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: Peter KÃhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:24:02 +0200
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: SMP
  • References: <1160345876.364959.125800@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1160377041.160637.280770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1676807.sio7BkTPJl@schestowitz.com> <87bqoldhzo.fsf@geemail.com>
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.4
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1165837
Hadron Quark wrote:

> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> __/ [ 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.
> Another post about windows and MS people. Off Topic.

Not at all. Posts about SCO and their MS-financers (who tried to quash linux
with the hilarious "stolen-IP" claims) are totally on-topic.

*You* as MS shill and astroturfer do not decide what would be on-topic here
or not
BTW, you practically *never* post on-topic as well. So how about just
shutting up, Hadron Quark?
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware

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