__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Monday 09 October 2006 07:40 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> 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! The well-known Microsoft 180. Kiss kiss, let's do a
>>| deal. Drop dead.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006100801442692
>>
>> Also see:
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| "There you have it. At least a third of SCO's entire market
>>| capitalization, and their entire current cash reserves, is payoffs
>>| funnelled from Microsoft. Their 10Qs reveal that every other line of
>>| cash inflow is statistical noise by comparison. The brave new
>>| SCO source business model is now clear: sue your customers, shill
>>| for Microsoft, kite your stock, and pray you stay out of jail."
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html
>>
>> For that alone, every Microsoft apologist should be ashamed of
>> him/herself.
>>
>
> This does illustrate and confirm the discussion which was had here when
> the whole SCO thing sprang up in the first place. It stank of
> Microsoft's business practices! This is one situation where legal
> redress ought to be the right answer for the lost sales to all those
> linux-based businesses, but until there's a trade association which is
> large enough to take on MS, Microsoft will continue to get away with
> this kind of behaviour. The whole thing was a re-run of the DRDOS
> approach, but intended to have even bigger teeth, in that it wasn't just
> aimed at linux, but it was aimed at the whole of open source.
I have some good news. This has just made the WSJ:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/finance/external/wsj/rss/SIG=11pei85us/*http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116036622059686577.html?mod=yahoo_hs&ru=yahoo
SCO Fight With IBM Over Linux May Highlight a Microsoft Role (at The
Wall Street Journal Online)
So now, you see, more people will be aware of the truth. PJ says it's nothing
that was unheard of. But, to quote from an E-mail, "What's news is that
there is a legal declaration from Goldfarb."
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Me too.
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 136 total, 1 running, 133 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
