5 ms·

Microsofts underhanded behavior with the SCO Linux case is one of the primary reasons to distrust them.

marcodiego 6y ago
We should not forgive the 'new' microsoft because their recent stance regarding floss. Their bad behavior in that era has echoes to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Mic...
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Is your complaint 'Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents"'? If so, this seems like very reasonable 'leave us alone' money that absolutely shouldn't be required but I can completely understand why they paid that to make the problem go away as a business decision in the world we currently live in. I'd probably have done the same myself. Why criticise them for protecting themselves? Do you think this funded SCO's legal activities further? $6M seems like a very very small amount for this kind of legal action and I can't imagine it funded anything except the paperwork required to get them to pay it. How many corporate lawyers does $6M pay for? Not many.
  - marcodiego 6y ago
    AFAIK, microsoft was never threatened by SCO and the payment was entirely voluntary. So, they were effectively giving money to a group that was attacking open source and free software.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Maybe you know more than I do, but Microsoft has always had services running on unix-like systems - even back then I'm sure they had Linux servers in places. So they know they would have been next. $6M was just administrative money for them back then and they would have just paid it to make it a non-issue. And again, $6M isn't really funding any serious legal action, is it? A couple of lawyers' lunch expenses, maybe!
      - marcodiego 6y ago
        Don't worry so much about the value. It is a precedent and encourages other companies to do the same.
      - refulgentis 6y ago
        I'm 32 and the original SCO drama was _barely_ within my comprehension at the time it occurred: another thread reminded me of it, the poster seemed overwrought, my first reaction was "hah that's silly, it wasn't _that_ conspiratorial"...spent about an hour doing a deep dive on it, and yeah, it was pretty bad, $8 mil is the tip of the iceberg. Lotta intentional nonsense, and I'm not exactly wedded to FOSS ideals
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        The current CEO of Microsoft was an executive VP with then 10 years of work with Microsoft at the beginning of the scandal as well it seems a strange ask to for us to imagine that an executive who looked the other way during criminal conspiracy is supposed to be leading the new more ethical Microsoft.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        I think they are still in the Embrace and Extend phases, putting a lot of work into the Linux kernel to make sure it plays well with Windows machines so bringing Azure tons of money, adding WSL so that devs don't need to switch to bare-metal Linux in order to do their work, making GitHub's position stronger so that all Open Source development is concentrated on their platform. This is all a coherent strategy aiming at maximizing value while controlling the situation (making sure Linux is unbootable after you install Windows next to it etc.). What would be the first stages of the Extinguish stage? If I were them, I would start from neutralizing Stallman. He is the pillar of Free Software, a smart hacker who created GCC and devoted his life towards values that are completely at odds with Microsoft's vision. I would use every occasion to discredit him and eliminate him from exerting any influence.
      - garaetjjte 6y ago
  - monocasa 6y ago
    More than the $6M direct from Microsoft, was them using their influence to acquire more than an order of magnitude more cash from VC funds. > I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar. > ... > Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar "like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html Microsoft was obviously playing a very significant role in their funding, more than would be expected of someone just paying licensing fees.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    BayStar exec says Microsoft 'guaranteed' SCO investment https://www.computerworld.com/article/2820340/baystar-exec-says-microsoft--guaranteed--sco-investment.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2820340/baystar-exec-s... They offered to underwrite a 50 million dollar investment in a lawsuit and helped them raise 10s of millions more to fund what they knew enough to know was a felony pump and dump scam and a criminal attack on their competitors. There isn't much daylight between what they did and a restaurateur paying the mafia to burn their competitor out of business if the mafia employed arsonists so incompetent they tried to effect their crime in broad daylight with zippos. Keep in mind that while people are talking about the new and improved Microsoft that current ceo Satya Nadella joined Microsoft in 1992 whereas this whole SCO debacle begins 10 years later while he was working in a leadership role within Microsoft. The criminal culture never left Microsoft and their current leadership is at best tolerant of criminal acts.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
      > criminal acts. I think you are going too far. Microsoft has been using tons of immoral and unethical actions, but most of the time they were trying to cover their asses and avoid doing anything illegal. Of course their aggressive strategy means they were often investigated and lost their cases in court, but in this particular case, I bet they played it in a way that nobody could make a legal case against them, even though what they did is public knowledge.
    - TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
      Dang. In all this time, I've always wondered why it was worth the money to pursue this litigation. I knew that the execs at SCO were making money through the whole thing, but I never paid attention to the stock price, and insider trading. That makes a lot of sense. It's probably too hard to go back and research that angle now. Do you have any links to such information?
29athrowaway 6y ago
Microsoft collects a sizable amount of patent money from Android phone manufacturers to this day.
- marcodiego 6y ago
  Something funny happened during the windows phone era. Eventually, microsoft made more money from android patents then from windows phone sales: https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-makes-more-money-its-android-patents-windows-phone-xboxand-skype-combined https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-makes-more-money-its-a...
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    In all honesty, the first smartphones comparable to the iPhone were Windows Phones. The problem is that the low responsiveness, the unintuitive Desktop computer style UI, need for a stylus, the high weight, the ugly designs, the fragile screens and lack of an app store made them in practice unusable for the common person.
    - why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
      Err, which Windows Phones are you talking about? Lumias were nothing like what you mentioned.
      - ladyanita22 6y ago
        Actually, Windows phone was the first OS to enjoy the level of polish the iPhone had.
    - qalmakka 6y ago
      That's Windows Mobile, not Windows Phone.
      - 29athrowaway 6y ago
        Right, that thing. They do have something in common, both are defunct, I forgot which was which.
de6u99er 6y ago
I wouldn't be surprised at all, if Microsoft was involved in the background.

We should not forgive the 'new' microsoft because their recent stance regarding floss. Their bad behavior in that era has echoes to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Mic...

chrisseaton 6y ago
Is your complaint 'Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents"'? If so, this seems like very reasonable 'leave us alone' money that absolutely shouldn't be required but I can completely understand why they paid that to make the problem go away as a business decision in the world we currently live in. I'd probably have done the same myself. Why criticise them for protecting themselves? Do you think this funded SCO's legal activities further? $6M seems like a very very small amount for this kind of legal action and I can't imagine it funded anything except the paperwork required to get them to pay it. How many corporate lawyers does $6M pay for? Not many.
- marcodiego 6y ago
  AFAIK, microsoft was never threatened by SCO and the payment was entirely voluntary. So, they were effectively giving money to a group that was attacking open source and free software.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Maybe you know more than I do, but Microsoft has always had services running on unix-like systems - even back then I'm sure they had Linux servers in places. So they know they would have been next. $6M was just administrative money for them back then and they would have just paid it to make it a non-issue. And again, $6M isn't really funding any serious legal action, is it? A couple of lawyers' lunch expenses, maybe!
    - marcodiego 6y ago
      Don't worry so much about the value. It is a precedent and encourages other companies to do the same.
    - refulgentis 6y ago
      I'm 32 and the original SCO drama was _barely_ within my comprehension at the time it occurred: another thread reminded me of it, the poster seemed overwrought, my first reaction was "hah that's silly, it wasn't _that_ conspiratorial"...spent about an hour doing a deep dive on it, and yeah, it was pretty bad, $8 mil is the tip of the iceberg. Lotta intentional nonsense, and I'm not exactly wedded to FOSS ideals
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        The current CEO of Microsoft was an executive VP with then 10 years of work with Microsoft at the beginning of the scandal as well it seems a strange ask to for us to imagine that an executive who looked the other way during criminal conspiracy is supposed to be leading the new more ethical Microsoft.
        dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
        I think they are still in the Embrace and Extend phases, putting a lot of work into the Linux kernel to make sure it plays well with Windows machines so bringing Azure tons of money, adding WSL so that devs don't need to switch to bare-metal Linux in order to do their work, making GitHub's position stronger so that all Open Source development is concentrated on their platform. This is all a coherent strategy aiming at maximizing value while controlling the situation (making sure Linux is unbootable after you install Windows next to it etc.). What would be the first stages of the Extinguish stage? If I were them, I would start from neutralizing Stallman. He is the pillar of Free Software, a smart hacker who created GCC and devoted his life towards values that are completely at odds with Microsoft's vision. I would use every occasion to discredit him and eliminate him from exerting any influence.
    - garaetjjte 6y ago
- monocasa 6y ago
  More than the $6M direct from Microsoft, was them using their influence to acquire more than an order of magnitude more cash from VC funds. > I realize the last negotiations are not as much fun, but Microsoft will have brough in $86 million for us including Baystar. > ... > Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar "like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween10.html Microsoft was obviously playing a very significant role in their funding, more than would be expected of someone just paying licensing fees.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  BayStar exec says Microsoft 'guaranteed' SCO investment https://www.computerworld.com/article/2820340/baystar-exec-says-microsoft--guaranteed--sco-investment.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2820340/baystar-exec-s... They offered to underwrite a 50 million dollar investment in a lawsuit and helped them raise 10s of millions more to fund what they knew enough to know was a felony pump and dump scam and a criminal attack on their competitors. There isn't much daylight between what they did and a restaurateur paying the mafia to burn their competitor out of business if the mafia employed arsonists so incompetent they tried to effect their crime in broad daylight with zippos. Keep in mind that while people are talking about the new and improved Microsoft that current ceo Satya Nadella joined Microsoft in 1992 whereas this whole SCO debacle begins 10 years later while he was working in a leadership role within Microsoft. The criminal culture never left Microsoft and their current leadership is at best tolerant of criminal acts.
  - dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    > criminal acts. I think you are going too far. Microsoft has been using tons of immoral and unethical actions, but most of the time they were trying to cover their asses and avoid doing anything illegal. Of course their aggressive strategy means they were often investigated and lost their cases in court, but in this particular case, I bet they played it in a way that nobody could make a legal case against them, even though what they did is public knowledge.
  - TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
    Dang. In all this time, I've always wondered why it was worth the money to pursue this litigation. I knew that the execs at SCO were making money through the whole thing, but I never paid attention to the stock price, and insider trading. That makes a lot of sense. It's probably too hard to go back and research that angle now. Do you have any links to such information?

29athrowaway 6y ago

Microsoft collects a sizable amount of patent money from Android phone manufacturers to this day.

marcodiego 6y ago
Something funny happened during the windows phone era. Eventually, microsoft made more money from android patents then from windows phone sales: https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-makes-more-money-its-android-patents-windows-phone-xboxand-skype-combined https://www.onmsft.com/news/microsoft-makes-more-money-its-a...
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  In all honesty, the first smartphones comparable to the iPhone were Windows Phones. The problem is that the low responsiveness, the unintuitive Desktop computer style UI, need for a stylus, the high weight, the ugly designs, the fragile screens and lack of an app store made them in practice unusable for the common person.
  - why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
    Err, which Windows Phones are you talking about? Lumias were nothing like what you mentioned.
    - ladyanita22 6y ago
      Actually, Windows phone was the first OS to enjoy the level of polish the iPhone had.
  - qalmakka 6y ago
    That's Windows Mobile, not Windows Phone.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      Right, that thing. They do have something in common, both are defunct, I forgot which was which.

de6u99er 6y ago

I wouldn't be surprised at all, if Microsoft was involved in the background.