This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Legal

Analysis: Microsoft, SCO have a lot more explaining to do

By Chris Preimesberger on March 08, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Whether or not Microsoft is secretly bankrolling the SCO Group for more than $100 million to attack Linux and the general open source community through questionable intellectual property lawsuits, NewsForge has learned that U.S. federal regulators may have begun investigating the relationship between the two companies -- and may also be looking closely at a number of other people and companies connected to them through stock or other business transactions.

Although the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) never officially makes public when it investigates an organization, an SEC staff member told NewsForge that complaints and tips about suspected under-the-table funding, stock-kiting, illegal insider trading, and money-laundering involving Microsoft or Microsoft-connected individuals to the financially struggling SCO Group have been coming into the agency with regularity since last August. The SEC "does not take such complaints lightly," the source said.

Most of the complaints have been registered by telephone and by using the SEC's Web site. "We've gotten a lot of them," the SEC source said. An SEC investigation would look into alleged backtracking and charting fund transfers, suspicious timing of certain stock transactions, possible instances of stock-kiting and insider trading, and other potentially serious infractions.

Other individuals may be far ahead of the SEC in this investigation. Several open source advocates have been conducting their own, private investigations of SCO's financial dealings for many months.

If and when this all gets into court and becomes public record one day, the following allegations may be among those included in the litigation:

  • That Microsoft used Lindon, Utah-based SCO Group as a puppet to create havoc in the courts against the open source software movement, which is the most serious current challenge to the Redmond, Wash., company's longtime stranglehold on the personal computer software industry;
  • That Microsoft apparently paid for influence among key software industry analysts;
  • That insider trading was common among heavily invested people and companies;
  • That conflicts of interest occurred, in particular one involving a stockbroker/analyst who appeared on a cable television show and gave a positive recommendation to SCO stock while he owned a substantial number of SCO shares and stood to profit personally from an increase in their value.
  • That money was laundered involving two international banks and several key outside business people with close ties to both Microsoft and SCO Group.

And this might not be the half of it. A story like this has numerous threads; much more information is bound to come out as time goes by.

In case you haven't seen the IT news the past few days, here's a little background:

This story began last summer, intensified last October when SCO received a $50 million investment from BayStar Capital, a venture capital firm in California, and moved into the fever-pitch realm with the release last Wednesday of "Halloween X," the latest in a series of documents published on OpenSource.org by Open Source Initiative founder Eric S. Raymond about Microsoft's campaign against Linux.

"Halloween X" includes an October 12, 2003, email memo reputedly leaked from an internal SCO Group source to Raymond that outlines in detail the Microsoft-SCO Group financial deal and speculates about other future deals. Prior to the $50 million infusion of cash from the BayStar transaction, SCO Group was in a cash crisis, despite the fact that its stock price had been slowly climbing for months. Its primary market, Unix products and services, has been down for several months, and without additional income, the company might well have been teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

The email memo from SCO Group consultant Mike Anderer (CEO of S2 Group) to SCO executive Chris Sontag says, in part, "Microsoft will have brought in $86 million for us including Baystar," and that the "next deal we should be able to get from $16-20 (million)" for SCO's bank accounts. SCO Group is currently suing IBM for $5 billion, contending that Big Blue has illegally copied Unix code fragments into its Linux products. SCO Group also is suing Novell, DaimlerChrysler, and AutoZone in separate actions and says it intends to file more lawsuits in the future against companies that it believes violate its intellectual property licenses. SCO, in turn, is being sued by Red Hat, who calls SCO's claims of copyright infringement "unfair and deceptive actions."

SCO's response

The response from both SCO Group and Microsoft has been very interesting, to say the least. Neither one has debunked the email's information outright. The key words used in the responses are "misunderstanding" (SCO) and "not accurate" (Microsoft) -- about the softest terms you can use in a denial.

SCO Group did not question the authenticity of the leaked e-mail, saying instead that the message is a "misunderstanding."

"We believe the e-mail was simply a misunderstanding of the facts by an outside consultant who was working on a specific unrelated project to the BayStar transaction, and he was told at the time of his misunderstanding," said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell. "Contrary to the speculation of Eric Raymond, Microsoft did not orchestrate or participate in the BayStar transaction."

This "misunderstanding" would have been on the part of a consultant who had worked with SCO for four months (and had worked with SCO staff members previously), and who used specific names, numbers, and dates in the memo. Not only that, in this contract between S2 and SCO filed in January 2004, S2 "... agrees to indemnify, defend and hold SCO harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, claims, demand, suits, actions and/or judgments, and all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, based upon, or arising out of damage to property or injury (including death) to any person or persons caused by any act or omission of IC [the "Independent Contractor," i.e. S2 - Ed] or any of IC's agents, employees, contractors or representatives or sustained in connection with the performance of Services hereunder or based upon or arising from the failure by IC to carry out its obligations hereunder or from any unauthorized disclosure of all or part of the Confidential Information by IC or any of IC's agents, employees, contractors or representatives."

Microsoft's response

Waggener Edstrom's Mark Martin, a spokesman for Microsoft, said: "The allegations in the posting are not accurate. Microsoft has purchased a license to SCO's intellectual property, to ensure interoperability and legal indemnification for our customers. The details of this agreement have been widely reported and this is the only financial relationship Microsoft has with SCO. In addition, Microsoft has no direct or indirect financial relationship with BayStar."

Microsoft did not have to have a relationship with BayStar. According to the allegations, other people, connected to Microsoft, SCO, and the two international banks mentioned above, apparently took care of that fund transfer.

Microsoft and SCO Group have a lot more explaining to do. SCO cannot just admit that "Halloween X" is legitimate, then simply write it off as a misunderstanding.

NewsForge and others are beginning to follow the money right now. We'll let you know what we find as we connect the dots.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Analysis: Microsoft, SCO have a lot more explaining to do

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Anyone talked to Anderer?

Posted by: raindog on March 09, 2004 12:08 AM
The next logical step seems to be trying to track down Mike Anderer and get him to go on the record with exactly what his "understanding" was, since the memo gives every indication of being written by someone intimately involved with the financing.

Not that I think he'd be of much use, unless SCO has since dumped him, but it's the obvious next thing to do.

#

Re:Anyone talked to Anderer?

Posted by: CJ Preimesberger on March 09, 2004 01:29 AM
Oh, we are trying to find him, believe me.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

Re:Anyone talked to Anderer?

Posted by: CJ Preimesberger on March 09, 2004 02:29 AM
Anderer's home phone in Holiday, Utah, is now "non-published, as requested by the customer," said the information operator this morning. And the phone at S2 on Broadway in SLC has been off the hook (busy signal) for hours today.


Hmmmm.

<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cp

#

Re:Anyone talked to Anderer?

Posted by: foofoobar on March 09, 2004 08:06 AM
Is this the same Mike Anderer that used to work at IBM??? (mandere@ibm.net) Look for Mike Anderer in the following link : http://www.godstreetwine.com/mailinglist/finewine<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> archive/finewine/finewine.log9607c.txt

#

Re:Anyone talked to Anderer?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 10, 2004 02:40 AM
If the basis for your statement that Anderer "used to work at IBM" is the domain of ibm.net, don't be so sure. There were many people with that domain name who were customers of the IBM network services and not employees of, or contractors to, IBM. (The reason I use the past tense is I'm not sure whether that domain name is still being used.)

In any event, IBM employee e-mail addresses have domain names in the following form - us.ibm.com, or uk.ibm.com, not ibm.net.

#

Re:Anyone talked to Anderer?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:49 AM
Mike is probably too embarrassed to show his face. The copy of the memo I read looks like the dude didnít know where the spell checker button was and had grammar to match.

#

Yahoo!

Posted by: SarsSmarz on March 09, 2004 12:25 AM
I am so proud being Canadian, and thus involved in the laundry scheme. We could become the MS Laundry Hub of the world! My fellow laundry workers say we're going after non-MS DRM next.

#

Re:Yahoo!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 01:33 AM
Considering that almost all the companies involved in this scandal are American, you have a long way to go to match our level of executive corruption, but keep up the good work, canuck!

#

Re:Yahoo!

Posted by: SarsSmarz on March 09, 2004 02:00 AM
Yeah, yeah. You've got Martha. But we have:

Canada - Slush Capital of the World!

(take that, you pesky Finlanders!)

#

Re:Slush?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:09 AM
What's that? Something from TO ?

#

Re:Yahoo!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 01:58 AM
One of the biggest investors in SCO is RBC, the Royal Bank of Canada.

#

It's About Time!

Posted by: Jessie Baller on March 09, 2004 12:38 AM
This has dragged on long enough. It's about time the U.S. government did something with this. Let's just hope that their efforts become productive and result in arrests and jail time for all those involved in this fia[sco].

#

Re:It's About Time!

Posted by: SphericalCrusher on March 09, 2004 11:18 AM
Exactly. I, as with the rest of the world, would enjoy it a lot because we can just get back to using our Linux without hearing some stupid shit-fuck company complain about it hurting the economy.


Look out Microsoft. Your little "funding SCO" incident is only going to be the blood to the shark for the DOJ. They are coming after your ass.

#

good

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 03:00 AM
I sure hope the SEC is investigating this whole mess.

Something weird is going on and I hope they get to bottom of this so the truth will come out.

fsck off Microsoft.

#

ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 03:19 AM
Didn't this whole thing start with even bad math regarding the total sum of the money passed around?

I love how the linux camp regurgitates their own badly-researched news as real news - that's if one considers newsforge to be real news.

Yah, I don't expect SCO to come forward with any clarifications. The linux 'Community' (cf 'mob') hasn't been too receptive of a single damned thing SCO has ever done. What the hell kinda cause do they have to explain themselves to the likes of us? We've been terrible.

No, I don't expect a clarification. *I* wouldn't clarify myself pointlessly to some hating rabble, anyway. I'd just hope to get the business part of it all settled (Look up Project Monterey in your Linux SCO-haters playbook) and move on with the business that remains.

SCO could have a case, here, but we'll never know. I don't even think they can get anyone to impartially hear whatever facts remain in the original case, what with all the pitchforks and torches.

Odd that yesterday's ogre with far too much money to spend on commercials and astroturfed grassroots movements is quiet - far from painting sidewalks - and everyone hates SCO. I'm wondering if the 1 billion spent on linux wasn't all spent on turf. We all know it only went to ads anyway, but maybe this year's ads were instead just one ad and a bunch of underground movements.

Mr Raymond, I don't think you cheque's in the mail. Please get back to respectable pursuits: RobLimo's got the fact-light scoops and Mr Stallman's covered the baseless rants that no one can follow.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 03:50 AM
Well, chucklehead, the linux community (mob, to you) WAS very receptive to SCO until SCO tried to claim ownership of all unix code and linux. If you actually follow what has been going on (NOT just reading SCO press releases) you'd see that. That just makes you a troll, or magnificently stupid. Or willfully ignorant, I guess.
My bet is Troll. And stupid. And SCO employed.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 03:56 AM
Hi Darl - Hey, maybe IBM sponsors Newsforge too! That's it, yeah - SCO's cases are not really being proven to be based on misinformation and outright lies put out by their management it is all a giant conspiricy. That is why they keep failing to show the code they claim is theirs, and time their rosey press releases to coincide with having to release financial data showing they are sinking fast.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: scmackay on March 09, 2004 03:59 AM
I have just one thing to say to you...

Why don't you wonder over to to Groklaw and read the Project Monterey Agreement before you open your mouth. (That is if you can read)

http://www.groklaw.net

The only reason SCO is hated is because they lie. Every time they open there mouths, they lie. There whole reason for being is to extort money they cant make themselves from honest, hardworking, generous developers and users who will not buy there unstable, insecure crap software.

Get a life Darl.

#

where have you been?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 04:08 AM
The bad math was that the original figure was $11 million from microsoft, now it looks to be much larger.

The original case with IBM seems to be hanging on whether SCO can claim copyright to a dozen header files -- (a previous court case found header files to be "statements of fact" and therefore not copyrightable)

The autozone case has in question whether it is possible to switch a company from SCO unix to Linux in 3 or 4 years without a hitch and without using SCO libraries and the vast resources available through IBM, when others have switched from Solaris to Linux(the same kind of change with just about as many issues) in half the time with no hitches.

PS. go read the court stuff and the testimony of the participants, not the press releases

PPS. a very old book once said

    a) do not answer a fool according to his foolishness least you become like him

    b) answer a fool according to his foolishness least he become concieted

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 04:45 AM

The news is not in ESR's flawed interpreation of the memo, the news is in the memo itself. That's what started this thing. Not ESR's misinterpretation. Neither Microsoft nor SCO denied the autenticity of the memo. The meo is real. Microsft funneled money into SCO. That is the news, my respected friend.

#

I was going to respond with a long, detailed post

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 04:45 AM
but then I realized, I was playing a game of facts, and the original poster was just trolling for the sake of trolling.

It mentions that ESR's bad math, but I have to admit, when I read the email the first time, I didn't catch his mistake. The grammer was that bad and I can't really blame ESR for goofing it.

But that's the only fact that's presented. The rest of it is baseless accusations.

So I've said it before, and will say it again...

If you make accusations, then be ready to prove it. I can show many many many many examples of where SCO is wrong wrong wrong. And only a few with the Linux community was wrong.

But don't worry, your precious SCO is being pulled into the light. And whether or not SCO is ultimatly found to be right or wrong, they will still have to live with all the lying and mischaracterisation they have commited and caught doing so.

So banter away, for we know that you are wrong.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 04:53 AM
None of what you said makes any sense. You're obviously trolling here.
But I'll go ahead and refute you anyway...

From the <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html" TITLE="opensource.org">leaked email</a opensource.org>... "I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar." This isn't about double counting or anything. This email is really inflammatory.

And I love the stuff where they refute this person as not having any knowledge of what's really happening. In the beginning of his email, he's talking about his percentages for brokering these deals. So, you have to believe that he's asking for his commission for something he has no knowledge of. Uh huh.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 07:08 AM
How many shares of SCO do you own? Don't worry, if (when) SCO goes bankrupt, you'll have plenty of grounds to sue SCO's executives.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 07:43 AM
We got this news from your mom

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 08:14 AM
Are you all so caught up emotionally you didn't even read and think about his post? As far as the mob mentality goes, you've proven him right! As an outside observer, all I can do is watch in amazement. Someone posts (in a some-what trollish way) that the linux community has become a mob, and what do you do? Respond in a mob like manner. Reading his post, he brings up good points. The case has really become a circus on both sides. The most vocal on each side just look foolish at this point.

Meanwhile the rest of the world really doesn't care that much about the case. In psychology there is something called the "false consenus effect". It basically means there is a tendency to over estimate the extent which others share your beliefs. The entire world doesn't share your opinions on the SCO case. By responding in the fashion you have, you definatly alienate people.

You may definatly think reponding in the manner which you do is perfectly rational, but to an impartial observer, it sure does look like a mob to me.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:33 AM
I think you are the original poster, hardly impartial.
Outrage at criminal behaviour on the part of a company hardly constitutes "mob" mentality. People are outraged at child abuse, but that hardly means they are driven by a "mob" mentality.
It would appear that people are not motivated in this matter by any mass hysteria, but are rather motivated by the fear of the loss of their freedoms, the loss of linux, and the triumph of a repulsive legal gambit by a corporation headed by rats. They are motivated by the understanding you don't seem to have been able to come to that if this tactic of SCO's succeeds then the age of profit by lawsuit and stifling the competion is upon us.

You fathead. Whoops. That just slipped out.
Fathead.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 11:06 AM
And what proof do you have to say I'm the original poster? Absolutly none. In fact, I am NOT the original poster. I do think you owe me an apology making an accusation you have no grounds to make.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:20 PM
If both you and the original poser are Anonymous Reader, what proof is needed. A person can think you are if they want to and what proof can you offer that you are not?

As a matter of fact, what proof can you offer that I am not you as well. Perhaps it was you who accused yourself of being the original poster. Do you haave any proof that you are not?

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 10, 2004 01:21 AM
And what proof do you have you are not the anonymous poster? Do you haave any proof that you are not?

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 11:16 AM
Most of the blame for the "circus" has to be laid at SCO's doorstep. If SCO didn't continually make threats and accusations, then most of its critics would soon get bored and stop posting messages on the net. At any rate, the people who really don't care about the SCO case won't notice and won't be alienated by whatever Linux or SCO supporters do.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:26 PM
Please - give me a break.

It is Microsoft that is the mob here. who is paying politicians for protection and who has a bank of lawyers on staff all the time.

Sounds like mob to me.

This SEC investigation gives the common joe some sort of hope there is justice in the world and there is hope for software coders out there not to be outlawed.

We just want to code because we like doing it and are not in it for the money. Some of us are doctors, nurses, and musicians who just have a nack of coding and enjoy it and like to see it being used by companies and home users alike.

Can we afford a bank of lawyers - no.

So now SCO wants to bring us into the litigation when we have no resources to fight. This should be a litigation between SCO and IBM and SCO has no place to go after end users. If this isn't mob mentality I don't know what is.

So please look in the mirror before accusing other people of having a mob mentality.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:49 AM

SCO could have a case, here, but we'll never know. I don't even think they can get anyone to impartially hear whatever facts remain in the original case, what with all the pitchforks and torches.

I am not sure why you would say this. The IBM-SCO case is proceeding in court. A seemingly fair minded and impartial judge is in the process of implementing discovery. She hasn't allowed any pitchforks or torches into the courtroom so far as I can tell. Therefore, it is difficult to take your allegation seriously.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 10:29 AM
Ieniemieniemoe which anti-FLOSS zealot is it? Enderle? DiDio? McBride? Whatever... DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:20 PM
Yeah, someone has probably already said this, which shows that I really am too lazy to go and read all the replies this post has gotten, but even if it's been said before it deserves to be said again:

You're not very bright, are you?

Please keep in mind that I say this with a defining apathy which has developed after having been convinced that all internet forums really are the truest cesspools of humanity. So there really is no emotion here. Just my thoughts.

Anyways, thank you for your wonderfully insightful (if clearly biased, as in one-sided, as in prejudiced, as in participating in your own little "cycle of hate") post.

For those of us interested in real data that can be backed up with real sources, <A HREF="http://www.groklaw.net/" TITLE="groklaw.net">Growlaw</a groklaw.net> can be found by clicking on the shiny blue text.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:21 PM
This is obviously a Microsoft troll.

Do not feed the trolls.

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 05:16 PM
I've heard of it. People payed by microsoft to watch and act on public forums and newsgroups. So, iti is true, they realy exist.

                                                    DG

#

Re:ESR's bad facts continues the policy of hate

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 10, 2004 07:05 AM
Yes, I know this is a troll. But it is funny:

I don't use Linux.

I don't hate Microsoft (I don't love them either).

I do use Microsoft products every day.

But SCO has no case. And it doesn't make sense they could have kept going this long without serious help. Linux is a threat to Microsoft. Indirectly funding an attack on Linux wouldn't surprise me at all. And I've seen others who were against the Microsoft Justice Department case say the same thing. Business is often played very dirty indeed.

#

Please do not feed the troll

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 10, 2004 09:16 AM
<TT>+------------------+
| PLEASE DO NOT    |
| FEED THE TROLL.  |
| THANK YOU.       |
| - The Management |
+--------  --------+
    @   |  |  *
    (   |  |  (
--------------------</TT>

#

Depends on what the meaning ...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 04:24 AM
Depends on what the meaning of "has" is. Seen this trick before?

#

Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: stevenadavis on March 09, 2004 05:09 AM
I smell an investigation and obstruction of justice charges when the you-know-what hit's the fan and everyone denies everything.

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 06:30 AM
Not to mention charges of ANTITRUST and RACKETEERING.

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 06:54 AM
Comparing Martha and Bill is probably one of the most naive comparisons I've heard. To compare the influence of a woman who sells books and trinkets to house wives; to a man who heads one of the Poster children of Business/Political influence is ridiculous.

Bill will never see any more than a raised eyebrow from regulators as his small army of handlers would never let anything hit him personally.

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: flacco on March 09, 2004 08:15 AM
his small army of handlers would never let anything hit him personally.


the people with the whipped-cream pies seem to do OK.

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:39 PM
True true

goes to show you an idiot with a cream pie is more effective than the entire US DOJ at carrying out a plan

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:28 PM
How could Martha and Bill become cellmates? Wouldn't they be interned in different facilities due to their gender difference?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) (Please read "joke", as in "funny". Please do not read "troll", as in "bastidge".)

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 10:21 PM
Maybe she'll see to it that Bill gets a decent haircut.

#

Re:Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Posted by: Carlos on March 10, 2004 04:03 AM
Martha and Bill - cell mates?

Wouldn't that be "cruel and unusual" punisment for Martha?

Just wondering...

#

BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Leon Brooks on March 09, 2004 07:04 AM
Microsoft co-founder and second-largest stakeholder Paul Allen owns a company called Vulcan Capital - who are BayStar's biggest investor. Can you say "mind-meld"? (-:

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 08:32 AM
I've been wondering about this; the money trail leads pretty clearly back to Paul Allen and Vulcan Capital. BayStar is a major investor in SCO and Vulcan is a major investor in BayStar. Really, who else would pump $100 million into a penny stock like SCO?

If Paul Allen gets put on the hot seat and it looks like he almost certainly will, is he going to stool out his buddies when he sees Martha Stewart being dragged into prison? I sure would...

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:01 AM
"stool out" ha ha. Very appropriate. Ha ha.

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:27 AM
If Mr. Allen is no longer a part of Microsoft then isn't he free to invest his money (via Vulcan/BayStar) in any entity that he wants to invest in? The optics are not good but I am not sure if it is strictly illegal (I Am Not A Lawyer). Anyhow, I am sure the SEC will determine if there is any hanky-panky going on in these investment dealings.

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 11:42 AM
Allen still is a major stockholder in MS.

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 03:30 PM
I heard that a Microsoft shareholder was sent to prison for murder about two years ago. Seeings as how Microsoft is responsible for the actions of its shareholders, can we also accuse Microsoft of murder. I think the answer is yes.

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 04:16 PM
You don't get it do you?

Companies act on behalf of their stockholders. Of course if Mr. Allen has done anything illegal he should go to jail. But as a stockholder of Microsoft he a part of Microsoft - they are not unconnected.

#

Re:BayStar *IS* connected to Microsoft

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 16, 2004 09:54 AM
If the killing was done on behalf of Microsoft, then yes someone at Microsoft can indeed be accused of murder.

Them same goes for someone illegally funneling money to another company on behalf of a company.

OR

If a large stockholder with ties to a company (either through former working arrangements or even simply random friendship) manipulates the market on behalf of the company, can see himself AND others at the company have legal action taken against them. At least that has been the results in the past.

#

wanna bet?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 10:11 AM
how much you wanna bet, this gets lost in the courts and MS gets away scott-free as always?

#

Re:wanna bet?

Posted by: Paul H. Smith on March 09, 2004 02:13 PM


MacroSloth can only play the "lets drag out the suit until we can buy the legal system" game so many times and for so long. Remember, it took two attempts by the US government to break-up AT&T, but they finally managed it.



Don't worry, the criminals in Redmond will eventually fall.



The best thing we can do is to politely and consistently demand justice from the legal system and to make the rest of the public aware of the current extent of injustice. We can/should do this by talking with our politicians, politely posting in public forums (such as this one, but also on cnet, zdnet, etc. Always be accurate and don't rant) and by refusing to elect politicians that show evidence of being on the take and/or that express support or favor for MacroSloth or its products.

#

Re:wanna bet?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 02:33 PM
Okies. I'm just going to silently hope that M$'s business deals have been legit. Sure, I hate having to pay through the (insert name of orifice which sounds really painful here) for their software, and I think they could afford to improve security and quality, but if they've done no wrong then I'm not going to hold their "Mother of all companies" status against them. They are an excellent example of business if they've behaved.

Of course, if they've done wrong, I say "hang them from the highest tree, and shoot them just to make sure!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

#

Keep hoping...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 08:22 PM
Keep hoping, but is ain't true.

Through circumstances, I've been the witness of a government deal where the company pushing an all-MS solution was obviously 'bribed' to spread Open Source FUD.

And that contract wasn't even *that* high-profile. Makes you wonder how much of their soul they are willing to sell for 'killer deals' (like, say, City of Munchen)

#

Re:wanna bet?

Posted by: RJDohnert on March 10, 2004 05:25 AM
There is nothing to get away with, Microsoft has committed no wrong doing and despite what everybody else in this Advocacy site thinks, you have to have proof, conspiracy theories alone dont cut it.

#

The lights just came on....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 09, 2004 09:29 PM
The lights just came on and now the roaches are going to start scurrying. An SEC investigation will pretty much signal the end of this whole affair. All the "anonymous investors" will start covering their buts, everyone will start pointing fingers and SCO's funding will disappear.

SCO's lawyers will claim they were never privvy to the investment part of it and pull out fearing damage to their reputations and Darl's brother will be left in charge of the litigation. Smelling blood, IBM, RedHat and Daimler's legal sharks will move in for the kill. This will effectively put an end to the SCO IP racketeering.

I don't know how effective and SEC investigation will be in the long run, but it will certainly put an end to SCO.

#

Re:The lights just came on....

Posted by: SarsSmarz on March 09, 2004 10:44 PM
Somebody tell Darl that FBI stands for a Finnish Commie group. When the final end comes, and the agents yell out 'FBI', he'll pull out his gun....

#

Re:The lights just came on....

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 10, 2004 06:56 AM
Exactly. The SEC may not get Microsoft, but Microsoft is certainly going to be more careful now that this has gone public. I'd wondered how SCO had managed to keep going like this, and kept on hitting the big guys - it is a bit like Haiti declaring war on the U.S., Russia and China at the same time. It takes a lot of resources, and just didn't make sense.

#

Misunderstanding

Posted by: Sharper on March 10, 2004 10:46 AM
Yeah, it was all just a misunderstanding.... just like how SCO thought their code was in Linux... it was just a misunderstanding....

#

SCO's Suit: A Match Made in Redmond?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 12, 2004 09:39 PM
Just as the legal battle over Linux was about to become even more expensive, Microsoft suggested that a hedge fund invest in the outfit

For months, rumors have swirled around the Web alleging that Microsoft helped finance a small Utah software company's suit against IBM and two corporations that use Linux software. BusinessWeek has learned that Microsoft (MSFT ) did not put up the money, but did play matchmaker for SCO Group (SCOX ) and BayStar Capital, a San Francisco hedge fund which made a $50 million investment in SCO last October.

http://yahoo.businessweek.com/technology/content/<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> ar2004/tc20040311_8915_tc119.htm

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya