Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Shown Involved with Baystar and SCO

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the cheeky dept.


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."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Surprise (2, Interesting)

Mazin07 (999269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16355919)

I could almost stereotype Microsoft...

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16355965)

Ya this is just sad, I mean we knew it was true, but damn. How low can they go? So scared of Linux. I'm scared of Vista. Vista is scared of OSX.

Re:Surprise (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16355987)

Microsoft doesn't give a shit about OSX. Microsoft is scared of Google.

Re:Surprise (5, Interesting)

PhoenixK7 (244984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356147)

Actually, I think Microsoft is scared of everyone. It seems like they feel the need to compete with everyone after they've brought an interesting product to market and they decide they can make some money there. Now one might say that they've decided they can do a better job in that market spot, but they never really do a better job. The X-Box 360 may or may not be an exception to this, but I really wish, for the sake of everyone that uses their products and everyone else that needs to deal with them they they'll stop trying to run everyone else into the ground and just make a core set of products the best they can be. There's no innovation, they kill everything they make through design by committee.

Re:Surprise (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356309)

Actually, I think Microsoft is scared of everyone.

Well of course they are. Fear is the motivation for being a bully.


Mod up! (1, Redundant)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356689)

You've hit the nail on the head.


Re:Surprise (5, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356379)

You are thinking about two different models of corporate survival.

I find it easier to think of these things in terms of biological and evolutionary survival techniques.

One option in surviving as a corporate body in the economic ecosystem is to do the Darwinian thing by evolving to become the most efficient and effective at what your niche is. An example of this is the shark. One of the finest hunting species known. Similarly the wild cats.

Another alternative is various molds. They emit a gas which is highly toxic to all other forms of competing mold, thereby carving out a space within which there can be no competition because of the toxic nature of the air. Another exeptional example is Caulerpa taxifolia which is a seaweed growing across the mediterranean seafloor at the expense of all other life. The animals cannot eat is for it too is toxic.

As a corporation, one much protect it's ecosystem space or territory to remove competition. One method is to continually adapt in a highy evolutionary manner, trying to address all the environmental conditions that arise by responding to the liabilities and assets that present themselves. The other methodology is the lock down the environment through aggressive tactics to kill the opposition rather then out-hunt it by means of USPTO litigation, copyright litigation, litagation in general, and supporting litigation of others where it is advantageous. And then there's marketing. How many studies are there showing Windows is superiour to everything else? The price of Coke/Pepsi products is >50% marketing expenses.

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356669)

Now one might say that they've decided they can do a better job in that market spot, but they never really do a better job. The X-Box 360 may or may not be an exception to this

XBox 360 has zero presence in Japan, and people are still releasing PS2 games. It's going to get slaughtered when the PS3 (even despite Sony's bad press) and Wii come out.

The paranoia of being on top. (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357161)

Actually, I think Microsoft is scared of everyone.

Well, yeah. I mean, they're standing atop the marketshare hill -- they have to be scared of everyone. There's no place to go but down; it's not a question of winning anymore, it's a question of hanging on to the top spot for as long as they can. History has shown that such situations don't last forever, but they're going to try and play it for all it's worth. (As anyone in their situation would.) To survive, Microsoft has to constantly be looking for the new competitor that's going to unseat them.

IBM, Kodak, Standard Oil, U.S. Steel -- all of these companies were once the untouchable masters of their respective domains, but all fell from grace eventually. Microsoft knows that it too shall fail eventually, but it's going to prolong it as best it can, and that means they have to be paranoid of everyone and everything that could possibly, at any point in the future, harm their position.

Re:Surprise (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356047)

Yes, but what is easier? Stereotyping Microsoft, or stereotyping the kind of microsoft articles that appear on Slashdot?

Re:Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356273)

Whether or not a "negative" article or the ratio of negative to positive articles about MS appears on slashdot does not change the actions of the company. What MS did and was shown on slashdot still happened. Ignoring the negative aspects of their business practices is not better. Are you offended when you hear the negatives? The facts and opinions are out there on every company and product, some places show more of each type of story, welcome to the world of flocks and group think.

Oh no! It can't be! (4, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#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...

Whoever would have thought such a thing? (1)

OwlWhacker (758974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16355985)

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.

Re:Whoever would have thought such a thing? (1)

gomiam (587421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356087)

Microsoft isn't as clean-cut as it likes to make out.

I disagree. MS has a clean-cut [] attitude, IMO: they must win, competition, ethics and law notwithstanding ;-)

Re:Whoever would have thought such a thing? (1)

OwlWhacker (758974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356185)

Microsoft isn't as clean-cut as it likes to make out.

I disagree.

You disagree after evidence is revealed that shows Microsoft in a non-clean-cut light?

Re:Whoever would have thought such a thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356243)

As evidence goes it's a bit rubbish.

Also the whole story is most likely a gross misrepresentation. I can tell this becuase (A) It's about Microsoft and (B) It's on Slashdot.

There's Evidence, and then there's Clear Evidence. (1)

Web Goddess (133348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356715)

That evidence was one man talking about "discussions" -- I'm biased against Microsoft, but I want to see more evidence. Money exchanging hands. A relative given a highly-paid job. Something.

Re:There's Evidence, and then there's Clear Eviden (4, Interesting)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356897)

You mean a sworn affidavit in a court of law, at the risk of perjury, in front of a judge and council is not good enough for you.

surpise (1, Redundant)

syrrus (726329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16355989)

I almost fell out my chair from the suprise.

Re:surpise (2, Funny)

Ruie (30480) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356433)

I almost fell out my chair from the suprise.

Did the chair fly in the opposite direction ?

Suspicions Confirmed (4, Insightful)

xs650 (741277) | more than 7 years ago | (#16355991)

Suspicions confirmed.

I remember MS butt-boys flaming me for suggesting MS was financing this a long time ago.

Re:Suspicions Confirmed (2, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356107)

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).

Re:Suspicions Confirmed (5, Insightful)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Suspicions Confirmed (2, Informative)

HiThere (15173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357243)

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 it is, frankly, speculative. One could equally well assert that SCO was blackmailing Sun, and this was the payoff. No evidence.

All we know is that Sun paid the money, and the timing was, frankly, suspicious. Suspicion isn't proof.

Re:Suspicions Confirmed (1)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356925)

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.

Re:Suspicions Confirmed (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356239)

You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Microsoft promised to fund it at a later date, then reneged.

It is hard to gain reading comprehension when you're blinded by ideology.

I suspected Microsoft too. I just didn't bleat it from the rafters.

Re:Suspicions Confirmed (1)

Ugot2BkidNme (632036) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356863)

So another company gets in trouble and to clear there name blames the best red herring(Microsoft) the can great. The only thing that has ever been proving is Microsoft bought Unix licenses when SCO threatened to sue. So what that doesn't prove anything if you run a company and you had a similar situation come up you have a lawyer look at it they tell you that the other company could win in litigation you then decide cost of lawyers vs cost of just paying them off. So you pay them off and continue using your legal team to fight monopoly charges.

Seriously Microsoft are not angels but neither are they devils. IBM has a long sorted past and history yet now we should all support them since they are promoting a product that can increase there market share? It just seems to me that until there is actual evidence one way or the other about this claim people should just leave them alone and give them the benefit of the doubt. If it is found that they really did do this then great flame on. But from experience, No Company would ever enter into any agreement where they invest a large some of money like they did without a CONTRACT. Seriously this is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard the whole basis of this article reminds me of a Darwin award story.

March 2004:A plea for relief from Microsoft (4, Informative)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356003)

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 industry can commonize on standards for the production of the mechanisms of seats, instrument panels and doors while providing brand and regional differentiation across a wide array of models, the information technology community can collaboratively develop works under free licenses. Both vendors and consumers benefit from the resulting development cost reductions and competition from use of the resulting commons.

The Linux operating system and many other opens source and free applications have been developed in an open source manner under free license terms. Despite free licensing and open source licensing requiring that the source code is freely available there are numerous profitable business models. Vendors can offer proprietary software for open source platforms and/or take a hybrid approach dual licensing the development of software. Vendors can select, customizing and configure free software, offering the bundled result. Vendors can offer support services. Vendors can also offer hardware which runs the freely available software. The resulting collection of hardware, software and services has been widely deployed as a server operating environment. Many vendors, from small one person operators to large multinational conglomerates, now compete to provide goods and services for the resulting platform. Linux has restored true free market competition to the server arena.

Linux can provide just as capable a desktop platform, however Linux adoption in this area faces barriers resulting from Microsoft's anti-competitive tactics. Interoperation with Microsoft products is difficult while Microsoft continues to embrace and extend protocols developed in an open source manner, and along with Microsoft developed protocols and file formats, license the result in a manner unacceptable to competing vendors. In the field of digital media, Microsoft does not make its media player codecs available to the Linux platform. Despite the US DOJ settlement requirements for Microsoft's contracts with Original Equipment Manufactures (OEMs), Microsoft's current relationship with major OEM dealers requires OEMs to sell consumers personal computers with an operating system, in many cases requiring consumers wanting to replace Microsoft's operating system with Linux to go though a difficult refund process. Above and beyond the issues of interoperation and OEMs, customer perception is one of the greatest barriers to Linux adoption on the desktop.

The Microsoft corporation has maintained an unabated campaign against any and all competition to Microsoft's own products. The most significant common denominator to this ongoing campaign is the dissemination of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, commonly referred to in the information technology sector by the acronym FUD. While it is fair to point out relative deficiencies in competing vendors products or services, Microsoft corporation CEOs and agents of Microsoft have too often crossed the line by participating in the dissemination of outright untruthful statements. Refuting false allegations and incorrect assertions requires a significant effort, especially when previously refuted falsehoods are recycled and repeated as fact. Following the resulting arguments can require some technical knowledge, however in the last few years many of the more outrageously untrue statements in Microsoft's propaganda have backfired strongly enough to show up in Microsoft's own market research as a problem.

It now appears that Microsoft has chosen to escalate this disinformation campaign by actively participating in a situation to discredit the viability of the Linux platform and raise uncertainty to the cost of the Linux platform, manufacturing Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

The SCO Group has entered into a series of essentially inherently flawed lawsuits and fraudulent license claims against users of the Linux operating system. Since 1994, Caldera International and the Santa Cruz Operation have been accepting, profiting from and distributing software developed by hundreds of independent developers under the terms of the GPL and LGPL license. The SCO Group has failed to put forward any sustainable legal theory why it should not abide by the terms of the GPL license. Detailed investigation into other facts and evidence which regularly conflict with the SCO Group's various legal claims, filing, press and public statements, raises serous questions which can no longer be explained away by a lack of competence in either the SCO Group's CEOs or the SCO Group's legal representation.

There is now increasing evidence that Microsoft has been indirectly financing -- to the point of sustaining -- the SCO Group's campaign against Linux. Disclosed internal email memos back up by recent filings to the US Securities and Exchange Commission indicate that at least a third of SCO's entire market capitalization, and their entire current cash reserve, is payoffs funnelled from Microsoft.

The relationship between Microsoft, the SCO Group and the SCO Group's recent financial backers requires immediate investigation by all agencies entrusted with providing the consumer with protection from abusive business practices and monopolies.

The adoption of Linux on the desktop offers an opportunity to restore competition to the desktop market. The resulting freeing up by natural market forces will open up opportunities for vendors beyond Linux, open source and free licensed software vendors. Microsoft's escalating anti-competitive tactics raise further barriers which the consumer should not have to continue to face. Trade practice and antitrust legislation exist to provide the consumer with protection from abusive business practices and monopolies. We ask that agencies and officials entrusted with providing the consumer with protection act according to the intent of that legislation.

Copyright © David Mohring, 2004 : Verbatim copying of this article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

Also see : 09 June 2003 What evidence of origin,ownership,copyright + GPL [] .

Surpise? (4, Insightful)

NMerriam (15122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356005)

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:Surpise? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356071)

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? (3, Interesting)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356117)

Because they have no other choice once microsoft decides to look at them?

Re:Surpise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16357013)

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

Anyone who would agree to make a $20 million investment based on someone else's ORAL guarantee (e.g. WITHOUT a WRITTEN agreement) is a complete MORON or LIAR.

Either way, Larry Goldfarb doesn't look like one to be entrusted with any money...

Re:Surpise? (5, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Surpise? (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357241)

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?`

May I be the first to say... (0, Redundant) (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356011)


what more is there to say? (0, Redundant)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356013)

Except to all of BillG's towel boyz: told ya so. The only thing that Microsoft innovates is corruption.

It's a shame ... (0)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356051)

There doesn't seem to be anything in writing. Just some claims about wink-wink, nod-nod "agreements" from a guy who has subsequently been fired by Microsoft? You don't think this Goldfarb fellow *knows* most people are pre-disposed to believe anything about Microsoft and figured he could tap into that ill-will? He made a really bad $20M investment and now he's trying to cover his behind. This smacks of pure fiction, with perhaps a dollup of libel.

Re:It's a shame ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356127)

Doubtful. If that were the case, Microsoft would've sued his ass by now.

Actually... (4, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356153)

IBM wouldn't have submitted it unless there was something to back it all up with (This is something
submitted as testimony/evidence in a Civil Trial- IBM is not wont, unlike MS and SCO to fabricate
things for the court (Both of the latter mentioned companies are VERY guilty of that!)...they don't
HAVE to...). A paper trail.

We see glimpses of it floating about on the Internet, if you know where to look. Not as much
of a libel or fiction as you'd like to believe.

Re:It's a shame ... (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356221)

If you're going to try libelling someone to cover your backside, perhaps it would be a good idea if:

A: That someone isn't Microsoft, with all their lawyers.
B: You don't do it in documents which are very likely to end up being used as evidence in a court of law.

Re:It's a shame ... (1)

bstadil (7110) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356417)

You can not be sued for libel for something you file in court. If you look at Groklaw and some of the stuff SCO filed earlier, they tried to use this as much as they could for their FUD campaign.

Re:It's a shame ... (2, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357263)

Is that so?

Nevertheless, if you lie in court you can certainly be done for perjury.

Re:It's a shame ... (4, Interesting)

Aim Here (765712) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356249)

Except for the fact that Goldfarb was under oath, meaning he goes to jail if he gets caught lying.

Oh, and the documentary evidence that already corroborated this story.

Mike Anderer (the person behind SCO's ludicrous claims that 'spectral analysis' showed that there was lots of Unix code in Linux) was drunk late one night and fired off a stroppy, and semi-literate, email to his paymasters complaining that HE was the person who convinced Microsoft to tell Baystar to pump SCO full of cash, and that he deserved a bonus for it. This email ended up on Eric S Raymond's desk, back when our Eric was the hotline for disgruntled Microsofties with incriminating internal documents to share.

Read all about it here []

Being under oath (2, Informative) (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356363)

Except for the fact that Goldfarb was under oath, meaning he goes to jail if he gets caught lying.

Even though it is illegal people do commit perjury. In my case against Star Marketing Group [] they lied under oath in a declaraction. Mason Stedman claimed that it was the only officer in the company and since he was out of town, he did not receive the summons and complaint. If you look at company's web page [] shows that that is a lie.

In another case, I had a spammer claim that there is no "affiliate program", both their own corporate web page made reference to it.

Even if caught, these liars will not likely be jailed for it -- such a shame.

Re:Being under oath (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356651)

My God, Mr. Silverstein. It looks like you really wanted to be a lawyer but didn't have the smarts to pull it off (not that becoming a lawyer particularly requires any smarts).

We've been saying that for a long time... (4, Interesting)

SmoothTom (455688) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356055)'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... (4, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356197)

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.

Duh (4, Funny)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356061)

I knew they were cylons all along. Throw Microsoft out the airlock!

Oh, Baystar? Nevermind.

Not Cylons (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356431)

  They were Daleks. All they could say was

  "Exterminate Exterminate..."

hands up who saw it coming! (0, Redundant)

ezh (707373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356065)

hands up who saw it coming! fud, more fud, and even more fud about competitors is the modern way to do business :-(

What a shock (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356103)

Im not shocked that Microsoft was behind it, im shocked they didnt even try to hide it.

My firm only uses BSD. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356111)

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 that via our use of FreeBSD and NetBSD.

Likewise, we now see that Microsoft had wasted money with these shenanigans, money that could have been used to improve their software products. We would never even consider using their products.

Had we been a UnixWare and OpenServer shop, we'd likely be facing much uncertainty right now.

We have found that using community-developed software is often our safest bet. And best of all, we can contribute back the modifications we make.

Re:My firm only uses BSD. (1)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356159)

You actually gave credence to SCO's claims? Oh my. Why oh why??

Re:My firm only uses BSD. (3, Informative)

ettlz (639203) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356229)

And it's not like these rumblings haven't come to haunt BSD before [] now...

Re:My firm only uses BSD. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356369)

While I'm not the parent poster, I can understand why people who have been in the industry for a long time would trust SCO.

I do think you should consider how SCO was seen in the 1980s and 1990s. They were basically the only vendor who offered x86 UNIX systems of a decent quality that were suitable for commercial use. In the early 1990s, Linux was still rather immature, and wouldn't become viable until several years down the road. The BSD-based systems were embroiled in a legal dispute with AT&T, which severely hindered their development at the time.

While their offerings look rather meager today, SCO systems were quite advanced for their day. SCO XENIX and SCO UNIX, and later OpenServer and ODT, were actually quite a pleasure to use. If you look at most hardware driver disks from the early to mid 1990s, such as those that came with ISA NICs or modems, you'll likely see SCO UNIX, UnixWare, and OpenServer drivers included.

In short, SCO was widely respected by a great number of system administrators. They were an engineering company at their core, and put out great products. Of course, things did change rapidly in the years leading up to the lawsuits. But many system administrators, some who may very well now be managers, had a lot of trust for SCO (or whoever was using the "SCO" name).

Re:My firm only uses BSD. (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356467)

Everybody knew or should have known that the SCO that claimed ownership over part of linux was a different company form the old SCO you are talking about.

You almost fell for it... (3, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356959)

One of the many reasons SCOG changed names was to cause confusion in the market as well as the court room and it worked based on what you posted (with the exception of your last sentence). The SCO Group != Santa Cruz Operation (SCO). The name changed after they filed as can be seen from html [] when they filed as Caldera. The whole idea was to cause as much confusion as possible making their claims seem more plausible. Just keep in mind, the SCO Group exists only for litigation from start to finish.


Re:My firm only uses BSD. (1)

MilenCent (219397) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356269)

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.

Re:My firm only uses BSD. (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356335)

Your turfometer is off. He said "thankfully." (said with tongue half in cheek)

Re:My firm only uses BSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16357055)

Mine too.

Oh, you didn't mean blue screen of death?

Then linux has won (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356125)

If MS is THAT terrified of Linux, it's because MS can't keep up...

In the words of Nelson Muntz... (5, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

No Duh (0, Redundant)

edward.virtually@pob (6854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356151)

Some of us said as much at the time. It was rather obvious.

No proof... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356253)

Up until this filing, we only had peripheral snippets that showed this was the case.

Enough for someone mounting a case to have enough traction to start discovery, but not
enough to carry the case forward. Now, we've got testimony with some backing behind it
that indicates that MS IS as guilty as a cat caught in a goldfish bowl of trying to
knife a competitor in the back by funding a nonexistent lawsuit through intermediaries
to do their dirty work.

If IBM has any more, it's not going to be pretty for Baystar, RCB, or Microsoft.

Prince iples (4, Insightful)

headkase (533448) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 (2, Interesting)

aepervius (535155) | more than 7 years ago | (#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... (4, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356241)

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.)

Re:Afraid so... (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356551)

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 be around (although SCO will exist only as a head on a pike above the gates of Armonk.)

Oh, I'm not getting ahead of myself... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356697)

...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 war on more than one front if they can help it.

New Vocabulary Word. (0, Flamebait)

the_REAL_sam (670858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356247)

New Vocabulary Word: "Allegedly."

It's a good word. I highly recommend it.

Re:New Vocabulary Word. (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356323)

I find it highly overused myself. To much political correctness.

Re:New Vocabulary Word. (2)

hplasm (576983) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357049)

So do I- allegedly...

I hope... (1)

RelliK (4466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356267)

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.

The court were right about one thing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356321)

Micro$oft shouldn't be broken up, they should be barred worldwide from doing any kind of business, all of their assetts should be liquidated and used to fund all open source projects. After that all of their trade secrets and patents need to be placed in the public domain.

Re:The court were right about one thing (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356425)

If only. You have to admit, outside of the benifits for *nix and friends, a public-domain of EVERY Microsoft product would be a kickass thing. Free and open MS office, all the dev tools, DirectX (practically falling out of the chair thinking of that being completely open), windows itself, and the ENTIRE WINDOWS DRIVER STACK. no more fighting with crappy vendors, ndiswrapper-like functionality for all! timing out from Europe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356345) timing out from Europe?

sonsabitches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356381)

They need their corporate charter pulled, the execs thrown in jail, their buildings and office equipment and computers auctioned off, their precious "IP" made public property, and to hell with the stockholders, let them eat it raw for backing that mob in criminal acts and not giving a crap who they screwed over or how. Microsoft is just a pure rank evil corporation.

They make the enron bozos look like petty street muggers.

It has not been proven (yet) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356397)

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 court. The TV, Radio and Press are very careful not to make statement presuming the possible guilt of a person or company before a verdict has been reached.

Re:It has not been proven (yet) (0, Troll)

EllynGeek (824747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356519)

Can't British persons face facts? It's really OK to do your own thinking, and not let the government do it for you.

You're also confusing "truth" with "proven in court". They are not the same thing, sometimes they re not even close. We know what the truth of SCO's case is- pure hot air.

Re:It has not been proven (yet) (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356667)

It might be obvious to everyone apart from SCO and it Lawyers but it still has not been proven in Court. Until that day arrives then the word to use is ALLEDEGLY.

Repeat after me
  SCO Alledges that IBM (RedHat, Novell etc) has illegally used code they own the rights to in Linux

Until they Judge and/or Jury reach a decision then it is most certainly not proven even though it might be obvious to 99.99% of people.
Just take a look at some of the silly and obvious patents granted by the USPTO. Sense and sensibilty are not part of the Legal Systems vocabulary.

Re:It has not been proven (yet) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356725)

I think you're having a problem making a distinction between reality and the findings of US courts. The two are mostly orthoganal.

Re:It has not been proven (yet) (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356825)

No I'm not. The reality is that the Court has not yet reacehed a decision. End of Story.
Until it does then the thing is that SCO ALLEDGED that IBM.... etc
After the decision then one of the following will be true.

SCO has proven thet IBM (etc) has used code illegally in Linux
SCO failed in its attempt to prove that IBM ....

Until the courts make their decision anf after any possible appeals have been lodged and decisions made and appeals results of the appeals made we can not be sure of the REALITY.
Every sane person knows that SCO are barking mad to try this on but until the court makes its decision we can't know for sure.

Think for a moment, about some of the Patents approved in recent year by the USPTO. If M$ can patent a WORD that was in common use for centuries then perceived reality and actual reality are very different things.

Re:It has not been proven (yet) (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356855)

Allegedly. One 'd'. If you're going to be so vehement about word use, the least you can do is spell it right.

Don't be so pedantic (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357029)

Its Sunday Evening where the poster comes from so he/she has probably had a couple of bevvies inside him/her so a small typo can be forgiven.
The spelling of some of our American cousing leaves much to be desired at times.

Hooray! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356445)

I'm not a Microsoft lover by any means (jilted OS/2 user here - last Windows version used was "for Workgroups", cancelled all my Mastercards when they announced a business relationship with M$ (shttp:// IIRC)) but I can certainly applaud Microsoft for the things that it does right, or its efforts in that direction.

Microsoft, generally, hates the software patent landscape [see Eolas] and anything they do to suck the money out of these "IP" patent holding companies and their lawyer leeches is a-ok by me. "Yeah, give them 20 mil for their doomed case - we got ya back" and then turn around and screw them over. If Microsoft's goal is to sink all these non-productive litigious get-rich-quick fools, I say hip-hip!

Sadly, the lawyers (enablers) never lose.

Advantages of the SCO lawsuit (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356547)

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.

Re:Advantages of the SCO lawsuit (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356765)

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 information on this and other sites like Groklaw before making factually incorrect statements like you have done.

If the verdict goes against SCO and Novell prevails in their suit then we MAY see the donation of the rights that Novell have to OSS until that happens we can just hope that the various judges and/or juries make the right decision (ie against SCO) when the time comes.

Then, after a period of reflection there might be enough evidence already in the legal system for someone like Novell to take Action against Microsoft. I expect that Novell will examine their options very carefully in this respect after all, what is to stop a behmoth like Microsoft from buying all Novell shares and thus quashing any possible legal challenge which may or may not prove their complicity in the SCO/IBM affair.
I, for one would not put it beyong them with a company like Novell. If IBM were to take on M$ then it would get very interesting indeed.

Re:Advantages of the SCO lawsuit (2, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356909)

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 BSD, though. Basically the reason Linux is an order of magnitude more popular than BSD on the desktop is that BSD suffered a similar legal assault when it was in its infancy. Linux was a grownup by the time SCO tried to steal its lunch money, so it was able to withstand the assault.

One good thing to come out of all of this is that we have two free Un*x clones these days, BSD and Linux, and both of them are known to be very solid legally. Monoculture is bad, and it's a very good thing for the open-source movement that we have friendly competition going between these two systems. The SCO lawsuit's significance isn't that it cleared up any uncertainty about the GPL, because there never was any; it's that it cleared up any uncertainty about the IP status of Linux, and resulted, e.g., in more careful legal auditing of submitted code.

Re:Advantages of the SCO lawsuit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356963)

Please read the balanced commentaries produced by Pamela Jones on
Her use of Alledged and unproven terms should be a model for others. She does not presume (in legal terms) the outcome of the SCO/IBM case. She knows that it is all baloney but her balanced commentary speaks volumes for her integrity.

Some correspondents might say SCO (and this is probably their right under the 1st Ammendment) is guilty/wrong but she always defers the outcome to the Judge/Jury. She might ridicule SCO and the antics of their lawyers but still defers the case to the presiding Judge and if it goes to trial, the Jury as is proper with any case that is progressing throught the legal system.
If more people took the "Alledged" point of view there would be less chance of mob rule taking over which I am sure that the people who drafted the US Constitution wanted to avoid.

Thats brilliant (5, Funny)

viking80 (697716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356799)

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.

yuo F4il It. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16356801)

These Early []

Ob. Futurama (4, Funny)

ElMiguel (117685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16356819)

I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.

Smoking gun or some guy making accusations? (1)

jorghis (1000092) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357073)

So somewhere some invester claims that a manager at MS made some vaguely worded gaurantee. And of course this is accepted as gospel on slashdot because it bashes MS.

Now, I am an engineer, not a businessman by trade, but this just seems horribly unlikely to me. Do businessmen really accept vaugely worded oral promises on a regular basis? Sorry, this is even less concrete than SCO's case. I get the impression that a lot of people who read this are making a big fuss because they want to find a smoking gun that incriminates MS. Shouldnt there be at least a little skepticism? There is a crapton of money in the tech industry and people make wild accusations all the time because they want a piece of it. There is the possibility that this guy is telling the truth, but dont believe him just because you want to slam MS.

Sometimes I think that if I threw up some post on my blog tomorrow about how Bill Gates has a kiddie porn dungeon in that super expensive house of his with no evidence to back up my claim it would get linked to on slashdot and regarded as absolute truth.

Re:Smoking gun or some guy making accusations? (1)

femtoguy (751223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357247)

Yeah, you may be generally right, but things are different this time. This is IBM's legal staff claiming it. Slashdot geeks may be willing to embarass themselves by repeating unfounded rumors, but this is the best legal talent that money can buy. They wouldn't bring it up unless they know that they can argue it in court, and that they can use it against TSCOG.

Slashdots credibility is diminished... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16357093)

Because of the general anti-corporate, far left attitude of the website, this story is not the "bombshell" that it should be.

Slashdot has frittered away valuable street cred by acting as a mouthpiece for all things liberal. Now this story becomes "just another rant from the angry left".

And, being MS, they'll get away with this. (1, Insightful)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357109)

Nothing to see here, move along....

So after this... (4, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357189)

... is anyone still going to buy an XBox 360?

C'mon guys, you crucified Sony for less.

Re:So after this... (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 7 years ago | (#16357317)

cant help sony is killing themselfs now can we. cant change the fact m$ is eveil but hey they learned 2 things hear the gpl is enforcable and they cant stop linux no matter what they try. hate m$ hate sony buy a nintendo.

Shock, suprise and despair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16357229)

I am truly shocked.

Although, I did think that is was already established that Microsoft was behind it.

Can IBM sue Microsoft for slander? Paying a company to dirty the name of their product through litigation, as they *knew* it was false.

eh eh eh?

Kill Bill.

please type the word in this image: stones
verification text - if you are visually impaired, please email us at

Rich Emerson Corpus (5, Interesting)

Stats_for_all (907563) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 []

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>