Leaked Memo Says Microsoft Raised $86 million for SCO 1279
badzilla and numerous others wrote in with this: "Eric S. Raymond's Open Source site has a new Halloween memo. The Halloween X memo, which ESR says he received by email from an anonymous whistleblower inside SCO, appears to confirm Microsoft's alleged funding of SCO's anti-Linux initiative. And the actual dollar amounts are much larger than previously rumored!" The consultant is discussing his fee for bringing in this business, in the first few lines of the email.
I am a gud speller (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am a gud speller (Score:5, Interesting)
The tech exec knew where the spell checker was and he used it.
Re:This is a forgery. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is a forgery. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeess, Darl. When you wave your hands like that I realize these are not the droids I'm looking for.
Re:This is a forgery. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is a forgery. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is a forgery. (Score:5, Insightful)
You may be right, he might not have anything to do with SCO since June 2003...but since he's a consultant that brought MS into the SCO deal, which was BEFORE June 2003...he really doesn't have to have anything to do with SCO...this memo is mainly about his fees he would garner from the deal.
So sorry, spread your FUD somewhere else.
Re:He's as good as fired. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that'd be real smart. Then they have a hostile witness that's willing to testify that he/she got fired for distributing a document that SCO failed to provide to IBM or Red Hat or Novell for discovery.
Or, I suppose, they can fire the person, provide a copy to the various lawyers, possibly get an nice friendly SEC visit, and generally piss off everyone that might have been involved in pushing money at them.
The only thing they can safely do is deny the whole thing... Eric's lost enough credibility lately that it might actually fly. Heck, I wouldn't be too surprised if it's just someone trolling him... It's really about time.
c.
Can't... type... reply... (Score:5, Funny)
How can they get away with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
We should attach a motor to Adam Smith's grave. I'm guessing we're at about 100K RPM and climbing.
legislating stupidity (Score:5, Insightful)
He was talking about people riding snowmobiles on thin ice, ignoring warnings from the weatherman, and then dying from falling into freezing water.
But in this case, it would have to be the stupidity of the people who involve themselves in these meaningless pursuits of trying to immerse themselves in power.
It seems to me, anyway, that these guys corresponding are fascinated with power, not with anything else. Just power. Probably because they don't think they have enough money in their bank accounts.
Hopefully, they are in a minority - well, at least - this is not the way to be successful, and participating in this type of nonsense will only bring you and your family great misery - in the long run. Despite how successful these folks are in their own minds, their plan is just doomed to fail anyway - leak or no leak. Which means one thing... they are wasting their time, hence they are stupid. If they really cared about power and prestige and wealth, they wouldn't be wasting their time attacking Linux, which is innocent.
Making the World Safe for Democracy (Score:5, Funny)
Remember, we are talking about a man who is sexually intimidated [bbc.co.uk] by cement. He's probably been busy with the thousands of other statues that need clothing.
Wow, here's another once out of touch (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what? Your right. There was no conflict of interest and the fact that Enron was Bush's number one supporter and closest ally since he was governor only serves to clear Bush's name. Its obvious the administration was the clean one here and was just collaborating so closely so they could get more evidence on Enron. Yea, that's the ticket. They were going to turn their evidence to the DOJ but we just didn't give them enough time...
I'll never understand how someone can become so brainwashed that they can no longer distinguish right from wrong. I feel sorry for you.
Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
-- P.J. O'Rourke
Re:Uh, this DOJ is pretty effective. (Score:5, Insightful)
The case was assigned to a new judge, one with virtually zero antitrust experience, and she ordered settlement talks. During that time, the Administration changed over and the DOJ went from hardcore, aggressive demands for breakup to the loving kiss with tongue and extra saliva that Judge KK ultimately accepted.
"Stinking cesspool" ? Bull. The case was a slam-dunk and the new Administration threw in the towel on Microsoft when the ref's count had reached nine and three-quarters.
Re:Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so sure. According to ESR's statement: I cannot certify its authenticity, but I presume that IBM's, Red Hat's, Novell's, AutoZone's, and Daimler-Chryler's lawyers can subpoena the original.
So take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure ESR thinks it's authentic, but until someone can confirm its authenticity, don't believe it. In the end, it's better to be skeptical of surprising evidence than to instantly accept false claims.
Re:Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I'm skeptical alright, a few spelling mistakes yes, but this looks like it was written by a high school kid, not some MBA. I know educational standards are slipping, but *this* far?
I'm not skeptical at all based on the general sloppiness of this memo.
First, I've known plenty in management (and technical people, as well) whose spelling and grammar are horrendous. On top of that, few of them take the time to proofread their stuff.
Second, if this were some top notch guy, would he have to resort to this kind of sleazy behavior to make a decent living? No, he'd instead be a productive member of society.
Re:Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait, are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
And if you're not, exactly how would ESR go about doing that, hmm? If he knows the identity of whoever leaked it, he would have to reveal that in court. As far as I know, the source is anonymous. Is it possible to go to the investors and get the numbers on how much was contributed? Is that knowledge even public yet?
Re:Paging the DoJ... (Score:5, Funny)
He's for them. And against them. Oh, and he served in Vietnam.
It makes good sense for Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
That doesn't make it any less sneaky, underhanded and evil though.
Re:It makes good sense for Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if SCO were to win, THAT would be chaos indeed.
Re:It makes good sense for Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but the memo is 5 months old and as far as I can tell SCO hasn't gotten any more significant money from Microsoft (maybe, just maybe EV1 was somehow tied into MS "you pay SCO a licensing fee, we'll discout your W2K server licenses by the same amount" but that's a bit too much tin-foil-hat thinking). This is telling me MS probably knows their cash to SCO isn't getting the kind of 'returns' it was looking for and has cut off the supply.
The lawsuits kind of point in this direction as well. SCO had gone a year "threatning" to sue, without actually doing it. If their threats actually worked MS would probably still be funneling cash to them one way or another and there would be no need to spend any money actually suing someone. Assuming the e-mail is real it looks like the gravy train stopped and now they actually have to find money on their own.
It may not... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if anything will be done based on this leaked memo - I mean legally can anything be done?
Does this really matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Smoking gun? Well, maybe, if you're looking at a Microsoft violation of their anti-trust agreement, but it really has not bearing on the court cases.
"Rich" (Score:5, Informative)
Accounting error (Score:5, Funny)
The person responsible has been promoted to strategy and vision director.
Not an open source (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else see the irony in this?
Too good to be true (Score:5, Insightful)
I smell a setup.
Clearly you work for smarter people than I'm used (Score:5, Insightful)
They are.
It's a common communication form, and I've had people where I work now think that by deleting an e-mail from their inbox, they erase if from exitance.
One of the shadiest people I met in my entire life was having problems with his computer, so the (then) network admin emptied the trash on the desktop and in Outlook as part of his cleanup. Said sales jackass was standing over his shoulder demanding an explanation of everything he was doing, and refused to believe that three years of e-mail were still readily available after he hit the "DEL" key.
"I deleted them, they're gone."
After much explanation, including my input, he finally said "It doesn't matter if only geeks can get at them."
Total idiot.
And then there was the day he found out about the backups we were doing of the mail server, and the fact that the "deleted items" were kept in our archives for 30 days.
He was not a happy man.
BTW: This is the same guy who was later fired when one of his business partners called up threatening to show up with a baseball bat and take out kneecaps.
I'm not saying the MS execs are anywhere near that level, I'm just saying that just because YOU and I wouldn't put something that incriminating into a system that could be tracked and recovered, doesn't mean other people would.
Besides, they probably never suspected the document would be leaked.
So what happens now? (Score:5, Interesting)
My question then, is what happens now? Is it possible to use this as evidence in a lawsuit? Is it possible to get it confirmed by subpoenia-ing (?) the original, and if so how quick?
What exact crime has been committed here, if any, and what are the possible punishments, again if Microsoft are actually doing anything illegal.
It might be admissable.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The examples were "based on real cases."
A thief broke into a home and found a meth lab, and reported it to the police.
Another thief robbed a home, and later found what turned out to be murder evidence among his stollen goods. He reported it to the police.
In both cases, the evidence obtained by the thief was admitted into the trial.
I know this holds true in Michigan, and at the time the book stated that this was true in "Most US states." No clue about Federal court.
It was even mentioned that sometimes cops will make a deal with a known burglar to break in and retrieve evidence for them. So long as it never becomes known that the thief was asked or told to do this by the cops, then all is well. If it comes out that an officer of the law encouraged the activity, then the evidence will not be admissible. (The law course didn't tell us what would happen to a cop who encouraged such activity)
Microsoft's strategy could backfire (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Microsoft's efforts could backfire badly:
If people actually start to think (I said "if" okay?) and realize that it's proprietary software that got people into legal trouble:
If any of those firms would have used 100% open source software from the start neither would have been sued.
Isn't the whole SCO-mess the biggest pro-OSS argument imaginable?
If you look at SCO: First you buy software from a seemingly honest Unix-vendor, a couple of years later their management changes and you get sued for it! SCO proves how dangerous proprietary sofware can become.
Who does this? (Score:5, Funny)
The memo looks bogus (Score:5, Interesting)
But I don't buy the memo. There are just too many "carefully placed" typos. It looks like someone engineered typos to make it LOOK authentic, but something about it's just a bit too intentional and obvious looking.
The document is a troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
Either the author of the leaked document in question was in extreme haste, or he has lackluster grammar skills. The document is full of errors like: "The will help us a lot", "componients", "shoudl", "wjich", and so on. That isn't exactly the kind of document you send out when you are trying to convince people to do something shady. You'd think the author would at least had the initiative to spell check the thing before sending it out. Perhaps it should be taken with a grain of salt, and by that, I mean deer salt licks [saltlicks.co.uk].
Re:The document is a troll? (Score:5, Insightful)
That message reads about like all of them.
You're thinking too geeky. "I'm doing something subversive. Make it clean, neat, nice... blah blah." These people don't think like that. It's just another day at the fast paced office.
I'll hold my horses (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see the headers of the email. If the email originates from SCO then I believe it's authentic (judging from Received: lines rather than the From: field). If it's from a dial-up or public IP, I'm pretty sure it's fake. Of course, there's another posibility. OSI know who the whistleblower is, but they claim they don't so they can't be forced to reveal his identity in court. After all, they're the good guys.
They know no shame (Score:5, Funny)
Search Results on MSN (Score:5, Funny)
I'm skeptical of this e-mail. (Score:5, Insightful)
To temper my above statement, I do not expect quick e-mail notes to have much spit-and-polish, but spell checkers are a standard feature. Just push the little icon and accept the corrections.
Frankly, I find it hard to put a lot into this, but I would like to be proven wrong. If this is authentic, then you can read a lot into why SCO is doing the stupid things they are attempting.
Would you put this guy on your payroll?
Mike Anderer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Found this doing a little Googling.
Wonder if this is "the" Mike Anderer?
"It's hard to find a large corporation interested in it. Anybody with any scars in this business doesn't want to be the first to do anything," commented Mike Anderer (emphasis mine), vice president of systems integration at Ikon Office Solutions, a large international integrator. "Right now it's kind of a manufacturing and standards war. In a year or two it might be a viable product."
Was found in this story:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-200420.html
If it is "the" Mike Anderer from the e-mail, funny that Mike would have been part of Ikon, which I believe is the company Darl McBride worked at, sometime before SCO, which he sued and won some settlement for.
IBM's lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
If this funding of SCO's (IMO spurious) case is actionable, then IBM is an ideal belligerant. I believe IBM, et al. will not only win the SCO case, but win their counter-suits. Damages could easily bancrupt SCO, and after those funds are expended I'd like to see if Microsoft could chip in the difference. Or be compelled to do so by a court.
If it is not, perhaps the creative juices of the Open Source community could be redirected toward devising a class-action law suit against a Redmond Washington corporation who has knowingly distributed a complex of products which is easily compromised via computer virus. If Big Tobacco could be shaken down a decade ago, why not Microsoft? We don't *have* to wait for the DOJ do we?
SEC/Audit Disclosure Requirement (Score:5, Interesting)
Funding to SCO by MS could be made in one of two ways: 1) Through contracts for services; or 2) Capital investment. Either way it appears to me that SCO and perhaps MS would have a problem, if in fact this email is verified
If payment is through services agreements, there is a GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principle) requirement for disclosure that you are reliant on a third party where that third party is supplying a substantive proportion of your revenues. Even if several different parties provided revenues to SCO, if the executives at SCO knew it was solely due to MS and where therefor reliant on MS, disclosure would be required.
If the source of funding was through capital invesment in SCO, there would be a required disclosure in the Company's 10K or 10Q MD&A, since it would appear they are dependant upon this source of funding to carry on with their business. The amount of funding is not insignificant and certainly material.
Furthermore, a hidden MS investment of this signficance, without disclosure, would have manipulated the market price. This would hold MS and SCO open to SEC related lawsuits
If this turns out to be true, lawyers and the SEC are going to have a field day at SCO and MS's expense
Also Remember (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, it's not "You're using Linux, you owe us money", it's "Some people say Linux is illegal, some people say it's OK. Gee, I don't know who to believe so I'd better play it safe and get Winders."
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
there's no real reason for them to always spin every action as "bringing pain to linux and linux users." They could have proceeded with all their lawsuits (and any "stock value boosting tactics") without all the public rhetoric that is actually damaging one of their own operations.
it was only a matter of time before a link was made public, this whole campaign seems to have been intentionally twisted in a way that previous Halloween documents indicated Microsoft should proceed (attack the IP, attack the GPL).
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want they want to maintain the greatest market share, maybe they should compete in the market, not in the courts. I suppose you like getting screwed, though, Fishbu.
Coming this summer !!! (Score:5, Funny)
Bruce Willis as 'Eric S. Raymond' in ...
"Legal Weapon IV"
rated NC17 for strong language and gore.
Re:Coming this summer !!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, stop saying things like that, people. You're giving away the MBA secret that big business is not honourable.
OK, it's not really a secret, just a taboo topic unless you're the so-called left-loonie fringe trying to change it. The amazing thing is, so many accept this kind of underlying failure of democracy and free markets without so much as a shrug! So is MS a success story or a travesty to you?
don't agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed going through the CS program but I learned about how business and accounting works from my business classes (currently taking them so that I can run my own businesses). I think that many geeks fear business and accounting related classes as much as a non-geek fearing computer related classes.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, that's like saying that the people on Slashdot are dorky. Sure, there are plenty of exceptions, but it's true often enough that it's not an unreasonable stereotype.
I know a number of people with MBAs, both personally and professionally. Many of them are smart and honorable. But a substantial minority of the ones I have met, especially the ones fresh out of business school, are arrogant pricks with a gloss of book-learning and an desperate desire to cover up their ignorance with a lot of glib waffle.
This is a lot like the stereotypical fresh-out-of-college cowboy coder. Except that cowboy coders mainly cause trouble for themselves, whereas an MBA can wreak havoc on a much larger scale. Also, in my experience, hubristic cowboy coders are mainly annoying on geeky topics, whereas the annoying fresh-minted MBAs think they know everything about everything.
I don't entirely blame the MBAs, either; some top-tier MBA programs seem to actively train people to be arrogant and glib, presumably because clear thought and honest self-appraisal are mainly handicaps when playing the primate dominance games that upper managers seem to spend most of their time on.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I myself have worked for a variety of ethically-conscious corporations: but they've been either private or not-for-profit corporations, so that gave me some perspective on the range of dilemmas. The publicly held companies I've worked for realized shareholder value at the expense of good global citizenship, virtual individuals [without the full range of responsibility of a meat individual, and pathological liars to boot] run by some really nice people, who act like assholes when making business decisions.
You'll see. It's easier to convince yourself that you're not being an asshole if you don't consider the full impact of your decisions and actions.
Any more blanket generalities? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many businesses do you have an intimate working knowledge of? SCO maybe? Only ones in the news? You have to realize, this is self selecting - you don't hear about all the companies who do nothing wrong, and treat both their customers and shareholders well, and compete fairly with their competitors.
Does having an MBA make you evil? Maybe not. Maybe people who are already evil are attracted to the MBA degree and position. Who knows.
If you work at a large institution you know who the MBAs are. You know how they talk and act. No assumptions are required.
That's a mindless overgeneralization. How many MBA's do you actually personally know? The fact that this is tolerated and actually modded insightful is stunning. Substitute any other group of people and people would condemn statements like that.
And no, I'm not an MBA.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Most businesses other than Microsoft ARE NOT MONOPOLISTS!
If I could get one thing through the thick skulls of the "Microsoft is a business" shills here on slashdot, it would be that standard business practices are often illegal for monopolists.
And as for MS not suing anyone, au contraire. MS hired SCO to hire lawyers to sue people. Perhaps you feel there's a moral distinction between a hitman and the mob boss who tells a lieutenant to dispatch the hitman, but I don't.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
From a business standpoint the Mafia makes sense.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, that's right. Microsoft shipped a product with GCC in it. I purchased a copy at a previous employer. It's superior to Cygwin in many regards, as it's an entire new POSIX subsystem, not a kludge that rides on top of Win32, which is what Cygwin amounts to.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason many unethical businesses fail is that they are fleeced by unethical executives.
Corporations aren't people except legally, and they don't actually have cares or desires- only the people who control them do.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Concur.
The mindset of this sort of individual will be to bleed whatever is most conveniently at hand to bleed. Including the corporate body in which they are imbedded.
Eventually this sort of behavior will get its comeuppance, but an awful lot of blood winds up on the floor before it happens. Unfortunately.
Controlling this kind of thing is what's driven political change since the days of bearskins and flint axes. Needless to say, NOBODY has come up with an effective solution to the problem in all that time. Expect no magic bullets any time soon. Or ever.
If life were fair (Score:5, Funny)
"I used to think that life was unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse, if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe." (Marcus on B5)
So, go Microsoft! Your unethical practises are making me feel warm inside.
Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'm guessing it's pretty obvious. Windows doesn't want to be seen as an active participant in this lawsuit, but it's fairly apparent that they're trying to influence the court's decision. This is probably legal but highly unethical. Also, whose pocket is this 86M coming out of? The shareholders, probably.
The whole thing stinks, but I'm not completely sure this is correct information. 86M is a lot of money to be giving (and not investing) in a company. Maybe the reason they aren't investing is that they know SCO's lawsuit isn't sound?
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Interesting)
The real point though, is that MS doesn't want to own them. If MS or an MS owned subsidiary was claiming rights to IP in Linux, everyone would be screaming "Monopoly, Monopoly, Anti-Trust!". Personally, I'll doubt the veracity of this memo until it is turned up in court by a subpoena, but the reason these rumours persist is that funding this under the table would be an ideal position for MS. They get to chill the Linux market without looking like the bad guys.
BTW, Baystar got a 17.5% ownership stake in SCO for its $50M investment so they actually did buy a part of the company, not give the money away.
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Insightful)
What they do care about is spreading FUD. I was bored the other day and read Optimize, one of the free magazines Ziff-Davis sends me on a regular basis. I almost lost my lunch when I read a lengthly article about the legal hazards associated with open source. It was written in a way that would make any Linux-using corporation fear for its life! It was so filled with distortions and half-truths that I threw it in the trash bin where it belonged, and ignored all the solicitations asking me to continue my subscription for free.
I don't want that garbage in my company - but we should be aware that it's there, it's floating around, and it wouldn't have even a mirage of plausibility without this lawsuit.
The longer this lawsuit lingers, the more time they have to spread the FUD and use it to their advantage. So it's greatly in their interest to fund SCO.
That's Microsoft's real game.
D
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assume that MS is competant (a reasonable assumption, since we're dealing with legal and corporate matters). They want this suit to hurt Linux's reputation. They know it will lose. They know the only way it will make money for them is when worried users purchase Windows licences. They konw SCO will never make back anything, and that SCO may wind up severely in debt after countersuits (Redhat for slander, IBM for patent violation...). Finally, they know that the FUD will be less effective if they are identified with it.
In short, owning SCO would bring them no money, increase their risk, and decrease their effectiveness. All they would get in return is control. They seem to have that thoroughly enough now.
Of course, they run the risk that IBM will hostily take over SCO and shut the suit down in an instant. Since this would give more public evidence for "SCO's claims", MS would be perfectly happy.
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Insightful)
It goes without saying that Microsoft is competent. They would not be in the position they are today without some degree of business acumen. The reason folks in this environment don't honor Microsoft for their core competency is because we tend to honor technology above business. And when technology is sacrificed for the sake of business, we tend to take a dim view.
This is a really important observation: ruining Linux's reputation has strategic importance. Microsoft has long had a strategy embodied by the phrase "cutting off their air supply." This is usually done by impacting the revenue to a product. Most competing technologies are based on a product offering that must generate a certain level of revenue (either directly or indirectly) or it is no longer justifies its continued support and development. Once support for an IT product is removed from the market, the market will eventually move to whatever competitors remain. Therefore, if one can impact the revenue stream for a product enough, one can kill a competing technology. And then reap the benefits of being the last product standing.
Linux offers a challenge to this strategy. Individual companies leverage Linux for their own profit. However, impacting the revenue of one company will simply remove a single business entity while leaving the technology itself (Linux) intact... and likely still being supported and developed by other entities. One can not bury Linux by attacking a single company's Linux-based revenue stream.
On even more simple terms, Linux is not based on hard currency. But it does run on its own currency; reputation.
Linux is enjoying an increased level of support from hardware and software developers due to its increasing popularity / reputation. Along with that comes an increased level of adoption as various entities from single users to enterprise environments deploy Linux. Which increases the demand for hardware and software offerings. And also increases the available resources to further develop of the platform. This increased demand and resources feed back to Linux's reputation. It becomes a nice regenerative loop.
It should be pretty obvious that the "cutting off their air supply" strategy is still applicable, it just has to be modified to attack a different form of currency. Instead of impacting revenue or hard currency, Microsoft will have to impact the reputation of the competing technology. It must harm Linux's reputation. Which, in turn, reduces or erodes Linux's adoption and resources.
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole thing stinks, but I'm not completely sure this is correct information. 86M is a lot of money to be giving (and not investing) in a company.
How you got modded up to 5 is amazing. Let me clue you in. Microsoft has about $50B in cash on hand right now. Yes: Fifty billion dollars. Knock 6 zeros off each number. If Microsoft had $50,000, they've given SCO $86, or about 1/500th. For all the harm they've done to Linux, is likely *is* an investment, and it's cost them essentially nothing.
I'd been guessing all along that Darl and company were acting so recklessly in public (they're obviously not trying to win these lawsuits or they'd be quiet) because that was part of the deal.
Re:Why not buy SCO then? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a no compromise situation. If $86 million is a lot of money to you in this situation, then how do you feel about $5 BILLION? For that is what MS expended on Internet Explorer, not to make it best of breed, but just to make it good enough, so that with all their other shady dealings, they could drive Netscape out of the market. And they never even once considered selling IE. Those $5 billion were a drop in the ocean to them.
Get a grip!
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Eric himself says "I cannot certify its authenticity."
I'm sure everyone believes Microsoft has something to do with SCO (to not believe such would go against the Slashdot mindset), but this doesn't actually prove anything. Everyone's discussing it as if it's automatically true.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
ESR has a long history of releasing internal memos from Microsoft (and others) that are verified to be genuine. Heck, this is his tenth "Halloween" memo with no hoaxes yet.
It might be time for you to rethink who the zealot is. Just because you don't like ESR's politics doesn't mean that he isn't an excellent source of information.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, while this mail MAY be true, it is far from a certain thing yet.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
This is generally true, Microsoft does appear to contribute more to Replublicans [commoncause.org], but that has shifted over time:
Of the nearly $1.2 million in PAC and soft money contributions Microsoft contributed between 1995 and 1998, 72 percent went to Republicans. But during the first 18 months of the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft, aware of the closeness of congressional races this fall, has upped its giving to Democrats. Of the $2.3 million Microsoft has given in PAC and soft money this election cycle, 55 percent has gone to Republicans
Microsoft spokesman Rick Miller told Roll Call that the company largely follows a "very basic business strategy to giving and that's a 60/40 approach - 60 percent to the party in the majority and 40 percent to the minority." Miller added, however, that while two years ago, Republicans were Microsoft's defenders, now the company is also seeing a number of Democrats take up its cause.
This could have been big! -Final version (Score:5, Interesting)
ESR wasn't very smart. He shouldn't have published this YET.
Give IT to IBM lawyers so they know what to look for and when they are fairly certain that they have it among their discovery material, THEN publish it.
SCO's going to be shredding and I hear their email server *just* crashed and its hard drives are going to have to be replaced. All of the archive tapes have suddenly gone bad too.
This *could* have been the bomb but ESR probably blew it by speaking a little too soon.
Mods: Please mod the previous comment down and let this one replace it.
Actually, that could be good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead, they'll release enough of the emails to claim that they released them all (kind of like in a certain anti-trust action a few years ago). That way, nobody can prove anything based on the email or that SCO destroyed any email.
I think ESR probably did the right thing, because this is much more useful in the court of public opinion than in a court of law -- even if it could be proved. As the Register article points out, MS could have legitimate (from a business standpoint) reasons for investing in SCO that would be perfectly legal. But they can't do anything about how bad it looks, so they had a reason to hide it even if it were legit. So dragging it out where everyone can see it is the best course of action.
Re:Welcome to the real world folks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, if Red Hat says they have proof that MS was using copyright code from one of its properitary dlls, and IBM gave them a boatload of cash to help out, would it be 'unfair'?
Always reverse the situation before you guys go foaming at the mouth!
Anti-trust fear is real also... (Score:5, Insightful)
Squashing the competition is one thing, doing it in secret is another. This was clearly done this way to avoid more scrutiny by the DOJ. THAT'S what the problem here is.
If Microsoft wants to support SCO, they should just be honest about their intentions. If this memo is true, however, it's going to look fishy to anyone with half a brain at the FTC/DOJ.
Because it's illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't happen to believe that the email is genuine, emails are too easy to forge, but no one should be so sanguine about this being in any way appropriate.
Re:Welcome to the real world folks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, if you are going to condemn it in this case you also need to condemn it when one of "the big guys" comes to the rescue of something that *you* like.
Well said!
This is business for good or bad, it all depends on what side of the line you are on in the situation at at hand
Re:Welcome to the real world folks. (Score:5, Interesting)
But you do have a valid point about the "them and us" aspect. If someone condemns Microsoft for this, then by rights they should also condemn IBM if they were to, say invest $100m in an anti-MS smear campaign. Not that that would ever happen - IBM still has a policy of never smearing a competitor as far as I am aware... ;)
Re:Welcome to the real world folks. (Score:5, Informative)
lol, you make them sound so fluffy
IBM's founder spent time in prison for his string arm dealings in the cash register business (smashing up stuff, dumping, threatening).
He was awarded Nazi Germany's highest honour for a foriegner for leasing Holleriths and programmers to the Third Riech (they didn't run 10million+ slave workers with pencil & paper).
The story [ibmandtheholocaust.com] is an interesting read. Especially with regard to personal data & the unseen hand.
I wonder what a happened in this lawsuit [wired.com].
Re:Welcome to the real world folks. (Score:5, Informative)
Thirty NCR executives were found guilty in that decision, which was subsequently overturned. See this Fortune article [fortune.com] for an overview. As far as I can tell, T.J. Watson never served a day.
Oh, and while T.J. arguably founded the modern IBM, the company had existed for years before T.J. got there as the "Computer Tabulating Recording Company". CTR was itself a derivative of Herman Hollerith's Tabulating Machine Company, founded in 1896.
Re:Welcome to the real world folks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even understand why you would think this. What we have here (regardless of the truth of the memo) is a classic case of a monpolist using its cash, market power and the legal system to maitain control of the market in order to continue its monopolistic practices. I can damned well condem this and be happy when a different company (say IBM) spends money to try to back a new product that threatens them, not because I think an IBM monopoly would be better but because I want no monopoly at all. That's consistent.
Re:HAH! (Score:5, Insightful)
but there are other ways to get money from them, their partners,investment bank referrals, etc..
and
This Microsoft deal is the Ante to the poker game...We should get this done and go after several $2-3 Million deals from the expense side of their company.
Also, ~$100 mil isn't chump change, shouldn't there be some sort of public record of MS explaining this transaction, or can you "creatively account" for it?
Re:An order of magnitude? (Score:5, Funny)
It's an order of magnitude since humanity's natural number base is octal.
No, it's not 10. Look at your hand -- the thumb is there for carry-bits when adding.
(Old PDP10 joke from before my time.)
Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize most people are going to disagree, but of all the memos leaked before this does not look real. I could care less about the spelling, but the point of the e-mail is just sad ESPECIALLY if we are considering someone leaked the memo must have been a recipient. That's not exactly a business wide e-mail. No one that high up would go try to shoot themselves in the foot at this point.
Re:The Wizard of SCOz (Score:5, Funny)
Linus: Uncle Ken, Uncle Ken, there's no place like /home!
Looks like a duck. (Score:5, Interesting)
I see myself as a sceptic, but on the other hand...
>Patenting IPX? give me a break.
Would you categorize this as more or less preposterous compared to the statements "There are millions of literal lines of System V copied into linux" and "We own the UNIX operating system"?
Hold Up... SCO Contributed IPX code to Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
-Hope
Please mod down! (Score:5, Informative)
The site is not slashdotted. The text you copied is annotated with ESRs remarks in green. But the green tags were lost when you copied the text into this reply. So your text is complete gibberish! The original mail and ESRs comments are mixed up.
Please mod down!
Re:ESR better watch out (Score:5, Informative)
Not that I'm saying the memo is real; I have no idea. I'm just considering your point.