The money SCO got for the their lawsuit has been traced back to MS. Microsoft got to see who would defend Linux, IBM mainly. They also got a see how Linux would react to such a lawsuit. This was very valuable information for MS. Remember MS beat the government monopoly case against it. (No matter what happened in the court nothing much really happened at all when the dust settled.) At Microsoft the only thing they ever produce is lawsuits, they buy or steal everything else they sell. So this will probably go very well for them.

I believe there is little doubt as to who financed the SCO attack. What might be a little worrisome is what knowledge was gained from the case, that never seems to end. They might not even sue anyone. They could keep saber rattling for the next 10 years to prevent any large scale adoption of open source or linux. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Quote

mastersonb wrote:
I believe there is little doubt as to who financed the SCO attack. What might be a little worrisome is what knowledge was gained from the case, that never seems to end. They might not even sue anyone. They could keep saber rattling for the next 10 years to prevent any large scale adoption of open source or linux. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Yeah, it wasn't Microsoft. It was BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada. Microsoft certainly had an interest in the case and introduced BayStar to SCO. BayStar put 20 million dollars, which it is now asking to get back. Royal Bank of Canada put up the rest of the 50 million. Let's not spread any more FUD than this site already does.

Quote

Yeah, it wasn't Microsoft. It was BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada.

Microsoft provided lots of money to SCO by "settling" with them and paying big royalties that were supposedly for Microsoft's use of linux. This gave SCO lots of money to sue with and let them claim that major industry players had agreed that their claims had merit.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

mastersonb wrote:
I believe there is little doubt as to who financed the SCO attack. What might be a little worrisome is what knowledge was gained from the case, that never seems to end. They might not even sue anyone. They could keep saber rattling for the next 10 years to prevent any large scale adoption of open source or linux. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Yeah, it wasn't Microsoft. It was BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada. Microsoft certainly had an interest in the case and introduced BayStar to SCO. BayStar put 20 million dollars, which it is now asking to get back. Royal Bank of Canada put up the rest of the 50 million. Let's not spread any more FUD than this site already does.

Yes it WAS Micro$oft. BayStar got involved because M$ told them to. The fact that they want the money back simply shows that M$ gave them bad "advice" and now they want their money back because it wasn't the slamdunk M$ told them it was. M$ also payed one of the first "license fees" to fund SCO's warchest. M$ was all over it. It was/is ALL M$.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:

Quote

mastersonb wrote:
I believe there is little doubt as to who financed the SCO attack. What might be a little worrisome is what knowledge was gained from the case, that never seems to end. They might not even sue anyone. They could keep saber rattling for the next 10 years to prevent any large scale adoption of open source or linux. Fear is a powerful weapon.

Yeah, it wasn't Microsoft. It was BayStar Capital and Royal Bank of Canada. Microsoft certainly had an interest in the case and introduced BayStar to SCO. BayStar put 20 million dollars, which it is now asking to get back. Royal Bank of Canada put up the rest of the 50 million. Let's not spread any more FUD than this site already does.

Yes it WAS Micro$oft. BayStar got involved because M$ told them to. The fact that they want the money back simply shows that M$ gave them bad "advice" and now they want their money back because it wasn't the slamdunk M$ told them it was. M$ also payed one of the first "license fees" to fund SCO's warchest. M$ was all over it. It was/is ALL M$.

Um, you need to learn to read. "Microsoft certainly had an interest in the case and introduced BayStar to SCO." That doesn't change the fact that the $20 M came from BayStar. Saying BayStar got involved because Microsoft told them too is just restating exactly what was written, but trying to do it in a contradictory way. Get a clue. If Company X funds Company Y on the advice of Company Z, that is not the same as Company Z funding Company Y. Clearly, Company Z has an interest in it, but if you bothered to read through the third sentence of the post you were replying to you wouldn't look so stupid.

There is also the distinct possibility that thorugh these deals, Microsoft will tie up the high level portion of the organization and keep them from creating work arounds with the patents when Microsoft unleashes its brigade of patent lawyers. Then it is a matter of money and desperation to keep the courts to rule that Microsoft is not a distribution vendor by the wording of the GPL v3. Corporate crimes, which would lead to that kind of ruling, are the most violent and well planned of all forms of organized crime.