Novell/Microsoft Deal Punishment for SCO? 148
An anonymous reader tipped us off to an article on the Information World site looking at the Novell/Microsoft deal from a new angle. Article author Tom Yager is of the opinion that the deal is Microsoft's punishment for throwing in with SCO. The very public announcement was made, in his opinion, as a stopgap measure against a future lawsuit on Novell's part. From the article: "Novell has exhibited the patience and cunning of a trap door spider. It waited for SCO to taunt from too short a distance. Then Novell would spring, feed a little (saving plenty for later), inject some stupidity serum, and let SCO stride off still cocksure enough to make another run at the nest. That cycle is bleeding SCO, which was the last to notice its own terminal anemia. When it became clear that SCO wouldn't prevail, Microsoft expected only to face close partner IBM. Microsoft did not brace for Novell, an adversary with a decades-long score to settle with Redmond. Through discovery, Microsoft's correspondence with SCO is, or soon will be in, Novell's hands, and it's a safe bet that it will contain more than demand for a license fee and a copy of a certified check."
decades-long score to settle (Score:3, Interesting)
Strictly business (Score:4, Funny)
Re:decades-long score to settle (Score:5, Funny)
Make it sound like a bunch of children or something.
That would make reporting and editorializing about these matters extremely difficult, since the central figure around which all this stuff appears to revolve is a tantrum-prone, potty-mouthed, chair-throwing monkey-dancer.
Re:decades-long score to settle (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL -- but I have worked with several through the years, particularly the corporate variety. Whether their true character is so or not, many lawyers feel a professional obligation to act as scraping, vindictive rats on behalf of their parent/client. They are best rewarded by said parent for this. The paradox: you might assume their company officers lead and encourage this MO, but the truth is they are often surprised (though secretly delighted) when the more aggressive, nitpicking, predator patience from the legal pack pays off.
It's never really clear who navigates a company, after it gains a certain shape and size. Lawyers think the parent wants X; parent thinks lawyers want X... (Y? I dunno...) In short, they *are* a bunch of children flicking sand about from their box in the play yard. It's just how things get done -- so, yes, it is strictly business.
Try not to ascribe too much higher thinking here. Intelligence, yes -- enlightenment, no.
I know: it all sounds like a lot of simple-minded lawyer bashing. Believe it or not, most I've worked with were cool humans. But with their suits on, Mr. Hyde had rein.
I am inclined to think that in *less* than the prescribed five years, Novell might be saying to MS from their deathbed, "You had me at hello."
Re: (Score:2)
WHO'S deathbed, MS or Nov?
Re:decades-long score to settle (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Make it sound like a bunch of children or something. I assure you, it's strictly business.
Ob Quote
Micheal Corleone about his father - "It's all personal, every bit of business. He takes
everything personal. Like God."
Re: (Score:2)
I fear for the future (Score:2, Insightful)
Another growing concern that I have, is that the GPL may have to go rounds with all of this, and everyone who has contributed over the years, many many useful tools and services that plays an acti
The GPL *should* go rounds with all this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this... (Score:5, Informative)
It has been... several times in several countries... most recently is was the fool Wallace who got told where to go by an American court [groklaw.net]
Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this... (Score:4, Insightful)
It has been... several times in several countries... most recently is was the fool Wallace who got told where to go by an American court
And to add the usual point...even if the GPL were somehow found invalid, it means you have NO license to distribute the software, and thus have not helped your case any! As you point out, Wallace's assertion that the GPL was somehow synonymous with public domain won't stand scrutiny by even the dumbest judge. ANd that's saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends upon what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're trying to use the code without releasing the source, then you're right.
However, if your purpose is to destroy the entire GPL ecosystem, then a rejection of the license on that basis would be quite a coup - you'd render all redistribution of GPL-licensed software illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if your purpose is to destroy the entire GPL ecosystem, then a rejection of the license on that basis would be quite a coup - you'd render all redistribution of GPL-licensed software illegal.
What would be the case? For example, would I sue to invalidate a license granted to me by the GPL? That doesn't make much sense. Would I claim some strange entrapment argument?
The only arguments I can see is on the fringe, as to what constitutes a program, and people playing weasel games (as some have bee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to think that a license can only be found completely valid or completely invalid by a court.
That is not the case.
Re:The GPL *should* go rounds with all this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a comparison. Let's say a town counsel passes an ordinance that says you are not permitted to park your car on the street without a parking permit available for purchase from the clerk at city hall, and if you have such a permit, you are only allowed to park on the street according to the conditions on it. You then go to the clerk, buy a parking permit which reads right on it, "The holder if this permit is entitled to park one vehicle on roads in the town for not more than seven days." You then proceed to park your Hummer for three months on Main Street, and as might be expected, your vehicle gets towed.
You get pissed, so naturally, you want to hire a lawyer. The only two approaches your lawyer could argue are either:
A) The parking permit is invalid.
-or-
B) You can park anywhere you want, and you never needed a permit to begin with.
Which argument has a chance of succeeding?
Consider that there is a history of cases unanimously upholding that towns can pass any parking laws they want, and that they can tow your vehicle if you don't follow them.
Your only chance of success is arguing the parking permit is invalid. Unfortunately, NOTHING ELSE GRANTED YOU PERMISSION TO PARK YOUR VEHICLE. With that pertinent piece of information, perhaps one might be better off not spending a lot of time and money challenging the parking permit.
The GPL is like that parking permit. Nothing else grants you permission to distribute the software copyrighted by other people unless you agree to its terms.
So of course it _could_ be tested in court, but spending a lot of time and money to do so will never result in you being permitted to distribute the software without following the terms of a valid license. At best, all could ever accomplish is loosing your right to distribute the software at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is fine for some, as long as everybody loses that right. Some would pee in the fountain, so long as it ruins the resource, and preserves monopoly privileges for the few.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we just need the little guy with the mustache to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not that easy, I don't think you can have a once and for all case. There are two issues that need to be established. It is pretty clear that the GPL does give permission to others to use the code in pretty much any way they choose. It is not so clear that the restrictions on redistribution are enforceable.
On the N
why shouldn't they? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why ever not? They received several hundred million dollars from Microsoft, without giving Microsoft anything or committing to anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Without committing to anything that they're willing or able to disclose. Microsoft will have had something in return for that money. I really don't think Novell's promise not to sue windows users us worth 300 million to Microsoft.
So we have to ask ourselves what Novell did agree to that was worth so much money. What are MS getting in return? I doubt many people will buy into TFA's
Re: (Score:2)
If they are not disclosing it, then it doesn't matter.
Microsoft will have had something in return for that money.
Yes: some patent licenses, a PR opportunity, and, most importantly, people like you spreading FUD.
Seems like you're helping them make their investment pay off.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? To whom, and on what grounds do they choose not to so concern themselves?
If two thieves make a pact to rob my home and steal my goods, the details of their discussion still matter to me, irrespective of whether or not they both choose to sign a non disclosure agreement.
Even if, as in this case, only one party is openly and implacably hostile, while the other , a relative newcomer to our community has been seen in whispered discussions bef
Re: (Score:2)
It's a legal agreement between Microsoft and Novell and therefore binding only on them, nobody else.
If two thieves make a pact to rob my home and steal my goods, the details of their discussion still matter to me,
That analogy doesn't work here. Besides, the only thing of any consequence you can do is not buy SuSE/Novell products, which I suspect you are already not doing.
So if it's all the same to you, I think I'll be the judg
Re: (Score:2)
Which doesn't imply that those details are not of interest to the community. Nor does it imply that we should not take an interest. For example, the deal between MS and SCO was a private agreement between the two of them. As we learn more about that case, it seems more and more likely (I suspect few would now dispute it) that the agreement was that Microsoft would pay SCO to try misappropriate certain rig
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike you, I've given plenty of reasons in previous postings.
As it turns out, our interest seems more than warranted [referring to SCO]. There are enough similarities here that "shut up and mind your own business" just isn't going to cut it.
SCO is working itself out. Why? Because it didn't matter what deals SCO cut with anybody, what mattered was that the source code was GPL'ed and that its developers were careful not to infringe. The SCO example undermines y
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you think there is a post elsewhere in which you express yourself particularly well, feel free to link to it. I do sometimes look up a correspondent's posts on a subject if they seem have something interesting to say, but somehow, I doubt many people will leap to that conclusion based
I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
For all we know, Microsoft entered this deal to secure
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't forget, the GPL is (intentionally) written in a very unbalanced way. It wouldn't even be too inaccurate to call it "viral". If something touches GPL, it must either become GPL, or be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch. There is no "undo" button, nor is there a way to go backwards. True, there are some potential workarounds (GPL stubs calling on closed sour
Re: (Score:2)
Enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Enough (Score:4, Funny)
You must be new here :)
Re: (Score:2)
I miss the old slashdot as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I buy your argument, by the way. Slashdot was always crap. But somehow I keep coming back.
Re: (Score:2)
Were you born without a sense of humor, or did you lose it in a freak blogging accident?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We may not be able to do this for much longer, if any of these idiotic lawsuits actually succeed.
Hence, the keen interest in the proceedings.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The features of Novell software no longer relevant (Score:2)
Re:The features of Novell software no longer relev (Score:2)
I respectfully disagree (Score:2)
Re:Enough (Score:4, Interesting)
It's hard to do that when it takes years and millions of dollars to deal with one case like SCO, even when it's clear to the industry that they don't have a leg to stand on. At least with the dollars and legal teams behind Novell and IBM it'll eventually be settled once and for all -- hopefully leaving SCO and company wide open for damages.
Another spin I've wondered about is whether Microsoft might be preparing for the possibility of renewed anti-trust investigations and a future breakup. Such a conviction would likely demand that they divest themselves of either Office or Windows, so having Novell ready with a POSIX-compliant OS that runs Mono/.Net, Java, and other key Microsoft applications would be very good for the Microsoft user community.
Novell is already very well prepared and experienced to take up the file, print, and authentication services as well, should that prove necessary.
Time will tell...
Re: (Score:2)
Someone is bound to say "No way! Microsoft would never..."
But a good businessman covers the possibilities, regardless of how likely they seem. No one would ever accuse Bill Gates or the rest of Microsoft's management team of being incompetent in that regard.
Look at IBM. Once renowned as the biggest and slowest changing organization in the industry, they're now more agile than most, and still huge. Even a bankruptcy or breakup aren't that scary to people who manage such large organizations. If anyt
Re: (Score:2)
This is all about lawsuits. When the CEO of MS is threating lawsuits we all better stand up and take notice.
They'd sign a permanent deal, in that case. (Score:2)
That way, no matter who ends up purchasing whom or whomever's patents, the deal is still safe (again, look at IBM's licenses with SCO and how many companies they were passed through).
Re: (Score:2)
Never ascribe to malice... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really know the legality and details of the SCO case or the MS/Novell agreement, but this sounds way too clever and complicated for the average corporation to pull off. If Novell is so smart and crafty, why can't they do a better job competing against MS in the marketplace? Does Novell's business acumen lie only in creating clever trapdoors in risky legal deals? It sounds more like the author is writing the plot for a corporate-legal thriller than any analysis of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Never ascribe to incompetence what can adequately be achieved through malice.
As in... If you are going to do something bad to someone... The smartest thing to do is make it look like you did it out of stupidity and then plead ignorance.
That way they stay your friend or don't fire you and give you a scolding instead.
Not that I know anything about deleting important user files when they call me up harassing me about deadlines. It was the
Re: (Score:2)
~
~
~
~
There, now we agree completely...
Novell competing with Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, as one of my coworkers put it at our company Christmas party last night: "The Novell/Microsoft deal is easy to explain. Novell has already given Microsoft all its NetWare customers. They don't have any left to give. So they have no choice but to start finding Linux customers to give to Microsoft. Novell is actually the most diabolically clever sales tool that Microsoft ever invented."
Oh, how we
Re: (Score:2)
"When I consider Novell to be the party of advantage in the Microsoft partnership deal, the tone of the agreement changes. Microsoft is handing 70,000 copies of a primary competitor's operating system to existing Windows customers, introducing Windows-only shops to the advantages of the heterogeneous enterprise."
Or, more likely, 70,000 coupons for SUSE will gather dust in a Microsoft drawer.
competing ... too crafty (Score:2)
The brass needed a golden parachute because they were flaming out. Along came a charming gentleman with a fat wad of cash and a deal that's too good to be true... There's only one string attached... They just have to screw everybody who does business with them until the sherriff padl
typical (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, IBM might be saving up their info on the (purported) SCO/MS collusion for later lawyering.
If this was really a punitive deal... (Score:2, Insightful)
what give and take? (Score:2)
No (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So your claim is that M$ has asked - or rather paid - Novell to insert M$ code into GLP code and then they will use this to shut down such code? I think not. M$ will then be activitely involved in putting the code - who are they goin
Early Worm Gets the Bird (Score:5, Interesting)
Then MS finds another way to kill and eat Novell, once Novell can't rely on safety in numbers of Linux distributors. Like MS incorporating a "Linux mode" for either "migrating" Linux source code to Windows, or just a reverse "Wine" (Line-ux, anyone?) that runs Linux apps with a (secret) Linux -> Windows API.
The MS/Novell deal looks good to Novell when it discounts the value of its own competitors in Linux vendors, and the collective value of their threat to Linux, instead greedily eying the entire Linux industry for itself. That greed could be its downfall when it ignores the Linux community, blinded by the Linux product for which MS will kill it.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft succeed in taking on the other mainstream Linux distributions, they don't need a way to kill and eat Novell. Remember that a lot of Linux development is undertaken by the various commercial entities such as RedHat, IBM et al. If they're out of the equation, suddenly Novell are left with an operating system which is dying on the vine as nobody else is supporting it.
Of course, this is all 5-10 years in the future here and the way Microsoft are goi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh. Novell stuck with a dying OS that nobody else is supporting. Why is it that sounds so familiar?
Re:Mod Parent Insightful (Score:2)
I've been trying figure out a way to describe the Novell/Microsoft situation for weeks.
Write this one down because this is exactly how the corporate mind works and how Microsoft's game will play out.
Writer doesn't have a clue. Microsoft doesn't get "punished" by anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Lets see the holes in the argument.
Firstly, a patent deal doesn't make patent infringements magically appear. Novell's deal with Microsoft has no legal bearing on Linux at all - NONE. If Microsoft can sue with the deal they can sue without the deal.
Secondly, even if there are patent infringements in Linux that probably would only minorly affect Linux - the patents would be only valid and enforceable in the US while the major ce
Re:Fairies Will Protect Linux (Score:2)
Microsoft doesn't care about kernels. Kernel litigation with SCO failed anyway. They worry about distros because they are stealing Microsoft's lunch.
And the of the top-100 distros over at distrowatch.org, how many have DEEP pocket to go more than one day in court? Damn Small Linux? Mepis? Slackware? When microsoft has finished culling the herd, they'll litigate most distros into oblivion. They will be careful abou
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, as for Ameri
US Patents only valid in USA? Wrong! (Score:2)
Strider44, while I don't dispute that, technically, you are correct, I continue to be worried. I see too many people relying on their location outside the USA to protect them. Yes, we are grateful that the world, far from being just the USA, has a healthy number of countries who disagree with the US; but the USA just has way too much clout on this planet.
I
just FUD (Score:2)
MS won't sue anybody for patent infringement because they know it's pointless. I mean, who are they going to sue? You? Me? RedHat? Fedora? My cat? Even if they have a valid and enforceable patent, it will be worked around within a day of them filing any lawsuit.
Furthermore, the Microsoft/Novell deal doesn't protect Novell or its cust
Your SCP (Score:2)
When they sue RedHat, they will cripple RedHat's finances and management bandwidth. When they sue individuals, like the RIAA has, they will scare developers away in the short term. The long term will see more developers work on Windows rather than Linux. Both because of the intimidation, and the "winning platform".
The Microsoft deal with Novell licenses MS patents to Novell, which of co
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right: MS can stop distributors from distributing individual pieces of software that are infringing. They will remain infringing for, oh, probably about a day after Microsoft actually comes through saying what specifically is infringing. Give it another couple of days for the binary packages to be updated. Users won't even notice a hiccup in their update pipeline.
The Microsoft
one more thing (Score:3, Interesting)
After signing this contract, Microsoft's entire claims of patent violations in Linux pretty much completely collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
The first half -- okay. Microsoft can obviously sue people for violating their patents, if that is what they think is going on.
The second half... not so much. Licensing a patent does not give you standing to sue for infringement of that patent. Only the holder of the patent has that legal standing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a distinction without a difference.
It's called CygWin. (Score:2)
There are others, but that's the version I'm familiar with. The last time I tried it, over 5 years ago now, it couldn't successfully run KDE unside of MSWind98. Close though. Even then if you were satisfied with native MS windowing, it was quite good.
Re: (Score:2)
But the trick is a complete API that runs all KDE or GNOME apps under Windows. With a secret API mapping, so MS can control it and compete with it - roll out Linux apps that work better than the "real" ones, because they use the secret "works faster/better" API to make Windows do its thing.
CygWin proves that it can be done, has been done for years. With
Re: (Score:2)
Meet the 'new' AT&T. We don't care. We don't have to. We're the phone company. [att.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Even Apple finally broke the "necessary to prove MS isn't a pure monopoly", by getting MS to invest $150M in Apple, a meaningful sum at the time, in exchange for various concessions that make it something of a partnership. Because Apple couldn't compete in the market against Micro
Re: (Score:2)
-uso.
Re: (Score:2)
Verizon is the old GTE, Qwest was rail company as I remember and I think that Lucent got eaten by Alcatel
Re: (Score:2)
-uso.
Who would dare to imagine... (Score:2)
Inconsistencies (Score:3, Informative)
I thought it was Microsoft paying Novell $348mil, [slashdot.org] no?
The rest of the story... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In 2004 SCO sold Bill some UNIX something that is widely believed to be in Vista, at least the corporate versions. But (and I quote)
"Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement reads as follows:
Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller."
Buyer is (old) SCO, now mutated to new SCO. Seller is Novell.
SCO did NOT clear the sale of whatever with Novell. So, although Bill
Why microsoft does not violate the GPL? (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand that novel does not violate the GPL, because they did not license the patents from microsoft, instead microsoft licenses the patents to novel customers. Since microsoft is not distributing the software to them, the GPL does not apply to them.
BUT WAIT, Microsoft is distributing the software, didn't they receive 70,000 copies of SuSE? unless they plan to just throw them in the attic, or use them internally, they will be distributing those copies, and thus are restricted by the GPL. If they put any restriction on the people receiving the GPL code (other than those specified in the GPL itself), then Microsoft is indeed in violation of the GPL.
So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me?
that's good... all it takes is one copy (Score:2)
Quite to the contrary: if they distribute even a single copy to a third party, then they are effectively giving everybody immunity from patent infringement claims by them because they may not restrict the rights of recipients of the software they distribute under the GPL, through patents or any other means.
Tired of Silly People Potraying This Deal... (Score:2)
They have been slapped around, mainly by Microsoft eating their Netware share away, in recent years and they're making zero headway against Red Hat, and Hovsepian and the executives in charge have no idea whatsoever how to arrest the slide. Many customers have given them mixed messages that the problem is that Novell's software doesn't interoperate with Microsoft's - which of course is inte
Re: (Score:2)
Ya think?
Considering that if you remove distro related "religion" from the mix, Suse is a very weak distro.
How come nobody punishes me this way? (Score:2)
No, it's Divide and Conquer (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not payback for SCO, it's divide and conquer. In one move, MS has eliminated Novell as a competitor. Novell has confused and/or pissed off a lot of the open source community by entering into this agreement behind closed doors; That is, without the open approval of the majority of SuSE customers, users, and supporters involved with SuSE, and yet they are claiming otherwise.
Now everyone in the community is paranoid about code touched by Novell post-agreement. Now Novell is no longer of any use to the community as a whole (i.e. those not directly involved with SuSE but still involved with OSS) since they can no longer be trusted by a large portion, which will lead to arguments which will lead to either forks or simply no integration of Novell code and therefore a lot of work that was lost on something that doesn't benefit those who helped build up SuSE or the other OSS projects that share code with SuSE in the first place (by using GPL-compatible licenses and by not restricting them with patent law).
This move has also caused the community to slow down by everyone putting so much attention on Novell instead of building better code, and to fight amongst each other as we decide what to do with Novell code and the SuSE platform.
Now Novell is building its software to be compatible with Windows so that businesses can easily migrate from the Novell platform by slowly phasing out their linux boxes and replacing them with Windows ones.
This is a move that attempts to funnel Novell customers to MS (I'm just saying now there is a much bigger chance of it happening than before, and MS may have some other moves/FUD/threats/patents/whatever up its sleeve to make this much more likely). This is also a move that attempts to cause in-fighting and to put chinks in the armor of the OSS movement/community/whatever.
MS is trying to figure out how to battle OSS and they are getting more and more successful with every attempt -- even if they are just throwing shit up on the wall to see what sticks, they're tenacious and they're building a strategy around the results of their actions. Slowly and steadily they are figuring out how to "deal with" OSS.
MS is easily forgiven as long as money and other flash are thrown around, but OSS has its integrity and the fruit of our sweat and blood. Let's show them which is most important.
Re: (Score:2)
I can (just about) understand a point of view that says that noone should deal with the Great Satan on principle, regardless of whether it is in the int
Re: (Score:2)
MS will always keep its crown jewels to itself, and may hold back a lot of the glue that keeps the Linux tools being developed in "cooperation" with them to themselves, and make businesses that use the functionality introduced into Linux by this cooperation as a crutch to introduce more and more MS software.
Any
Re: (Score:2)
Tom has been reading too much fiction (Score:3, Interesting)
If we were to believe Tom then there is some sort of dark sinister plot unwinding with steely eyed CEOs plotting the downfall of their rival companies. The CEO of Novell is sitting back in his leather chair, surrounded by bikini clad girly girls and hired goons with steel brimmed bowler hats, cackling madly in glee as his plan to use SCO's hubris to destroy Microsoft has finally comes to fruition.
That's fiction. The real world is much simpler. Novell is doing what all IT companies eventually do; realise that you can't fight Microsoft, so you might as well make sure your software interoperates. I don't give a shit what conspiracy theories are flying around Slashdot about the Novell/Microsoft deal; the ability for OpenOffice to read Word documents is farking awesome and I'll gladly pay money to Novell if necessary to get in on that. Sun did the same thing (identity software). IBM and HP and Apple as well. The money that changes hands and the lawsuits just serve to obscure the benficial outcomes for you and I; software from multiple vendors that works together. Sometimes (you might say always) the business relationship with Microsoft works to their eventual detriment (R.I.P SGI) but there's no business sense in taunting the 800lb gorilla. You give it a banana as a peace offering and hope it doesn't sit on you.
SCO isn't a pawn of Microsoft. That's a fiction invented by Groklaw and it's the worst kind of conjecture and conspiracy imaginable. SCO's CEO convinced himself that they owned UNIX, that Linux stole from UNIX, and that SCO deserved a piece of the action. "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence". There is no doubt that Darl is incompetent, so there's no need to paint him as a malicious figure. It was a stupid lawsuit initiated by a desperate CEO to save a pathetic, dying company. The 1000s of articles generated by The Site Whose Name Makes Even Cthulu Cringe has made an echo chamber, where conjecture is used as proof for the next piece of conjecture. It's like the fishing story where the fish keeps getting bigger with each telling.
This is just business. There's no conspiracy. It must be a slow news day when "journalists" start inventing Tom Clancy plotlines and making stupid analogies with trapdoor spiders.
And you haven't been keeping up with the facts (Score:3, Informative)
The evidence certainly doesn't support this position. We already know that MS gave SCO a significant amount of money through various channels with absolutely no visible return (the licenses, the PIPE funding, underwriting the EV1 deal, etc.).
It certainly seems more reasonable to assume that Microsoft is paying SCO to do exactly what SCO is doing rather than assuming that they've decided to start just giving away money for no particular reason.
--MarkusQ
Re: you have been reading too much fiction as well (Score:2)
Conspiracy and conjecture. Exactly the sort of nonsense I was ridiculing. You don't know why the investment was
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy and conjecture. Exactly the sort of nonsense I was ridiculing.
Umm, wrong. No conjecture or conspiracy required here. Microsoft paid several million dollars to TSG for a Unix license that they don't need and aren't using. This is a matter of public record, reported in TSG's SEC filings (and press releases, and quarterly conference calls and... they were really crowing about it). Of course, it's always possible that Microsoft might start making use of their license in the future, so if you squint really hard you can convince yourself that it had nothing to do with
Tom Clancy vs. Reality (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never read a Tom Clancy novel but a quick google turns up the fact that their plots typically revolve around things like CIA spies and plots to blow things up and double agents and such, none of which are being suggested here. Instead, what is being suggested is that corporate executives might funnel money to third parties to do their dirty work, defame competitors, and bring frivolous lawsuits against groups or individuals who threaten their market dominance.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were B.G.? (Score:2)
Hand the company to somebody else.
Cash out.
"Come on