4 ms·

Yes, for years... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO–Linux_disputes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO–Linux_disputes

msla 7y ago
SCO was a farce. Microsoft used a company called BayStar to fund SCO's lawsuits, which had absolutely nothing to them; SCO wouldn't even release the evidence it claimed to have proving code copying for a suspiciously long period of time, and when the evidence was released, it was nothing of the sort. Ultimately, the legal merits of the case wouldn't have mattered, in that a bad lawsuit can still drown an opponent. What mattered was that Microsoft waited too damn long to try it: One of the players on the other side was IBM, which by then had a serious business in Linux on mainframes, and a two-bit nuisance suit jumped up with some venture capital wasn't going to sink the damn Nazgul. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2547289/baystar-exec-says-microsoft--guaranteed--sco-investment.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2547289/baystar-exec-s...
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Microsoft used a company called BayStar to fund SCO's lawsuits Your article suggests otherwise. It seems like some over-eager Microsoft exec promised that BayStar's investment would be 'guaranteed' by Microsoft. That exec was subsequently fired and nothing was formalized. BayStar ultimately lost money on SCO. But even that much is suspect as this account is hearsay and comes from a managing member of BayStar who has cause to deflect blame for his or his company's dumb investment in SCO.
  - msla 7y ago
    Maybe I assume too much skulduggery on the part of Ballmer-era "THE GPL IS CANCER! LINUX IS CANCER!" Microsoft when it comes to something which attempts to hurt Linux.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >Maybe I assume too much skulduggery Yes. Just because you don't like Microsoft, doesn't mean you can just claim things that are untrue.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    MS claimed to have changed their minds, but it's hard to say what really went on there. Due to the nature of the whole enterprise people would be very conscious of what to put on paper / email. It seems plausible that the SVP was just paid a lot of money to quit and not refute the blame placed on him after the rest of MS decided to wash their hands. (And in any event, actions by the responsible executives are actions of the company, and going back to say "it was just this guy, not MS the company" is not really the right way to think about it)
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      Again, you're taking the words of a BayStar managing member at face value. Why? He has a reason to lie and deflect blame. There is no other supporting evidence. Nothing else rings true about his story either. Like for example, you don't make a big investment as private equity firm based on flimsy (at best) guarantees. Regardless, had that guarantee actually happened and BayStar really believed it, they would have sued Microsoft just to embarrass them and force a settlement. I'm sure Microsoft was applauding the lawsuit but that doesn't mean they funded it as OP just outright stated. > It seems plausible that the SVP was just paid a lot of money to quit and not refute the blame placed on him after the rest of MS decided to wash their hands. Only if you're conspiratorial minded because that doesn't seem plausible at all. I think your dislike of Microsoft clouds your judgment.
- kjs3 7y ago
  It's just a little more complicated than that. If you're interested in what really happened, go to http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20080803065719599 http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2008080306... and explore the actual decade plus story.
  - msla 7y ago
    I was reading Groklaw at the time, but not closely enough to be able to summarize the entire thing in a single Hacker News post without simplifying.
    - kjs3 7y ago
      Choosing one debatable point out of a decade plus of litigation involving a dozen entities, millions of pages of legal fillings, untold legal rulings, and declaring "this summarizes the whole thing" is in the best possible case a dubious conclusion. In this case it's ridiculous.

msla 7y ago

SCO was a farce. Microsoft used a company called BayStar to fund SCO's lawsuits, which had absolutely nothing to them; SCO wouldn't even release the evidence it claimed to have proving code copying for a suspiciously long period of time, and when the evidence was released, it was nothing of the sort. Ultimately, the legal merits of the case wouldn't have mattered, in that a bad lawsuit can still drown an opponent. What mattered was that Microsoft waited too damn long to try it: One of the players on the other side was IBM, which by then had a serious business in Linux on mainframes, and a two-bit nuisance suit jumped up with some venture capital wasn't going to sink the damn Nazgul. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2547289/baystar-exec-says-microsoft--guaranteed--sco-investment.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2547289/baystar-exec-s...

macspoofing 7y ago
>Microsoft used a company called BayStar to fund SCO's lawsuits Your article suggests otherwise. It seems like some over-eager Microsoft exec promised that BayStar's investment would be 'guaranteed' by Microsoft. That exec was subsequently fired and nothing was formalized. BayStar ultimately lost money on SCO. But even that much is suspect as this account is hearsay and comes from a managing member of BayStar who has cause to deflect blame for his or his company's dumb investment in SCO.
- msla 7y ago
  Maybe I assume too much skulduggery on the part of Ballmer-era "THE GPL IS CANCER! LINUX IS CANCER!" Microsoft when it comes to something which attempts to hurt Linux.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Maybe I assume too much skulduggery Yes. Just because you don't like Microsoft, doesn't mean you can just claim things that are untrue.
- fulafel 7y ago
  MS claimed to have changed their minds, but it's hard to say what really went on there. Due to the nature of the whole enterprise people would be very conscious of what to put on paper / email. It seems plausible that the SVP was just paid a lot of money to quit and not refute the blame placed on him after the rest of MS decided to wash their hands. (And in any event, actions by the responsible executives are actions of the company, and going back to say "it was just this guy, not MS the company" is not really the right way to think about it)
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    Again, you're taking the words of a BayStar managing member at face value. Why? He has a reason to lie and deflect blame. There is no other supporting evidence. Nothing else rings true about his story either. Like for example, you don't make a big investment as private equity firm based on flimsy (at best) guarantees. Regardless, had that guarantee actually happened and BayStar really believed it, they would have sued Microsoft just to embarrass them and force a settlement. I'm sure Microsoft was applauding the lawsuit but that doesn't mean they funded it as OP just outright stated. > It seems plausible that the SVP was just paid a lot of money to quit and not refute the blame placed on him after the rest of MS decided to wash their hands. Only if you're conspiratorial minded because that doesn't seem plausible at all. I think your dislike of Microsoft clouds your judgment.
kjs3 7y ago
It's just a little more complicated than that. If you're interested in what really happened, go to http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20080803065719599 http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2008080306... and explore the actual decade plus story.
- msla 7y ago
  I was reading Groklaw at the time, but not closely enough to be able to summarize the entire thing in a single Hacker News post without simplifying.
  - kjs3 7y ago
    Choosing one debatable point out of a decade plus of litigation involving a dozen entities, millions of pages of legal fillings, untold legal rulings, and declaring "this summarizes the whole thing" is in the best possible case a dubious conclusion. In this case it's ridiculous.