smoking gun ms & scox

eric raymond has a supposedly leaked document from sco charting microsoft's
funding of their anti-linux campaign through the baystar group:

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween10.html

In article <m8udnT5rxOBM2NrdRVn-tw@adelphia.com>,
"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote:

Probably doesn't matter. The DOJ will just look the other way as they
have. We've seen what M$ gets away with. I'd be surprised if this gets
intensely looked at.

That said, I really hope I'm wrong.

--
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return."

In article <m8udnT5rxOBM2NrdRVn-tw@adelphia.com>,
lefty <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote:
Makes sense, no?

Many of the people said to be bankrolling Ralph Nader are, surprise
surprise, Republicans...

David Derbes

In article <m8udnT5rxOBM2NrdRVn-tw@adelphia.com>,
"lefty" <lefty@oldpc.invalid> wrote:

It wouldn't surprize me the least if this turned out ot be true. Might
just be a rumor, of course.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:56:40 +0100, C Lund wrote:

SCO has admitted the memo is accurate, but is saying the interpretations
are not.

--
Rick

In article <pan.2004.03.05.13.34.12.473402@none.com>, Rick
<none@none.com> wrote:

You can almost picture those heads bobbing and weaving, can't you? <G>

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:48:45 +0000, Jim Polaski wrote:

i don't have too great a hope of DOJ/antitrust action either.

i think the best we can hope for is that this will be seen to undermine
sco's investor support (among non-microsoft investors ... if there are
any!).

i mean, if SCO is now serving as a conduit for Microsoft money to flow to
anit-linux lawyers ... they might not actually care if the case ultimately
wins or loses. they just make their skim. they may well fold the
company, and consider it a job well-done.

you know, i said something yesterday about them picking big opponents
(autozone and daimlerchrysler) and how that seemed to only favor the
lawyers. i didn't really want to point out that darl's (SCO CEO) brother
kevin is one of the sco lawers ... keeping it in the family?

In article <pan.2004.03.05.15.32.31.459640@newbox.invalid>,
lefty <lefty@newbox.invalid> wrote:

Oh why not, but then nothing that either of these two does much
surprises me and I'd bet others too.

--
Jim Polaski
"The measure of a man is what he will do
knowing he will get nothing in return."

to add some interesting news to this thread ... the latest "specifics"
that SCO have presented to the court, and outlined in their letters to
major corporations, have been about the "infringing" use of the UNIX ABI
in Linux.

it looks like someone found an old article written by SCO (then called
Caldera) inviting Linux developers to use that ABI:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...04030507394870

does current SCO management remember? or do they not care? who knows.

(as a side note, at least one analyst has mentioned groklaw as a reason
not to invest in sco!)

lefty wrote:
yes. Where's all this money coming from anyway? All these legal actions
are ultimately being paid for by OS users. Makes a really good case for
open source. What a bunch of parasite scumbags.

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:44:14 +0000, rewild wrote:

someone else on the same vibe:

"SCO's balance sheet doesn't look healthy enough to bankroll a multi-year
discovery process. And such drawn-out litigation would not seem to be in
SCO's interest, if its real aim is to collect damages from IBM and start
levying its proposed troll-tax on Linux users (assuming it can prevail).
But maybe SCO isn't worried about high litigation expense because it has a
secret backer with billions to spend. And maybe years of legal wrangle
serves that backer's interest because its new OS won't be ready soon."

from a very good summary article of the sco mess at:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14556