever it paid SCO $millions for, seems a tad unclear.

        (further to that, SCO's court filings in Utah relating to what these two amounts were for directly contradicted their own filings to the SEC, and now Novell has filed a motion for partial summary judgement claiming that 95% of this money is owed to them under the Asset Purchase Agreement that sold the Unix business to the Santa Cruz Operation. SCO only has about $10 million in cash and cash equivalents so if they win, it's game over for SCO).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by HiThere ( 15173 ) *
          It's not at all obvious that Sun needed a Unix license. It's never been shown that they actually licensed anything that they didn't already have clear rights to. Possibly they needed to do it in order to put out "OpenSolaris", but that hasn't been demonstrated.

          If someone wants to assert that Sun paid the money to finance SCO's lawsuit, I've neither seen nor heard of any specific evidence that contradicts that assertion. Of course, supporting that assertion is another matter. The only evidence to support
        • Well as far as the Unix "licensing" is concerned, Microsoft may have had to pay it in order to legally distribute their Services for Unix product. Those fees were supposed to be handed off to Novell but never were. I never did and still don't see their paying SCO those fees as funding of SCO's "we own Linux" claim.

          This is a new and separate development, unless it can be shown that when discussing this "guarantee" that Microsoft hinted that SCO should not hand over the large sum of money they paid in Unix ro
      • by killjoe ( 766577 )
        They arrainged for third parties to do the funding while assuring the third parties they would be re-imbursed. Then in truly MS fashion they stabbed their friends in the back.

        That's on top of directly funding SCO in the first place by buying a license from them.

        Good to see that the shills are not giving up though.
      • According to the article, Microsoft didn't fund anything.

        They provided a guarantee; that pretty much amounts to the same thing.

        I find it hilarious that someone took a for-profit corporation at their word with no contract

        Baystar likely has other business relationships with Microsoft; that's all the leverage Microsoft needs. That sort of thing happens all the time in business.
      • by hpa ( 7948 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @06:39PM (#16358163) Homepage
        According to the article, Microsoft didn't fund anything. They allegedly (no contract, no proof?) guaranteed BayStar's investment in SCO and backed out. I find it hilarious that someone took a for-profit corporation at their word with no contract (if they had one, I'd imagine they'd sue for breach of contract).

        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.

        • by rs232 ( 849320 ) on Monday October 09, 2006 @06:50AM (#16362089)
          Yet another case of an ms apologist getting modded up.

          "It's not at all impossible that someone star-strucked .. may have accepted some bogus handwaving .. or simply might have been too intimidated to push."

          "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)
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by alizard ( 107678 )
            Not necessarily. Why couldn't the poster be a Baystar apologist? People with money in Baystar who saw the WSJ piece have got to be getting nervous about the people in charge of their investments, and their PR firm either is sending astroturfers every place they can to 'defend' the management or should be fired for being as stupid as their clients. Making a multimillion dollar investment on the basis of a handshake deal with MICROSOFT?
  • by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @01:49PM (#16356003) Homepage Journal
    Wednesday, March 10, 2004 A plea for relief from Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics. []

    An open letter to antitrust, competition, consumer and trade practice monitoring agency officials worldwide.

    The role of trade practice and antitrust legislation is to provide the consumer with protection from abusive business practices and monopolies. In one of the most serous cases of monopolization in the information technology industry, the agencies charged with protecting the competitive process and the consumer have utterly failed to stem the offending corporation's anti-competitive practices.

    The Microsoft corporation has been under continuous investigation by antitrust policing agencies since 1989. Despite this scrutiny, the Microsoft corporation, using covert and overt anti-competitive business tactics, has maintained an unabated campaign against alternatives to Microsoft Windows operating system platforms and Microsoft applications.

    For years the Microsoft corporation has earned around 70% to 80% net profit from sales of its operating systems and application software. Only in areas like Thailand where Linux on the desktop has just begun to gain a foothold has Microsoft stated that it will release versions of its operating system platform and application software at a lower price to Original Equipment Manufactures (OEMs) and retail consumers than is available in the rest of the modern world. Consumers benefit where real competition exists.

    The world desktop operating system market remains predominantly monopolized by Microsoft. Over the last decade, Microsoft continued to lever its desktop platform monopoly to the point where it now holds a dominant position worldwide in the application office suite and web browser software markets. On its own, the current USA Department Of Justice (DOJ) settlement with the Microsoft corporation has failed to bring about any restoration of serous competition to the desktop operating system market. Microsoft continues to use similar anti-competitive business tactics in an attempt to monopolize the digital media player and the desktop services server markets. Competing vendors increasingly find that they can no longer compete with Microsoft if they limit themselves to only the traditional closed source model of software development.

    In the last six years information technology vendors have adopted techniques and resources from two existing movements geared toward the construction of software. The newer open source movement, represented by the non-profit Open Source Initiative (OSI) corporation, emphasizes the licensing of software in a manner which encourages its collaborative development in an open environment. The older free software movement, represented by the non-profit Free Software Foundation (FSF), focuses on the ethical issues surrounding the licensing of software. The free software movement emphasizes freedoms which are often taken for granted outside of the field of software: the freedom to use, study how something works, improve or adapt it and redistribute.

    The Free Software Foundation offers two software license schemes which are compatible with their own goals and those of the Open Source Initiative: The GNU General Public License (GPL) and the GNU Library General Public License (LGPL). Essentially, the GPL and LGPL licenses grant the recipient extra rights than that granted by copyright law. Both licenses insure that a contributer or distributer of a GPL or LGPL licensed work may not further impede downstream recipients the rights granted by the same license. Many developing software in an open source manner have realized that this benefit offered by the GPL and LGPL licenses outweigh any potential losses. The licensing also insures that no contributing or distributing vendor or group of vendors could potentially monopolize the market, insuring that real market competition dictates price. Just as the automotive indus

  • Surpise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <> on Sunday October 08, 2006 @01:49PM (#16356005) Homepage
    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!"
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I have to admit to being curious why any company would get involved in a business deal with Microsoft.

      Well, it's simple. Because they are the 800-pound gorilla. If you try to compete with them they will crush you immediately, but partnering with them can be very lucrative-- right up to the time when they decide that the niche you occupy is now "strategic" to them, and they bend you over and shove a pinecone up your ass.
    • Re:Surpise? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Marcos Eliziario ( 969923 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:04PM (#16356117) Homepage Journal
      Because they have no other choice once microsoft decides to look at them?
    • Re:Surpise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @04:02PM (#16357017)
      I frequently wonder the same thing and I have come to the following conclusion.

      Hunter S Thompson once described a politician running for the president to a moose during mating season. Normally moose are wily creatures. If you go hunting for them they are hard to spot, they are supremely aware of their environment, they can hear and smell you coming from miles away. Once a moose is in mating season though all that flies out the window. The second they hear or smell anything that even resembles a female moose they will charge towards her like... well a crazed moose!. They will crash throught the bush making all kinds of noise, they will leave chunks of their flesh on trees that they broke on the way. They just don't care, just want that female!.

      Just as a politician becomes like a crazed moose when running for the presidency a CEO becomes like a crazed mooose when somebody waves money in their face. Once they see that money mind blanks of all other thoughts. Their memory, ethics, morals, bodily functions, wife, children, the planet, shareholders, employees, everything else gets driven out and is replaced with the smell of that money.

      When MS waves money in front of a CEO the CEO stops thinking. He completely disregards the dozens of times MS has backstabbed it's partners and thinks to himself "it won't happen to me, those other CEOs were stupid, I am smart and handsome and I deserve this".

      I don't want to sound negative, it's only human (and mooose) nature. We would all probably act the same way if somebody waved enough money in our faces. Soon all thoughts of right, wrong, morality, history, and diligence would be replaced by the mansion in the hamptons or that DB9 we have been salivating about.
      • Hunter S Thompson once described a politician running for the president to a moose during mating season.

        That must've been some conversation!

      • or that DB9 we have been salivating about.

        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.

    • by Ucklak ( 755284 )
      You have to imagine that this incident has to be the last time something this big happens to any `partner`.
      This company has about 15 years of doing this and it's as predictable as wash, rinse, repeat.

      They don't have the respect in the industry as they should except for the fear aspect, not `Ooh, what new innovation is Microsoft coming out with?`
  • by SmoothTom ( 455688 ) <> on Sunday October 08, 2006 @01:53PM (#16356055) Homepage'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.

    • I suspect so... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:13PM (#16356197) Homepage
      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.
    • by no-body ( 127863 )
      definately helped Microsoft.

      nope - that gun went against the shooter. The attack consolidatet the Linux front and exposed the idiots. Almost all attempts of SCO to make money out of licensing failed and that attempt of their undertaking is going to blow them out of existence.

      Don't you think this will be a deterrent for anyone else to try something similar?

      That's a benefit right there.

      Let M$ continue on their track - they continue to annoy with their protectionism, so nobody likes them eventually. A nece

  • Duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jeffrey Baker ( 6191 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @01:54PM (#16356061)
    I knew they were cylons all along. Throw Microsoft out the airlock!

    Oh, Baystar? Nevermind.

  • Im not shocked that Microsoft was behind it, im shocked they didnt even try to hide it.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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 th
    • Anonymous Coward claiming to own a web hosting firm saying he picked a different OS because of SCO's claims against Linux.

      Chance of astroturfing: moderate to high.
  • by Foofoobar ( 318279 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:06PM (#16356135)
    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.
  • Prince iples (Score:5, Insightful)

    by headkase ( 533448 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:09PM (#16356163)
    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.
  • IS it illegal (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:10PM (#16356173)
    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.
    • Afraid so... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Svartalf ( 2997 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:19PM (#16356241) Homepage
      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.)
      • Easy, tiger. There's a lot more fact-finding to do before allegations of Microsoft backing the fiaSCO can stick. It may seem patently obvious to your average techie, but SCO went aheads with its claims on the grounds they were "perfectly obvious" as well.

        IBM's lawyers have done stellar work so far, but their power is more comparable to continental subduction than nuclear weaponry: slower, but ultimately vastly more powerful. By 2010 or so, this case'll get really good, and both MS and IBM will still b

        • ...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 wa
          • by Locutus ( 9039 )
            probably right since IIRC, it was over 2 years after MSFT was found guilty that MSFT paid IBM for damages to OS/2 business. The press never mentioned IBM going after MSFT for this but did mention the payment. I do wonder if IBM has to act on this sooner rather than later since the DOJ settlement is still in effect.

            Would love to see this blow up in MSFT's face. Their business practices are sickening.

  • 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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 c
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @02:58PM (#16356547) Homepage

    The SCO vs. IBM lawsuit has done quite a bit for open source.

    • SCO went up against the GPL, and had to back down. Nobody laughs at the GPL any more.
    • If someone has to really defend the GPL, it's hard to beat the team of Cravath, Swayne and Moore, the world's leading commercial law firm, funded by IBM, the world's biggest computer company.
    • Companies are no longer afraid of legal FUD about open source. That stopped several years ago. Right after SCO threatened big companies, including Goldman Sacks and Damlier-Chrysler, and were laughed off.

    The SCO lawsuit has validated open source and the GPL. We don't have to worry about that problem any more.

    • You are so wrong.
      The GPL does not defend the use of Code that you don't own in an OSS project.

      The Lawsuit has not validated OSS and the GPL. This is a very different thing all together.
      What SCO are alledging is that IBM (and others) used code/methods etc that they own ALL the rights to in Linux.
      The GPL does not protect you where you have used Code/Methods that you don't own and have therefore submitted without the approval of the copyright owner for use in an OSS Project.
      Please read the TONS of info
      • by HiThere ( 15173 ) *
        Some of the defenses that IBM has alleged depend upon the GPL.

        The GPL is not a main element in this case, but it is present and is used.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bcrowell ( 177657 )

      There was never any real doubt about the legal strength of the GPL. It's always been on much firmer ground than a lot of software licenses out there, because it's not a EULA. It's simply a contract that's offered to people, and if they decline the contract, they don't get the extra rights the contract offered them. EULAs are vulnerable to challenges on the ground that they're contracts of adhesion [], which are held to a higher legal standard in order to be enforceable.

      It's interesting to compare Linux with

      • >> 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. Rea
    • The SCO lawsuit has validated open source ...

      No, the widepsread usage and increase in usage of open source products for mission critical uses, the widespread adoption of the fundamentals of open source (availability, lock-in avidance, "freedom" of your own data). through open document and data storage policies, and the evolution and security of open source code validated open source.
  • by viking80 ( 697716 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @03:26PM (#16356799) Journal
    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.
  • by ElMiguel ( 117685 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @03:29PM (#16356819)
    I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
  • Nothing to see here, move along....
  • So after this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @04:19PM (#16357189) Homepage
    ... is anyone still going to buy an XBox 360?

    C'mon guys, you crucified Sony for less.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by goldspider ( 445116 )
      Yep. All those Slashdot readers who were inclined to buy an XBox will suddenly realize that Microsoft doesn't always operate above the bar.

      Welcome to Slashdot, Captain Obvious.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by erroneus ( 253617 )
      I might buy any machine that can be made to run a useful installation of Linux. :)
  • Rich Emerson Corpus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stats_for_all ( 907563 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @04:29PM (#16357279)
    Baystar's Larry Goldfarb and the Michael Anderer email both identify Rich Emerson as the key Microsoft contact. Goldfarb talks about at "guarantee or backstop" and Anderer spoke of Rich doing a continuing set of 3 to 4 million dollar infusions.

    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: [] 19312503051346/ddef14a.htm [] 3E6DB103AF933A1575AC0A9659C8B63 [] y=SEATTLE&st=WA&;last=EMerson&first=RICHARD []

  • "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...
  • Royal Bank of Canada (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hey ( 83763 ) on Sunday October 08, 2006 @07:21PM (#16358405) Journal
    I'd like to know what was up with the Royal Bank of Canada in all this too.
    They invested $30M in Baystar. []

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.