4 ms·
> the company that bankrolled SCO in their lawsuit "In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, accor
by scholia 10y ago
> the company that bankrolled SCO in their lawsuit
"In early 2003, Microsoft started paying SCO what eventually grew to $16.6 million for a Unix license, according to regulatory filings. Only longtime Unix fan Sun Microsystems previously paid close to that, with a $9.3 million license deal."
http://www.zdnet.com/article/fact-and-fiction-in-the-microsoft-sco-relationship/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/fact-and-fiction-in-the-microso...
Microsoft statement: "Microsoft does have a deal with SCO that has been widely reported. We paid SCO for licensing rights to ensure IT interoperability for UNIX migration technology, currently in use in Microsoft Utilities for UNIX-based Applications."
http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2006/10/09/a-new-microsoft-twist-in-sco-case/ http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2006/10/09/a-new-microso...
Microsoft SCO conspiracy theory quashed (again)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_helicopters/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/11/sco_microsoft_black_...
- sqeaky 10y agoI think you and the register are inflating this "conspiracy theory" levels. The facts are all really simple. SCO was attacking Linux. Microsoft was attacking Linux. SCO asked for money. Microsoft gave the enemy of their enemy money. Other companies SCO asked for money didn't give SCO money Trying to assert that a whole company was another's puppet is a bit extreme, but if SCO had been the results wouldn't really have been much different.
- scholia 10y agoIt's more complicated than you seem to think -- and the reality also includes IBM. However, I was simply responding to the top-of-the-page cliche that it was "the company that bankrolled SCO in their lawsuit", which otherwise seemed to be going unquestioned.