The He Said, He Said Over SCO-Microsoft Link

from the he-said-what-now? dept

Thu, Oct 12th 2006 3:47pm — Mike Masnick

While it had long been rumored, an executive from investment firm BayStar admitted in a sworn statement recently that Microsoft more or less guaranteed their surprise investment in SCO -- which helped SCO continue its questionable case against IBM (and Linux in general). Microsoft quickly responded that no such agreement existed, though they don't deny that such ideas were discussed. Some are saying that too much is being made of this, but at the same time Forbes has done a nice job comparing the "then" and "now" statements from BayStar's Larry Goldfarb. Then? He talks about how they had been following SCO for a long time: "We've been looking for ways to take part in Unix and Linux. We loved the history of what SCO had going back to [incarnation as] Caldera." Now? He admits he didn't really know anything about the company: "Sometime in 2003, I was approached by Richard Emerson [Microsoft's senior vice president for corporate development and strategy] about investing in SCO, a company about which I knew little or nothing at the time." Then? "It wasn't a bet on the lawsuit for us. In and of itself, if you look at the cash flow and balance sheet, this looks like a good investment. We do a lot of due diligence." Now? "In the course of my research about SCO, I became concerned that SCO might be merely a litigation company. As a result, Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would 'backstop,' or guarantee in some way, BayStar's investment. ... However, Microsoft would not put anything in writing on this point." Of course, it should be noted that BayStar eventually changed its mind and wanted its money back, which could impact exactly how certain discussions were remembered. Either way, it certainly paints a very different picture of what happened.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

5 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SCO Sucks, 12 Oct 2006 @ 4:19pm

SCO Sucks. MS Sucks. It all Sucks, because *some* of the people suck.

Suck
Suck
Suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hemroid, 12 Oct 2006 @ 4:50pm

Yep
Funny how buyers remorse tends to taint your vision of the salesman, ain't it?!? I guess I really don't care who bankrolled the whole ball of shit, SCO needs to faid away and quit messing with my Linux, or perhaps they will face another defaceing of their website... we own all your code :o)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reed, 12 Oct 2006 @ 5:24pm

SCO what a joke!
MS and SCO conspired to try to slow down Linux, but the problem was of course SCO never had a leg to stand on. I guess it just shows how stupid and desperate companies become when they start losing profits.

Both MS and SCO are fraudulent companies who lie, lie, and then lie some more.. pretty pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nixie, 13 Oct 2006 @ 7:56am

who got baited?
Sco hasn't exactly developed a reputation for forthrightness. The way they misrepresented the strength of their legal case against linux makes me think they just may have been playing both ends against the middle. Perhaps history will show that Sco recognized the tenuousness of their case early on, but recognizing Microsoft's desperateness to legally entangle Linux, were able to wrangle backing for millions in legal fees in the form of an unwritten agreement from Baystar - in other words, that Sco's real corporate agenda was getting access to the millions in anti-linux money they knew was sitting in bank accounts at MS, rather than 'winning' a weak patent case against a bunch of part time kernel engineers. Like pappy always said, you can't cheat an honest man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 20 Sep 2007 @ 3:41pm

SCO & MS
What everyone who uses Linux (as well as those who don’t) should be aware of is that Microsoft would love to have control of Linux. Weather it be through a puppet like SCO or another company.

If SCO would have been successful in its filings against IBM and Novell, Microsoft would have acquired SCO by making them an offer they couldn’t refuse. We would all be purchasing MS Vista and MS Linux!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]